Justice and Security: Neighborhood Watch Captain Attacks, Kills Unarmed Teenager

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Tiassa, Mar 13, 2012.

  1. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    How do you know Martin jumped on Zimmerman from behind? Did the media actually alter footage as you claim? Sorry, but I don't recall these offhand.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    According to an eyewitness- within the police reports, he was jumped while standing in the door of his vehicle; Reported is that the same witness (Unnamed) reported seeing Martin punching Zimmerman on the ground, then reach for Zimmermans waist. Zimmerman reportedly reached down as well, grabbed something and the witness heard a shot. Witness believed they both reached for the gun tucked into his pants or belt.
    I copied it to notepad from the article but googling is yielding so many hits I'm having trouble finding that article- If I cannot find it- consider that claim Unsubstantiated until I do.

    News altering facts:
    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/nbc...zimmerman-calls-3rd-nbc-employee-fired-no-air

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog...-news-starts-probe-edited-zimmerman-911-call/

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...ted-911-call-george-zimmerman-nbc-news-307399

    Im posting on yet another night of no sleep, so promises that I'm posting well

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 18, 2012
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Thanks Never. I'll have a look.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The reason for the initial confusion and rush to judgement is due to the liberal dual standard and media propaganda machine that helps perpetuate this dual standard. According to the dual standard, only white can be racists against blacks, but not the other way around. Only straights can discriminate against gays and not the other way around. Only males can be sexists and not the other way around, etc. Lawyer prefer the democratic party because they can make money off criminals than innocent people. The dual standard creates injustice.

    Based on that narrative, the only conclusion you could have drawn is the white guy had to be at fault, since there is no such thing as black racism. Based on generalities liberals will rush to judgement before the facts. The country needs to go back to rational principles and away from liberal dual standards, based on PC and media propaganda reinforcement.

    Our government is racist and sexist, because it has laws in place that discriminate based on these criteria. But the dual standard of liberal propaganda does not classify favoring one sex or color as discrimination even though it satisfies the rational criteria.

    My explanation has to due with democrats being more like the wife and republican being more like the husband in the political family of the nation. There is what is called a women's prerogative, which means she has the right to change her mind; dual standard. The next election cycle will return the country to rational judgment and less dual standard.
     
  8. GeoffP Caput gerat lupinum Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,087
    Whether or not the white guy was at fault, this isn't about black racism.
     
  9. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    No, the second witness there didn't claim to see the altercation start up. The person who says Martin jumped Zimmerman from behind by his truck, is Zimmerman himself. Or maybe it was Zimmerman's father, speaking on his "behalf" in the early days of the case; I forget.

    Upshot is that there is no third party who saw how the altercation started. Exactly two people knew what really happened, and one of them killed the other.
     
  10. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I'm sorry, who says Martin jumped on him from behind? I don't think Zimmerman is even saying that. You blame the media for sensationalism, but here you are propagating your own version of the story in an effort to blame Martin, which is of course to suit your own bias.


    See, here you go again. You've made up your mind that Zimmerman was assaulted. Let me make this clear to you: the loser of a fight is not always the victim. Just because Zimmerman got beat up does not mean he was the one being assaulted. Can you understand this concept? This is why I never understood why people want to act like Zimmerman wasn't really hurt. So what if he has a broken nose and a cut head? All it means is that he lost the confrontation until he pulled his gun. It doesn't mean that Martin attacked him.

    No doubt, and Zimmerman probably was calling for help. But that proves nothing other than he couldn't handle Martin physically.

    That is, of course, your own invention, with no evidence whatsoever to support it. You've decided that Martin is at fault, and you'll cook up whatever story you need to in order to support that theory. But in truth, you have no idea what actually happened. All we do know is that this without question could have been avoided if Zimmerman had stayed in his car. Everything else is speculation.

     
  11. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    In reality, it may not be. But it's been turned into it.
    From the news:
    <EDIT- Ok, I got no sleep last night at all... so my ability to be coherent is compromised a bit

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    I had to edit this whole bit in quite a while after I posted. But I think it's relevant enough to warrant such a heavy edit.
    There may be some validity to the claim, too.
    In poor neighborhoods, where many minorities who have had less opportunities must also live where they can afford, you also have more criminals, people are are desperate, must steal or sell drugs... Crime does not pay and criminals tend to end up poor too.
    So, is this because Blacks are more violent or have a propensity toward crime?

    Not necessarily. POOR people do have a higher propensity toward stress and crime. The spanish word is "Desperado."

    And ethnic minorities populate poor areas, not because of their ethnicity making them prefer being poor, but because of the opportunities for higher education and better paying jobs.

    Recognizing scientifically valid concerns in a poor neighborhood and a statistical equivalence is not necessarily racism.
    It's just touchy, but sadly, the way it is...

    But check out the crime rates in predominantly white trailer parks. Studies show: Just as high.
    Race is not a factor- desperation, stress and employment opportunities are, though.

    Again, sadly, an average mind can easily turn to a racially motivated point of view.

    Zimmerman may not have been a member of the KKK. In ordinary life, he may not have thought that blacks were different than white. He was a minority himself and of mixed heritage.
    But when on patrol, he may have been racially motivated by statistics even if he was not aware of the statistics.
    Some see this as racial profiling and therefore: Wrong.
    I agree, it is wrong from a racial standpoint. Not for any clear cut reason, looking at statistics. But simply because being aware that it's not race that makes a person compelled toward crime, but living conditions, it seems very wrong to assume that because someone is POOR, lives in a Poor Hood or is a certain race, that they must want to commit crime.
    I've been profiled this way when I lived in a bad hood. More so because I was not the predominant race living there and people figured something must be up for me to be out there.

