Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

And yet you've been fixated on that (Zimmerman not knowing exactly where he was every second of the struggle) for months now.

You're "just asking questions", right?

I'm still not seeing the quote where I claimed proof of Zimmerman's guilt is that he doesn't know where he was standing when he was punched.

Perhaps you are simply confused again.

Have the medical records been released? Which one is Duanne Allman? Where's my medicine?

eta: and I've given you ample opportunity to hilite an actual material problem with Zimmerman's story, and yet all you talk about is his location during the struggle.

Those material problems have actually been presented. Numerous times. You just deny they're material.

Also, you missed this post:

When is that immunity hearing so Zimmerman can simply take the stand and get himself acquitted?

Clearly no one here is making any arguments at all that could be used against Zimmerman. We're just a bunch of silly truthers. Clearly there is no evidence that disproves his story. We're just making things up.

So tell me, WildCat: When is Zimmerman going to take the stand, tell his perfectly plausible and factually-supported story and get himself acquitted?

So when is that hearing taking pace so all this truther nonsense can be put to bed?

 

[phonebook]

And as I've said, if the fight did start at the T, then Zimmerman was untruthful about being knocked immediately to the ground.

Is that the same as deceitful?

 

[phonebook]

All Zimmerman claims he said to Martin was "No".

How is answering a question with a single word response considered an argument?

I'm not sure if GZ remembers exactly what he said to TM. GZ claims he said "Hey man, I don't have a problem" in this interview (which is the first he gave, I believe).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAwukvlNc2U&t=13m35s

Witness 11 also claims to have heard an "argument", but also describes it as being brief, with only maybe 3 exchanges in it (which is the same number of exchanges GZ references).

 

[johnny karate]

I'm not sure if GZ remembers exactly what he said to TM. GZ claims he said "Hey man, I don't have a problem" in this interview (which is the first he gave, I believe).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAwukvlNc2U&t=13m35s

Witness 11 also claims to have heard an "argument", but also describes it as being brief, with only maybe 3 exchanges in it (which is the same number of exchanges GZ references).

How is a three-sentence exchange in which one party offers only a monosyllabic response an argument?

And why is the tortured logic you're about to engage in a more reasonable conclusion than simply saying Zimmerman lied about the fact that there was an argument?

 

[phonebook]

How is a three-sentence exchange in which one party offers only a monosyllabic response an argument?

I dunno... ask Witness 11. Did the other witnesses that described an argument detail how long it lasted?

And why is the tortured logic you're about to engage in a more reasonable conclusion than simply saying Zimmerman lied about the fact that there was an argument?

GZ has been consistent about there being a 3-part exchange between him and TM. If he was lying, I think he'd also be consistent about what those specific phrases in the exchange were, but he hasn't been. I think that's because he both doesn't remember exactly what was said, and is trying to fill in the gaps in his memory. If he was intent on lying about that portion, I think he'd be able to keep his script together for that short of an exchange.

 

[WildCat]

I'm still not seeing the quote where I claimed proof of Zimmerman's guilt is that he doesn't know where he was standing when he was punched.

I know johnny, you're "just asking questions". I get it.

Feel free to post the actual reasons you think Zimmerman is guilty of murder. The ones that have nothing to do with him not knowing exactly where he was every second of the struggle, the material inconsistencies.

Ready? Go!

 

[johnny karate]

I dunno... ask Witness 11. Did the other witnesses that described an argument detail how long it lasted?

The problem isn't how long the argument lasted, it's that it even existed.

What does Zimmerman describe in his various accounts that at least three different people would construe as an argument?

GZ has been consistent about there being a 3-part exchange between him and TM. If he was lying, I think he'd also be consistent about what those specific words were, but he hasn't been. I think that's because he both doesn't remember exactly what was said, and is trying to fill in the gaps in his memory. If he was intent on lying about that portion, I think he'd be able to keep his script together for that short of an exchange.

