Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

[emperus]

Easy to say what happened that night, as all evidence supports the facts

1) Martin brutally and viciously attacks zimmerman and repeatedly pounds head into concrete, beating repeatedly about the face, head and skull - this is supported by all evidence with no evidence to the contrary
2) Martin on top of zimmerman either continuing to batter him or hold him down
3) Z-man draws weapon and fires single shot less than 18 inches as martin is till on top of zimmerman who is on his back

All evidence proves these facts, there is no evidence against these facts. That's what makes it such a clear case of self defense, there is all this evidence including multiple eye witnesses that PROVE self defense.

You cannot mount somebody and pound their skull into the concrete, that is a forcible felony and automatically by law allows the victim to fire.

Spidey, I think it's time to put you on my ignore list. When you're not being overtly racist, you're repeating urself over and over and over like you have some severe form of turrets syndrome.

 

[Druidx]

Druid meet proverbial bag of bullshit.

Several replies while still failing to admit he was poven wrong, which proves he is full of shit.

 

[spidey07]

Spidey, I think it's time to put you on my ignore list. When you're not being overtly racist, you're repeating urself over and over and over like you have some severe form of turrets syndrome.

You have some evidence, one single bit that refutes these facts?

 

[EagleKeeper]

I'm not sure what post of min you read. But you clearly didn't understand it. Please quote me where I said TM was irrational.

And,it would only be rational if TM had a mental break that night.

Because no one has claimed that TM had a mental breakdown; the opposite is that you have TM acting irrationally to meet your criteria.

What evidence doesn't fit? All the evidence fits in nicely. Human nature? If someone has a gun, you don't stop fighting until u get it or someone comes to help you. Yes, ALL RATIONAL people would ignore John unless John physically came over to lend assistance. Again. please give me any explanation for what happened that night, without TM drink purple lean or turning into the Incredible Hulk and losing all ability to control his actions and think reasonably. I'm beginning to think that since noone has, it is because noone here can.

Now, if you are beating someone up and you see or hear someone, you get up and run away so you don't get caught.

Eagle, to be a better advocate for your side, try being dispassionate and thinking through ur arguments. It doesn't help ur side when you keep presenting arguments that sound half baked and stupid. People with half baked arguments are people who generally know they don't have a true argument to stand on.

Nothing was stated that Zimmerman had a gun; not by John and not by Martin.

If one is fighting for a weapon and the potential for assistance shows up; do you not ask for help and indicate why?

Martin ignored John!
Martin did not provide any indication that he knew about the weapon. To DeeDee or John!
There is no evidence at all that Martin tried to get control of the weapon. (DNA/fingerprints)

You mount a person; beat his head and face instead of trying to control the weapon that scares you.

Talk about your purple drink

 

[OCNewbie]

Such a non-sequitur.

It was? Let's take another look at what I said in response to your post:

So he ignored John. Why? What would have been TM's next play? Would he have been satisfied beating him up and then going directly to jail? Someone was watching him and was going to call the police, why would he be not afraid of the police or getting arrested and getting in trouble?

I think you're giving TM entirely too much credit for carefully thinking through his decision to attack GZ. The knowledge of potential arrest is always there for people who commit violent crimes, yet violent crime still happens. I wonder why that is?

You asked what TM's "next play" was, as if he himself would have known the answer to that question. It's unlikely he had thoroughly thought through his attack on GZ (the violent crime) before engaging. If that were the case, he wouldn't have likely committed the act in the first place. That's the nature of many violent crimes, they are impulsive, not well thought-out devices; and that's also the nature of many of the actions of most teenage boys.

Yes, violent crime still exists and so what?

See above

Do those who commit those crimes stay until the police come?

Is the arrival of police on a timer? Is their response time predetermined before the person engages in their violent crime, so the assailant knows beforehand "I have X number of minutes to administer my beat down before the cops arrive"? No, it's not, so whether the police arrive on time is dependent on factors beyond the assailant's control (how many minutes into the assault are the police alerted? how far away is the closest officer at the time that alert comes in?).

But again, you're implying some sort of careful contemplation takes place before these sort of crimes take place.

Do they generally desire to get caught?

Of course not, but it still happens, right? Goes hand in hand with it not being well planned, and the impulsive nature of the act.

We are humans. We are ingrained with the innate ability for self preservation. Beating up a guy, trying to kill him (as some of you state) yards from where you are staying with people watching while the police are coming,while the guy is yelling "help me" is not self preservation. It is anything but self preservation. It is absolutely asinine to believe it is rational.

