Another Zimmerman thread.

[Ouroboros]

well first.. there was no nonsense from me.. and secondly you are lying when you say I am '"imputing evil intentions" into the DA. That's a flat out lie.

I simply understand that the DA recognized that he was not going to win a conviction in his district.. not with a white middle aged "community watch".. killing a black teenage already portrayed as a hoodlum.

And that's why they did not prosecute.. and they had to be bullied into it. And so they did what was the best for them politically. that's not "inputting evil intentions"... that's understanding politics.. including race politics...

You are the one making up the "evil white people stick together" concept. Because at the end of the day..you have not been able to dispute any of the logic and facts that I have presented that show that Zimmerman.. under the law.. is guilty of manslaughter.

that's why you have to make up a lie about "evil white people sticking together".

I've already refused your specious account of the incident, and you've simply ignored the objections and repeated your narrative.

But I will repeat, as many times as necessary, that you're the one imputing evil to the Florida D.A when you assume that he was "throwing" the trial to please white voters.

I supplied an example of a black activist who supplied pressure that could have led to the mishandled charge of murder. I don't *know* that this influenced the D.A., but it's a logical source of pressure to which he might have responded.

Have you an example of a white activist, or group of activists, who provided comparable pressure on the D.A.. to lead to your interpretation of the official's motives?

If not, your supposition is based, not in "race politics," but in the falsehoods of identity politics, which assume white guilt in every situation.

 

[jaeger19]

I've already refused your specious account of the incident, and you've simply ignored the objections and repeated your narrative.

.

Yeah no.. you haven't "refused" my account. The facts are what the facts are. and I haven't ignored your objections.. I have shown why your premise does not fit the evidence.

But I will repeat, as many times as necessary, that you're the one imputing evil to the Florida D.A when you assume that he was "throwing" the trial to please white voters.

Well.. you can repeat it as many times as you want.. and it will be a lie every time. There is no "inputting evil".. from me. I defy you to find anywhere I said the DA was evil or alluded to any such thing.

There is however a simple reality that it would be unlikely to convict a white middle aged male community watch for killing a black kid already labeled a thug in that area. The DA had to be bullied into charging Zimmerman in the first place.

Have you an example of a white activist, or group of activists, who provided comparable pressure on the D.A.. to lead to your interpretation of the official's motives?

If not, your supposition is based, not in "race politics," but in the falsehoods of identity politics, which assume white guilt in every situation.

Nope.. sorry man but its based in reality. there is no assumption of "white guilt" or whatever BS you are trying to sell.

Studies show.. when controlled for all other factors other than race... Black people are more likely to be convicted, more likely to get longer sentences.. less likely to get leniency etc.. vs white people. The reality of the bias is extremely well documented.

 

[Ouroboros]

Yeah no.. you haven't "refused" my account. The facts are what the facts are. and I haven't ignored your objections.. I have shown why your premise does not fit the evidence.

Well.. you can repeat it as many times as you want.. and it will be a lie every time. There is no "inputting evil".. from me. I defy you to find anywhere I said the DA was evil or alluded to any such thing.

There is however a simple reality that it would be unlikely to convict a white middle aged male community watch for killing a black kid already labeled a thug in that area. The DA had to be bullied into charging Zimmerman in the first place.

Nope.. sorry man but its based in reality. there is no assumption of "white guilt" or whatever BS you are trying to sell.

Studies show.. when controlled for all other factors other than race... Black people are more likely to be convicted, more likely to get longer sentences.. less likely to get leniency etc.. vs white people. The reality of the bias is extremely well documented.

Your exact words interpreting the D.A.'s actions were:

Yep.. but I think that's what the DA wanted anyway.. he puts forth a charge that won't stick.. he pleases Sharpton et all.. and he when the guy is acquitted.. he doesn't get hassled for convicting a white Hispanic for killing a black kid in a hoodie who folks think is a thug.