He's actually very consistent about what was said.

But again, we're not talking about what was said, but rather how it was said.

Where in any of Zimmerman's accounts do you see what could be reasonably described as an argument?

 

[WildCat]

So now we're getting into the definition of what an "argument" is, because this is critical to determining Zimmerman's guilt.

 

[johnny karate]

I know johnny, you're "just asking questions". I get it.

Feel free to post the actual reasons you think Zimmerman is guilty of murder. The ones that have nothing to do with him not knowing exactly where he was every second of the struggle, the material inconsistencies.

Ready? Go!

I'm not sure why you think I'd respond to your requests while you continually ignore mine:

When is that immunity hearing so Zimmerman can simply take the stand and get himself acquitted?

Clearly no one here is making any arguments at all that could be used against Zimmerman. We're just a bunch of silly truthers. Clearly there is no evidence that disproves his story. We're just making things up.

So tell me, WildCat: When is Zimmerman going to take the stand, tell his perfectly plausible and factually-supported story and get himself acquitted?

Come on, WildCat. Why is this such a difficult question for you to answer?

If there is no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's story and none of the inconsistencies are material, and the only arguments that assert his guilt are truthy truther arguments, why isn't he going to take the stand in an immunity hearing and get himself acquitted?

 

[Cylinder]

Then explain how that doesn't sound completely ridiculous and then explain how he managed to do so on wet grass and managed to keep his clothes clean.

If only there was a consise term for people who keep iterating the same debunked claims over-and-over to prop up their own theory which ignores established evidence.

 

[johnny karate]

So now we're getting into the definition of what an "argument" is, because this is critical to determining Zimmerman's guilt.

No, but it is critical in determining how Zimmerman lied to the police about what took place.

But wait... I forgot I'm a truthy truther and my arguments are crazy and irrational.

So when is that immunity hearing, WildCat?

 

[johnny karate]

If only there was a consise term for people who keep iterating the same debunked claims over-and-over to prop up their own theory while ignores established evidence.

So it's established evidence that Zimmerman slid around on his back for 20 feet?

I must have missed that.

And by the way, is the term you're looking for that same one used for people who allege malfeasance on the part of judges when those judges rule in manner in which they disagree:

So, you guys agree that in a criminal case, a civil attorney recorded coaching a witness and editing a recording of that coaching should be free from examination by a defendant?

 

[WildCat]

I'm not sure why you think I'd respond to your requests while you continually ignore mine:


Come on, WildCat. Why is this such a difficult question for you to answer?

If there is no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's story and none of the inconsistencies are material, and the only arguments that assert his guilt are truthy truther arguments, why isn't he going to take the stand in an immunity hearing and get himself acquitted?

I don't presume to know, because I'm neither a lawyer nor a psychic. And unlike some people here I don't confuse speculation with facts.

However, I've said many times in this thread that this isn't a "stand your ground" case, it's just a old-fashioned self defense claim. So why waste scarce resources requesting a hearing that doesn't even apply to this case?

Now, any time you're ready, tell the REAL reason you think Zimmerman is guilty since you say it's not because he doesn't remember every minute detail of the struggle with great accuracy. Odd you spend so much time arguing about a detail you say isn't really relevant to proving his guilt, but whatever. Here's your chance to cite the real reason!

 

[WildCat]

No, but it is critical in determining how Zimmerman lied to the police about what took place.

But wait... I forgot I'm a truthy truther and my arguments are crazy and irrational.

So when is that immunity hearing, WildCat?

Ah, so now he's a liar because he didn't use the word "argument" when discussing his conversation with Martin.

So we really are determining his guilt based on the definition of "argument". But maybe you'll walk that claim back to, just like everything else you fixate on.

 

[WildCat]

So it's established evidence that Zimmerman slid around on his back for 20 feet?

Can't get away from that, can you johnny? One minute you claim it's irrelevant as far as determining guilt, then you run right back to it.