Yup, and violent crime isn't rational either. Everything seems to come back to you missing the point that an assault/attack, especially by a teenager, isn't plotted out in detail beforehand.

And,it would only be rational if TM had a mental break that night. Because it so far removed from all reasonable or rational thought or all patterns of human behavior. Even thugs don't desire to get caught. That to argue it makes you look stupid and equally irrational. Capish?

Yes, I "capish" that you are consistent with your apparent need to conclude your posts with an attack on the poster that you're addressing.

Once again: Violent crime, especially by a still-developing teenager =/= "reasonable or rational thought"

 

[emperus]

It was? Let's take another look at what I said in response to your post:



You asked what TM's "next play" was, as if he himself would have known the answer to that question. It's unlikely he had thoroughly thought through his attack on GZ (the violent crime) before engaging. If that were the case, he wouldn't have likely committed the act in the first place. That's the nature of many violent crimes, they are impulsive, not well thought-out devices; and that's also the nature of many of the actions of most teenage boys.



See above



Is the arrival of police on a timer? Is their response time predetermined before the person engages in their violent crime, so the assailant knows beforehand "I have X number of minutes to administer my beat down before the cops arrive"? No, it's not, so whether the police arrive on time is dependent on factors beyond the assailant's control (how many minutes into the assault are the police alerted? how far away is the closest officer at the time that alert comes in?).

But again, you're implying some sort of careful contemplation takes place before these sort of crimes take place.



Of course not, but it still happens, right? Goes hand in hand with it not being well planned, and the impulsive nature of the act.



Yup, and violent crime isn't rational either. Everything seems to come back to you missing the point that an assault/attack, especially by a teenager, isn't plotted out in detail beforehand.



Yes, I "capish" that you are consistent with your apparent need to conclude your posts with an attack on the poster that you're addressing.

Once again: Violent crime, especially by a still-developing teenager =/= "reasonable or rational thought"

C'mon dude. This post is just stupid. I can't be nicer than that. If you wrote this as an essay you would easily get an "F".

SO, TM lured GZ into the dark alley and jumped out and decided to attack him with his fists. He somehow got so enraged he didn't care if he got caught since he lived in the same alley. Yet there is no evidence of TM ever being in a fight let alone having violent issues. Yet there is evidence of GZ being a violent person.

Does that make any sense to you? Or are you really so caught up i nSpidey's race war, you've abandoned all logic and reason?

 

[emperus]

Because no one has claimed that TM had a mental breakdown; the opposite is that you have TM acting irrationally to meet your criteria.

Nothing was stated that Zimmerman had a gun; not by John and not by Martin.

If one is fighting for a weapon and the potential for assistance shows up; do you not ask for help and indicate why?

Martin ignored John!
Martin did not provide any indication that he knew about the weapon. To DeeDee or John!
There is no evidence at all that Martin tried to get control of the weapon. (DNA/fingerprints)

You mount a person; beat his head and face instead of trying to control the weapon that scares you.

Talk about your purple drink

Martin's dead, so he can't speak and John couldn't even tell what was going on.

What was martin supposed to do, stop fighting and ask for help? Or just yell for help while still trying to restrain the guy who had the gun. Oh yeah, he did.

 

[OCNewbie]

You're arguments are like ur in pre-school throwing sand. Barely thought out.

Kinda like a violent, physical assault (crime) right?

Just because I am here to advocate for someone doesn't mean I am biased in it. Does that compute?

Actually, that's precisely what it means. You're not here to discuss the various details of this case, you're here to "advocate" for something you were told was an injustice before there was sufficient evidence to support that this injustice even took place. The fact that you have jumped to "advocate" based on a premature conclusion shows your bias.

People can compartmentalize and be dispassionate.

And they can also mistakenly believe they have this ability.

That is what I do, that is why most of my friends come to me for advice and most aren't happy with my advice. I'm good at seeing both sides no matter how close I am to the issue.

I understand that you may believe this to be true about yourself.

I have come up with a simple rational theory that makes everything that happened that night rational. GZ tried to detain GZ and TM saw his gun. That would make sense with GZ's conversation to the police, GZ being in that alley that night, the fight and TM continuing to struggle with GZ even though he heard people and even though he knew the police may be coming. See how rational all that is and simple to explain?

