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.
Re GZ's chasing speeders on the highway, have you heard about this from your LE acquaintances? That's an interesting bit of information I've never picked up from news sources. Adds to the picture, though, for sure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by B-52
Thanks, Ogre.
Re my bold, yes that is from my acquaintances. Two separate incidents, one for speeding and another what he described as road rage that he witnessed but was not involved in. He received warnings about his own speeding during both incidents but no tickets. It was explained to him how dangerous it is to chase anyone down an interstate and he was let go with a promise he would't do it again. The people he said he was chasing were not found in either incident. This was about 3 months before TM was killed and the two incidents were about 2 weeks apart.
Interesting. For some time I've thought Zimmerman might show signs of obsessive-compulsive tendencies. I'm not necessarily talking about obsessive-compulsive disorder, where someone feels a compulsion to engage in some behavior so often that it interferes with his life (like nonstop hand-washing). There is a more general obsessive-compulsive behavioral type.
I don't claim to be anything like an expert on this, but I have some knowledge. I have a brother-in-law I believe very likely has something called Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder. Despite the similarity in the names, OCPD is different from OCD. Anyway, because of my BIL, and the problems that his psychological issues have caused in my family, I've read a fair amount about obsessive-compulsive behaviors.
As I understand it, the OC behavior type is not necessarily negative. The general idea has to do with perfectionism. That can even be something positive. For example, you'd certainly want the guy performing surgery on you, or piloting the airplane you're riding in, to be meticulous about getting every detail right. However, too much OC behavior can be a serious problem. OCD and OCPD happen when it gets out of control and interferes with a person's life, or the lives of those around him.
Not being a professional psychologist, I wouldn't presume to diagnose one of these disorders in anyone. That goes double for someone I don't know personally, like GZ. Still, though I lack the knowledge to make a professional diagnosis, I strongly suspect that my BIL has OCPD. Something about the way Zimmerman cannot seem to keep his hands off of situations around him, even when he oversteps the bounds by getting involved, reminds me more than a little of my BIL.
No, Zimmerman's statements to police are certainly NOT testimony!
Testimony is given under oath and is subject to cross examination.
Waldokitty already addressed this. Testimony isn't only given in a trial.
Quote:
Why do you think Zimmerman refused to testify? His story would have been torn to shreds.
Nope. His legal team correctly concluded that the prosecution had no case. There was no need for GZ to take the stand.
Quote:
Your other point was already answered in the last section of the same post you question, just read it
I'd suggest if your reading comprehension and knowledge of our judicial system is so poor, you not involve yourself in discussions requiring a modicum of insight.
Based on your posts, you seem pretty convinced that TM didn't initiate the attack, and that would make my question germane to the discussion. However, I can understand why you wouldn't want to answer it.
How can it be self serving? It was presented by the prosecution and was the result of questions asked directly to Zimmerman by the police. Furthermore, anyone presenting evidence, as did these prosecutors, is subject to having that evidence cross examined and their conclusions cross examined. So by your own definition, Zimmerman provided testimony to the trial.
How can it be self serving? Are you serious? Zimmerman killed somebody, he faced up to life in prison depending on the charges. Everything he said to police, prosecutors or his barber was what he wanted them to hear. There is no reason to believe anything he said was said for the purpose of establishing the truth, but rather to mitigate his exposure to prosecution. To be blunt, he's a liar. Zimmerman was never in a position (as was his right) to be examined and cross examined under oath, but you and others here continue to spew the nonsense that Martin attacked Zimmerman because that's what Zimmerman said. That comes nowhere near matching the definition of testimony. You really can't be serious, can you?
Given that GZ was acquitted, he had to be justified in shooting TM. Seems pretty simple.
No, the fact he was acquitted does not justify shooting TM. At no time did the jury suggest the killing was justified. Justification was not part of any of the charges. That is, he was not proven to be reasonable in killing Martin. The jurors found the prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence beyond what they believed was a reasonable doubt. Not the same. Such confluence isn't warranted.
But, of course, I do know the jury's verdict. And I understand this all seems simple to some people. However, my interest in this case is GZ's potential for future crimes of violence. That appeared to be the topic on this thread.
Interesting. For some time I've thought Zimmerman might show signs of obsessive-compulsive tendencies. I'm not necessarily talking about obsessive-compulsive disorder, where someone feels a compulsion to engage in some behavior so often that it interferes with his life (like nonstop hand-washing). There is a more general obsessive-compulsive behavioral type.
I don't claim to be anything like an expert on this, but I have some knowledge. I have a brother-in-law I believe very likely has something called Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder. Despite the similarity in the names, OCPD is different from OCD. Anyway, because of my BIL, and the problems that his psychological issues have caused in my family, I've read a fair amount about obsessive-compulsive behaviors.
As I understand it, the OC behavior type is not necessarily negative. The general idea has to do with perfectionism. That can even be something positive. For example, you'd certainly want the guy performing surgery on you, or piloting the airplane you're riding in, to be meticulous about getting every detail right. However, too much OC behavior can be a serious problem. OCD and OCPD happen when it gets out of control and interferes with a person's life, or the lives of those around him.
