Notices
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 401 to 440 of 440
Like Tree93Likes

Thread: Zimmerman trial

  1. #401  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    I was speaking of "left overs", perhaps you missed it. If you are an American as I am, you are well aware of our culture and it's flawed history and its long term effects on society.

    I was considering replying to each of your ramblings, but since you started every reply (to my quotes) with agreement, I am changing my mind this instant and consider us to be in general agreement.

    I am done on this. I have stated my concerns and that is all I can ask for.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #402  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    I was speaking of "left overs", perhaps you missed it. If you are an American as I am, you are well aware of our culture and it's flawed history and its long term effects on society.

    I was considering replying to each of your ramblings, but since you started every reply (to my quotes) with agreement, I am changing my mind this instant and consider us to be in general agreement.

    I am done on this. I have stated my concerns and that is all I can ask for.
    Delusion at it's best. No we are not in agreement, but whatever makes you feel justified and validated.

    My remarks were no more "ramblings" than yours were. I will assume that your bowing out is simply acknowledgement that your logic makes no sense and that you cannot push your anti-white sentiment and anti white agenda down my throat.

    It's really sad, when our society assumes people are guilty because of their race. Doing it now is just as bad as it was in the 1960's.
    Last edited by seagypsy; July 25th, 2013 at 09:57 PM.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #403  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    So you have experience with some white people acting a certain way, from which you assume that Zimmerman was acting the same way. That's racial profiling, but I guess you think it's the good kind of racial profiling.
    Bingo...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #404  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post

    IMO, you just touched on the crux of the matter.

    It is a matter of conditioning how to respond to a given situation.

    question, was Martin walking in an alley (a public) service path or trespassing on everyone's real property. Was this a shortcut to his destination or was he "obviously" skulking and acting in a suspicious manner?

    If yes, Zimmerman may have had sufficient reason to call the cops, whereupon he should have stayed in his truck and wait for the police, which he did not.

    If no, Martin may have had sufficient reason to react to what he perceived as a threat by a large man following him, whereupon he should have called the police (instead of his girlfriend). But from the tel conversation, we know that before anything happened, Martin was concerned about this stranger following him for no apparent reason and decided to confront this stalker.
    There's that word stalker again. Did you ever find the relevant Florida statute that defines stalking?
    I thought we all were in agreement on the legal issues. We are now talking about people and how they might perceive situations. Stalking is a common word and used in everyday life, without the exact legal meaning of the word.
    Is a guy who shows up every night to watch a pretty girl come home without any intentions of accosting her a stalker or an admirer? Ask the girl what she would call such an act. I bet the response is "stalker". We are no longer talking legalities but human perceptions.

    Contrary to what was said about my knowledge of the law, again, I stipulated that the jury had no option to find as they did....but IMO, Zimmerman did not follow proper procedure as instructed by the police and apparently persisted in following Martin on foot, thereby creating a unpredictable situation.
    What is the evidence from the trial that showed that Zimmerman persisted in following Martin on foot? Not the fraudulent Rachel Corey indictment, but actual evidence.
    Oh Martin's call to his sister, telling her he was being followed is not evidence? That Zimmerman actually left his truck after calling the police is not evidence he was following Martin? Was he taking a piss?
    Martin KNEW he was being followed on foot, why on earth would he double back to confront Zimmerman? He did not attack Zimmerman sitting in his truck did he?

    A teenager placed in a unpredictable situation may do stupid things. In this case it cost him his life, in effect proving that he had reason to be concerned.

    I believe from the responses that most posts on this subject was from the standpoint of law abiding whites.
    But even as I am lily white, I am married to a minority woman. When we go to a store (here in Idaho), I am addressed as "Sir", my wife often is ignored or treated with casual disdain. Once she was just blatantly pushed out of the check out line by a white woman who just thought she could shove this Indian aside as if she did not even exist. When my wife protested, the woman yelled, "help, help, she is hitting me". Fortunately the store manager was available and after confirming my wife's story from witnesses, that woman was asked to leave the store.

    My wife has been subject to such slights all her 65 years and I can see the cultural bias, almost everyday. Many times we have come home, with my wife in tears from deep and profound pain for being viewed as stranger in a strange land.

    Actually, my wife is an original (native) American and has more right than anyone to be treated as a human being. She is a nurse and may well be caring for your grandmother. Why is she perceived as an illegal immigrant? Someone once told her to go back to her cave! And more than once she has bee told to go back where she came from. Go back to where, the US?

    Thus, from personal experience, I can well understand Martin's reactions, a single black teenager being placed in a situation which to him spelled danger, even as he was not doing anything illegal. Does anyone here know Martin's state of mind, other than being accused of taking suspicious actions?
    So you have experience with some white people acting a certain way, from which you assume that Zimmerman was acting the same way. That's racial profiling, but I guess you think it's the good kind of racial profiling.
    I won't even dignify this with an answer. It's a straw man argument and you know it.

    The question was asked if Martin had any culpability and the answer is yes. But does that close the matter? All I am doing is asking if Zimmerman was free from culpability?

    Why this presumption of guilt on Martin's part and not Zimmerman? They both made phone calls expressing their reactions to the event directly preceding the shooting.
    That's easy. One had a busted nose and various lacerations, contusions and abrasions on his head. The other one didn't.
    True, the other was dead.

    I have had a busted nose and lacerations plenty of times. never felt the need to kill anyone. Even if the testimony of the defense was correct (of which I am not convinced) in saying that during the struggle Martin saw the gun and reached for it,
    you cannot imagine Martin seeing confirmation that he had been stalked (by a guy wearing a gun). It surely would freak me out.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #405  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post

    IMO, you just touched on the crux of the matter.

    It is a matter of conditioning how to respond to a given situation.

    question, was Martin walking in an alley (a public) service path or trespassing on everyone's real property. Was this a shortcut to his destination or was he "obviously" skulking and acting in a suspicious manner?

    If yes, Zimmerman may have had sufficient reason to call the cops, whereupon he should have stayed in his truck and wait for the police, which he did not.

    If no, Martin may have had sufficient reason to react to what he perceived as a threat by a large man following him, whereupon he should have called the police (instead of his girlfriend). But from the tel conversation, we know that before anything happened, Martin was concerned about this stranger following him for no apparent reason and decided to confront this stalker.
    There's that word stalker again. Did you ever find the relevant Florida statute that defines stalking?
    I thought we all were in agreement on the legal issues. We are now talking about people and how they might perceive situations. Stalking is a common word and used in everyday life, without the exact legal meaning of the word.
    Is a guy who shows up every night to watch a pretty girl come home without any intentions of accosting her a stalker or an admirer? Ask the girl what she would call such an act. I bet the response is "stalker". We are no longer talking legalities but human perceptions.

    Contrary to what was said about my knowledge of the law, again, I stipulated that the jury had no option to find as they did....but IMO, Zimmerman did not follow proper procedure as instructed by the police and apparently persisted in following Martin on foot, thereby creating a unpredictable situation.
    What is the evidence from the trial that showed that Zimmerman persisted in following Martin on foot? Not the fraudulent Rachel Corey indictment, but actual evidence.
    Oh Martin's call to his sister, telling her he was being followed is not evidence? That Zimmerman actually left his truck after calling the police is not evidence he was following Martin? Was he taking a piss?
    Martin KNEW he was being followed on foot, why on earth would he double back to confront Zimmerman? He did not attack Zimmerman sitting in his truck did he?

    A teenager placed in a unpredictable situation may do stupid things. In this case it cost him his life, in effect proving that he had reason to be concerned.

    I believe from the responses that most posts on this subject was from the standpoint of law abiding whites.
    But even as I am lily white, I am married to a minority woman. When we go to a store (here in Idaho), I am addressed as "Sir", my wife often is ignored or treated with casual disdain. Once she was just blatantly pushed out of the check out line by a white woman who just thought she could shove this Indian aside as if she did not even exist. When my wife protested, the woman yelled, "help, help, she is hitting me". Fortunately the store manager was available and after confirming my wife's story from witnesses, that woman was asked to leave the store.

    My wife has been subject to such slights all her 65 years and I can see the cultural bias, almost everyday. Many times we have come home, with my wife in tears from deep and profound pain for being viewed as stranger in a strange land.

    Actually, my wife is an original (native) American and has more right than anyone to be treated as a human being. She is a nurse and may well be caring for your grandmother. Why is she perceived as an illegal immigrant? Someone once told her to go back to her cave! And more than once she has bee told to go back where she came from. Go back to where, the US?

    Thus, from personal experience, I can well understand Martin's reactions, a single black teenager being placed in a situation which to him spelled danger, even as he was not doing anything illegal. Does anyone here know Martin's state of mind, other than being accused of taking suspicious actions?
    So you have experience with some white people acting a certain way, from which you assume that Zimmerman was acting the same way. That's racial profiling, but I guess you think it's the good kind of racial profiling.
    I won't even dignify this with an answer. It's a straw man argument and you know it.

    The question was asked if Martin had any culpability and the answer is yes. But does that close the matter? All I am doing is asking if Zimmerman was free from culpability?

    Why this presumption of guilt on Martin's part and not Zimmerman? They both made phone calls expressing their reactions to the event directly preceding the shooting.
    That's easy. One had a busted nose and various lacerations, contusions and abrasions on his head. The other one didn't.
    True, the other was dead.

    I have had a busted nose and lacerations plenty of times. never felt the need to kill anyone. Even if the testimony of the defense was correct (of which I am not convinced) in saying that during the struggle Martin saw the gun and reached for it,
    you cannot imagine Martin seeing confirmation that he had been stalked (by a guy wearing a gun). It surely would freak me out.
    yes, martin became dead after the injuries were inflicted to Zimmerman. And evidence suggests that Martin's deadness was caused by his infliction of injuries to Zimmerman.

    You keep forgetting that Martin instigated the confrontation by doubling back and that Zimmerman was on his way back to his truck when he was confronted. Zimmerman was already outside his truck when he made the call to the police. When he was told he didn't need to follow Martin he said ok and started looking for addresses. There is no evidence that he continued to follow Martin after he was advised that it wasn't necessary.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #406  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    If somebody "passes over" my yard on a dark rainy evening, when they could just as easily be walking on the street, and we've had burglaries in the neighborhood, I think I'm going to watch them for a while and see what they're up to. I probably wouldn't expect the cops to come and arrest them, but I'm sure as hell going to watch them. I wouldn't care if they're wearing a hoodie or not.
    That would be a natural response.

    Living on a creek, we have had people wander into our Cali yard. Hawai'i *L* you'd not even try....it's steep and lava is not always nice.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #407  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post

    What is the evidence from the trial that showed that Zimmerman persisted in following Martin on foot? Not the fraudulent Rachel Corey indictment, but actual evidence.
    Oh Martin's call to his sister, telling her he was being followed is not evidence?
    He called his sister while Zimmerman was in the car, so no.
    That Zimmerman actually left his truck after calling the police is not evidence he was following Martin? Was he taking a piss?
    Yes, but you said he "persisted" in following on foot, which buys into the prosecution's lie that he kept following Martin after being told not to.
    Martin KNEW he was being followed on foot, why on earth would he double back to confront Zimmerman? He did not attack Zimmerman sitting in his truck did he?
    Why would he double back? I don't know, but he either did that, or lurked around for 4 minutes waiting for Zimmerman. Maybe he wanted to put some whoop-ass on a creepy-ass cracker. There was some evidence that was disallowed by the biased judge, which could have shed light on Martin's motives. These were the text messages on Martin's cell phone which showed how much he liked street fighting, and how he liked drawing blood in those street fights.

