• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sure. I even accept that those events might have happened. I haven't seen any evidence on this forum of that. I have been advised that the prosecution probably has all sorts of evidence we don't know about, so I leave open the possibility that the evidence will be revealed at some point in the trial.

Well the argument is likely to be set out by the prosecution that GZ's choice to get out of the truck was not a reasonable choice and that will be then the source of the rest of the argument.

I think it is very clear as evidence exists of many kinds that GZ left his vehicle that night.
 
Sorry to see that you're incapable of taking responsibility for being intentionally wrong. I think we don't have anything to talk about any more. What is there more to say to a blatant liar?

Take care of yourself.
Let's break this down: Do you disagree that in Unabogies "hypothetrical opening statement" he stated that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin from the moment he left his truck?
 
That's not true. Zimmerman's truck was parked there for at least an hour after the incident. SPD ran the plate.


Have you got any more information on the timing of this?

I don't recall there being a timestamp on the dispatchers log you provided for this earlier. And I thought it was one of the early responders that was sent to check the license plates.
 
It's 12,13 and 18. I'll post it separately as it will take a little effort to track down.
.

http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf

2nd discovery, page 70 (witness 12):

...and saw two men arguing .... the two men had moved further down the walkway.

2nd discovery, page 71 (witness 13):
"right in the area of the t-section of the walk way. __ then said he heard a scuffling sound that was moving down the sidewalk and getting closer to the building next to his house."


Maybe I am wrong about witness 18, I thought she said something about voices being louder then moving away, but I can't locate it right now.
 
Well the argument is likely to be set out by the prosecution that GZ's choice to get out of the truck was not a reasonable choice and that will be then the source of the rest of the argument.

I think it is very clear as evidence exists of many kinds that GZ left his vehicle that night.

Dans question was this:
Will you accept that it is possible for there to have been a series of events in which Trayvon was justified in punching George in the face?

You think getting out of the truck is going to turn into a series of events where it ends up being reasonable for TM to punch GZ in the face ? Otherwise I am not sure what getting out of the truck has to do with Dans question.
 
The closer to the sidewalk you place Trayvon, the harder it becomes for you to explain the evidence.

You are arguing to unilaterally throw out Florida's Stand Your Ground law. Trayvon was in a place he was entitled to be and was not engaged in any activity that eliminated his right to use force if he reasonably believed force was going to be used against him. Trayvon has the right to remain silent and require that the case against his right to use force in self defense be proven. Trayvon has not given up his right to remain silent.

An assertion without evidence. Trayvon has no burden of proof here.

Just to be clear. For the sake of argument here, I am. Turnabout forces you to argue against your own argument.

They won't be citing the law. But they will point out that Trayvon was in a place he was entitled to be and George had no authority to hunt him down.

That you write things like I hilited with no evidence is one of the reasons (among others) that I am not willing to make the effort to waste my time trying to engage in a rational discussion with you any longer.
 
Last edited:
Why would he be simultaneously trying to get the cops there and lying about his knowledge of where there is?


That was my question.

But i don't fault George for not knowing the house number he parked in front of. The real question is: why does he have to lie afterwards that he didn't know the name of the street he was parked on?
 
Let's break this down: Do you disagree that in Unabogies "hypothetrical opening statement" he stated that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin from the moment he left his truck?

He stated that? Where?

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we'll never know who threw the first blow. We can't ever know, because the defendant murdered his victim and his side will never be told. But we'll show here today is that it doesn't matter. George Zimmerman stalked his victim, never identified himself, and chased him into a dark area. You'll hear a lot about 'standing your ground' in this trial, but it was the victim who had that right. He was in legitimate fear for his life, and he was right. We're going to ask you to put yourselves in his shoes. You're walking home alone, talking on the phone to your wife or husband, when a strange man starts to follow you. You run away. He follows you. You try and go where his car can't follow, and he runs out of the car after you. When he catches you, there in the dark, and won't tell you why he's chasing you, how would you feel? Would you be scared? Would you punch him and run? Because that may be what happened here. But again, we'll never know, because the defendant shot him in the heart, shattering his heart and lungs, and he died. And Trayvon Martin died not ever knowing who this stranger was, or why he wished him harm".

Show us where, in the above quote, where Unabogie stated "that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin from the moment he left his truck".
 
He stated that? Where?



Show us where, in the above quote, where Unabogie stated "that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin from the moment he left his truck".
"He was in legitimate fear for his life, and he was right."

How could Martin be "right" about fearing for his life unless Zimmerman intended to kill him?
 
That you write things like I hilited with no evidence is one of the reasons (among others) that I am not willing to make the effort to waste my time trying to engage in a rational discussion with you any longer.


