Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[tsig]

No it's a myth because I have actually been in bare fisted fights where people ended up with bleeding noses and black eyes and didn't end up with bleeding and bruised knuckles. I'm talking from actual experience of having been in fights, hence why I questioned if you have been.



See this is why I dropped out of this thread months ago. Some people stake out their camp of belief and then paint anyone that doesn't agree with them as being in the diametrically opposing group, if they aren't with you, they are against you, if they don't believe the same, they must believe the exact opposite. It's an absolutely dumb position to take, and yet time and time on this board of so call skeptics it happens.

I am not "dedicated to believing Martin punched Zimmerman repeatedly". I have no idea if he repeatedly punched him or not, and neither do you, unless you were there. All I am saying is that forming a belief that it didn't happen because Trayvon's hands weren't damaged is wrong, as having personally experienced fights and punching people in the head and nose, and being repeatedly punched in the head and nose, your hands don't end up battered and ripped up.



I'm not claiming it as a generality, I'm saying that the claim that hands are always damaged and bruised is wrong. To bust the claim that Trayvon's hands must be damaged if he repeatedly punched George, only one instance needs to be shown.



Seriously? Have you never been in a real fight? For a guy with Karate in his name you seem rather unlearned about them. The first thing an untrained person does in a fight is basically curl up to protect their head and upper body from the hits, that is why when you train in a martial art or boxing you do a lot of practice fights to learn about getting hit and how to control the instincts to protect your head and vital organs. The last thing that is going through the mind, especially when the attacker follows you as you go backwards is to run, the first is to protect yourself from the blows.



Once again I really have to question if you have ever been in a fight. If you ever do find yourself in a fight, especially against multiple opponents, the small one is the most dangerous.



Well duh, could that be why I said "I suspect" as in I am speculating that this occured?



As you just said, GZ never stated that.

As to the rest of it. YOU were the one that created this senario, you brought it up, and I have been working on the speculation that the senario YOU brought up was the correct one, I even noted this mutliple times

I personally suspect
Speculation and based on other witnesses
Based purely on my speculation above

Get it? I'm speculating on the senario you created based on the evidence available. It has nothing to do with what GZ said. Based on the other evidence I don't believe he got most of it correct, but that doesn't mean that by using logic and speculation based on witness statments I can't come up with something that actually fits the evidence.



You don't have a right to "defend" yourself against someone doing no more then following you, even if it is dark. Having said that, it's clear from the 911 call that GZ lost sight of TM and even DeeDee claims that TM told her he had lost GZ, so you'll have to really pull some magic out of your backside to show that GZ was constantly following TM throughout the entire time.

Following someone is not illegal, in the light or in the dark. Punching someone for following is illegal. (and that's just a general comment there not a claim that TM punched GZ for following him.)



Shucks, perhaps that is what speculation means. Funny you accuse me of believing GZ's story and then you accuse me of making up things that aren't in his story. Which is it? Am I follow his story or not?

The reality is that I am following the evidence. The evidence is that regardless of what George says, the fight started below the T, and reality says that if someone approaches you demanding to know things, then it is entirely natural to close the distance to get into speaking range, you don't just stand there waiting for them to get to you looking like a knob. We do these things automatically without even thinking about it.

See this is what I meant right at the begining. I looked at the evidence, evaluated it and determined the logical actions based on the what the witnesses were saying and the other evidence. I then came to a conculsion on what I suspect happened based on that evidence. It has zero to do with what GZ claims, other than taking it into consideration with the other evidence. In most cases I think GZ's claims are wrong, that things didn't happen as he claims. But because my conclusions don't match your's, you instantly assume I am in the GZ camp and believe everything he says. You are so blinkered by your own biases, you can't see the forest for the trees.



From your postings I really have to question if you have ever fought anyone in a real fight. Strangely enough one of the first thing we learned in Karate is that all those fancy kicks you learn mean nothing in a real fight because your legs will go wobby and stop working. The fact you think that it is easy to just disengage from someone throwing punches at you and run for it also speaks volumes.



