Thread: One thing I don't get about this Zimmerman/Martin thing

Originally Posted by Ripzalot

if you want to point me to one that fits your preferred narrative (emphasis added), please do.

i haven't seen any pro-zimmerman stories. sorry. it's true. but then again i don't sit around reading every article on the internet about it, apparently like you do.

Everything else in your post has already been addressed and I've already written that "convicting George Zimmerman beyond a reasonable doubt will be difficult, and rightly so." The point being, I don't have a preferred narrative. Rather than asserting 100% certainty that there is "only one" possibility a lot of this discussion has instead been about what's actually known and does a person have or not have the right to use deadly force in certain circumstances?

And you don't have to read that many sources in the search for an unbiased account. The Talk Left source is a step in the right direction but sadly it appears that for you its credibility is based on the fact that you agree with many of the authors conclusions rather than, as you've already shown, an actual understanding of the timeline established by the known evidence.

When it comes to "pro-zimmerman stories," it's entirely possible that you have seen them, it's just that they have been repackaged by the media sources you frequent.

Originally Posted by Triage

Everything else in your post has already been addressed and I've already written that "convicting George Zimmerman beyond a reasonable doubt will be difficult, and rightly so." The point being, I don't have a preferred narrative.

well, you certainly seem to have a preferred narrative. you prefer to believe any narrative other than zimmerman's story no matter how based in fantasy it is. you can invent scenarios in the absence of evidence and witnesses but it doesn't make any of these scenarios credible or likely.

Originally Posted by Triage

Rather than asserting 100% certainty that there is "only one" possibility a lot of this discussion has instead been about what's actually known and does a person have or not have the right to use deadly force in certain circumstances?

martin did not have the right to use deadly force. he should have removed himself from the situation.
zimmerman did have the right to use deadly force while stopping an attack on him.

this lines up with what is actually known.

Originally Posted by Triage

And you don't have to read that many sources in the search for an unbiased account. The Talk Left source is a step in the right direction but sadly it appears that for you its credibility is based on the fact that you agree with many of the authors conclusions rather than, as you've already shown, an actual understanding of the timeline established by the known evidence.

i came across the talkleft narrative, from the NYT no less, because they had linked a much earlier article which was in full-on convict zimmerman mode. this gives it a lot of credibility because it demonstrates a willingness to look at the facts and evidence and change opinion rather than sticking to a preconceived narrative and trying to make the facts fit around it.

Originally Posted by Triage

When it comes to "pro-zimmerman stories," it's entirely possible that you have seen them, it's just that they have been repackaged by the media sources you frequent.

fair enough. but it doesn't excuse the shameful reporting early on.



so how about deedee's claim that martin was at his father's house??? you glossed over that one. either you believe deedee or don't. which is it?

Originally Posted by Ripzalot

well, you certainly seem to have a preferred narrative. you prefer to believe any narrative other than zimmerman's story no matter how based in fantasy it is. you can invent scenarios in the absence of evidence and witnesses but it doesn't make any of these scenarios credible or likely.

What are you talking about? I haven't invented any scenarios in the absence of evidence, just the opposite. Fact is, you are repeatedly arguing against a strawman rather than what was actually written.

Just one example, from the previous page: you may like the talk left point of view but clearly you don't understand it because according to Zimmerman he doubled back to the T which corresponds with the evidence when you asked, "what are the other possible sequence of events that are being considered as probable" which has nothing to do with your strawman, "running around the neighborhood."

Also, from the previous page, Serino and others are looking for the same thing: a narrative that makes more sense because there are problems with Zimmerman's account.

Next you write about the NY Times, "this gives it a lot of credibility because it demonstrates a willingness to look at the facts and evidence and change opinion..." wheres you also wrote that you've seen "nothing" that favors Zimmerman from the NY Times.

Try making a more coherent, less schizophrenic, argument. Yes, we get that you think Martin should have run but so do lots of other people, including me, but there are other questions revolving around Zimmerman's initial pursuit and who started the confrontation which led Zimmerman's use of "deadly force." As for Dee Dee, it's not clear what she meant when she said he's "by his father house" i.e. whether that means Martin is in the walking corridor etc. She also says Martin chose not to run and that Zimmerman surprised him.