    Remember, he had 4 minutes after which Zimmerman lost sight of him. Enough time to get home and come back again several times. It was a very dark night, and all he had to do was get 20 or 30 yards away, and he'd be out of sight. He decided not to do that. Meanwhile, Zimmerman wasn't chasing him all over the place like the prosecution alleged. He basically stayed down at one end of the row of houses. Zimmerman's small flashlight and a key chain were found at the T of the dog walk. That's where the attack happened. So Zimmerman basically didn't get anywhere after he was told to quit following.

    These are the facts put into evidence. They do not support your fantasy of scared little rabbit Trayvon, being stalked and hunted.

    you cannot imagine Martin seeing confirmation that he had been stalked (by a guy wearing a gun). It surely would freak me out.
    You are deceptively implying that Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun. If you were "freaked out" would you seek the guy out and start a fight?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #408  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Regardless.

    It is tragic.

    One is dead.

    The other will never be safe again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #409  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Not to sound cold, but I don't consider it all that tragic.

    Tragedy is a baby being left in a dumpster or a homeless man being beaten to death for no reason.

    This is a case of two people making poor decisions and having to deal with the consequences of their actions. Nothing more.

    Unfortunately, rather than using this as an opportunity to learn from this case, it seems many people want to go around crying "racism" and "freedom" in order to further a cause. THAT might be the tragedy here.
    seagypsy likes this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #410  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,309
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    you cannot imagine Martin seeing confirmation that he had been stalked (by a guy wearing a gun). It surely would freak me out.
    You are deceptively implying that Martin knew Zimmerman had a gun. If you were "freaked out" would you seek the guy out and start a fight?
    As a teenager, like all teenager, before the judgement centers of the brain were fully developed--it would have been about even odds. I did far more stupid things at his age which I'd never do now.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #411  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Wendy Dorival's testimony might be of interest to those who think GZ's call to the non-emergency number was outrageously excessive. She was the police department contact for the neighborhood watch.

    Wendy Dorival FULL Testimony - 6/25/2013 - Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman Trial - YouTube

    Don West: If you see something suspicious, but you can't necessarily say I see a crime being committed, you're supposed to call the non-emergency number.
    Wendy: Yes, sometimes I would get questions like that, people say well how do I know if something's suspicious, I don't want to bother you guys for no reason, I say call us anyway, let us check it out. Let the law enforcement officers come and see what's going on, because it could be a bona fide suspicious activity or it could just be someone they might not recognize, someone new to the community. So we always encourage them to call.
    Don: So that's in fact one of the things you say is, if you see somebody that you don't recognize
    Wendy: Yes, so um and that's the important part why I tell neighborhood watches get to know your neighbor. Get to know who lives in your community. Cause then when someone who doesn't belong there you quickly identify them. Hey wait a minute I don't know this person, they probably don't belong here and call the police and have them check it out.
    Don: Do I take it that the basic way this works if it's going to work effectively is if you see anything that strikes you as out of place, or suspicious or a person that's unfamiliar you err on the side of making the call.
    Wendy: Yes
    Don: With the idea of someone who seems suspicious, do you talk in some detail with the neighbors, residents, about the kinds of things that might be suspicious, for example I guess someone you dont know would be one.
    Wendy: Yes
    Don: Someone that's in a place in the community that might be unusual
    Wendy: Yes. We talk about if you see a car driving around in circles, and you don't recognize the car in you community that might be suspicious. If people are walking around in areas that are not typically walked on, that could be suspicious.
    Don: For example coming through between houses where there's no sidewalk or pathway
    Wendy: Yeah
    Don: Someone that seems like they're trying to hide
    Wendy: Yes
    Don: Someone that seem that they're just maybe looking at cars, looking at windows, looking at houses
    Wendy: Yeah. People peering through windows, or peering through vehicles, or trying hard not to be noticed
    Don: Or people that seem to be doing something that may be a little inconsistent with what common sense tells you people would be doing in a similar circumstance for example walking around without any particular purpose in the rain. ...
    Wendy: Yeah, if there's no purpose then you know calling 911 or non emergency dispatch.
    Don: Non emergency in that situation.
    Wendy: Yeah because they're not posing a threat.
    Don: Not committing a crime you can see, just something about them doesn't seem quite right.
    Wendy: Yes
    seagypsy and babe like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #412  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Not to sound cold, but I don't consider it all that tragic.

    Tragedy is a baby being left in a dumpster or a homeless man being beaten to death for no reason.

    This is a case of two people making poor decisions and having to deal with the consequences of their actions. Nothing more.

    Unfortunately, rather than using this as an opportunity to learn from this case, it seems many people want to go around crying "racism" and "freedom" in order to further a cause. THAT might be the tragedy here.
    I disagree. A parent lost a child. That is tragic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #413  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Every parent loses their children. My perspective is not the same as most, but the moment your child no longer needs you, you no longer have a child. And losing loved ones is part of life. We all lose someone at some time in our lives. It's not tragic, it's common if not normal.

    I guess I will never quite understand the aversion to death that most animal life forms feel.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #414  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Every parent loses their children. My perspective is not the same as most, but the moment your child no longer needs you, you no longer have a child. And losing loved ones is part of life. We all lose someone at some time in our lives. It's not tragic, it's common if not normal.

    I guess I will never quite understand the aversion to death that most animal life forms feel.
    I disagree with you.

    It has nothing to do with aversion to death.

    Most parents lose their child in their lifetime. A parent is expected to go before a child. It is tragic. Each of my sisters have lost a child to death way, as the saying goes, "before their time.". My eldest sister's only son to pancreatic cancer, recently, and my younger sister's eldest daughter to murder in the first degree.

    I do not and will not, Science Forum or NOT describe my niece or my nephew as an ANIMAL. I had "animals" i.e. pets. That to me is an animal. My niece and nephew were FAMILY not animals. I find that extremely insulting and offensive.

    End of this discussion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #415  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Every parent loses their children. My perspective is not the same as most, but the moment your child no longer needs you, you no longer have a child. And losing loved ones is part of life. We all lose someone at some time in our lives. It's not tragic, it's common if not normal.

    I guess I will never quite understand the aversion to death that most animal life forms feel.
    I disagree with you.

    It has nothing to do with aversion to death.

    Most parents lose their child in their lifetime. A parent is expected to go before a child. It is tragic. Each of my sisters have lost a child to death way, as the saying goes, "before their time.". My eldest sister's only son to pancreatic cancer, recently, and my younger sister's eldest daughter to murder in the first degree.

    I do not and will not, Science Forum or NOT describe my niece or my nephew as an ANIMAL. I had "animals" i.e. pets. That to me is an animal. My niece and nephew were FAMILY not animals. I find that extremely insulting and offensive.

    End of this discussion.
    I'm sorry to have offended you. I consider my pets to be family members. I know lots of people who consider their pets to be family members and would grieve for them as much as they would a parent, child or otherwise.

    I understand your angst, sort of, but you misunderstood my words. I did not call your neice or nephew animals. Though I do consider all people to be animals, because that is what we are. But what I said was that I don't understand the aversion to death that all animal life forms have.
    Meaning every form of animal life, including humans, which are animals, have an aversion to death. That is why they do everything they can to stay alive. Birds fight to stay alive. Bears fight to stay alive. Kittens fight to stay alive. And humans fight to stay alive. As well as every other form of animal life. For that matter, plants fight to stay alive. When my cognitive processes short out, I will likely fight to stay alive.

    I simply do not comprehend on a cognitive level why life fears death.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #416  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by babe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    Every parent loses their children. My perspective is not the same as most, but the moment your child no longer needs you, you no longer have a child. And losing loved ones is part of life. We all lose someone at some time in our lives. It's not tragic, it's common if not normal.

    I guess I will never quite understand the aversion to death that most animal life forms feel.
    I disagree with you.

    It has nothing to do with aversion to death.

    Most parents lose their child in their lifetime. A parent is expected to go before a child. It is tragic. Each of my sisters have lost a child to death way, as the saying goes, "before their time.". My eldest sister's only son to pancreatic cancer, recently, and my younger sister's eldest daughter to murder in the first degree.

    I do not and will not, Science Forum or NOT describe my niece or my nephew as an ANIMAL. I had "animals" i.e. pets. That to me is an animal. My niece and nephew were FAMILY not animals. I find that extremely insulting and offensive.

    End of this discussion.
    I'm sorry to have offended you. I consider my pets to be family members. I know lots of people who consider their pets to be family members and would grieve for them as much as they would a parent, child or otherwise.

    I understand your angst, sort of, but you misunderstood my words. I did not call your neice or nephew animals. Though I do consider all people to be animals, because that is what we are. But what I said was that I don't understand the aversion to death that all animal life forms have.
    Meaning every form of animal life, including humans, which are animals, have an aversion to death. That is why they do everything they can to stay alive. Birds fight to stay alive. Bears fight to stay alive. Kittens fight to stay alive. And humans fight to stay alive. As well as every other form of animal life. For that matter, plants fight to stay alive. When my cognitive processes short out, I will likely fight to stay alive.

    I simply do not comprehend on a cognitive level why life fears death.
    Fair enough.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #417  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Kojax,
    The stand your ground laws make it ok to stand your ground. That doesn't mean you can automatically expect that the person you are standing your ground against won't mistake your intentions, and attempt to defend themselves from you.

    It's up to the person who is doing the standing of ground, to make it clear for their intended opponent. Because otherwise, the opponent is well within reason to think their ground standing assailant might be trying to rob them, or kidnap them, or otherwise attack them without cause.

    To set the burden of responsibility any other way would be to require someone to have psychic powers.
    IMO, you just touched on the crux of the matter.

    It is a matter of conditioning how to respond to a given situation.

    question, was Martin walking in an alley (a public) service path or trespassing on everyone's real property. Was this a shortcut to his destination or was he "obviously" skulking and acting in a suspicious manner?

    If yes, Zimmerman may have had sufficient reason to call the cops, whereupon he should have stayed in his truck and wait for the police, which he did not.

    If no, Martin may have had sufficient reason to react to what he perceived as a threat by a large man following him, whereupon he should have called the police (instead of his girlfriend). But from the tel conversation, we know that before anything happened, Martin was concerned about this stranger following him for no apparent reason and decided to confront this stalker.
    The witness who recounted that telephone call for the court had lied on two other occasions during the process. She's not overwhelmingly reliable.

    But yeah. He probably did feel threatened.


    Contrary to what was said about my knowledge of the law, again, I stipulated that the jury had no option to find as they did....but IMO, Zimmerman did not follow proper procedure as instructed by the police and apparently persisted in following Martin on foot, thereby creating a unpredictable situation. A teenager placed in a unpredictable situation may do stupid things. In this case it cost him his life, in effect proving that he had reason to be concerned.
    I'm sure every parent wishes that teenagers could do stupid things and not be in danger thereby. Unfortunately that wish doesn't line up very well with any likely reality.

    Male teenagers will always have a somewhat high death rate due to dumb stuff they do, especially ones who idealize dangerous lifestyles.

    I believe from the responses that most posts on this subject was from the standpoint of law abiding whites.
    But even as I am lily white, I am married to a minority woman. When we go to a store (here in Idaho), I am addressed as "Sir", my wife often is ignored or treated with casual disdain. Once she was just blatantly pushed out of the check out line by a white woman who just thought she could shove this Indian aside as if she did not even exist. When my wife protested, the woman yelled, "help, help, she is hitting me". Fortunately the store manager was available and after confirming my wife's story from witnesses, that woman was asked to leave the store.

    My wife has been subject to such slights all her 65 years and I can see the cultural bias, almost everyday. Many times we have come home, with my wife in tears from deep and profound pain for being viewed as stranger in a strange land.

    Actually, my wife is an original (native) American and has more right than anyone to be treated as a human being. She is a nurse and may well be caring for your grandmother. Why is she perceived as an illegal immigrant? Someone once told her to go back to her cave! And more than once she has bee told to go back where she came from. Go back to where, the US?
    You say you live in Idaho??? Why?!!? That's got to be the single most racist state in the union. Honest to goodness skinhead communities live there.

