Latest GeorgeZimmerman News

[Thermal]

To the Zimmerman fans - again, your main problem with me is simply that I'm not an idiot. We know that Zimmerman basically chased down Martin. The idea that Zimmerman suddenly just gave up his chase for no reason, and Martin just suddenly, and simultaneously flipped out, and ran up and attacked Zimmerman, is incredibly stupid, and at odds with all evidence we have. You failed to provide any evidence in the original threads, and you've never provided evidence in any evidence in any thread since. And that's why I view y'all as simple-minded racists.

We only know that Zimmerman followed Martin. The only witness described Martin as groung-pounding Zimmerman 'MMA style' while Zimmerman repeatedly called for help (Martin's father told police that it was not his son calling for help on the 911 tapes). Zimmerman's broken nose, black eyes, and cuts on the back of his head support that he was getting worked over by Martin. Do you have better evidence that Martin was not the aggressor that the jury didn't have?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

 

[Mumbles]

We only know that Zimmerman followed Martin. The only witness described Martin as groung-pounding Zimmerman 'MMA style' while Zimmerman repeatedly called for help (Martin's father told police that it was not his son calling for help on the 911 tapes). Zimmerman's broken nose, black eyes, and cuts on the back of his head support that he was getting worked over by Martin. Do you have better evidence that Martin was not the aggressor that the jury didn't have?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

This stupidity again?

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Edited for compliance with Rule 12 of the Membership Agreement

make your case. Show that Martin attacked Zimmerman, instead of the other way around.

 

[Thermal]

This stupidity again?

Edited by jsfisher: 

<snip> Moderated content redacted.

make your case. Show that Martin attacked Zimmerman, instead of the other way around.

Stupidity? It's called evidence. You know, factual things, which you are ignoring to call people racists. See post above for the observable evidence. By the way, you are the one making the claim that Zimmerman attacked. You are familiar with Burden of Proof fallacy, right? I think GZ is weak and a coward, and I think he was playing wannabe cop and that Martin was in no mood to put up with it. But the evidence (witness, injuries, father's police report) indicates that Martin was giving the tune-up. But again, your claim, your burden of proof.

Edited by jsfisher: 

Response to redacted content deleted.

 

[Thermal]

You can always trust a white man in a suit.

Btw, this was a post I made in 'In this thread, we give bad advice' thread a while back. Think about it if you can.

 

[Aber]

(Martin's father told police that it was not his son calling for help on the 911 tapes).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

Your link shows that this is not completely correct:

Background yells for help in 9-1-1 calls

In recordings of the 9-1-1 calls, yells for help are audible in the background. Zimmerman's family says it was Zimmerman yelling for help, Martin's family says it was Martin yelling for help, and independent audio analysts offer differing opinions as to who was yelling for help. During the trial, friends and family members of both Zimmerman and Martin testified as to who they thought the voice was, but expert testimony regarding voice identification was not allowed.[citation needed]

In an interview with prosecutors on March 19, Zimmerman's father identified the yells as George Zimmerman's, stating, "There is no doubt who is yelling for help. It is absolutely my son." Other relatives of Zimmerman, including his brother, concur and are equally adamant.[197] During a bond hearing on June 29, the 9-1-1 recording was played in court, and Zimmerman's father testified that "it was definitely George's" voice heard yelling for help in the recorded 9-1-1 call.[198]

According to police reports, after listening to audio recordings of the 9-1-1 calls, Martin's father, Tracy Martin, told police investigators that it was not Trayvon Martin's voice yelling for help.[174] Martin has since told reporters he was uncertain at that time, but that when he heard an enhanced recording on March 16 he was convinced it was his son yelling for help. Investigators interviewed Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, who reviewed the 9-1-1 calls to police and identified the voice crying for help as her son.[199] Investigators also interviewed Martin's cousin who stated that without a doubt "on a stack of bibles" it was Martin yelling for help on the 9-1-1 tape.[200][201]

Zimmerman's attorneys requested a Frye hearing regarding the admissibility of the testimony of the audio analysts, to determine if the methods used by them are generally accepted by the scientific community.[202][203] The judge said in her ruling that, "There is no evidence to establish that their scientific techniques have been tested and found reliable." Her ruling did not prevent the 9-1-1 calls from being played at trial.[204]

You claim:

groung-pounding Zimmerman 'MMA style'

bur it is not so definite in your link:

One eyewitness statement given the night of the shooting describes "a black male, wearing a dark colored 'hoodie' on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help." The witness said that the black male was throwing punches "MMA [mixed martial arts] style". After hearing a "pop", he saw the black male "laid out on the grass".[130][131] When the witness was subsequently interviewed weeks later by a different agency, the witness said he thought that the black male was either punching or pinning the lighter skinned male underneath him. He was no longer certain who was calling for help, having not seen their mouths in the dark. He was still certain that the black male had been on top of the lighter-skinned male.[132]

Again you claim:

But the evidence (witness, injuries, father's police report) indicates that Martin was giving the tune-up.

but this doesn't prove who started it, or that Zimmerman was in fear for his life.

