Zimmerman

Dumbass pinko-nazi-neoconservative-hippy-capitalists.
Post Reply
Embar Angylwrath
President: Rsak Fan Club
Posts: 11674
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
Location: Top of the food chain

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Embar Angylwrath » Sun Jul 14, 2013 7:09 pm

Jarochai Alabaster wrote:Zimmerman did, at every point.

Zimmerman pursued Martin in his vehicle. He did so suspiciously enough that Martin took notice. When Martin ran between buildings to hide from the vehicle pursuing him, Zimmerman got out and began pursuing him on foot. After abandoning pursuit, Zimmerman resumed pursuit when he got off the phone.
According to Zimmerman's reenactment, he was confronted by Martin who immediately asked what Zimmerman's problem was. Instead of explaining who he was and why he was stalking Martin, he went for "his phone."
Any reasonable individual after having been pursued in such a fashion would rightfully assume they were in danger when their unidentified stalker reached for something concealed. And wouldn't you know, it just so turned out that Zimmerman was armed and Martin did wind up dead. Zimmerman perfectly describes someone acting in self-defense in his own reenactment of events when he describes Martin's actions.

Nevermind that Zimmerman knew better on every count. He knew it was a bad idea to pursue a "suspect" himself. He was advised of as much directly, as well, but he knew it already. He also should have known that establishing identifications would be the first and most important task in any confrontation. Zimmerman and Zimmerman alone created a situation which forced Martin to act in self-defense, then killed him for it. This is literally all on Zimmerman.
Now it's pursuit? What do you mean by pursuit? Do you mean Zimmerman was trying to capture and apprehend? If so, all the evidence points to Martin pursuing Zimmerman. The evidence highly suggests Martin chose to engage Zimmerman after both Zimmerman and Martin mutually lost sight of one another. I can take you through the evidence if you like, and if you're open to an honest dialogue. Here's a hint, there were four minutes between Martin and Zimmerman losing sight of one another and the confrontation. Martin was within a minute of reaching his dad's girlfriend's house. What was Martin doing in those four minutes when, if he was the scared child the prosecution painted him to be, he should have been seeking safe shelter?

And you're right. Zimmerman does describe someone acting in self defense.. himself. If you found yourself on the wrong end of a fight, and feared for your life, and your fists weren't enough to get someone off you, would you use another tool at your disposal?

Most honest people would answer in the affirmative.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.

Embar
Alarius

Jarochai Alabaster
The Original Crayola Cleric
Posts: 2380
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 3:52 pm
Location: Behind you

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Jarochai Alabaster » Sun Jul 14, 2013 8:57 pm

Now it's pursuit? What do you mean by pursuit? Do you mean Zimmerman was trying to capture and apprehend? If so, all the evidence points to Martin pursuing Zimmerman.
1. It was always pursuit.
2. Pursuit - to follow.
3. If you are suggesting Martin intended to "capture and apprehend" Zimmerman, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest anything of the sort. The only thing suggested (by Zimmerman himself) is Martin intended to confront Zimmerman and ask what his problem was.
4. If Zimmerman is allowed to follow Martin, why is Martin not allowed to follow Zimmerman?
The evidence highly suggests Martin chose to engage Zimmerman after both Zimmerman and Martin mutually lost sight of one another. I can take you through the evidence if you like, and if you're open to an honest dialogue.
They both chose to engage after losing one another. I've already examined the evidence, and I already know you aren't ever interested in "honest dialogues."
Here's a hint, there were four minutes between Martin and Zimmerman losing sight of one another and the confrontation. Martin was within a minute of reaching his dad's girlfriend's house. What was Martin doing in those four minutes when, if he was the scared child the prosecution painted him to be, he should have been seeking safe shelter?
How is this relevant? If Zimmerman is allowed to pursue Martin, Martin is allowed to pursue Zimmerman. And the exact same could be said of Zimmerman. Why didn't he wait in or at his car if he felt that Martin was a dangerous criminal? Why was he out looking in the exact place he lost sight of Martin?
And you're right. Zimmerman does describe someone acting in self defense.. himself. If you found yourself on the wrong end of a fight, and feared for your life, and your fists weren't enough to get someone off you, would you use another tool at your disposal?
1. Absolutely. However, if I had given the other person reason to believe I meant them harm and they believed they were defending themselves against me as an attacker, I would be committing manslaughter.
2. Zimmerman describes Martin acting in self defense. Respond directly to the scenario, please. If you were being suspiciously followed by someone both in their vehicle then again on foot and upon face-to-face confrontation they immediately reached for something concealed when you asked for an explanation, would you or would you not believe they meant you harm?