    You can't honestly be taking any racist experience you've had in Idaho as being typical to the rest of the USA. The woman who did that to your wife might very easily have been a skinhead's wife.




    Thus, from personal experience, I can well understand Martin's reactions, a single black teenager being placed in a situation which to him spelled danger, even as he was not doing anything illegal. Does anyone here know Martin's state of mind, other than being accused of taking suspicious actions?
    Yes.... your personal experience .............living in IDAHO.

    The question was asked if Martin had any culpability and the answer is yes. But does that close the matter? All I am doing is asking if Zimmerman was free from culpability?
    He shouldn't need to be utterly, perfectly, spotlessly, free of culpability. That's an unfair standard. Then only saints could defend themselves.

    Why this presumption of guilt on Martin's part and not Zimmerman? They both made phone calls expressing their reactions to the event directly preceding the shooting.
    Each made a phone call, Martin just made it to the wrong person. He called his sister, as a teenager this is understandable. OTOH Zimmerman called the cops and ignored their instructions.
    Also Zimmerman's phone call comes to us from a reliable witness, while Martin's phone call comes from a witness who was caught lying twice.

    IMO, there is culpability (from the actions taken) by both parties. Being "on the job" does not carry more weight than the right to walk home in an alley way.

    What was Martin's motive for his actions, and what was Zimmerman's motive for his actions? No one will ever know.
    It's very rare in any case that we would know that much. You're aiming for an impossible standard.

    The right to self defense would be virtually useless if every time you exercised it you needed to be standing in front of a video camera, with 20 witnesses, waiting for your opponent to draw their gun first and have it aimed at your head and have fired and missed (just to prove *for certain* that they intended to fire it), before you could draw yours.

    In any practically possible world, there will be many cases like Zimmerman/Martin, and we just have to live with it.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #418  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Kojax, you comment, i.e. how every parent wishes their child doesn't do something stupid!

    HOW TRUE is that!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #419  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    You say you live in Idaho??? Why?!!? That's got to be the single most racist state in the union. Honest to goodness skinhead communities live there.
    My experiences with Idaho (And speaking from a Native American Viewpoint- Lakota) have been just as bad as this observation you made here.
    An extensive skinhead grouping...

    I had read Write4U's post... but I knew I wouldn't have much emotional control on replying to it.
    His needle is stuck in the groove. Such as here:
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    OTOH Zimmerman called the cops and ignored their instructions.
    ...Siiigh....
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    It's very rare in any case that we would know that much. You're aiming for an impossible standard.

    The right to self defense would be virtually useless if every time you exercised it you needed to be standing in front of a video camera, with 20 witnesses, waiting for your opponent to draw their gun first and have it aimed at your head and have fired and missed (just to prove *for certain* that they intended to fire it), before you could draw yours.

    In any practically possible world, there will be many cases like Zimmerman/Martin, and we just have to live with it.
    Raised thumb not for hitchhiking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #420  
    Theatre Whore babe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977
    Posts
    12,440
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Kojax,
    The stand your ground laws make it ok to stand your ground. That doesn't mean you can automatically expect that the person you are standing your ground against won't mistake your intentions, and attempt to defend themselves from you.

    It's up to the person who is doing the standing of ground, to make it clear for their intended opponent. Because otherwise, the opponent is well within reason to think their ground standing assailant might be trying to rob them, or kidnap them, or otherwise attack them without cause.

    Year ago, while touring and doing shows...one (fair circuit was and is still huge) the Idaho State Fair.


    To set the burden of responsibility any other way would be to require someone to have psychic powers.
    IMO, you just touched on the crux of the matter.

    It is a matter of conditioning how to respond to a given situation.

    question, was Martin walking in an alley (a public) service path or trespassing on everyone's real property. Was this a shortcut to his destination or was he "obviously" skulking and acting in a suspicious manner?

    If yes, Zimmerman may have had sufficient reason to call the cops, whereupon he should have stayed in his truck and wait for the police, which he did not.

    If no, Martin may have had sufficient reason to react to what he perceived as a threat by a large man following him, whereupon he should have called the police (instead of his girlfriend). But from the tel conversation, we know that before anything happened, Martin was concerned about this stranger following him for no apparent reason and decided to confront this stalker.
    The witness who recounted that telephone call for the court had lied on two other occasions during the process. She's not overwhelmingly reliable.

    But yeah. He probably did feel threatened.


    Contrary to what was said about my knowledge of the law, again, I stipulated that the jury had no option to find as they did....but IMO, Zimmerman did not follow proper procedure as instructed by the police and apparently persisted in following Martin on foot, thereby creating a unpredictable situation. A teenager placed in a unpredictable situation may do stupid things. In this case it cost him his life, in effect proving that he had reason to be concerned.
    I'm sure every parent wishes that teenagers could do stupid things and not be in danger thereby. Unfortunately that wish doesn't line up very well with any likely reality.

    Male teenagers will always have a somewhat high death rate due to dumb stuff they do, especially ones who idealize dangerous lifestyles.

    I believe from the responses that most posts on this subject was from the standpoint of law abiding whites.
    But even as I am lily white, I am married to a minority woman. When we go to a store (here in Idaho), I am addressed as "Sir", my wife often is ignored or treated with casual disdain. Once she was just blatantly pushed out of the check out line by a white woman who just thought she could shove this Indian aside as if she did not even exist. When my wife protested, the woman yelled, "help, help, she is hitting me". Fortunately the store manager was available and after confirming my wife's story from witnesses, that woman was asked to leave the store.

    My wife has been subject to such slights all her 65 years and I can see the cultural bias, almost everyday. Many times we have come home, with my wife in tears from deep and profound pain for being viewed as stranger in a strange land.

    Actually, my wife is an original (native) American and has more right than anyone to be treated as a human being. She is a nurse and may well be caring for your grandmother. Why is she perceived as an illegal immigrant? Someone once told her to go back to her cave! And more than once she has bee told to go back where she came from. Go back to where, the US?
    You say you live in Idaho??? Why?!!? That's got to be the single most racist state in the union. Honest to goodness skinhead communities live there.

    You can't honestly be taking any racist experience you've had in Idaho as being typical to the rest of the USA. The woman who did that to your wife might very easily have been a skinhead's wife.




    Thus, from personal experience, I can well understand Martin's reactions, a single black teenager being placed in a situation which to him spelled danger, even as he was not doing anything illegal. Does anyone here know Martin's state of mind, other than being accused of taking suspicious actions?
    Yes.... your personal experience .............living in IDAHO.

    The question was asked if Martin had any culpability and the answer is yes. But does that close the matter? All I am doing is asking if Zimmerman was free from culpability?
    He shouldn't need to be utterly, perfectly, spotlessly, free of culpability. That's an unfair standard. Then only saints could defend themselves.

    Why this presumption of guilt on Martin's part and not Zimmerman? They both made phone calls expressing their reactions to the event directly preceding the shooting.
    Each made a phone call, Martin just made it to the wrong person. He called his sister, as a teenager this is understandable. OTOH Zimmerman called the cops and ignored their instructions.
    Also Zimmerman's phone call comes to us from a reliable witness, while Martin's phone call comes from a witness who was caught lying twice.

    IMO, there is culpability (from the actions taken) by both parties. Being "on the job" does not carry more weight than the right to walk home in an alley way.

    What was Martin's motive for his actions, and what was Zimmerman's motive for his actions? No one will ever know.
    It's very rare in any case that we would know that much. You're aiming for an impossible standard.

    The right to self defense would be virtually useless if every time you exercised it you needed to be standing in front of a video camera, with 20 witnesses, waiting for your opponent to draw their gun first and have it aimed at your head and have fired and missed (just to prove *for certain* that they intended to fire it), before you could draw yours.

    In any practically possible world, there will be many cases like Zimmerman/Martin, and we just have to live with it.

    Four of us went into a restaurant, to get something to eat before our show. We sat at the table and no one would serve us.

    We sat, and sat, and finally, we figured it out. My was black. They wouldn't serve us because we had a black man sitting with us. I had never, ever, even considered that an issue, and had never come across it before.

    It blew me away.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #421  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post


    All right, let's discuss the injuries on Zimmerman's head, and see if they could be caused by one fall onto the concrete. I've just been watching some of the testimony on youtube. The prosecution's medical examiner, Valerie Rao, claimed that the two lacerations on the back of his skull could have been caused by a single impact on the concrete. She used the following explanation, which didn't make any sense to me, and was later contradicted by the defense's expert, Vincent DiMaio.
    Zimmerman's injuries show a broken nose, black eyes, cuts to the back of his head with quite a bit of bleeding, which often happens with a head injury.

    Martin did not have any of Zimmerman's DNA under his fingernails and the only thing they found on his hands which may corroborate Zimmerman's account was a small laceration on his ring finger of his left hand. I think it was half an inch in length?

    Here we have someone apparently beating someone so heavily that the other person ends up with a broken nose which was bleeding, two black eyes and had apparently hit him so hard, that he then grabbed his head and pounded it into the pavement. And there was no bruising to his knuckles? No swelling? No DNA under his fingernails? None of Zimmerman's blood on his clothes, especially the wrists of his sweatshirt? How can you beat someone so hard that you break their nose and give them two black eyes and the only thing you have showing for it is a small cut on a ring finger? That makes no sense to me.

    The laceration on the back of Zimmerman's head. He had no hair. I have two boys. I have seen my kids fall over while running and playing and when they get up, they get cuts to their faces, heads or their limbs which bleed. One once fell over while running in a cross country race at school and he ended up with a black eye (initial impact was the left side of his face), half his face swollen and thankfully, the cut he received from face planting the ground was in his hairline, leaving no scars. It is more than possible that he could have fallen over and gotten the cuts to the back of his head that way. Because if you are grabbing someone's head and slamming it down onto the ground, and your sleeves aren't rolled up, he should have had some blood on his sleeves, near the cuffs especially. There would have been residual DNA there, even after the rain (blood doesn't wash out that easily from clothes).

    If you think about it, grab a ball, as an example, with both hands or even one hand, and try and slam it into the ground. The cuffs of your sleeves, unless pulled up and the photos at the scene say nothing that they were pulled up, would have gotten some blood on them. If you are gripping someone's head so hard that you're able to repel their resistance to that hold and slam it down to the ground, you wouldn't be holding their heads with your fingers bent backwards, but you would be gripping on very tightly with probably the tips of your fingers curved in to get a strong grip on the person wriggling and supposedly trying to fight you off.

    And there is no evidence of that type of struggle on Martin. Not a one.

    So perhaps someone can explain to me, how that is possible?

    Lab report on DNA findings and what was tested: http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/n...t_7_26_12_.pdf

    Martin's autopsy report: Trayvon Martin autopsy report

    Uh, okay if she says so, but when I took geometry, a round or protruding surface could only intersect a plane at one point.
    Also, even Ms Rau admitted that there were also several contusions as well as punctate abrasions on the side of his head consistent with impact from concrete. So, I do think this pretty much shows that Martin did hit Zimmerman's head on the concrete. If not, then how did the injuries occur?
    Watch my kid trip over and faceplant the ground and it might give you some indication of how easy it is to get those kinds of injuries.

    Why do you keep misusing legal terms? He didn't need probable cause. Zimmerman already explained what was suspicious. Walking slowly in the rain, and walking in the grass between buildings.
    Have you looked at the image of where this chase occurred? The aerial photo, showing where he was shot, where Zimmerman's car was parked - someone posted it here earlier in this thread? Did you look at the houses in that photo? The houses are like townhouses, joined together, with open laneways between each block, which then seem to connect to the footpath running between blocks. Those open lane ways are grassy. He wasn't walking into people's yards, but from those photos, it looks as if he was walking in open and public lane ways that are there to allow people to actually access the blocks behind the ones that are closest to the road. If it was raining and he was using those, he may have been using those to allow him to get to his father's house a lot faster, instead of taking the long way, which would have been the case if he hadn't used those lane ways and stuck to the footpaths.

