Trayvon Martin Case.... the plot thickens

[Trillaaaaaa]

False dichotomy. If

@bow. See I get what you saying but what is suspicious? Okay there were break ins all committed by black men, so I might give u that one. But then Zimmerman went overboard talking about he looks like he is on drugs, like he is up to something and he looks suspicious. Having black skin and walking is suspicious now even though that neighborhood is almost half black? This dude wanted to catch a robber in action and left his common sense behind to do so. To me suspicious is walking in circles or looking through someone's window or starting at a particular house, not just walking. And honestly we all know someone who was stopped by police because they looked like some suspect they are chasing but once you take it to that next level and kill them, there is no excuse and you should be in jail.

Dude was definitely overzealous. And if he started the fight I think he should go to jail. But if he didn't, then I dunno. If Trayvon started the fight, then had Zimmerman on the ground screamin for help, and no one was comin to help. Then he may be justified in shooting him.

So when a dude starts a fight he can't finish and decides to pull out his pistol and shoot him instead, you consider that's self defense?

BTW you keep going by Zimmerman's story when he has the most to gain by claiming he was getting "beat to death".

Zimmerman was the aggressor by everyone else's account. I don't get why you're defending him so vehemently

Who is "everyone else"?

Let me rephrase that, It SEEMS Zimmerman was the agressor by everyone else's account i.e. Trayvon's girlfriend and the two female witnesses

@bow. See I get what you saying but what is suspicious? Okay there were break ins all committed by black men, so I might give u that one. But then Zimmerman went overboard talking about he looks like he is on drugs, like he is up to something and he looks suspicious. Having black skin and walking is suspicious now even though that neighborhood is almost half black? This dude wanted to catch a robber in action and left his common sense behind to do so. To me suspicious is walking in circles or looking through someone's window or starting at a particular house, not just walking. And honestly we all know someone who was stopped by police because they looked like some suspect they are chasing but once you take it to that next level and kill them, there is no excuse and you should be in jail.

Dude was definitely overzealous. And if he started the fight I think he should go to jail. But if he didn't, then I dunno. If Trayvon started the fight, then had Zimmerman on the ground screamin for help, and no one was comin to help. Then he may be justified in shooting him.

So when a dude starts a fight he can't finish and decides to pull out his pistol and shoot him instead, you consider that's self defense?

BTW you keep going by Zimmerman's story when he has the most to gain by claiming he was getting "beat to death".

Zimmerman was the aggressor by everyone else's account. I don't get why you're defending him so vehemently

You committed the fallacy of attacking the motive. The fact that Zimmerman has much to gain/lose in this situation is irrelevant to what he has actually said.

The fact of the matter is as you've stated: Trayvon has been established as attempting to escape, and Zimmerman was the one chasing.

Never said anything of the sort. You're conflating other folk's posts with mine. Put down the Heineken and and step ypur grammar game up

Also Zimmerman lying about his actions on that night have nothing to do with motive. We all already know his motive, which was to Play John Wayne and protect the neighborhood from a threatening Black guy.

A person lying about the events that took place the night they committed a crime actually has nothing to do with the motive of said crime

1. That wasn't grammar that i fucked up. I misinterpreted your post. It would have been a fallacy had I tried to refute it.

2. Nice spelling errors,

3. Your grammar needs work. "Also Zimmerman lying about his actions on that night have nothing to do with motive." come on son.

4. Are you saying that the girl Trayvon was talking to on the phone was lying & that trayvon was not evading Zimmerman?

Wow...A typo in the word your and a missed apostrophe -_____-

The fault with your grammar was the fact that you used the word fallacy in an improper context and that motive didn't apply to what we were discussing.

Zimmerman lying about his actions doesn't have have anything to do with motive since we already know what his motive was. His motive was to pursue a suspicious individual. That's it. That's not pertinent at all.

Again, I said nothing about Martin evading a threatening civilian with no authority nor did I say anything about his girlfriend mentioning that fact.

 

[riddlerap]

Now say Zimmerman's account is actually true. A strange man stalks an individual and said strange man isn't an officer but happens to be armed, the two proceed to engage in a fight. Common sense dictates that the unarmed individual being stalked is actually the one in position to self defend himself. So even if Zimmerman is being truthful, which I doubt, Trayvon was actually the one standing his ground.

You mentioned a lot of bullshit about how what Zimmerman was doing nothing illegal. Okay, this is true. But neither was Martin. Playing field is leveled at that junction. An armed man who has absolutely no level of authority can't just start a fight (yes, by perusing someone he was advised not to) and claim self defense after he feels he's lost. And to claim self defense doesn't suffice since that would mean the opposing party put the defender in imminent danger; not to mention, danger that Zimmerman placed himself in.

why are people talking like Trayvon knew Zimmerman had a gun the entire time? has this been proven already? what if Trayvon didnt know Zimmerman had a gun, until he was already fighting him and about to be shot. and its not as if Zimmerman planned to shoot him no matter what happened (most likely).

 

[desertrain10]

It was not George Zimmerman who called for help.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...cation-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty

They can't confirm that the voice was Treyvon's either, so their conclusion holds less weight than the eyewitness who says he saw Zimmerman screaming to him for help.

are you talking about "john"....the witness who came forward weeks after the murder. who wouldn't reveal his identity to the press?

maybe both men were at one point in time crying for help..... not to far fetched....but i dunno....

all we know now at least according to the words of 2 leading experts in the field of voice forensics is that the person crying for help on a 911 call in the moments before the teen was shot is not zimmerman... so it had to have been trayvon....

this along with the 911 tapes, zimmerman's shaky story, trayvons gf's testimony, the police surveillance video, zimmerman's history of violent behavior is more than enough to have him arrested... they can't bs any longer

If by "John", you're referring to the witness who made statements to police the same night of the shooting; then the answer is "yes".