You didn't say that he was just making a simple political decision, as I did, by trying to please the activists. You vilified his character by claiming that he knew in advance that the charge would not stick, and that it would supposedly please some or all of his white constituents when GZ was acquitted.

That's imputing evil intentions to him, not just hard-headed political expediency.

But had he done what you suggested-- charged GZ with manslaughter, AND tried to convince the jury that GZ was the aggressor because of his awesome MMA fighting-skills-- then not only would GZ still have been given his freedom, the D.A. would have been laughed out of his office by his peers.

 

[jaeger19]

You didn't say that he was just making a simple political decision, as I did, by trying to please the activists. You vilified his character by claiming that he knew in advance that the charge would not stick, and that it would supposedly please some or all of his white constituents when GZ was acquitted.
.

I did no such "vilifying. He knew in advance that the charges would not stick.. that's why the DA dragged their feet in charging Zimmerman.. they had to be bullied into it by the feds. And why did the DA know the charges would not stick? Because of the racial bias there was going to be against convicting a white male neighborhood watch.. for killing a black teenager that was already vilified as a hoodlum. And if by a miracle.. they did get a conviction.. it was still going to anger his constituents.. who didn't think Zimmerman should be charged in the first place. That's IS just hard headed realism....

 

[Kreton]

Holy hell - I cannot believe that people are still arguing about Zimmerman.

 

[Ouroboros]

Holy hell - I cannot believe that people are still arguing about Zimmerman.

The case itself is less important than its position as a bellwether of attitudes. Basically the three positions one can come away with are (1) Blame both of the participants, (2) Blame only the white guy, and (3) Blame only the black guy.

The Martin-Zimmerman case didn't present anything new, but it did crystallize the current approach to politicizing even the most problematic cases.

 

[Excon]

It's possible that I just can't see the significance of pointing out that GZ broke contact with Dispatch after leaving his car. What is the significance?

Sure, many people often don't see how things are important (like getting the facts correct), yet it is.
Pointing out that what you said was incorrect is not a swipe but an attempt to keep the facts straight for purposes of understanding and discussion.

 

[Excon]

You've stated before that you think GZ got out of the car before breaking contact with Dispatch. How do you justify that?

Had you not dismissed the youtube links I gave you, you would be familiar with how it is justified. Zimmerman told the Detectives during the walk-through that when he reached the "T" intersection of the walkway he looked around for the suspicious person and said he told the call-taker that he was gone and no-longer there. This is supported by the audio of the call where he tells the call-taker he had ran.

So, as he parked just prior to the walkway and didn't drive up to the "T" he had to get out of his vehicle to make it to the "T" intersection.
The audio of the call also supports this by what sounds to be the door opening and closing with the door chimes announcing and stopping with the supposed sounds of the door, all the while he was still speaking with the call-taker.

 

[Excon]

Of course that's believable right.

Of course it was.
Not only was it believable, it was also uncontested because no evidence exists to contest it.

So I bet if I had that trainer on the stand on cross and said... "so you are telling me if I came to your gym.. 3 x week for months. where you trained me in MMA".. I would be worse or at least no better than if I ever trained?

Somehow I doubt.. that trainer would say that. Much less anyone believe that 3 x week of training for months.. will do nothing for your training.. :doh

how silly you sound.

It is your reply here that sounds silly. That Zimmerman basically wasn't trained is what he testified to. You can not show he was.
Zimmerman wasn't even proficient at shadow boxing and you think he had some level of training that was applicable to this case .. yes your reply is the one that is silly. Especially as by default you are arguing that a 17 year old got the better of someone trained in MMA and didn't get a mark on them. Of coarse your arguments are silly.
He wasn't trained.

 

[Excon]

Actually we do know.. to stop him from being one of these "blanks always getting away".

his words.

Wrong as usual
That was a statement of exasperation to the believed situation, not intent.
The intent was to point him out to the police when they arrived.