 

[Cylinder]

So it's established evidence that Zimmerman slid around on his back for 20 feet?

It's well-established that Zimmerman's back wasn't clean.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't presume to know, because I'm neither a lawyer nor a psychic. And unlike some people here I don't confuse speculation with facts.

Really? You have asserted that the inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story are not material. Sounds pretty lawyerly to me. You also seem to be under the impression that no evidence exists to contradict his story. Pretty bold declaration for someone now claiming to be an unknowledgeable layperson.

So if I'm understanding you correctly, you possess the legal expertise to accurately assess the evidence, but just not quite enough to understand or explain how that evidence could be used.

Either that, or you just lack the intellectual honesty to answer the question.

However, I've said many times in this thread that this isn't a "stand your ground" case, it's just a old-fashioned self defense claim. So why waste scarce resources requesting a hearing that doesn't even apply to this case?

Once again, the basic facts elude you:

If the "Stand Your Ground" portion of the law was to be applied to the Zimmerman Case, even if George had an ability to retreat, he would not be required to do so before utilizing deadly force. In this particular case, George did not have an ability to retreat because he was on the ground with Trayvon Martin mounting him, striking blows, therefore the "Stand Your Ground" "benefit" given by the statute simply does not apply to the facts of George's case: it is traditional self-defense. Of course, the immunity provision still does apply, and we will take full advantage of the immunity afforded by the Florida Legislature.

In August, we published an article called There Will Be A 'Stand Your Ground' Hearing in the George Zimmerman Case. The article was meant to show that we believe George Zimmerman's act of self-defense was lawful and justified, and that he should have the benefits of prosecutorial and civil immunity offered by Statute 776. Since then, whenever we have referred to such a hearing, we have more appropriately referred to it as a Self-Defense Immunity Hearing. The Judge has set a court date of June 10 for the Zimmerman trial, and a Self-Defense Immunity Hearing is scheduled for April 22.

Oops.

Medical records. Who Duane Allman is. What kind of hearing was scheduled.

It's just so hard to keep track of these things, isn't it?

Now, any time you're ready, tell the REAL reason you think Zimmerman is guilty since you say it's not because he doesn't remember every minute detail of the struggle with great accuracy. Odd you spend so much time arguing about a detail you say isn't really relevant to proving his guilt, but whatever. Here's your chance to cite the real reason!

I don't see how a post comprised of nothing more than dodges and ignorance should be considered a valid response.

Give me a real answer if you expect one from me.

 

[johnny karate]

Ah, so now he's a liar because he didn't use the word "argument" when discussing his conversation with Martin.

So we really are determining his guilt based on the definition of "argument". But maybe you'll walk that claim back to, just like everything else you fixate on.

He didn't describe an argument. Thats pretty clear.

However, multiple witnesses did.

So yes, that makes him a liar.

Can't get away from that, can you johnny? One minute you claim it's irrelevant as far as determining guilt, then you run right back to it.

There's that word "claim" you keep trotting out. It's correct usage seems rather problematic for you.

Sort of like knowing what kind of immunity hearing was scheduled.

I guess remembering all these things is just so... confusing.

 

[johnny karate]

It's well-established that Zimmerman's back wasn't clean.

Which piece of evidence do you feel established that?

The photos showing his clothes as being clean?

Or the fact that his back at one point had grass on it and was wet?

Because everyone knows grass can't be simply brushed off and wet things never dry, and they both leave stains invisible to photography.

 

[This is The End]

He didn't try to get away.

What do you think Z meant when Z said "he's running"?

Did Z mean "he's running at me"??

I would find that hard to believe with all that we know.

Are you claiming that speaking first negates the confrontation? Are you claiming that "what are you following me for?" somehow makes trayvon the aggressor?

Yes they are literally claiming that.

Apparently you can follow someone forever and just as long as you don't speak first it is not confrontational.