Originally Posted by Triage

What the hell are you talking about? I haven't invented any scenarios in the absence of evidence, just the opposite. Fact is, you are repeatedly arguing against a strawman rather than what was actually written. That is, when you're not offering up "absurd" conclusions of your own (your own description.)

easy there big fella. the "you can invent scenarios" was meant to mean "one can invent scenarios..." or "a person can invent scenarios". i wasn't accusing you specifically of doing so. i used the indefinite "you" which i hate in english anyways. sorry for giving the wrong implication. but it certainly seems that you have invested in a preferred narrative given the fact that you devote so much attention to arguing against mine.

Originally Posted by Triage

For example, from the previous page, you may like the talk left point of view but clearly you don't understand it because according to Zimmerman he doubled back to the T which corresponds with the evidence when you asked, "what are the other possible sequence of events that are being considered as probable" which has nothing to do with, "running around the neighborhood."

"running" was the point here. there was no evidence that he was running while on the phone. and no evidence to suggest that he started running afterwards. according to his story, he walked to the other street and then returned to the T area.

Originally Posted by Triage

Also, from the previous page, Serino and others are looking for the same thing: a narrative that makes more sense because there are discrepancies in Zimmerman's account.

there will be discrepancies in any story. they are seeking a new narrative because they are under intense pressure to do so after fucking up this case in the first place.

Originally Posted by Triage

Next you write about the NY Times, "this gives it a lot of credibility because it demonstrates a willingness to look at the facts and evidence and change opinion..." wheres before you wrote that you've seen "nothing" that favors Zimmerman from the NY Times.

the NYT article was AGAINST zimmerman, linking to the talkleft narrative when they believed zimmerman was guilty. nice try though!

Originally Posted by Triage

Rather than all the lame fisking perhaps you could try making a more coherent, less schizophrenic, argument. Yes, we get that you think Martin should have run but so do lots of other people, including me, so then it becomes a question revolving around Zimmerman's initial pursuit and the use of "deadly force." As for Dee Dee, it's not clear what she meant when she said he's "by his father house" i.e. whether that means Martin is in the walking corridor etc.

i've answered the questions about zimmerman's initial pursuit and the use of deadly force.

regarding deedee, you have to admit that in any way shape or form, "by his father house" means some proximity to it, if not directly next to it. martin was safe at that point. he obviously left that point to confront zimmerman.

you are really invested in your narrative there, ripz.

Originally Posted by Triage

Your example was absurd and there's no evidence so far that Martin doubled back. According to Martin's girlfriend, Martin ran around the corner and then stopped.

According to Zimmerman's testimony, he continued walking straight through the cut through to the next street over and then was walking back through the cut through when the two met.

Zimmerman says Martin initiated the confrontation while reports state that Martin's girlfriend overheard Zimmerman initiate the confrontation saying it sounded like Martin's bluetooth earpiece was knocked out when Zimmerman grabbed him after asking what he was doing in the neighborhood. There's also 2-3 minutes unaccounted for before the neighbors report the screaming started after Zimmerman hung up with the dispatcher in what would have otherwise been a short walk back to his SUV.



Zimmerman also says that he was so panicked and afraid of Martin that he rolled up his window out of fear when Martin approached him. That might have been a good time for Zimmerman to announce his intentions, instead.

Regardless, Detective Serino makes the point during their interview that engaging in an armed chase at night of a suspect thought to be so threatening it necessitated calling the police doesn't add up.

Yet, after Mr. Martin ran away, Mr. Zimmerman said, he got out of the car and followed to see what street the teenager fled down. Mr. Zimmerman said he wanted to be precise.

“So you basically jumped out of the car to see where he was going,” Mr. Serino said. “That’s not fear. You know what I mean. That’s one of the problems I have with the whole thing.”

Are you really implying that martins girlfriend is just as reliable of a witness as an absolute stranger? Thats fucking absurd.

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

Are you really implying that martins girlfriend is just as reliable of a witness as an absolute stranger? Thats fucking absurd.

Another strawman? Is there an argument in there somewhere?

Originally Posted by Ripzalot

sorry for giving the wrong implication. but it certainly seems that you have invested in a preferred narrative given the fact that you devote so much attention to arguing against mine.


"running" was the point here. there was no evidence that he was running while on the phone. and no evidence to suggest that he started running afterwards. according to his story, he walked to the other street and then returned to the T area.

the NYT article was AGAINST zimmerman, linking to the talkleft narrative when they believed zimmerman was guilty. nice try though!

i've answered the questions about zimmerman's initial pursuit and the use of deadly force.

regarding deedee, you have to admit that in any way shape or form, "by his father house" means some proximity to it, if not directly next to it.