Yes, I see how you continue to throw the "rational" label around as if what is actually "rational" has any dependence on your decision to label it as such.

Now, as I said above, you come up with a simple rational explanation for that night. One that doesn't include purple drink, TM being an international gangster with the police on his payroll or TM having a complete mental break. And let's see who is biased.

How about teenage male gets angry, lashes out without thinking, takes it too far and bad things happen to him? I'd say that pretty much sums up what happened here.

 

[emperus]

Kinda like a violent, physical assault (crime) right?



Actually, that's precisely what it means. You're not here to discuss the various details of this case, you're here to "advocate" for something you were told was an injustice before there was sufficient evidence to support that this injustice even took place. The fact that you have jumped to "advocate" based on a premature conclusion shows your bias.



And they can also mistakenly believe they have this ability.



I understand that you may believe this to be true about yourself.



Yes, I see how you continue to throw the "rational" label around as if what is actually "rational" has any dependence on your decision to label it as such.



How about teenage male gets angry, lashes out without thinking, takes it too far and bad things happen to him? I'd say that pretty much sums up what happened here.

Look up what advocate means.

So it is easier for you to believe that a person who has no record of violence would lash out violently without thinking, than a person who has a record of violence, who has been stalking this kid all night, who has already told the police that they always get away and who had just left his car with a gun and 2 flashlights in the direction of said kid.

Yes, not biased much huh?

 

[spidey07]

Look up what advocate means.

So it is easier for you to believe that a person who has no record of violence would lash out violently without thinking, than a person who has a record of violence. who has been stalking this kid all night, who has already told the police that they always get away and who had just left his car with a gun and 2 flashlights in the direction of said kid.

Yes, not biased much huh?

You're ignoring all the evidence again.

Do you have any evidence that disputes the fact that martin committed aggrivated assault and battery against zimmerman and was indeed a threat when shot as he was on top of zimmerman after brutally, repeatedly beating him about the head, face and skull?

Because those are facts that cannot be refuted.

 

[OCNewbie]

If someone has a gun, you don't stop fighting until u get it or someone comes to help you.

But what evidence is there that TM was aware that GZ had a gun before he was shot? Did he tell DD GZ had a gun? When help came, in the form of John being within earshot of both GZ and TM, did TM take the opportunity to inform that help that this man had a gun? No, not a peep from TM.

What about physical evidence that TM attempted to "get it", GZ's gun? The struggle was likely a minute or longer; during that minute leading up to the shot, had TM reached for GZ's gun, don't you think GZ would have tried to stop him (self-preservation)? Did you see GZ's holster? I don't see any retention mechanism on the holster to make the gun difficult to remove, so if TM had reached for it, without GZ trying to stop him, TM would have been able to easily take it. But, let's consider that TM did actually reach for it, early into that ~minute-long struggle, and GZ tried to stop him. Did you see GZ's hands? There wasn't so much as a scratch on them, and there were good, close-up shots of both sides of both of his hands at the police station. You mentioned self-preservation earlier: don't you think that TM would have been doing everything in his power to get that gun before GZ did if he actually saw it? What evidence is there of this happening? If GZ gets to his gun before TM does, TM would be frantically clawing, grabbing, with every ounce of energy to get that gun out of GZ's hands: "allow this man to get his gun = I die". Yet again... not a scratch on either of GZ's hands.

The rational conclusion based on the above is to determine that TM was never aware of the presence of GZ's gun until (if ever) just before GZ removed it from the holster and fired the one shot into TM's chest.

Yes, ALL RATIONAL people would ignore John unless John physically came over to lend assistance.

There you go throwing the "rational" word around again, as if either TM (if he's attacking GZ) or GZ (on the receiving end of that attack) were in any position to think "rationally" at that point in time. But one of them didn't ignore John, one of them actually called out to him (the one that actually needed help), and John never indicated he felt it was the one on top (TM).

Eagle, to be a better advocate for your side, try being dispassionate and thinking through ur arguments. It doesn't help ur side when you keep presenting arguments that sound half baked and stupid. People with half baked arguments are people who generally know they don't have a true argument to stand on.

You're as "rational" as airdata, minus a few c-word bombs.

 

[emperus]

To talk about the racist component to all this.

