Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Zimmerman TrialFollow

#452 Jul 28 2013 at 7:24 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
**
746 posts
I just can't understand how anyone can look at the evidence (and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX1sxARNq_c) and come to the conclusion that george zimmerman was a racist murderer. Only conclusion I can come to is that the person ignoring facts is doing so because they are racist.
#453 Jul 28 2013 at 7:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
Probably because just accepting the testimony of the shooter is the worst possible way to run a trial?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#454 Jul 28 2013 at 9:23 AM Rating: Decent
****
7,801 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Probably because just accepting the testimony of the shooter is the worst possible way to run a trial?

Then I guess it's a good thing that isn't what was done in the Zimmerman trial.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#455 Jul 28 2013 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
Having a trial where the prosecution provides witness and expert testimony to prove the defendant guilty is your definition of "just accepting?"

I don't agree with the verdict, but I also don't agree with it with larger reference to what should and should not be allowable in our society. I think this is ultimately a problem with Florida's SYG law being horribly written. Whether or not SYG laws in general are a positive or negative thing is a separate debate.

As far as I'm concerned, Zimmerman is a murderer. Unfortunately, being guilty of murder isn't quite the same thing.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#456 Jul 28 2013 at 9:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Lunatic
******
29,148 posts
Only conclusion I can come to is that the person ignoring facts is doing so because they are racist.

Then you're rock fucking stupid. The only possible way to come to the conclusion you've come to is to be so terrified that people will find out your deep fear of black people that you project it around like a 2 year old pulling his pants down. Look everyone! It's the BLACKS who are racist! WHAT A TWIST!

Not enough evidence to convict doesn't equate with other side is racist!!!!!11(i get to call dem racists! teeheeheehee). Go back to doing whatever it is slack jawed easily manipulated cowards do in their spare time. Nascar? I'm really not sure.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#457 Jul 28 2013 at 1:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I declared Zimmerman guilty because I'm racist against whites and Hispanics.

This makes dinnertime a little awkward but I gotta have principles.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#458 Jul 28 2013 at 2:30 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Inida wrote:
I just can't understand how anyone can look at the evidence (and this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX1sxARNq_c) and come to the conclusion that george zimmerman was a racist murderer. Only conclusion I can come to is that the person ignoring facts is doing so because they are racist.


The argument was that he was a murderer, not a racist murderer.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#459 Jul 28 2013 at 2:35 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,486 posts
The racism is IMPLIED. Smiley: lol
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#460 Jul 28 2013 at 3:06 PM Rating: Good
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
The racism is IMPLIED OBVIOUS. Smiley: lol

fiXX0r'd
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#461 Jul 28 2013 at 4:56 PM Rating: Decent
You know, not to stir the pot, but the one quote I took from Zimmerman's call was this:

Zimmerman: Okay. These (expletive) they always get away.

Take from that what you well.
____________________________
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pawkeshup
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/pawkeshup
Viddler: http://www.viddler.com/explore/pawkeshup/
UStream: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/pawkeshup-s-gaming-stream
Blog: http://pawkeshup.blogspot.com
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
The idea of old school is way more interesting than the reality
#462 Jul 28 2013 at 6:10 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
Apparently the conspiracy theories regarding that car accident have really taken off. Everything from it being staged, which is why the family won't give a press conference, to it being real but the officer called to the scene was a friend of Zimmerman's and called him so he could get there first for the PR.

My take on it is that Zimmerman's too stupid to organize something like this (though stupid enough to do it in the first place), and that I doubt anyone likes him enough to bother.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#463 Jul 28 2013 at 9:00 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Apparently the conspiracy theories regarding that car accident have really taken off. Everything from it being staged, which is why the family won't give a press conference, to it being real but the officer called to the scene was a friend of Zimmerman's and called him so he could get there first for the PR.

My take on it is that Zimmerman's too stupid to organize something like this (though stupid enough to do it in the first place), and that I doubt anyone likes him enough to bother.


Even though I don't believe it to be 100% legit, I don't doubt the possibility nor care if it is. Saving a family from a car accident doesn't take away the fact that he profiled, unnecessarily provoked, and killed an unarmed teenager

P.S. I hate the oxford comma, but I had to use it Smiley: mad
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#464 Jul 28 2013 at 9:43 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
*****
19,826 posts
Pawkeshup, Averter of the Apocalypse wrote:
You know, not to stir the pot, but the one quote I took from Zimmerman's call was this:

Zimmerman: Okay. These (expletive) they always get away.

Take from that what you well.

Yet he's the one that got away...
[puts on sunglasses]
...with murder.

YEEEEAAAAHHHHH
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#465 Jul 29 2013 at 2:17 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,630 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
..., and that I doubt anyone likes him enough to bother.
There was an AMA on reddit by Zimmerman's nephew (I think) who was raving about how nice a person he was.