Most honest people will answer in the affirmative.

I will say I prefer acquittal to a murder conviction, and I wasn't too keen on the idea of potentially up to 30 years for manslaughter, either. I don't think Zimmerman deserves all that for being a monumental idiot. But he definitely was an idiot, and at the very least I hope he minds his own fucking business from here out.
"I find it elevating and exhilarating to discover that we live in a universe which permits the evolution of molecular machines as intricate and subtle as we."
-Carl Sagan

Partha
Reading is fundamental!!!1!!
Posts: 11322
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:42 am
Location: Rockford, IL

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Partha » Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:43 am

In corner one, you have a man. 5'7", 200 lbs. He has spent 18 months at a gym working with a personal trainer for a minimum of six hours a week, a trainer who admits to teaching him some basic grappling moves that he teaches to MMA fighters. He also has a history of hitting women and cops, which is why he had a criminal record.

In corner two, you have a younger man. 5'11", 160 lbs. He has no history of athletic accomplishment and doesn't work out in a gym. He doesn't play sports, and he has no prior record of assault.

Yet I"m supposed to believe that in a wrestling match between the two, the lighter guy with no training was able to gain a large advantage over the heavier one in a grappling situation, AND that he was the one who initiated the situation.

I've read better stories, but they cost $8.99 at Woodman's.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant

"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.

User avatar
MeGusta
Intendant of teh Building
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:34 am

Re: Zimmerman

Post by MeGusta » Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:01 am

If you are still arguing the merits of a case that the jury already decided then you are retarded. I watched nearly every minute of testimony. The prosecution had no case.

Is Zimmerman a dumbass? Yes.

Is that against the law? No.

Is the law in Florida that allowed this stupid? Yes.

As to racism, apparently in almost three dozen interviews with associates, the FBI could find no evidence of racial bias from Zimmerman.
Devout believers are safeguarded in a high degree against the risk of certain neurotic illnesses; their acceptance of the universal neurosis spares them the task of constructing a personal one. ~Sigmund Freud

Ddrak
Save a Koala, deport an Australian
Posts: 17478
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:00 pm
Location: Straya mate!
Contact:

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Ddrak » Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:41 am

Is Zimmerman a dumbass? Yes.

Is that against the law? No.

Is the law in Florida that allowed this stupid? Yes.

As to racism, apparently in almost three dozen interviews with associates, the FBI could find no evidence of racial bias from Zimmerman.
Have to agree on all counts.

Dd
Image

Kulaf
Soverign Grand Postmaster General
Posts: 7122
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:06 am

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Kulaf » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:53 am

Wow, where to start:
Partha wrote:In corner one, you have a man. 5'7", 200 lbs. He has spent 18 months at a gym working with a personal trainer for a minimum of six hours a week, a trainer who admits to teaching him some basic grappling moves that he teaches to MMA fighters. He also has a history of hitting women and cops, which is why he had a criminal record.
At the time of his arrest he was 5' 7" and 185 lbs.