    Whether Zimmerman profiled, that is not a crime. It's irrelevant to a murder charge. End EDIT>


    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...an-Trayvon-Martin-police-documents/55061830/1

    From other thread:

    Fraggle Rocker, can you cite this claim? I have googled and searched and searched but turned up nothing.
    This does not mean that your claim is wrong, just unsupported.
    I have no idea, currently, since he has a concealed weapon permit, whether he was still forbidden to be armed.

    I had read some articles about a week ago that made the 'assault' more clear.

    Now, when I need them, I cannot find them. The news hits are so overwhelmed with hits on the case...

    I will need to drop the claim it's clear assault and no longer use that claim until there is stronger evidence to support it than just the medical reports that show that Martin had only bruised knuckles while Zimmerman had severe bruising and cuts throughout his head.

    The medical reports cannot verify who started the fight.

    So as it is now, only ONE eyewitness and the account of Zimmerman himself, along with those reports can substantiate that Martin Returned to Zimmerman and assaulted him.

    Apparently that much is not enough to cause reasonable doubt- and override your Guilty unless proven innocent meme.


    I CAN say that everything I've read said he was advised to not pursue suspects. But that's not the same as forbidden...

    He was on the phone with 911 during his pursuit.
    This is true. Zimmerman was a zealot, overly enthusiastic about stopping crime in his neighborhood.

    This is not true. Who assaulted who is not just relevant, it's a determining factor. You do not get to just dismiss that simply because it undermines your argument.

    Again, aside from the medical reports, eyewitness report, 911 calls which are not very clear... we cannot prove who started it.
    But the evidence does lean in support of Zimemrmans personal account.
    Yes, it is unreasonable. Establish that he violated rules- he may have.
    Establish that he did not take precautions to assure his safety and defense- but rather was armed because he wanted to Shoot Somebody.
    What IS established is that he was looking to prevent crime in his neighborhood.

    You assume a great deal, Fraggle... and it is not reasonable.
    Your statement is true but highly unlikely.

    Martins report showed no bruising except for his knuckles. This is very indicative that Martin was, indeed, the first to strike. Add to this that he overwhelmed Zimmerman enough to continue doing damage to his head, slamming it into the ground.
    At this point it is unclear who was screaming for help.
    The audio tape is garbled.
    However, zimmermans parents heard the tape and say it's their son. Martins father says its not his son. Martins mother says its her son.
    Eyewitness reports seeing Martin standing over Zimmerman, Zimmerman on the ground being beaten.

    Likliest conclusion is that Zimmerman was calling for help, in fear of his life.

    IF so- Zimmerman was calling for help- in fear of his life- PRIOR TO DISCHARGING A WEAPON.


    It may have. This must be established.
    I'm not certain this is true.
    Admit it Fraggle, I have put forth stronger evidence than you have (Until you post a reply with more) and yet I am still biased by some degree.
    So are you.
    There is no shame in admitting you are biased and I think I know why...
    I am biased because I do not believe that criminalizing people is good for justice.
    In spite of this, I am trying very hard to use the evidence to support "Innocent unless proven guilty."

    In all honesty, I cannot disagree with this statement. I do not like it...
    But he did make a terrible mistake- a mistake that cost a grieving family a KID.
    A kid who will never be allowed to grow into a man.
    A Kid that will never attend college or get married or experience being a father himself.
    It is a shame of epic proportions that a KID was killed.
    My only issue is that Zimmermans enthusiasm is not murder.
    The KID also made a terrible lapse in judgment.
    A KID can also play with an electrical wire and get himself killed and it will still be just as tragic a loss without a person that can be blamed (Although in todays society- people are liable to prosecute the parents if they think they can get away with it...)

    Here is your BIAS.
    You do not like guns, I can assume from this post. You think anyone who owns are supports guns and gun rights are slavering neanderthals.

    Exactly and this is the crucial point.

    It was MARTINS behavior, not Zimmerman, that led to Martins death.

    Zimmerman would most likely never have pulled that weapon out if he was not being beaten and screaming for help.

    If Zimmerman pursued a suspect and the suspect allowed himself to be questioned or explained himself, instead of beating the other man senseless, NONE of this would have happened.
    So while we can say that Zimmerman may have been wrong to pursue- Zimmermans pursuit should NOT have led to Martins Death.
    Martins attacking and threatening the health, safety and maybe life of Zimmerman CAN have led to Martins Death,

    Martin is the one who shoulders the burden of blame in his own death.

    Fraggle your assumptions and character assassinations are the failing of your argument. You have painted a very bleak and sinister picture of a man. A man that "packs Heat" so that he can use it to run around killing people. Because he's a slobbering Neanderthal.



    Your bias against firearms speaks heavily for you here. This bias is apparent and it is a strong enough bias that you should know better than to opine while carrying it.
    The comments that you made in this post and the one about "being left in prison, decades in the future when the flood hits" which I had replied to in the other thread - Smacks of Hate.
    Hatred and Profiling people that own guns as Jerks, Slobbering Neanderthals and Out to Make Fights.
    You may not be hating racially, but hating nonetheless. It is just as illogical, profiles just as heavily and I wonder what you think of Cops and Soldiers who also must be armed. (U.S. Army service, here)
    After-all, What would Inspire US to have gone into the field knowing that not only would we be ARMED, we would be armed against other people- not hunting deer or boar.
    We must really be JERKS and Slobbering Neanderthals to choose that, huh?

    JDawg

    While I had not quoted or addressed your post- This post should cover anything you brought up.

    If I failed to account for anything in which evidence can be a determining factor, please ask me and I'll respond to you. Most of your post struck me as Guilty unless proven innocent and anyone speaking supportive of Zimmerman is motivated to lie.

    It just wasn't impressive enough of a case presented to bother trying to refute. The glaring errors in it speak for themselves.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2012
  12. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    I'm seeing a LOT of speculation about Zimmerman. I've seen none about Martin. Very well, I'll do the dirty work.

