|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/15/2013 05:30:20 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Your personal bias against guns and in favor of criminals is simply amazing. You're willing to slant every discrepancy against Zimmerman in your pursuit of what you would call justice simply because you feel bad about a "kid". |
And your willingness to twist my words and to label Martin a "criminal" says it all about you. |
|
|
|
07/15/2013 05:48:00 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
After all this, no one has answered why Zimmerman was following this kid, and wouldn't let it go, this night.
Without editorializing, why was he following an unarmed kid with skittles and an iced tea? |
Originally posted by Cory:
Why does it matter?
It's not illegal.
Why do you continue to bring up this fallacy, it's not relevant to the incident, which really didn't begin until Martin attacked Zimmerman. |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
First, there is no conclusive evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman. There is another version of the events leading up to the physical altercation presented by the friend who was on the phone with Martin at the time of the first verbal (and apparently physical) exchange. The friend claims that Martin said to Zimmerman, "Why are you following me?" To which Zimmerman replied, "What are you doing around here?" or something to that effect. Then she hears the phone drop and Martin say, "Get off me, get off me." There are no eyewitnesses to these events. How do we know that it wasn't Zimmerman who punched first?
And, by the way, Zimmerman claims he thought Martin might be "on drugs." Doesn't that make this suspicious character even more potentially dangerous? So, what kind of an idiot follows a suspicious character around who might be on drugs? Answer: The idiot with the gun in his pocket.
As to the question about when the incident began, some of us perceive the beginning at the point where Zimmerman decides to pursue Martin, and that's why we keep bringing it up. Whether it's illegal or not doesn't really matter, because absent the pursuit, there would have been no incident. That was a choice Zimmerman made, and it was within his power not to follow. When you consider that Zimmerman was armed with a deadly weapon, that he thought the kid was suspicious, possibly dangerous, possibly on drugs which could potentially make him more dangerous, that Zimmerman was the one with all the police/legal/Neighborhood-Watch training, and that the 911 operator told him not to pursue, he at least bears some moral responsibility for making the crucial decision from which everything else follows. Why is that difficult to understand? |
Originally posted by Cory:
Ok. Point by point Judith.
No evidence Zimmerman was attacked by Martin. I don't even like answering you on these points, but for Frisca I will.
-Injuries to Zimmerman - Bloody Nose, bleeding wounds to the back of the head -- VS -- Injuries to Martin - bruised knuckles, gunshot wound
--Conclusion, you're either ignoring what I've said ten times already, along with all the physical evidence, or you somehow insanely think this indicates that Zimmerman was attacking Martin. |
You've misunderstood me. My point is how do we know who initiated the physical attack? Obviously, TM managed to land some blows on GZ, but there is no eyewitness to the initiation of these events.
|
No, no I didn't misunderstand you at all. How do we know what we know? Do our senses deceive us? ... Pfft.
Be clear, we don't know this, and never will. We do know that the evidence strongly suggests it to be true though.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Cory:
Rachel Jeantel, your only even close to valid point, is about the most disastrous thing that happened to the prosecution. If you want to blame someone for Zimmerman walking, blame her. She was surly, used racial slurs like they were a non issue, and because of the culture she is a part of, would almost certainly have felt compelled to say whatever she thought would benefit her friend, and screw that 'creepy ass cracker' over for shooting him.
-I completely dismiss her as being anything even close to unbiased or reliable, if anything she served as a great character witness, since I think you will agree that we do tend to act and think in a similar manner to those who we identify as our friends. |
You can dismiss her testimony if you want to, but she did report the same events immediately after the shooting as she related on the witness stand. Even if you dismiss her testimony, there are contradictory reports from the eyewitnesses as to who was atop the other during the fistfight, and contradictory reports as to who was yelling for help. Furthermore, there was at least one policeman-investigator who testified that he thought GZ should be charged with manslaughter as he didn't think GZ's injuries warranted a claim of self-defense requiring deadly force. So take the girlfriend out of it and you've still got plenty of witnesses who contradict the claims of GZ.
|
Ok, and I do. And there's nothing preventing her from lying then or now. Doesn't matter anyway. I'm curious why you didn't defend her blatant racism.
As for who was on top, it's pretty consistent that there was testimony that the 'bigger guy was on top' and most said he was wearing a 'dark' jacket. That could easily have been either one, but from the evidence (Zimmerman's face and Martin's knuckles), it would seem that Zimmerman was on the bottom. The grass stains on his jacket are a further point that seems to indicate this to be true.