Oh ... know.. I can follow the chain of events.. you don't seem to be able to... Zimmerman was outside his car.. he shot martin.. while he was outside his car. That pretty much means that he left his car to pursue martin. Can't have it both ways.

Wrong as usual.
And clearly you cannot accurately state the facts without lying as well as not follow the chain of events. Zimmerman followed (traveled in the same direction for a very short period of time), he did not pursue ( no intent to captuter) and Zimmerman went in a different direction than the one Trayvon did.
It was Trayvon who attacked Zimmerman from his left rear. That was Trayvon pursuing Zimmerman.

Wow.. so Martin pursued Zimmerman? Hmmm was that when Zimmerman stated "now he is running". Yep.. that makes sense.. I always pursue people by running from them.

Oh look, the facts confuse you. Figures.
He did not run past him. He took off in a skipping fashion after he attempted to intimidate him. And his stated intent in taking off as he told Rachel Jeantel was to "lose" the creepy guy, not that he was scared.
Trayvon's pursuit came after he came back to where Zimmerman was to confront and attack him. That by definition is pursuit.

Now.. Zimmerman wasn't pursuing him.. of course not.. he just followed the kid purposely with the intent of having him stopped by police.. which fits the definition of pursue.. but hey... why let facts and logic get in the way of your whacko ideas.

Wrong as usual.
Zimmerman's following does not fit the definition of pursue. This fact was already established with you over a year ago.

Yes.. at this point I am just mocking you because your posts are so outlandish.

:lamo Is that what you think you are doing with you outlandishly silly arguments? Figures.

Really? Hmmm.. Zimmerman told police that martin was "going for his gun"... why would martin be doing that if HE DID NOT KNOW ZIMMERMAN HAD A GUN???

Don't you realize just how silly your arguments are?

Clearly you are not following and thus are making stupid arguments.

Again, read what you said and then what was said in reply in it's entirety.

Following a person down a dark street at night while you are armed.. is certainly a threat and is instigating..

False narrative, so wrong as usual, and his being armed was not a known factor.
On the street Zimmerman was in his vehicle and observing.
Trayvon coming back towards him and circling him though could certainly be considered a threat. And that act alone says Trayvon was not scared.

The gun was not a factor in Zimmerman's following or in Trayvon wanting to lose the creepy guy as it was not known by Trayvon.
And you know damn well by the available evidence that the gun didn't come into play until after Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman slamming his head into the ground. So the gun was not a relevant factor until that point. So stop with the stupid arguments.

 

[Excon]

Which fits the definition of pursuing.. his intention was to pursue and have martin stopped.. either by him or the police.

Wrong as usual.
Pursue entails the intent to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, defeat, catch or attack as Trayvon did. Zimmerman followed for a very short period of time to observe and then stopped and went in a different direction. No intent of the second component of pursue exists on Zimmerman's behalf.
It was not pursuit.

 

[Excon]

Because of what he said. All the evidence shows based on his statement.. is that he acknowledged that he was not being asked to follow.

How convenient of you to leave out the fact that he went in a different direction indicating that he clearly was not following Trayvon.

Kind of already points out that he was pursuing him.

There was no pursuit by Zimmerman, so stop lying.

My reconstruction is based on the facts that are in evidence.

Wrong as usual.
Its really that simple.

Zimmerman thought Martin was a bad guy.. that's why he called police.

Wrong as usual. He thought he was acting suspiciously.

Zimmerman called martin one of these "blanks that are always getting away"

Wrong as usual. That was a statement of exasperation to the believed situation.

Zimmerman tells us that Martin ran away and hid (martins call confirms that he felt Zimmerman was a threat..and yes. creepy is a threat).

Wrong as usual. Zimmerman said he ran, as in took off. He did not say he hid.

Zimmerman got out of his car and pursued Martin.. ( which he confirms in telling the dispatch).

Wrong as usual. There was no pursuit. There was a following in the same direction for a very short period of time (seconds) and then he headed in a different direction.