    What was Treyvon Martin doing that night?
    Was he really out for snacks? The evidence is a call to his girl and the presence of snacks. The evidence is in his favor in those regards.

    However, Zimmermans account can be called "lies" in order to promote guilty until proven innocent.

    What happens if we treat Martin the way we are treating Zimmerman?

    What happens if we speculate about Martins behavior?

    Traces of THC were found in Martins system. Literally traces, nothing that could have affected behavior or judgement. That's a non-issue, there.

    If Martin had gone out for snacks and was even bringing snacks back, that does not mean that is all he was doing out there. It may have been pre-meditated or opportunistic, but we do not KNOW if he actually was instigating or taking part in a crime.

    Logically, a black kid walking along with some snacks would have simply answered the questions and gone about his way. He would not have gone to great effort to evade getting caught. He would not have run (Established in 911 call). He would not have gotten violent.
    It never would have been in the news- He would have arrived home to his family, complained about some jerk guard questioning him and gone about his business.

    Martin acted suspiciously, though...
    Why would Martin have felt compelled to beat up the Watchman instead of showing him "Snacks" and telling him what he was doing out there?
    A motive for taking the man down, perhaps rendering him unconscious by beating his head into the ground- Would be to prevent him from detaining Martin for a crime.

    It has not been established either way.

    But those are not that actions of a midnight snacker.

    Since it's not established, I've been giving Martin the same benefit of the doubt I've been giving Zimmerman-- Innocent unless demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty.
    This benefit allows that Zimmerman was profiling a potential person or was overly zealous about his duties.
    Which I have stated.

    Should news come out detailing that Martin HAD been involved in a crime... Perhaps buying weed and did not want to get caught, or perhaps casing a house...
    It would make Zimmerman look a lot less overly-zealous.

    I'd like to believe that the kid was not buying weed or casing a house... rather, he was just a kid that was in a bad spot at a bad time. But I cannot dismiss his Violence and suspicious behavior.
     
  13. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    i find it funny that your condemning everyone else as ignoring the facts when your hung on the minority witness who agrees with zimmerman ignore the fact of witnesses trying to correct witnesses to agree with zimmerman. not to mention you have decided inexplicablely that zimmerman is a beacon of truth in this when he has the most incentive to lie.

    also your assuming martin assulted zimmerman when simply because he was doing a better job at defending him self. basicly you decided martin was evil and deserved his fate rather than base anything off the facts.
     
  14. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,479
    you don't know anything about race relations in the country do you. most black people won't react well to white people stopping them and interagating them for no reason because during jim crow when a white person asked them questions they needed to make answer or be punished by society. there is nothing logical about it. MArtin was terrified and had been cut of by zimmerman.
    lets see flight or fight instinct kicked in he ran when cornered( his conversation with friend is the evidence for this) he fought. than zimmerman shot him.
     
  15. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    You already have. But if you must..

    By the simple fact that he had gone out for snacks, was found unarmed and with said snacks while walking home...

    Unless of course you are saying he had no right to be walking home at night?

    /Facepalm..

    The facts for Zimmerman, which are known and which he has admitted to.

    He stalks a kid in his car, who is walking home from the local store.

    He then gets out of his car, with his gun and starts to follow said kid on foot.

    He calls the police who tells him that there is a car on the way, because you know, a black kid really has no right to be walking around at night and then he was told he was not required to follow the kid.

    He takes after the kid on foot. Kid at this time was reporting to his girlfriend on the phone that he was being followed and that he was walking away fast.

    Zimmerman is then heard on the 911 tape to be out of breath or seemed to be running.

    Girlfriend on Martin's other line hears someone say something to Martin and then the line goes dead.

    People in the surrounding area hear Martin screaming for help before he is shot dead by the armed Zimmerman who followed him in his car, then on foot and then chased him.. with a gun.

    Martin had as much right to stand his ground against a person who is chasing him and he may very much have done so.

    These facts are not in dispute and are clear and reported by Zimmerman, the police, supported by 911 tapes and by eyewitnesses at the scene.

    If you wish to cast doubt on Martin's innocence, because he is apparently guilty for walking home on a public street with a can of iced-tea and a packet of lollies, then so be it. But you will be challenged and you will be expected to provide proof of Martin's supposed guilt.

    You mean by questioning what he was doing on the street that night? By asking if he was really out for snacks?

    Walking home and talking on the phone while carrying some iced tea and skittles is now "behaviour"?

    How much further are you going to stretch this?

    So why bring it up?

    He was walking home, talking to his girlfriend on the phone.

    You have absolutely no proof that he was there for anything else.

    In fact:

    The police perspective was most succinctly stated in a March 13 "capias request" -- a request that someone be taken into custody -- sent to the state's attorney. It speaks to the fact that Zimmerman ignored a police dispatcher's advice not to chase Martin, as well as his communications with Martin prior to the shooting.

    "The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog (sic) in an effort to dispel each party's concern" the request said. "There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity."



    Are you going to provide evidence that Martin was up to no good because he was a black kid walking home with a drink and some lollies?

    Tell me something. If your kids are walking home and this stranger starts to stalk them in his car. Would you advise your children to approach the stranger and answer his questions? Or would you advise your children to run?

    Firstly, Zimmerman did not ask him any questions. Read the quote above, Zimmerman did not identify himself or try to "establish any form of dialogue".

    By walking on the street?

    Because Zimmerman never advised him that he was a Neighbourhood watch person. At all. He also never asked him what he was doing there. The police have stated that had Zimmerman behaved differently, Martin would not be dead. In other words, had Zimmerman listened to the advice of the 911 operator, if he had identified himself to Martin, Martin would not be dead. Get it yet?

    Actually, it kind of has.

    Again, just for you:

    Christopher Serino, a Sanford Police Department investigator who called for Zimmerman's arrest, told prosecutors in a March 13 report that the fight could have been avoided if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and waited for authorities to arrive. He also said Zimmerman, after leaving the vehicle, could have identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and talked to him instead of confronting him.

    Serino said there was no evidence Martin was involved in any criminal activity as he walked from a convenience store to the home of his father's fiance in the same gated community where Zimmerman lived.


    Midnight snacker?

    It was in the early evening.

    What? Black people aren't allowed out after dark now?

    Is that what you call this?

    Questioning why the black kid was walking down the street in the evening?

    Again, there is no evidence that Martin was involved in any crime. None at all.

    And even if he was buying weed, it was not in front of Zimmerman, so really, it would be a moot point anyway.

    What suspicious behaviour?

    Walking home with iced tea and lollies?
     
  16. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Say what? That didn't even make sense.
    If you have evidence that there are witnesses that say Zimmerman assaulted Martin, please cite your sources.
    I've followed this in the news and I've seen no reports of anything of the kind. So if I've missed it- please inform me.

    I have done no such thing.
    What I have done- is given him reasonable benifit of the doubt- Which I've also given to Martin as the following post shows.

    Given eyewitness accounts, police reports and medical reports. the evidence matches far more closely to what I've asserted than it matches to "Well Zimmermans just lying! (no proof that he is needed)"
    What I have stood for is Presume innocent until proven guilty.

    You didn't really think that statement through before saying it, did you?

    Again- not all all. You assume too much yourself to accuse me of assumptions.

    Eyewitness report that Martin Was standing over Zimmerman- beating him -At Least One
    Eyewitness that report that Zimmerman was beating Martin - None

    Medical report of Injuries:
    Zimmerman -Black eyes, fractured nose, lacerations, heavy bruising. Knuckles not bruised or abraded.

    Martin -Bruised and abraded knuckles only , gunshot wound to the chest.

    Bruised knuckles but no other bruising or lacerations when the other guy was beat up?

    Screaming for help from Zimmerman Before shots fired.
    Calls to 911 - before shots were fired.

    THESE ARE THE FACTS.
    You accuse me of ignoring them, yet you cannot counter them. The best you can do is question my character.

    Provide those oh so many eyewitnesses you speak of that say that Martin was not the one standing and beating the man on the ground.

    Never did I say, nor imply in any way, that Martin was evil- nor that he got what he deserved.

    I have said it's tragic, a terrible mistake and lamented the tragedy of his loss.

    If anyone is ignoring things, pjdude- it is you. Clearly you.

    White? Zimmerman is Hispanic. But you prefer to refer to him as white, in psite of not just his heritage and appearance- but to justify racial motives.
    No reason? Inventing the facts again? You do not know if there was probably cause or not.
    Talk about ridiculous facts and assumptions!
    Are you really this eager for your lynch mob mentality to justify itself by inventing whatever suits your purpose?
    Let's see... Jim Crow laws- Enacted in 1876.

    It is now 2012.
    In case you haven't noticed, this is not then. We still have work to do- BUT THIS IS NOT THEN. You cannot reasonably cry about the far past as if it still applies to today.
    Women could not vote back then.

    The kid was not even a grown man that knew about Jim Crow Laws in those days. He was hardly influenced by such history- considering Modern Day Life Experiences.

    I bet you're assuming I am white, too, huh?

    I am Lakota Sioux.

    Do you see me here, claiming all white men are evil because of what happened long ago? The modern day white person is politically better minded. They do not act anywhere NEAR to what people that were raised racist 100 years ago did.
    In our history, great men and women have introduced educational grounds for fighting out against INJUSTICE.
    As I fight against such injustice as many of you are promoting NOW.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2012
  17. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Irrelevant.
    Many "criminals" are unarmed while committing crimes.
    It's benefit of the doubt that he was out ONLY to get snacks and had no other purpose. For now, it's reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt that was his only purpose. I have repeatedly pointed this out and it is apparent in my posts on topic.

    Which is why his behavior later is suspicious.


    Using improper wording- Stalks. He was not stalking as the definition for the word does not apply.
    Stalkers have chosen already known subjects. Zimmerman and Martin were complete strangers. He has not admitted to stalking.
    He admitted to checking out when he perceived to be a suspicious character.
    This is, by no means, UNUSUAL.
    Stalking is unusual.

    Checking out suspicious characters happens in malls, streets, neighborhoods, shops and establishments all around the world, regularly.

    Yes, technically accurate- again your wording is misleading.
    He was carrying a concealed weapon- Tucked into the waistband of his pants.
    He did not get out, gun in hand- as your misleading words could imply.

    True.

    True- and this is where I call Zimmerman "Overly zealous in his duties."
    Zimmerman is at fault for showing poor judgment.
    True, I think.

    Wrong. He was heard asking Martin, "What are you doing out here?"

    Inaccurate to the point of questioning your motives. Highly misleading.

    Witnesses reported hearing screaming for help.

    According to recordings that caught the screams and at least one eyewitness and one investigator- Zimmerman matches the screaming. Upon hearing the tape, most identified the screams as Zimmermans voice.

    Martins Father identified the voice as NOT Treyvons.

    Martins mother identified the screaming as Treyvon.

    This leaves ONE person saying Treyvon was screaming for help and at least 5 others- if not more- saying it's Zimmermans voice.

    There is effective uncertainty due to the garbling of the recording forensically.
    The most probable conclusion based on the evidence including identification of whose voice was screaming and Martin was seen standing over Zimmerman, beating him- Zimmerman was screaming for help.

    Zimmerman appears to be the one screaming, on the ground- for help- with eyewitness support.
    Medical support is supportive.