Be clear, we don't know this, and never will. We do know that the evidence strongly suggests it to be true though.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Cory:
As for Martin being 'on drugs' and the fact that you somehow think this proves Zimmerman wouldn't have followed him, let's remember that HE WASN'T TRYING TO CONFRONT TRAYVON, he was trying to help the police to confront him. Trayvon approached Zimmerman in his vehicle, then took off, and subsequently circled back on him to confront him. Even ignoring the fact that Trayvon's text messages were full of stuff about drugs and fighting, it does seem that the aggressor was not Zimmerman. No one KNOWS anything here for sure, that's why we try to use the evidence to indicate what is likely. It doesn't take a salty sailor to tell which way the wind is blowing here. |
You've misunderstood me again. I didn't say that GZ wouldn't have pursued if he believed TM was on drugs. I said he was an idiot to pursue, that it doesn't make sense to pursue under those circumstances, except if you're emboldened to act foolishly because you're carrying a loaded firearm. And again, you're taking Zimmerman at his word about how the events unfolded, but why should we take him at his word? Why shouldn't we look upon his every utterance as potentially self-serving since he is trying to save himself from possibly life in prison, and since there are quite a few instances where his version of events does not comport with the evidence?
|
No, no I didn't misunderstand you at all. The simple fact is that Zimmerman wasn't 'pursuing' or 'stalking' or even 'following' Martin at the time of the attack, he had lost sight of him some time before that, at which point the evidence indicates that Martin went to his dad's house, turned around, and ambushed Zimmerman when he was returning to his truck.
Be clear, we don't know this, and never will. We do know that the evidence strongly suggests it to be true though.
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Cory:
I want to take a special moment to examine the ignorance in your statement "There are no eyewitnesses to these events. How do we know that it wasn't Zimmerman who punched first?"
-Holy shit woman, there may not be any eye witnesses, but the fact that you are still ignoring the physical evidence is just upsetting to me - arguing with you is like fighting with a brick wall, no matter how many punches I land, you're not even going to notice.
--I'll just go over it once more, for Frisca of course, so as to not be dismissive - The evidence indicates that Martin was never punched, not one single time, and it clearly shows Zimmerman had the holy shit beaten out of him. Pretty sure Martin threw the first punch. |
The evidence also indicates that GZ lied about TM covering his nose and mouth with his hands. There's evidence that indicates that GZ lied about TM seeing the gun or going for the gun. There's evidence that indicates that GZ lied about TM being over him at the moment the shot was fired.
I have to get some work done now but I'll respond to your other points later. Suffice to say at this point, you are taking Zimmerman at his word completely, I am not, and therein lies the basic disagreement. And I'll say it again, if GZ stays in his car and doesn't try to "help the police," as you put it, (and again, you're taking GZ at his word that he was merely trying to find the name of the street), then there's no shooting, a pretty simple truth that you don't want to deal with. |
I'm taking the evidence for what it indicates, and I think Zimmerman's account lines up with the physical evidence pretty damned well Judith, and think you have failed to show that it does not. You seem to think the burden of proof is upon the accused, and again, you are wrong. The burden of proof is upon the prosecution in this country.
Finally we're back to your blame the victim bullshit. "If he stayed in his car it wouldn't have happened" - really, Judith... Really... Stop, just stop.
And as a final point, if you're not racist yourself, why do you keep calling the item he purchased "tea"? Are you afraid to call it "Watermelon Juice" for some reason? Go ahead, it's ok. And you can stop calling Trayvon a kid too while you're at it. |
He was a kid, a minor. And I never referenced what he was drinking. That is blindjustice, go back and re-read. |
Both very true points. Neither of which changes the facts upon which my position is based.
Message edited by author 2013-07-15 18:14:39. |
|
|
|
07/15/2013 06:12:49 PM · #153 |
Tayvon Martin doesn't sound so innocent with things like his cell phone and his past fighting...
Message edited by author 2013-07-15 18:13:15.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2013 06:39:15 PM · #154 |
| I have read most of the posts in this thread and I just find it funny that the thread has gone on longer than the deliberations. |
|
|
|
07/15/2013 06:54:51 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by DustDevil:
I have read most of the posts in this thread and I just find it funny that the thread has gone on longer than the deliberations. |
Well, if we were all physically in the same room it'd be over by now, and another jury might be contemplating the meaning of "stand your ground" ... ;-)
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Tayvon Martin doesn't sound so innocent with things like his cell phone and his past fighting... |
As they say in the financial world, "past results are no guarantee of future performance."
The fact is that at the time this confrontation took place Martin was not in the act of nor preparing to committing a crime, nor was he subject to arrest for any past crime.