Edited, Jul 29th 2013 10:18am by Aethien
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#466 Jul 29 2013 at 5:40 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,497 posts
Posting on the internet is one thing. Risking legal reproach for organizing a publicity stunt involving a car accident on an open road is another.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#467 Jul 29 2013 at 7:20 AM Rating: Good
******
43,073 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Posting on the internet is one thing.
It's everything.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#468 Jul 29 2013 at 3:39 PM Rating: Decent
lolgaxe wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Posting on the internet is one thing.
It's the only thing.

 
____________________________
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pawkeshup
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/pawkeshup
Viddler: http://www.viddler.com/explore/pawkeshup/
UStream: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/pawkeshup-s-gaming-stream
Blog: http://pawkeshup.blogspot.com
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
The idea of old school is way more interesting than the reality
#469 Jul 29 2013 at 4:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
How many times have you insisted that Martin jumped Zimmerman from behind and immediately started slamming his head into the ground?


Zero. What I have said repeatedly is that we don't know how the physical fight began, but that it doesn't matter because we do know that just prior to Zimmerman shooting Martin, Martin was seen to be on top of Zimmerman, pinning him to the ground, and punching him in the face. My argument has consistently been that this position gives Zimmerman the right to use his weapon in self defense by default.

Quote:
It would be shocking if he managed to grab his gun, get it to chest-level, and shoot Martin in the chest in that scenario.


Not really. The entire point of having your concealed weapon holster on the back side of your hip is so that you can get at it while minimizing the odds that someone else can see it or get to it first. It's just not that hard to pull a pistol from the holster in that position, even when someone is on top of you. It's not "easy", but hardly impossible. Most people can manage to pull their wallet out of a back pocket while sitting in a car just fine. This is considerably easier in terms of actual reach and only made more difficult because of the whole "guy punching you in the face" bit.

Quote:
It only makes sense if he was already holding it.


No, it doesn't. There's a whole list of possible ways they could have ended out that way. However, the fact that not a single witness who saw the men fighting saw a gun would tend to poke big holes in the theory that he had it out the entire time. If there was even the slightest evidence of this having been the case, you can bet the prosecution would have found someone to say it. Yet, even they realized this was an impossible thing to even suggest, let alone prove.

There's just no evidence to support that theory.

Quote:
Sorry, you can't have it both ways.


Er? What both ways? I have never argued that Zimmerman was so harmed in the first instant of the fight that he had no ability to do anything. So I'm not sure what kind of false dilemma you're building here.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#470 Jul 29 2013 at 4:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The lesson to learn from this is no matter how much you think someone "deserves a beating" for whatever they may have done to you, you are *never* legally in the right if you cut off someone's avenue of escape and continue to attack them.
You are wrong.


No, I'm not.

Quote:
As I said before, that depends on the state. I am well within my rights to restrain someone by whatever means in order for the police to come get the bad guy.


Those are two different things. Punching someone in the face repeatedly is not a valid means of restraining them. If Martin had merely pinned Zimmerman down and held him there while yelling for someone to call the cops, he would be completely in the right, and Zimmerman would be guilty of manslaughter at the very least for shooting him. The key is that he continued to punch Zimmerman in the face *after* pinning him to the ground (thus eliminating his ability to retreat).

Quote:
Maybe you should actually read what others write.


Maybe you should? I'll acknowledge that someone might take "continue to attack them" in a very broad sense, but I specifically was talking about Martin's choice to continue punching at Zimmerman. Remember, that there are two conditions here:

1. Avenue of retreat has been cut off.

2. Other person is continuing to subject you to force you believe may result in grave bodily harm or death.

Holding someone down doesn't meet condition 2. Punching them in the face does. That's what makes the difference between justified self defense and murder. As I've said repeatedly, what got Martin killed was his decision to continue to inflict injury on Zimmerman after any rational point one could argue that he was merely defending himself from an attacker. You are *not* allowed to do that legally.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#471 Jul 29 2013 at 5:50 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,148 posts
The key is that he continued to punch Zimmerman in the face *after* pinning him to the ground

HI. Allegedly. I think you're conflating a finding of reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered someone with a finding of fact that Martin was assaulting Zimmerman. The only evidence that took place was the account of the guy who killed him. May be entirely accurate, but it doesn't seem outlandish to suspect a small amount of bias.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#472 Jul 29 2013 at 8:33 PM Rating: Excellent
Let me make this clear, gbaji.


Once upon a time a cop was at my door, pounding on it and demanding entry.

He had an warrant for another address. I called dispatch. I asked if if this lost officer entered my property what were my options. Dispatch said "just don't kill him".



ETA: Some states have combat laws that don't allow staight murder.