You really have never been in a fight have you? Do you honestly think that people stand back and thrown punches from four or five feet away from each other? Perhaps you need to watch more boxing matches. Not really a good example of street brawling, but you'll quickly see that they go into a "huddle". It happens in real fights too, because by grabbing and holding your opponent you can limit their attacks on you. Real fights are closer to wrestling matches with punches being thrown at close quarters than two people standing waving their fists at each other. The only time you really get fighters standing back and circling each other is either at the very start, or where both have classical training of some sort.



If you actually knew more about fights happen in the real world you might be funny, as it is, really?



Again you really have no idea do you?

So unless someone's been in a street brawl they're not qualified to comment on this incident?

 

[tsig]

It actually has nothing to do with Anime, which I don't even watch and wouldn't know an anime troop if I tripped over one.

It comes from knowing a lot of fighters over my rather mis-spent youth when I had real anger issues and used to be bullied a lot. Being bullied and having anger issues is a bad combo that leads to spending a lot of time staring at walls after getting in trouble. I actually took up Karate to help channel and control the anger as well as learning to defend myself better. It helped a lot, I think I only had one fight in a classroom after that.

Most big guys know their strength and won't use it in a fight for fear of doing too much damage. Small guys on the other hand, there really is a thing known as short man syndrone. Out of all the people I used to fight in and out of class, there was only one that scared me who was taller then I was (aboput 6' at the time. He was lighter then me though.) The ones I would never have wanted to fight full contact in a dark alley were all under 5'8".



Well firstly he refused to answer, and secondly the way he describes a fight sounds like he thinks that they stand back five paces and wave wet hankies at each other. I can say quite honestly if someone had tried to run from the fights I got into they would have been lying on the ground before they got more than a few paces and it was nothing to do with teleportation or being Mr Elastic. There are two times you can leave a fight successfully. One is when the other person or people involved let you go and don't pursue you. The second is when you have control of the fight and the other guy is down or at a major disadvantage, and even then, if he wants to carry it on, you better be getting out of there fast.

So your personal experience is now the sole metric we use to evaluate the conflict?

 

[tsig]

Are you suggesting that being beaten to death is a regular outcome of losing a fight?

Sounds like he's bragging how bad he is. The internet tough guy meme is universal.

 

[tsig]

Are you suggesting that no one has even been killed by being beaten to death in a fight?

No straw man ever has.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

General news from the past day or two:

NBC says in response to lawsuit that Zimmerman doesn't deserve a payout from us
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...ge-zimmerman-nbc-stay-20130226,0,231067.story

SANFORD — Attorneys for NBC Universal Media LLC have filed a response to the defamation suit filed by murder defendant George Zimmerman, saying the murder suspect deserves no payout from it.

In two pleadings that total more than 100 pages, the company also asks Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson to put a temporary hold on the civil suit until Zimmerman's second-degree murder case is concluded.

This part makes little sense to me:
"While there is no legitimate basis for Zimmerman's claims against these defendants, who fairly and accurately reported about a news event that has captivated the nation, now is simply not the time to litigate them," wrote Gregg D. Thomas, a Tampa attorney who specializes in media issues and was hired by NBC.

If they fairly and accurately reported things, why did NBC fir 2 reporters over it ?

FBI to Zimmerman: We don't have to give you our file, despite judge's order
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...mmerman-fbi-objection-20130227,0,329769.story

Lawyers for the FBI say the federal agency should not give George Zimmerman's lawyers all the evidence from its case file, even though a Sanford judge has ordered it.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed paperwork Monday, arguing that federal regulations trump a state court judge's ruling. It's asking that judge, Debra S. Nelson, to undo her Feb. 5 order.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This is really unfortunate. Yesterday we were really making headway and I thought we'd gotten a lot closer on some of the factual elements of the case. Then a few people who only seem to want to derail the thread stomped through and we're back to bickering.

There's a few factual elements that both you and PhantomWolf seemed to be coming around on, and I think we should go back to discussing those.

