Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Zimmerman TrialFollow

#552 Aug 03 2013 at 9:31 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
Almalieque wrote:
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.


No, I probably would, without thinking about it. Home = safety, and that's all I would be thinking at that point. Is there anything suggesting that when he started running he didn't run for his house?
#553 Aug 03 2013 at 9:35 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,952 posts
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
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.


No, I probably would, without thinking about it. Home = safety, and that's all I would be thinking at that point. Is there anything suggesting that when he started running he didn't run for his house?


Gbajis argument is that since Martin didn't go directly home, then he must have been up to no good. Personally, if I think someone is following me, I wouldn't go STRAIGHT home. I might go there in a round about way, but not directly to my home. That also depends on the level of paranoia at the time.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#554 Aug 03 2013 at 9:39 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbajis argument is that since Martin didn't go directly home, then he must have been up to no good. Personally, if I think someone is following me, I wouldn't go STRAIGHT home. I might go there in a round about way, but not directly to my home. That also depends on the level of paranoia at the time.


The only way I wouldn't go straight home is if I knew there was a more populated area closer.

However, I don't see how that can suggest he was "up to no good." He was a scared kid.
#555 Aug 03 2013 at 9:52 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,952 posts
Belkira wrote:


The only way I wouldn't go straight home is if I knew there was a more populated area closer.


Maybe it's my paranoia, but I would try to lose the person either through "hidden areas" and/or populated areas. In no way would I let a person who's following me know exactly where I live.

Belkira wrote:

However, I don't see how that can suggest he was "up to no good." He was a scared kid.


The same way he doesn't comprehend that people typically drag their feet, walk in circles, along with other mannerisms when outside on a cell phone with no sense of urgency. I don't know how many times I thought someone was crazy before I realized that they had an earpiece.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#556 Aug 03 2013 at 9:53 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,642 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I don't know how many times I thought someone was crazy before I realized that they had an earpiece.


Smiley: lol I was eating alone at a restaurant on my lunch hour one day and I thought the lady next to me was animatedly talking to the centerpiece on her table. Then she finally reached up and took the blue tooth out of the ear I couldn't see.

I was a bit relieved.
#557 Aug 03 2013 at 10:03 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,952 posts
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I don't know how many times I thought someone was crazy before I realized that they had an earpiece.


Smiley: lol I was eating alone at a restaurant on my lunch hour one day and I thought the lady next to me was animatedly talking to the centerpiece on her table. Then she finally reached up and took the blue tooth out of the ear I couldn't see.

I was a bit relieved.


I would say that happens often.

Given the fact that Zimmerman didn't know that Martin was on the phone, it's obvious that he thought the same thing as well. So Martin's "suspicious activities" weren't at all suspicious when you factor in the fact that he was on the phone. Add in the sentiment that you mentioned about talking on the phone with a significant other, there was probably no rush to go home.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#558 Aug 05 2013 at 8:04 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
gbaji wrote:
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.


Sure. But this isn't the testimony of the defendant. It's a recording of a call to police made before the shooting occurred. The reason testimony is always to be taken with some grain of salt is because it's what someone says about an event after it happened. We recognize that this gives that person the opportunity to tailor their testimony to the event that happened in order to influence other people's perception of that event. But since this recording was what Zimmerman reported before the shooting, it is the "best evidence" of what happened during that time period. He had no ability to alter it after the fact.


Quote:
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.


I haven't forgotten it. I'm placing less weight on anything she might say which counters what's in the recording. Same rules apply to her testimony as well, right? She has the luxury of crafting her testimony *after* knowing what happened. This should always be given less weight than information we have that was generated prior to the event itself.

Quote:
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.


Ok. But, as I pointed out earlier, nothing in her testimony refutes the sequence of events that occurred in the phone call. She did not testify that Zimmerman followed Martin in his car. She didn't testify about when Martin ran from Zimmerman, much less why he ran. She did testify that Martin told him someone was following him and he was trying to get home, but this clearly occurred *after* Zimmerman left his car (so he was following Martin at that time, thus no contradiction between the two accounts).

I'm not sure what you think was in her testimony that acts as evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin in his car prior to Zimmerman getting out of the car and following Martin on foot. Just because there are two different accounts of events from two different "sides" of the issue, does not mean that the two are contradictory.

Quote:
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.