Edited, Jul 29th 2013 8:36pm by Bijou
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#473 Jul 29 2013 at 9:08 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts

Gbaji wrote:

I don't know. I suspect he didn't.


That's good! So, if Martin didn't run away from random people on the phone sitting in parked cars, then that means Zimmerman must have been suspicious enough to Martin in order for him to run. Unless that is, you believe that Martin "just had a feeling"?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#474 Jul 30 2013 at 7:32 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,073 posts
gbaji wrote:
Punching someone in the face repeatedly is not a valid means of restraining them.
Of course not, you do that to get to a point where you can restrain them.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#475 Jul 30 2013 at 7:50 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,466 posts
gbaji wrote:
Punching someone in the face repeatedly is not a valid means of restraining them.
It's certainly not as effective as a 1/2" hole through the heart, or splattered brains, but it will shut um up.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#476 Jul 30 2013 at 2:00 PM Rating: Decent
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Punching someone in the face repeatedly is not a valid means of restraining them.
Of course not, you do that to get to a point where you can restrain them.

No, you're not supposed to hit them, you're supposed to politely ask them to place their hands in such a position so you can restrain them. Silly, violence solves nothing.
____________________________
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pawkeshup
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/pawkeshup
Viddler: http://www.viddler.com/explore/pawkeshup/
UStream: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/pawkeshup-s-gaming-stream
Blog: http://pawkeshup.blogspot.com
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
The idea of old school is way more interesting than the reality
#477 Jul 30 2013 at 2:14 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
The key is that he continued to punch Zimmerman in the face *after* pinning him to the ground

HI. Allegedly. I think you're conflating a finding of reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered someone with a finding of fact that Martin was assaulting Zimmerman. The only evidence that took place was the account of the guy who killed him.


And, you know, the witness who saw them from about 20 feet away, clearly identified both of them, and said that Martin was on top and "raining down blows" on Zimmerman mere seconds before the shot was fired. That and the physical evidence. Zimmerman's injuries are consistent with the events as described. Oh. And there's the forensic evidence, specifically the gunshot residue patterns which clearly indicate an upward shot, traveling slightly right to left (left to right into Martin's chest), at close range, but with the outer clothing being closer than the skin (which can only happen if Martin was on top of Zimmerman when the shot was fired due to the whole gravity always pointing down thing). All of which is perfectly consistent with a man on the ground, pinned by an assailant, pulling a pistol from his right hip and firing upwards into the other mans chest.

But yeah. Aside from that it was *only* the word of the guy who killed him. Smiley: rolleyes

Quote:
May be entirely accurate, but it doesn't seem outlandish to suspect a small amount of bias.


Sure. Which is why you look for evidence which contradicts or supports his claim and weigh it. Aside from one witness, who had a poor and long distance view, and who changed her story three times, there was no evidence to refute Zimmerman's claim. There's a boatload of evidence that directly supports it though.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#478 Jul 30 2013 at 2:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Let me make this clear, gbaji.


Once upon a time a cop was at my door, pounding on it and demanding entry.

He had an warrant for another address. I called dispatch. I asked if if this lost officer entered my property what were my options. Dispatch said "just don't kill him".



ETA: Some states have combat laws that don't allow staight murder.


Some states? Um... Florida law covers that too:

Quote:
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
...
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
...
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.


But hey. You just continue to assume that it's the law that's the problem, and not an emotional state resulting from false information you were originally given about this case that is driving you to find some reason to arrive at any conclusion other than "I fell for a bogus story".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#479 Jul 30 2013 at 2:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Almalieque wrote:

Gbaji wrote:

I don't know. I suspect he didn't.


That's good! So, if Martin didn't run away from random people on the phone sitting in parked cars, then that means Zimmerman must have been suspicious enough to Martin in order for him to run. Unless that is, you believe that Martin "just had a feeling"?


That's one theory. But that's not the only one. Another one is that Martin realized that what he'd been doing for the previous couple minutes might look suspicious, and that the man in the car watching him and talking on his cell phone might just be calling the cops on him.

I happen to believe that's a far more reasonable possibility. I mean, Zimmerman thought what Martin was doing looked suspicious, right? Else he would not have called the cops. Seems unlikely that Martin wouldn't realize that what he had been doing would look suspicious to someone else, even if he wasn't actually doing anything wrong at all. People run from police all the time, sometimes for no reason at all. The point I was making was that this behavior is more prevalent among black men than other groups, and perhaps this is part of the problem that should be addressed.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#480 Jul 30 2013 at 3:05 PM Rating: Good
@#%^, I will regret this, but...
gbaji wrote:
That's one theory. But that's not the only one. Another one is that Martin realized that what he'd been doing for the previous couple minutes might look suspicious, and that the man in the car watching him and talking on his cell phone might just be calling the cops on him.