    I'm not sure what you mean by this. Don't you think the authorities should be involved? I mean you don't want the neighborhood watches going off and acting on their own.
    Zimmerman's Neighborhood Watch was never registered.

    So he had gone off on his own. He was self appointed as the head of the Watch group.

    That's easy. One had a busted nose and various lacerations, contusions and abrasions on his head. The other one didn't.
    No, the other one was shot dead.

    Remember, he had 4 minutes after which Zimmerman lost sight of him. Enough time to get home and come back again several times. It was a very dark night, and all he had to do was get 20 or 30 yards away, and he'd be out of sight. He decided not to do that. Meanwhile, Zimmerman wasn't chasing him all over the place like the prosecution alleged. He basically stayed down at one end of the row of houses. Zimmerman's small flashlight and a key chain were found at the T of the dog walk. That's where the attack happened. So Zimmerman basically didn't get anywhere after he was told to quit following.
    Did you watch his re-enactment video?

    The part where the non-emergency 911 operator told him that he did not have to keep following Martin, Zimmerman describes that he was walking up the path when the operator told him that he did not have to do that. So he says that he kept walking up the same path that he had taken, when he had started to follow Martin. He claims that he went up there to get an address, then he said he told the operator to tell the police to go to his car instead. He then turns around and starts walking back to his car, and in doing so, he walks back to the point where he said he had lost sight of Martin and that was when Martin confronts him. So if you watch his re-enactment, you can see that he keeps walking up the path and does not turn around straight away when the police told him he didn't have to follow Martin. The part where he is walking up the path commences from 6:30 or so of the re-enactment he did with the police. Watch it to the end and you will see.

    People seem to believe that he turned back straight away towards his car when the 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow Martin.

    He kept walking. After standing there and looking down the side lane where he lost Martin, he decided to keep going up the lane to supposedly find an address to give to the police and in doing so, moved further up and away from his car. And then after he got to the end of the lane, he then told the police to just meet him at his truck instead, when he couldn't get the address. So he then turns back and walks down the lane, back towards where he had parked his truck and initially followed Martin on foot. When he gets back to the sidelane (the T of that path) where he had lost Martin, Martin then confronts him. And that is where the altercation happened.

    To Martin, it is quite possible that he could have thought Zimmerman was doubling back to look for him. Because Zimmerman didn't turn around and walk right back to his truck when he was told to stop following him. He kept walking up the lane, past the T and got to the other end.. He got to the end, and that was when he told the police to meet him at his car instead and then he walked back to the side lane where he had lost Martin and as he walked past there a second time was when Martin then confronted him.

    So you are wrong about Zimmerman not getting anywhere after he was told to stop following Martin. He kept walking up the path to the street on the other side to find a house number and after he couldn't find it, then came back down - ie he doubled back towards that T in the path where he had thought he had lost Martin and as he got to that T was when Martin then confronted him and in his words, asked him what his problem was. In his re-enactment with the police, at no time did Zimmerman say that he identified himself to Martin, even when Martin confronted him when he doubled back towards the T where he had originally lost Martin on foot and where he was told to stop following him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #422  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    I have beaten someone bloody before without getting their blood on me. Thing is you can get cut and the blood wont flow for a few seconds. I have cut myself pretty deep with a knife not leaving any blood on it. Unless you have ever been in a situation where blood doesn't transfer like in the movies, I can see why you would assume that drawing blood on someone you fight with doesn't always mean that blood just explodes everywhere. The fight also happened in the rain. it would have been washed away from the cuts immediately as it came out.

    You also have to hit someone pretty damned hard to cut your knuckles on their face unless you hit them in the teeth.

    And you only have to hit someone once to produce two black eyes. a broken nose is often the cause of two black eyes. If you punch someone directly in the nose hard enough to break it, you will black both of their eyes in the process.

    Also someone doesn't have to grip your head to slam it into the ground. Zimmerman didn't have enough hair to grip. According to the enactment Martin grabbed Zimmerman by the sides of the head where most people have convenient handles in the form of ears. If the victim is already disoriented and dizzy from being punched in the nose hard enough to break it and blacken their eyes, they aren't likely going to have much strength available to resist having their head slammed. Not to mention, just being punched while on the ground will bounce your head on the ground and having someone forcibly holding your mouth and nose shut to keep you quiet will add injuries to the back of the head. Then there was the verbal threat issued by Martin to Zimmerman, that Zimmerman would "die tonight" which would have given Zimmerman enough reason to believe that Martin intended to kill him.

    Swelling also is not an instant thing to happen. I'd need to ask a doctor, but I would think a person would have to be alive long enough for swelling to occur. Blood circulation is necessary for swelling to occur. It is also widely known that lowering the temperature of the wounded area will reduce swelling. If Martin's body was cold from elements as well as death in general, blood circulation stopped due to the heart not beating, I don't see much chance for swelling to occur.


    Source-
    Effect of injury:-
    The immediate result may not be visible as it may take sometime for the bruise to appear. The changes produced will be
    those of-
    1. Swelling (which will be painful).
    2. Discolouration.
    The discolouration becomes more marked with the lapse of time and show some colour changes as well.

    Note- 1. It is always advisible that a medical officer should re-examine the body after 24 hours as by this time the bruises are very clearly visible.
    2. Bruises produced at the time of death show little swelling.
    3. Bruises become more marked in victims who survive for sometime.
    4. Special photography should be used for demonstrating early bruises
    I added color to part of most importance


    Also, with it raining, Zimmerman's blood would have been washed downward away from Martin's body since the injured areas of Zimmerman were exposed areas of his body (ie his face and head). Blood only squirts if you hit a major artery.

    Martin's injury was on a clothed part of his body. Most hoodies are made of fleece which is rather absorbant and it would have slowed down the trickle of blood from Martin to Zimmerman. And it's not likely that after Martin was shot, he remained hovering over Zimmerman long enough to have gotten blood all over Zimmerman.

    The neighborhood watch organization in that article claiming that they did not have the neighborhood watch program registered is meaningless. That organization does not hold any authority over neighborhood organized watch programs. The local police department recognized and participated in the neighborhood watch that was organized by their local homeowners association, Zimmerman initiated the process that organized the watch in their neighborhood. They were not told they could not carry a weapon as watch members.

    That article is misleading and putting spin on things in order to create the illusion that Zimmerman was some lone nutjob out on a vigilante thrill ride. This is why we should stick to actual evidence rather than spun media bullshit.

    Wendy Dorival was the Sanford police neighborhood watch coordinator that helped to form the "Retreat at Twin Lakes" neighborhood watch program. Dorival testified as to various roles and duties that volunteers have within the neighborhood watch program, and that watch participants are instructed not to follow or confront suspects, but only to call the police to report suspicious activity. She said that Zimmerman called to organize a watch program, and about 25 residents attended the meeting. Because Zimmerman told her he was selected as the coordinator by the HOA, she gave Zimmerman the watch coordinator handbook, which instructed watch participants not to confront suspects and that the watch is "not the vigilante police". On cross-examination, she testified that the community was worried about recent burglaries, and that the community was not walled-in, so non-residents could enter and exit other than at the gates. Dorival testified that she attempted to recruit Zimmerman as a "Citizen on Patrol", but that he refused. She testified that she did not give any instructions about watch participants not being allowed to carry a gun as watch members. She testified that people should err on the side of caution and make calls to police if they think something might be suspicious, and categorized "walking in the rain without a purpose" as something that could be suspicious
    Source
    Last edited by seagypsy; July 27th, 2013 at 02:15 PM. Reason: found info
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #423  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Zimmerman's injuries show a broken nose, black eyes, cuts to the back of his head with quite a bit of bleeding, which often happens with a head injury.


    Martin did not have any of Zimmerman's DNA under his fingernails and the only thing they found on his hands which may corroborate Zimmerman's account was a small laceration on his ring finger of his left hand. I think it was half an inch in length?


    Here we have someone apparently beating someone so heavily that the other person ends up with a broken nose which was bleeding, two black eyes and had apparently hit him so hard, that he then grabbed his head and pounded it into the pavement. And there was no bruising to his knuckles? No swelling? No DNA under his fingernails?


    None of Zimmerman's blood on his clothes, especially the wrists of his sweatshirt? How can you beat someone so hard that you break their nose and give them two black eyes and the only thing you have showing for it is a small cut on a ring finger? That makes no sense to me.
    This is an argument from incredulity. There's no doubt GZ had the injuries. If he didn't get them from TM, where did they come from?What sort of theory are you trying to spin? Your incredulous tone doesn't mean much to me, as I don't really know how likely it is to leave DNA.
    Because if you are grabbing someone's head and slamming it down onto the ground, and your sleeves aren't rolled up, he should have had some blood on his sleeves, near the cuffs especially. There would have been residual DNA there, even after the rain (blood doesn't wash out that easily from clothes).
    Do you also know the clothes were mishandled by being put away wet in a plastic bag?


    And there is no evidence of that type of struggle on Martin. Not a one.

    So perhaps someone can explain to me, how that is possible?
    Yep, he was really kicking George's ass, and hardly got a scratch on him.



    Zimmerman's Neighborhood Watch was never registered.
    So what?
    So he had gone off on his own. He was self appointed as the head of the Watch group.
    Where does this "self appointed" crap come from? He was asked to do it by the homeowner's association.
    That's easy. One had a busted nose and various lacerations, contusions and abrasions on his head. The other one didn't.
    No, the other one was shot dead.
    The question was, who started the fight. Not who ended it.
    Remember, he had 4 minutes after which Zimmerman lost sight of him. Enough time to get home and come back again several times. It was a very dark night, and all he had to do was get 20 or 30 yards away, and he'd be out of sight. He decided not to do that. Meanwhile, Zimmerman wasn't chasing him all over the place like the prosecution alleged. He basically stayed down at one end of the row of houses. Zimmerman's small flashlight and a key chain were found at the T of the dog walk. That's where the attack happened. So Zimmerman basically didn't get anywhere after he was told to quit following.
    Did you watch his re-enactment video?


    The part where the non-emergency 911 operator told him that he did not have to keep following Martin, Zimmerman describes that he was walking up the path when the operator told him that he did not have to do that. So he says that he kept walking up the same path that he had taken, when he had started to follow Martin. He claims that he went up there to get an address, then he said he told the operator to tell the police to go to his car instead. He then turns around and starts walking back to his car, and in doing so, he walks back to the point where he said he had lost sight of Martin and that was when Martin confronts him. So if you watch his re-enactment, you can see that he keeps walking up the path and does not turn around straight away when the police told him he didn't have to follow Martin. The part where he is walking up the path commences from 6:30 or so of the re-enactment he did with the police. Watch it to the end and you will see.
    Going to look for an address is not following. He didn't even know where TM had gone at that time. I said he "basically" didn't get anywhere because he ended up where he started and covered very little ground.
    People seem to believe that he turned back straight away towards his car when the 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow Martin.
    If they believe that, they're wrong, because a couple of minutes went by between the end of his non-emergency call and the altercation. Still, there isn't anything disproving what he said in the reenactment.
    He kept walking. After standing there and looking down the side lane where he lost Martin, he decided to keep going up the lane to supposedly find an address to give to the police and in doing so, moved further up and away from his car. And then after he got to the end of the lane, he then told the police to just meet him at his truck instead, when he couldn't get the address. So he then turns back and walks down the lane, back towards where he had parked his truck and initially followed Martin on foot. When he gets back to the sidelane (the T of that path) where he had lost Martin, Martin then confronts him. And that is where the altercation happened.
    Then you agree GZ was headed back to the car and TM confronted him? Thank you. Angela Corey's fraudulent indictment states GZ confronted TM. No wonder she bypassed the grand jury.
    To Martin, it is quite possible that he could have thought Zimmerman was doubling back to look for him. Because Zimmerman didn't turn around and walk right back to his truck when he was told to stop following him. He kept walking up the lane, past the T and got to the other end.. He got to the end, and that was when he told the police to meet him at his car instead and then he walked back to the side lane where he had lost Martin and as he walked past there a second time was when Martin then confronted him.