He worked with a physical trainer who testified that Zimmerman was still learning how to punch and rated his MMA ability a 1 on a scale of 1 - 10.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/35 ... s-halikias

Zimmerman has three police involved incidents. One was a case where while drunk he shoved a police officer in a bar. The second was dual restraining ordered against him and his girlfriend. The third was a speeding ticket where the officer involved did not appear in court.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03 ... ficer?lite
Partha wrote:In corner two, you have a younger man. 5'11", 160 lbs. He has no history of athletic accomplishment and doesn't work out in a gym. He doesn't play sports, and he has no prior record of assault.
At time of autopsy, Martin was 5' 11" and 158 lbs.

Martin enjoyed sports like skateboarding, snowboarding and youth football. And was by all accounts a physically fit young man.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafe ... es/1221425

While Martin has no record of assault, he does have a history of burglary and drug use.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/police-burie ... l-history/
Partha wrote:Yet I"m supposed to believe that in a wrestling match between the two, the lighter guy with no training was able to gain a large advantage over the heavier one in a grappling situation, AND that he was the one who initiated the situation.
There is an old boxing addage that goes.......everyone has a plan, until they get hit. They were both inexperienced fighters, but for whatever reason, Martin got in the first punch and like most fights of this nature, that was all it took.
Partha wrote:I've read better stories, but they cost $8.99 at Woodman's.
Try moving out of the children's section now and then.

Ddrak
Save a Koala, deport an Australian
Posts: 17478
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:00 pm
Location: Straya mate!
Contact:

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Ddrak » Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:10 am

Not sure what the marijuana use is really trying to prove (other than Jack Cashill is an idiot with an agenda).

Dd
Image

Partha
Reading is fundamental!!!1!!
Posts: 11322
Joined: Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:42 am
Location: Rockford, IL

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Partha » Mon Jul 15, 2013 9:37 am

Because, you know, all potheads are violent and prone to fisticuffs at the drop of a hat.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant

"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.

Torakus
Ignore me, I am drunk again
Posts: 1295
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:04 am

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Torakus » Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:02 am

Partha wrote:Because, you know, all potheads are violent and prone to fisticuffs at the drop of a hat.
Perhaps there were indications of other drug use and violent behavior. We will never know because the Prosecution hid (maybe even tried to delete) that evidence and then the judge disallowed it after the defense found out about it. Of course we know that it did not matter but if you shit house lawyers are going to continue debating the character of the parties, it might have been useful information.

User avatar
Arathena
kNight of the Sun (oxymoron)
Posts: 1622
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 4:37 pm

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Arathena » Mon Jul 15, 2013 12:48 pm

Kulaf wrote:There is an old boxing addage that goes.......everyone has a plan, until they get hit. They were both inexperienced fighters, but for whatever reason, Martin got in the first punch and like most fights of this nature, that was all it took.
Clearly, it was not 'all it took', or Martin would not have gotten killed.
Archfiend Arathena Sa`Riik
Poison Arrow

Kulaf
Soverign Grand Postmaster General
Posts: 7122
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:06 am

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Kulaf » Mon Jul 15, 2013 4:14 pm

Arathena wrote:
Kulaf wrote:There is an old boxing addage that goes.......everyone has a plan, until they get hit. They were both inexperienced fighters, but for whatever reason, Martin got in the first punch and like most fights of this nature, that was all it took.
Clearly, it was not 'all it took', or Martin would not have gotten killed.
Now try it in context. It was "all it took" to "gain a large advantage over the heavier one in a grappling situation".

User avatar
MeGusta
Intendant of teh Building
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:34 am

Re: Zimmerman

Post by MeGusta » Mon Jul 15, 2013 5:56 pm

I think the following conversation with the prosecutor and state attorney is the most telling and disgusting statement about this whole affair.
"Well, the truth came out in the form of every bit evidence and physical evidence and testimony that we were allowed to put on under our rules of evidence," Corey said.

"But he was not guilty," Pipitone responded.

"Well, a jury found him not guilty. We will always know we made every attempt possible under our laws to hold George Zimmerman accountable for his irresponsible and illegal behavior," Corey said.

Pipitone asked how the state can still call it "illegal behavior" when the jury found it was self-defense.

"No, the jury found that we could not prove our case beyond a reasonable doubt," Corey said.