1) Several weeks before this new evidence became known I proposed a scenario that fit the evidence that matches Zimmerman's story i.e. that he continued walking straight through the cut through to the next street over and then walked back through the cut through where the two met in the walking corridor. You see, it's not so much attention to your opinion because this has all been discussed before.

2) Several weeks before this new evidence became known another "only one possible explanation" doppelgänger insisted that Zimmerman was running because it could be heard clearly on the phone call with the dispatcher. I responded by writing that there was no evidence of Zimmerman running and in this conversation with you I could have just as easily written hurries past or walks past or moves past. The word "run" was incidental to the point being made.

3) Now you're recanting that "nothing" has ever been written in favor of Zimmerman or the "this gives [NY times] a lot of credibility because it demonstrates a willingness to look at the facts and evidence and change opinion..."? And by all means provide a link to the article.

4) So what? That doesn't mean there aren't still unanswered questions or that your opinion is a statement of fact. We've heard the defense case (a version of events that I've described as possible for some time now) but we have yet to hear the prosecutors case. It's also been discussed repeatedly throughout this thread that Zimmerman might not have broken Florida law. Not everyone here has chosen a side. Instead, think of SYG versus duty to retreat as a separate topic within the same thread.

5) Not necessarily. You say that it's perfectly understandable that Zimmerman didn't know one of the three street names of the community he lives in and patrols regularly but that Dee Dee, who has never been there, or Martin, who is new to the community, might not know their exact proximity when it's dark and raining. Your augment rests on Zimmerman's frustration and inability to provide precise directions to the dispatcher while at the same time Martin's and Dee Dee's precise ability to know exactly where he is.

Originally Posted by Triage

1) Several weeks before this new evidence became known I proposed a scenario that fit the evidence that matches Zimmerman's story i.e. that he continued walking straight through the cut through to the next street over and then walked back through the cut through where the two met in the walking corridor. You see, it's not so much attention to your opinion because this has all been discussed before.

2) Several weeks before this new evidence became known another "only one possible explanation" doppelgänger insisted that Zimmerman was running because it could be heard clearly on the phone call with the dispatcher. I responded by writing that there was no evidence of Zimmerman running and in this conversation with you I could have just as easily written hurries past or walks past or moves past. The word "run" was incidental to the point being made.

3) Now you're recanting that "nothing" has ever been written in favor of Zimmerman or the "this gives [NY times] a lot of credibility because it demonstrates a willingness to look at the facts and evidence and change opinion..."? And by all means provide a link to the article.

4) So what? That doesn't mean there aren't still unanswered questions or that your opinion is a statement of fact. We've heard the defense case (a version of events that I've described as possible for some time now) but we have yet to hear the prosecutors case. It's also been discussed repeatedly throughout this thread that Zimmerman might not have broken Florida law. Not everyone here has chosen a side. Instead, think of SYG versus duty to retreat as a separate topic within the same thread.

5) Not necessarily. You say that it's perfectly understandable that Zimmerman didn't know one of the three street names of the community he lives in and patrols regularly but that Dee Dee, who has never been there, or Martin, who is new to the community, might not know their exact proximity when it's dark and raining. Your augment rests on Zimmerman's frustration and inability to provide precise directions to the dispatcher while at the same time Martin's and Dee Dee's precise ability to know exactly where he is.

Please retain context..

The original statement was in regards to GZ not being able to see around the corner, I believe that was your statement and given the preponderance of evidence that's been released I'm far too lazy to rehash it all.

The running/ audible rapid wind movement on a non-windy evening shows that GZ was doing more then walking giving him clear ability to see around the corner.

Originally Posted by Triage

1) Several weeks before this new evidence became known I proposed a scenario that fit the evidence that matches Zimmerman's story i.e. that he continued walking straight through the cut through to the next street over and then walked back through the cut through where the two met in the walking corridor. You see, it's not so much attention to your opinion because this has all been discussed before.

i guess i'll have to revisit the 22 pages. i gave up on it for a large gap because it just got too cunty.

Originally Posted by Triage

2) Several weeks before this new evidence became known another "only one possible explanation" doppelgänger insisted that Zimmerman was running because it could be heard clearly on the phone call with the dispatcher. I responded by writing that there was no evidence of Zimmerman running and I never said he was "running" in this conversation with you.

ummm...yes you did...