I happen to believe that's a far more reasonable possibility. I mean, Zimmerman thought what Martin was doing looked suspicious, right? Else he would not have called the cops. Seems unlikely that Martin wouldn't realize that what he had been doing would look suspicious to someone else, even if he wasn't actually doing anything wrong at all. People run from police all the time, sometimes for no reason at all. The point I was making was that this behavior is more prevalent among black men than other groups, and perhaps this is part of the problem that should be addressed.


Zimmerman was a frequent caller of 911. Zimmerman was taking it onto himself to patrol the neighbourhood after a rash of break-ins. Zimmerman had a history of aggression, especially when placed in positions of power or authority.

I would appeal to your logical side, to how you might react, but then you are either emotionally dead or mentally enfeebled to the point of lacking any relation to human reaction. So I suppose I will try to relate this in terms you might possibly understand.

You just went to a store, you know, a place in which you exchange a form of currency for goods. You are walking home, you know, without having a large collection of plastics and metals surrounding you and propelling you forward. Then you notice that there is such a contraption slowly rolling up behind you, or near enough to you. You attempt to ascertain the identity of the driver, and you discover that it is the local unstable leader of the neighbourhood watch. Are you (A) going to strike up a jaunty conversation about the poor weather (B) going to turn around and walk away slowly or (C) run and hide because you are uncertain as to why or how long this particular nutbar has been following you.

Now, I'm not saying Martin chose the best option. But Zimmerman most certainly chose the utterly worst one. Had he contained his hatred for "these @#%^s", sat in his truck like a good little boy, then we wouldn't be discussing any of this. Instead, a boy is dead, a murderer is free, and you're posting a novel in 200 posts.
____________________________
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/pawkeshup
YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/pawkeshup
Viddler: http://www.viddler.com/explore/pawkeshup/
UStream: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/pawkeshup-s-gaming-stream
Blog: http://pawkeshup.blogspot.com
Olorinus the Ludicrous wrote:
The idea of old school is way more interesting than the reality
#481 Jul 30 2013 at 3:35 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:


That's one theory. But that's not the only one. Another one is that Martin realized that what he'd been doing for the previous couple minutes might look suspicious, and that the man in the car watching him and talking on his cell phone might just be calling the cops on him.


That's the same thing as, "Zimmerman looked suspicious to Martin". That doesn't mean that Zimmerman did anything wrong. Whether or not its because Martin thought Zimmerman was a cop, killer, drug dealer, or whatever, something about Zimmerman made him think "I should run". So you agree that Zimmerman looked suspicious to Martin, causing him to run?

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#482 Jul 30 2013 at 5:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts


And? There was a crime problem in the neighborhood. Zimmerman didn't "take it on himself to patrol the neighborhood", the HOA had a series of meetings where the problems with break ins were discussed and decided to start up a neighborhood watch program, and Zimmerman volunteered to be part of it. It's not like he was doing this all on his own or anything. Zimmerman's "history of aggression" is subject to debate, but also something that Martin could not possibly have known merely by looking at him sitting in his car.

Quote:
You just went to a store, you know, a place in which you exchange a form of currency for goods. You are walking home, you know, without having a large collection of plastics and metals surrounding you and propelling you forward. Then you notice that there is such a contraption slowly rolling up behind you, or near enough to you.


Except that's not what happened. Would people please stop repeating this utterly false rumor created in the first weeks of this thing before the facts were known? At no point did Zimmerman follow Martin in his car. Zimmerman was parked in his car while Martin walked towards him.

Quote:
You attempt to ascertain the identity of the driver, and you discover that it is the local unstable leader of the neighbourhood watch. Are you (A) going to strike up a jaunty conversation about the poor weather (B) going to turn around and walk away slowly or (C) run and hide because you are uncertain as to why or how long this particular nutbar has been following you.


Martin certainly did not know who Zimmerman was, just as Zimmerman didn't know who Martin was. Ergo, if we're going to use that logic you spoke of, we can't make assumptions about what Martin was thinking based on information about Zimmerman. All he saw was a guy sitting in a parked car, looking at him, and talking on his cell phone.

So let's replay the scenario. You're walking back from the store. You've done nothing wrong, are doing nothing wrong, and have done nothing that anyone might think is odd or suspicious at all. As you're walking in this perfectly normal manner towards your home, you notice someone sitting in a parked car on the side of the road. You notice that he's already seen you (cause you're walking in the street, and he's sitting in a parked car), and is talking on his phone. What do you do?