In any form of scientific test, there is always possibility that the method is flawed; unless they can confirm whether or not the voice matches Treyvon's, their conclusion isn't sound. Think about it, the statement "It was not Zimmerman's voice" would still be true if their testing showed it wasn't Treyvon's either. Of course, you're right; they may have both been yelling at various points.

The 911 tapes only confirm that there was an argument, an altercation, and a shooting; neither of these dispute Zimmerman's claims. The girlfriend's account ends before the altercation.

The video shows abrasions of some form to his head:



Even people who have been violent in the past are allowed to use self-defense.

This is why he has not been arrested yet.

not saying this or the video is solid proof zimmerman is guilty of a crime, which i think he is so i'm biased .... but you gotta admit the TOTALITY of the evidence that's been released so far circumstantial or not.... along with his violent past ....would be damning in the eyes of a jury

people have been sentenced to death with less...

but yea i guess the real problem here is the whole 'stand your ground' law... smdh

 

[Trillaaaaaa]

False dichotomy. If

@bow. See I get what you saying but what is suspicious? Okay there were break ins all committed by black men, so I might give u that one. But then Zimmerman went overboard talking about he looks like he is on drugs, like he is up to something and he looks suspicious. Having black skin and walking is suspicious now even though that neighborhood is almost half black? This dude wanted to catch a robber in action and left his common sense behind to do so. To me suspicious is walking in circles or looking through someone's window or starting at a particular house, not just walking. And honestly we all know someone who was stopped by police because they looked like some suspect they are chasing but once you take it to that next level and kill them, there is no excuse and you should be in jail.

Dude was definitely overzealous. And if he started the fight I think he should go to jail. But if he didn't, then I dunno. If Trayvon started the fight, then had Zimmerman on the ground screamin for help, and no one was comin to help. Then he may be justified in shooting him.

So when a dude starts a fight he can't finish and decides to pull out his pistol and shoot him instead, you consider that's self defense?

BTW you keep going by Zimmerman's story when he has the most to gain by claiming he was getting "beat to death".

Zimmerman was the aggressor by everyone else's account. I don't get why you're defending him so vehemently

Who is "everyone else"?

Let me rephrase that, It SEEMS Zimmerman was the agressor by everyone else's account i.e. Trayvon's girlfriend and the two female witnesses

@bow. See I get what you saying but what is suspicious? Okay there were break ins all committed by black men, so I might give u that one. But then Zimmerman went overboard talking about he looks like he is on drugs, like he is up to something and he looks suspicious. Having black skin and walking is suspicious now even though that neighborhood is almost half black? This dude wanted to catch a robber in action and left his common sense behind to do so. To me suspicious is walking in circles or looking through someone's window or starting at a particular house, not just walking. And honestly we all know someone who was stopped by police because they looked like some suspect they are chasing but once you take it to that next level and kill them, there is no excuse and you should be in jail.

Dude was definitely overzealous. And if he started the fight I think he should go to jail. But if he didn't, then I dunno. If Trayvon started the fight, then had Zimmerman on the ground screamin for help, and no one was comin to help. Then he may be justified in shooting him.

So when a dude starts a fight he can't finish and decides to pull out his pistol and shoot him instead, you consider that's self defense?

BTW you keep going by Zimmerman's story when he has the most to gain by claiming he was getting "beat to death".

Zimmerman was the aggressor by everyone else's account. I don't get why you're defending him so vehemently

You committed the fallacy of attacking the motive. The fact that Zimmerman has much to gain/lose in this situation is irrelevant to what he has actually said.

The fact of the matter is as you've stated: Trayvon has been established as attempting to escape, and Zimmerman was the one chasing.

Never said anything of the sort. You're conflating other folk's posts with mine. Put down the Heineken and and step ypur grammar game up

Also Zimmerman lying about his actions on that night have nothing to do with motive. We all already know his motive, which was to Play John Wayne and protect the neighborhood from a threatening Black guy.

A person lying about the events that took place the night they committed a crime actually has nothing to do with the motive of said crime

1. That wasn't grammar that i fucked up. I misinterpreted your post. It would have been a fallacy had I tried to refute it.

2. Nice spelling errors,

3. Your grammar needs work. "Also Zimmerman lying about his actions on that night have nothing to do with motive." come on son.

4. Are you saying that the girl Trayvon was talking to on the phone was lying & that trayvon was not evading Zimmerman?

Wow...A typo in the word your and a missed apostrophe -_____-

The fault with your grammar was the fact that you used the word fallacy in an improper context and that motive didn't apply to what we were discussing.

Zimmerman lying about his actions doesn't have have anything to do with motive since we already know what his motive was. His motive was to pursue a suspicious individual. That's it. That's not pertinent at all.

Again, I said nothing about Martin evading a threatening civilian with no authority nor did I say anything about his girlfriend mentioning that fact.

1. You used the word 'have' when you should have written 'has'

2. I used the word fallacy correctly. The fallacy you committed is referred to as 'attacking the motive'. Up your philosophy knowledge.

3. I never stated you said that - I asked you a question of which you are clearly avoiding. Here it is again:

Are you saying that the girl Trayvon was talking to on the phone was lying & that trayvon was not evading Zimmerman?

Actually have was the appropriate word to use, I just accidentally typed it twice.

You're still using fallacy improperly. Also, you can't "commit a fallacy". I can continue to shit on the multitude of grammer errors but I'm not a grammar Nazi.

I actually addressed your question of Trayvon "evading Zimmerman" in a minimal way when I alluded to the fact that Zimmerman has no authority whatsoever to stalk an individual. If you had passed your critical thinking class, you would've picked up on context clues of me saying Trayvon had every right to run from a stranger who was pursuing him for no reason.

I never brought up the tidbit of Martin "evading Zimmerman" so stop asking me this inconsequential question.