"But he didn't violate the law. He's not a murderer. What is he?" Pipitone asked.

"He is and always will be a man who profiled and tracked an unarmed teenager. He provoked that teenager. What George Zimmerman did after disobeying that dispatcher and getting out of his truck set the entire set of circumstances into motion," Corey said.

"But it wasn't a crime," Pipitone said.

"That alone wasn't a crime. That combined with his mindset, his profiling, him wanting to be the cop, him wanting to apprehend Trayvon, that's what was all against the law," Corey said.

But the jury didn't appear to see it that way, as the state tried to disprove Zimmerman's claim of self-defense.

"His actions -- he assumed certain things. Assumptions itself are not a crime, but when you act upon the assumptions and you take steps in following, getting out of a car and following this person, confronting him and shooting him. When Rachel Jeantel said she heard, 'Get off me,' that's a crime," de la Rionda said.
They wanted to convict him for what they believed was on his mind and not what he actually did. Even if you agree with her assessment of his mindset, he still did nothing illegal. It is horribly disgusting that as a state attorney she does not appear to know that.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/prosec ... index.html
Devout believers are safeguarded in a high degree against the risk of certain neurotic illnesses; their acceptance of the universal neurosis spares them the task of constructing a personal one. ~Sigmund Freud

User avatar
MeGusta
Intendant of teh Building
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Mar 01, 2011 10:34 am

Re: Zimmerman

Post by MeGusta » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:18 pm

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nati ... 4479.story
When deliberations began in George Zimmerman's nationally scrutinized Florida trial, the six female jurors were evenly divided on his guilt, according to the first juror to speak out about the case.


In an initial vote inside the jury room in Seminole County, Fla., three thought he was not guilty, two thought he was guilty of manslaughter, and one thought he was guilty of second-degree murder in the 2012 killing of Trayvon Martin, 17.

Then, Juror B37 said, the jury pored over the evidence, waded through the law and ultimately decided to acquit Zimmerman.

"I think he’s guilty of not using good judgment," the juror said in an exclusive interview with CNN's Anderson Cooper on Monday. Juror B37 announced earlier in the day that she plans to write a book about her experience.

In her interview with Cooper, she said, “I had no doubt George feared for his life in the situation he was in."

Not that Zimmerman got off easy in the jury room. A couple of the jurors "wanted to find him guilty of something," said the juror, who remained nameless and faceless in the dark of Cooper's studio.

Ultimately, picking through the jury instructions, and the legalese of Florida's murder, manslaughter and self-defense laws, the women could not find a crime that fit Zimmerman's apparent actions, she said. And once the jurors voted not guilty, they broke down in tears, she said.
Devout believers are safeguarded in a high degree against the risk of certain neurotic illnesses; their acceptance of the universal neurosis spares them the task of constructing a personal one. ~Sigmund Freud

Embar Angylwrath
President: Rsak Fan Club
Posts: 11674
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
Location: Top of the food chain

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Embar Angylwrath » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:27 pm

@ Partha

What troubles you more Partial? That one non-black person shot a black young man in the heat of a fight, or that black on black homicide is the leading cause of death in young black men? I don't recall you spending much keyboard time over that.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.

Embar
Alarius

Jarochai Alabaster
The Original Crayola Cleric
Posts: 2380
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 3:52 pm
Location: Behind you

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Jarochai Alabaster » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:50 pm

Embar,

If you were being suspiciously followed by someone both in their vehicle then again on foot and upon face-to-face confrontation they immediately reached for something concealed when you asked for an explanation, would you or would you not believe they meant you harm?
"I find it elevating and exhilarating to discover that we live in a universe which permits the evolution of molecular machines as intricate and subtle as we."
-Carl Sagan

Ddrak
Save a Koala, deport an Australian
Posts: 17478
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:00 pm
Location: Straya mate!
Contact:

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Ddrak » Tue Jul 16, 2013 2:13 am

MeGusta wrote:They wanted to convict him for what they believed was on his mind and not what he actually did. Even if you agree with her assessment of his mindset, he still did nothing illegal. It is horribly disgusting that as a state attorney she does not appear to know that.
I believe he's guilty of murder, just the law was flawed. ;)

On the point you made, state of mind is very important in the legal system. In fact, Zimmerman got off on the finding that his *state of mind* was one of fearing for his life. Had he not had that state of mind, he would be guilty of murder. In other cases, it's the difference between manslaughter and murder, conspiracy and not-conspiracy, fraud and an innocent mistake, etc.