The first is that I think we are in agreement now on the basic distances involved from the sidewalk, to the keys, to the body, to the phone and flashlight. We agree that the phone and flashlight are interesting pieces of evidence and that they MAY indicate that the story didn't happen the way George originally told it, but at the very least demand some further illumination. We also agree that we should wait to hear from the witnesses on the stand before placing too much stock into their earlier statements. We agree that there are two versions of George's story of the start of the fight in which he fell down immediately, and one in which he moved towards the eventual shooting. We agree that a witness saw him get up after the shooting and walk, although to where and for how long we don't know. We agree that the location of the keys and the location of the arrest would be good to know. We agree that it's possible he dropped the keys after the shooting, although we don't know that either but we agree that this is something to watch. We agree that Witness 6 is important, as is the witness who saw George after the fight and saw him walking towards her/him.

I think we should go back to those items and try and build on them and ignore the people trying to stomp on the conversation.

I think can agree with all of the above. It doesn't get us closer to knowing what actually happened.

 

[KatieG]

I think can agree with all of the above. It doesn't get us closer to knowing what actually happened.

Agreed. I'll second that motion.

 

[Dan O.]

We agree that a witness saw him get up after the shooting and walk, although to where and for how long we don't know. We agree that the location of the keys and the location of the arrest would be good to know. We agree that it's possible he dropped the keys after the shooting, although we don't know that either but we agree that this is something to watch.

The location of the keys (or any of the items found on the ground) should not be in dispute. These were all photographed, marked and measured twice.

Where George walked to was reported by two witnesses and observed by two SPD officers. One of the witnesses said George was kneeling on the sidewalk 6 feet from the Tee. The other said it was by the small tree and drew a map. It's possible that two locations could fit the information we currently have. 6 feet east of the tee is closest to the small tree and consistent with the map. 6 feet south of the tee is closest to the vicinity of the keys. This should be clearly resolved early in the trial when we hear statements from the arresting officers.

 

[Unabogie]

The location of the keys (or any of the items found on the ground) should not be in dispute. These were all photographed, marked and measured twice.

True, but we've been debating the distances involved, especially since there's the version of the story where George fell down immediately. Showing the exact distance from where the flashlight and phone are from there is something we're finally coming to terms with.

Where George walked to was reported by two witnesses and observed by two SPD officers. One of the witnesses said George was kneeling on the sidewalk 6 feet from the Tee. The other said it was by the small tree and drew a map. It's possible that two locations could fit the information we currently have. 6 feet east of the tee is closest to the small tree and consistent with the map. 6 feet south of the tee is closest to the vicinity of the keys. This should be clearly resolved early in the trial when we hear statements from the arresting officers.

That's actually very interesting. We've been debating the location of the keys. Elvis says that they show that something happened up by the T since there was not an opportunity after the shooting for George to have dropped them there. But if what you say is true, then there are witnesses that put him there, which makes it much more likely that the debris field around the body shows the true location of the fight and that George lied about the fight starting at the T.

Do you have a cite?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

True, but we've been debating the distances involved, especially since there's the version of the story where George fell down immediately. Showing the exact distance from where the flashlight and phone are from there is something we're finally coming to terms with.



That's actually very interesting. We've been debating the location of the keys. Elvis says that they show that something happened up by the T since there was not an opportunity after the shooting for George to have dropped them there. But if what you say is true, then there are witnesses that put him there, which makes it much more likely that the debris field around the body shows the true location of the fight and that George lied about the fight starting at the T.

Do you have a cite?

They provide corroboration that the incident started near the Tee. Or you have to have GZ immediately plotting to put them back at the Tee with the police on the way, etc. As I said before, I personally find that much less believable or likely.

For reference, you want witness 18 ( I linked to earlier) and witness 13 (flashlight man). He took the pictures. He is the one who asked what kind of gun GZ used.

 

[Unabogie]

They provide corroboration that the incident started near the Tee. Or you have to have GZ immediately plotting to put them back at the Tee with the police on the way, etc. As I said before, I personally find that much less believable or likely.

For reference, you want witness 18 ( I linked to earlier) and witness 13 (flashlight man). He took the pictures. He is the one who asked what kind of gun GZ used.