Again, it's not testimony. It's an audio recording. Unless you're suggesting that Zimmerman pre-planned this whole thing and faked everything in the phone call in order to allow him to then chase down and kill a black man? Cause that's a huge stretch.

Quote:
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.


Huh? Why do you feel the need to invent a crazy description of what Martin was doing? Zimmerman never claimed he was doing those things, so why not accurately state what you are claiming is "ridiculous"?

Is it ridiculous to believe that a member of the neighborhood watch might be sitting in his car on a rainy night, see someone who appears to be acting suspiciously, and then continued to sit in his car, watching that person, and reporting what he saw to police? You label this as "ridiculous", but isn't that exactly what we'd expect a member of a watch to do?

Your cart is way out ahead of your horse IMO.

Edited, Aug 5th 2013 7:07pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#559 Aug 05 2013 at 8:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
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.


No, I probably would, without thinking about it. Home = safety, and that's all I would be thinking at that point. Is there anything suggesting that when he started running he didn't run for his house?


The timeline of events, firmly established via the logs of the phone call by Zimmerman, the calls by Martin, and numerous calls made to 911.

There was too much time between when Martin ran from Zimmerman (clearly timestamped in the call he made to police), and when Martin was shot, and far far too little distance covered. We're talking about 3 and a half minutes, yet the spot where they were seen to be fighting (and where Martin was shot), was maybe 100-120 feet from where Martin ran into the complex.

If he was even just walking briskly directly home, he should have been inside his house well before the two of them encountered each other on that walkway (and he should have been 150 feet or so south of where they ran into each other). This calls into question the claim that Martin was heading home the whole time. He simply could not have been doing so. He either looped around via some route that took him away from the direction towards his home *or* he was hiding somewhere in the vicinity where he eventually encountered Zimmerman.

I linked to some maps of the complex earlier in this thread (and you're free to look them up yourself). The approximate location where Zimmerman was parked is not difficult to determine, nor is the route that Martin had to have taken when initially running away from Zimmerman and into the houses (there's literally only one pathway along that stretch of road). From that point, if he was headed home, he should have turned either south at the T intersection in the walkway *or* gone straight and then turned south at the other end of that walkway along the street on the other side. From either location it's then a direct south path to his home. No turns. No twists. This complex is not a labyrinth of confusing pathways. It's incredibly straightforward. Two parallel streets running north/south. Two rows of houses facing those streets. A walkway that connects one street to the other across the north end of the two rows. One walkway that heads south from that walkway (the T intersection they talk about) that runs behind both rows of houses (so the fronts face the streets, and the backs face the walkway).

Martin had ample time to run south either along the walkway behind the houses, or along the street that the front of his home faced. Either was a straight shot home. But somehow, despite several minutes time, he runs into Zimmerman right at the T intersection where that north walkway is. It makes absolutely zero sense for him to be there if he'd been heading home the whole time.


Again, this is not about testimony. This is about timestamps on various phone calls. Unless, of course, we assume that Zimmerman lied about every single thing in his initial phone call to police, including where he was, what street he was on, what part of the complex he was watching, etc. And that's a pretty crazy assumption to make. And it would be a silly thing for him to make up, given that he was calling the police and telling them where to meet him. If he wasn't parked where he said he was, what did he expect would happen? It's reasonable to assume that at least the most basic information in that phone call is accurate (what street he's looking down, the direction Martin was walking, the path Martin took, etc). We can choose to discount whether Zimmerman was objective in his interpretation of what Martin was doing, but not where he was when he was doing it.


That's why there's a huge question about this claim that Martin was just innocently trying to get home. It's one of the things at least one of the jurors mentions in an interview about the case too. They also could not accept that Martin didn't have some responsibility for the encounter precisely because the time line didn't add up. It clearly indicated that if Martin had just wanted to go home, he could have done so. We don't know why he didn't, but it's clear that this is the case. And once we reject that notion of him just trying to get home, then it becomes harder to assume that Zimmerman had to be the aggressor in the encounter. Doesn't prove things one way or the other, but it does take it from "he chased Martin down, so he was the aggressor" to "he couldn't have chased him down, cause there wasn't enough walkway for there to have been a chase". That leaves us in "we have no clue who started the fight". And that's sufficient doubt to end that line of inquiry.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#560 Aug 05 2013 at 8:59 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,952 posts
Gbaji wrote:
We can choose to discount whether Zimmerman was objective in his interpretation of what Martin was doing, but not where he was when he was doing it.