Dd
Image

User avatar
Arathena
kNight of the Sun (oxymoron)
Posts: 1622
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 4:37 pm

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Arathena » Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:53 am

Kulaf wrote:
Arathena wrote:
Kulaf wrote:There is an old boxing addage that goes.......everyone has a plan, until they get hit. They were both inexperienced fighters, but for whatever reason, Martin got in the first punch and like most fights of this nature, that was all it took.
Clearly, it was not 'all it took', or Martin would not have gotten killed.
Now try it in context. It was "all it took" to "gain a large advantage over the heavier one in a grappling situation".
Any large advantage in a grappling situation is going to preclude a gunshot which goes 'directly front to back'. Doesn't matter, we have a dead boy and a free man who finally got to get away with killing someone. Hope he savors it until he manages to pick a fight that he actually loses.
Archfiend Arathena Sa`Riik
Poison Arrow

Embar Angylwrath
President: Rsak Fan Club
Posts: 11674
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 2:31 am
Location: Top of the food chain

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Embar Angylwrath » Tue Jul 16, 2013 7:29 am

Jarochai Alabaster wrote:Embar,

If you were being suspiciously followed by someone both in their vehicle then again on foot and upon face-to-face confrontation they immediately reached for something concealed when you asked for an explanation, would you or would you not believe they meant you harm?
If I felt uncomfortable with someone following me, I'd high tail to a safe spot (literally seconds away for Martin), and not seek a confrontation.
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.

Embar
Alarius

Kulaf
Soverign Grand Postmaster General
Posts: 7122
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 3:06 am

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Kulaf » Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:16 am

Ddrak wrote:
MeGusta wrote:They wanted to convict him for what they believed was on his mind and not what he actually did. Even if you agree with her assessment of his mindset, he still did nothing illegal. It is horribly disgusting that as a state attorney she does not appear to know that.
I believe he's guilty of murder, just the law was flawed. ;)

On the point you made, state of mind is very important in the legal system. In fact, Zimmerman got off on the finding that his *state of mind* was one of fearing for his life. Had he not had that state of mind, he would be guilty of murder. In other cases, it's the difference between manslaughter and murder, conspiracy and not-conspiracy, fraud and an innocent mistake, etc.

Dd
That is simply not the case. His state of mind does not play at all as to his claim of self defense. In fact the claim has nothing to do with him. A claim of self defense is based on whether a "reasonable person" would believe their life was in danger. The prosecution wanted to use "state of mind" to prove a crime, it is not an element of self defense. State of mind is a measure of a criminal act......not a claim of self defense.

Jarochai Alabaster
The Original Crayola Cleric
Posts: 2380
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 3:52 pm
Location: Behind you

Re: Zimmerman

Post by Jarochai Alabaster » Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:30 am

Embar Angylwrath wrote:
Jarochai Alabaster wrote:Embar,

If you were being suspiciously followed by someone both in their vehicle then again on foot and upon face-to-face confrontation they immediately reached for something concealed when you asked for an explanation, would you or would you not believe they meant you harm?
If I felt uncomfortable with someone following me, I'd high tail to a safe spot (literally seconds away for Martin), and not seek a confrontation.
The exact same could be said for Zimmerman, but that wasn't the question. Answer the question, please.
"I find it elevating and exhilarating to discover that we live in a universe which permits the evolution of molecular machines as intricate and subtle as we."
-Carl Sagan

Post Reply