Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[WildCat]

We have a witness that saw one person on top repeatedly punching another. That clearly took place after whatever punch took GZ to the ground. Yet Trayvon Truthers want to go with the one punch theory and have asserted that witness may not be correct and that it may have been GZ on top of TM. I'm curious however, if that was GZ on TM, why were the ONLY injuries TM had the gunshot wound and the abrasion on his knuckle? Where are TM's face and head wounds if GZ was the one on top throwing punches? Hmm...

And let's not forget that pushing an undercover cop in a bar is a violent assault, but breaking someone's nose and pummelling him to the ground isn't even a crime.

 

[johnny karate]

The cuts...

The cuts were on the back of his head. Are you saying Martin punched him in the back of the head?

...the broken nose...

The broken nose was caused by the initial punch. No one is denying the initial punch took place.

...the abrasions...

You've yet to provide evidence that superficial abrasions are conclusive evidence of being punched.

...the witness statements...

What witness statements corroborates Zimmerman's claim of being repeatedly punched? Please provide citations.

...the physical evidence...

What physical evidence corroborates Zimmerman's claim of being repeatedly punched? Please provide citations.

...Zimmerman's calls to the police.

How do you figure Zimmerman's calls to the police prove he was repeatedly punched?

But yeah, besides that there's nothing.

Yes, besides nothing there's nothing, which is what you usually bring to the table when asked to provide evidence.

And I'm sure this time will be no different. Just personal incredulity and eye-rolling smileys is all you've got. Kind of like what you offered when I told you the medical records had been released. And we all know how well that turned out for you.

 

[WildCat]

The cuts were on the back of his head. Are you saying Martin punched him in the back of the head?

The broken nose was caused by the initial punch. No one is denying the initial punch took place.

You've yet to provide evidence that superficial abrasions are conclusive evidence of being punched.

What witness statements corroborates Zimmerman's claim of being repeatedly punched? Please provide citations.

What physical evidence corroborates Zimmerman's claim of being repeatedly punched? Please provide citations.

How do you figure Zimmerman's calls to the police prove he was repeatedly punched?

Yes, besides nothing there's nothing, which is what you usually bring to the table when asked to provide evidence.

And I'm sure this time will be no different. Just personal incredulity and eye-rolling smileys is all you've got. Kind of like what you offered when I told you the medical records had been released. And we all know how well that turned out for you.

Denial, not just a river in Egypt.

 

[KatieG]

And let's not forget that pushing an undercover cop in a bar is a violent assault, but breaking someone's nose and pummelling him to the ground isn't even a crime.

It might have been if GZ hadn't shot TM first.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

It might have been if GZ hadn't shot TM first.

Actually it was a crime FIRST and GZ shot him SECOND. And if he hadn't beaten him first than GZ wouldn't have shot him second. And it was a crime, that doesn't change because GZ shot him and he's dead.

 

[WildCat]

It might have been if GZ hadn't shot TM first.

He shot him before he got punched in the nose?

Just when you think you've heard it all...

 

[This is The End]

So your claim now is that no punches were thrown during this ground struggle?

Anyway, it's quite amusing to see how far we've come from denying there were any injuries at all to Zimmerman when you were crowing about the low-res police station video. Now we have an admission that there was an assault and subsequent struggle.

Baby steps...

Do you seriously want to bring up the highlighted again?

 

[This is The End]

What's even more interesting is that Zimmerman, in his NEN call, states that Martin "has his hand in his waistband", indicating that he thinks that this is important and possibly threatening. And he further notes that Martin "has something in his hand" soon after this, and immediately pleads "please, just get an officer over here." And yet, he expects us to believe that *him* sticking his hands into his pants after following Martin and being confronted by him is a completely invalid reason for Martin to hit him.

Zimmerman and his supporters use this double-standard a few times to justify Zimmerman's actions in this case. We're expected to believe that Martin is suspicious because he's "walking around, looking about" and "looking at houses" (which, for reference, is exactly what people do when outside talking on a cell phone, and thus not at all suspicious), yet he explains in his re-enactment that *he* was looking at a house at the end of the T. He asks us to believe that "looking at [him]" is suspicious, yet it's fine for him to sit in his car and stare at Martin. He asks us to think that walking towards him is threatening, yet him getting out of his car and running after Martin is not at all a reason for Martin to worry about his intentions.

The only conclusion I can reach is that, by his own admission, Martin should have found Zimmerman to be extremely threatening, and thus he had a legal right to beat Zimmerman, in order to protect his own life.

Good post.

ETA: If Zimmerman instinctively reached for the pocket where he normally keeps his cell phone, wouldn't he have instinctively put it in that same pocket?

Yeah. Certain posters here know that at least 3 weird things were pointed out about that Z statement. Which relates directly to the 2nd most important event of that night. They just try to distract as many people as they can from actually addressing it with nitpicking and accusations of 911 CT. They have made a stand since quite early in the thread. They put all their eggs in one basket. And on top of that, the worst part of all, they are too proud to ever be seen as being wrong.

That line of questioning I quoted will be examined to death in the trial. You can bank on it.

 

[This is The End]

Noone here has claimed that Martin having his hand in his waistband was reasonable provocation for Zimmerman to assault Martin.

Good because Mumbles did not say that at all. It was not a direct, 1 to 1, comparison.

 

[This is The End]

The already is a perjury charge. The case doesn't look good for the prosecutors, however.

Where have I heard that before.

 

[This is The End]

Cool story bro, but there's actual evidence for Zimmerman's story. You're just making stuff up.