 

[bow to royalty]

@bow. See I get what you saying but what is suspicious? Okay there were break ins all committed by black men, so I might give u that one. But then Zimmerman went overboard talking about he looks like he is on drugs, like he is up to something and he looks suspicious. Having black skin and walking is suspicious now even though that neighborhood is almost half black? This dude wanted to catch a robber in action and left his common sense behind to do so. To me suspicious is walking in circles or looking through someone's window or starting at a particular house, not just walking. And honestly we all know someone who was stopped by police because they looked like some suspect they are chasing but once you take it to that next level and kill them, there is no excuse and you should be in jail.

Dude was definitely overzealous. And if he started the fight I think he should go to jail. But if he didn't, then I dunno. If Trayvon started the fight, then had Zimmerman on the ground screamin for help, and no one was comin to help. Then he may be justified in shooting him.

So when a dude starts a fight he can't finish and decides to pull out his pistol and shoot him instead, you consider that's self defense?

BTW you keep going by Zimmerman's story when he has the most to gain by claiming he was getting "beat to death".

Zimmerman was the aggressor by everyone else's account. I don't get why you're defending him so vehemently

Who is "everyone else"?

Let me rephrase that, It SEEMS Zimmerman was the agressor by everyone else's account i.e. Trayvon's girlfriend and the two female witnesses

Did any of them actually witness the beginning of the altercation?

No, and this is where Zimmerman's story all conveniently comes together in favor of him. Trayvon unfortunately doesn't have the luxury to tell his side.

@bow. See I get what you saying but what is suspicious? Okay there were break ins all committed by black men, so I might give u that one. But then Zimmerman went overboard talking about he looks like he is on drugs, like he is up to something and he looks suspicious. Having black skin and walking is suspicious now even though that neighborhood is almost half black? This dude wanted to catch a robber in action and left his common sense behind to do so. To me suspicious is walking in circles or looking through someone's window or starting at a particular house, not just walking. And honestly we all know someone who was stopped by police because they looked like some suspect they are chasing but once you take it to that next level and kill them, there is no excuse and you should be in jail.

Dude was definitely overzealous. And if he started the fight I think he should go to jail. But if he didn't, then I dunno. If Trayvon started the fight, then had Zimmerman on the ground screamin for help, and no one was comin to help. Then he may be justified in shooting him.

So when a dude starts a fight he can't finish and decides to pull out his pistol and shoot him instead, you consider that's self defense?

BTW you keep going by Zimmerman's story when he has the most to gain by claiming he was getting "beat to death".

Zimmerman was the aggressor by everyone else's account. I don't get why you're defending him so vehemently

Not at all what I said. I said if Zimmerman started the fight he should go to jail. I'm saying if Trayvon started the fight, THEN it may be self defense. I'm not really goin by what Zimmerman said, but I'm acknowledging that it may be true. And Zimmerman and Trayvon were the only ones who were there from beginning. So if you're ignoring Zimmerman's account, then ur going by no one's account...and just believing what you want to believe. Only thing I've heard from witnesses is that they saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman beatin him up.

People need to stop focusing on Zimmerman following Trayvon because that's not relevant really. What's important is how the confrontation turned physical. In fact let me make a list of the irrelevant distractions people are bringing up.

-Zimmerman followed Trayvon when he was told he didn't need to do that. That's not illegal. So asking the legal system to take action because of it is foolish

-Zimmerman called the police all the time Not illegal. In fact promoted by the police.

-Zimmerman was racially profiling Trayvon Not illegal to be suspicious of someone because they're black. Being a racist is ignorant, but not illegal

I'm not ignoring Zimmerman's account at all. I've acknowledged it the entire time. In fact we're discussing that very topic. It just seems implausible to me since Trayvon was the one being pursued and Zimmerman was the one who initiated the altercation considering the FACT he was told by 911 operators to not continue to follow the "suspect". Zimmerman following him is completely relevant because the shooting would've never occurred had he not followed him.

Now say Zimmerman's account is actually true. A strange man stalks an individual and said strange man isn't an officer but happens to be armed, the two proceed to engage in a fight. Common sense dictates that the unarmed individual being stalked is actually the one in position to self defend himself. So even if Zimmerman is being truthful, which I doubt, Trayvon was actually the one standing his ground.

You mentioned a lot of bullshit about how what Zimmerman was doing nothing illegal. Okay, this is true. But neither was Martin. Playing field is leveled at that junction. An armed man who has absolutely no level of authority can't just start a fight (yes, by perusing someone he was advised not to) and claim self defense after he feels he's lost. And to claim self defense doesn't suffice since that would mean the opposing party put the defender in imminent danger; not to mention, danger that Zimmerman placed himself in.

Zimmerman following him is relevant to the eventual killing of Trayvon, but it's not a legal issue. And isn't that what people are after here? Justice, not Zimmerman saying he made mistakes that night.

Both men are in position to defend themselves. The gun just gives one an advantage in a fight. And according to Zimmerman (not saying it's what happened, just what he said) he was no long pursuing Trayvon. He was on his way back to his career when Trayvon came up to him.

That's the issue I talked about earlier. We don't KNOW Zimmerman started the fight. It's POSSIBLE that Zimmerman was walkin back to his car and Trayvon started a fight with him on his way back.

 

[fiat_money]

It was not George Zimmerman who called for help.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...cation-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty

They can't confirm that the voice was Treyvon's either, so their conclusion holds less weight than the eyewitness who says he saw Zimmerman screaming to him for help.

are you talking about "john"....the witness who came forward weeks after the murder. who wouldn't reveal his identity to the press?

maybe both men were at one point in time crying for help..... not to far fetched....but i dunno....

all we know now at least according to the words of 2 leading experts in the field of voice forensics is that the person crying for help on a 911 call in the moments before the teen was shot is not zimmerman... so it had to have been trayvon....

this along with the 911 tapes, zimmerman's shaky story, trayvons gf's testimony, the police surveillance video, zimmerman's history of violent behavior is more than enough to have him arrested... they can't bs any longer

If by "John", you're referring to the witness who made statements to police the same night of the shooting; then the answer is "yes".