Not being a professional psychologist, I wouldn't presume to diagnose one of these disorders in anyone. That goes double for someone I don't know personally, like GZ. Still, though I lack the knowledge to make a professional diagnosis, I strongly suspect that my BIL has OCPD. Something about the way Zimmerman cannot seem to keep his hands off of situations around him, even when he oversteps the bounds by getting involved, reminds me more than a little of my BIL.
Makes me wonder, anyway.
I see how you're working this through. To me he seems to be what Freud called a "fantacist." A Walter Mitty. Freud described it as a defense mechanism.
Here's an example of someone who's not really considering the evidence. This post is all the way back on page 12, while the post of mine he quotes appears even earlier (page 10).
Before anyone jumps on me for seeming to "support" GZ in this passage, I'll say, as I have at other times in threads like this, that my main concern with this case is the way the whim of public sentiment, not evidence or the law, took control in this case, and influenced the actions of the authorities who took matters away from the local DA and arranged to have GZ charged.
I'm thinking beyond this case, and wondering what will be the next case where someone with no evidence against him is charged with a crime mainly because the public gets riled up and wants punishment for someone they view as a villain. Those who understand what really happened in this case will see why I find the prospect of such situations in the future really kinda scary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie gein
Quote:
Originally Posted by ogre
At this point GZ was walking back toward his car parked near the front gate, while TM was heading away from GZ, toward the house at the back of the complex.
TM arrived back at the house, but instead of going inside and letting that be the end of it, TM went back around toward the front side to look for GZ. When he found GZ, TM approached GZ and then attacked him suddenly with a sucker-punch, immediately knocking GZ to the ground, pinning him down with that MMA “pound-’n’-ground” straddling pin, and started pummeling him.
And here is proof. What I bold faced in your post CANNOT be true.
Please take a one minute and look at this video.
Again, if TM "immediately knocked GZ to the ground and pinned him down at the "T" (which is on the way back to the truck) then TM's dead body COULD NOT have been located where they found it.
Besides everything else that makes him unsavory, add the fact that he LIED about what really transpired to the list.
Take a look at the part Eddie G boldfaced. That video he claims proves that what I wrote could not be true does not even address what I wrote. He boldfaced a part where I said the evidence supported a sudden attack against GZ by TM, but. Then he linked to a video that shows GZ giving inaccurate info about the precise location where the encounter's final moments occurred.
That doesn't have a thing to do with my conclusion that TM approached GZ in a location generally toward the front end of the complex and then suddenly attacked GZ. Doesn't have anything to do with that at all, much less proving that it cannot be true.
Maybe this is just a case of a guy who was so eager to say what he wanted to say that he didn't really pay attention to the post he quoted as a lead-in. Then again, referring back to what I pointed out in post 876, about how all the evidence has to be pieced together to give a picture of what happened, maybe it's a guy who reads way too much into one little bit of info he's dug up.
I see how you're working this through. To me he seems to be what Freud called a "fantacist." A Walter Mitty. Freud described it as a defense mechanism.
Interesting. I'm unfamiliar with Freud's term "fantacist" (or I was until just now), but now I'm curious about whether Freud applied the term to people who actually acted out their fantasies, which Walter Mitty did not do.
Maybe someone can have more than one psychological problem going on. If "fantacists" do act out their fantasies, maybe GZ is a "fantacist" who also has OC tendencies.
It's a tough call when you don't know someone personally. Even though I'm not a professional psychologist, I'm pretty confident that my brother-in-law has OCPD. Since I know him personally, I can see how a number of details about his behavior fit what I've read about OCPD. Since I don't know Zimmerman personally, I'm doing a lot more reaching in this case.
Still, the way that Zimmerman seems unable to resist getting closely involved in situations that he views as being out of order is uncomfortably familiar when I think about my BIL.
Maybe GZ has more than one issue going on, or maybe I'd have a different view of the OC possibility if I knew GZ personally, but his behavior does make me wonder about OC tendencies.
I don't think this is proof. GZ could have 50 cases involving weapons, but it doesn't prove that in one particular case he's guilty. All one can do is look at the evidence presented.
I know. He was found not guilty in a court of law so that's that. When people have the nerve to imply that TM just randomly decided to kill a guy who wasn't stalking, confronting, or threatening him though, a wider view of Zim's history of violence needs to be observed. Obviously a few of the assaults and death threats via gun by Zimmerman were made after the murder trial.
What was TM defending himself from? Being followed? GZ did nothing that would give TM the legal right to attack him.
Why? Because he had been followed?
Would your contention be that young black males only instigate violent encounters when they are being stalked by someone with a gun?
For being stalked and threatened with a gun. We know the first happened, and only a fool could believe that the second didn't, especially with Zim's history of doing it all the time.
This isn't a story about all of the things that millions of young black males have done or are capable of doing in the future. This is true a story about Trayvon Martin, a kid 50 pounds lighter than Zim, talking on a cell phone, while on the tail end of a candy run, walking around a complex where he had every right to be. Try as you might, you will never be able to come up with a believable reason as to why TM would feel the need to use force against Zim other than to defend himself. Or as the Florida law books put it, standing his ground.
I know the thought of TM not being a mugger is painful for you. It clearly contradicts everything you think you know about young black males.
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.
), but now I'm curious about whether Freud applied the term to people who actually acted out their fantasies, which Walter Mitty did not do.