Zimmerman arrested again.

On the annotated map aacx22 posted, look at the elongated circle at #5. The actual "5" is closest to where the fight happened. The bottom of the oval is where aacx22 and whoever annotated that map wants people to believe Zimmerman traveled to, thus creating the illusion that he "chased" Martin in the direction he would be traveling towards dad's fiance's apartment.

There's ample post-event video that proves that oval is WAY out of line with the known facts, including GZ's reenactment video with the cops, Greta Van Susteren's on-scene reporting, written documentation of the position of Martin's body in police reports and on and on and on. Martin's body was in very close proximity to the "5," which is just outside of John Good's apartment. Good was the only eye witness who conclusively put Martin on top and Zimmerman getting "beaten up in ground and pound MMA-style" from the bottom. He said in court that he witnessed a few seconds with the two in that position, Zimmerman yelled "Help!" "to" him, implying eye contact or some other form of acknowledgement that GZ saw Good standing in his doorway for a brief period, and that he, Good, told them he was going to call the police as he backed back into his apartment, dialed 911, was walking upstairs to get a better view from overhead when the single shot was fired on his way up the stairs. When he got to a window to look down, Zimmerman had already crawled out from under Martin's body, and Good testified that the body was basically in the same spot he had observed the fight taking place just a few seconds before - right outside his patio sliding glass door.

Zimmerman never chased Martin down towards his dad's fiance's apartment. That map is purposefully misleading. All of the evidence points to Martin laying in wait near the "T" intersection of the sidewalks for GZ to come back towards his truck.

Play by play, real-time discussion of the trial took place on this board here. aacx22 should read it, and quit relying on purposefully obfuscatory maps and charts to assert facts that are to be found nowhere among the miles of video and reams of paper that contains the real record of this case.

Blues
 
You sure like to make up facts. My logic is as flawed as the jury that found him innocent. Your logic is as flawed as TM, look where that got him.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
He was found not guilty. He wasn't found innocent. One can be both not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and not innocent. He does get the moron award though.
 
You sure like to make up facts. My logic is as flawed as the jury that found him innocent. Your logic is as flawed as TM, look where that got him.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

And still... post after post you can't explain how TM ended up behind GZ if he really ambushed him. When logic doesn't support what you want to believe, I guess you just drop it. Your last comment is also just nonsense.
 
And still... post after post you can't explain how TM ended up behind GZ if he really ambushed him. When logic doesn't support what you want to believe, I guess you just drop it. Your last comment is also just nonsense.

That's okay, when the facts the jury deliberated on don't match your imaginary incident, you just make up facts to support your opinion.

ie: It's impossible for Martin to hide near (5) and watch Zimmerman walk past his location aka ends up behind Zimmerman...IMPOSSIBLE I tell you.


...what a ridiculous thought.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
 
aacx22 should read it, and quit relying on purposefully obfuscatory maps and charts to assert facts that are to be found nowhere among the miles of video and reams of paper that contains the real record of this case.

Blues

He doesn't believe he is asserting facts that can be found nowhere...they are in his head therefore they are real facts...


Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
 
That's okay, when the facts the jury deliberated on don't match your imaginary incident, you just make up facts to support your opinion.

ie: It's impossible for Martin to hide near (5) and watch Zimmerman walk past his location aka ends up behind Zimmerman...IMPOSSIBLE I tell you.


...what a ridiculous thought.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

It's not impossible, it's unlikely. What advantage did TM gain by letting him pass him and then waiting until he turned around to go back to his truck? If he wanted to ambush him and he was in hiding there, it would have made more sense to attack Zimmerman as he approached, which would mean that Zimmerman was never really going back to his truck.

But even if you understand, I don't expect you to ever admit it. So once again, whatever.......
 
He doesn't believe he is asserting facts that can be found nowhere...they are in his head therefore they are real facts...


Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

Another nonsense comment. You can't dispute my reasoning so you attack me. Very weak.
 
All pure speculation. The facts as known have played-out with a jury who determined there wasn't proof of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. But never confuse that with innocence. The two aren't necessarily related.
 
All pure speculation. The facts as known have played-out with a jury who determined there wasn't proof of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. But never confuse that with innocence. The two aren't necessarily related.

There is speculation for sure, but all speculation isn't the same. Where some may be coming out of left field, other might be derived from circumstantial evidence as reported in the news. For example, we know for sure that GZ pursued TM from his conversation with the police dispatcher. We also know that TM ran, both from GZ's conversation and from testimony of TM's girlfriend. We know that at some point there was a confrontation that resulted in GZ getting injured and TM getting shot and killed. We also have a timeline and we know where it started and where it ended.

I agree with you that the Jury found that this killing did not meet the requirement for murder. I have faith in our justice system for the most part, so I'll believe that they probably got that right. Still, outside from the law... if you look at the chain of events and who it was that started them and resulted in a kid losing his life... it always leads back to GZ. Then if you look at his history, it is not at all surprising. It's also not surprising that his luck is running out and now his bad choices are starting to result in consequences.
 