In any form of scientific test, there is always possibility that the method is flawed; unless they can confirm whether or not the voice matches Treyvon's, their conclusion isn't sound. Think about it, the statement "It was not Zimmerman's voice" would still be true if their testing showed it wasn't Treyvon's either. Of course, you're right; they may have both been yelling at various points.

The 911 tapes only confirm that there was an argument, an altercation, and a shooting; neither of these dispute Zimmerman's claims. The girlfriend's account ends before the altercation.

The video shows abrasions of some form to his head:



Even people who have been violent in the past are allowed to use self-defense.

This is why he has not been arrested yet.

not saying this or the video is solid proof zimmerman is guilty of a crime, which i think he is so i'm biased .... but you gotta admit the TOTALITY of the evidence that's been released so far circumstantial or not.... along with his violent past ....is damning

people have been sentenced to death with less...

but i guess the real problem is the whole 'stand your ground' law... smdh

I don't see it as "damning", the law gives Zimmerman a lot of "wiggle room"(nh) here. Zimmerman hasn't made any public statements, and the police haven't released all of the information yet; so there is still much we don't know.

Plus too many assumptions have to be made to counter what's been released so far; such as "The police are lying, 'John' the witness is lying, the 13 year old witness is lying, the paramedics will be lying, and the video is doctored; so Zimmerman must be guilty.".

 

[bow to royalty]

Answer me this Gzus. Is it POSSIBLE that Trayvon did walk up on Zimmerman as he was walking back to his car after losing track of Trayvon. And then Trayvon hit Zimmerman, broke his nose, and started slamming his head on the ground. At that point Zimmerman felt his life was in danger and used his gun to defend himself?

 

[Trillaaaaaa]

@bow. See I get what you saying but what is suspicious? Okay there were break ins all committed by black men, so I might give u that one. But then Zimmerman went overboard talking about he looks like he is on drugs, like he is up to something and he looks suspicious. Having black skin and walking is suspicious now even though that neighborhood is almost half black? This dude wanted to catch a robber in action and left his common sense behind to do so. To me suspicious is walking in circles or looking through someone's window or starting at a particular house, not just walking. And honestly we all know someone who was stopped by police because they looked like some suspect they are chasing but once you take it to that next level and kill them, there is no excuse and you should be in jail.

Dude was definitely overzealous. And if he started the fight I think he should go to jail. But if he didn't, then I dunno. If Trayvon started the fight, then had Zimmerman on the ground screamin for help, and no one was comin to help. Then he may be justified in shooting him.

So when a dude starts a fight he can't finish and decides to pull out his pistol and shoot him instead, you consider that's self defense?

BTW you keep going by Zimmerman's story when he has the most to gain by claiming he was getting "beat to death".

Zimmerman was the aggressor by everyone else's account. I don't get why you're defending him so vehemently

Who is "everyone else"?

Let me rephrase that, It SEEMS Zimmerman was the agressor by everyone else's account i.e. Trayvon's girlfriend and the two female witnesses

Did any of them actually witness the beginning of the altercation?

No, and this is where Zimmerman's story all conveniently comes together in favor of him. Trayvon unfortunately doesn't have the luxury to tell his side.

@bow. See I get what you saying but what is suspicious? Okay there were break ins all committed by black men, so I might give u that one. But then Zimmerman went overboard talking about he looks like he is on drugs, like he is up to something and he looks suspicious. Having black skin and walking is suspicious now even though that neighborhood is almost half black? This dude wanted to catch a robber in action and left his common sense behind to do so. To me suspicious is walking in circles or looking through someone's window or starting at a particular house, not just walking. And honestly we all know someone who was stopped by police because they looked like some suspect they are chasing but once you take it to that next level and kill them, there is no excuse and you should be in jail.

Dude was definitely overzealous. And if he started the fight I think he should go to jail. But if he didn't, then I dunno. If Trayvon started the fight, then had Zimmerman on the ground screamin for help, and no one was comin to help. Then he may be justified in shooting him.

So when a dude starts a fight he can't finish and decides to pull out his pistol and shoot him instead, you consider that's self defense?

BTW you keep going by Zimmerman's story when he has the most to gain by claiming he was getting "beat to death".

Zimmerman was the aggressor by everyone else's account. I don't get why you're defending him so vehemently

Not at all what I said. I said if Zimmerman started the fight he should go to jail. I'm saying if Trayvon started the fight, THEN it may be self defense. I'm not really goin by what Zimmerman said, but I'm acknowledging that it may be true. And Zimmerman and Trayvon were the only ones who were there from beginning. So if you're ignoring Zimmerman's account, then ur going by no one's account...and just believing what you want to believe. Only thing I've heard from witnesses is that they saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman beatin him up.

People need to stop focusing on Zimmerman following Trayvon because that's not relevant really. What's important is how the confrontation turned physical. In fact let me make a list of the irrelevant distractions people are bringing up.

-Zimmerman followed Trayvon when he was told he didn't need to do that. That's not illegal. So asking the legal system to take action because of it is foolish

-Zimmerman called the police all the time Not illegal. In fact promoted by the police.

-Zimmerman was racially profiling Trayvon Not illegal to be suspicious of someone because they're black. Being a racist is ignorant, but not illegal

I'm not ignoring Zimmerman's account at all. I've acknowledged it the entire time. In fact we're discussing that very topic. It just seems implausible to me since Trayvon was the one being pursued and Zimmerman was the one who initiated the altercation considering the FACT he was told by 911 operators to not continue to follow the "suspect". Zimmerman following him is completely relevant because the shooting would've never occurred had he not followed him.

Now say Zimmerman's account is actually true. A strange man stalks an individual and said strange man isn't an officer but happens to be armed, the two proceed to engage in a fight. Common sense dictates that the unarmed individual being stalked is actually the one in position to self defend himself. So even if Zimmerman is being truthful, which I doubt, Trayvon was actually the one standing his ground.