    So you are wrong about Zimmerman not getting anywhere after he was told to stop following Martin. He kept walking up the path to the street on the other side to find a house number and after he couldn't find it, then came back down - ie he doubled back towards that T in the path where he had thought he had lost Martin and as he got to that T was when Martin then confronted him and in his words, asked him what his problem was. In his re-enactment with the police, at no time did Zimmerman say that he identified himself to Martin, even when Martin confronted him when he doubled back towards the T where he had originally lost Martin on foot and where he was told to stop following him.
    It's a ridiculous scenario you are painting because the distance GZ covered was really negligible. You are trying to paint it as if he actually covered some ground. Clearly, TM was not trying to get away. He either stayed there waiting for GZ, or doubled back on him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #424  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Martin did not have any of Zimmerman's DNA under his fingernails and the only thing they found on his hands which may corroborate Zimmerman's account was a small laceration on his ring finger of his left hand. I think it was half an inch in length?

    Here we have someone apparently beating someone so heavily that the other person ends up with a broken nose which was bleeding, two black eyes and had apparently hit him so hard, that he then grabbed his head and pounded it into the pavement. And there was no bruising to his knuckles? No swelling? No DNA under his fingernails? None of Zimmerman's blood on his clothes, especially the wrists of his sweatshirt? How can you beat someone so hard that you break their nose and give them two black eyes and the only thing you have showing for it is a small cut on a ring finger? That makes no sense to me.
    You have to remember that Martin died. I'm not sure exactly how death affects swelling and bruising, so I can't say this for sure, but I suspect that had Martin lived he might have had the appropriate bruises on his hands later on. The rain might have slowed the swelling while he was still fighting.

    But he died, and his heart stopped, so blood stopped flowing to his hands. (Someone who who really knows the medical aspects of it might have something different to say, though. Maybe corpses are more likely instead of less likely to show swelling/bruising?)

    As for any blood, it was..... raining?


    The laceration on the back of Zimmerman's head. He had no hair. I have two boys. I have seen my kids fall over while running and playing and when they get up, they get cuts to their faces, heads or their limbs which bleed. One once fell over while running in a cross country race at school and he ended up with a black eye (initial impact was the left side of his face), half his face swollen and thankfully, the cut he received from face planting the ground was in his hairline, leaving no scars. It is more than possible that he could have fallen over and gotten the cuts to the back of his head that way. Because if you are grabbing someone's head and slamming it down onto the ground, and your sleeves aren't rolled up, he should have had some blood on his sleeves, near the cuffs especially. There would have been residual DNA there, even after the rain (blood doesn't wash out that easily from clothes).
    That's not impossible. It could have been all due to the fall.
    But is the faintest possibility enough to send a man to prison for life?

    I asked this before and I don't think I got an answer: of what practical use is the right to self defense if you can only plead self defense when you have overwhelming evidence?



    If you think about it, grab a ball, as an example, with both hands or even one hand, and try and slam it into the ground. The cuffs of your sleeves, unless pulled up and the photos at the scene say nothing that they were pulled up, would have gotten some blood on them. If you are gripping someone's head so hard that you're able to repel their resistance to that hold and slam it down to the ground, you wouldn't be holding their heads with your fingers bent backwards, but you would be gripping on very tightly with probably the tips of your fingers curved in to get a strong grip on the person wriggling and supposedly trying to fight you off.
    When I did it to that kid on recess I didn't need both hands, and I didn't need a tight group. A person's forehead is pretty easy to grip with one hand, and you wouldn't curl your fingers around far enough to actually touch their skin with your fingernails.

    Think of palming a basketball, and then consider that a human head is actually shaped more like a small watermelon. If you put your palm at the top of the nose, and reach your fingers over the crown of their head, you can do it one handed. Also there's that helpful neck at the bottom of the head, which supports it on the bottom. Also in a fight, they may help you out by trying to raise their head off the ground, so all you have to do is slam it back down.

    Why do you keep misusing legal terms? He didn't need probable cause. Zimmerman already explained what was suspicious. Walking slowly in the rain, and walking in the grass between buildings.
    Have you looked at the image of where this chase occurred? The aerial photo, showing where he was shot, where Zimmerman's car was parked - someone posted it here earlier in this thread? Did you look at the houses in that photo? The houses are like townhouses, joined together, with open laneways between each block, which then seem to connect to the footpath running between blocks. Those open lane ways are grassy. He wasn't walking into people's yards, but from those photos, it looks as if he was walking in open and public lane ways that are there to allow people to actually access the blocks behind the ones that are closest to the road. If it was raining and he was using those, he may have been using those to allow him to get to his father's house a lot faster, instead of taking the long way, which would have been the case if he hadn't used those lane ways and stuck to the footpaths.

    Martin almost certainly was just taking a shortcut, as you mentioned, but that doesn't mean Zimmerman knew that. If Martin didn't run, and waited for the officer to show up, the matter could have been resolved easily.

    The part where the non-emergency 911 operator told him that he did not have to keep following Martin, Zimmerman describes that he was walking up the path when the operator told him that he did not have to do that. So he says that he kept walking up the same path that he had taken, when he had started to follow Martin. He claims that he went up there to get an address, then he said he told the operator to tell the police to go to his car instead. He then turns around and starts walking back to his car, and in doing so, he walks back to the point where he said he had lost sight of Martin and that was when Martin confronts him. So if you watch his re-enactment, you can see that he keeps walking up the path and does not turn around straight away when the police told him he didn't have to follow Martin. The part where he is walking up the path commences from 6:30 or so of the re-enactment he did with the police. Watch it to the end and you will see.

    People seem to believe that he turned back straight away towards his car when the 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow Martin.

    He kept walking. After standing there and looking down the side lane where he lost Martin, he decided to keep going up the lane to supposedly find an address to give to the police and in doing so, moved further up and away from his car. And then after he got to the end of the lane, he then told the police to just meet him at his truck instead, when he couldn't get the address. So he then turns back and walks down the lane, back towards where he had parked his truck and initially followed Martin on foot. When he gets back to the sidelane (the T of that path) where he had lost Martin, Martin then confronts him. And that is where the altercation happened.

    To Martin, it is quite possible that he could have thought Zimmerman was doubling back to look for him. Because Zimmerman didn't turn around and walk right back to his truck when he was told to stop following him. He kept walking up the lane, past the T and got to the other end.. He got to the end, and that was when he told the police to meet him at his car instead and then he walked back to the side lane where he had lost Martin and as he walked past there a second time was when Martin then confronted him.

    So you are wrong about Zimmerman not getting anywhere after he was told to stop following Martin. He kept walking up the path to the street on the other side to find a house number and after he couldn't find it, then came back down - ie he doubled back towards that T in the path where he had thought he had lost Martin and as he got to that T was when Martin then confronted him and in his words, asked him what his problem was. In his re-enactment with the police, at no time did Zimmerman say that he identified himself to Martin, even when Martin confronted him when he doubled back towards the T where he had originally lost Martin on foot and where he was told to stop following him.

    He followed him for less than a full city block. Yes he was wrong to do that. Was he wrong enough to deserve life in prison for doing that? I don't think so.

    When Martin attacked Zimmerman, was Martin wrong enough to deserve to die? I don't know. It depends on whether he was really trying to kill Zimmerman. And we don't know whether he was or not.

    The head injuries could have come from the initial fall, or been inflicted purposefully. If they were inflicted purposefully then Martin deserved to be shot for his trouble. That's a potentially lethal injury, and you should never inflict such injuries on another person unless you're comfortable having lethal injuries inflicted on you as well.

    If we wasn't trying to kill Zimmerman then he may have deserved punishment, but he certainly didn't deserve to die. He was just unlucky. Sometimes people are unlucky.

    You can't always go looking for a scapegoat when bad luck strikes. Otherwise you'll spend your life always thinking there's an evil boogey man under the bed.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #425  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Zimmerman's injuries show a broken nose, black eyes, cuts to the back of his head with quite a bit of bleeding, which often happens with a head injury.


    Martin did not have any of Zimmerman's DNA under his fingernails and the only thing they found on his hands which may corroborate Zimmerman's account was a small laceration on his ring finger of his left hand. I think it was half an inch in length?


    Here we have someone apparently beating someone so heavily that the other person ends up with a broken nose which was bleeding, two black eyes and had apparently hit him so hard, that he then grabbed his head and pounded it into the pavement. And there was no bruising to his knuckles? No swelling? No DNA under his fingernails?


    None of Zimmerman's blood on his clothes, especially the wrists of his sweatshirt? How can you beat someone so hard that you break their nose and give them two black eyes and the only thing you have showing for it is a small cut on a ring finger? That makes no sense to me.
    This is an argument from incredulity. There's no doubt GZ had the injuries. If he didn't get them from TM, where did they come from?What sort of theory are you trying to spin? Your incredulous tone doesn't mean much to me, as I don't really know how likely it is to leave DNA.
    Because if you are grabbing someone's head and slamming it down onto the ground, and your sleeves aren't rolled up, he should have had some blood on his sleeves, near the cuffs especially. There would have been residual DNA there, even after the rain (blood doesn't wash out that easily from clothes).
    Do you also know the clothes were mishandled by being put away wet in a plastic bag?


    And there is no evidence of that type of struggle on Martin. Not a one.

    So perhaps someone can explain to me, how that is possible?
    Yep, he was really kicking George's ass, and hardly got a scratch on him.



    Zimmerman's Neighborhood Watch was never registered.
    So what?
    So he had gone off on his own. He was self appointed as the head of the Watch group.
    Where does this "self appointed" crap come from? He was asked to do it by the homeowner's association.
    That's easy. One had a busted nose and various lacerations, contusions and abrasions on his head. The other one didn't.
    No, the other one was shot dead.
    The question was, who started the fight. Not who ended it.
    Remember, he had 4 minutes after which Zimmerman lost sight of him. Enough time to get home and come back again several times. It was a very dark night, and all he had to do was get 20 or 30 yards away, and he'd be out of sight. He decided not to do that. Meanwhile, Zimmerman wasn't chasing him all over the place like the prosecution alleged. He basically stayed down at one end of the row of houses. Zimmerman's small flashlight and a key chain were found at the T of the dog walk. That's where the attack happened. So Zimmerman basically didn't get anywhere after he was told to quit following.
    Did you watch his re-enactment video?


