Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
NO one said that circling around was illegal. It's the rest of the statement, which you ignore. The part about Martin ATTACKING him.
Yes, I am talking about Zimmerman. He was there, and he says that he shot Martin because Martin attacked him. While it is entirely possible that he is lying, and certainly if he shot Martin for some other, more sinister reason, then he would have reason to lie. But what reason do we have to think that of Zimmerman? What evidence do we have that disproves his assertion?
What evidence? Well, if you take what we "know" in totality, Zimmerman was profiling Martin, he did follow Martin, and he had made some serious accusations about Martin to the dispatcher, he has made inconsistent and contradictory statements, (which indicates that he is not such a credible guy) and his injuries certainly can be perceived to not be that serious, especially since he did not fear for his life enough to go to the hospital after he was freed. The big reason he had to lie is that he probably realized that he just might be charged with murder and go to prison for a long, long time.
NO one said that circling around was illegal. It's the rest of the statement, which you ignore. The part about Martin ATTACKING him.
Yes, I am talking about Zimmerman. He was there, and he says that he shot Martin because Martin attacked him. While it is entirely possible that he is lying, and certainly if he shot Martin for some other, more sinister reason, then he would have reason to lie. But what reason do we have to think that of Zimmerman? What evidence do we have that disproves his assertion?
Actually, Zimmerman is also the only person on the planet who has something, and something huge, to gain by saying that Martin attacked him.
Yes, he has something to gain. That said, does anyone have anything that proves Zimmerman's statement untrue? Without that evidence, why do you opine that he is lying? Do you completely ignore the possibility that he benefits from the truth? Or is the fact that he benefits enough to convince you it's a lie?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
Could you possibly be slightly biased in the situation because of your strong beliefs regarding no duty to retreat, or the right to "defend" yourself with no questions asked?
Possibly. I guess. But does anyone on the planet disagree with me? How does one exercise one's "duty to retreat" when ones head is being banged against the ground? Do any of you think that someone being pounded into the ground has some sort of obligation to seek non lethal relief from that pounding, instead of simply taking the first & most easily available relief?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FancyFeast5000
ps
"provable fact" indicates future
"proven fact" indicates right now.
Yes, I understand the meanings of both words.
I believe your assertion that Martin committed no crime that night is both unproven and unprovable. You may still be right; Martin may not have committed any crime. But that statement has not been, and I believe cannot be, proved.
Yeah? And?
You want to assert that he was lying because of the particular phrase he used in categorizing the guys age? You think that because he said the unknown guy he was reporting to the police was in his late teens, he must be lying when he says he thought that same guy was a little younger than him? OK. I have nothing to say to that. Except that those two statements don't convince me that Zimmerman is a murderer.
Yeah? And?
You want to assert that he was lying because of the particular phrase he used in categorizing the guys age? You think that because he said the unknown guy he was reporting to the police was in his late teens, he must be lying when he says he thought that same guy was a little younger than him? OK. I have nothing to say to that. Except that those two statements don't convince me that Zimmerman is a murderer.
Maybe not, but he is a liar. He had Trayvon's age pegged right when he spoke to the police. He then told Trayvon's parents he thought TM was older than that.
Yes, he has something to gain. That said, does anyone have anything that proves Zimmerman's statement untrue? Without that evidence, why do you opine that he is lying? Do you completely ignore the possibility that he benefits from the truth? Or is the fact that he benefits enough to convince you it's a lie?
Possibly. I guess. But does anyone on the planet disagree with me? How does one exercise one's "duty to retreat" when ones head is being banged against the ground? Do any of you think that someone being pounded into the ground has some sort of obligation to seek non lethal relief from that pounding, instead of simply taking the first & most easily available relief?
Yes, I understand the meanings of both words.
I believe your assertion that Martin committed no crime that night is both unproven and unprovable. You may still be right; Martin may not have committed any crime. But that statement has not been, and I believe cannot be, proved.
As for proving Zimmerman's statement to be a lie, what I believe can be proven is that Zimmerman has a propensity to deceive, because he contradicted himself on the witness stand in his bail hearing. He stated that he thought Martin was "about" his age, or something like "I thought he was a little young than me," when he had clearly stated to the dispatcher that night that Martin was a teenager, which is nowhere near 28 years old. The state has said that Zimmerman's sworn statements given after the incident are inconsistent and contradictory, which would indicate that he may have lied and got his story mixed up. I would be convinced he is telling the truth if his story were consistent and if it made more sense. But, the bottom line is the State will test his credibility with everything they have. Zimmerman's own attorney is in accordance with the State regarding releasing the sworn statements he has given as well as releasing emails and text messages that Zimmerman sent and received because he believes they will bias a potential jury panel.
The bolded portion of your post is really significant in my opinion.
The "most easily available" form of relief??? Really? Let me ask you this: Would you believe every single person who claimed being in fear for their life when they killed somebody in which a physical fight was in involved? Do you think there is no reason to test their credibility?