You mentioned a lot of bullshit about how what Zimmerman was doing nothing illegal. Okay, this is true. But neither was Martin. Playing field is leveled at that junction. An armed man who has absolutely no level of authority can't just start a fight (yes, by perusing someone he was advised not to) and claim self defense after he feels he's lost. And to claim self defense doesn't suffice since that would mean the opposing party put the defender in imminent danger; not to mention, danger that Zimmerman placed himself in.

Zimmerman following him is relevant to the eventual killing of Trayvon, but it's not a legal issue. And isn't that what people are after here? Justice, not Zimmerman saying he made mistakes that night.

Both men are in position to defend themselves. The gun just gives one an advantage in a fight. And according to Zimmerman (not saying it's what happened, just what he said) he was no long pursuing Trayvon. He was on his way back to his career when Trayvon came up to him.

That's the issue I talked about earlier. We don't KNOW Zimmerman started the fight. It's POSSIBLE that Zimmerman was walkin back to his car and Trayvon started a fight with him on his way back.

What you seem to not understand is that legally whoever has the gun dictates who actually has the right to claim self defense. The 'Stand Your Ground' law just muddles that up in this case.

Both men are not in positions to defend themselves. Zimmerman was the only perceived threat since he OPTED to stalk another individual after he was told not to. Trayvon was essentially prey.

And after pursuing someone for a while who others have said was "evading Zimmerman", how plausible is it that Zimmerman out of the blue decides to just walk back to his vehicle and Trayvon instead of continuing to flee starts to beat on his stalker? That just doesn't gel with any common sense thinking person.

Finally, this alleged fight would've never happened had Zimmerman not stalked Martin down the street. Probably would've never happened if Zimmerman didn't have a gun either.

 

[Copper]

niggas in here on they grammar shiittttttttt

 

[Trillaaaaaa]

Answer me this Gzus. Is it POSSIBLE that Trayvon did walk up on Zimmerman as he was walking back to his car after losing track of Trayvon. And then Trayvon hit Zimmerman, broke his nose, and started slamming his head on the ground. At that point Zimmerman felt his life was in danger and used his gun to defend himself?

Until medical reports are released to corroborate Zimmerman's account of having his head smashed into the pavement and nose broken, I'll refrain from speaking ignorantly....But getting your ass beat isn't considered imminent danger.

I will say Zimmerman was in fairly good condition for having been nearly beaten to death according to the police video, though.

False dichotomy. If

@bow. See I get what you saying but what is suspicious? Okay there were break ins all committed by black men, so I might give u that one. But then Zimmerman went overboard talking about he looks like he is on drugs, like he is up to something and he looks suspicious. Having black skin and walking is suspicious now even though that neighborhood is almost half black? This dude wanted to catch a robber in action and left his common sense behind to do so. To me suspicious is walking in circles or looking through someone's window or starting at a particular house, not just walking. And honestly we all know someone who was stopped by police because they looked like some suspect they are chasing but once you take it to that next level and kill them, there is no excuse and you should be in jail.

Dude was definitely overzealous. And if he started the fight I think he should go to jail. But if he didn't, then I dunno. If Trayvon started the fight, then had Zimmerman on the ground screamin for help, and no one was comin to help. Then he may be justified in shooting him.

So when a dude starts a fight he can't finish and decides to pull out his pistol and shoot him instead, you consider that's self defense?

BTW you keep going by Zimmerman's story when he has the most to gain by claiming he was getting "beat to death".

Zimmerman was the aggressor by everyone else's account. I don't get why you're defending him so vehemently

Who is "everyone else"?

Let me rephrase that, It SEEMS Zimmerman was the agressor by everyone else's account i.e. Trayvon's girlfriend and the two female witnesses

@bow. See I get what you saying but what is suspicious? Okay there were break ins all committed by black men, so I might give u that one. But then Zimmerman went overboard talking about he looks like he is on drugs, like he is up to something and he looks suspicious. Having black skin and walking is suspicious now even though that neighborhood is almost half black? This dude wanted to catch a robber in action and left his common sense behind to do so. To me suspicious is walking in circles or looking through someone's window or starting at a particular house, not just walking. And honestly we all know someone who was stopped by police because they looked like some suspect they are chasing but once you take it to that next level and kill them, there is no excuse and you should be in jail.

Dude was definitely overzealous. And if he started the fight I think he should go to jail. But if he didn't, then I dunno. If Trayvon started the fight, then had Zimmerman on the ground screamin for help, and no one was comin to help. Then he may be justified in shooting him.

So when a dude starts a fight he can't finish and decides to pull out his pistol and shoot him instead, you consider that's self defense?

BTW you keep going by Zimmerman's story when he has the most to gain by claiming he was getting "beat to death".

Zimmerman was the aggressor by everyone else's account. I don't get why you're defending him so vehemently

You committed the fallacy of attacking the motive. The fact that Zimmerman has much to gain/lose in this situation is irrelevant to what he has actually said.

The fact of the matter is as you've stated: Trayvon has been established as attempting to escape, and Zimmerman was the one chasing.

Never said anything of the sort. You're conflating other folk's posts with mine. Put down the Heineken and and step ypur grammar game up

Also Zimmerman lying about his actions on that night have nothing to do with motive. We all already know his motive, which was to Play John Wayne and protect the neighborhood from a threatening Black guy.

A person lying about the events that took place the night they committed a crime actually has nothing to do with the motive of said crime

1. That wasn't grammar that i fucked up. I misinterpreted your post. It would have been a fallacy had I tried to refute it.

2. Nice spelling errors,

3. Your grammar needs work. "Also Zimmerman lying about his actions on that night have nothing to do with motive." come on son.

4. Are you saying that the girl Trayvon was talking to on the phone was lying & that trayvon was not evading Zimmerman?

Wow...A typo in the word your and a missed apostrophe -_____-

The fault with your grammar was the fact that you used the word fallacy in an improper context and that motive didn't apply to what we were discussing.

