Why is George Zimmerman allowed to roam free tonight?

Ballotechnic wrote:

Unless you google "Zimmerman history of violence".

I'd say if you have to google, it's not widely known. It certainly isn't something that's permeated the narrative like "pot-smoking problem" has.

For as much as the Z Team has bitched about the brush of the media and the image they're selling, they benefited greatly from the image of George Zimmerman, Likely Sexual Predator being on the DL.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

It's what you're inferring; I can't see how the dispatcher is implying it.

I see what you're say and perhaps you're right, but how else other than keeping an eye on him is Zimmerman going to "let them (the dispatcher) know if he does anything"?

That's before Martin runs, and before the dispatcher tells Zimmerman he doesn't need to follow.

I see what you're saying and I'll concede that point.

There is just about no way to bring in evidence or arrests, restraining orders, or other character evidence against a defendant. Prior convictions for the same crime accused can be used, or for crimes of theft or fraud to show a pattern- IE if you are on trial for larceny, a conviction for check fraud is admissible. Even to rebut a defense of self defense, you cannot admit evidence of violent character. That is rule 404.

Jayhawker wrote:

If a stranger chases me in a neighborhood, I might feel like I need to take the fight to him instead of running.

And that could be a deadly miscalculation. When you attack while a means of escape is still available you then become the aggressor, and you could still be as dead.

RoughneckGeek wrote:

Your grasp of the facts of the case might carry more weight if you know the victim's name.

Sorry, I was up till 4am working. Takes a while for the brain to turn on. That and trying to keep up with the different replies. A little understanding would be appreciated.

Ballotechnic wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

If a stranger chases me in a neighborhood, I might feel like I need to take the fight to him instead of running.

And that could be a deadly miscalculation. When you attack while a means of escape is still available you then become the aggressor, and you could still be as dead.

Unless I carry a gun, then I don't have to pay for not retreating.

It still amazes me the level of irony that Zimmerman defenders are incapable of seeing.

Jayhawker wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

If a stranger chases me in a neighborhood, I might feel like I need to take the fight to him instead of running.

And that could be a deadly miscalculation. When you attack while a means of escape is still available you then become the aggressor, and you could still be as dead.

Unless I carry a gun, then I don't have to pay for not retreating.

And assuming they don't either. See how that works?

Ballotechnic wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

If a stranger chases me in a neighborhood, I might feel like I need to take the fight to him instead of running.

And that could be a deadly miscalculation. When you attack while a means of escape is still available you then become the aggressor, and you could still be as dead.

Unless I carry a gun, then I don't have to pay for not retreating.

And assuming they don't either. See how that works?

Yeah, I do. I'm just not sure you do.

Jayhawker wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

If a stranger chases me in a neighborhood, I might feel like I need to take the fight to him instead of running.

And that could be a deadly miscalculation. When you attack while a means of escape is still available you then become the aggressor, and you could still be as dead.

Unless I carry a gun, then I don't have to pay for not retreating.

And assuming they don't either. See how that works?

Yeah, I do. I'm just not sure you do.

One more "no u" post and I think we have a sterling example of the problem with Stand Your Ground.

Bloo Driver wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

If a stranger chases me in a neighborhood, I might feel like I need to take the fight to him instead of running.

And that could be a deadly miscalculation. When you attack while a means of escape is still available you then become the aggressor, and you could still be as dead.

Unless I carry a gun, then I don't have to pay for not retreating.

And assuming they don't either. See how that works?

Yeah, I do. I'm just not sure you do.

One more "no u" post and I think we have a sterling example of the problem with Stand Your Ground.

The worst part was that I read that as though you were telling me that I should have written, "I'm not sure ou do."

Jayhawker wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

If a stranger chases me in a neighborhood, I might feel like I need to take the fight to him instead of running.

And that could be a deadly miscalculation. When you attack while a means of escape is still available you then become the aggressor, and you could still be as dead.

Unless I carry a gun, then I don't have to pay for not retreating.

It still amazes me the level of irony that Zimmerman defenders are incapable of seeing.

You do remember, though you likely don't believe or discount, that Zimmerman was on the ground when he shot Martin right? Thus he was unable to retreat?