No, I thought we've gone over this and you were seeing my point. Now I feel like we're going backwards. The things that they most likely had in their hands when the fight started were the flashlight and the cell phone. Those would most likely be dropped first. That puts the fight at the location of the body, and south of there. You then asked, well how could the keys have gotten so far north after the shooting if no one saw him walk that far? That's a valid question. So I responded that it would fit the evidence that George frisked Trayvon after he killed him (a witness saw him touching his back). Then he could have been looking on the ground for a weapon. So he pulls out his keys, turns on the little flashlight, and walks up the sidewalk, where he was seen in the same spot the keys fell. At that point, he's seen by SPD. And in that scenario, when the police show up with guns drawn, you drop whatever is in your hands so they don't mistake it for a gun and shoot you. So his hands went up, the keys went down, and that explains why they are there.

No plotting. No conspiracy. Fits the evidence perfectly.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

No, I thought we've gone over this and you were seeing my point. Now I feel like we're going backwards. The things that they most likely had in their hands when the fight started were the flashlight and the cell phone. Those would most likely be dropped first.

Heading back to his car, he would have his keys in his hand. the flashlight didn't work, so he could have had that in his pocket, i don't know.

Trayvon was on hands free in the store, I don't think I understand why he would now have it in his hand, in the rain ?

That puts the fight at the location of the body, and south of there. You then asked, well how could the keys have gotten so far north after the shooting if no one saw him walk that far? That's a valid question. So I responded that it would fit the evidence that George frisked Trayvon after he killed him (a witness saw him touching his back). Then he could have been looking on the ground for a weapon. So he pulls out his keys, turns on the little flashlight, and walks up the sidewalk, where he was seen in the same spot the keys fell. At that point, he's seen by SPD. And in that scenario, when the police show up with guns drawn, you drop whatever is in your hands so they don't mistake it for a gun and shoot you. So his hands went up, the keys went down, and that explains why they are there.

No plotting. No conspiracy. Fits the evidence perfectly.

He's searching for a weapon ? He walks back 30 plus feet using his keychain flashlight, looking for a weapon, until the flashlight man and/or police show up who aren't paying any attention to him dropping something on the ground ?

I'm gonna need more convincing.

 

[Dan O.]

... At that point, he's seen by SPD. And in that scenario, when the police show up with guns drawn, you drop whatever is in your hands so they don't mistake it for a gun and shoot you. So his hands went up, the keys went down, and that explains why they are there.

No plotting. No conspiracy. Fits the evidence perfectly.

Except that the first to arrive is flashlight man. But with a flashlight in your face, you can't tell who is behind it so George would surrender to the flashlight man.

 

[This is The End]

The prosecution has information we do not have.

And people wonder why I use the term "Trayvon Truthers".

There you have it folks.

Someone brave enough to take a stand and claim that they think we know everything the prosecution knows. Absolutely stunning.

And on top of that, they added an insult for people who do not believe that!!

The person that is comparing other people to 911 truthers has made a clear statement they they firmly believe that we know everything the prosecution knows. It could not be more ironic.

We already completely hashed out the "new information" issue over the past few pages (perhaps WildCat missed the discussions with TheL8Elvis, sgtbaker, and PhantomWolf (not to mention the post that reminded us that even MOM states that we do not have all the information the prosecution has) WildCat is literally calling the defense attorney a "Trayvon Truther" stand back and think about that for a second) so I'll just focus on the 911 truther analogy with a repeat of an earlier post:

That reminds me, what is with your frequent analogy to 911 and calling the people that are impartial Trayvon Truthers?


911: The biggest case-log of evidence from any event in the history of mankind.

Trayvon Martin: Almost zero evidence of what happened during that crucial 90 seconds.

911: Several high profile hearings have already happened.

Trayvon Martin: Neither the stand your ground hearing or the trial have happened yet.

Therefore, in this case you should have no idea who was at fault yet.

While, in the case of 911 we know who did it.

So, again, why are you comparing the neutral observers, in a homicide case where we have no solid evidence of whether or not it was self-defense to the proven wrong conspiracy theorists in one of the most evidenced terrorist attacks in history??