Zimmerman lying about his actions doesn't have have anything to do with motive since we already know what his motive was. His motive was to pursue a suspicious individual. That's it. That's not pertinent at all.

Again, I said nothing about Martin evading a threatening civilian with no authority nor did I say anything about his girlfriend mentioning that fact.

1. You used the word 'have' when you should have written 'has'

2. I used the word fallacy correctly. The fallacy you committed is referred to as 'attacking the motive'. Up your philosophy knowledge.

3. I never stated you said that - I asked you a question of which you are clearly avoiding. Here it is again:

Are you saying that the girl Trayvon was talking to on the phone was lying & that trayvon was not evading Zimmerman?

Actually have was the appropriate word to use, I just accidentally typed it twice.

You're still using fallacy improperly. Also, you can't "commit a fallacy". I can continue to shit on the multitude of grammer errors but I'm not a grammar Nazi.

I actually addressed your question of Trayvon "evading Zimmerman" in a minimal way when I alluded to the fact that Zimmerman has no authority whatsoever to stalk an individual. If you had passed your critical thinking class, you would've picked up on context clues of me saying Trayvon had every right to run from a stranger who was pursuing him for no reason.

I never brought up the tidbit of Martin "evading Zimmerman" so stop asking me this inconsequential question.

1. Learn logic then talk. I got an A in critical thinking. You apparently don't even understand fallacies.

2. Your usage of "have" was incorrect but that is irrelevant. Grammar and spelling are not the issue.

3. Answer the question I've posed or be deemed a sophist.

I stand corrected...You still didn't use the term fallacy correctly.

I addressed/answered your question that I hadn't even brought up in the first place in my last response.

 

[bow to royalty]

You gotta tell that rule to the millions of people who buy guns for self-defense. Let me explain something that a lot of people seem to be missing. This is a murder trial. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. You are giving ZERO proof that Zimmerman initiated the conflict with Trayvon (that Trayvon didn't actually walk up on him). This is a court of law, not the court of public opinion.

 

[redhandedbandit]

You gotta tell that rule to the millions of people who buy guns for self-defense. Let me explain something that a lot of people seem to be missing. This is a murder trial. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. You are giving ZERO proof that Zimmerman initiated the conflict with Trayvon (that Trayvon didn't actually walk up on him). This is a court of law, not the court of public opinion.

there is no trial as no arrests have been mad hence the uproar

 

[desertrain10]

It was not George Zimmerman who called for help.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...cation-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty

They can't confirm that the voice was Treyvon's either, so their conclusion holds less weight than the eyewitness who says he saw Zimmerman screaming to him for help.

are you talking about "john"....the witness who came forward weeks after the murder. who wouldn't reveal his identity to the press?

maybe both men were at one point in time crying for help..... not to far fetched....but i dunno....

all we know now at least according to the words of 2 leading experts in the field of voice forensics is that the person crying for help on a 911 call in the moments before the teen was shot is not zimmerman... so it had to have been trayvon....

this along with the 911 tapes, zimmerman's shaky story, trayvons gf's testimony, the police surveillance video, zimmerman's history of violent behavior is more than enough to have him arrested... they can't bs any longer

If by "John", you're referring to the witness who made statements to police the same night of the shooting; then the answer is "yes".

In any form of scientific test, there is always possibility that the method is flawed; unless they can confirm whether or not the voice matches Treyvon's, their conclusion isn't sound. Think about it, the statement "It was not Zimmerman's voice" would still be true if their testing showed it wasn't Treyvon's either. Of course, you're right; they may have both been yelling at various points.

The 911 tapes only confirm that there was an argument, an altercation, and a shooting; neither of these dispute Zimmerman's claims. The girlfriend's account ends before the altercation.

The video shows abrasions of some form to his head:



Even people who have been violent in the past are allowed to use self-defense.

This is why he has not been arrested yet.

not saying this or the video is solid proof zimmerman is guilty of a crime, which i think he is so i'm biased .... but you gotta admit the TOTALITY of the evidence that's been released so far circumstantial or not.... along with his violent past ....is damning

people have been sentenced to death with less...

but i guess the real problem is the whole 'stand your ground' law... smdh

I don't see it as "damning", the law gives Zimmerman a lot of "wiggle room"(nh) here. Zimmerman hasn't made any public statements, and the police haven't released all of the information yet; so there is still much we don't know.

Plus too many assumptions have to be made to counter what's been released so far; such as "The police are lying, 'John' the witness is lying, the 13 year old witness is lying, the paramedics will be lying, and the video is doctored; so Zimmerman must be guilty.".

seriously doubt there's any solid evidence out there that would totally absolve zimmerman... sure it would've been leaked to the press already... like the school records that fueled the orlando sentinel's character assassination of trayvon, info all of which they admitted to have gotten from the sanford pd...

and its already been acknowledged by just about everyone and there is evidence that the sanford pd botched the investigation from the start and did not follow standard police protocol, from the way they frisked zimmerman w/ no gloves seen during the surveillance video, down to the way in which they did not bother to notify trayvon's parents of his death...

and the question isn't whether 'john' or the 13 yr old witness is lying, the question is who initiated the fight and did zimmerman feel as though his life was actually in danger ...

so really the only thing this case really hinges on is zimmerman's account of what happened and his credibility.... the video, the voice forensics, he didn't ask or need to go to a hospital immediately after the incident even though he had supposedly almost been beaten subconscious, his propensity for violence etc ... just about everything that has come out so far hurts his credibility

like i said i know there's 'the stand ur ground' law...but they had probable cause to arrest him that night which they did but instead of letting him walk free they should have followed the wishes of the lead investigator. than proceed to lead a thorough investigation worthy of a homicide ...than allowed a judge and jury to decide zimmerman's fate, which hopefully will happen now the investigation is in the right hands

i'm talking in circles though.... *shuts mouth...silently waits for an arrest to be made while bracing for disappointment*

 

[Trillaaaaaa]

You gotta tell that rule to the millions of people who buy guns for self-defense. Let me explain something that a lot of people seem to be missing. This is a murder trial. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. You are giving ZERO proof that Zimmerman initiated the conflict with Trayvon (that Trayvon didn't actually walk up on him). This is a court of law, not the court of public opinion.