Do you think it could ever happen that someone might provoke a fight with someone whom they didn't like, then kill them and then claim they were in fear for their life? How easy would it be for 'enemies" to get you with that sort situation? How easy would it be to inflict some wounds and claim you received them in the fight? Not saying Zimmerman self-inflicted the wounds, but I am saying the wounds certainly did not appear to be life threatening.
I've seen no such thing, which is why I never made the assertion. Unlike you, who said, and I quote, "a dead teen who was innocent of any wrongdoing that night." Since you said it so strongly and factually, I assumed you had some credible proof of it. I stand corrected.
I've already posted the report filed by the Sanford Police Dept several times. It clearly says that Martin was unarmed and there is no evidence whatsoever that points to him committing any criminal activity. How many times do I need to post it here?
I had several sources, but I just had to use Google and here's a quote from USA Today.
"The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely, if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern," the report says. "There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter."
Nobody really knows what happened (except for George Zimmerman) after the 2 met and exchanged words, but Trayvon Martin was only walking home from a convenient store which has been proven by the surveillance video, since it was taken only minutes before he was shot.
Yeah? And?
You want to assert that he was lying because of the particular phrase he used in categorizing the guys age? You think that because he said the unknown guy he was reporting to the police was in his late teens, he must be lying when he says he thought that same guy was a little younger than him? OK. I have nothing to say to that. Except that those two statements don't convince me that Zimmerman is a murderer.
You know what? That particular "inconsistency" will most likely be used, along with other inconsitent statements" by the State to impeach Zimmerman on the witness stand. I feel pretty certain that the State has many other inconsistent statements from Zimmerman, and when taken as a whole, and given Zimmerman's huge motivation to lie, will certainly test his credibility before a jury. The JURY will determine whether or not Zimmerman lied, and you may not like the final determination.
Most people who had shot and killed someone would be likely to remember the age of that person, or the approximate age, especially since the killing became a very high profile case in the media and he was described as a 17 year old. Now what would account for someone getting on the stand in an attempt to express sympathy to the family, to then say he thought the victim was a couple years younger than he? Do you think maybe he didn't want to look like such a dope? Would there be a motive to look better to the public by saying he thought Trayvon was older? YES. Therein lies the problem with Zimmerman ever testifying. Obviously the client does not listen to his attorney, and is a loose cannon basically.
That shall be decided in a court of law. This had been said several times now, but Trayvon Martin is NOT on trial. Demonizing him and trying to make him out to be a thug is pointless when there is no proof that he was committing a crime, but there is proof that he went to 7-11 and purchased some skittles and a beverage, yet you and others have no issue with posting videos and pictures of some other kid to attempt to vilify Trayvon Martin and justify George Zimmerman's actions, all the while ignoring his history of aggression and past arrests.
George Zimmerman's supporters have an obvious agenda and have no problem stooping very low if they believe it will help him get away with it. Lying and getting excited about anything you believe is a blow to Trayvon Martin's character says a lot more about yours than it ever will about his. Again, this will be decided in a court of law, not by a bunch of frothing at the mouth gun worshipers who are incapable of critical thought on a discussion forum and I don't believe the post you responded to said anything about race.
I have said nothing at all about any of those things. The only thing I have attacked is many fertile imaginations of what happened. So many literally conjure up images in their minds and present them as proof judge jury and executioner. What is so hard about this. Msnbc Trayvon the angelic versus Zimmerman the devil and all points in between and generally just a pinch to a pound of racism on both sides.
Tell me my fellow human being. Who invaded whoms space? Can you answer that simple question. My friend it does not matter if I follow you from Tennessee to kentucky, stand outside your door on public property, shout the n word so that every light in the neighborhood comes on stick my fingers in my ears wave them and shout neener neener! The law will not permit you to jump straddle of me and pound my head in the pavement
I may deserve it and nine of ten people might jump straddle of me and pound my head in the pavement. However, under those circumstances, if I pull out a gun and shoot you dead in threat of my life I should not go to jail. Whether you are 10 or 100 yrs old. What is so hard about this? I will tell you what I suspect is so hard! Politically motivated racism. I am sorry for Travon but if I were a juror z would get no time so long as he did not invade this young mans body space. That is the way it will go down...any bets?
I have no interest in disproving your opinion. I only want you to acknowledge that is in fact an opinion, not a provable fact.
By the way, the only living person on the planet who was actually there the moment Martin was shot asserts that Martin committed a crime; namely that he attacked George Zimmerman. Is that sufficient to alter your opinion?
Please explain. There was nobody who witnessed the shooting unless you are aware of witness testimony that hasn't yet been released. If you are referring to the anonymous witness called "John" who said he didn't see the shooting but thought he saw Trayvon on top beating up George, he changed his story and said it was dark and he's not really sure what he saw.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