Which brings us back to the question, what are the facts and/or evidence 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?

Enough with the distractions. It's a simple question.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#561 Aug 05 2013 at 10:26 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Unless you're suggesting that Zimmerman pre-planned this whole thing and faked everything in the phone call in order to allow him to then chase down and kill a black man? Cause that's a huge stretch.
A stretch? Sure. Out of the realm of possibility? No.
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#562 Aug 06 2013 at 2:30 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,952 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Unless you're suggesting that Zimmerman pre-planned this whole thing and faked everything in the phone call in order to allow him to then chase down and kill a black man? Cause that's a huge stretch.
A stretch? Sure. Out of the realm of possibility? No.


Gabji is blatantly overlooking the obvious of "Zimmerman became suspicious of Martin, reported what he thought to be true to the police, only to be wrong and decided to take matters in his own hands because he knew if he were in danger, he could just shoot him and call self-defense."
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#563 Aug 06 2013 at 7:09 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Belkira wrote:
I was eating alone at a restaurant on my lunch hour one day and I thought the lady next to me was animatedly talking to the centerpiece on her table. Then she finally reached up and took the blue tooth out of the ear I couldn't see.

I was a bit relieved.
How do you know the bluetooth wasn't just a prop? She was only wearing it so her crazy ranting to the centerpiece appeared normal?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#564 Aug 06 2013 at 3:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
We can choose to discount whether Zimmerman was objective in his interpretation of what Martin was doing, but not where he was when he was doing it.


Which brings us back to the question, what are the facts and/or evidence 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?

Enough with the distractions. It's a simple question.


And I've already answered this, at least three times. The statements Zimmerman made to the police are "facts" (in that he made them). Those facts constitute "evidence" regarding what Zimmerman saw:

Quote:
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.


We can disagree with Zimmerman's assessment of Martin's behavior, but it's clear that Zimmerman thought that Martin's behavior was sufficiently suspicious to warrant calling the police. What more do you want? What burden would you require for someone to be allowed to call the police and report suspicious behavior?


Now I'll ask you a simple question (which you haven't answered): Why specifically do you think Martin ran from Zimmerman? I don't want "he was suspicious" as an answer. I want specifics. I've asked this at least 3 or 4 times now and you've steadfastly refused to answer. Meanwhile, you keep asking the same question over and over and I've provided you with exact information each time. What's bizarre is you don't even argue that my answer isn't sufficient. You just pretend I didn't give it and demand I answer you again.


Can you answer my question? And if you can't, then shouldn't we just reasonably speculate that Martin was acting strangely that night?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#565 Aug 06 2013 at 3:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Unless you're suggesting that Zimmerman pre-planned this whole thing and faked everything in the phone call in order to allow him to then chase down and kill a black man? Cause that's a huge stretch.
A stretch? Sure. Out of the realm of possibility? No.


Sure. But a far more likely possibility is that Zimmerman actually did see behavior he interpreted as suspicious and called the police to report it. You know, just like any one might do.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#566 Aug 06 2013 at 3:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
I've think we've all made the same arguments 3 times over. Let's go for 4 though ya? Where's the fun in quitting early? Smiley: wink

gbaji wrote:

Quote:
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.

Isn't there a better quote? This one just makes it sound like Martin is lost or something...

gbaji wrote:
Why specifically do you think Martin ran from Zimmerman?
Because he was scared of him.

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#567 Aug 06 2013 at 3:38 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,795 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Why specifically do you think Martin ran from Zimmerman?
Because he was scared of him.
Because he didn't have a gun to defend himself.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#568 Aug 06 2013 at 3:43 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,952 posts
Gbaji wrote:
And I've already answered this, at least three times. The statements Zimmerman made to the police are "facts" (in that he made them). Those facts constitute "evidence" regarding what Zimmerman saw:
Maybe you didn't read my response three times.Zimmerman calling the police doesn't suggest one over the other especially when HE DID NOT EVEN KNOW THAT MARTIN WAS ON THE PHONE OR WHAT WAS IN HIS HANDS.
Gbaji wrote:
We can disagree with Zimmerman's assessment of Martin's behavior, but it's clear that Zimmerman thought that Martin's behavior was sufficiently suspicious to warrant calling the police.

So, you disagree with Zimmerman's assessment? Or do you believe that Martin was crazy and high at the time?
Gbaji wrote:
What more do you want? What burden would you require for someone to be allowed to call the police and report suspicious behavior?
Again, don't conflate Zimmerman's suspicion with your speculation. Those facts support Zimmerman's suspicion; however, they do not support your speculation. I'm asking you to provide facts that support your speculation.If you want to use Zimmerman's phone call as a supporting fact, then you need to be able to differentiate "maliciously looking at someone's house" vs "simply talking on the cell phone with no sense of urgency".
gbabi wrote:
Now I'll ask you a simple question (which you haven't answered): Why specifically do you think Martin ran from Zimmerman? I don't want "he was suspicious" as an answer. I want specifics. I've asked this at least 3 or 4 times now and you've steadfastly refused to answer. Meanwhile, you keep asking the same question over and over and I've provided you with exact information each time. What's bizarre is you don't even argue that my answer isn't sufficient. You just pretend I didn't give it and demand I answer you again.
Can you answer my question? And if you can't, then shouldn't we just reasonably speculate that Martin was acting strangely that night?
How about we make deal? When we get to that point in my argument AGAIN and I quote myself not only saying why he ran, but agreeing with you, you will make an apology thread stating that you were WRONG? If I'm unable to do so, then I will do the same?

I gave my argument, but apparently you don't read everything and/or you skip. So, I'm re-addressing everything point by point. The questions that you are not answering were asked first. The only thing that I've been doing is addressing the points that I made on a post days ago. I've answered everyone of your questions up until that point. However, I realize, if I continue to entertain your distractions, those questions will never be answered.


Edited, Aug 6th 2013 11:44pm by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#569 Aug 06 2013 at 4:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Isn't there a better quote? This one just makes it sound like Martin is lost or something...


Or looking around to see if there's something to steal/vandalize? But let's just assume that the neighborhood watch guy can't tell the difference. Cart before horse, right? If you start with the assumption that Zimmerman was a racist who targeted a black youth to kill him, then you'll ignore all the reasonable explanations for what happened when they don't match that narrative.

I'm asking folks to assess what was said and happened without that starting assumption. When you do that, Zimmerman's actions are perfectly reasonable.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Why specifically do you think Martin ran from Zimmerman?
Because he was scared of him.


Why was he scared of him? At that point in time, all he knew of Zimmerman was that he was sitting in his car, talking on his phone, and had been watching him walk up the street. So you tell me what Martin thought about Zimmerman that made him so scared that he ran away.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#570 Aug 06 2013 at 4:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
gbaji wrote:
If you start with the assumption that Zimmerman was a racist who targeted a black youth to kill him, then you'll ignore all the reasonable explanations for what happened when they don't match that narrative.
I just assume he makes poor decisions; and that he would have ignored the dispatchers advice even if it was a white guy he was after.

gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Why specifically do you think Martin ran from Zimmerman?
Because he was scared of him.
Why was he scared of him?
Because it was dark, rainy, and someone he didn't know was watching him? Sounds creepy to me.

Edited, Aug 6th 2013 3:50pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#571 Aug 06 2013 at 4:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
And I've already answered this, at least three times. The statements Zimmerman made to the police are "facts" (in that he made them). Those facts constitute "evidence" regarding what Zimmerman saw:
Maybe you didn't read my response three times.Zimmerman calling the police doesn't suggest one over the other especially when HE DID NOT EVEN KNOW THAT MARTIN WAS ON THE PHONE OR WHAT WAS IN HIS HANDS.


Um... But it does constitute "facts" and "evidence" that Martin was doing what Zimmerman said he was doing in the call. The fact that Martin was also doing something else doesn't change that.


Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
We can disagree with Zimmerman's assessment of Martin's behavior, but it's clear that Zimmerman thought that Martin's behavior was sufficiently suspicious to warrant calling the police.

So, you disagree with Zimmerman's assessment? Or do you believe that Martin was crazy and high at the time?


Huh? I agree that at the time Zimmerman made the call he believed that "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something." Zimmerman saw something about Martin that made him think that. That's all I'm saying. There's no burden of proof to make a call to the police, yet you keep dwelling on this.

Quote:
Again, don't conflate Zimmerman's suspicion with your speculation. Those facts support Zimmerman's suspicion; however, they do not support your speculation. I'm asking you to provide facts that support your speculation.If you want to use Zimmerman's phone call as a supporting fact, then you need to be able to differentiate "maliciously looking at someone's house" vs "simply talking on the cell phone with no sense of urgency".