Originally Posted by Triage

At the same time, Martin, who knows he was being pursued is agitated and confused has stopped on the walking path of the T leading to Martin's house to figure out what is happening. Zimmerman first runs past the walking path but then comes back and turns the corner down the walking path flashlight in hand which matches up with where the flashlight is found on the crime scene.

Originally Posted by Triage

3) Now you're recanting that "nothing" has ever been written in favor of Zimmerman or the "this gives [NY times] a lot of credibility because it demonstrates a willingness to look at the facts and evidence and change opinion..."?

you still don't have this right. reading comprehension failure.

Originally Posted by Triage

4) So what? That doesn't mean there aren't still unanswered questions or that your opinion is a statement of fact. We've heard the defense case (a version of events that I've described as possible for some time now) but we have yet to hear the prosecutors case. It's also been discussed repeatedly throughout this thread that Zimmerman might not have broken Florida law. Not everyone here has chosen a side. Instead, think of SYG versus duty to retreat as a separate topic within the same thread.

ok, i guess i am late to this discussion.

Originally Posted by Triage

5) Not necessarily. You say that it's perfectly understandable that Zimmerman didn't know one of the three street names of the community he lives in and patrols regularly but that Dee Dee, who has never been there, or Martin, who is new to the community, might not know their exact proximity when it's dark and raining. Your augment rests on Zimmerman's frustration and inability to provide precise directions to the dispatcher while at the same time Martin's and Dee Dee's precise ability to know exactly where he is.

there is a line of three buildings and martin's father's house is in the one on the end, the last one. it would be hard to mistake which one it is. it's not that confusing. furthermore, deedee said that martin was out of breath and tired. this only makes sense if martin actually ran a considerable distance, which would indicate that he was, as she said "by his father house" or reasonably close. unless he ran all the way there (or halfway) and then doubled back and then lied to dee dee. but that doesn't make sense because supposedly he was "real scare" according to deedee.

regardless, her interview is a complete mess. not only is she almost completely unintelligible but she contradicts herself many times. the interviewer does an atrocious job with lots of leading questions and few followup questions/clarifications. and certain answers reek of witness tampering by crump. i don't think there is any possibility that she will be brought in as a witness. the defense will destroy her.

So which one of you two homos are wearing the others letterman jacket?

interesting overnight developments:

ABC Reporter Says Serino Leaked Zimmerman Info

Christopher Serino, cop who said George Zimmerman should be charged, is transferred from investigative unit

can this case get handled any worse?

Originally Posted by Triage

Another strawman? Is there an argument in there somewhere?

I've posted a bunch of times in this thread and never argued one side or the other, I've just pointed out fallacies and assumptions people who ARE arguing either side have made.

Anyone assuming they know which narrative about that night's events is correct is pretty much retarded.

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

Are you really implying that martins girlfriend is just as reliable of a witness as an absolute stranger? Thats fucking absurd.

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

I've posted a bunch of times in this thread and never argued one side or the other, I've just pointed out fallacies and assumptions people who ARE arguing either side have made.

OK, then what was your point? In other words, what was your argument or reasoning or evidence for your initial statement?

Originally Posted by whatcomridaz

Please retain context..

The original statement was in regards to GZ not being able to see around the corner, I believe that was your statement and given the preponderance of evidence that's been released I'm far too lazy to rehash it all.

The running/ audible rapid wind movement on a non-windy evening shows that GZ was doing more then walking giving him clear ability to see around the corner.

According to Fiskzalot Zimmerman was walking and Martin was running. That relates to the earlier discussion, in context, in that Zimmerman had to have continued his search after being told a pursuit was unnecessary or, for the Martin double back, Zimmerman had to be moving very quickly and then stop (your theory) or he was trying to find a street sign on the next street over because he couldn't remember the three street names in his neighborhood etc. in order to make his claim that he was jumped and not pursuing work.

Each respective "only one" possible explanation explainers says that there are no other likely possibilities. My point then and once again is that there are other possibilities even if Zimmerman was only looking for a street sign for Martin not to have doubled back.

For example, it's possible based on the evidence that Martin sprinted around the corner, leaving him breathless like a track sprinter after a short dash, and hid in one of the breaks between buildings, none of which are far from his father's house, and saw Zimmerman pass by the first time and then either Zimmerman or Martin spots the other upon Zimmerman's return.