Message edited by author 2013-07-15 18:58:05. |
|
|
|
07/15/2013 06:59:20 PM · #156 |
| I am not sure if it was brought up but a guy in Texas had a concealed carry license and confronted his neighbors over a party they were having next to him. He video taped it and it ultimately hurt him. He knew the "stand your ground" law and warned the guys coming at him but they were all unarmed and not making any physical threats towards him. He shot and killed one of them and ended up getting 40 years for it. Texas man gets 40 years. |
|
|
|
07/15/2013 07:15:28 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Tayvon Martin doesn't sound so innocent with things like his cell phone and his past fighting... |
As they say in the financial world, "past results are no guarantee of future performance."
The fact is that at the time this confrontation took place Martin was not in the act of nor preparing to committing a crime, nor was he subject to arrest for any past crime. |
While I do totally agree that people can change, rarely does it happen in a week.
Patterns of behavior are valid indicators, or at least the most valid indicators one tends to have, sans telepathic abilities of course.
..
Now here's where I take the stick, sharpen it, and beat you about the ears with it.
Why oh why would you claim that this confrontation took place when Martin was not in the act of, nor preparing to commit, a crime? Surely you see that neither of them were committing a crime when the confrontation took place. But, one of them was absolutely committing a crime when Martin was shot. Care to guess which one? |
|
|
|
07/15/2013 07:16:19 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by DustDevil:
I am not sure if it was brought up but a guy in Texas had a concealed carry license and confronted his neighbors over a party they were having next to him. He video taped it and it ultimately hurt him. He knew the "stand your ground" law and warned the guys coming at him but they were all unarmed and not making any physical threats towards him. He shot and killed one of them and ended up getting 40 years for it. Texas man gets 40 years. |
As he well should have. |
|
|
|
07/15/2013 07:33:18 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Why don't you answer the important question, not the triviality of what flavor beverage someone prefers, which has absolutely no relevance other than verifying it was non-alcoholic and therefore legally in Martin's posession, unless you now want to suggest that he shoplifted it ...
Your lack of compassion for the the family of someone who was killed though simply going about the ordinary activities of daily life is stupefying ... |
Whose ordinary activities of daily life involve beating someone?
Trayvon was a thug, Zimmerman was a power-hungry wannabe cop looking for trouble. It was a deadly mix. To paint Trayvon as some innocent babe in the woods type is a joke.
BYW, why doesn't the media give this much attention to the scores of young black men killed by other young black men? Why is this senseless and avoidable death any more tragic than all the others? |
|
|
|
07/15/2013 07:59:39 PM · #160 |
| I was referring to the ordinary activities of walking the the convenience store and home again, which would have been the extent of Martin's action had Zimmerman not presented himself upon the scene. |
|
|
|
07/15/2013 08:03:23 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
My problem with "stand your ground" is that you can more-or-less PROVOKE people into attacking you, and then shoot 'em in cold blood. I know I'm exaggerating, but.... |
No. Nobody can PROVOKE me into attacking them and shoot me dead. That's the difference between people who act like Trayvon and those of us who live in Florida and have more self control.
Several years ago I had a problem with a driver fully engulfed in road rage who followed me for quite some time. Rather than confront him I called the police. Eventually, that driver pulled in front of me at a traffic light so that he could get out of his car and confront me. He threw two glass bottles at me, one of which was fairly accurate and came through my open driver side window and almost hit me in the face. He then came up to me and tried to punch me. He "provoked" me and I was so pissed that I wanted to get out of my car and beat his ass like Trayvon beat on Zimmerman, but I didn't. I remained in control of my actions out of concern for the numerous possible consequences which included death or jail time.
That is the difference between people like Trayvon Martin and people like me who understand and appreciate the laws in Florida that allow people to defend themselves before the police arrive if necessary!
Speaking of choices, I could have used the knife that I had in the car to strongly defend myself while that guy was reaching in after me. I'm confident that I could have put a serious hurting on him and that I would have been completely within my rights to do so (I now have a gun instead) but I chose not to. I could also have gotten out of my car, put him on the ground and started beating his head into the street similar to what Trayvon Martin did. But he could have defended himself with a concealed weapon that I was not yet aware of and I might not be alive. As pissed off as I was I knew this and I made the correct choice, unlike Trayvon Martin.
I strongly suspect that Zimmerman somewhat baited Martin. However, people who believe that Trayvon was the victim because he was provoked give more credit to others for their own actions than they give to themselves and that shouldn't be the case. People need to take responsibility for their actions regardless of the stimuli.