Zimmerman is reasonably seen as a threat by martin.. he ran away.. he is being pursued down a dark street, by a person who is not a police officer or known authority. At that time.. Martin is justified in confronting Zimmerman and using force to defend himself.

Wrong as usual.The information we have is that he thought he was creepy, not a threat.
The information we have is that Trayvon circled Zimmerman which is an act of intimidation, not of being scarred.
There was no pursuit.
Zimmerman leapfrogged him on the street, so Trayvon actually followed Zimmerman while on the street.
Trayvon could have confronted Zimmerman all he wanted to yet the confrontation he did at this point in time was an act of intimidation.
And no Trayvon had no justification for force at this point in time so stop with the dishonesty.

Zimmerman is armed with a deadly weapon.. and martin is not... at this point.. martin is justified in using deadly force.

Wrong as usual. The gun was not know by Trayvon until after he attacked Zimmerman and had been slamming his head into the ground. So again your argument is dishonest.


On top of that:

For Zimmerman to use deadly force... 1. He is not allowed by law to create the circumstances around that.. and he clearly did by pursuing martin.. which could be construed by martin as a threat

Wrong as usual. 1. Following a suspicious person to point them out to the police is not creating a circumstance. There was no pursuit on Zimmerman's part. Trayvon created the situation by returning attacking.

2. He has to reasonably believe that he was in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm

He did. And expert testimony by more than one witness confirmed that such an experience would cause such reasonable belief.

a. He was armed with a firearm while Martin was not

Irrelevant.
Having a gun doesn't mean the fear isn't reasonable. Matter of fact Trayvon going for it only contributed to the reasonableness of his actions.

b. He claims that martin was grabbing for the gun.. but there is no evidence to suggest that.. no dna or fingerprints on the gun but Zimmermans

1. What he said is evidence that was not contradicted.
2. Lack of DNA and finger prints is irrelevant. A person does not always leave traceable DNA or identifiable prints, especially in the rain.

C Zimmerman is trained in MMA or at the very least would have believed himself trained.. which would explain why Martin ended up on top.. even though Zimmerman may have started the altercation and would explain the scratches on the back of Zimmermans head.
At the very least.. he would be less likely to truly believe he was in deadly danger from being on the bottom..

Given the testimony of the instructor your argument is lame. As the instructor pointed out, he really wasn't trained.

Your arguments aren't just lame, they are completely illogical bs.

 

[Excon]

D Zimmerman knew that the police were on the way.. HE CALLED THEM.

And yet they were not there when he needed them.

The evidence simply doesn;t add up to it being a good shoot.

Wrong as usual. The evidence clearly says otherwise.

Zimmerman should have been found guilty of manslaughter.

Wrong as usual. The evidence clearly says otherwise.

there is no point here where Martin's actions would have justified his dying that night.

Wrong as usual. The evidence clearly says otherwise.

Nope.. he had already followed him.. and he continued to follow him when he got out of his car... that's pretty clear by the evidence. Whether he doesn't continue to follow and turns.. is a moot point. ''

Wrong as usual, on all counts.

Other than the fact that 1. he was already out of his car following him. 2. he made the statement that these "blanks are always getting away".. and he shot martin when he was out of the car.. if he was just outside his car. and was getting back into his car.. there would not be enough time for him to shoot martin outside the car.

You have no valid pint here.

Actually. that is pretty much the law. You cannot create the scenario that brings about someones death.. especially when Zimmerman was armed and Martin was not.

Actually no, the law reads much differently than the way you are presenting it. That law 776.041 Use or threatened use of force by aggressor, does not apply to this case as the evidence does not support Zimmerman being the aggressor.

Zimmerman was acting legally and did not create the situation. Trayvon created the situation and was the one who acted illegally.

Well it obviously was not following.. like me following you into a coffee house because we are both going to the coffee house. this was pursuit.. and its obvious that it was seen as a threat by martin.. because he told his girlfriend about this creepy guy and he ran.. which Zimmerman confirms.