The fuck are you talking about? There is no trial as Zimmerman has yet to be arrested and brought up on charges, hence his not being a defendant. The only court he's getting tried in at the moment IS the court of public opinion.

You must not understand that the "self defense" law is an affirmative defense in court. This means that the burden of proof lies on Zimmerman to prove that it was in fact self defense. The prosecution's duty is to prove that it wasn't self defense.

And Zimmerman DID initiate the conflict by following an individual when advised not to by 911 operators. I can't stress that point enough.

You're dense as fuck in the way you're taking Zimmerman's word for it. You need to utilize some objectivity and wait for all the facts to rise to the surface.

 

[bow to royalty]

Answer me this Gzus. Is it POSSIBLE that Trayvon did walk up on Zimmerman as he was walking back to his car after losing track of Trayvon. And then Trayvon hit Zimmerman, broke his nose, and started slamming his head on the ground. At that point Zimmerman felt his life was in danger and used his gun to defend himself?

Until medical reports are released to corroborate Zimmerman's account of having his head smashed into the pavement and nose broken, I'll refrain from speaking ignorantly....But getting your ass beat isn't considered imminent danger.

I will say Zimmerman was in fairly good condition for having been nearly beaten to death according to the police video, though.

If his nose has been broken, and the back of his head is gettin slammed he could reasonably assume he was at risk of death/great bodily harm. And your bias is heavy right now. Look at the concrete evidence you're waiting for to believe a word that Zimmerman said. But there is NO evidence saying otherwise, and you have no issue supporting that side. Bottom line is you, me, and as far as we know the prosecution have no evidence that Zimmerman's story isn't true. So how can anyone expect him to be taken to trial?

Interesting fact for people sayin Zimmerman is gettin let off because of his dad/race/whatever.

"The Tampa Bay Times found 130 cases in Florida in which Stand Your Ground was invoked. In more than 70 percent of the cases, someone was killed. But only 28 of the cases went to trial, and only 19 resulted in a guilty verdict." So almost 80% of these cases don't go to trial.

 

[bow to royalty]

You gotta tell that rule to the millions of people who buy guns for self-defense. Let me explain something that a lot of people seem to be missing. This is a murder trial. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. You are giving ZERO proof that Zimmerman initiated the conflict with Trayvon (that Trayvon didn't actually walk up on him). This is a court of law, not the court of public opinion.

The fuck are you talking about? There is no trial as Zimmerman has yet to be arrested and brought up on charges, hence his not being a defendant. The only court he's getting tried in at the moment IS the court of public opinion.

You must not understand that the "self defense" law is an affirmative defense in court. This means that the burden of proof lies on Zimmerman to prove that it was in fact self defense. The prosecution's duty is to prove that it wasn't self defense.

And Zimmerman DID initiate the conflict by following an individual when advised not to by 911 operators. I can't stress that point enough.

You're dense as fuck in the way you're taking Zimmerman's word for it. You need to utilize some objectivity and wait for all the facts to rise to the surface.

You're dense as fuck if you think i'm saying Zimmerman is telling the truth. I'm saying Zimmerman's story is possibly true, and we currently have nothing to dispute it. You're the one not using objectivity. You have no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman's story is false. Yet you don't believe him. And if Zimmerman is walking to his car, and Trayvon approaches him and hits him...then Zimmerman is defending himself. What's so complicated about that? Even though he DID follow Trayvon, the bottom line is he had stopped and was going the other direction when Trayvon went after him.

 

[desertrain10]

You gotta tell that rule to the millions of people who buy guns for self-defense. Let me explain something that a lot of people seem to be missing. This is a murder trial. The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. You are giving ZERO proof that Zimmerman initiated the conflict with Trayvon (that Trayvon didn't actually walk up on him). This is a court of law, not the court of public opinion.

The fuck are you talking about? There is no trial as Zimmerman has yet to be arrested and brought up on charges, hence his not being a defendant. The only court he's getting tried in at the moment IS the court of public opinion.

You must not understand that the "self defense" law is an affirmative defense in court. This means that the burden of proof lies on Zimmerman to prove that it was in fact self defense. The prosecution's duty is to prove that it wasn't self defense.

And Zimmerman DID initiate the conflict by following an individual when advised not to by 911 operators. I can't stress that point enough.

You're dense as fuck in the way you're taking Zimmerman's word for it. You need to utilize some objectivity and wait for all the facts to rise to the surface.

You're dense as fuck if you think i'm saying Zimmerman is telling the truth. I'm saying Zimmerman's story is possibly true, and we currently have nothing to dispute it. You're the one not using objectivity. You have no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman's story is false. Yet you don't believe him. And if Zimmerman is walking to his car, and Trayvon approaches him and hits him...then Zimmerman is defending himself. What's so complicated about that? Even though he DID follow Trayvon, the bottom line is he had stopped and was going the other direction when Trayvon went after him.

there was probable cause to arrest him that night... and more than enough evidence circumstantial or not to put zimmerson's credibility into question, if you have been following the case.

because thats all zimmerman has ...is his word.. and two witnesses who saw trayvon on top of zimmerman proves nothing but the two had gotten into a physical altercation ... all of which should not be enough to let this man walk free without even a trial...

 

[Trillaaaaaa]

Answer me this Gzus. Is it POSSIBLE that Trayvon did walk up on Zimmerman as he was walking back to his car after losing track of Trayvon. And then Trayvon hit Zimmerman, broke his nose, and started slamming his head on the ground. At that point Zimmerman felt his life was in danger and used his gun to defend himself?