It's not impossible, it's unlikely. What advantage did TM gain by letting him pass him and then waiting until he turned around to go back to his truck? If he wanted to ambush him and he was in hiding there, it would have made more sense to attack Zimmerman as he approached, which would mean that Zimmerman was never really going back to his truck.

But even if you understand, I don't expect you to ever admit it. So once again, whatever.......

There is no evidence pointing that he did not retreat back to his truck like he said he did. No matter what you make up, they aren't facts. Unless you were on the jury and the jury decided it was unlikely, what you think doesn't matter.

While he was found not guilty, we are innocent until proven guilty. For whatever reason Martin attacked Zimmerman, the jury said Zimmerman was not guilty, he was justified in defending himself.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
 
There is no evidence pointing that he did not retreat back to his truck like he said he did.

No evidence, just common sense. You still have failed to explain why it would be advantageous to TM to let GZ pass and then to ambush him on his way back. You can't because it makes no sense and you know it so you just ignore it.

No matter what you make up, they aren't facts.

BC1 said it's all speculation. I think he's half right, because there are some things that we know. That said... Speculation is not the same as facts, but just each of our opinion on what probably happened based upon what we do know and where we believe that leads.

Unless you were on the jury and the jury decided it was unlikely, what you think doesn't matter.

Wrong. We are on a discussion forum where we discuss both facts and opinions... if our opinions didn't matter this forum would have no purpose.

While he was found not guilty, we are innocent until proven guilty. For whatever reason Martin attacked Zimmerman, the jury said Zimmerman was not guilty, he was justified in defending himself.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

I have never heard that we *are* innocent until proven guilty. The way I have heard is that we are *considered* innocent until proven guilty. That's a pretty big difference. Also, that GZ was found not guilty of murder only means that there was not evidence supporting that he committed murder as it is legally defined. It does not mean that GZ didn't cause the situation that resulted in TM's death. Another pretty big difference.
 
No evidence, just common sense. You still have failed to explain why it would be advantageous to TM to let GZ pass and then to ambush him on his way back. You can't because it makes no sense and you know it so you just ignore it.

First let's squash your new term "ambush" of this incident. It was not an ambush. If you want to user terms, how about "observe." Then Martin "oriented" himself. The Martin "decided" to teach the "creepy ass cracker" a lesson. Then "acted" by punching Zimmerman and attempting to kill him.

How's that for sense...or does the OODA loop also make no sense? just because your common sense is akin to Martins and Jeantels, that doesn't make it right...most likely makes it wrong.

BC1 said it's all speculation. I think he's half right, because there are some things that we know. That said... Speculation is not the same as facts, but just each of our opinion on what probably happened based upon what we do know and where we believe that leads.

My opinion is based on the jury findings...not an imaginary incident in my head.

Wrong. We are on a discussion forum where we discuss both facts and opinions... if our opinions didn't matter this forum would have no purpose.

A venue to offer our speculation doesn't automatically give those opinions importance. Especially when it comes an incident that already has been to trial.

I have never heard that we *are* innocent until proven guilty. The way I have heard is that we are *considered* innocent until proven guilty. That's a pretty big difference. Also, that GZ was found not guilty of murder only means that there was not evidence supporting that he committed murder as it is legally defined. It does not mean that GZ didn't cause the situation that resulted in TM's death. Another pretty big difference.

Victim blaming.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
 
First let's squash your new term "ambush" of this incident. It was not an ambush. If you want to user terms, how about "observe." Then Martin "oriented" himself. The Martin "decided" to teach the "creepy ass cracker" a lesson. Then "acted" by punching Zimmerman and attempting to kill him.

How's that for sense...or does the OODA loop also make no sense? just because your common sense is akin to Martins and Jeantels, that doesn't make it right...most likely makes it wrong.

Pretty bad actually. You're the one who said TM hid waiting for GZ. So now you believe that TM hid waiting for GZ, let him pass, waited for him to return, then casually left his hiding place to walk up to him instead of taking advantage of his cover. I guess as long as your logic continues to fail, you may as well keep on double-downing.

My opinion is based on the jury findings...not an imaginary incident in my head.

Wrong. The jury found GZ not guilty of murder... that's all you got from them. The rest came from elsewhere, which in some cases is certainly your imagination... for example your OODA claim.

A venue to offer our speculation doesn't automatically give those opinions importance. Especially when it comes an incident that already has been to trial.

So? Who the hell ever claimed that anything we spoke about was important? We're shooting the breeze to pass some time, not actually making any sort of a decision that will impact GZ in some way.

Victim blaming.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
That is how you treat TM. ;)
 
Pretty bad actually. You're the one who said TM hid waiting for GZ. So now you believe that TM hid waiting for GZ, let him pass, waited for him to return, then casually left his hiding place to walk up to him instead of taking advantage of his cover. I guess as long as your logic continues to fail, you may as well keep on double-downing.

You think the chances of Martin observing (hiding), orienting (approaching Zimmerman), deciding to attack, then acting on that decision is unlikely.