Huh? My speculation was about Martin's reasons for running from Zimmerman, not what Zimmerman thought about Martin. What Zimmerman thought about Martin is clearly stated in the police recording. He thinks he's either up to no good, or on drugs. He later says he's "looking at all the houses". That's what he said he saw.

My speculation was that Martin also realized that his behavior looked suspicious and believed that Zimmerman was calling the police on him, and that's why he ran. The "evidence" of this is that Zimmerman clearly did think that Martin's behavior was suspicious enough to call the police. It's not unreasonable to expect that Martin could figure this out. Whether he was actually planning on doing anything wrong at that point is irrelevant. If he realized that someone might think that what he was doing was suspicious, he could arrive at that conclusion and make the choice he did.

I'm trying to counter the idea that Martin ran from Zimmerman out of fear of some kind of criminal threat from Zimmerman. I think that the "threat" Martin was fleeing was the law.

Quote:
How about we make deal? When we get to that point in my argument AGAIN and I quote myself not only saying why he ran, but agreeing with you...


How about you quote it now, since clearly I have no freaking clue what you are talking about.


All I can remember is you continually deflecting my question off on some tangent or other without ever answering it except to say that "Martin thought Zimmerman was suspicious". And when I asked (repeatedly) for more detail, you've ignored me. Care to give it another shot?


Edited, Aug 6th 2013 4:04pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#572 Aug 06 2013 at 5:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If you start with the assumption that Zimmerman was a racist who targeted a black youth to kill him, then you'll ignore all the reasonable explanations for what happened when they don't match that narrative.
I just assume he makes poor decisions; and that he would have ignored the dispatchers advice even if it was a white guy he was after.


Great. So not a racially profiling killer. We're getting somewhere.

Now do you also agree that Martin made some poor choices that night?

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Why specifically do you think Martin ran from Zimmerman?
Because he was scared of him.
Why was he scared of him?
Because it was dark, rainy, and someone he didn't know was watching him? Sounds creepy to me.


Sure. Enough to keep an eye on that person in the car while you walk on by. Enough to run away though? Bit of an over reaction, right? How often do you walk down the street and realize there's someone in one of the cars you're walking past? Happens all the time. Do you normally run in terror from that person? Unless we believe that Martin was so skittish that he ran away from every random person sitting in a car on the street talking on their phones, we have to conclude that his behavior was odd at the very least.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#573 Aug 06 2013 at 7:10 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,709 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If you start with the assumption that Zimmerman was a racist who targeted a black youth to kill him, then you'll ignore all the reasonable explanations for what happened when they don't match that narrative.
I just assume he makes poor decisions; and that he would have ignored the dispatchers advice even if it was a white guy he was after.


Great. So not a racially profiling killer. We're getting somewhere.

Now do you also agree that Martin made some poor choices that night?


Well yeah, like I said earlier, we've already been over this. Remember I said several pages ago I thought they both made some very dumb decisions? If anything this whole thing is a great case study for thinking things through before acting.

In the interest of full disclosure here's the someproteinguy take on the whole situation:

Martin was walking home. Along the way he was spotted by Zimmerman. Zimmerman saw something that seemed out of place with Martin's behavior, and decided to keep his eye on him. Martin noticed Zimmerman watching him and got nervous. Zimmerman thought Martin's behavior crossed a threshold and decided it would be a good idea to call the cops to come check it out. Martin decided that he needed to get out of this situation and started to run. Zimmerman saw Martin run and went after him. Instead of continuing to run, Martin turned around to confront Zimmerman. The confrontation turned ugly and escalated into a fist-fight. The fist-fight got nasty enough that Zimmerman felt his well-being was seriously in danger and shot Martin.

And just for fun here's what someproteinguy thinks should have happened:

Zimmerman should have called the cops, and then stayed put. Martin shouldn't have run, and just picked up his pace and headed straight home (he certainly should have escalated the situation, or turned back to confront Zimmerman. Neither of them helped the situation with what they said.). Cops would have come and they would have been directed to the house Martin was staying at. After a quick Q&A the whole situation would have been over and done with.

[:rose-colored glasses:]

Instead they both let their fears and emotions get the better of them, and it ruined 2 lives. If I feel worse for Martin it's probably because he's dead, and no one deserves that, even the dumb people. (don't hold me to that, I may change my mind later... Smiley: tongue)

Two idiots go in, one comes out? Smiley: rolleyes

Edited, Aug 6th 2013 6:28pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#574 Aug 06 2013 at 9:35 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,952 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Um... But it does constitute "facts" and "evidence" that Martin was doing what Zimmerman said he was doing in the call. The fact that Martin was also doing something else doesn't change that.


No, it doesn't. It only constitutes that Martin's actions were suspicious to Zimmerman. If Zimmerman had said "Martin is climbing a fence", then you would have a point.

How can you tell if a bum is asleep, unconscious, resting or dead at night in the rain from afar? You can't, without knowing more information. Likewise with Martin. There's nothing wrong with Zimmerman calling the police, but unless you can provide facts that support that Martin was actually maliciously looking at houses as opposed to just looking around while on the phone, the fact is just a fact. It doesn't support any malicious activity.

Gbaji wrote:
Huh? I agree that at the time Zimmerman made the call he believed that "This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something." Zimmerman saw something about Martin that made him think that. That's all I'm saying. There's no burden of proof to make a call to the police, yet you keep dwelling on this.


YOU ARE NOT ZIMMERMAN. His suspicion is not in question. YOUR CLAIM is. Knowing all of the facts NOW, do you believe that Martin was mentally ill and/or on drugs at the time? If not, then you don't agree with Zimmerman's assessment. That doesn't mean Zimmerman was wrong for the call.

Gbaji wrote:
Whether he was actually planning on doing anything wrong at that point is irrelevant.
So, you are no longer alluding that Martin was maybe perhaps thinking about doing something wrong or not innocently walking home?

Gbaji wrote:
How about you quote it now, since clearly I have no freaking clue what you are talking about.


Is that a deal or not? You ignored half of my post before. I'm clearly going back, point by point in chronological order. We agreed to the following:

1. Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin.
2. Zimmerman called the police.
3. Martin became suspicious of Zimmerman.
4. Zimmeman's description of Martin to the police was inaccurate, but not intentionally

I'm leading up to the point of Martin running.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#575 Aug 07 2013 at 7:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Never get involved in a land war is Asia.
____________________________
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
#576 Aug 07 2013 at 7:39 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,770 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Never get involved in a land war is Asia.


And never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#577 Aug 07 2013 at 8:02 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
This thread is inconceivable.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#578 Aug 07 2013 at 8:06 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,240 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
This thread is inconceivable.


Screenshot
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#579 Aug 07 2013 at 9:22 AM Rating: Excellent
Screenshot
.
____________________________
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
#580 Aug 07 2013 at 10:19 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
Wallace Shawn (Vizzini) has recently in the news for his play, The Designated Mourner, that is currently running off-broadway.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#581 Aug 07 2013 at 11:16 AM Rating: Excellent
I'm hoping to see stomp this weekend off broadway. I've wanted to see them forever, so I hope it works out.
____________________________
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
#582 Aug 07 2013 at 11:18 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,650 posts
Save a few bucks and throw a garbage can down the stairs. Go see Avenue Q instead.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#583 Aug 07 2013 at 11:39 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
19,770 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Save a few bucks and throw a garbage can down the stairs. Go see Avenue Q instead.

DO IT.

Avenue Q was **** awesome.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#584 Aug 07 2013 at 11:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,875 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Never get involved in a land war is Asia.


/mourn old ubb forum sig test thread!
me wrote:
Ha! I reply to it, but i didn't read it. This post shall never die, but will stand as a monument to the folly of attacking Russia in winter!!!!


But it did. All because UBB imploded.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#585 Aug 07 2013 at 1:34 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,187 posts
You couldn't copy over the thread?
____________________________
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.
#586 Aug 07 2013 at 3:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Is it completely gone now? I know there were some google archives you linked at one point.
____________________________
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
#587 Aug 07 2013 at 3:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,875 posts
I did grab a copy of the text, but the formatting is gone. Is here!

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/journal.html?user=4491&mid=114533705572534025&h=50&p=1#15
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#588 Aug 07 2013 at 3:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Almalieque wrote:
No, it doesn't. It only constitutes that Martin's actions were suspicious to Zimmerman.


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

Quote:
Likewise with Martin. There's nothing wrong with Zimmerman calling the police, but unless you can provide facts that support that Martin was actually maliciously looking at houses as opposed to just looking around while on the phone, the fact is just a fact. It doesn't support any malicious activity.


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

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

Quote:
YOU ARE NOT ZIMMERMAN. His suspicion is not in question. YOUR CLAIM is. Knowing all of the facts NOW, do you believe that Martin was mentally ill and/or on drugs at the time? If not, then you don't agree with Zimmerman's assessment. That doesn't mean Zimmerman was wrong for the call.


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

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Whether he was actually planning on doing anything wrong at that point is irrelevant.
So, you are no longer alluding that Martin was maybe perhaps thinking about doing something wrong or not innocently walking home?


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

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
How about you quote it now, since clearly I have no freaking clue what you are talking about.


Is that a deal or not?


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


Quote:
You ignored half of my post before. I'm clearly going back, point by point in chronological order. We agreed to the following:

1. Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin.
2. Zimmerman called the police.
3. Martin became suspicious of Zimmerman.
4. Zimmeman's description of Martin to the police was inaccurate, but not intentionally

I'm leading up to the point of Martin running.


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

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

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


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

Edited, Aug 7th 2013 6:18pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#589 Aug 07 2013 at 4:44 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
27,187 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
I did grab a copy of the text, but the formatting is gone. Is here!

http://everquest.allakhazam.com/journal.html?user=4491&mid=114533705572534025&h=50&p=1#15
Heh, that got me to re-read the Magi thread. My hovercraft is full of eels was still a thing back then. We should bring that back.

Edit: P@geget, I forgot about the filter...

Edited, Aug 8th 2013 12:45am 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.
#590 Aug 07 2013 at 9:41 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,952 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Which justifies Zimmerman's decision to call the police. I'm honestly unsure what you're arguing here. ...
All that matters is that Zimmerman was not wrong for making the call....
If we both agree that Zimmerman's belief that Martin's behavior was suspicious is sufficient justification for him to call the police, then what the **** are you arguing about? That's all he did in response to what Martin was doing at that time.

I'm not questioning Zimmerman's suspicion, but your statement that Martin *perhaps/might* was "looking for something to vandalize/steal" and "Not someone innocently walking home from the store" What are your facts to substantiate that claim?
Gbaji wrote:
Unless I can provide those facts, what? What the **** does that last part mean? It's circular. If I can't prove that Martin was maliciously looking at houses, then I can't prove that he was maliciously looking at houses? Who cares?


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

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

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

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

If you're so confident that I didn't answer it, then why not accept it?
Gbaji wrote:
Three is speculation on your part (and questionable word choice). He could have run because he was scared, or high, or angry, or sad, or he realized he left the iron on at home. We can speculate about why he ran (and that's the question I'm asking about), but that's the point of contention. Insisting that I must agree with your speculation that Martin was suspicious of Zimmerman before you'll discuss the question of why he ran is pretty ridiculous.


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

Only because you are intentionally choosing to use a broad term so you can apply the same term to both

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

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


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

____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#591 Aug 08 2013 at 11:12 AM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
The level of stupidity you're displaying is just too far off the charts.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#592 Aug 08 2013 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,830 posts
gbaji wrote:
The level of stupidity you're displaying is just too far off the charts.
...and you know your stupidity charts better than the most.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#593 Aug 08 2013 at 11:26 AM Rating: Good
******
43,650 posts
Kindred spirits.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#594 Aug 08 2013 at 3:16 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,952 posts
gbaji wrote:
The level of stupidity you're displaying is just too far off the charts.


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

Do you stand by your statement?

If so, then what are the supporting facts?

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

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

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

I'm biased against statistics
#595 Aug 08 2013 at 3:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,552 posts
Wait. So me asking why Martin ran from Zimmerman, which is key to understanding what kind of threat he thought Zimmerman was, and thus key to weighing the respective actions of the two involved is a "distraction"? But you demanding that I defend what was at best idle speculation about what Martin might have been thinking about doing when walking down the street is critically important? Why? What possible difference does it make? As I've stated repeatedly, nothing in my actual argument relies on that at all. Proving or not-proving it does not matter.

If it makes you feel better, there is no proof of any kind that Martin intended to commit any criminal act at all when he was walking down the street. Happy?

Now, can you get on to telling me why you think Martin decided to run from Zimmerman?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#596 Aug 08 2013 at 3:58 PM Rating: Good
****
7,806 posts
Quote:
I'm not questioning Zimmerman's suspicion, but your statement that Martin *perhaps/might* was "looking for something to vandalize/steal" and "Not someone innocently walking home from the store" What are your facts to substantiate that claim?

By the same token, what are your FACTS to substantiate that he wasn't looking for something to vandalize/steal?
____________________________
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
#597 Aug 08 2013 at 4:32 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
The level of stupidity you're displaying is just too far off the charts.

Charts are anecdotal.Smiley: schooled
____________________________
gbaji wrote:
My own extraordinary nature has nothing to do with the validity of what I'm talking about..
#598 Aug 08 2013 at 4:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
27,187 posts
Kastigir wrote:
Quote:
I'm not questioning Zimmerman's suspicion, but your statement that Martin *perhaps/might* was "looking for something to vandalize/steal" and "Not someone innocently walking home from the store" What are your facts to substantiate that claim?

By the same token, what are your FACTS to substantiate that he wasn't looking for something to vandalize/steal?
Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
____________________________
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.
#599 Aug 08 2013 at 7:32 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,795 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Kastigir wrote:
Quote:
I'm not questioning Zimmerman's suspicion, but your statement that Martin *perhaps/might* was "looking for something to vandalize/steal" and "Not someone innocently walking home from the store" What are your facts to substantiate that claim?

By the same token, what are your FACTS to substantiate that he wasn't looking for something to vandalize/steal?
Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
His girlfriend on the other end was really telling him "I want a 50" TV, and a new Bluray player, and find me some diamond earrings while you're at it."
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#600 Aug 08 2013 at 7:38 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
11,240 posts
TirithRR wrote:
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Kastigir wrote:
Quote:
I'm not questioning Zimmerman's suspicion, but your statement that Martin *perhaps/might* was "looking for something to vandalize/steal" and "Not someone innocently walking home from the store" What are your facts to substantiate that claim?

By the same token, what are your FACTS to substantiate that he wasn't looking for something to vandalize/steal?
Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
His girlfriend on the other end was really telling him "I want a 50" TV, and a new Bluray player, and find me some diamond earrings while you're at it."


And then he was like **** bitch, does it look like it's going to flood any time soon!?!".
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#601 Aug 09 2013 at 3:17 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
8,952 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Wait. So me asking why Martin ran from Zimmerman, which is key to understanding what kind of threat he thought Zimmerman was, and thus key to weighing the respective actions of the two involved is a "distraction"?


Yes, because the first action was not Martin running. So, you can't accurately discuss WHY Martin ran unless you discuss everything leading up to that point.

The whole point of the discussion was to discuss if the shooting was justified. You argued that the shooting was justified, because ~> it was self defense because ~>Zimmerman was the victim ~> because Martin was not as innocent as the media is portraying him because ~> he ran from a parked car because ~> he thought Zimmerman was an extension of the law and was afraid of getting caught because ~> he was up to no good.

So, the source of your argument was that Martin was up to no good, so I questioned it first. Once you realized that you couldn't justify the first part of your argument, you tried to argue Zimmerman's phone call, when that was never in question. That, my friend, is just ONE example of a distraction.

Gbaji wrote:
But you demanding that I defend what was at best idle speculation about what Martin might have been thinking about doing when walking down the street is critically important? Why? What possible difference does it make? As I've stated repeatedly, nothing in my actual argument relies on that at all. Proving or not-proving it does not matter.


1. Regardless if it is part of your argument, you cannot allude to mischievous activities that degrades someone's character without some supporting facts. Would you care if a coworker told your boss that you might be perhaps stealing from the company with no supporting facts?

2. It is, or at least was, part of your initial counter to the innocent perception of Martin. See above.

3. Therefore, admitting that there are no FACTs, proof and or evidence to support that Martin was about to commit a crime, contradicts the foundation of your claim.

Gbaji wrote:

If it makes you feel better, there is no proof of any kind that Martin intended to commit any criminal act at all when he was walking down the street. Happy?


Yes, not sure why you resisted so long to say that. Well, I do know, but heh.

Gbaji wrote:

Now, can you get on to telling me why you think Martin decided to run from Zimmerman?

As, I've said SEVERAL times, Martin ran because he was scared of Zimmerman. He became suspicious of him as either a cop, "an extension of the police", and/or a thug. He had an irrational fear and ran.

I'm going to guess that your next question is "why was he specifically afraid"? Am I right?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 43 All times are in CDT
Allegory, RavennofTitan, rdmcandie, Samira, Anonymous Guests (39)