Zimmerman TrialFollow

Wallace Shawn (Vizzini) has recently in the news for his play, The Designated Mourner, that is currently running off-broadway.

Save a few bucks and throw a garbage can down the stairs. Go see Avenue Q instead.

/mourn old ubb forum sig test thread!


But it did. All because UBB imploded.

Is it completely gone now? I know there were some google archives you linked at one point.

Which justifies Zimmerman's decision to call the police. I'm honestly unsure what you're arguing here.



Unless I can provide those facts, what? What the hell does that last part mean? It's circular. If I can't prove that Martin was maliciously looking at houses, then I can't prove that he was maliciously looking at houses? Who cares?

If we both agree that Zimmerman's belief that Martin's behavior was suspicious is sufficient justification for him to call the police, then what the hell are you arguing about? That's all he did in response to what Martin was doing at that time.



Why does this matter? All that matters is that Zimmerman was not wrong for making the call.



What I believe Martin was or was not planning to do has zero relevance as to the legitimacy of Zimmerman's actions. How can you not get this?



What deal? You are insisting that you answered a question I asked. I'm asking you to repeat the answer. There's no deal on the table here. You're free to refuse to provide an answer, but that will only confirm that you don't have one. It's your choice.




Stop saying "we agreed". My problem with what you're doing is that you're constantly changing the exact words you use to describe each step, but insisting that I must "agree" with your entire timeline of events before you move on. Meanwhile, it's the part past this that I care about. You're demanding that I accept your version of events, using your language to describe things, despite that I've repeatedly told you that I don't agree with the words you're using.

One and two are fine. They're clearly established in the phone call. Three is speculation on your part (and questionable word choice). He could have run because he was scared, or high, or angry, or sad, or he realized he left the iron on at home. We can speculate about why he ran (and that's the question I'm asking about), but that's the point of contention. Insisting that I must agree with your speculation that Martin was suspicious of Zimmerman before you'll discuss the question of why he ran is pretty ridiculous.

And four is not only a complete point of contention it's also irrelevant to the question at hand: Why did Martin run? Whether Zimmerman's description of Martin was 100% accurate or not really doesn't matter much to that question. So why include it in the list of things I must agree to before you'll answer the question?


Just answer the damn question: Why do you think Martin ran? You're free to include any other details, facts, suppositions, or wild speculations you want. But if you want to argue that my speculation about why he ran is wrong, you need to provide an alternative explanation. You still have not done this.

Edited, Aug 7th 2013 6:18pm by gbaji

I'm not questioning Zimmerman's suspicion, but your statement that Martin *perhaps/might* was "looking for something to vandalize/steal" and "Not someone innocently walking home from the store" What are your facts to substantiate that claim?


If you can't prove that Martin was maliciously looking at houses, then you can't use Zimmerman's phone call as a supporting fact that Martin *perhaps/might* was "looking for something to vandalize/steal" and "Not someone innocently walking home from the store".

That doesn't answer the question. This isn't about Zimmerman's suspicion, but your claim quoted above.


If you're so confident that I didn't answer it, then why not accept it?



You agreed.


That isn't the question at hand. You ignored my comments that addressed the whole time line of events to only address distractions. I'm merely going point by point to each event and Martin running wasn't the first event. You don't just ignore everything that led up to Martin running, because you're just going to end up going back anyway. Everything that I'm going over is part of my answer.

...and you know your stupidity charts better than the most.

You're just disappointed because I'm not appeasing your distractions. It's quite simple. You said Martin *perhaps/might* was "looking for something to vandalize/steal" and was "not someone innocently walking home from the store".

Do you stand by your statement?

If so, then what are the supporting facts?

If you want to use Zimmerman's phone call of Martin "looking at all of the houses" as a supporting fact of your statement, then you have to provide supporting facts that Martin was *maliciously* looking at all of the houses. Else, he was simply looking at houses, which doesn't equate to crime preparation. None of this is about Zimmerman's suspicion, but your claim.

Obviously, you have nothing to support it, so your goal was to bounce around with distractions. So, you did what you always do when faced with possible contradicting questions, you ignore them.

Edited, Aug 8th 2013 11:19pm by Almalieque

By the same token, what are your FACTS to substantiate that he wasn't looking for something to vandalize/steal?

Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

And then he was like "Damn *****, does it look like it's going to flood any time soon!?!".