Funny last weekend I hung out with a female Peruvian "friend" of mine. Over drinks she told me her uncle calls her monkey in jest. I was confused and said why? She said it was a joke and continued to tell me about the racist underpinnings of Peruvian culture. That the white Peruvians generally dislike the mixed (black) Peruvians and are racist toward them. It's actually ingrained in the culture. I felt really bad for her, but didn't think of the conversation that much.

Well, this week I read GZ's mom is from Peru and wondered how I forgot. Suddenly Gz's ex's story of her mom being racist made sense. It's a cultural thing. I wonder how much seeped into GZ. Here is a bbc story on it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10205171

There is a saying in Peru - "el que no tiene de Inga tiene de Mandinga" - which means every Peruvian has either some indigenous or African blood.
It is an often-quoted proverb used to explain the country's blend of races.
Racial mixing began mixing with the Spanish conquistadors who overran the Inca Empire in the 16th Century, and continued with successive waves of African slaves, indentured Chinese labourers and migrants from Japan and Europe.
The phrase speaks of a melting-pot nation but does not hint at Peru's deep-set prejudices.
The country has socio-economic gaps along race lines and its inherent, if subtle, discrimination can mean an indigenous woman may only ever work as a maid; a black man may only ever aspire to be a hotel doorman.
This is the kind of everyday racism which dictates the lives of many Peruvians.

 

[OCNewbie]

So it is easier for you to believe that a person who has no record of violence would lash out violently without thinking . . .

You mean like the Chris Brown situation with Rihanna? What record of violence did he have at that time? Do you think his lashing out violently was well thought out? Rihanna busted him receiving messages from other girls, so I suppose that justified the extent to which he beat her, a female? You don't seem to get that violent crime happens all the time without proper thought behind it. That's the nature of violent crime!

That's just one obvious example... given time, I would have no doubt whatsoever that I could find all the examples you could ever want of someone not having a violent "record" and finally getting busted. There's a first time for everything after all, isn't there?

, than a person who has a record of violence, who has been stalking this kid all night, who has already told the police that they always get away and who had just left his car with a gun and 2 flashlights in the direction of said kid.

Funny you should mention the "record of violence". What "record of violence" did GZ have when he was 17? About the same as TM I'd imagine. I guess that means GZ wasn't capable of violence at that point, eh? That violent streak in him must have developed somewhere between his 17th birthday and when he was 20, when he had that run in with that undercover police officer. That makes sense, right?

 

[emperus]

You mean like the Chris Brown situation with Rihanna? What record of violence did he have at that time? Do you think his lashing out violently was well thought out? Rihanna busted him receiving messages from other girls, so I suppose that justified the extent to which he beat her, a female? You don't seem to get that violent crime happens all the time without proper thought behind it. That's the nature of violent crime!

That's just one obvious example... given time, I would have no doubt whatsoever that I could find all the examples you could ever want of someone not having a violent "record" and finally getting busted. There's a first time for everything after all, isn't there?



Funny you should mention the "record of violence". What "record of violence" did GZ have when he was 17? About the same as TM I'd imagine. I guess that means GZ wasn't capable of violence at that point, eh? That violent streak in him must have developed somewhere between his 17th birthday and when he was 20, when he had that run in with that undercover police officer. That makes sense, right?

Lol... Are you serious? Now we are talking about Chris Brown? Have you taken over Geo's wall of words style? My question was simple and you seemed to ignore it. Why is it easier for you to believe TM acted out rather than GZ acted out?

Btw, people assume it wasn't the first time Chris Brown beat on her. And 2ndly he didn't stay to get caught. He left the scene. I assumed he didn't think she would call the police. When she did he turned himself in. If you knew anything about Caribbean culture you would understand how that example makes my point. Even violent crime can be rational. He never believed she would say anything. So he acted in a rational way.

 

[OCNewbie]

What was martin supposed to do, stop fighting and ask for help? Or just yell for help while still trying to restrain the guy who had the gun. Oh yeah, he did.

To the underlined... can I confirm that you are now expressing your commitment to the idea that it was TM screaming?

 

[TerryMathews]

To the underlined... can I confirm that you are now expressing your commitment to the idea that it was TM screaming?

The silence is deafening. :-D

 

[chucky2]

You ask why no one understands your posts.

No, actually, I don't ask that. I'm sure everyone understands my posts, even those who profess not to.

Maybe because they are rife with circular logic.

No, they're not.

This is what ur last few post boiled down to (minus all the extra language).



Then you write the post above. Gosh..