Wrong on all counts, as usual. There was no pursuit on Zimmerman's part, only on Trayvons.
And Trayvon said he was creepy, not a threat. He clearly did not think he was a threat as he attempted to intimidate him.
Zimmerman's use of run was to indicate he took off and he clarified that. And Trayvon told Rachel Jeantel he was not going to run.
So you just do not know what the **** you are talking about.

And in the context of being pursued. down a dark street.. alone.. at night.. by an armed fellow who is not a cop.. Yeah.. the law as it stands allows you to stand your ground and defend yourself in that context

False narrative. And wrong conclusion given the actual facts of this case.

 

[Excon]

Well lets think about this.. he states he was following martin....and he calls in to dispatch about him...... now you think that he gets out of the Car AFTER he breaks contact with dispatch... okay.. why?

False narrative.
He observed and pulled ahead to continue observing where he then called the non-emergency number.

What makes more sense? It makes more sense that he had already gotten out of the car and was pursuing martin.

What makes more sense is he did exactly what he said he did. Not pursuing Trayvon as he was already out of sight as her told the call-taker.

the law is crystal clear.. but that doesn;t mean that the DA or the jury wants to follow the law.
The DA got forced into taking a case he didn;t want. Its not popular to try a middle aged white guy for killing a black kid who has already been labeled a thug. The DA tanked the case.. first by calling for murder.. which it was not.. he should have gone for manslaughter which would have been much easier to deal with.. but instead.. he basically forced the jury to consider whether it was murder... and that put them in a position to say.. well no he is innocent of that... which now means they have already found him innocent on one charge.. much harder to then get a conviction on the lesser charge. Particularly when you have a Jury that sympathizes with the defendant. Follow the trial and they were not told that trayvon under stand your ground.. had the right to defend himself... in fact.. the defense made a big show of "well he could have ran.. he should have ran here and here and here"/..... but under the law.. he did not have a duty to retreat.

Totally unintelligent deluded bs.
Your argument here is so ****ing stupid. Not finding for the higher charge does not make the lesser included offense harder to get. A lesser included offense actually increases the likelihood of a conviction.

Tayvon was gone, and as Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle Trayvon came from his left rear and verbally confronted and immediately attacked causing Zimmerman to scream for help, even calling directly to one of the neighbors to help him. Trayvon then saw Zimmerman's gun while attacking him, went for it, but instead Zimmerman was able to keep it and shot Trayvon because of his reasonable and legitimate fear of loss of life.

Second.. the DA did not question the MMA evidence.. did not show that Zimmerman could easily have been the aggressor and ended up on his back and scratched his head by trying to use a guillotine on martin.

Your lack of understanding is not astounding.
The Prosecutor could not do what you desire.
There is no evidence to suggest it happened that way to even make the argument. It is like you do not even know they do interviews of witnesses before hand so they know what they can ask and what they shouldn't at trial.
The instructor testified, on cross, that basically Zimmerman was not trained. And yet you somehow think you could get the instructor to say was knowledgeable and proficient enough to take down Trayvon. That is ****ing stupid. The prosecutor probably already knew what the instructor would say if he attempted that line of inquiry and would be why it did not happen.


Since you wont listen to knowledgeable people here, do yourself a favor, write the actual prosecutors and ask them why they didn't. Maybe then you will learn something.

Yeah.. it is not believable.

That's what the evidenced indicates yes. He made the call.. he pursued him.. he got out of the car to continue pursuit, he was threatening enough that martin RAN, he then told dispatch (these blanks are always getting away) , .. he SHOT an unarmed kid outside that car. And you want me to believe that he just had a passing interest in Martin..

Yep.. but I think that's what the DA wanted anyway.. he puts forth a charge that won't stick.. he pleases Sharpton et all.. and he when the guy is acquitted.. he doesn't get hassled for convicting a white Hispanic for killing a black kid in a hoodie who folks think is a thug.