    The part where the non-emergency 911 operator told him that he did not have to keep following Martin, Zimmerman describes that he was walking up the path when the operator told him that he did not have to do that. So he says that he kept walking up the same path that he had taken, when he had started to follow Martin. He claims that he went up there to get an address, then he said he told the operator to tell the police to go to his car instead. He then turns around and starts walking back to his car, and in doing so, he walks back to the point where he said he had lost sight of Martin and that was when Martin confronts him. So if you watch his re-enactment, you can see that he keeps walking up the path and does not turn around straight away when the police told him he didn't have to follow Martin. The part where he is walking up the path commences from 6:30 or so of the re-enactment he did with the police. Watch it to the end and you will see.
    Going to look for an address is not following. He didn't even know where TM had gone at that time. I said he "basically" didn't get anywhere because he ended up where he started and covered very little ground.
    People seem to believe that he turned back straight away towards his car when the 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow Martin.
    If they believe that, they're wrong, because a couple of minutes went by between the end of his non-emergency call and the altercation. Still, there isn't anything disproving what he said in the reenactment.
    He kept walking. After standing there and looking down the side lane where he lost Martin, he decided to keep going up the lane to supposedly find an address to give to the police and in doing so, moved further up and away from his car. And then after he got to the end of the lane, he then told the police to just meet him at his truck instead, when he couldn't get the address. So he then turns back and walks down the lane, back towards where he had parked his truck and initially followed Martin on foot. When he gets back to the sidelane (the T of that path) where he had lost Martin, Martin then confronts him. And that is where the altercation happened.
    Then you agree GZ was headed back to the car and TM confronted him? Thank you. Angela Corey's fraudulent indictment states GZ confronted TM. No wonder she bypassed the grand jury.
    To Martin, it is quite possible that he could have thought Zimmerman was doubling back to look for him. Because Zimmerman didn't turn around and walk right back to his truck when he was told to stop following him. He kept walking up the lane, past the T and got to the other end.. He got to the end, and that was when he told the police to meet him at his car instead and then he walked back to the side lane where he had lost Martin and as he walked past there a second time was when Martin then confronted him.


    So you are wrong about Zimmerman not getting anywhere after he was told to stop following Martin. He kept walking up the path to the street on the other side to find a house number and after he couldn't find it, then came back down - ie he doubled back towards that T in the path where he had thought he had lost Martin and as he got to that T was when Martin then confronted him and in his words, asked him what his problem was. In his re-enactment with the police, at no time did Zimmerman say that he identified himself to Martin, even when Martin confronted him when he doubled back towards the T where he had originally lost Martin on foot and where he was told to stop following him.
    It's a ridiculous scenario you are painting because the distance GZ covered was really negligible. You are trying to paint it as if he actually covered some ground. Clearly, TM was not trying to get away. He either stayed there waiting for GZ, or doubled back on him.
    Then you clearly did not watch Zimmerman's re-enactment video.

    From Zimmerman's own words. he continued up the path supposedly to look for the address, and then he turned around and doubled back to where he had initially lost sight of Martin. Which was where he stated Martin then confronted him.

    Unless of course you disagree with Zimmerman's own words in his own re-enactment video?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #426  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    A point I think that has been forgotten in all the speculation is that things don't always go the way you expect them to.
    So if you think there should be such and such traces or markings- that does not mean that there really should be. It only means that you would think there should.
    So common horse sense tells me that if I walk up behind a horse and kick it in the rear it will kick me back. Common sense is sometimes right on. But when it comes to Fluid Dynamics... Common Horse Sense goes right out of the window.
    What you think fluids should do in certain situations can be very var off the actual results. Most anyone that deals in the physical sciences is well aware of this.

    Seeing all this speculation coming from people that should know about Fluid Dynamics and Uneven Surfaces on a science forum is a bit bewildering.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #427  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Then you clearly did not watch Zimmerman's re-enactment video.

    From Zimmerman's own words. he continued up the path supposedly to look for the address, and then he turned around and doubled back to where he had initially lost sight of Martin. Which was where he stated Martin then confronted him.

    Unless of course you disagree with Zimmerman's own words in his own re-enactment video?
    I'm reading what you are writing, but still have no idea why you are writing what you are writing. He "turned around and doubled back to where he had initially lost sight of Martin." This was 4 minutes after he had lost sight of him. He thought Martin was headed toward the back entrance of the neighborhood, at the south end, so you think 4 minutes later, he was looking for him at the north end? GZ "doubled back" toward his vehicle. Which way did you expect him to go?

    Maybe you think GZ was a hound dog, trying to pick up TM's scent where he last saw him? I don't get what you are trying to say at all.
    Last edited by Harold14370; July 28th, 2013 at 07:34 AM. Reason: Had north and south reversed
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #428  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Zimmerman's injuries show a broken nose, black eyes, cuts to the back of his head with quite a bit of bleeding, which often happens with a head injury.


    Martin did not have any of Zimmerman's DNA under his fingernails and the only thing they found on his hands which may corroborate Zimmerman's account was a small laceration on his ring finger of his left hand. I think it was half an inch in length?


    Here we have someone apparently beating someone so heavily that the other person ends up with a broken nose which was bleeding, two black eyes and had apparently hit him so hard, that he then grabbed his head and pounded it into the pavement. And there was no bruising to his knuckles? No swelling? No DNA under his fingernails?


    None of Zimmerman's blood on his clothes, especially the wrists of his sweatshirt? How can you beat someone so hard that you break their nose and give them two black eyes and the only thing you have showing for it is a small cut on a ring finger? That makes no sense to me.
    This is an argument from incredulity. There's no doubt GZ had the injuries. If he didn't get them from TM, where did they come from?What sort of theory are you trying to spin? Your incredulous tone doesn't mean much to me, as I don't really know how likely it is to leave DNA.
    Because if you are grabbing someone's head and slamming it down onto the ground, and your sleeves aren't rolled up, he should have had some blood on his sleeves, near the cuffs especially. There would have been residual DNA there, even after the rain (blood doesn't wash out that easily from clothes).
    Do you also know the clothes were mishandled by being put away wet in a plastic bag?


    And there is no evidence of that type of struggle on Martin. Not a one.

    So perhaps someone can explain to me, how that is possible?
    Yep, he was really kicking George's ass, and hardly got a scratch on him.



    Zimmerman's Neighborhood Watch was never registered.
    So what?
    So he had gone off on his own. He was self appointed as the head of the Watch group.
    Where does this "self appointed" crap come from? He was asked to do it by the homeowner's association.
    That's easy. One had a busted nose and various lacerations, contusions and abrasions on his head. The other one didn't.
    No, the other one was shot dead.
    The question was, who started the fight. Not who ended it.
    Remember, he had 4 minutes after which Zimmerman lost sight of him. Enough time to get home and come back again several times. It was a very dark night, and all he had to do was get 20 or 30 yards away, and he'd be out of sight. He decided not to do that. Meanwhile, Zimmerman wasn't chasing him all over the place like the prosecution alleged. He basically stayed down at one end of the row of houses. Zimmerman's small flashlight and a key chain were found at the T of the dog walk. That's where the attack happened. So Zimmerman basically didn't get anywhere after he was told to quit following.
    Did you watch his re-enactment video?


    The part where the non-emergency 911 operator told him that he did not have to keep following Martin, Zimmerman describes that he was walking up the path when the operator told him that he did not have to do that. So he says that he kept walking up the same path that he had taken, when he had started to follow Martin. He claims that he went up there to get an address, then he said he told the operator to tell the police to go to his car instead. He then turns around and starts walking back to his car, and in doing so, he walks back to the point where he said he had lost sight of Martin and that was when Martin confronts him. So if you watch his re-enactment, you can see that he keeps walking up the path and does not turn around straight away when the police told him he didn't have to follow Martin. The part where he is walking up the path commences from 6:30 or so of the re-enactment he did with the police. Watch it to the end and you will see.
    Going to look for an address is not following. He didn't even know where TM had gone at that time. I said he "basically" didn't get anywhere because he ended up where he started and covered very little ground.
    People seem to believe that he turned back straight away towards his car when the 911 operator told him he didn't need to follow Martin.
    If they believe that, they're wrong, because a couple of minutes went by between the end of his non-emergency call and the altercation. Still, there isn't anything disproving what he said in the reenactment.
    He kept walking. After standing there and looking down the side lane where he lost Martin, he decided to keep going up the lane to supposedly find an address to give to the police and in doing so, moved further up and away from his car. And then after he got to the end of the lane, he then told the police to just meet him at his truck instead, when he couldn't get the address. So he then turns back and walks down the lane, back towards where he had parked his truck and initially followed Martin on foot. When he gets back to the sidelane (the T of that path) where he had lost Martin, Martin then confronts him. And that is where the altercation happened.
    Then you agree GZ was headed back to the car and TM confronted him? Thank you. Angela Corey's fraudulent indictment states GZ confronted TM. No wonder she bypassed the grand jury.
    To Martin, it is quite possible that he could have thought Zimmerman was doubling back to look for him. Because Zimmerman didn't turn around and walk right back to his truck when he was told to stop following him. He kept walking up the lane, past the T and got to the other end.. He got to the end, and that was when he told the police to meet him at his car instead and then he walked back to the side lane where he had lost Martin and as he walked past there a second time was when Martin then confronted him.


    So you are wrong about Zimmerman not getting anywhere after he was told to stop following Martin. He kept walking up the path to the street on the other side to find a house number and after he couldn't find it, then came back down - ie he doubled back towards that T in the path where he had thought he had lost Martin and as he got to that T was when Martin then confronted him and in his words, asked him what his problem was. In his re-enactment with the police, at no time did Zimmerman say that he identified himself to Martin, even when Martin confronted him when he doubled back towards the T where he had originally lost Martin on foot and where he was told to stop following him.
    It's a ridiculous scenario you are painting because the distance GZ covered was really negligible. You are trying to paint it as if he actually covered some ground. Clearly, TM was not trying to get away. He either stayed there waiting for GZ, or doubled back on him.
    Then you clearly did not watch Zimmerman's re-enactment video.

    From Zimmerman's own words. he continued up the path supposedly to look for the address, and then he turned around and doubled back to where he had initially lost sight of Martin. Which was where he stated Martin then confronted him.

    Unless of course you disagree with Zimmerman's own words in his own re-enactment video?
    His own words say he was looking for an address. They don't say he was supposedly looking for an address. The word "supposedly" is your own concoction. He said he was looking for an address and no longer following Martin. Apparently it is YOU who didn't actually watch the video or care about what Zimmerman actually said.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #429  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    delete...a forum glitch caused a duplicate post
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #430  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Then you clearly did not watch Zimmerman's re-enactment video.

    From Zimmerman's own words. he continued up the path supposedly to look for the address, and then he turned around and doubled back to where he had initially lost sight of Martin. Which was where he stated Martin then confronted him.

    Unless of course you disagree with Zimmerman's own words in his own re-enactment video?
    I'm reading what you are writing, but still have no idea why you are writing what you are writing. He "turned around and doubled back to where he had initially lost sight of Martin." This was 4 minutes after he had lost sight of him. He thought Martin was headed toward the back entrance of the neighborhood, at the south end, so you think 4 minutes later, he was looking for him at the north end? GZ "doubled back" toward his vehicle. Which way did you expect him to go?

    Maybe you think GZ was a hound dog, trying to pick up TM's scent where he last saw him? I don't get what you are trying to say at all.
    The point is that there is this impression that Zimmerman went straight back to his car. The truth of the matter is he did not. He had lost Martin near the T of that laneway and it was then that the operator told him to not follow.

    He kept walking up the laneway, to the other side to see where he was in the 3 street housing estate (keep in mind, he is the self appointed Neighborhood Watch who did not know what street his car was parked on - in a housing estate with 3 streets in it). He then stood there and discussed with the operator about where the police could come and find his car instead - and he said in the video, he didn't know the name of the street he had left his car on, he then turns around and walks back towards his car and he then gets back to the T intersection in the laneway/dog walk where he had initially lost Martin and that is where Martin then confronted him.

    By his own words, he was still looking for Martin as he was walking. When he says this:

    "I was walking back. I didn't see anything again, came back to my truck and when I got to right about here, he yelled from behind to me."
    That was when he was at the T intersection in that laneway. The "here" is at that spot. And that was when he heard Martin ask him from behind:

    "He said, 'Yo, you got a problem?' and I turned around and said no I don't have a problem.
    And that is where the altercation took place.

    He was not at his truck. He was standing at the spot where he had lost sight of Martin. If you watch the video, you see how far away he was from his truck.