A. Continue walking home as normal?

B. Flee from this person in the car?


A, right? I mean, there's no reason to do anything else. Why would you run? No reason at all. But Martin did run. He ran from someone he had only seen moments earlier, and who had done nothing more than see Martin walk down the street and talk on his cell phone. We can certainly speculate that Zimmerman did something else to make the perfectly normal Martin flee, but we have an audio recording of the whole thing, and there's nothing on the recording to indicate that Zimmerman did anything other than sit in his car up to that point. So that speculation, while possible, is highly improbable. That leaves us to speculate about what other reasons Martin might have for fleeing, and we have one really obvious one: The entire reason for the phone call was that Zimmerman thought Martin was acting strangely. If we accept that this is true, then certainly Martin would have realized that his behavior would look strange/suspicious to someone else. Thus, it makes a hell of a lot of sense that he would assume that Zimmerman had seen him, thought what he was doing was strange, and was on the phone with the cops.

Given that that's exactly what Zimmerman was doing, it can't be that unreasonable to speculate that Martin was able to noodle this out, right? Your speculation requires huge leaps in logic which aren't supported by fact. Mine only requires that we're able to assume that Martin could figure out what Zimmerman was actually doing sitting there in his car talking on the phone. I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

Quote:
Now, I'm not saying Martin chose the best option. But Zimmerman most certainly chose the utterly worst one.


Huh? Up to the point in time that Martin ran from Zimmerman, all he'd done was sit in his car, observe someone walking down the street, and call the police. Which is exactly what he was supposed to do

Quote:
Had he contained his hatred for "these @#%^s", sat in his truck like a good little boy, then we wouldn't be discussing any of this. Instead, a boy is dead, a murderer is free, and you're posting a novel in 200 posts.


What hatred? You're injecting your own assumptions into this. And you've also skipped the key question here. We're talking about why Martin ran. Martin ran before Zimmerman got out of his vehicle. Thus, whether he should have gotten out of his truck is completely irrelevant to that question. I'm asking why Martin ran. And my speculation is that he ran because he realized that what he'd been doing looked suspicious, and that someone had seen him doing it and had called the cops. The reason I brought this entire aspect up was to observe that perhaps by teaching young black men to fear the police and authority, we're creating the very problem that caused this tragic death.


If my speculation is correct, than Martin's death was the direct result of his own fears of police/authority. Had he not reacted as he did to a man sitting in a parked car talking on a cell phone the way he did, he would be alive today. But he (and many young black men) have been indoctrinated into a culture of fear and distrust of the law and police. This unfortunately leads many young black men to make incredibly poor choices when confronted with these sorts of situations, often escalating them in ways that cause ridiculously out of proportion negative outcomes (almost always for the young black man). I'm arguing that we should *not* be responding to this case by reinforcing that fear, but that's exactly what many are doing. And the result of this will be yet more black men in prison or graves because we're unwilling or unable to be honest about what's actually causing the problem.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#483 Jul 30 2013 at 5:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,668 posts
If I'm in Florida, I likely chose B, since you know, they're all @#%^ing crazy down there.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#484 Jul 30 2013 at 6:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:


That's one theory. But that's not the only one. Another one is that Martin realized that what he'd been doing for the previous couple minutes might look suspicious, and that the man in the car watching him and talking on his cell phone might just be calling the cops on him.


That's the same thing as, "Zimmerman looked suspicious to Martin".


Of course it's not. Hence why it's a different theory. You're the one who's assuming Martin thought Zimmerman looked suspicious. I'm disagreeing with that assessment and saying that Martin thought Zimmerman was calling the cops on him.

Quote:
Whether or not its because Martin thought Zimmerman was a cop, killer, drug dealer, or whatever, something about Zimmerman made him think "I should run".


Yeah. But which of those is somewhat relevant. I mean, if he ran because he thought Zimmerman was a killer, then it makes his actions seem more like self defense than if he ran because he thought Zimmerman was a cop (or was calling the cops). One makes him look like a potential victim trying to protect himself, while the other makes him look like someone trying to elude the law.

Kinda important, don't you think?

Quote:
So you agree that Zimmerman looked suspicious to Martin, causing him to run?


No. I don't agree. Have you just not been paying attention? People don't run from the cops because the cops look suspicious. They usually run from the cops because *they* look suspicious. Which is more or less the whole point I'm trying to make here. Everyone keeps repeating this myth of Martin running from Zimmerman because Zimmerman was a scary guy who Martin thought was a killer, or rapist, or criminal of some sort, while Martin was this sweet innocent boy who was just trying to get home with his candy and drink, but I think that myth is complete BS. I think Martin was doing something he knew looked suspicious. I think he realized that someone saw him doing this and was on the phone. And I think he (correctly) realized that said someone was calling the cops on him, and ran, not because he was afraid of a criminal, but because he was afraid of the cops.

Edited, Jul 30th 2013 5:20pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#485 Jul 30 2013 at 7:41 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,148 posts
Sure. Which is why you look for evidence which contradicts or supports his claim and weigh it. Aside from one witness, who had a poor and long distance view, and who changed her story three times, there was no evidence to refute Zimmerman's claim. There's a boatload of evidence that directly supports it though.

