Joe Miner Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 Zimerman was persuing Martin and it appears may have tried to subdue him without proper provication, now had Martin actually broken a law my argument would be mute.
Donald Duck Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 (edited) You've just made two separate assertions. We know Zimmerman got out to pursue Martin, which he was absolutely within his right to do, but then lost sight of him. What evidence is there to suggest that he tried to subdue him? If you are following someone, go as far as getting out of your car, wouldn't the logical assupmtion be that Zimmerman got out of his car to confront martin, or at the very least, interrogate him? I mean it stands to reason right? Edited July 1, 2013 by dog14787
Fezmid Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 If you are following someone, go as far as getting out of your car, wouldn't the logical assupmtion be that Zimmerman got out of his car to confront martin, or at the very least, interrogate him? I mean it stands to reason right? No, he was trying to get a street name since the dispatcher asked for it. now had Martin actually broken a law my argument would be mute. I think it's time for you to be mute now...
Rob's House Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 (edited) If you are following someone, go as far as getting out of your car, wouldn't the logical assupmtion be that Zimmerman got out of his car to confront martin, or at the very least, interrogate him? I mean it stands to reason right? That's clearly speculative, and frankly it's quite a stretch, especially since we already know that his stated goal was not to apprehend Martin but to learn of his location to report to the cops. In fact, given the timeline, it's quite unlikely that it unfolded the way you describe. When GZ lost sight of Martin, who apparently noticed Zimmerman and had ample opportunity to get away, yet the confrontation happened right next to Zimmerman's car, it seems much more likely that Martin went back to confront Zimmerman. Do you have anything that suggests otherwise? Edited July 1, 2013 by Rob's House
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 If you are following someone, go as far as getting out of your car, wouldn't the logical assupmtion be that Zimmerman got out of his car to confront martin, or at the very least, interrogate him? I mean it stands to reason right? Actually, the only evidence as to why Zimmerman got out of his car indicates that he did so to check a street sign. Additionally, even if one were to conceed that "the only possible reason one would get out of their car would be to confront or interrogate Martin," (an absurdity); neither confronting nor interrogating Martin while he is in public is a criminal action.
Donald Duck Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 Actually, the only evidence as to why Zimmerman got out of his car indicates that he did so to check a street sign. Additionally, even if one were to conceed that "the only possible reason one would get out of their car would be to confront or interrogate Martin," (an absurdity); neither confronting nor interrogating Martin while he is in public is a criminal action. he couldn't read a street sign from his car?
Fezmid Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 he couldn't read a street sign from his car? It was night and was raining heavily. Plus, there wasn't a sign right on that corner so he went looking for one. That was in evidence as well - that the streets aren't labeled well. You really should be mute (as you suggested) until you read the facts of the case first.
bbb Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 Does anybody know how long it was from the time that GZ first saw TM to the time they started to fight?
Chef Jim Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 Does anybody know how long it was from the time that GZ first saw TM to the time they started to fight? Well according to dog not very long because he was chasing Martin.
Donald Duck Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 It was night and was raining heavily. Plus, there wasn't a sign right on that corner so he went looking for one. That was in evidence as well - that the streets aren't labeled well. You really should be mute (as you suggested) until you read the facts of the case first. Something the defense will try to build on, I agree, and you know we can disagree, without having to mute me, eh Does it hold water, time will tell, because in a nutshell, this is the case
bbb Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 Well according to dog not very long because he was chasing Martin. Does anybody know GZ's 40 time? WTF - does he think if this was actually a chase that GZ could catch TM?
Rob's House Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 Does anybody know GZ's 40 time? WTF - does he think if this was actually a chase that GZ could catch TM? But you forget he was stalking him like a lion stalks his prey. Something the defense will try to build on, I agree, and you know we can disagree, without having to mute me, eh Does it hold water, time will tell, because in a nutshell, this is the case It's funny how loyally you cling to your previously held belief despite the erosion of the basis for its formation.
Chef Jim Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 WTF - does he think if this was actually a chase that GZ could catch TM? Is that a racist comment?
TakeYouToTasker Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 he couldn't read a street sign from his car?No, he couldn't. This has been undisputed in the case, and the dispatcher consented to it. Additionally, I'd like to note that you didn't respond to this: "...even if one were to conceed that "the only possible reason one would get out of their car would be to confront or interrogate Martin," (an absurdity); neither confronting nor interrogating Martin while he is in public is a criminal action."
Donald Duck Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 (edited) No, he couldn't. This has been undisputed in the case, and the dispatcher consented to it. Additionally, I'd like to note that you didn't respond to this: "...even if one were to conceed that "the only possible reason one would get out of their car would be to confront or interrogate Martin," (an absurdity); neither confronting nor interrogating Martin while he is in public is a criminal action." where the confrontation took place is a long way from the street sign, so how do you expain that tasker? Martin circles his car like a predator, jumps out of the shadows and attacks him, sounds like Zimmerman is trying real hard to paint T martin as a Thug just asking for trouble, maybe to hard... Edited July 1, 2013 by dog14787
NoSaint Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 Anybody want to address my comments on the case? (why I believe G Zimmerman should be convicted of manslaughter) since when is who committed the original sin (and even if that sin, is a sin as it wasnt illegal) the grounds? why do we arbitrarily pick the point when GZ acted legally instead of the first point when someone broke the law?
DC Tom Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 where the confrontation took place is a long way from the street sign, so how do you expain that tasker? How do you know? And if so, how do you know TM didn't confront GZ before he reached any street sign, or was returning from it? You think 9/11 was an inside job too, don't you? You've got the same warped thought process as those conspiracy freaks.
Bigfatbillsfan Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 So you're saying that it is not, in fact, illegal to assault someone who is following you? If someone was following me down a dark alley turning around and ambushing them is something I might do. You're walking home from the store and all of a sudden someone starts following you. First in their car and then on foot. That would scare the **** out of anyone. And under "Stand Your Ground" TM had every right to confront him. I think it could be said that he had a reasonable belief that his life was in danger. He was under no obligation to back down. I also find it hard to believe GZ's story given where the confrontation took place.
B-Man Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 Cretins gloat, pass around George Zimmerman’s Social Security number after CNN airs it http://twitchy.com/2013/07/01/cretins-gloat-pass-around-george-zimmermans-social-security-number-after-cnn-airs-it/ Probable lawsuit in their future, thank goodness it was one of the highly trained professional news services rather that those silly bloggers. .
Jauronimo Posted July 1, 2013 Posted July 1, 2013 (edited) If someone was following me down a dark alley turning around and ambushing them is something I might do. You're walking home from the store and all of a sudden someone starts following you. First in their car and then on foot. That would scare the **** out of anyone. And under "Stand Your Ground" TM had every right to confront him. I think it could be said that he had a reasonable belief that his life was in danger. He was under no obligation to back down. I also find it hard to believe GZ's story given where the confrontation took place. If someone followed you for a time, and then stopped and starting moving in the opposite direction, you might circle back and ambush them before they could get in their car? I'm calling bull ****. 1. You strike me as a total kitty and have advocated police intervention as a substitute for gun ownership in every gun control and self defense thread. 2. That's just retarded even for you. 3. bull ****. Edited July 1, 2013 by Jauronimo
Recommended Posts