    Now think about something. Martin would not have known that he had stopped following him. Because he was walking and still looking for him, by his own admittance, "I was walking back. I didn't see anything again".

    And that, by his reenactment, is when Martin then confronted him. He also says "I did not see where he came from".

    The most interesting part is that after Martin asked him if he had a problem, he said he said "no, I don't have a problem". He said he then reached into his pocket for his phone but it was not in that pocket and was in another pocket and that was when Martin apparently told him 'well you got a problem now" and punched him in the face. So we have Martin, being followed by a guy in a car and then on foot. He would have managed to hide and was obviously watching Zimmerman (as we know from that confrontation). When he confronts Zimmerman asking him if he has a problem, Zimmerman then reaches into his pocket for his phone and then tries to obviously look in his other pocket. Martin was not to know this. So imagine a person follows you in the dark, then appears to keep looking for you and then when you confront him to ask him what his problem is, you see him reach for his pockets? What would be the first thing that would come into your mind at that point?

    At no time did he identify himself as a Neighborhood Watch.

    I can tell you now, if some strange guy was following me and acting like Zimmerman was, at the point where he starts grabbing at his pockets would have been when I'd have kicked him in the nuts because for all I'd know, he was reaching for a weapon in his pocket.

    If you listen to the transcript, it then follows to where he admits to tripping over and falling over and then Martin is on top of him. The detective then asks him if he was on the grass or concrete.

    It was over more over towards here. I think I was trying to push him away from me and then he got on top of me somewhere around here. And ah that's when I started screaming for help. I started screaming "Help, help" as loud as I could. And um, then's when he grabbed me, oh I tried to sit up and that's when he grabbed me by the head and tried to slam my head down.
    Tried to slam his head down?

    The detective then tries to clarify and see exactly where he was, whether he was on the cement or the grass. And he says that his body was on the grass and his head was on the cement path and he points to the edge of the path. So the detective then asks him which way he is facing.

    Yes sir. Um, that's the best I could feel through my jacket was I felt like my body was on the grass and my head was on the cement and he just kept slamming and slamming.
    Obviously by this point, he was no longer trying.

    Zimmerman then says he started to scream for help. And Martin put one hand on his nose and his other hand blocking his mouth and told him to shut up. And Zimmerman then describes what he did next:


    And ah, then I tried to squirm again because all I could think about was when he was hitting my head against it, it felt like my head was going to explode and I thought I was going to loose consciousness. So, I tried to squirm so I could get because he only had a small portion of my head on the concrete. So, I tried to squirm off the concrete.
    Martin only had a small portion of his head over the concrete. Keep in mind where his head injuries are (smack bang in the middle of his head) and apparently that small part was big enough that he thought he was going to pass out from it.

    When he describes what then happens with his gun, well, it gets even weirder.

    that's when my jacket moved up and I had my firearm on my right side hip. My jacket moved up and he saw it, I feel like he saw it. He looked at it and he said, "You're going to die tonight mother fucker." And he reached for it but he reached like I felt his arm going down by my side and I grabbed it and I just grabbed my firearm and I shot him one time.
    He felt like he saw Martin had seen the gun. I guess his spidey senses were tingling? Then he reached for it, but apparently after looking at the gun, he reached down his side and that is when he grabbed the gun and shot him. At point blank range and he says that Martin spoke to him afterwards, that he had spread Martin out

    So he does not and cannot be sure that Martin had even reached for his gun. At all.

    He just assumed.

    And perhaps he was right. But we will only ever hear one side of this story and usually, I like to hear both sides before I make up my mind. But listening to his reenactment, it just seemed weird to me.

    That's my opinion on it anyway. I get that you disagree because you believe Zimmerman is innocent. But next time someone follows you at night and then when confronted by you, he starts rifling through his pockets, ask yourself what would you do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #431  
    Forum Masters Degree Tranquille's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Solar System
    Posts
    728
    Quote Originally Posted by seagypsy View Post
    His own words say he was looking for an address. They don't say he was supposedly looking for an address. The word "supposedly" is your own concoction. He said he was looking for an address and no longer following Martin. Apparently it is YOU who didn't actually watch the video or care about what Zimmerman actually said.
    Umm, I was advised and requested by the staff here to simply not respond to you on this site to avoid conflict with you, and I have respected that and not really spoken to you unless I absolutely had to, and was under the impression that you were given the same advice and request in regards to me. I would really appreciate it if you could please respect their request and stop. Because I won't engage you in this or any other debate on this site.

    Thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #432  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    deleted- decided not to respond to off topic post.
    Last edited by seagypsy; July 28th, 2013 at 05:22 PM. Reason: added clarity.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #433  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    I'm reading what you are writing, but still have no idea why you are writing what you are writing. He "turned around and doubled back to where he had initially lost sight of Martin." This was 4 minutes after he had lost sight of him. He thought Martin was headed toward the back entrance of the neighborhood, at the south end, so you think 4 minutes later, he was looking for him at the north end? GZ "doubled back" toward his vehicle. Which way did you expect him to go?

    Maybe you think GZ was a hound dog, trying to pick up TM's scent where he last saw him? I don't get what you are trying to say at all.
    The point is that there is this impression that Zimmerman went straight back to his car. The truth of the matter is he did not. He had lost Martin near the T of that laneway and it was then that the operator told him to not follow.

    He kept walking up the laneway, to the other side to see where he was in the 3 street housing estate (keep in mind, he is the self appointed Neighborhood Watch who did not know what street his car was parked on - in a housing estate with 3 streets in it). He then stood there and discussed with the operator about where the police could come and find his car instead - and he said in the video, he didn't know the name of the street he had left his car on, he then turns around and walks back towards his car and he then gets back to the T intersection in the laneway/dog walk where he had initially lost Martin and that is where Martin then confronted him.
    I don't know why you think that anyone has the impression that he immediately did a 180 and went back to his truck. Unless I missed it, no one has made that claim in this thread or in the court room. He stopped following, but did continue to look for addresses. He knew Martin went down the path at the T intersection but he went straight.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    By his own words, he was still looking for Martin as he was walking. When he says this:

    "I was walking back. I didn't see anything again, came back to my truck and when I got to right about here, he yelled from behind to me."
    That was when he was at the T intersection in that laneway. The "here" is at that spot. And that was when he heard Martin ask him from behind:

    "He said, 'Yo, you got a problem?' and I turned around and said no I don't have a problem.
    He was keeping his eyes open for him of course. The operator even told him to keep an eye on him. But said not to follow. He stopped following but still kept his eyes open for him. It would be stupid to not keep an eye out for a suspicious character that you have reason to believe could still be in the area and pose a threat to you. If I walk at night and never observe anyone suspicious I still watch the bushes and peer into dark places to make sure there is no person or animal about to attack out of the shadows. Its just being sensible. He didn't know if Martin was dangerous or not. He didn't know where he was. He was observing his immediate surroundings for signs of danger as he walked back to his truck. He obviously didn't observe well enough since Martin got the jump on him.

    Now suspicion in this case does go both ways as neither seemed to take into account how their own behavior appeared to the other. Martin didn't consider that walking in teh rain at night near windows would look suspicious nor did he consider circling back and sizing up Zimmerman would look suspicious, nor did he consider suddenly breaking off and running would look suspicious. He also didn't consider that confronting Zimmerman in an aggressive tone would confirm suspicions that he was likely a thug.

    Zimmerman in his panic having observed suspicious behavior from Martin and then being startled by him and intimidated by him, didn't consider that a frantic search for his phone could appear as if he was searching for a weapon.

    So they both have suspicion. They both acted in ways that prompted more suspicious behavior out of the other. Maybe Martin felt he was acting in self defense. Zimmerman was also acting in self defense. Assuming both sides were innocent in their intentions that evening, it was a case of misunderstanding that lead to a death. Which still means that Zimmerman is not guilty of murder.

    They both feared for their lives and they both took defensive maneuvers to evade. Until one went on the offensive to hte point that he instigated a physical assault. Zimmerman did not pull his weapon until he was physically assaulted. If Martin had not punched him, Martin may still be alive today. If Zimmerman hadn't tried to fumble for his cell phone, Martin may not have assaulted him. But Martin had already addressed him in a hostile manner. If Martin had spoken differently, such as, "Excuse me, is there something I can help you with?" Zimmerman may not have felt as threatened and may have been able to think more clearly and explain who he was and why he was checking him out.

    But this is a crap load of maybes that don't mean a thing.

    They both responded badly to a situation, but once physical contact occured they both had the right to defend themselves. Martin had thrown blows before there was any evidence of clear and present danger to his life. Zimmerman felt his life was in danger and so he had good reason to fire his weapon. So he was found not guilty,
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #434  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post

    "I was walking back. I didn't see anything again, came back to my truck and when I got to right about here, he yelled from behind to me."
    That was when he was at the T intersection in that laneway. The "here" is at that spot. And that was when he heard Martin ask him from behind:

    "He said, 'Yo, you got a problem?' and I turned around and said no I don't have a problem.
    And that is where the altercation took place.

    He was not at his truck. He was standing at the spot where he had lost sight of Martin. If you watch the video, you see how far away he was from his truck.

    Now think about something. Martin would not have known that he had stopped following him. Because he was walking and still looking for him, by his own admittance, "I was walking back. I didn't see anything again".
    Ok, let's look at the map again. The "T" is located on the way back to his truck. Zim never said he reached his truck. Never has that been implied. He only said he was on his way back to his truck. As you can see from the map, the only way he could avoid walking by the "T" on the way back to his truck was if he decided to go half a block out of his way.


    Look at point "E", then look at point "C". What path would you have taken to walk from E to C?




    There's nothing about that to imply he was still "looking for Martin". You can make believe it if you want, but there's no evidence for it.



    And that, by his reenactment, is when Martin then confronted him. He also says "I did not see where he came from".

    The most interesting part is that after Martin asked him if he had a problem, he said he said "no, I don't have a problem". He said he then reached into his pocket for his phone but it was not in that pocket and was in another pocket and that was when Martin apparently told him 'well you got a problem now" and punched him in the face. So we have Martin, being followed by a guy in a car and then on foot. He would have managed to hide and was obviously watching Zimmerman (as we know from that confrontation). When he confronts Zimmerman asking him if he has a problem, Zimmerman then reaches into his pocket for his phone and then tries to obviously look in his other pocket. Martin was not to know this. So imagine a person follows you in the dark, then appears to keep looking for you and then when you confront him to ask him what his problem is, you see him reach for his pockets? What would be the first thing that would come into your mind at that point?

    At no time did he identify himself as a Neighborhood Watch.
    Zimmerman mentioned multiple times that he was trying to avoid a conflict. However he doesn't seem to have been very good at hiding his feelings. His eyes probably showed contempt.

    That's consistent with the situation. Martin asking him, based on body language, if he has a problem. Zimmerman trying to reply that he doesn't.

    So now, in order to not be culpable, a person must have the ability to control their body language? To conceal their feelings so well that there are no "tells" So which are you saying?

    1) - Only professional poker players have the right to be in public?

    or is it

    2) - It's illegal to have feelings of contempt, even if you don't purposefully express them?

    I hope it's not #2. Hate for the law to legislate feelings. But then again I also kind of hope it isn't #1. Because I'm not a very good poker player.


    I can tell you now, if some strange guy was following me and acting like Zimmerman was, at the point where he starts grabbing at his pockets would have been when I'd have kicked him in the nuts because for all I'd know, he was reaching for a weapon in his pocket.

    If you listen to the transcript, it then follows to where he admits to tripping over and falling over and then Martin is on top of him. The detective then asks him if he was on the grass or concrete.

    It was over more over towards here. I think I was trying to push him away from me and then he got on top of me somewhere around here. And ah that's when I started screaming for help. I started screaming "Help, help" as loud as I could. And um, then's when he grabbed me, oh I tried to sit up and that's when he grabbed me by the head and tried to slam my head down.
    Tried to slam his head down?