I am still alive to relate this story and Trayvon Martin is not because of each of our choice of actions. |
|
|
|
07/15/2013 08:12:45 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You really think that, if Zimmerman had stayed in his car after calling 911 (as requested), Martin would be dead now?
Stop, just stop (and think). |
If either Martin or Zimmerman had stayed in bed all day then this wouldn't have happened.
or...
or...
or...
None of it matters up until the point that Martin attacked Zimmerman for the forty seconds before Martin was stopped.
Saying that "if Zimmerman had stayed in his car" then this wouldn't have happened is like saying that a traffic accident involving a taxi is the fault of the passenger who hired the taxi. Stop, just stop (and think). If the passenger hadn't hired the taxi then the taxi would not have been in that place at that particular time.
Absurd!
Regardless of all of the stupid mistakes and acts of poor judgement on both sides, ULTIMATELY and finally, the reason that Trayvon Martin is dead is because of his choice to attack Zimmerman. |
|
|
|
07/15/2013 09:12:42 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Spork99:
So, which one would you prefer dead? Zimmerman or Martin? |
that a stupid argument |
Exactly, but GeneralE's post I was replying to made it sound as though because Martin was still a minor, his death was more tragic than would be the death of Zimmerman, an adult.
Had Zimmerman been the one dead, you can bet that Martin would have been charged as an adult. |
|
|
|
07/15/2013 09:14:02 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Tayvon Martin doesn't sound so innocent with things like his cell phone and his past fighting... |
As they say in the financial world, "past results are no guarantee of future performance."
The fact is that at the time this confrontation took place Martin was not in the act of nor preparing to committing a crime, nor was he subject to arrest for any past crime. |
Were you there? You don't know that. |
|
|
|
07/15/2013 09:15:53 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Your personal bias against guns and in favor of criminals is simply amazing. You're willing to slant every discrepancy against Zimmerman in your pursuit of what you would call justice simply because you feel bad about a "kid". |
And your willingness to twist my words and to label Martin a "criminal" says it all about you. |
He labeled himself a "thug" and a "gangsta" and the physical evidence points to him assaulting Zimmerman (also a crime).
Message edited by author 2013-07-15 21:17:21. |
|
|
|
07/15/2013 10:04:39 PM · #166 |
anyone else think we need an instigator penalty?
edit:
and just like that..
//www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/justice/zimmerman-juror-book/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
of course take what she says with a grain of salt, she'll be trying to cash in...
Message edited by author 2013-07-15 22:07:51. |
|
|
|
07/15/2013 10:13:23 PM · #167 |
all i know is my fears appear to coming to fruition, its about to get real ugly people.
|
|
|
|
07/15/2013 10:43:26 PM · #168 |
|
|
|
07/16/2013 01:12:43 AM · #169 |
Have you been reading this thread? I think we've shot that down a few times already. Following Martin was not a crime, and cannot be considered to have 'provoked' Martin into attempted murder.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2013 01:37:11 AM · #170 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Have you been reading this thread? I think we've shot that down a few times already. Following Martin was not a crime, and cannot be considered to have 'provoked' Martin into attempted murder. |
You constantly voicing your strong opinions on DPC is certainly no crime, it does kill it for me though, and I'm not alone. |
|
|
|
07/16/2013 02:20:24 AM · #171 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by Cory:
Have you been reading this thread? I think we've shot that down a few times already. Following Martin was not a crime, and cannot be considered to have 'provoked' Martin into attempted murder. |
You constantly voicing your strong opinions on DPC is certainly no crime, it does kill it for me though, and I'm not alone. |
In that case, can I suggest that you stick to the photography discussions jagar? It'll likely prevent you from being so bothered by my strong opinions. For that matter, just stay out of /rant, which is pretty much the forum I tend to limit my strong opinions to.
Your ad hominem attack is, sadly, not surprising, and of greater importance, it doesn't do anything to further a discussion and examination of our beliefs about this case, since I refuse to believe that I, personally, am of any importance in this matter.
Funny enough, you say that my strong opinions are no crime, yet your post broke forum rules 11, 12, and 14. Ironic? I say yes!
Don't worry though, I wouldn't even dream of reporting the post, since I would hate for it to go anywhere.
You rarely add anything of value to discussions in /rant anyway, don't think I've missed the pattern. This thread, in fact, is a particularly excellent example of your typical /rant posting tactics.
Now, if you'd like to go start a 'This town ain't big enough for the two of us' thread, feel free. Myself? I just wish you had more of an opinion on something besides me.