Yeah, that's just completely false. I'm not interested in litigating why. I don't really have a dog in this fight, I would have found him not guilty just like the jury did. Insisting on your Republic Serial narrative to justify your position just makes it and you look intellectually weak and lazy. What happened is unclear. That's almost always the case in criminal trials and is certainly the case here. Insisting that your point of view is so right that only an idiot would think otherwise doesn't work in this case. It DETRACTS substantially from your argument, which, unusually for you, is fairly sound otherwise.

There is no useful evidence that Martin was in danger of doing much harm to Zimmerman. His injuries were superficial. Entirely possible that Martin was on top of him, striking him in the face. Entirely possible that never occurred. Given the nature of the evidence offered a reasonable person would judge it somewhere in the 60/40 it happened range. What definitely didn't happen was Martin badly beating Zimmerman. The complete lack of fractures or significant soft tissue damage indicate that while Zimmerman may have feared for his life, the reality was that it was in little to no danger.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. @#%^ off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#486 Jul 30 2013 at 8:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Sure. Which is why you look for evidence which contradicts or supports his claim and weigh it. Aside from one witness, who had a poor and long distance view, and who changed her story three times, there was no evidence to refute Zimmerman's claim. There's a boatload of evidence that directly supports it though.

Yeah, that's just completely false. I'm not interested in litigating why. I don't really have a dog in this fight, I would have found him not guilty just like the jury did. Insisting on your Republic Serial narrative to justify your position just makes it and you look intellectually weak and lazy. What happened is unclear. That's almost always the case in criminal trials and is certainly the case here. Insisting that your point of view is so right that only an idiot would think otherwise doesn't work in this case. It DETRACTS substantially from your argument, which, unusually for you, is fairly sound otherwise.

There is no useful evidence that Martin was in danger of doing much harm to Zimmerman. His injuries were superficial. Entirely possible that Martin was on top of him, striking him in the face. Entirely possible that never occurred. Given the nature of the evidence offered a reasonable person would judge it somewhere in the 60/40 it happened range. What definitely didn't happen was Martin badly beating Zimmerman. The complete lack of fractures or significant soft tissue damage indicate that while Zimmerman may have feared for his life, the reality was that it was in little to no danger.



That's great Smash. But that wasn't what I said and to which you said "allegedly". Just to refresh your memory:

Smasharoo wrote:
The key is that he continued to punch Zimmerman in the face *after* pinning him to the ground

HI. Allegedly. I think you're conflating a finding of reasonable doubt that Zimmerman murdered someone with a finding of fact that Martin was assaulting Zimmerman. The only evidence that took place was the account of the guy who killed him. May be entirely accurate, but it doesn't seem outlandish to suspect a small amount of bias.


There's very little doubt that immediately prior to the shot being fired, Martin was on top of Zimmerman, pinning him to the ground, and punching him in the face. That doesn't mean that there's "no doubt", but if Zimmerman had not been armed that night, and the trial had instead been to determine if Martin had committed felony assault on Zimmerman, based on the testimony and evidence in the trial, it's very likely the same jury (or hell, almost any jury) would have found Martin guilty of assault beyond a reasonable doubt. Why? Because the evidence overwhelmingly indicates this.

That's not racism. It's not unfair. It's the evidence we have in the case.

Edited, Jul 30th 2013 7:29pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#487 Jul 30 2013 at 9:04 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Of course it's not. Hence why it's a different theory. You're the one who's assuming Martin thought Zimmerman looked suspicious. I'm disagreeing with that assessment and saying that Martin thought Zimmerman was calling the cops on him.


Assuming you know what the word "suspicion" means, there is no difference. Martin being suspicious that Zimmerman is calling the cops doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman was suspicious to Martin. So you agree that Zimmerman looked suspicious to Martin, causing him to run? If not, please provide a contradicting definition of "suspicion".

Gbaji wrote:

Kinda important, don't you think?

No.

Gbaji wrote:
No. I don't agree. Have you just not been paying attention? People don't run from the cops because the cops look suspicious.


If Zimmerman were a cop in a cop's car, then you might have a point. Since, Zimmerman was a civilian in a civilian car, there are only three possible solutions:

1. Martin ran from random cars
2. Martin was suspicious of Zimmerman and ran
3. Martin just had a "feeling" and ran

Pick one. This is not mutually exclusive. Criminals are always suspicious of other criminals. There were no cops in this scenario, so your point about running from the cops is irrelevant to this case.



____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#488 Jul 30 2013 at 9:58 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
And my speculation is that he ran because he realized that what he'd been doing looked suspicious, and that someone had seen him doing it and had called the cops.
As long as we get to create the narrative here, I'll say that Zimmerman must have drawn his finger across his throat while yelling NI&&ER and that's why Trayvon ran. My stupid speculation is just as valid as yours.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#489 Jul 30 2013 at 10:34 PM Rating: Excellent
I don't know how to pronounce &



Edited, Jul 30th 2013 11:35pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#490 Jul 31 2013 at 1:43 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And my speculation is that he ran because he realized that what he'd been doing looked suspicious, and that someone had seen him doing it and had called the cops.
As long as we get to create the narrative here, I'll say that Zimmerman must have drawn his finger across his throat while yelling NI&&ER and that's why Trayvon ran. My stupid speculation is just as valid as yours.


It's because of this, I realize that he is just trolling at this point. He is intelligent enough to know that you can't make an argument based on stuff that you made up.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#491 Jul 31 2013 at 7:40 AM Rating: Good
******
43,073 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I don't know how to pronounce &
Clearly he said niampersandampersanders.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#492 Jul 31 2013 at 11:12 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,466 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I realize that he is just trolling at this point. He is intelligent enough to know that you can't make an argument based on stuff that you made up.
Who you talking about?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#493 Jul 31 2013 at 12:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And my speculation is that he ran because he realized that what he'd been doing looked suspicious, and that someone had seen him doing it and had called the cops.
As long as we get to create the narrative here, I'll say that Zimmerman must have drawn his finger across his throat while yelling NI&&ER and that's why Trayvon ran. My stupid speculation is just as valid as yours.


Except for the whole audio recording that we have, in which he didn't do this. So not as valid.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#494 Jul 31 2013 at 12:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Of course it's not. Hence why it's a different theory. You're the one who's assuming Martin thought Zimmerman looked suspicious. I'm disagreeing with that assessment and saying that Martin thought Zimmerman was calling the cops on him.


Assuming you know what the word "suspicion" means, there is no difference. Martin being suspicious that Zimmerman is calling the cops doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman was suspicious to Martin. So you agree that Zimmerman looked suspicious to Martin, causing him to run? If not, please provide a contradicting definition of "suspicion".


Your lack of grammatical understanding is astounding. You honestly have no clue that you just used the root word in three distinct and different ways, do you?

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
No. I don't agree. Have you just not been paying attention? People don't run from the cops because the cops look suspicious.


If Zimmerman were a cop in a cop's car, then you might have a point. Since, Zimmerman was a civilian in a civilian car, there are only three possible solutions:

1. Martin ran from random cars
2. Martin was suspicious of Zimmerman and ran
3. Martin just had a "feeling" and ran

Pick one. This is not mutually exclusive. Criminals are always suspicious of other criminals. There were no cops in this scenario, so your point about running from the cops is irrelevant to this case.


Um... Unless what he suspected of Zimmerman was that he was calling the cops. Let's not lose sight of the forest for the grammatical trees here. It doesn't matter what words we use to label things. My point is that Martin likely ran from Zimmerman, not out of a fear that Zimmerman represented some kind of criminal threat, but that he represented a "lawful threat". But such a thing would only be a threat, or something to fear *if* one has adopted a mentality that says that the law is something to be feared.


Which is the entire point I'm trying to make. If Martin had not been taught to fear the law, he would not have reacted the way he did. Zimmerman would not have seen what appeared to be a confirmation of his suspicions about Martin. He would not have followed him on foot. They would not have had a confrontation. And Martin would not have been shot.

If this were just a one off situation, we might dismiss it as strange or unusual and move on. But the unfortunate fact is that this kind of things happens all the time. And it's not because of the cops unfairly targeting black men. It's because far too many black men are taught to fear/hate the law. So when a cop shows up, they run. When they are chased they continue to try to get away. And when they're cornered, they fight.

Edited, Jul 31st 2013 12:13pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#495 Jul 31 2013 at 2:28 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Your lack of grammatical understanding is astounding. You honestly have no clue that you just used the root word in three distinct and different ways, do you?


That doesn't answer my question. So you agree that Zimmerman looked suspicious to Martin, causing him to run? If not, please provide a contradicting definition of "suspicion". If using the word "suspicion" throws you off for some reason, replace "suspicion" with "suspicious". If you do not agree that Zimmerman looked suspicious to Martin, causing him to run, then provide a contradicting definition of "suspicious" which would make that statement false.

Gbaji wrote:
Um... Unless what he suspected of Zimmerman was that he was calling the cops.


See above
Until you provide a contradicting definition of the word "suspicious", that fits under #2.

Elinda wrote:
Who you talking about?


I'm talking ABOUT Gbaji.