That's what you say every time. And every time you step back into the fray to take another beating. I think you are just making excuses to dodge loosing the argument when you know you can't win.
 
Last edited:
"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, we'll never know who threw the first blow. We can't ever know, because the defendant murdered his victim and his side will never be told. But we'll show here today is that it doesn't matter. George Zimmerman stalked his victim, never identified himself, and chased him into a dark area. You'll hear a lot about 'standing your ground' in this trial, but it was the victim who had that right. He was in legitimate fear for his life, and he was right. We're going to ask you to put yourselves in his shoes. You're walking home alone, talking on the phone to your wife or husband, when a strange man starts to follow you. You run away. He follows you. You try and go where his car can't follow, and he runs out of the car after you. When he catches you, there in the dark, and won't tell you why he's chasing you, how would you feel? Would you be scared? Would you punch him and run? Because that may be what happened here. But again, we'll never know, because the defendant shot him in the heart, shattering his heart and lungs, and he died. And Trayvon Martin died not ever knowing who this stranger was, or why he wished him harm".

Sorry to see that you're incapable of taking responsibility for being intentionally wrong. I think we don't have anything to talk about any more. What is there more to say to a blatant liar?

Take care of yourself.

I don't want to belabor the point, but I would like your interpretation of the hilited.

How or why, specifically, was TM in legitimate fear of his life from someone 'following' him in a relatively safe subdivision at 7:00 in the evening ?
 
I wasn't aware that Martin was psychic.

"Imminent unlawful force" is in the wording of the law:
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.

This has been covered, WildCat. The text of the law was posted in this thread not two pages ago. I'm sorry that yet another basic fact has escaped you.

Perhaps this would help?
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.

Now... do you imagine a person is required to be psychic or wait until unlawful force is actually used against them before they can avail themselves of this law?

And what was this "imminent unlawful force"? Are you psychic too?

Not psychic, just someone who actually keeps up with the facts of the case and doesn't have the tendency to be so easily confused.

A stranger followed and watched Martin from his car while Martin walked home at night.

The stranger got out of his car to continue to follow Martin after Martin ran away from him.

Now that stranger is standing in front of Martin. The stranger has not identified himself or announced his intentions. The stranger reaches into his pocket...

These are things that Zimmerman himself admits took place, and are more than enough for Martin to feel threatened and warrant a defensive response.
 
Let's break this down: Do you disagree that in Unabogies "hypothetrical opening statement" he stated that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin from the moment he left his truck?

Yes. Do you disagree that it's possible for someone to give an example of what someone else might say without it having to be their exact position also?
 
...

You are arguing to unilaterally throw out Florida's Stand Your Ground law. Trayvon was in a place he was entitled to be and was not engaged in any activity that eliminated his right to use force if he reasonably believed force was going to be used against him. Trayvon has the right to remain silent and require that the case against his right to use force in self defense be proven. Trayvon has not given up his right to remain silent.
Do you have a FL court case that substantiates any of that? SYG in open areas was not the original intent as I understand SYG.


They won't be citing the law. But they will point out that Trayvon was in a place he was entitled to be and George had no authority to hunt him down.
Nor do you have any beyond a reasonable doubt proof that GZ was hunting.
 
Then I'll ask you the same question I asked of Elypsis44:

"He was in legitimate fear for his life, and he was right."

How could Martin be "right" about fearing for his life unless Zimmerman intended to kill him?

Do you disagree that it's possible for someone to give an example of what someone else might say without it having to be their exact position also?
Of course, but I have no reason to think that's the case here.
 
I'm under the impression this is what TheL8Elvis is assuming. This is what I'm assuming, anyway:

[qimg]http://i.imgur.com/wCCer8Q.jpg[/qimg]

The red line is the path GZ assumes TM is taking towards the back entrance.

The yellow line is GZ's path to RVC.

The blue line represents GZ's line of sight where he'd able to see TM potentially exiting out/near the back entrance.

Once TM goes South, and GZ continues East, he is no longer "following" him (see how their respective paths diverge?). He's merely moving to a different location so the obstacle (the row of houses) is no longer in his way in order to observe the location he wants to see (the back entrance).

ETA: GZ waits there for an undetermined length of time, to see if he can spot this guy, perhaps also waiting for the police officer's call he's supposed to be receiving, then eventually gives up and begins to make his way back to his truck.



See that blue X? That's where Zimmerman ended up.

Notice that it is not only along the path he reported Martin took as Martin was fleeing from him, but it is also away from any street signs or possible way to find an address, and most importantly, it places him in a location that contradicts or is rendered implausible by whatever version of events he gave that you choose to believe.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom