George Zimmerman's bloody head

[Bigfoot]

It is easy enough to tell by these photos of Martin and Zimmerman that Martin was the guy who created his own problems.

.
.

 

[Liability]

Liability, to accept what you believe is true one also have to accept a certain premise. I believe the premise that Martin was the instigator and attacked Zimmerman. There is no evidence that that is true, however you and others have been taking that premise as gospel truth.

Wrong. Quote a single post of mine to support your assumption of what I suppoedly "believe."

I don't have any opinion of what is or isn't true in the matter of the incident involving Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.

I have consistently maintained that WE don't know.

And we don't. Not me. Not you.

I stand by that completely.

 

[MarcATL]

Liability, to accept what you believe is true one also have to accept a certain premise. I believe the premise that Martin was the instigator and attacked Zimmerman. There is no evidence that that is true, however you and others have been taking that premise as gospel truth.

Wrong. Quote a single post of mine to support your assumption of what I suppoedly "believe."

I don't have any opinion of what is or isn't true in the matter of the incident involving Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.

I have consistently maintained that WE don't know.

And we don't. Not me. Not you.

I stand by that completely.

OK, Ok, okay...I got it, I got it.

However, I don't see you correcting those statements by those that express the sentiment that Martin was the aggressor. It's understandable to deduct that you'd be in agreement with that considering you don't correct those, but correct the others.

 

[MarcATL]

It is easy enough to tell by these photos of Martin and Zimmerman that Martin was the guy who created his own problems.

.
.

LOL!!!!

This is actually funny.


lol

 

[Liability]

Liability, to accept what you believe is true one also have to accept a certain premise. I believe the premise that Martin was the instigator and attacked Zimmerman. There is no evidence that that is true, however you and others have been taking that premise as gospel truth.

Wrong. Quote a single post of mine to support your assumption of what I suppoedly "believe."

I don't have any opinion of what is or isn't true in the matter of the incident involving Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.

I have consistently maintained that WE don't know.

And we don't. Not me. Not you.

I stand by that completely.

OK, Ok, okay...I got it, I got it.

However, I don't see you correcting those statements by those that express the sentiment that Martin was the aggressor. It's understandable to deduct that you'd be in agreement with that considering you don't correct those, but correct the others.

Well then, by all means, go back and read more fully.

I have maintained this to BOTH sides.

You are wrong again. You presume things and then use your presumptions as the premise of your arguments and complaints. It's pretty lame of you.

 

[MarcATL]

Well then, by all means, go back and read more fully.

I have maintained this to BOTH sides.

You are wrong again. You presume things and then use your presumptions as the premise of your arguments and complaints. It's pretty lame of you.

My bad then Liability...I give it to you.

 

[Bigfoot]

Thank you for your opinion Marc but I can look at those two pictures and tell who the bad guy is...or in Trayvon (the aggressor) was. Anyway, if I had another son he would look like George.

 

[MarcATL]

Another one! Two in a row...!!!

You're on a roll BigFoot.


lol

 

[earlycuyler]

The moral of the story is Zimmerman had every right to suspect & follow martin. He can even legally ask what are you doing here. The take away from the shooting is you should not continue to beat anyone who is flat on their back, not fighting back & screaming for help 20 times. That is against the law everywhere & will get you legally shot in any state. The rest of your post is noise.

And Martin had every right to STAND his ground and defend him self. Zimmerman may have the right to follow the boy, he had the right to question the boy, but to flip it around, Martin had the right to ask this guy why he was following him, and Martin was under NO obligation to offer ANY explanation to Zimmerman what so ever. Zimmerman was acting outside the guidelines of his neighborhood watch guidebook. He got himself into an avoidable situation and when he was receiving the consequences of his actions he shot his way out of it.

But we don't know that young Trayvon Martin DID defend himself or that he ever needed to.

Your whole argument requires acceptance of a premise (which is really kind of also your conclusion) and we don't know if the premise is "true."

There is a name for the fallacy of assuming one's desired conclusion AS one's premise and then "arriving at" one's conclusion. You have engaged in begging the question. Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not so. I attend a class that teaches people how to legally shoot other people when they have bad intentions towards you. Two cops and one judge (the instructors) point out that Zimmerman could have avoided the whole thing by staying in his car, and staying on the phone. I assumed nothing. I am forming an opinion on the commentary of three law enforcement professionals, not the evening news. The shooting was 100% avoidable if only Zimmerman had not followed. Strangely, all three figure Zimmerman will walk because he was overcharged.

 

[saveliberty]

Bloody head equals innocent.

Fatal bullet wound to the chest equals guilt.

The only partially good news I see, is that there are people so out of touch with what is going on around them, that an impartial jury is a possibility.

 

[paperview]

Hey, WW. This is another image from that guy who did the Google Earth measurements of the distance from the truck tot he crime scene.

Something about where "John" the still anonymous witness, was situated has been nagging me.

This lays it out. I'm not sure he had as great a view as he said he did, then again, I can't be certain.

But look:

 

[Ravi]

And Martin had every right to STAND his ground and defend him self. Zimmerman may have the right to follow the boy, he had the right to question the boy, but to flip it around, Martin had the right to ask this guy why he was following him, and Martin was under NO obligation to offer ANY explanation to Zimmerman what so ever. Zimmerman was acting outside the guidelines of his neighborhood watch guidebook. He got himself into an avoidable situation and when he was receiving the consequences of his actions he shot his way out of it.

But we don't know that young Trayvon Martin DID defend himself or that he ever needed to.

Your whole argument requires acceptance of a premise (which is really kind of also your conclusion) and we don't know if the premise is "true."

There is a name for the fallacy of assuming one's desired conclusion AS one's premise and then "arriving at" one's conclusion. You have engaged in begging the question. Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not so. I attend a class that teaches people how to legally shoot other people when they have bad intentions towards you. Two cops and one judge (the instructors) point out that Zimmerman could have avoided the whole thing by staying in his car, and staying on the phone. I assumed nothing. I am forming an opinion on the commentary of three law enforcement professionals, not the evening news. The shooting was 100% avoidable if only Zimmerman had not followed. Strangely, all three figure Zimmerman will walk because he was overcharged.

I read somewhere that the prosecutor in this case always brings the highest charge she can bring that she thinks she can prove. And if she can't prove it, the court will go for a lessor sentence.

IMO, it is troubling that he got out of his car. I think he could realistically be guilty of manslaughter because of that.

 

[saveliberty]

Pretty tpyical of prosecutors to go high on the charge or bring multiple charges or both.

 

[Liability]

And Martin had every right to STAND his ground and defend him self. Zimmerman may have the right to follow the boy, he had the right to question the boy, but to flip it around, Martin had the right to ask this guy why he was following him, and Martin was under NO obligation to offer ANY explanation to Zimmerman what so ever. Zimmerman was acting outside the guidelines of his neighborhood watch guidebook. He got himself into an avoidable situation and when he was receiving the consequences of his actions he shot his way out of it.

But we don't know that young Trayvon Martin DID defend himself or that he ever needed to.

Your whole argument requires acceptance of a premise (which is really kind of also your conclusion) and we don't know if the premise is "true."

There is a name for the fallacy of assuming one's desired conclusion AS one's premise and then "arriving at" one's conclusion. You have engaged in begging the question. Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not so. I attend a class that teaches people how to legally shoot other people when they have bad intentions towards you. Two cops and one judge (the instructors) point out that Zimmerman could have avoided the whole thing by staying in his car, and staying on the phone. I assumed nothing. I am forming an opinion on the commentary of three law enforcement professionals, not the evening news. The shooting was 100% avoidable if only Zimmerman had not followed. Strangely, all three figure Zimmerman will walk because he was overcharged.

Your class does not address what happened. It couldn't since neither you nor your instructors know what happened.

Zimmerman coulda stayed in bed that morning, not gotten out of it except maybe to hit the head, too.

What he might have done is not the test.

Zimmerman was absolutely entitled to "follow." Doing what he was entitled to do cannot form a valid basis of any act of violence against him.

Assuming that he followed a person of whom he was suspicious (as indicated by the 9-1-1 call), it would be fascinating to know what publicly available "evidence" informs you that Trayvon had any valid basis to pound on Zimmerman (if that is what happened).

IF (and again, I don't know either), but IF Trayvon objected to Zimmerman following him and took it upon himself to beat the shit out of Zimmerman on that "basis," then Zimmerman was clearly entitled at that point to defend himself.

 

[saveliberty]

...and if Zimmerman pulls a gun, Martin is justified. Anyone dizzy yet?

 

[WorldWatcher]

It is easy enough to tell by these photos of Martin and Zimmerman that Martin was the guy who created his own problems.

.
.

Or not.

[Basically posted to show that looking at old pictures is a waste of time in terms of what actually happened that night.]


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You didn't say that the evidence doesn't support Zimmerman's story? Who was that that is using your account to post?

No, as I've said repeatedly, I've provided at least three scenario's that conform to evidence not based on Zimmerman's story, the shooter. In each of those scenario's it was then shown that the jury should return a verdict of 'not guilty" unless the state were to provide direct evidence that show Zimmerman was in the commission of a forcible felony. Barring such evidence, which it appears unlikely at this point, then Zimmerman would be 'not guilty".


*******************

I enjoy adult conversations with people that actually appear enjoy the exchange of information, not with those who lie about what someones posts have said and then argue against their lies own like a petulant child.

If you wish to engage in a meaningful discussion. Let me know.


>>>>

No you haven't. One of the scenarios only works if I believe in fairies, which I don't. the other two are not actually scenarios. All the honest person in this thread admit they don't know who started the fight, and point out that, under Florida law, it doesn't matter, all that matters is whether Zimmerman felt he was in danger at the time he shot Martin.

Sp, once again, given that that is actually what Florida law says, what evidence do you have that contradicts Martin's statement? The testiminy of a witness who admits it was dark, and that they couldn't see well enough to see who was doing what?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

"Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."

There had been several break-ins and Zimmerman was not the only one calling the police to report them. Many of the neighborhood's residents had been calling the police because many blacks had been seen casing houses and were being reported.

Exactly, was Zimmerman profiling Martin? Probably, he was profiling based on the history of break-ins and NOT simply based on race, he was profiling based on known events and descriptions of individuals known to have been involved in burglaries in the recent past.

Martin had been suspended from school for possessing women's jewelry and a screw driver that the police said was a burglary tool. When questioned Martian claimed that the women's jewelry belonged to a friend but he could not remember who the friend was.

This I will point out a few corrections about...

1. He as not suspended from school for possession of women's jewelry and a screwdriver, he was suspended for "tagging" (graffiti) school property.

2. During the course of searching his backpack for the tagging implements the jewelry was discovered. Police ran the jewelry and determined it was not stolen.

3. When questioned he declined to identify who gave it to, and since it was not stolen he was under no obligation to provide, the individual that gave him the jewelry.



>>>>

You almost got that right, which is an improvement.

1. This is what you got right.
2. They determined no such thing, all they determined is that it matched no reports of stolen jewelry. That is all they can determine unless Martin provides evidence of how he got it. Which brings us to
3. He is under no obligation to explain how he got the jewelry even if the police have a report that matches its description.

For a guy that claims to have spent 20 years in shore Patrol you are remarkably ignorant about the law.


Come to think of it, nothing remarkable about it at all, most cops are ignorant about what the law actually is, which is why they end up arresting people they shouldn't for doing things that are legal.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

But we don't know that young Trayvon Martin DID defend himself or that he ever needed to.

Your whole argument requires acceptance of a premise (which is really kind of also your conclusion) and we don't know if the premise is "true."

There is a name for the fallacy of assuming one's desired conclusion AS one's premise and then "arriving at" one's conclusion. You have engaged in begging the question. Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not so. I attend a class that teaches people how to legally shoot other people when they have bad intentions towards you. Two cops and one judge (the instructors) point out that Zimmerman could have avoided the whole thing by staying in his car, and staying on the phone. I assumed nothing. I am forming an opinion on the commentary of three law enforcement professionals, not the evening news. The shooting was 100% avoidable if only Zimmerman had not followed. Strangely, all three figure Zimmerman will walk because he was overcharged.

I read somewhere that the prosecutor in this case always brings the highest charge she can bring that she thinks she can prove. And if she can't prove it, the court will go for a lessor sentence.

IMO, it is troubling that he got out of his car. I think he could realistically be guilty of manslaughter because of that.

If he is guilty of manslaughter it is not because he got out of his car.

 

[Ravi]

You didn't say that the evidence doesn't support Zimmerman's story? Who was that that is using your account to post?

No, as I've said repeatedly, I've provided at least three scenario's that conform to evidence not based on Zimmerman's story, the shooter. In each of those scenario's it was then shown that the jury should return a verdict of 'not guilty" unless the state were to provide direct evidence that show Zimmerman was in the commission of a forcible felony. Barring such evidence, which it appears unlikely at this point, then Zimmerman would be 'not guilty".


*******************

I enjoy adult conversations with people that actually appear enjoy the exchange of information, not with those who lie about what someones posts have said and then argue against their lies own like a petulant child.

If you wish to engage in a meaningful discussion. Let me know.


>>>>

No you haven't. One of the scenarios only works if I believe in fairies, which I don't. the other two are not actually scenarios. All the honest person in this thread admit they don't know who started the fight, and point out that, under Florida law, it doesn't matter, all that matters is whether Zimmerman felt he was in danger at the time he shot Martin.

Sp, once again, given that that is actually what Florida law says, what evidence do you have that contradicts Martin's statement? The testiminy of a witness who admits it was dark, and that they couldn't see well enough to see who was doing what?

That's not true at all. This law, as bad as it is, does not give protection to someone that starts a fight and then gets their ass beat as a result. In fact, it protects the person that is attacked for no legitimate reason.