There's also the unresolved issue of why Martin's body was found some ~forty feet down the walking corridor if the fight took place near the top of the T where Zimmerman says he was immediately knocked to the ground by a punch to the nose and then pinned down:

Originally Posted by Triage

OK, then what was your point? In other words, what was your argument or reasoning or evidence for your initial statement?

That no one in this thread knows wtf they are talking about if they are arguing one side or the other. They are just choosing to believe the narrative that best fits with their world view. This has no bearing on reality, and reality has very little bearing on which narrative they choose to believe.

Originally Posted by Triage

Where's the grassy knoll and have they ID'd the second shooter yet?

have y'all discussed martin's blunt purchase?





this changes another narrative dramatically and explains why it took him 35 minutes to walk home. it also shows that martin prepared for the fight beforehand. in the 711, he had a button on his jacket. zimmerman even mentions the button on the call to NEN. but when martin's body was found by police, he had the button, his phone earbuds, and a 711 lighter in his pocket. why else would he take off the button and stash it?

Originally Posted by Ripzalot

have y'all discussed martin's blunt purchase?





this changes another narrative dramatically and explains why it took him 35 minutes to walk home. it also shows that martin prepared for the fight beforehand. in the 711, he had a button on his jacket. zimmerman even mentions the button on the call to NEN. but when martin's body was found by police, he had the button, his phone earbuds, and a 711 lighter in his pocket. why else would he take off the button and stash it?

thank the lord above that you are not judge or jury. you're cracking me up, bro. justice099 from the conservativetreehouse!!! cool website!!!

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/

woohooo!!!

Originally Posted by spook

thank the lord above that you are not judge or jury. you're cracking me up, bro.

care to offer an alternate explanation or are you just posting your usual above-the-fray posturing?

seems to be a pattern with you.

Originally Posted by Ripzalot

care to offer an alternate explanation or are you just posting your usual above-the-fray posturing?

seems to be a pattern with you.

the only things that might appear to be above the fray but really aren't should laughably obvious.

If I saw someone illegally in my detached garage, would I be ok arming myself to investigate? I would not feel comfortable shooting someone for anything in my garage, but I also would not give them freedom to take anything. The gun would be for my personal protection only if I was threatened. If I were to call the police, they would investigate with their weapons drawn, and they have far more training and are armored. Despite having no racial overtones, this situation could be construed to be similar to the Zimmerman/Martin case. Any opinions? I know the Colorado law about residences, but taking the fight to a detached outbuilding might be different

Would this apply? http://highcaliberdefense.com/Course...eMyDayLaw.aspx

Originally Posted by Jethro

If I saw someone illegally in my detached garage, would I be ok arming myself to investigate? I would not feel comfortable shooting someone for anything in my garage, but I also would not give them freedom to take anything. The gun would be for my personal protection only if I was threatened. If I were to call the police, they would investigate with their weapons drawn, and they have far more training and are armored. Despite having no racial overtones, this situation could be construed to be similar to the Zimmerman/Martin case. Any opinions? I know the Colorado law about residences, but taking the fight to a detached outbuilding might be different

Would this apply? http://highcaliberdefense.com/Course...eMyDayLaw.aspx

I'm not following your logic when you say "this situation could be construed to be similar to the Zimmerman/Martin case".

From your link, the first element is the intruder unlawfully is present, and the second element is that the intruder has the intent to commit a crime after being unlawfully present. Travon Martin was legally on a public sidewalk and committing no crime. Your link says all three elements must exist to make a lawful shooting, and at least two of the three, and probably all three, do not apply to Travon Martin.

It is a fictional situation where a civilian arms himself, leaves the security of his home, confronts a person he suspects is up to no good (very debatable in the Zimmerman case), and then uses the firearm to defend himself. If I used the exact same example as the Zimmerman case, debating it would be pretty boring wouldn't it? The question is, would one be justified in leaving their house to investigate a break in in an outbuilding. There was recent legislation to include places of business in Colorado's "Make my day" law. Prior to that, only residences applied. I don't know if it passed or not

Originally Posted by spook

thank the lord above that you are not judge or jury. you're cracking me up, bro. justice099 from the conservativetreehouse!!! cool website!!!

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/

woohooo!!!

they have done better investigative journalism than any of the mainstream media. what has really surprised me is this:

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...able-violence/



i wondered why the media, his family, and attorney kept it a secret that martin bought watermelon juice and not ice tea as was revealed in the crime scene photos. i figured it was because of the potentially racial angle but in fact they are covering for his drug use. some fire ass lean yo!