Just more deranged bs as it all has been and apparently will continue to be.

well first.. there was no nonsense from me.. a

Wrong as usual. Everything you have argued is nonsensical deranged bs.
You are involved in make believe.

 

[jaeger19]

False narrative.
He observed and pulled ahead to continue observing where he then called the non-emergency number.


What makes more sense is he did exactly what he said he did. Not pursuing Trayvon as he was already out of sight as her told the call-taker.


Totally unintelligent deluded bs.
Your argument here is so ****ing stupid. Not finding for the higher charge does not make the lesser included offense harder to get. A lesser included offense actually increases the likelihood of a conviction.

Tayvon was gone, and as Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle Trayvon came from his left rear and verbally confronted and immediately attacked causing Zimmerman to scream for help, even calling directly to one of the neighbors to help him. Trayvon then saw Zimmerman's gun while attacking him, went for it, but instead Zimmerman was able to keep it and shot Trayvon because of his reasonable and legitimate fear of loss of life.


Your lack of understanding is not astounding.
The Prosecutor could not do what you desire.
There is no evidence to suggest it happened that way to even make the argument. It is like you do not even know they do interviews of witnesses before hand so they know what they can ask and what they shouldn't at trial.
The instructor testified, on cross, that basically Zimmerman was not trained. And yet you somehow think you could get the instructor to say was knowledgeable and proficient enough to take down Trayvon. That is ****ing stupid. The prosecutor probably already knew what the instructor would say if he attempted that line of inquiry and would be why it did not happen.


Since you wont listen to knowledgeable people here, do yourself a favor, write the actual prosecutors and ask them why they didn't. Maybe then you will learn something.


Just more deranged bs as it all has been and apparently will continue to be.


Wrong as usual. Everything you have argued is nonsensical deranged bs.
You are involved in make believe.

Your posts have already been debunked multiple times.

 

[Maccabee]

Your posts have already been debunked multiple times.

No, they haven't.

 

[Ouroboros]

Sure, many people often don't see how things are important (like getting the facts correct), yet it is.
Pointing out that what you said was incorrect is not a swipe but an attempt to keep the facts straight for purposes of understanding and discussion.

Whether he got out of the car before breaking contact or after, neither action has any relevance to the important question. GZ implied in the conversation with Dispatch that he would go and meet the cops rather than continuing to follow TM. In his affidavit he claimed that he changed his mind because he feared he'd given Dispatch a bad address. While it's a little more logical to imagine him signing off and then getting out to check his surroundings, it's certainly not impossible that he got out to do the latter without saying anything about it to Dispatch.

Since we're substantially allied against Jaeger regarding the assumption that GZ followed TM, maybe we should stick with what we agree on.

 

[jaeger19]

No, they haven't.

Oh yes they have. but if you would like to enter the fray.. you are welcome to give it a try. Problem is.. the evidence, and the law.. is all on my side.

 

[Maccabee]

Oh yes they have. but if you would like to enter the fray.. you are welcome to give it a try. Problem is.. the evidence, and the law.. is all on my side.

Then why di the jury found Zimmerman not guilty?

 

[Excon]

Your posts have already been debunked multiple times.

Just like your topic argumentation, your claims here are delusional as well.

Oh yes they have. but if you would like to enter the fray.. you are welcome to give it a try. Problem is.. the evidence, and the law.. is all on my side.

Yep, delusional bs. The evidence is not on your side and has never been.

---

Whether he got out of the car before breaking contact or after, neither action has any relevance to the important question. GZ implied in the conversation with Dispatch that he would go and meet the cops rather than continuing to follow TM. In his affidavit he claimed that he changed his mind because he feared he'd given Dispatch a bad address. While it's a little more logical to imagine him signing off and then getting out to check his surroundings, it's certainly not impossible that he got out to do the latter without saying anything about it to Dispatch.

As you were already told, it is important to get the facts correct.

Trying to justify not doing so does not cut it.

He was already out of his vehicle while he was online with the call-taker. That is the evidence.