Lol, now you're claiming the hands were tested and the results are secret?

That is a flat out misrepresentation of my post.

Read your response to the specific claim and then my response to your claim. Then read what you just typed.

You are the one claiming that no one ever even looked at the victims hands. The logical, and skeptical, observer would find that hard to believe. You're supposed evidence of it is that "we don't have results that say there were blood on the hands". Could that seriously be more ironic?

Let us say that you are trying to claim that M had a pink hat on.

No one, not the paramedics, not the police, not the coroner, not the autopsy, notes that M had a pink hat on.

You then claim: "M must have had a pink hat on!! No one ever tested for it!!"

I then say: "Are you trying to claim that not one person ever looked at Ms head and noted they had a pink hat on??"

You then say: "Lol, now you're claiming the headwear was tested and the results are secret?"

No. That is the exact opposite of what I am claiming. Several organizations looked at the hands. As far as we know there was nothing to report. Therefore no report to be "kept secret".

You claiming that no one looked at a homicide victims hands is as ridiculous as claiming no one noticed he had on a pink hat!!

I, on the other hand, do not know if there was blood on the hands or not. I am merely saying it would be quite odd for a homicide victim to have blood on their hands and it go unnoticed by several parties.

You firmly claiming that there was and it just wasn't tested, or it washed away, is clearly the more illogical position.

 

[This is The End]

And here another truth-teller claims an absolute truth, and once again "forgets" to provide any evidence or citation for the claim.

It's literally like you didn't even read the part that you snipped from my quote.

If anyone goes back and reads the whole post do you know how that makes your post look?

 

[Unabogie]

Heading back to his car, he would have his keys in his hand. the flashlight didn't work, so he could have had that in his pocket, i don't know.

Trayvon was on hands free in the store, I don't think I understand why he would now have it in his hand, in the rain ?

Because in the store, he's not being followed by the creepy man. When you're being followed by the creepy man, you pull out your phone in case you need to dial it. Isn't that exactly what George claimed he did? Why would Trayvon react any differently?

He's searching for a weapon ? He walks back 30 plus feet using his keychain flashlight, looking for a weapon, until the flashlight man and/or police show up who aren't paying any attention to him dropping something on the ground ?

He was searching for something, which is why he frisked Trayvon. We don't know exactly why he did it, only that it would explain why they were there and fit the evidence better, since the more likely object in his hands during the start of the fight was the larger flashlight, which fell by the body.

I'm gonna need more convincing.

Me too, but I think my theory makes sense.

 

[This is The End]

And here we have another truther who can't even get basic facts like Martin's age correct. Yet another thing in common they have with 9/11 truthers.

As just pointed out in the post following that one, they were only off by 20 days.

People don't age much in 20 days WildCat.

 

[Unabogie]

Except that the first to arrive is flashlight man. But with a flashlight in your face, you can't tell who is behind it so George would surrender to the flashlight man.

Either way, it explains why he would have dropped whatever was in his hands.

 

[This is The End]

And what part of the SYG law requires fear of death before you can shoot?

Keep Making stuff up out of wHole cloth Megalodon, that's the way you "win" on the internet!

PhantomWolf is the one that brought up fear of death, not Megalodon.

Please read the chain of posts before you respond.

 

[This is The End]

Had an incident here last year where a 16 year old kid killed a grown man in an alley with a single punch.

Did you not just 2 posts above that one chastise me for not providing the proper citations for this claim:

Repeatedly punching someone, especially in their face, causes damage to your hands, especially the knuckles.

And here another truth-teller claims an absolute truth, and once again "forgets" to provide any evidence or citation for the claim.

And then two posts later you post another claim related to punching using an anecdote??

Had an incident here last year where a 16 year old kid killed a grown man in an alley with a single punch.

Guess what. Dying from a punch in a street fight is as rare as getting hit by lightning.

While my claim:

Repeatedly punching someone, especially in their face, causes damage to your hands, especially the knuckles.

Is an accurate representation of the extremely common result of repeated blows to the face.