Message edited by author 2013-07-16 03:02:22. |
|
|
|
07/16/2013 03:11:07 AM · #172 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by Cory:
Have you been reading this thread? I think we've shot that down a few times already. Following Martin was not a crime, and cannot be considered to have 'provoked' Martin into attempted murder. |
You constantly voicing your strong opinions on DPC is certainly no crime, it does kill it for me though, and I'm not alone. |
In that case, can I suggest that you stick to the photography discussions jagar? It'll likely prevent you from being so bothered by my strong opinions. For that matter, just stay out of /rant, which is pretty much the forum I tend to limit my strong opinions to.
Funny enough, you say that my strong opinions are no crime, yet your post broke forum rules 11, 12, and 14. Ironic? I say yes!
Don't worry though, I wouldn't even dream of reporting the post, since I would hate for it to go anywhere.
You rarely add anything of value to discussions in /rant anyway, don't think I've missed the pattern. This thread, in fact, is a particularly excellent example of your typical /rant posts...
Your ad hominem attack is, sadly, not surprising, and of greater importance, it doesn't do anything to further a discussion and examination of our beliefs about this case, since I refuse to believe that I, personally, am of any importance in this matter.
Now, if you'd like to go start a 'This town ain't big enough for the two of us' thread, feel free. Myself? I just wish you had more of an opinion on something besides me. |
Just seems like whenever I look at DPC all I see is your mouth, it is actually quite difficult to avoid and believe me I do try, I will redouble my efforts though have no doubt.
How many times did you reedit that last post? How many times will you edit the next? do make sure to get your point across won't you, this place would no longer be the same without your opinion splattered all over the front page.
|
|
|
|
07/16/2013 04:32:38 AM · #173 |
Originally posted by jagar:
You constantly voicing your strong opinions on DPC is certainly no crime, it does kill it for me though, and I'm not alone. |
Yep.
Message edited by author 2013-07-16 04:33:08. |
|
|
|
07/16/2013 08:08:18 AM · #174 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by jagar:
Originally posted by Cory:
Have you been reading this thread? I think we've shot that down a few times already. Following Martin was not a crime, and cannot be considered to have 'provoked' Martin into attempted murder. |
You constantly voicing your strong opinions on DPC is certainly no crime, it does kill it for me though, and I'm not alone. |
In that case, can I suggest that you stick to the photography discussions jagar? It'll likely prevent you from being so bothered by my strong opinions. For that matter, just stay out of /rant, which is pretty much the forum I tend to limit my strong opinions to.
Funny enough, you say that my strong opinions are no crime, yet your post broke forum rules 11, 12, and 14. Ironic? I say yes!
Don't worry though, I wouldn't even dream of reporting the post, since I would hate for it to go anywhere.
You rarely add anything of value to discussions in /rant anyway, don't think I've missed the pattern. This thread, in fact, is a particularly excellent example of your typical /rant posts...
Your ad hominem attack is, sadly, not surprising, and of greater importance, it doesn't do anything to further a discussion and examination of our beliefs about this case, since I refuse to believe that I, personally, am of any importance in this matter.
Now, if you'd like to go start a 'This town ain't big enough for the two of us' thread, feel free. Myself? I just wish you had more of an opinion on something besides me. |
Just seems like whenever I look at DPC all I see is your mouth, it is actually quite difficult to avoid and believe me I do try, I will redouble my efforts though have no doubt.
How many times did you reedit that last post? How many times will you edit the next? do make sure to get your point across won't you, this place would no longer be the same without your opinion splattered all over the front page. |
You realize that you can go here and switch off whatever part of the forums which "spoil" DPC for you. You can also ignore any specific thread to which you take offense. Then again, you might wind up with no reason to post at all. |
|
|
|
07/16/2013 08:35:20 AM · #175 |
Far be it from me to be the voice of reason, but looking at it from the outside, perhaps this thread has served its purpose, and it's useful life is over.
Firstly, it could be reasonably asserted that an outsider viewing this thread might feel there is a lack of sensitivity to many issues, including race, rising to the level of being off-putting.
It also seems there is an extra level of personal attacks and "shouting down" of individuals. I realize this is the "rant" section, but the "if you can't take the heat, ignore us, turn us off or in the alternative fuck off, I have the right to do it" posturing appears to have gone too far.
People like to discuss things, but time and time again it turns one sided, aggressive, defensive, condescending and insulting. Perhaps it is the nature of the internet where manners and decorum seem not to matter. I get carried away as much as anyone, and thankfully there are still some wise, calming individuals around here. But I have often wondered, and many others have asked this over and over, but how long do we need to tolerate these entities? Perhaps until most no longer care to participate or be associated any longer. That would be a shame. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/09/2025 03:07:02 AM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/09/2025 03:07:02 AM EDT.
|