    The detective then tries to clarify and see exactly where he was, whether he was on the cement or the grass. And he says that his body was on the grass and his head was on the cement path and he points to the edge of the path. So the detective then asks him which way he is facing.

    Yes sir. Um, that's the best I could feel through my jacket was I felt like my body was on the grass and my head was on the cement and he just kept slamming and slamming.
    Obviously by this point, he was no longer trying.

    Zimmerman then says he started to scream for help. And Martin put one hand on his nose and his other hand blocking his mouth and told him to shut up. And Zimmerman then describes what he did next:
    It's possible. Martin could have mistaken the pocket thing for an attempt to find a gun.

    I'm going to have to ask again, and maybe sooner or later you'll give me an answer: How perfect do things need to be?





    And ah, then I tried to squirm again because all I could think about was when he was hitting my head against it, it felt like my head was going to explode and I thought I was going to loose consciousness. So, I tried to squirm so I could get because he only had a small portion of my head on the concrete. So, I tried to squirm off the concrete.
    Martin only had a small portion of his head over the concrete. Keep in mind where his head injuries are (smack bang in the middle of his head) and apparently that small part was big enough that he thought he was going to pass out from it.

    When he describes what then happens with his gun, well, it gets even weirder.
    Head trauma doesn't work like that. It doesn't matter how much is or isn't exposed and/or making contact.

    It only takes one small part. Besides that usually the concrete on a sidewalk is slightly elevated above the grass, so he would have been hitting the corner/edge if that is correct. Corners are more dangerous than flat surfaces, not less dangerous.


    that's when my jacket moved up and I had my firearm on my right side hip. My jacket moved up and he saw it, I feel like he saw it. He looked at it and he said, "You're going to die tonight mother fucker." And he reached for it but he reached like I felt his arm going down by my side and I grabbed it and I just grabbed my firearm and I shot him one time.
    He felt like he saw Martin had seen the gun. I guess his spidey senses were tingling? Then he reached for it, but apparently after looking at the gun, he reached down his side and that is when he grabbed the gun and shot him. At point blank range and he says that Martin spoke to him afterwards, that he had spread Martin out

    So he does not and cannot be sure that Martin had even reached for his gun. At all.

    He just assumed.

    And perhaps he was right. But we will only ever hear one side of this story and usually, I like to hear both sides before I make up my mind. But listening to his reenactment, it just seemed weird to me.

    That's my opinion on it anyway. I get that you disagree because you believe Zimmerman is innocent. But next time someone follows you at night and then when confronted by you, he starts rifling through his pockets, ask yourself what would you do.
    It probably seems weird because Zimmerman can't fully remember. Or never fully knew. That's the problem with being in a fight. It's all confusion and violence.

    But you still haven't answered the question: How perfect does Zimmerman need to be in order to deserve to live?

    I get the impression you'd have been willing to overlook a lot more flaws had Zimmerman been lucky enough to be born black.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #435  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille View Post
    The point is that there is this impression that Zimmerman went straight back to his car.
    I think most of news reports leave the impression that GZ blatantly ignored the dispatcher.
    The truth of the matter is he did not. He had lost Martin near the T of that laneway and it was then that the operator told him to not follow.

    He kept walking up the laneway, to the other side to see where he was in the 3 street housing estate (keep in mind, he is the self appointed Neighborhood Watch
    You keep saying "self appointed neighborhood watch." Apparently you think it has some relevance or casts GZ in a negative light. He was the neighborhood watch coordinator, recognized as such by Wendy Dorival, who organized neighborhood watches for the local police department. Listen to her testimony on youtube.
    who did not know what street his car was parked on - in a housing estate with 3 streets in it).
    I believe what he said was he didn't know the house numbers. But say he didn't know the street name, or said he didn't but actually did. What are you trying to make out of that? How would that point to him being guilty?
    He then stood there and discussed with the operator about where the police could come and find his car instead - and he said in the video, he didn't know the name of the street he had left his car on, he then turns around and walks back towards his car and he then gets back to the T intersection in the laneway/dog walk where he had initially lost Martin and that is where Martin then confronted him.

    By his own words, he was still looking for Martin as he was walking. When he says this:

    "I was walking back. I didn't see anything again, came back to my truck and when I got to right about here, he yelled from behind to me."
    That was when he was at the T intersection in that laneway. The "here" is at that spot. And that was when he heard Martin ask him from behind:

    "He said, 'Yo, you got a problem?' and I turned around and said no I don't have a problem.
    And that is where the altercation took place.

    He was not at his truck. He was standing at the spot where he had lost sight of Martin. If you watch the video, you see how far away he was from his truck.

    Now think about something. Martin would not have known that he had stopped following him. Because he was walking and still looking for him, by his own admittance, "I was walking back. I didn't see anything again".

    And that, by his reenactment, is when Martin then confronted him. He also says "I did not see where he came from".

    The most interesting part is that after Martin asked him if he had a problem, he said he said "no, I don't have a problem". He said he then reached into his pocket for his phone but it was not in that pocket and was in another pocket and that was when Martin apparently told him 'well you got a problem now" and punched him in the face. So we have Martin, being followed by a guy in a car and then on foot. He would have managed to hide and was obviously watching Zimmerman (as we know from that confrontation). When he confronts Zimmerman asking him if he has a problem, Zimmerman then reaches into his pocket for his phone and then tries to obviously look in his other pocket. Martin was not to know this. So imagine a person follows you in the dark, then appears to keep looking for you and then when you confront him to ask him what his problem is, you see him reach for his pockets? What would be the first thing that would come into your mind at that point?

    At no time did he identify himself as a Neighborhood Watch.

    I can tell you now, if some strange guy was following me and acting like Zimmerman was, at the point where he starts grabbing at his pockets would have been when I'd have kicked him in the nuts because for all I'd know, he was reaching for a weapon in his pocket.

    If you listen to the transcript, it then follows to where he admits to tripping over and falling over and then Martin is on top of him. The detective then asks him if he was on the grass or concrete.

    It was over more over towards here. I think I was trying to push him away from me and then he got on top of me somewhere around here. And ah that's when I started screaming for help. I started screaming "Help, help" as loud as I could. And um, then's when he grabbed me, oh I tried to sit up and that's when he grabbed me by the head and tried to slam my head down.
    Tried to slam his head down?

    The detective then tries to clarify and see exactly where he was, whether he was on the cement or the grass. And he says that his body was on the grass and his head was on the cement path and he points to the edge of the path. So the detective then asks him which way he is facing.

    Yes sir. Um, that's the best I could feel through my jacket was I felt like my body was on the grass and my head was on the cement and he just kept slamming and slamming.
    Obviously by this point, he was no longer trying.

    Zimmerman then says he started to scream for help. And Martin put one hand on his nose and his other hand blocking his mouth and told him to shut up. And Zimmerman then describes what he did next:


    And ah, then I tried to squirm again because all I could think about was when he was hitting my head against it, it felt like my head was going to explode and I thought I was going to loose consciousness. So, I tried to squirm so I could get because he only had a small portion of my head on the concrete. So, I tried to squirm off the concrete.
    Martin only had a small portion of his head over the concrete. Keep in mind where his head injuries are (smack bang in the middle of his head) and apparently that small part was big enough that he thought he was going to pass out from it.

    When he describes what then happens with his gun, well, it gets even weirder.

    that's when my jacket moved up and I had my firearm on my right side hip. My jacket moved up and he saw it, I feel like he saw it. He looked at it and he said, "You're going to die tonight mother fucker." And he reached for it but he reached like I felt his arm going down by my side and I grabbed it and I just grabbed my firearm and I shot him one time.
    He felt like he saw Martin had seen the gun. I guess his spidey senses were tingling?
    No spidey sense would be required, if say, TM stopped his ground and pound action for a second, just as the jacket rode up, says "you're going to die tonight" and reaches in that direction.
    Then he reached for it, but apparently after looking at the gun, he reached down his side and that is when he grabbed the gun and shot him. At point blank range and he says that Martin spoke to him afterwards, that he had spread Martin out

    So he does not and cannot be sure that Martin had even reached for his gun. At all.

    He just assumed.

    And perhaps he was right. But we will only ever hear one side of this story and usually, I like to hear both sides before I make up my mind. But listening to his reenactment, it just seemed weird to me.

    That's my opinion on it anyway. I get that you disagree because you believe Zimmerman is innocent. But next time someone follows you at night and then when confronted by you, he starts rifling through his pockets, ask yourself what would you do.
    I think for one thing you are expecting a lot more accurate recollection of events by GZ than is reasonable to expect under the circumstances. You still haven't explained TMs actions. Was he always there near the intersection of the T? If so, he watched GZ wander out toward the street, then back while lurking just out of sight. The other possibility was that he went to Brandy Green's residence, then decided to return. Neither scenario would indicate someone trying to get away.
    Also, you seem to be skirting around the obvious cruelty displayed by TM. From my recollection of street fighting in my youth, the rule was to let the other guy up when he cries "uncle." You don't beat his head into the ground while he cries pitifully for help for 45 seconds. That's just mean.
    Neverfly likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #436  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille
    I can tell you now, if some strange guy was following me and acting like Zimmerman was, at the point where he starts grabbing at his pockets would have been when I'd have kicked him in the nuts because for all I'd know, he was reaching for a weapon in his pocket.
    I have a piece of advice. If you think somebody has a gun in their pocket, don't antagonize them by kicking them in the nuts.
    seagypsy likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #437  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Tranquille
    I can tell you now, if some strange guy was following me and acting like Zimmerman was, at the point where he starts grabbing at his pockets would have been when I'd have kicked him in the nuts because for all I'd know, he was reaching for a weapon in his pocket.
    I have a piece of advice. If you think somebody has a gun in their pocket, don't antagonize them by kicking them in the nuts.
    You mean let them take the gun out and shoot you. That way it will be much easier for the prosecutor to secure a guilty verdict on a murder charge. Yes, excellent idea there. I applaud such farsighted thinking.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #438  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    You mean let them take the gun out and shoot you. That way it will be much easier for the prosecutor to secure a guilty verdict on a murder charge. Yes, excellent idea there. I applaud such farsighted thinking.
    You're smarter than this, JG. Somebody putting their hand in their pocket is no proof they have a gun, and if they have a gun, there's no proof or even a reasonable assumption they are going to use it. My assumption would be that they were getting ready to defend themselves against the person who has just accosted them in aggressive fashion. Under those circumstances, it would be EXTREMELY foolish to give them a reason to use the gun.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #439  
    has lost interest seagypsy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    3,107
    I would expect that if someone is about to pull a gun on me, kicking them in the nuts or physically assaulting them would almost guarantee that I get shot. If I think they are in the process of pulling a gun, I am going to scream, run and take cover. Simultaneously. Last time I checked, my usual jeans and tshirt are not bullet proof.
    Speaking badly about people after they are gone and jumping on the bash the band wagon must do very well for a low self-esteem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #440  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Apocalyptic Paradise
    Posts
    6,613
    These days, it's far more likely he's reaching for a Cell Phone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Similar Threads

  1. The Trial
    By Cogito Ergo Sum in forum In the News
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 5th, 2014, 03:52 PM
  2. trial and error
    By parag29081973 in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: April 26th, 2013, 04:39 AM
  3. spike lee,zimmerman black panthers
    By Holmes in forum In the News
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: April 5th, 2012, 04:52 PM
  4. How Do You Do a Trial When You Don't Have $$$$$ to Spend?
    By Chester in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: May 25th, 2011, 06:16 PM
  5. Scientology in French trial.
    By Cat1981(England) in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: September 13th, 2008, 03:15 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •