Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Zimmerman TrialFollow

#502 Aug 01 2013 at 6:56 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,509 posts
Uh oh. Georgie is back on the wrong side of the law.

This must mean he's a thug a crook an a murderer. If he'd been jailed when he should have been this vehicular speeding would never have happened.

Smiley: oyvey He's still packing...
The AP wrote:
After an unintelligible response from Zimmerman, the officer says, "Just take it easy. Go ahead and shut your glove compartment. Don't play with your firearm."
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#503 Aug 01 2013 at 7:11 AM Rating: Good
******
43,139 posts
Elinda wrote:
He's still packing...
So am I, what's your point?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#504 Aug 01 2013 at 7:14 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,509 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
He's still packing...
So am I, what's your point?

Since when are points necessary?

I like the quote. The article makes it sound as if the officer were a bit skittish about George and his Gun.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#505 Aug 01 2013 at 8:40 AM Rating: Good
******
43,139 posts
Elinda wrote:
The article makes it sound as if the officer were a bit skittish about George and his Gun.
Do you believe the officer would be less skittish if it were anyone else with a gun in their car?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#506 Aug 01 2013 at 9:06 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,687 posts
It sounds like he was kind of nervous too, a nervous guy you just pulled over who's got a gun in his hand would be a good reason to be extra careful.
____________________________
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.
#507 Aug 01 2013 at 9:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
He's still packing...
So am I, what's your point?

She said "packing", not "stuffing"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#508 Aug 01 2013 at 9:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,401 posts
Jophiel wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
He's still packing...
So am I, what's your point?

She said "packing", not "stuffing"
Mmmm... stuffing. Smiley: drool
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#509 Aug 01 2013 at 10:13 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,687 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
He's still packing...
So am I, what's your point?

She said "packing", not "stuffing"
Mmmm... stuffing. Smiley: drool
____________________________
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.
#510 Aug 01 2013 at 10:21 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,401 posts
Smiley: disappointed

This is why one should never forum on an empty stomach.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#511 Aug 01 2013 at 10:51 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,517 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Elinda wrote:
He's still packing...
So am I, what's your point?

She said "packing", not "stuffing"
Mmmm... stuffing. Smiley: drool

Mmmm, packing and stuffing.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#512 Aug 01 2013 at 10:52 AM Rating: Good
******
43,139 posts
Screenshot
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#513 Aug 01 2013 at 10:57 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,517 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Screenshot

I'd be happy to stuff them in my mouth.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#514 Aug 01 2013 at 11:33 AM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Almalieque wrote:

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


I'm not going to get into a semantic argument (cause it's pointless), but you are misusing the term. Whatever.

Quote:
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.


Disagree. #1 only shows that there is no proof that Martin was about to commit a crime. There are "facts" and "evidence" that Martin *might* have been about to commit, or planning to commit a crime. The facts being that it was raining and he wasn't walking in a manner expected of someone simply traveling home while it was raining, but going out of his way (in the rain) to check out people's yards and houses along the way. This is behavior that a reasonable person might see as indicative of possible criminal intent. Which is why Zimmerman called the police.

Quote:
3. Martin became suspicious of Zimmerman and ran.


Disagree. We don't know why Martin ran. We only know that he did. You keep insisting that it's because he was "suspicious of Zimmerman", I think that's too vague, and suggests some wrongdoing on Zimmerman's part. I would prefer, if we are to speculate that we speculate about exactly what Zimmerman was doing that caused Martin to run. I believe he ran because he believed that Zimmerman was calling the cops on him.

Why do you think Martin ran? And "he thought Zimmerman was suspicious" isn't a good answer. And if you can't get past that particular fixation on the word "suspicious", then tell me what was suspicious about Zimmerman that caused Martin to run.

Quote:
Is this accurate so far?


Nope. Not even close. You keep conflating "proof" with "evidence", and can't seem to get past the vague term "suspicious".

I also find it interesting that you insist on only assessing things that make Zimmerman look to be at fault. How about this list:

1. Martin was behaving in a strange manner given the time and weather conditions.

2. Zimmerman believed that this was indicative of possible criminal behavior or intent.

3. Zimmerman called the police to report this behavior.

4. When Martin became aware of Zimmerman and saw he was sitting in his car watching him and talking on his cell phone, he ran from him.


Can we agree on that set of events? Because I think those are a far more relevant set of events than what you keep blathering on about.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#515 Aug 01 2013 at 11:33 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,139 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm not going to get into a semantic argument
Bullshit.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#516 Aug 01 2013 at 11:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,805 posts
What are you, some sort of antisemant???
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#517 Aug 01 2013 at 12:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
Avatar
*****
11,401 posts
gbaji wrote:
How about this list:

1. Zimmerman believed Martin was behaving in a strange manner given the time and weather conditions.

2. Zimmerman believed that this was indicative of possible criminal behavior or intent.

3. Zimmerman called the police to report this behavior.

4. When Martin became aware of Zimmerman and saw he was sitting in his car watching him and talking on his cell phone, he ran from him.

Think you'll have more luck with that. There's enough people who don't see Martin's initial behavior as overly suspicious.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#518 Aug 01 2013 at 12:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,517 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
How about this list:

1. Zimmerman believed Martin was behaving in a strange manner given the time and weather conditions.

2. Zimmerman believed that this was indicative of possible criminal behavior or intent.

3. Zimmerman called the police to report this behavior.

4. When Martin became aware of Zimmerman and saw he was sitting in his car watching him and talking on his cell phone, he ran from him.

Think you'll have more luck with that. There's enough people who don't see Martin's initial behavior as overly suspicious.


I'm fine with the first 3.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#519 Aug 01 2013 at 2:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
How about this list:

1. Zimmerman believed Martin was behaving in a strange manner given the time and weather conditions.

2. Zimmerman believed that this was indicative of possible criminal behavior or intent.

3. Zimmerman called the police to report this behavior.

4. When Martin became aware of Zimmerman and saw he was sitting in his car watching him and talking on his cell phone, he ran from him.

Think you'll have more luck with that. There's enough people who don't see Martin's initial behavior as overly suspicious.


I'm fine with the first 3.


Why not number 4? I mean, here's the relevant parts from the transcript of Zimmerman's call:

Quote:
Now he's just staring at me.
...
Yeah, now he's coming towards me.
...
Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.
...
No you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left, uh, you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. (expletive) he's running.



Assuming that this is an accurate account of what Martin was doing (even if we don't accept Zimmerman's interpretation of Martin's actions), it's clear that Martin walked down the street. Then he saw Zimmerman's car. Walked up to see what the person in the car was doing. And once he walked up close enough to see Zimmerman clearly, he ran.

This tells us two things:

1. Martin was *not* afraid of Zimmerman's vehicle. If he'd seen Zimmerman driving around (or following him as some keep claiming), he would not have approached the car and *then* run.

2. Martin only fled from Zimmerman after he got close enough to see who was inside and (presumably) what he was doing.


Unless you have some other explanation as to why he would approach the car initially and then run away? We can speculate about exactly why Martin ran, but it's very clear that the decision to run was made only after he got close enough to see Zimmerman clearly. If it was about the car and not Zimmerman himself, he wouldn't have approached in the first place.

Edited, Aug 1st 2013 1:38pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#520 Aug 01 2013 at 2:54 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,156 posts
This tells us two things:

1. Martin was black.
2. Zimmerman wasn't.
____________________________
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.

#521 Aug 01 2013 at 3:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
This tells us two things:

1. Martin was black.
2. Zimmerman wasn't.


We didn't already know this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#522 Aug 01 2013 at 4:24 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:

I'm not going to get into a semantic argument (cause it's pointless), but you are misusing the term. Whatever.
...
Nope. Not even close. You keep conflating "proof" with "evidence", and can't seem to get past the vague term "suspicious".


Not only have you been arguing semantics this entire time, but you continue to do so in the very same post. Obviously, you can't provide a contradictory definition and you are too stubborn to admit being wrong.

Gbaji wrote:
Disagree. #1 only shows that there is no proof that Martin was about to commit a crime. There are "facts" and "evidence" that Martin *might* have been about to commit, or planning to commit a crime. The facts being that it was raining and he wasn't walking in a manner expected of someone simply traveling home while it was raining, but going out of his way (in the rain) to check out people's yards and houses along the way. This is behavior that a reasonable person might see as indicative of possible criminal intent. Which is why Zimmerman called the police.


What facts and/or evidence are there that suggests that Martin was "checking out people's yards and houses along the way" as opposed to simply talking on the cellphone with no sense of urgency?.

Gbaji wrote:
Disagree. We don't know why Martin ran. We only know that he did.

Gbaji previously wrote:
"If "suspicious" includes "looked like someone calling the cops on him", then sure."

You agreed.

Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin and Martin was suspicious of Zimmerman. That doesn't make one look more at fault than another. Stop with the distractions.


Edited, Aug 2nd 2013 12:25am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#523 Aug 01 2013 at 6:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Disagree. #1 only shows that there is no proof that Martin was about to commit a crime. There are "facts" and "evidence" that Martin *might* have been about to commit, or planning to commit a crime. The facts being that it was raining and he wasn't walking in a manner expected of someone simply traveling home while it was raining, but going out of his way (in the rain) to check out people's yards and houses along the way. This is behavior that a reasonable person might see as indicative of possible criminal intent. Which is why Zimmerman called the police.


What facts and/or evidence are there that suggests that Martin was "checking out people's yards and houses along the way"?


Um... The fact that this is what Zimmerman reported to police is evidence that this is what Martin was doing. WTF?


Quote:
Gbaji previously wrote:
"If "suspicious" includes "looked like someone calling the cops on him", then sure."

You agreed.


IF it includes "looked like someone calling the cops on him". Again:WTF?

Quote:
Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin and Martin was suspicious of Zimmerman. That doesn't make one look more at fault than another.


Only because you are intentionally choosing to use a broad term so you can apply the same term to both, while ignoring that the specific behavior of the two is very different.

One being "suspicious" of the other because he appeared to be engaged in or planning potentially illegal activities is very different than the other being "suspicious" of him because he's calling the cops on him.

Quote:
Stop with the distractions.


Lol. That's funny as hell. Answer the question I've asked repeatedly: If you insist on saying that Martin was suspicious of Zimmerman, then what do you think he suspected Zimmerman was doing that caused him to run? Isn't that the key point here? One of them suspected the other of possible criminal activities and called the police. The other ran from that person. You are insisting he ran because Zimmerman was "suspicious". But that's not specific enough. What about Zimmerman was Martin suspicious of? What did he think Zimmerman was doing that made him decide to run away?


I believe he thought Zimmerman was calling the cops. What do you think it was?

Edited, Aug 1st 2013 5:28pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#524 Aug 01 2013 at 6:29 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,517 posts
Quote:
Why not number 4? I mean, here's the relevant parts from the transcript of Zimmerman's call:


I reject number 4 because it's blatant assumption. You start off your defense assuming it's true.

No, that's not circular reasoning at all.

But I'll play: We can't assume that's true because we don't know what Zimmerman or Martin were doing. Zimmerman's testimony says one thing. The testimony of Martin's girlfriend says another (that may or may not be compatible with what Zimmerman said). The call to the police says nothing about what Zimmerman was doing before calling. Was he just sitting in his truck and Martin walked by, or was he following Martin down the street and then stopped to call the cops?

Finally, the testimony of the person with the most to lose is always the testimony you must treat with the most suspicion.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#525 Aug 01 2013 at 6:29 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,517 posts
Quote:

Um... The fact that this is what Zimmerman reported to police is evidence that this is what Martin was doing. WTF?


sh*tty evidence.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#526 Aug 01 2013 at 6:31 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
What facts and/or evidence are there that suggests that Martin was "checking out people's yards and houses along the way"?
Um... The fact that this is what Zimmerman reported to police is evidence that this is what Martin was doing. WTF?
Sure, if you are inclined to believe Zimmerman. See, some people are not inclined to believe Zimmerman because he likes to kill kids. Makes him look a little untrustworthy.
____________________________
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.

#527 Aug 01 2013 at 7:42 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
Why not number 4? I mean, here's the relevant parts from the transcript of Zimmerman's call:


I reject number 4 because it's blatant assumption.


No. It's a reasonable conclusion based on the facts we have available.

Quote:
You start off your defense assuming it's true.


No. I start off with the fact that the best information we have about what happened when Zimmerman first saw Martin and Martin first saw Zimmerman is that contained within the audio recording of the police non-emergency call he placed. It's objective in the sense that what he said is what he said. To dismiss what is said in that call requires that we speculate that Zimmerman knew that people like us would pour over a transcript of his call and try to figure out what was going on, and so he completely fabricated everything he claimed to see that night. Which seems absurd. If that was the case, why leave in the expletives? Why not lie about following Martin?

We kinda have to assume that at least with regards to basic things like "he's walking towards me", and "he's seen me", and "he's running" that they are true. Otherwise we have to reject the entire thing as fabricated and are left with nothing at all.

Quote:
No, that's not circular reasoning at all.


It's not.

Quote:
But I'll play: We can't assume that's true because we don't know what Zimmerman or Martin were doing. Zimmerman's testimony says one thing. The testimony of Martin's girlfriend says another (that may or may not be compatible with what Zimmerman said). The call to the police says nothing about what Zimmerman was doing before calling.


It does tell us what Zimmerman actually said that night at the time. It's the only "testimony" that we can say can't be tainted by knowledge of what would happen later. His testimony can be. The girlfriends can be. The witnesses can be. The audio recording? Can't be. Because it's a recording. I mean, if we had a video of the fight, you'd accept that over an eye witness report, right? Because it is what was seen. This is the same. It's what Zimmerman said at the time.

From that call, we can actually glean quite a bit of information. One of those things is that Zimmerman was not chasing Martin through the complex in his truck as has often been claimed. Another is that when Zimmerman reports that Martin sees him is almost certainly the very first time that Martin was aware of Zimmerman's existence that night. We can also say that Martin ran from Zimmerman, while Zimmerman was parked in his car, and not *because* Zimmerman was chasing/following him (which I've been trying to get people to accept for some time now).

Quote:
Was he just sitting in his truck and Martin walked by, or was he following Martin down the street and then stopped to call the cops?


The former. It's right in the audio recording. If he was following Martin down the street, why was Martin walking towards him when he calls? I suppose it's possible he spotted Martin and then circled around and parked on that street to watch for him, but it's clear that Martin was completely unaware that he was being watched until he got relatively close to Zimmerman's parked vehicle. So the idea that he was already afraid and fleeing Zimmerman at that point cannot be true. And we know that any pursuing that happened after that point occurred on foot (and we know where that ended).

Quote:
Finally, the testimony of the person with the most to lose is always the testimony you must treat with the most suspicion.


Except I'm not talking about Zimmerman's testimony. I'm reading the transcript of his phone call to police. He didn't know he might have the most to lose when he made that call. Thus, it can be assumed to be relatively accurate.

What's the alternative? We take the girlfriends testimony at face value? We have no recording of that phone call. To claim the information in the police recording is false would require us to assume that Zimmerman planned the whole thing and staged the police call ahead of time to help exonerate him. Isn't it more likely that the girlfriend just adjusted the details of the call to make Martin look more innocent and Zimmerman more guilty? And let's not forget that nothing in her testimony actually contradicts the information in the police recording. She never claimed that Zimmerman chased Martin in his car. This was pure fabrication via wild speculation and rumors about the case in the early days, yet it persists despite there not being a shred of evidence to support it. She doesn't mention at all when Martin first spotted Zimmerman, or why he was running (except for the whole "creepy ass cracker" comment. Just that he was.

That part isn't really in question. What is in question is why Martin initially chose to run way from Zimmerman. Because everyone seems to want to hinge their opinions about the later events based on the why and how of the chase itself. I'm saying that I believe that the evidence best supports the theory that Martin realized that Zimmerman was calling the cops on him and ran to avoid the cops.


Do you have a better reason? I keep asking people to answer this, and all I get back is either vague statements from Alma "he was suspicious!", or folks running back to emotional rhetoric and ignoring the question. Zimmerman did not follow Martin until after Martin ran. Martin ran *after* he walked close enough to Zimmerman's parked vehicle to see him clearly. So the question is: "Why did he run"? Assuming we all agree that it's not normal to flee from someone sitting in a parked car talking on a cell phone, then why did he run?

Can you answer that question?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#528 Aug 01 2013 at 7:44 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
What facts and/or evidence are there that suggests that Martin was "checking out people's yards and houses along the way"?
Um... The fact that this is what Zimmerman reported to police is evidence that this is what Martin was doing. WTF?
Sure, if you are inclined to believe Zimmerman.


It's not about believing Zimmerman. It's about believing that the recording is an accurate reflection of what Zimmerman said, and that at the time Zimmerman had no reason to believe he needed to lie about what he saw that night.

Quote:
See, some people are not inclined to believe Zimmerman because he likes to kill kids. Makes him look a little untrustworthy.


Yeah. We call those people "nutters".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#529 Aug 01 2013 at 9:30 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Um... The fact that this is what Zimmerman reported to police is evidence that this is what Martin was doing. WTF?

You didn't answer the question. What facts and/or evidence are there that suggests that Martin was "checking out people's yards and houses along the way" as opposed to simply talking on the cellphone with no sense of urgency? You know, given the fact that he was on the phone and all and Zimmerman never noticed, or at least mentioned, that Martin was on the phone.
Gbaji wrote:

IF it includes "looked like someone calling the cops on him". Again:WTF?

So, you agree. You gave a condition, the condition was met, so you agree.
Gbaji wrote:
Only because you are intentionally choosing to use a broad term so you can apply the same term to both

So, you agree that the "intentionally broad term" applies to both.
Gbaji wrote:
Answer the question I've asked repeatedly

I have, several times, but you conveniently like to ignore parts of posts, so I'm "walking the dog", doing one point at a time. Addressing to other points outside the question will only give you the opportunity to ignore the points that matter. I assure you that if you cooperate, we will arrive to your questions.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#530 Aug 01 2013 at 11:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Oh, I see. If there is a recording of what I say then my perception of what is going on must be correct because it's recorded.


So, if I call the SDPD and tell them you are planning to blow up an abortion clinic it's true because the police recorded it.

Hey; thanks for clearing that up!!
____________________________
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.

#531 Aug 01 2013 at 11:55 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Oh, I see. If there is a recording of what I say then my perception of what is going on must be correct because it's recorded.


So, if I call the SDPD and tell them you are planning to blow up an abortion clinic it's true because the police recorded it.

Hey; thanks for clearing that up!!


That's literally what he's saying, totally overlooking the fact that Zimmerman didn't know that Martin was on the phone with a bag of skittles. That alone questions his perception of reality.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#532 Aug 02 2013 at 7:25 AM Rating: Good
******
43,139 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
So, if I call the SDPD and tell them you are planning to blow up an abortion clinic it's true because the police recorded it.
You'd need to blow up an abortion clinic and leave evidence that points towards him without leaving any that points back to you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#533 Aug 02 2013 at 5:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:

Um... The fact that this is what Zimmerman reported to police is evidence that this is what Martin was doing. WTF?

You didn't answer the question. What facts and/or evidence are there that suggests that Martin was "checking out people's yards and houses along the way"...


Um... The fact that this is what Zimmerman reported to police is evidence that this is what Martin was doing. WTF?

That's the answer to your question.

Quote:
as opposed to simply talking on the cellphone with no sense of urgency? You know, given the fact that he was on the phone and all and Zimmerman never noticed, or at least mentioned, that Martin was on the phone.


The two are not mutually exclusive. One can both be talking on the phone *and* checking out peoples yards and houses. It's not shocking that Zimmerman would not have reported that Martin was talking on the phone, because Martin was using a headset and wearing a hoodie. Thus, it's unlikely he could have seen either the phone or the headset. He could easily see where he was walking though.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. We have a recorded phone conversation between Zimmerman and the police. I suspect you have a very confused idea of what "facts" and "evidence" are.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Answer the question I've asked repeatedly

I have, several times, but you conveniently like to ignore parts of posts, so I'm "walking the dog", doing one point at a time.


You have not once answered this question. Why specifically do you think Martin ran from Zimmerman? I don't want a vague answer like "He looked suspicious". I want specifics. What about what Zimmerman was doing was suspicious? Why would that cause Martin to flee?

We know what about Martin's behavior was suspicious to Zimmerman. It's right there in the recording. And we know precisely how Zimmerman reacted to it (he called the police). We have a second suspicious thing that Martin did (running from Zimmernan), also on the recording, and we know how Zimmerman reacted to that (he got out his car and followed Martin).

What I want from you, is the same kind of detail with regards to Martin's actions. It's just funny as hell that you keep insisting on more more more detail with regards to Zimmerman, but are completely vague about Martin. But the actions and reactions of both men contributed to the ultimate outcome that night. Let's look at what both of them did.

This should be a simple thing for you to do. You certainly seem positive that Martin's decision to flee from Zimmerman was perfectly reasonable, so why can't you tell me *why* it was?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#534 Aug 02 2013 at 6:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Oh, I see. If there is a recording of what I say then my perception of what is going on must be correct because it's recorded.


No. But in the absence of better evidence to the contrary, it's a reasonable assumption that what you reported to the police was your perception at the time.

Quote:
So, if I call the SDPD and tell them you are planning to blow up an abortion clinic it's true because the police recorded it.


Terrible example. Zimmerman didn't report that Martin was about to rob a house. He did report the behavior he saw (walking around, looking about). That's it. There's no reason to assume he was lying about that unless you have some evidence that Martin *wasn't* doing what Zimmerman reported him doing. That doesn't mean that what Martin was doing was criminal, but given the weather conditions, it was something Zimmerman thought was suspicious. That's certainly sufficient reason to call the police.


On the flip side we have... Nothing. No recording of what Martin was saying at the time. No evidence that he was just walking straight home the whole time, or that Zimmerman was falsely reporting what was happening. So why such a strong resistance to the possibility that Martin was doing exactly what Zimmerman said he was doing?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#535 Aug 02 2013 at 6:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,600 posts
If I thought I was being watched while walking through an area, and approached the vehicle to see if someone was in there watching me, realized they were watching me, I might get out of there too. I have no idea why someone may be watching me as I walk through an area at night. But if I leave the area they wouldn't be watching me any more. Except in this case after he tried to leave the area, the person watching him gets out of the vehicle to follow him.

When I realize a person is sitting in a vehicle watching me, and I get out of their field of view, and now they are on foot following me? Something's up... That's not normal (or common!)
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#536 Aug 02 2013 at 6:18 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,517 posts
Quote:
When I realize a person is sitting in a vehicle watching me, and I get out of their field of view, and now they are on foot following me? Something's up... That's not normal (or common!)


But I'm sure it's natural.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#537 Aug 02 2013 at 6:21 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
TirithRR wrote:
If I thought I was being watched while walking through an area, and approached the vehicle to see if someone was in there watching me, realized they were watching me, I might get out of there too.


Would you run though? You're walking up a street. You see a vehicle parked on the side of the road. You think there might be someone inside. As you walk up closer, you realize that there is someone in the car, and he's looking at you and talking on his phone. What is your response to this?

I think most people would just continue walking in the direction they were walking and not give it much thought. Yes, I might become concerned if the person then got out of the car and followed me, but Zimmerman got out of the car *because* Martin ran. We have no idea what he would have done if Martin had just continued walking down the street at a normal pace.

Quote:
I have no idea why someone may be watching me as I walk through an area at night.


Exactly. One doesn't normally leap to "he's a deranged serial killer/rapist, so I'd better run for my life!". I'd normally assume that this person is sitting in his car talking on his phone for some reason. Maybe he just parked there, and because it's raining decided to finish his phone call before getting out of his car. Maybe he's having an affair on his wife and this is a safe place he can call his girlfriend. Who knows? Why is he looking at me? Probably because he's as curious about me walking down the street in the rain as I am about him sitting in his parked car in the rain.


Quote:
But if I leave the area they wouldn't be watching me any more. Except in this case after he tried to leave the area, the person watching him gets out of the vehicle to follow him.


You're downplaying the method of "leaving the area" though. Martin didn't just continue to walk down the street. He ran away from Zimmerman. So when he saw someone sitting in a parked car, looking at him, and talking on his phone, his response was to run.

I think that's strange. At the very least a significant overreaction. Don't you?

Quote:
When I realize a person is sitting in a vehicle watching me, and I get out of their field of view, and now they are on foot following me? Something's up... That's not normal (or common!)


Which would be a perfectly valid reaction if Martin had continued walking by, then Zimmerman got out of his car and followed him, and *then* Martin started running. But that's not what happened. Martin walked towards the car. When he got close to the car and he realized Zimmerman was inside and watching him, he almost immediately ran. He didn't wait for Zimmerman to take the kind of action one might consider justification for running. Unless we assume that Martin is so skittish that he flees from every person he sees in a parked car who looks at him while talking on the phone, that is. In which case, I *still* think that's pretty strange behavior.



This is why I've speculated that Martin didn't run from Zimmerman because he thought he was a criminal, but because he thought Zimmerman was calling the cops. It's the only explanation that makes complete sense. If he knew that what he'd been doing looked suspicious, and believed Zimmerman either was a cop, or was calling the cops, his decision to run from Zimmerman right at that moment makes sense. Zimmerman isn't a threat to him unless he's concerned about who he's calling. Zimmerman can't be a threat to him until/unless Zimmerman gets out of his car and starts following him. But that only happened *after* Martin ran.

So, I'll ask again: Why did Martin run? Thinking someone sitting in a car might be a bad guy planning to do something bad to you is a good reason to keep an eye on that person, and then take off *if* that person does something to confirm that suspicion. But as you've said yourself, that would require the person either following you in the car or getting out and following you on foot. Neither of which happened until after Martin made the decision to run. So we're left with that same question I've been asking all along: Why did he run?


It's a gross overreaction to anything he could have suspected of Zimmerman *unless* what he suspected was that he was calling the cops. Then it makes complete sense.

Edited, Aug 2nd 2013 5:24pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#538 Aug 02 2013 at 6:28 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,517 posts
Quote:
Would you run though? You're walking up a street. You see a vehicle parked on the side of the road. You think there might be someone inside. As you walk up closer, you realize that there is someone in the car, and he's looking at you and talking on his phone. What is your response to this?


Was this truck following me, significantly enough that I tell the person on the phone about it, then they stop and get out? @#%^ yes, I run.

Were they parked and then I see them exit the truck holding a gun? @#%^ yes, I run.

Were they staring at me as I passed, then they get out and start walking directly towards me? @#%^ yes, I run.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#539 Aug 02 2013 at 6:43 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Um... The fact that this is what Zimmerman reported to police is evidence that this is what Martin was doing. WTF?

That's the answer to your question.


Zimmerman calling the police does not address the difference between simply talking on the phone with no urgency as opposed to "checking out people's yards and houses along the way". Zimmerman DID NOT mention that Martin was on the phone with his "girlfriend" with a bag of skittles. So at least one of the two must be true:

1. Zimmerman intentionally left out those facts.
2. Zimmerman did NOT notice that Martin was on the phone with his "girlfriend" with a bag of skittles.

Gbaji wrote:
The two are not mutually exclusive. One can both be talking on the phone *and* checking out peoples yards and houses.


Which is why I'm asking you to provide facts that support that he was "checking out people's yards and houses along the way" as opposed to simply talking on the phone with no urgency? If you can't provide facts that differentiate one from another, then how can you claim one or both? At that point, you just have facts of him walking where he could be doing one and/or both. Those are not facts that specifically support "checking out people's yards and houses along the way".

Gbaji wrote:
You have not once answered this question.


Not only have I answered it several times, you even contradicted yourself to say exactly what I said, which is what I'm going to point out. If I repeat myself as I did before, you will only conveniently leave out points and focus on distractions.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#540 Aug 02 2013 at 6:43 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
Would you run though? You're walking up a street. You see a vehicle parked on the side of the road. You think there might be someone inside. As you walk up closer, you realize that there is someone in the car, and he's looking at you and talking on his phone. What is your response to this?


Was this truck following me...


No. It was not. It was parked on the side of the road. You walked towards it.

Quote:
...significantly enough that I tell the person on the phone about it, then they stop and get out? @#%^ yes, I run.


Except that's not what happened. Truck is parked. Person does not get out of the car. But you run anyway. Why?

Quote:
Were they parked and then I see them exit the truck holding a gun? @#%^ yes, I run.


Again. Not what happened. You ran before they got out of the vehicle. Again: Why?

Quote:
Were they staring at me as I passed, then they get out and start walking directly towards me? @#%^ yes, I run.


Except that's not what happened. I don't know how many more times I can say this, or how much more clearly I can say it: Martin ran before Zimmerman ever got out of his vehicle or followed him in any way.

I'll ask again: Why did he run? You guys keep insisting on inventing scenarios in which it would be reasonable to run, while ignoring the actual scenario that happened. Give me an explanation that fits the information we have based on the recorded phone call. Can you do that?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#541 Aug 02 2013 at 6:52 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,517 posts
Quote:
Except that's not what happened. I don't know how many more times I can say this, or how much more clearly I can say it: Martin ran before Zimmerman ever got out of his vehicle or followed him in any way.


You can say it all you want, until you can offer any kind of reliable evidence it's the case, it doesn't matter.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#542 Aug 02 2013 at 6:55 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Zimmerman calling the police does not address the difference between simply talking on the phone with no urgency as opposed to "checking out people's yards and houses along the way". Zimmerman DID NOT mention that Martin was on the phone with his "girlfriend" with a bag of skittles. So at least one of the two must be true:

1. Zimmerman intentionally left out those facts.
2. Zimmerman did NOT notice that Martin was on the phone with his "girlfriend" with a bag of skittles.


The latter is almost certainly true.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
The two are not mutually exclusive. One can both be talking on the phone *and* checking out peoples yards and houses.


Which is why I'm asking you to provide facts that support that he was "checking out people's yards and houses along the way" as opposed to simply talking on the phone with no urgency?


I'll repeat my assertion that you don't understand what "facts" are. A fact is anything that is true. It does not have to constitute proof of any conclusion, only be "true" by itself.

It is absolutely true that Zimmerman made the following statement in his phone call:

Quote:
Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, it's Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.

...

OK, he's just walking around the area…

...

looking at all the houses.


That is a "fact". This fact constitutes evidence that Martin was doing what Zimmerman reported him doing. Let me note that this does not *prove* that Martin was doing what Zimmerman claimed he was doing, much less that Martin was doing anything illegal. But you asked for "facts" or "evidence". That's what that is.

Quote:
If you can't provide facts that differentiate one from another, then how can you claim one or both?


There's no need to differentiate them. As I said earlier, they are not mutually exclusive. Martin could have been "walking around, looking about ... looking at all the houses" *and* talking on his phone with his girlfriend. Do you honestly think Zimmerman is superman or something? How is he supposed to know Martin is talking on the phone, let alone who he's talking with, and what brand of candy he has in his pocket?

That's insane.

Quote:
At that point, you just have facts of him walking where he could be doing one and/or both. Those are not facts that specifically support "checking out people's yards and houses along the way".


They are facts which provide evidence that this is what he was doing. Again: Do yo understand what "facts" and "evidence" are? They are not proof by themselves. Facts are true statements. Evidence is a collection of facts which suggest a given conclusion. In the case of a trial, the jury gets to decide if that evidence is sufficient to make a given conclusion about what happened.

You seem terribly confused about how people make determinations.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
You have not once answered this question.


Not only have I answered it several times, you even contradicted yourself to say exactly what I said, which is what I'm going to point out. If I repeat myself as I did before, you will only conveniently leave out points and focus on distractions.


You have not answered my question: Why did Martin run from Zimmerman?


Edited, Aug 2nd 2013 6:01pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#543 Aug 02 2013 at 6:57 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,369 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
Except that's not what happened. I don't know how many more times I can say this, or how much more clearly I can say it: Martin ran before Zimmerman ever got out of his vehicle or followed him in any way.


You can say it all you want, until you can offer any kind of reliable evidence it's the case, it doesn't matter.


The recording of Zimmerman's call is the "best evidence" we have of the sequence of events at that portion of their encounter. You're free to conclude that this isn't "reliable evidence", if you want. But then I've got to ask what better evidence you have to argue that this isn't what happened? Other than you wanting things to have happened differently because it fits a narrative you've been told, that is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#544 Aug 02 2013 at 7:11 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,517 posts
gbaji wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
Except that's not what happened. I don't know how many more times I can say this, or how much more clearly I can say it: Martin ran before Zimmerman ever got out of his vehicle or followed him in any way.


You can say it all you want, until you can offer any kind of reliable evidence it's the case, it doesn't matter.


The recording of Zimmerman's call is the "best evidence" we have of the sequence of events at that portion of their encounter. You're free to conclude that this isn't "reliable evidence", if you want. But then I've got to ask what better evidence you have to argue that this isn't what happened? Other than you wanting things to have happened differently because it fits a narrative you've been told, that is.


The testimony of the defendant is never best evidence of anything. Ever. Even when you don't have contrary evidence, you don't just assume it's true. And in this case, we do have contrary evidence in the form of the testimony of the girlfriend, who was on the phone with Martin at the time. Which you've consistently forgotten exists.

When it comes down to it, her testimony, given under oath at a trial at which she has nothing to lose, is more reliable than his, given as his statement to the police after shooting a teenager, when he has everything to lose. That doesn't make her right and him wrong, but it would be more shocking for her to be lying. If you force me to make an inference, that's the one I'll make.

And here's the grand part - I don't need to posit a new scenario in order to doubt Zimmerman's testimony. I'm perfectly within my rights to doubt the testimony of one man, offered without any substantiating evidence. You arguing otherwise is submitting to a relatively basic fallacy.

Is that sufficient to convict someone of murder under the law? Apparently not. But that still doesn't make Zimmerman's story any more reliable.

Furthermore, if you feel the need to reduce the scenario to something so ridiculous as Zimmerman just sitting in his car, twiddling his thumbs, while Martin bashes in windows and runs naked through the street in order to make your argument, you should probably seek mental help.

Or, on second thought, seek mental help anyway.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#545 Aug 02 2013 at 7:29 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,162 posts
Quote:
Except that's not what happened. I don't know how many more times I can say this, or how much more clearly I can say it: Martin ran before Zimmerman ever got out of his vehicle or followed him in any way.


I'm guessing you didn't watch the video posted a few pages back with Zimmerman going through the step-by-step of the event. You keep repeating that Martin ran as soon as he saw Zimmerman on the phone and that Zimmerman never followed him in his car but that's not what happened according to Zimmerman himself.

He first saw Martin and followed him in his car till he got to the club house where he parked his car and called the police. At that point he lost sight of Martin so he went looking for him still in his car and found him again on a different street. It's at that point that Martin ran and Zimmerman got out of his car.



#546 Aug 02 2013 at 7:33 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,517 posts
Wasn't he the one that posted that video?
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#547 Aug 02 2013 at 7:33 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Gbaji wrote:
The latter is almost certainly true.


Which only supports the fact that Zimmerman didn't really know what was going on and made an assumption. That isn't inherently "bad" on his part, but on your part. You're confusing the legitimacy of Zimmerman's suspicion of Martin with the legitimacy of your speculation of Martin.

You cannot logically allude to Martin potentially committing a crime without more facts and/or evidence to support it, knowing that Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend with a bag of skittles. Zimmerman didn't know any better, but you do, so the onus is on you to substantiate your remarks. Unless, you're just spreading gossip.
Gbaji wrote:
I'll repeat my assertion that you don't understand what "facts" are. A fact is anything that is true. It does not have to constitute proof of any conclusion, only be "true" by itself.

It is absolutely true that Zimmerman made the following statement in his phone call:
..
They are facts which provide evidence that this is what he was doing. Again: Do yo understand what "facts" and "evidence" are? They are not proof by themselves. Facts are true statements. Evidence is a collection of facts which suggest a given conclusion. In the case of a trial, the jury gets to decide if that evidence is sufficient to make a given conclusion about what happened.
You seem terribly confused about how people make determinations.

Of course facts do not have to constitute proof of any conclusion. That's why I'm not asking you simply to provide random facts. I'm specifically asking what are the facts and/or evidence are there that suggests that Martin was "checking out people's yards and houses along the way" as opposed to simply talking on the cellphone with no sense of urgency? Zimmerman calling the police doesn't suggest one over the other when HE DID NOT EVEN KNOW THAT MARTIN WAS ON THE PHONE OR WHAT WAS IN HIS HANDS. Again, don't conflate Zimmerman's suspicion with your speculation.
Gbaji wrote:
That is a "fact". This fact constitutes evidence that Martin was doing what Zimmerman reported him doing. Let me note that this does not *prove* that Martin was doing what Zimmerman claimed he was doing, much less that Martin was doing anything illegal. But you asked for "facts" or "evidence". That's what that is.

I didn't simply ask for random facts or evidence. That's what you are providing, hence why I keep asking the question. I'm asking what are the facts and/or evidence are there that suggests that Martin was "checking out people's yards and houses along the way" as opposed to simply talking on the cellphone with no sense of urgency?
Gbaji wrote:
There's no need to differentiate them. As I said earlier, they are not mutually exclusive. Martin could have been "walking around, looking about ... looking at all the houses" *and* talking on his phone with his girlfriend. Do you honestly think Zimmerman is superman or something? How is he supposed to know Martin is talking on the phone, let alone who he's talking with, and what brand of candy he has in his pocket?

That's insane.

If you are unable to differentiate the two, in a general sense, then you cannot claim he was doing one and not the other or both. It's really that simple. If you can't tell the difference between someone being asleep vs unconscious, then you cannot logically label one over the other.
Don't conflate Zimmerman's suspicion with your speculation. You are making claims KNOWING that Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend with a bag of skittles. Zimmerman did not know that, hence why he thought Martin was crazy and/or on drugs.
Gbaji wrote:
You have not answered my question: Why did Martin run from Zimmerman?

Not only have I answered it, I outlined it in bold and you ignored it. You later then agreed with me in contradiction.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2013 3:35am by Almalieque

Edited, Aug 3rd 2013 6:40am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#548 Aug 02 2013 at 7:39 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,162 posts
Quote:
Wasn't he the one that posted that video?


You think he would post a video that contradict his argument and not even bother to watch it and then write a 6000 words essay arguing the exact opposite.

Yea sounds about right for Gbaji.
#549 Aug 02 2013 at 7:52 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
feelz wrote:
Quote:
Wasn't he the one that posted that video?


You think he would post a video that contradict his argument and not even bother to watch it and then write a 6000 words essay arguing the exact opposite.

Yea sounds about right for Gbaji.

He also contradicted his own claim on why Martin ran (agreeing with the majority of the thread) and now is claiming that I never said anything on the issue. As if the conversation isn't still there.

That's what happens when you get caught up in trolling. You forget which side you're on.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#550 Aug 03 2013 at 8:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,635 posts
I just want to say, for the record, that if I was walking home from the store and on a personal phone call with my boyfriend, and I wanted to keep talking to him, I probably would wander along the road, taking my time, so as to arrive at my destination slower so that I could continue my conversation.

I suppose that would make me look suspicious. I think it would just make me look like a teenager who wants to talk to a member of the opposite sex outside of my parent's earshot...
____________________________
Kurt Vonnegut (1922-2007) wrote:
I am eternally grateful.. for my knack of finding in great books, some of them very funny books, reason enough to feel honored to be alive, no matter what else might be going on.
#551 Aug 03 2013 at 9:26 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,912 posts
Belkira wrote:
I just want to say, for the record, that if I was walking home from the store and on a personal phone call with my boyfriend, and I wanted to keep talking to him, I probably would wander along the road, taking my time, so as to arrive at my destination slower so that I could continue my conversation.

I suppose that would make me look suspicious. I think it would just make me look like a teenager who wants to talk to a member of the opposite sex outside of my parent's earshot...


Not only that, if you think that you're being stalked, you wouldn't just run directly home leading the person to your home either.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 54 All times are in CDT
BeanX, Bijou, Anonymous Guests (52)