Correct, he did nothing wrong. How can I say that and not have circular logic? Because when I say he did nothing wrong I'm saying it in reference to what GZ was doing at the time with the information he had at the time. I would have thought this obvious, but either it wasn't or you are deliberately not getting what I'm saying. In the context of a guy concerned about his neighborhood that's had multiple troubles with black males in recent history, GZ gets into his neighborhood and sees someone he obviously doesn't recognize which to him is suspicious. This male takes off running. That's not going to make this person less suspicious, it's going to make this person more suspicious.

Given that, that being defined as GZs Reality at the time of TM running, exactly what would not be proper about getting out and seeing where this guy just ran off to? Forget the legal argument, as, that's not even an argument: It is entirely legal for GZ to decide someone he's looking at is suspicious, and it's entirely legal for him to go on public property to try and keep an eye on him. There is zero legality question here, so stick to this proper you seem to be hung up on.

Given the neighborhood history, given GZs concern for his neighborhood, given TMs actions, given the dispatcher has zero legal bearing on GZs actions and in Reality exists to keep people like GZ out of harms way, given that Neighborhood Watch guidelines are just that, guidelines, and similarly exist to keep people like GZ out of harms way, exactly what is not proper about GZ trying to keep an eye on TM?

Chuck

 

[soundforbjt]

No, actually, I don't ask that. I'm sure everyone understands my posts, even those who profess not to.



No, they're not.



Correct, he did nothing wrong. How can I say that and not have circular logic? Because when I say he did nothing wrong I'm saying it in reference to what GZ was doing at the time with the information he had at the time. I would have thought this obvious, but either it wasn't or you are deliberately not getting what I'm saying. In the context of a guy concerned about his neighborhood that's had multiple troubles with black males in recent history, GZ gets into his neighborhood and sees someone he obviously doesn't recognize which to him is suspicious. This male takes off running. That's not going to make this person less suspicious, it's going to make this person more suspicious.

Given that, that being defined as GZs Reality at the time of TM running, exactly what would not be proper about getting out and seeing where this guy just ran off to? Forget the legal argument, as, that's not even an argument: It is entirely legal for GZ to decide someone he's looking at is suspicious, and it's entirely legal for him to go on public property to try and keep an eye on him. There is zero legality question here, so stick to this proper you seem to be hung up on.

Given the neighborhood history, given GZs concern for his neighborhood, given TMs actions, given the dispatcher has zero legal bearing on GZs actions and in Reality exists to keep people like GZ out of harms way, given that Neighborhood Watch guidelines are just that, guidelines, and similarly exist to keep people like GZ out of harms way, exactly what is not proper about GZ trying to keep an eye on TM?

Chuck

IF what GZ did was "proper", why is it a rule/guidline in the NW, that you should never do it? It may not be illegal, but as you can see by this case, it's not the "smart" thing to do. Why do you think NW has rules/guidlines to begin with? Because a citizen is not the police and should never ACT as if they are.

I love how running and chasing is seen by the GZ supporters as "keeping an eye on".

 

[OCNewbie]

I love how running and chasing is seen by the GZ supporters as "keeping an eye on".

There was no running, there was no "chasing".

 

[soundforbjt]

There was no running, there was no "chasing".

You don't think that GZ wasn't running when he left his truck? You really think it was "wind"?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

There was no running, there was no "chasing".

It was windy that day, so the sounds on the phone were due to GZ walking briskly (not running) and the wind.

http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KSFB/2012/2/26/DailyHistory.html

Wind
Wind Speed 7 mph (ENE)
Max Wind Speed 17 mph
Max Gust Speed 22 mph

 

[OCNewbie]

You don't think that GZ wasn't running when he left his truck? You really think it was "wind"?

That's what GZ said, and it was confirmed by Serino (that it was windy that evening) in one of the interviews.

 

[Druidx]

I love how running and chasing is seen by the GZ supporters as "keeping an eye on".

I love how someone stopping then going a different direction is seen by GZ critics as " Still Chasing"

 

[Londo_Jowo]

 

[soundforbjt]

That's what GZ said, and it was confirmed by Serino (that it was windy that evening) in one of the interviews.

So, it was only "windy" for the exact time when GZ got out of his truck and then stopped exactly on cue later in the call...? Got to love that coincidence...

And why would anyone believe what an alleged killer would say? He has every reason to lie. And how could Serino confirm the wind was blowing at that time (during the call) when he (Serino) wasn't even there?