 

[Upchurch]

We only know that Zimmerman followed Martin. The only witness described Martin as groung-pounding Zimmerman 'MMA style' while Zimmerman repeatedly called for help (Martin's father told police that it was not his son calling for help on the 911 tapes). Zimmerman's broken nose, black eyes, and cuts on the back of his head support that he was getting worked over by Martin. Do you have better evidence that Martin was not the aggressor that the jury didn't have?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

This is only evidence that they fought and that Martin was winning toward the end. It provides no insight whatsoever as to who was the aggressor, that is, who assaulted whom first.

 

[Thermal]

To the Zimmerman fans - again, your main problem with me is simply that I'm not an idiot. We know that Zimmerman basically chased down Martin. The idea that Zimmerman suddenly just gave up his chase for no reason, and Martin just suddenly, and simultaneously flipped out, and ran up and attacked Zimmerman, is incredibly stupid, and at odds with all evidence we have. You failed to provide any evidence in the original threads, and you've never provided evidence in any evidence in any thread since. And that's why I view y'all as simple-minded racists.

...this doesn't prove who started it, or that Zimmerman was in fear for his life.

Fair points and well-taken, but please note I did not claim any proof, just evidence. I was responding to the highlighted areas in Mumbles' comment above, should have clarified.
There is no evidence of a 'chase', and the evidence supports GZ's version of events. Claiming that it is 'at odds with all the evidence we have' shows at least a profound lack of comprehension, and that it is 'why I view y'all as simple-minded racists' is some hateful bigotry. There is no proof of who started the altercation, but it is certainly not 'at odds with all the evidence we have' to accept, as the jury did, that GZ's testimony was true, unless there is other evidence, which of course Mumbles doesn't provide.

Quick edit: the injuries to his face while having the aggressor on top of him are a pretty good indicator that he had reason to fear for his life or at least serious bodily harm, regardless of who started it.

 

[Thermal]

This is only evidence that they fought and that Martin was winning toward the end. It provides no insight whatsoever as to who was the aggressor, that is, who assaulted whom first.

True enough, but there is no evidence at all that Zimmerman took a single swing or made any aggressive moves at all. There is pretty good evidence that Martin was aggressive (broken nose, black eyes, etc. Martin had an abrasion on one finger IIRC).

Serious question: If GZ was a woman, would you look at her broken nose et al, and question whether she started the fight?

 

[Upchurch]

True enough, but there is no evidence at all that Zimmerman took a single swing or made any aggressive moves at all. There is pretty good evidence that Martin was aggressive (broken nose, black eyes, etc. Martin had an abrasion on one finger IIRC).

You just restated your previous argument. There is no evidence, either way, of who assaulted whom first. To assert that there is such evidence would be confirmation bias.

Assault does not have to include physical injury. Grabbing someone is an assault.

Serious question: If GZ was a woman, would you look at her broken nose et al, and question whether she started the fight?

All else being the same, probably.

 

[Thermal]

You just restated your previous argument. There is no evidence, either way, of who assaulted whom first. To assert that there is such evidence would be confirmation bias.

Assault does not have to include physical injury. Grabbing someone is an assault.

All else being the same, probably.

Not true. The testimony of Zimmerman coupled with the evidence convinced the police, jury, and Dept of Justice. You just wholesale dismiss GZ's testimony? He also passed a voice stress test IIRC. Not proof positive, but not dismissable as evidence as you seem to claim.

Re: assault. Depends on where you live. In my state in the U.S., simple assault is to attempt to inure or cause injury to another without legal justification. Just grabbing someone does not necessarily constitute assault here.

Quick edit- forgot your first point. I did not restate my argument. I said in post #87 that there is no proof of who started it, what are you reading? My argument is that Mumbles is not being honest.

 

[Belz...]

Not really manly-manish at all.

What if it stops them from ever doing it again when they otherwise would have?

Pedos pretty much have to have DNA evidence to convict them.

You know, after all this time I'd have thought you'd be able to distinguish between pedophile and child molester.

 

[Upchurch]

Not true. The testimony of Zimmerman...

Sorry. I should have said that there is no unbiased evidence. Zimmerman had a vested interest in providing testimony that did not land him in jail. His is the only version of the events leading to the fight and we have no way of determining whether or not it reflects actual events.

...coupled with the evidence convinced the police, jury, and Dept of Justice.

If you can provide evidence that explicitly shows that portion of Zimmerman's testimony to be true, you would be the first on this board. The jury merely found that there was not enough evidence to prove Zimmerman's guilt over a presumption of innocence.

You just wholesale dismiss GZ's testimony?

No, but I recognize that, as I said, he has a vested interest to paint himself in the best possible light. The reliability of that testimony is low, at best.

He also passed a voice stress test IIRC. Not proof positive, but not dismissable as evidence as you seem to claim.

It's not even evidence by legal standards, let alone scientific standards. You might as well look up his horoscope on the day in question or read his tea leaves.