If by "Zimmerman defender" you mean I rely on the evidence presented in the trial to reach a conclusion, rather than emotion, then I'll gladly wear that title.

Perhaps if anything good comes from this it will serve as impetus to get Stand Your Ground Laws changed for the better or repealed entirely.

Now if this fellow in Florida gets off, I'll happily join your chorus of how rigged the judicial system against black men.

Ballotechnic wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

If a stranger chases me in a neighborhood, I might feel like I need to take the fight to him instead of running.

And that could be a deadly miscalculation. When you attack while a means of escape is still available you then become the aggressor, and you could still be as dead.

Unless I carry a gun, then I don't have to pay for not retreating.

It still amazes me the level of irony that Zimmerman defenders are incapable of seeing.

You do remember, though you likely don't believe or discount, that Zimmerman was on the ground when he shot Martin right? Thus he was unable to retreat?

If by "Zimmerman defender" you mean I rely on the evidence presented in the trial to reach a conclusion, rather than emotion, then I'll gladly wear that title.

Perhaps if anything good comes from this it will serve as impetus to get Stand Your Ground Laws changed for the better or repealed entirely.

Now if this fellow in Florida gets off, I'll happily join your chorus of how rigged the judicial system against black men.

Hard to buy the 'don't be emotional' argument when you've had several of your facts disproved, and are presumably suffering from as much confirmation bias as everyone else in the thread.

Ballotechnic wrote:

You do remember, though you likely don't believe or discount, that Zimmerman was on the ground when he shot Martin right? Thus he was unable to retreat?

If by "Zimmerman defender" you mean I rely on the evidence presented in the trial to reach a conclusion, rather than emotion, then I'll gladly wear that title.

That is pretty condescending.
Aren't you making an emotional choice to believe Zimmerman?

Tanglebones wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

If a stranger chases me in a neighborhood, I might feel like I need to take the fight to him instead of running.

And that could be a deadly miscalculation. When you attack while a means of escape is still available you then become the aggressor, and you could still be as dead.

Unless I carry a gun, then I don't have to pay for not retreating.

It still amazes me the level of irony that Zimmerman defenders are incapable of seeing.

You do remember, though you likely don't believe or discount, that Zimmerman was on the ground when he shot Martin right? Thus he was unable to retreat?

If by "Zimmerman defender" you mean I rely on the evidence presented in the trial to reach a conclusion, rather than emotion, then I'll gladly wear that title.

Perhaps if anything good comes from this it will serve as impetus to get Stand Your Ground Laws changed for the better or repealed entirely.

Now if this fellow in Florida gets off, I'll happily join your chorus of how rigged the judicial system against black men.

Hard to buy the 'don't be emotional' argument when you've had several of your facts disproved, and are presumably suffering from as much confirmation bias as everyone else in the thread.

Buy it or not, that's ok. By "several facts of your facts disproved" what are you referring to? I conceded QS's point may have been right, but what others?

Ballotechnic wrote:

Buy it or not, that's ok. By "several facts of your facts disproved" what are you referring to? I conceded QS's point may have been right, but what others?

From your initial list?

1. Von Martin wasn't randomly followed home for some nefarious reason. He fit the profile of individual/s who had had burglarized the neighborhood on multiple occasions prior to the confrontation with Zimmerman.

2. Zimmerman called the police to report Von Martin's activity. Did the attacker in this scenario do that?

3. Zimmerman didn't chase Martin down, he followed him. "Chasing down" is deliberately misleading.

4, Zimmerman was prompted by the dispatcher to keep an eye on him until police arrived. See pg 2 of 911 transcript http://www.documentcloud.org/documen........

5. At some point Von Martin turned back and confronted the attacker, gained the upper hand, broke Zimmerman's, nose and proceeded to pound his head into the ground. Per Zimmerman's and eyewitness testimony.

6.The subtext of this message is "imagine that your daughter is going to be sexually assaulted" which is deliberately manipulative and misleading.

1-3, 6 are emotional calls of your own, without any bearing on the image. 4 has been proven to be incorrect, 5 may or may not be true, since there's evidence both ways on this (see dimmerswitch's post on the subject)

NathanialG wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:

You do remember, though you likely don't believe or discount, that Zimmerman was on the ground when he shot Martin right? Thus he was unable to retreat?