What about the important parts? Where is the evidence that M attacked first? Where is the evidence that M was a deadly threat?

 

[This is The End]

We have a witness that saw one person on top repeatedly punching another.

We do??

I know about the on top part, but what witness says they saw "one person repeatedly punching another [person]"??

 

[This is The End]

Denial, not just a river in Egypt.

If you have any evidence that Z was repeatedly punched just post it. No need for snark.

 

[This is The End]

And let's not forget that pushing an undercover cop in a bar is a violent assault, but breaking someone's nose and pummelling him to the ground isn't even a crime.

It might have been if GZ hadn't shot TM first.

He shot him before he got punched in the nose?

Just when you think you've heard it all...

How do you get that from what KatieG said??

This completely sums up in one perfect example the argument fail resulting from lack of reading compression that has been in at least several of your posts. I won't even point it out though. Every time we do it just ends up being a goalpost move or outright steadfast denial. OK, i'll highlight for a hint.

 

[WildCat]

How do you get that from what KatieG said??

Did Katie G. not say Zimmerman shot him first? You'd have a point if that word hadn't been there. But I'll admit she may have just worded it poorly.

You clearly didn't even read the post...

I'm quite certain I read it correctly, and it is quite believable that one would forget which pocket a cell phone is in even 30 seconds later.

You're left with an argument from personal incredulity.

I'm willing to bet that it is quite possible to do that. As soon as I prove it I guarantee WildCat will say that the flashlight I use is too many lumens and the flash on the camera was too few.

I eagerly await this demonstration of a flashlight like Zimmerman had and a professional DSLR like the police had. Maybe even a consumer point and shoot will do.

But sure, it won't work if you use a weak flash like a cell phone camera and a more powerful flashlight, but that isn't the case here.

 

[This is The End]

I'm quite certain I read it correctly, and it is quite believable that one would forget which pocket a cell phone is in even 30 seconds later.

That's odd, so you agree with me? That proves you didn't read it:

I'm sure the treehouse type posters will believe 100% that he forgot. The justicequest type posters will believe 100% that he is lying. I think we should not believe 100% either way and ask ourselves if there is any reason he would want to say that story if it didn't happen really happen like that.

I'm the one that said, that though it is believable, we should specifically not believe his story 100%. Which you then went on to do, of course. Though now you have moved your goalpost to it merely being believable which is what I said the whole time...

My point was that we should allow ourselves to see clearly all the possible other reasons he could have had for the way that statement was made. A few of the weird things I specifically pointed out.

That isn't even the worst thing that can be read from your post though. This is:

I made a post, with many cites and details about the 2nd most important few seconds of that night:

Here is my post for everyone to see for themselves:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8548890#post8548890

Instead of addressing any of the details or arguments in my post, WildCat responds with this:

For the life of me I can't figure out why any rational person would think any of that was significant.

It's like 9/11 truthers going over every statement with a fine-toothed comb looking for anything that doesn't look right to them, then declaring proof of inside jobby-job.

Did you know Rumsfeld once said the nose cone of the plane that hit the Pentagon punched through the C-ring? OMG, inside job!

It is as plain as day for everyone that cares to see what you are doing with that post. And it isn't that, for the life of WildCat, WildCat can't see why the 2nd most important few seconds of that night would be significant. That is just part of the spin game, the real stuff is in the new 2 paragraphs. The percentage of posts exactly like that one that I can link to from this thread is staggering. Don't address the content. Nitpick minor details and try to cloud the waters with accusations of conspiracy.

 

[Dan O.]

Here's a hint for WildCat: what is "it" in Katie G's statement?

 

[This is The End]

I eagerly await this demonstration of a flashlight like Zimmerman had and a professional DSLR like the police had.

I'm the one that just said you would do this! Do you not realize that your earlier claims were that it is impossible to tell if any flashlight is on in a picture?

Holy crap, you're still claiming that the light from a flashlight would show up in a flash photograph?

Even without the goalpost move, I am willing to bet that if you get that exact flashlight and take some pictures of it on and off, at night, with the exact same camera and flash, and then compare the two sets of pictures, they will not look exactly the same.

You wouldn't be able to move the goalposts past that!

And guess what. If the 2 groups of pictures turn out to be identical (which I seriously doubt) I will admit I'm wrong.

 

[This is The End]

But I'll admit she may have just worded it poorly.

Sorry, but KatieG worded it just fine.

I covered:

goalpost move or outright steadfast denial

How could I forget "blame the other persons English skills". Isn't that the new spin in politics these days? Project what you did wrong, or your flaws, onto the opponent and hammer it repeatedly?

 

[KatieG]

]Did Katie G. not say Zimmerman shot him first? You'd have a point if that word hadn't been there. But I'll admit she may have just worded it poorly.[/HILITE]

I'm quite certain I read it correctly, and it is quite believable that one would forget which pocket a cell phone is in even 30 seconds later.

You're left with an argument from personal incredulity.


I eagerly await this demonstration of a flashlight like Zimmerman had and a professional DSLR like the police had. Maybe even a consumer point and shoot will do.

But sure, it won't work if you use a weak flash like a cell phone camera and a more powerful flashlight, but that isn't the case here.

Well, context is everything, ya know. Of course GZ didn't shoot TM before TM punched (if that's what happened) GZ. No where in my post did I say that. The normal reader would have picked up on the intent, based on your comment and the context of my response. If you want to continue to parse and distort posts out here, it's going to be a very long haul.