Re: assault. Depends on where you live. In my state in the U.S., simple assault is to attempt to inure or cause injury to another without legal justification. Just grabbing someone does not necessarily constitute assault here.

It would be if a strange adult attempted to grab a lone minor on the street at night, causing the minor to feel threatened of impending injury.

 

[Jules Galen]

You just restated your previous argument. There is no evidence, either way, of who assaulted whom first. To assert that there is such evidence would be confirmation bias.
Assault does not have to include physical injury. Grabbing someone is an assault.


All else being the same, probably.

Probably not, but I would bet it was Trayvon who threw the first punch. But...I am very sympathetic to Trayvon's plight. It is my belief that Trayvon was stalked and goaded until he got tired of it and decided to fight back. And then, Zimmerman claims victimhood.

Hey...there are a lot of Zimmerman's in the world, unfortunately. These people create conflict and then claim to be the victim. It is a hellacious pattern.

And...we haven't heard the last of George Zimmerman. George will eventually provoke someone else and be back in the limelight again - as the victim. That's George's game. He won't stop unless somebody makes it too painful to play.

 

[Upchurch]

Probably not, but I would bet it was Trayvon who threw the first punch. But...I am very sympathetic to Trayvon's plight. It is my belief that Trayvon was stalked and goaded until he got tired of it and decided to fight back. And then, Zimmerman claims victimhood.

Absolutely possible, but there is a difference between speculation, opinion, and knowledge. This is why we need critical thinking: to distinguish one from the others. That is something that is often lost on this topic.

 

[Jules Galen]

Absolutely possible, but there is a difference between speculation, opinion, and knowledge. This is why we need critical thinking: to distinguish one from the others. That is something that is often lost on this topic.

I realize that, but I still stand by what I said. I've read up on this Zimmerman. The "Victim Game" he plays he did long before he met Trayvon. According to police reports, it appears he did similar to his housemates (accused them of burglary) and to a caterer he once hired for a party and refused to pay. There is a definite pattern here.

And...you are going to see George Zimmerman keep playing more of his "Victim Cards" in the future in order to garner attention and sympathy. You haven't seen the last of George Zimmerman.

 

[Mumbles]

Not true. The testimony of Zimmerman coupled with the evidence convinced the police, jury, and Dept of Justice. You just wholesale dismiss GZ's testimony? He also passed a voice stress test IIRC. Not proof positive, but not dismissable as evidence as you seem to claim.

Re: assault. Depends on where you live. In my state in the U.S., simple assault is to attempt to inure or cause injury to another without legal justification. Just grabbing someone does not necessarily constitute assault here.

Quick edit- forgot your first point. I did not restate my argument. I said in post #87 that there is no proof of who started it, what are you reading? My argument is that Mumbles is not being honest.

I see little reason to go over this again, but since you asked...

Sorry, but I'm not stupid. We all saw the evidence, it was perfectly clear that Zimmerman was lying. His recollection of events was impossible to reconcile with his own 911 call. And in truth, the fact that he called police on a black kid walking down the street tells us a lot about him, never mind the fact that he got out of his car and chased Martin.

So yes, I will dismiss Zimmerman's testimony wholesale. And again, I wouldn't punch him in the face myself - I have a MSEE, I didn't work that hard just to go to jail. However, I will laugh at any news of him getting shot at, or punched out, or whatever. He put a lot of work to be the face of white supremacy, so he deserves a beating.

And just in case you want to argue...

 

[Jules Galen]

I'll say it again folks: the George Zimmerman type is dangerous. Your odds of going up against a couple of Hell's Angel Bikers are better than going up against a George Zimmerman type. Think about what George Zimmerman did - how he called 9/11 and "poisoned the well" on Trayvon by misrepresenting every innocent action that Trayvon made to be something sinister. And he did this long before Trayvon had got tired of being stalked.

George Zimmerman is a top-notch predator, and you fool yourself if you think you can take him on just because he's also a whimpering coward.

 

[Mumbles]

Again, let's get honest.

We know that Zimmerman was lying about his aggressive behavior towards Martin, who was just walking home from a local store.

Now, think about this. Folks gave money to defend Zimmerman. This is basically paying money to be racist.

And they did it, just because they think a black kid walking home is a "thug". Not an active threat, which we could understand. Just a kid walking home from the local 7/11.

Can we be honest, and just say that Zimmerman's defenders are obvious white spremacists?

 

[bobdroege7]

Again, let's get honest.



Can we be honest, and just say that Zimmerman's defenders are obvious white spremacists?

Not defending Zimmerman, but you need to admit that there was some point where Martin's actions were inexcusable and directly resulted in his death.

He could of got off of Zimmerman and continued casing the neighborhood or walking home.

Calling one black man a thug is not racist, calling all black men thugs is.

You are in your neighborhood and see someone whom you think is suspicious, anyone is well within their rights to approach that person and politely ask what they are doing, where they are from etc, doesn't make one a bigot.

There, that's a defense of Zimmerman.

 

[theprestige]

Q. Why didn't Martin run away and call the police?

A. Because he thought the best way to deal with an unarmed white man was to beat their face in.