If by "Zimmerman defender" you mean I rely on the evidence presented in the trial to reach a conclusion, rather than emotion, then I'll gladly wear that title.

That is pretty condescending.
Aren't you making an emotional choice to believe Zimmerman?

And being dismissed as a Zimmerman defender is not?

I don't think believing Zimmerman's story in light of the other evidence (911 call, forensics, witness testimony, etc) is an emotional decision. There simply isn't enough evidence presented by the prosecution to convincingly disprove it.

Tanglebones wrote:

1-3, 6 are emotional calls of your own, without any bearing on the image. 4 has been proven to be incorrect, 5 may or may not be true, since there's evidence both ways on this (see dimmerswitch's post on the subject)

I agree with you on 4, but I'm sorry I don't agree with your interpretation of my other points as emotional.

For the record there was no real evidence presented in court that Zimmerman actually followed Martin, let alone "chased" him as Tanglebones' poster states. He said he got out of the car to figure out exactly where he was because he thought he gave the police an incorrect address.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah

And since you find the idea of cherry picking the dispatch transcript just to make your point abhorrent, you'll have no problem posting the next two lines.

So when you said -

NormanTheIntern wrote:

For the record there was no real evidence presented in court that Zimmerman actually followed Martin, let alone "chased" him as Tanglebones' poster states. He said he got out of the car to figure out exactly where he was because he thought he gave the police an incorrect address.

And it turns out that he was following him, it turns out you meant "There was no real evidence presented in court that Zimmerman actually followed Martin all of the time forever"?

Bloo Driver wrote:

So when you said -

NormanTheIntern wrote:

For the record there was no real evidence presented in court that Zimmerman actually followed Martin, let alone "chased" him as Tanglebones' poster states. He said he got out of the car to figure out exactly where he was because he thought he gave the police an incorrect address.

And it turns out that he was following him, it turns out you meant "There was no real evidence presented in court that Zimmerman actually followed Martin all of the time forever"?

Yikes, quite a zinger! Of course, for the last three pages we've been talking about the events as described in that specific poster and how they relate to the facts of the case. The poster that says in part:

He gets out of the car. He starts following her.
He starts chasing her.

So when I talk about how there was no evidence Zimmerman was following him after getting out of the car, I'd think it's reasonable to assume I mean in the part of the poster we've been discussing that says he follows/chases the pretend daughter when he gets out of the car, not like.... forever.

(Good call bolding that last though I approve)

edit: Haha what am I even doing? I must have dementia.

Was following him in the car, Treyvon ran off, the dispatcher asked him to stop following, he got out to see exactly where he was, got jumped.

Consistent with the dispatcher call and Zimmerman's story, not at all consistent with the poster.

Classy edit too, just really great stuff there.

Wait so he ran off AND jumped him right next to the car?

SixteenBlue wrote:

Wait so he ran off AND jumped him right next to the car?

Yeah, that's a pretty silly claim if that's what he said. What I'd like to see addressed is the complete lack of any signs of struggle on Trayvon's body. If he really was assaulting Zimmerman like that, why was his body without any signs of it?

Valmorian wrote:
SixteenBlue wrote:

Wait so he ran off AND jumped him right next to the car?

Yeah, that's a pretty silly claim if that's what he said. What I'd like to see addressed is the complete lack of any signs of struggle on Trayvon's body. If he really was assaulting Zimmerman like that, why was his body without any signs of it?

It's from the pot cigarettes. They make you invincible.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Was following him in the car, Treyvon ran off, the dispatcher asked him to stop following, he got out to see exactly where he was, got jumped.

Consistent with the dispatcher call and Zimmerman's story, not at all consistent with the poster.

Classy edit too, just really great stuff there.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/video...

Convince me Zimmerman was following him in his car.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

For the record there was no real evidence presented in court that Zimmerman actually followed Martin, let alone "chased" him as Tanglebones' poster states. He said he got out of the car to figure out exactly where he was because he thought he gave the police an incorrect address.

If he didn't follow him why is Martin dead? The fact that the kid is dead is proof that he followed him. Martin didn't break into his car and pull Zimmerman out.

Jayhawker wrote:

Convince me Zimmerman was following him in his car.

Wow, listening to that call it's SO Obvious he got out of his car to follow him.