Until medical reports are released to corroborate Zimmerman's account of having his head smashed into the pavement and nose broken, I'll refrain from speaking ignorantly....But getting your ass beat isn't considered imminent danger.

I will say Zimmerman was in fairly good condition for having been nearly beaten to death according to the police video, though.

If his nose has been broken, and the back of his head is gettin slammed he could reasonably assume he was at risk of death/great bodily harm. And your bias is heavy right now. Look at the concrete evidence you're waiting for to believe a word that Zimmerman said. But there is NO evidence saying otherwise, and you have no issue supporting that side. Bottom line is you, me, and as far as we know the prosecution have no evidence that Zimmerman's story isn't true. So how can anyone expect him to be taken to trial?

Interesting fact for people sayin Zimmerman is gettin let off because of his dad/race/whatever.

"The Tampa Bay Times found 130 cases in Florida in which Stand Your Ground was invoked. In more than 70 percent of the cases, someone was killed. But only 28 of the cases went to trial, and only 19 resulted in a guilty verdict." So almost 80% of these cases don't go to trial.

Do you not understand the concept of 'burden of proof'? Zimmerman has to prove that he acted in self defense.

I'm not biased at all, I'm remaining completely objective. I've just made it clear that the circumstances and Zimmerman's account don't add up. And what concrete evidence are you referring to? Lack of evidence doesn't equate to 'concrete evidence'.

You're dense as fuck if you think i'm saying Zimmerman is telling the truth. I'm saying Zimmerman's story is possibly true, and we currently have nothing to dispute it. You're the one not using objectivity. You have no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman's story is false. Yet you don't believe him. And if Zimmerman is walking to his car, and Trayvon approaches him and hits him...then Zimmerman is defending himself. What's so complicated about that? Even though he DID follow Trayvon, the bottom line is he had stopped and was going the other direction when Trayvon went after him.

Your reliance on Zimmerman's account as what actually occurred showcases your bias towards Zimmerman.

 

[Melanin_Enriched]

I swear young ice lurks in the shadow and waits to call out people for fallacies.

 

[fiat_money]

It was not George Zimmerman who called for help.
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...cation-expert-reasonable-scientific-certainty

They can't confirm that the voice was Treyvon's either, so their conclusion holds less weight than the eyewitness who says he saw Zimmerman screaming to him for help.

are you talking about "john"....the witness who came forward weeks after the murder. who wouldn't reveal his identity to the press?

maybe both men were at one point in time crying for help..... not to far fetched....but i dunno....

all we know now at least according to the words of 2 leading experts in the field of voice forensics is that the person crying for help on a 911 call in the moments before the teen was shot is not zimmerman... so it had to have been trayvon....

this along with the 911 tapes, zimmerman's shaky story, trayvons gf's testimony, the police surveillance video, zimmerman's history of violent behavior is more than enough to have him arrested... they can't bs any longer

If by "John", you're referring to the witness who made statements to police the same night of the shooting; then the answer is "yes".

In any form of scientific test, there is always possibility that the method is flawed; unless they can confirm whether or not the voice matches Treyvon's, their conclusion isn't sound. Think about it, the statement "It was not Zimmerman's voice" would still be true if their testing showed it wasn't Treyvon's either. Of course, you're right; they may have both been yelling at various points.

The 911 tapes only confirm that there was an argument, an altercation, and a shooting; neither of these dispute Zimmerman's claims. The girlfriend's account ends before the altercation.

The video shows abrasions of some form to his head:



Even people who have been violent in the past are allowed to use self-defense.

This is why he has not been arrested yet.

not saying this or the video is solid proof zimmerman is guilty of a crime, which i think he is so i'm biased .... but you gotta admit the TOTALITY of the evidence that's been released so far circumstantial or not.... along with his violent past ....is damning

people have been sentenced to death with less...

but i guess the real problem is the whole 'stand your ground' law... smdh

I don't see it as "damning", the law gives Zimmerman a lot of "wiggle room"(nh) here. Zimmerman hasn't made any public statements, and the police haven't released all of the information yet; so there is still much we don't know.

Plus too many assumptions have to be made to counter what's been released so far; such as "The police are lying, 'John' the witness is lying, the 13 year old witness is lying, the paramedics will be lying, and the video is doctored; so Zimmerman must be guilty.".

seriously doubt there's any solid evidence out there that would totally absolve zimmerman... sure it would've been leaked to the press already... like the school records that fueled the orlando sentinel's character assassination of trayvon, info all of which they admitted to have gotten from the sanford pd...

and its already been acknowledged by just about everyone and there is evidence that the sanford pd botched the investigation from the start and did not follow standard police protocol, from the way they frisked zimmerman w/ no gloves seen during the surveillance video, down to the way in which they did not bother to notify trayvon's parents of his death...

and the question isn't whether 'john' or the 13 yr old witness is lying, the question is who initiated the fight and did zimmerman feel as though his life was actually in danger ...

so really the only thing this case really hinges on is zimmerman's account of what happened and his credibility.... the video, the voice forensics, his propensity for violence etc ... everything that has come out so far hurts his credibility

like i said i know there's 'the stand ur ground' law...but they had probable cause to arrest him that night so they should have and followed the wishes of the lead investigator. than proceed to lead a thorough investigation worthy of a homicide ...than allowed a judge and jury to decide zimmerman's fate, which hopefully will happen now the investigation is in the right hands

i'm talking in circles though.... *shuts mouth...silently waits for an arrest to be made while bracing for disappointment*

What's key is the bolded. Under the law, they could not arrest Zimmerman if they had nothing to disprove his claim that his use of force was lawful. What they had were injuries on Zimmerman and an eyewitness that corroborated Zimmerman's claim that he was being attacked. From this, they could not dispute his claim that he used deadly force out of fear for his life; the states attorney office knew that this burden was on them, so they stopped the charges from being filed.