But a high school football athlete being out runned by an overweight fatty, after getting a head start, and being out of sight for 2 minutes is more likely?

Absurd.

Wrong. The jury found GZ not guilty of murder... that's all you got from them. The rest came from elsewhere, which in some cases is certainly your imagination... for example your OODA claim.

If what you imagine is true, would Zimmerman have been found guilty of murder?

So? Who the hell ever claimed that anything we spoke about was important? We're shooting the breeze to pass some time, not actually making any sort of a decision that will impact GZ in some way.

Fair enough.

That is how you treat TM. ;)

TM was the victim of being watched, Zimmerman was the victim of a violent assault. Only one is justified in using a firearm in self defense.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
 
You think the chances of Martin observing (hiding), orienting (approaching Zimmerman), deciding to attack, then acting on that decision is unlikely.

But a high school football athlete being out runned by an overweight fatty, after getting a head start, and being out of sight for 2 minutes is more likely?

Absurd.

What's absurd is that 5-6 posts in you still keep on ignoring the glaring problem in your logic of what led up to their encounter.

CNN.com - Transcripts

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: After he told you that he saw the man again.

JEANTEL: He had saw the man again.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The next thing that you heard him say was why you following me?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection, your honor. Asked and answered.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Overruled.

JEANTEL: Next thing I heard, next thing I heard, I had closed the door. And I heard say Trayvon, why you following me. Yes. You can go. You can go.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'm sorry. Takes me a little bit of time sometimes to come up with the next question.

JEANTEL: You can go.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. So at that point then was when you heard what you believed Trayvon Martin to have said, why you following me?

JEANTEL: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: At that point, George Zimmerman said what are you talking about.

JEANTEL: What you doing around here. What are you doing around here.

This is the confrontation starting with TM's girlfriend on the phone. She had been with him on throughout his whole trip. That really doesn't sound like GZ passed him, then turned around heading to his car, and finally got jumped by TM. GZ testified and maybe the jury believed his claim that he got jumped on the way back to his car or maybe regardless of that what happened was not legally murder... in either case, the possibility that TM hid in wait does not mesh at all with this testimony.

If what you imagine is true, would Zimmerman have been found guilty of murder?

I don't know what the legal requirements are in FL for a person to be found guilty of murder. A person just being responsible for causing a situation that spiraled out of control and resulted in another person's death does not automatically mean that the legal requirements for a murder conviction will be met.

TM was the victim of being watched, Zimmerman was the victim of a violent assault. Only one is justified in using a firearm in self defense.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app

Speaking of half-truths...............
 
What's absurd is that 5-6 posts in you still keep on ignoring the glaring problem in your logic of what led up to their encounter.

CNN.com - Transcripts



This is the confrontation starting with TM's girlfriend on the phone. She had been with him on throughout his whole trip. That really doesn't sound like GZ passed him, then turned around heading to his car, and finally got jumped by TM. GZ testified and maybe the jury believed his claim that he got jumped on the way back to his car or maybe regardless of that what happened was not legally murder... in either case, the possibility that TM hid in wait does not mesh at all with this testimony.



I don't know what the legal requirements are in FL for a person to be found guilty of murder. A person just being responsible for causing a situation that spiraled out of control and resulted in another person's death does not automatically mean that the legal requirements for a murder conviction will be met.



Speaking of half-truths...............

http://mobile.wnd.com/2013/07/jeantel-admits-trayvon-whooped-zimmermans-a/

Your star witness did more damage than help to Martins case. It sure sounds like she is a liar, and her first interviews stated she couldn't hear them. She does confirm their culture created a Martin who was racist and violent. It does nothing to confirm or deny Zimmerman's route.

Let me fix my last paragraph...

Martin was a victim of being followed and watched. Zimmerman was the victim of a violent assault. Only one is justified to use deadly force in self defense.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
 
Jeantel admits Trayvon ?whooped? Zimmerman?s ?a??

Your star witness did more damage than help to Martins case. It sure sounds like she is a liar, and her first interviews stated she couldn't hear them. She does confirm their culture created a Martin who was racist and violent. It does nothing to confirm or deny Zimmerman's route.

Let me fix my last paragraph...

Martin was a victim of being followed and watched. Zimmerman was the victim of a violent assault. Only one is justified to use deadly force in self defense.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
.
Your link was short and sweet... just the character assassination stuff to piss people off without too many pesky details on what actually happened.
.
Your amended statement is still missing stuff.
.
 
.
Your link was short and sweet... just the character assassination stuff to piss people off without too many pesky details on what actually happened.
.
Your amended statement is still missing stuff.
.

That was more like character suicide. You want to bring up terrible witnesses, I'll play that game.

By all means, finish the last sentence.

Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
 
You are innocent until proven guilty.

Let's take me out of it. If imaginary dude "John Smith" kills his wife "Jane Smith" he is not innocent. However, in the eyes of the law he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,531
Messages
610,694
Members
75,032
Latest member
BLACKROCK6
Back
Top