    All of this was before any shot was fired.

    Agreed that Martin has every right to stand his ground. He has every right to walk down the street. He has every right to be annoyed about being questioned about it.


    Your statement would be valid ONLY if you can demonstrate that Zimmerman had ATTACKED Martin.

    The facts may be marginally clear- but your version of them is heavily distorted.
    I am challenging others to provide proof of Zimmermans guilt. By the claims Ive read on here.
    In addition, I've repeatedly pointed out that I give the benefit of the doubt to Martin- But made a demonstration of showing what happens when you reverse the process of accusation from Zimmerman onto Martin.

    Since I have not claimed that Martin was committing a crime, I have no burden of proof.
    I have, however, pointed out the fallacy in speculating.
    Acting violently is now behavior.

    Nor did I claim to. What I claimed to be doing in that post was demonstrating how the Lynch Mob mentality of Speculating about Zimmerman would appear if it was reversed to Treyvon.

    That's one quote, yet the girlfriend on the phone with Martin that night said that Martin told her that the man had asked him, "What are you doing around here?"
    Martin was being questioned by a strange man asking him what he was up to.

    This probably bothered Martin. But was NOT A CALL TO VIOLENCE.

    Nor would it strike anyone who has walked down the street at night and been asked the same question by people living there as odd.

    I've done plenty of walking at night and been confronted by many people who asked what I was doing and why I was there. None identified themselves as police or watch men. At no time did I feel stalked, or threatened- I felt like someone was concerned about my presence- I felt defensive about my motives and character- not about my physical safety.
    This is anecdotal.

    However, your responses are as speculative as my response was anecdotal. Martin had no reason to react as he had, once confronted.
    WRONG.
    Martin, on phone call with GF and GF confirmed that Zimmerman DID ask him that exact question.
    An officer stated that. "The Police" have not.
    If Martin had behaved differently, he would also still not be dead.
    It is far more likely that Martins behavior escalated to the result than Zimmermans behavior had.
    It's needless to say that it all would not have happened had Zimmerman not observed and pursued. It's also needless to say it would not have happened if Martin stayed home that night.
    What has greater relevance is what actually led to the shooting.

    To examine that - we must look at what violence took place. The medical reports and eyewitness accounts that I have repeatedly outlined demonstrate that Martin, as it appears so far, took a greater part in his fate.

    Totally irrelevant.
    None of that deals with who struck the first blow- who acted violently.
    For that we look to the medical records and they show that Martin received NO BLOWS and Zimmerman received them extensively.
    It shows that Martin had abraded and bruised knuckles and Zimmerman did not. Zimmermans injuries were to the blows he received.
    Eyewitness reports that Martin was standing over Zimmerman beating him on the ground.
    You ignore all of this while citing something irrelevant to that point.

    Bad use of an expression on my part. Who cares.

    The rest is your usual sarcasm and wild accusations that have more to do with character attacks with someone who doesn't agree with you than the case. You cherry pick whatever you think you can use against someone, while ignoring other things they say that might undermine your character attacks against the person whom you oppose in the debate.
     
  18. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    In other words, I defeated your points, you have no answer, and you're too embarrassed to admit your mistakes.

    As for the response to Fraggle and Geoff (and to an extent, Bells), you simply repeat the lies I called you out on in your previous posts. A lot of claims of evidence with no such evidence presented, and what few things you do cite (such as "eyewitness reports") are completely fabricated. Again, as an example: You claim that witnesses have Martin jumping Zimmerman in the door of his car with his back turned. This is a lie, because no eyewitness has claimed to see the fight start. The only one claiming Martin attacked first was Zimmerman himself.

    The lack of bruising on the knuckles is your next "knock-down" evidentiary claim, but again you reach a non-sequitur. A lack of bruising on his knuckles does nothing to imply who attacked who. It could mean Zimmerman doesn't hit very hard, or that he hit Martin in a soft, fleshy part of the body, or that missed. It's entirely possible that Martin attacked first, but only after Zimmerman reached for his gun. You can't possibly know what happened, so why do you assume?

    You're assuming Martin is primarily to blame based on your own fabricated story, which is that Martin stalked Zimmerman and attacked him from behind. But if you only account for what we actually know, it's impossible to know who got physical first. But again, your bias won't let that be the story. Perhaps this is out of your distaste for the media's mishandling of this story, or perhaps you have racist tendencies, I have no idea, but either way you're wrong.
     
  19. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    No. In other words, I addressed the case- if you have anything I missed, let me know... How can you say I was defeated and had no answer? I was able to answer Fraggle and Bells and Geoffp with the same answers...
    I just didn't feel like dealing with all the fluff that is irrelevant to the case.
    In your fairness: I didn't really read your post. I skimmed it- saw angry responses and an accusation at the end that I was a liar and an accusation before that that said the people that knew Zimmerman were liars...
    At that point, I just didn't find it worth the effort when any witness evidence I might discuss or the medical reports I might discuss or what have you- Well they are liars. It's like- whatever. There's no arguing with that kind of mentality.
    IF I've misunderstood your intent which may have happened since I kinda skimmed it- Let me know- I'll go read it and give it another chance.

    I did not wish to deal with Bells, either. Which is why anything she posts to me that is character attacks, sarcasm, irrelevant connections and the like will simply be deleted from my reply.

    SEE?!
    Anything I say will be called lies. So why bother?

    Odd... I've posted the excerpts, the links to the articles and what have you...
    Now I've personally fabricated it?
    Here: Have at it:
    http://abcnews.go.com/US/cops-witne...ermans-version/story?id=16371852#.T7dTZsg45JE


    I had copied a slew of excerpts from various articles last night onto notepad- but kinda forgot to include the links.
    But here's the news excerpts that I had on notepad. I did not alter any of their content so googling them may help.

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...an-Trayvon-Martin-police-documents/55061830/1
    I posted this quote earlier in a reply but Ill do it again:
    Have I posted enough that you'll stop saying I fabricated it all, yet?
    Or should I stay up another night, searching through the web to halt your absurd accusations?

    JDawg, it's unnecessary to keep accusing like that. It's Possible I've got the wrong end of the stick.
    It's possible that Zimmerman is a racist little liar that deliberately sought Martin out.

    I just find it UNLIKELY given the evidence I have just posted.


    No it's a failure on my part. For this one, in spite of extensive searching- I cannot find that article I read that in.
    So, I posted above (Which you ignored) that I have dropped that claim and you're incorrect- I have not made that claim in any of the posts that followed.

    At this time, it's best to consider this accurate.
    IF I find whatever it was that I read that said there was a witness that said they saw him jumped from behind- I will post the link for that one now too.
    In the meantime, the articles I've read earlier today say no one saw it start.

    All true.
    What I have stated and I have worded it this way- Is the most probable case.
    What you say is perfectly true. But when you add the evidence up- it is VERY suggestive that Martin was the aggressor when it escalated violently.

    I cannot state that as fact- only that the evidence supports it MORE than it supports your speculations which are ENTIRELY unsupported. Do you understand?

    THAT is what's bothering me- the lynch mob mentality doing all this speculating about Zimmerman, while accepting as absolute fact that Martin did nothing at all wrong.

    That is not what I believe happened. I believe they BOTH acted badly. I believe that Zimmerman acted badly by being too confrontational and overzealous in his duties as neighborhood watch.
    I Believe that Martin was the likeliest aggressor, reacting with totally Unnecessary violence which resulted in a very tragic loss.

    I cannot prove anything and neither can you.

    The best we can do is look at the evidence and the LIKELIEST conclusions one can reach from them.
    And the medical evidence is compelling even if it is not Proof.
    It's just further support for the claim.

    That Zimmerman assaulted Martin has zero evidence to support that claim.

    What's with the misuse of the word stalked, lately?
    What I said was that Martin RETURNED to Zimmerman.

    Now- this part's important:
    In searching all the articles, I cannot find much reference to that now. I found it last week, but I was not posting here on this thread last week so did not bookmark it. It's also possible that what I was reading was an article covering, primarily, Zimmermans account. Which you dismiss as Lies no matter what- so no sense talking about it.

    What I'm finding now is a complete lack of clarity in the news-- I've seen articles suggesting that Zimmerman caught up to Martin and confronted him.
    I've seen others that say he was at his vehicle when Martin reappeared.
    It's very unclear and I'd like for someone to help out and post some links that clarify it.

    If I'm wrong, I will admit to being wrong. It's as simple as that.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2012
  20. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    You are yet to establish or provide proof that Martin was a criminal or was committing a criminal act by walking down the street.

    No. It is actually established fact that was the reason he went out and this is evidenced by the fact he had a drink and a packet of lollies in his hands as he was walking home. That is not a crime, nor is that in dispute. So it begs to question, why you are trying to make it seem as if he was doing something suspicious by doing something that was completely legal and that he was well within his rights to do.

    What behaviour?

    Running away from an armed man who first followed him in a car and then on foot?

    I can tell you now, if I'm walking down the street and I see some twat following me in a car, I too would run.

    And what made Martin suspicious to Zimmerman?

    Racial profiling, something you seem to be defending here by your actions and the way you are arguing this, is what made Martin automatically suspicious to Zimmerman. As has been shown in this thread, Zimmerman used to harrass his neighbours with his over-zealous policing of the area he lived in. If you want to know Zimmerman's aggressive nature, so much so that his neighbours reported him to the police for it, you have only to read this thread.

    Now, imagine a young kid, walking home in the dark and notices a stranger following him in a car and then on foot. It was Zimmerman who was the suspicious character by how he acted.

    Now tell me why Martin was suspicious looking.

    Again, he got out of the car, with a weapon on his person, against the direct words of the 911 dispatcher who told him not to follow Martin as the police were on their way, and he first started to follow him on foot, and then gave chase when Martin correctly ran away from the stranger following him.

    No, really?

    You sure now?

    He did something he was told not to by the 911 dispatcher. He was armed, he had the advantage in that confrontation.

    As is yours by trying to cast doubt that Martin may have been committing a crime or considering a criminal act when you have absolutely no proof that he was.

    What is your motive in trying to cast the unarmed deceased teenager in such a light I wonder?

    Eyewitnesses at the scene placed the voice as Martin's. As did his mother and at least two voice experts who advised it was not George Zimmerman's voice in the 911 recording.

    This has already been established in this thread.

    So what is your role here? What motive do you have in trying to paint Martin as the one who was suspicious and who was, according to you, possibly considering a criminal act as he walked home that evening? You have been using very provocative words and language in the manner in which you have been painting the victim of this crime. So I ask you again, why?

    Who died?

    Zimmerman or Martin?

    Who was shot at close range? Zimmerman or Martin?

    Coming from you at this point in time, that's hilarious.

    Now show some proof that Martin was considering a criminal act when he walked home that night. Show me how and why Martin was being suspicious.

    Well sorry to burst your bubble, but you have failed. Miserably.

    Not unusual for you if memory serves me well.

    You haven't cast doubt on Zimmerman. What you have done is tried to portray Martin as a criminal without any proof whatsoever, in fact, you have done so even against explicit proof that he was not doing anything criminal.

    No?

    Considering how you have been harping about Martin being suspicious, questioning how and why he was there, what he was doing, etc. Really, who do you think you are fooling here?

    I would suggest you read what I was responding to and you might just get why I think you are inherently dishonest.

    What happens if we speculate about Martins behavior?


    When he was followed and approached by Zimmerman, that was all that he was doing. So please, speculate away and make some more 'facts' up as you go. You have a vivid imagination it seems.

    Really?

    Is that what you are doing, is it?

    Which begs the question, why are you still pushing that same argument if you were merely trying to demonstrate 'the lynch mob mentality of speculating'?

    What is your motive in this thread?

    Not a call to violence?

    A guy who just followed him by car and then on foot and then gave chase to a kid who had done nothing wrong except walk home?

    Still sticking to this line?

    Still making things up with that over-active imagination with your 'speculating' again?

    While you may walk around at night and apparently look dodgy enough to have people approach you to ask you what you are doing there, you are not this kid walking home who was followed by a stranger in a car and then on foot. His reaction was normal given the circumstances. He stood his ground against the person he viewed as the aggressor, in this instance, Zimmerman.

    Get it yet?

    After having chased him.

    And as the police stated, at no time did he try to speak to Martin, at no time did he identify himself or his role. Get it yet Neverfly?

    The officer in question is the officer who investigated the case, therefore, he was "the police".

    Martin had every single right to be out that night and he had every single right to be walking down the street as he did. To claim that it would not have happened if he'd just stayed home shows your prejudice and frankly, warped mind.

    Martin had every right to not be pursued by a complete stranger, and an armed one at that who appointed himself as neighbourhood watch captain and then armed himself to patrol the streets.

    Pursuing someone is a violent act.

    Martin's injuries led to his death - ie - he was shot at close range. Zimmerman was found to be sitting astride Martin's body with the gun still in his hands. I'd suggest you stop ignoring the facts.

    Well it seems you do since you seem to have such a bug up your backside about Martin being out of his house and walking down the street at that time.

    You don't deserve any better.

    If you go out of your way to act like a prat, do not be surprised if you are treated as one.
     
  21. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    I do not bear that burden of proof because I have not claimed that he was a criminal.
    It's impossible that you can quote me as saying he WAS without heavy handed distortion on your part. The only post where I discussed any such thing was based on the SPECULATIONS going on and I made that Very Clear at the time.

    Your attempt to obfuscate is clear and any further requests for proof for something I've not claimed will simply be ignored.

    Ther eis also video of him at 7-11 making the purchase.
    I never disupted that he did, in fact, I said HE HAD SNACKS ON THE WAY BACK.

    Sitting on top of a man slugging him counts.
    I do not know and this is an excellent question. We'd all like that one answered.

    An interesting response on your part where pointed out an error you made in your reporting.

    I have absolutely no proof that he was and in the ONE AND ONLY POST in which I discussed that, I was comparing the SPECULATIONS that seem to abound in Zimmermans case to hypothetical ones about Martin. I made that very clear in that post.
    Your attempt is to obfuscate by putting claims in my mouth.

    Irrelevant. This thread is not exactly a reliable source. I have posted what was In The News.
    Quote the article and the source that says Two Experts and eyewitnesses said it was Martin.

    I posted the articles and quotes in the post above yours to JDawg and those news reports say otherwise.

    My memory of you is that you resort to despicable debate tactics and you confirm my memory quite well.
    You seek to anger your opponent using sarcasm and unnecessary relentless character attacks to keep him off kilter.
    You quote mine. You ignore anything the poster says that will undermine the position you have decided to take. You will cherry pick his posts for anything you can use in your favor. This is demonstrated by your repeating accusations and claims when I've addressed them and clarified my position.

    I've decided to only respond to your posts by removing the fluff, character attacks and such from then focusing primarily on the case. Anything that I've refuted from you that you then ignore the refutation and continue to re-claim- I will simply delete from the reply and ignore it. Simply because I already refuted it and your tactic of making it appear as though I had not by repeating it is unnecessary. Making unnecessary connections and speculations about motives to imply character flaws in your opponent. These tactics are referred to as "intellectual dishonesty."

    You would not last five seconds in a Proper Debate Hall.

    Only Material Relevant To The Topic will be discussed with you from now on, Bells.
    I have, however, allowed myself this brief moment to give you a piece of my mind. Nothing near what I'd really like to say about my observation of your character--- but a carefully controlled response. With gritted teeth.

    Back to the case:

    Only one policeman said that. And that may be a misunderstanding.
    The GF and Martin on phone with GF confirmed that Zimmerman addressed him and asked, "What are you doing here?"
    "the Police" are never just one person. Ever.
    Absolute agreement.
    Quote mining and a distortion.
    I pointed out that saying that "if so and so had not done such and such, this would not have happened" way before shots were fired is misleading.
    'IT NEVER SUGGESTED THAT MARTIN WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO GO OUTSIDE.
    IT ONLY SAID IF HE HAD NOT, IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED- OBVIOUSLY.
    The distinction was that it was AN ACT OF VIOLENCE THAT RESULTED IN A SHOT BEING FIRED.
    In this sense, acting violently, Pinning a man to the ground and banging his head on it, this is MORE relevant to the shooting than, "Situations before that that should not have led to a shooting."
    What I said is clear- you prefer to distort what I say in order to paint a false image of my character so that you can attack it.

    As I said, Despicable debate tactics.
     
    Last edited: May 19, 2012
  22. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    24,270
    You will excuse me if I do not take you seriously.

    You have spent considerable time and effort in questioning Martin's actions and whether he was innocent, as such, you even went so far as to question what he really was doing walking where he was on his "midnight snack run".. You queried his true motives and whether he wasn't out to do something more than buy his "snacks".

    When confronted and demands are made for proof with what you have been trying to convey in this thread, you resort to "I never made such a claim. So please, can the moral indignation. You aren't fooling anyone.

    And then queried if that was his true intent.


    Because apparently, a black kid has to act different to a white kid being followed by a stranger in a car and on foot while walking home at night. Right?

    I could go on, but you get my drift.. And that was just on this page. I haven't even bothered to delve into what you posted on the previous page.

    You were discussing the initial episode where one was followed and then approached.

    Would you even care?

    After all:

    Logically, a black kid walking along with some snacks would have simply answered the questions and gone about his way.


    Still does not disolve the fact, does it?

    And yet, you keep going with that same argument.

    Looks like we both drew the line in the sand.

    So who do you think is right?

    The kid fighting for his life or the guy with the gun who eventually shot him dead?

    And you are prone to hysterics and dishonest statements, as is evidenced in this thread.

    And you posted this:

    Logically, a black kid walking along with some snacks would have simply answered the questions and gone about his way


    Really, enough said.

    In other words, when confronted, you'll just try and bluff your way out of it.

    Again, typical of you.

    And you would not last 1 in court when your claims that aren't claims are ripped to shreds.

    You mean like this?

    Logically, a black kid walking along with some snacks would have simply answered the questions and gone about his way


    Care to explain that comment Neverfly?

    Why is it logical for "a black kid walking along with some snacks" to have answered questions of a man who had been following him in his car and then on foot? Do you expect black kids to approach strangers who are following him in the dark and who he thought posed a threat to him? You tell your kids to approach strangers who are following them down the street?

    Oh is that what that was?

    Okay..

    It was actually the policeman who was investigating the case. Are you now discounting him based on what you have read in the media?

    And yet..

    Logically, a black kid walking along with some snacks would have simply answered the questions and gone about his way


    So you want to try again?

    Uh huh...



    So, care to explain?

    There there. If you can't keep up, I'm sure there's a Hello Kitty forum somewhere out there for you.
     
  23. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    How can you say that when you say this:

    You don't even know what my points were! You didn't even read the post.

    Well, that's Bells. I'm only attacking what you write.

    That's not true. Only your lies will be called lies. The way to avoid this is to not write lies. Seems simply enough.

    You lied about there being eyewitness testimony to Martin attacking Zimmerman. Or did you forget writing that? The only eyewitness testimony there is says that Martin was on top of Zimmerman--this does not mean Martin was the attacker. This might have been self-defense.

    How about I take three seconds and quote your previous comments in this thread?

    Fabrications and wild speculations. Should I go on, or can I trust that you get the point?

    I know it's possible. But you've been inventing scenarios and lying about eyewitness reports to suit your own preconceptions. You keep giving lip service to the fact that certain things haven't been established, but you clearly promote the scenario in which Martin attacks Zimmerman first. You go so far as to say that Martin returned to Zimmerman, which is another whole-cloth fabrication by you.

    The evidence you posted doesn't tell you one way or the other. If anything, it hints that Zimmerman was the attacker, because he is the one who pursued Martin. One witness says Martin ran from Zimmerman, which would lend to the idea that Zimmerman caught him. It's possible that if this happened, Martin was simply protecting himself.

    The only way you could find this scenario unlikely is if you assume the lies you've told to be true.

    You didn't read it in any article, because no witnesses have claimed to see the fight start. That was your own invention. You made it up.


    No no no, that's not how it works. Zimmerman just killed a man, we don't have to take him at his word. He has a considerable interest in maintaining his innocence.

    Good luck, because it doesn't exist. You know you made it up.

    That is completely incorrect. The facts we know are this: Zimmerman saw Martin walking in the neighborhood and pursued him. Martin may have run. The fight concluded with Martin on top and Zimmerman shooting him in the chest. If this is all you had to go by, the most probable scenario is that Zimmerman accosted Martin in such a way that Martin feared for his safety. Whether that was a threatening tone, reaching for his gun, or a physical attack, we don't know. But what we can't say from this is that Martin attacked Zimmerman. It may have happened that way, but there's no evidence to support it. Your whole basis (now that you've been forced to omit your previous lie about him jumping on Zimmerman's back upon returning to him (after running away initially, which would make absolutely no sense) for believing Martin to be the aggressor is the fact that Martin was winning the fight. That's all you have.

    Read above. If you have an intellectually honest bone in your body, you'll realize how absurd you sound right now.

    Given what we know, it's very easy to presume that Zimmerman was in the wrong. The evidence we have hints at that very probability. Doesn't mean it's a fact, but let's face it, this whole thing could have been avoided if Zimmerman hadn't decided to chase down a kid whose only crime to that point was walking while black.

    But even if it turned out that Martin was casing houses and Zimmerman was actually doing a good thing for the community, it doesn't make it okay for you just to make stuff up to suit your bias. All you're doing is muddying the argument with lies, and that helps nothing. So you're angry at the media. So what? Your answer is to act just like them? Didn't your mother ever teach you that two wrongs don't make a right?

    Be honest. You believe that Martin was more wrong. You said so yourself. Anyway, you have no evidence to support the idea that Martin was the aggressor. None. You only have evidence that he was winning the fight. So what do you base this theory on? The fact that he's black?

    No, but at least my opinion is based on the evidence, and I'm not claiming it to be the whole story.

    The medical evidence is only evidence that he was losing the fight. HOw many times do you need to be told this? If you walked up to me, took a swing and missed, and I beat the crap out of you, you'd still be the aggressor. It doesn't matter what Zimmerman looked like after the fight.

    It has direct evidence, no, but neither does the theory that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. At least the Zimmerman as Aggressor theory has circumstantial evidence, such as the fact that Zimmerman was following Martin, and that Martin was trying to get away from him. That they ended up in a tussle insinuates that Zimmerman caught up to him.

    Based on no evidence.

    Oh yes, let's gloss over your blatant lies and call them misunderstandings.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    What articles have said that? Show me one.

    No you won't. You're wrong now and you know it, but you're not admitting to anything.
     

Share This Page