Edited, Jul 31st 2013 10:30pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#496 Jul 31 2013 at 3:14 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And my speculation is that he ran because he realized that what he'd been doing looked suspicious, and that someone had seen him doing it and had called the cops.
As long as we get to create the narrative here, I'll say that Zimmerman must have drawn his finger across his throat while yelling NI&&ER and that's why Trayvon ran. My stupid speculation is just as valid as yours.
Except for the whole audio recording that we have, in which he didn't do this. So not as valid.
Can you prove he didn't do this before he called the police? Huh? Can you? No? Well, I guess I'm still winning!
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
I'm smarter then you. I know how to think. I've been trained in critical thinking instead of blindly parroting what I've been told.

#497 Jul 31 2013 at 3:27 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And my speculation is that he ran because he realized that what he'd been doing looked suspicious, and that someone had seen him doing it and had called the cops.
As long as we get to create the narrative here, I'll say that Zimmerman must have drawn his finger across his throat while yelling NI&&ER and that's why Trayvon ran. My stupid speculation is just as valid as yours.
Except for the whole audio recording that we have, in which he didn't do this. So not as valid.
Can you prove he didn't do this before he called the police? Huh? Can you? No? Well, I guess I'm still winning!


Obviously he didn't do it, because he was too busy reading Martin's mind when he found out that Martin was thinking about maybe perhaps committing a crime. The evidence is clear, Martin thought about thinking about perhaps maybe for sure committing a crime. When Martin realized that Zimmerman had read his mind and found out that he was thinking about maybe committing a crime, he ran! Although he was on the phone with his "girlfriend".
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#498 Jul 31 2013 at 4:53 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,630 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And my speculation is that he ran because he realized that what he'd been doing looked suspicious, and that someone had seen him doing it and had called the cops.
As long as we get to create the narrative here, I'll say that Zimmerman must have drawn his finger across his throat while yelling NI&&ER and that's why Trayvon ran. My stupid speculation is just as valid as yours.
Except for the whole audio recording that we have, in which he didn't do this. So not as valid.
Can you prove he didn't do this before he called the police? Huh? Can you? No? Well, I guess I'm still winning!
This thread is really going places...
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#499 Jul 31 2013 at 5:15 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Your lack of grammatical understanding is astounding. You honestly have no clue that you just used the root word in three distinct and different ways, do you?


That doesn't answer my question. So you agree that Zimmerman looked suspicious to Martin, causing him to run?


If "suspicious" includes "looked like someone calling the cops on him", then sure. I think you're twisting words around to make that comparison, but if that's what you've fixated on, I don't think there's much value trying to talk you down.

The larger point is that there is a difference between "running from someone you think is going to commit a criminal act against you" and "running from someone because he's calling the cops on you". If you want to say that both are "suspicious", that's fine I guess. But can you acknowledge that there is a huge difference between those two reasons for running?

Quote:
Until you provide a contradicting definition of the word "suspicious", that fits under #2.


I don't care to argue with you about the definition or use of the words "suspicious", "suspect", or "suspicion". I care about which is the more likely reason he ran from Zimmerman. I believe it's because he thought Zimmerman was calling the cops on him. And regardless of whether you think that makes Zimmerman "suspicious" from Martin's perspective, it still *also* means that Martin was not thinking like your normal law abiding citizen.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#500 Jul 31 2013 at 5:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,362 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And my speculation is that he ran because he realized that what he'd been doing looked suspicious, and that someone had seen him doing it and had called the cops.
As long as we get to create the narrative here, I'll say that Zimmerman must have drawn his finger across his throat while yelling NI&&ER and that's why Trayvon ran. My stupid speculation is just as valid as yours.
Except for the whole audio recording that we have, in which he didn't do this. So not as valid.
Can you prove he didn't do this before he called the police? Huh? Can you? No? Well, I guess I'm still winning!


Lol! Um... Prove? No. Show that it's highly improbable? Absolutely. If Zimmerman had done that prior to calling the police, and that's what made Martin run from him, then why was Martin walking down the street, apparently oblivious to Zimmerman's presence? I don't know about you, but if a guy in a car made some clear sign to me that he wanted to kill me, and I ran away from him, I'd be keeping an eye out for his car for the remainder of my walk home.

Unless Zimmerman faked the entire conversation on the phone with police! OMG! The real story comes out... It was aliens!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#501 Jul 31 2013 at 9:07 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:
If "suspicious" includes "looked like someone calling the cops on him", then sure.


According to the definition. I didn't make up the rules. Blame the English language.

In any case, so we finally agreed to the following points:

1. Martin's future actions could have been "anything".

2. Due to #1, there are no facts, proof or evidence to support the notion that Martin was about to commit a crime.

3. Martin became suspicious of Zimmerman and ran.

Is this accurate so far?

Edited, Aug 1st 2013 5:09am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 123 All times are in CDT
Aethien, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (121)