Zimmerman vs. DMX - Boxing Match?

[Symmetry]

Can you post the part about where your sourse places that statement as later than the call? Why do I have to ask 5 times and read your source 3 times? It's not there. Your source seems to do nothing more than confrim Zimmermans story that Trayvon was pursuing Zimmerman.

Zimmerman tells authorities that after briefly losing track of Martin, the teen approached him.

Presumably because you're unable to read a timeline, with times given for the statements. It's what a timeline is for, dude. Just look again, and note the different times. It's a timeline dude. For god's sake, you read the thing three times and didn't notice that it placed events in order?

[Phatscotty]

Can you post the part about where your sourse places that statement as later than the call? Why do I have to ask 5 times and read your source 3 times? It's not there. Your source seems to do nothing more than confrim Zimmermans story that Trayvon was pursuing Zimmerman.

Zimmerman tells authorities that after briefly losing track of Martin, the teen approached him.

Presumably because you're unable to read a timeline, with times given for the statements. It's what a timeline is for, dude. Just look again, and note the different times. It's a timeline dude. For god's sake, you read the thing three times and didn't notice that it placed events in order?

I read it, it's not there, and if it was you would have taken the chance to body slam me with a few paragraphs in one post three pages ago.

[Symmetry]

Can you post the part about where your sourse places that statement as later than the call? Why do I have to ask 5 times and read your source 3 times? It's not there. Your source seems to do nothing more than confrim Zimmermans story that Trayvon was pursuing Zimmerman.

Zimmerman tells authorities that after briefly losing track of Martin, the teen approached him.

Presumably because you're unable to read a timeline, with times given for the statements. It's what a timeline is for, dude. Just look again, and note the different times. It's a timeline dude. For god's sake, you read the thing three times and didn't notice that it placed events in order?

I read it, it's not there, and if it was you would have taken the chance to body slam me with a few paragraphs in one post three pages ago.

You got caught out on this several times, and apparently have yet to read the source, or even the part that I quoted.

About 7 p.m.:

George Zimmerman, a 28-year-old neighborhood watch captain, calls 911 to report "a suspicious person" in the gated community called the Retreat at Twin Lakes. Zimmerman says he is following Martin after the teen had started to run, after which the dispatcher tells him, "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman pursues Martin anyway, before losing sight of him.

About 7:10 p.m.:

Phone records show Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend around the time he spotted Zimmerman while returning from a convenience store to his father's fiancée's home.
At a March 20 news conference, Martin family attorney Benjamin Crump says the girl hears someone ask Martin what he was doing and Martin asking why the person was following him. The girl gets the impression that there is an altercation in which the earpiece falls out of Martin's ear and the connection goes dead, according to Crump.
According to an Orlando Sentinel story later confirmed by Sanford police, Zimmerman tells authorities that after briefly losing track of Martin, the teen approached him. After exchanging words, Zimmerman says, he reached for his cell phone, and then Martin punched him in the nose. Zimmerman says Martin pinned him to the ground and began slamming his head into a sidewalk

This is from the source, I quoted it, gave you the link, and have reposted it at your every request. I've highlighted relevant sections when you demanded that it didn't say what it said, and that's about the sum of it.

[patches70]

Apart from the statement made by Zimmerman, to the police, which is by any standard, admissable as evidence. Also Martin's girlfriend's statements, also admissable as evidence.

You got conned, Scotty, again. You'd have thought that after the Planned Parenthood con, or the Shirley Sherrod nonsense, you'd be a little more skeptical about Beck and his ilk. Dude, even within this thread you were shown to have been conned by a conservative website's false photographs.

Your credulity is astonishing, and you keep going back.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Zimmerman did indeed keep following Martin after the police said "we don't need you to do that" (pay attention that this isn't an order by the police to quit pursuit BTW). Zimmerman confronts Martain and Martin punches Zimmerman in the nose, jumps on top of him and starts beating the would be neighborhood hero. Zimmerman in turn shoots Martin dead.

What crime would you propose charging Zimmerman with?

Murder 1?
Murder 2?
Manslaughter?

Keep in mind that Zimmerman had a lawful right to be walking about on the street (just as Martin did). It is also not a crime to say to someone "what are you doing?" Just as that someone has no lawful obligation to answer the the question. Did Martin have a lawful right to punch Zimmerman?
And once struck, did Zimmerman have a lawful right to defend himself, regardless of the circumstances that led to that point?

Once you start really considering these questions you can see how it's quite possible that Zimmerman can not only make the case for self defense, he can win that argument in court. Just as Martin could have won that very argument had he beaten Zimmerman to death.

No answers forthcoming Sym? What's wrong? You are quick to use ambiguous lines in a transcript to support your "case" but I give you that interpretation for the sake of argument and then ask "What's next?" Why not answer. What should Zimmerman be charged?

Any of you who are already convinced that Zimmerman is guilty of a hate crime murder, on what charge should he be prosecuted? Lay out the case. Use the reasoning you would tell a judge if you were the prosecutor. Let's see where that leads. If you are all so sure, it should be easy enough.

[Symmetry]

Apart from the statement made by Zimmerman, to the police, which is by any standard, admissable as evidence. Also Martin's girlfriend's statements, also admissable as evidence.

You got conned, Scotty, again. You'd have thought that after the Planned Parenthood con, or the Shirley Sherrod nonsense, you'd be a little more skeptical about Beck and his ilk. Dude, even within this thread you were shown to have been conned by a conservative website's false photographs.

Your credulity is astonishing, and you keep going back.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Zimmerman did indeed keep following Martin after the police said "we don't need you to do that" (pay attention that this isn't an order by the police to quit pursuit BTW). Zimmerman confronts Martain and Martin punches Zimmerman in the nose, jumps on top of him and starts beating the would be neighborhood hero. Zimmerman in turn shoots Martin dead.

What crime would you propose charging Zimmerman with?

Murder 1?
Murder 2?
Manslaughter?

Keep in mind that Zimmerman had a lawful right to be walking about on the street (just as Martin did). It is also not a crime to say to someone "what are you doing?" Just as that someone has no lawful obligation to answer the the question. Did Martin have a lawful right to punch Zimmerman?
And once struck, did Zimmerman have a lawful right to defend himself, regardless of the circumstances that led to that point?

Once you start really considering these questions you can see how it's quite possible that Zimmerman can not only make the case for self defense, he can win that argument in court. Just as Martin could have won that very argument had he beaten Zimmerman to death.

No answers forthcoming Sym? What's wrong? You are quick to use ambiguous lines in a transcript to support your "case" but I give you that interpretation for the sake of argument and then ask "What's next?" Why not answer. What should Zimmerman be charged?

Any of you who are already convinced that Zimmerman is guilty of a hate crime murder, on what charge should he be prosecuted? Lay out the case. Use the reasoning you would tell a judge if you were the prosecutor. Let's see where that leads. If you are all so sure, it should be easy enough.

Yeah, you're pretty creepy, and now you're talking to yourself. I've got no clue what you're going for on this one.

An honest question, have you been drinking? Cause you've been going a bit stark raving mad over my posts for a fair bit of time now, and across several threads. Few have made sense, some have been bigoted or outright racist, as has been pointed out by other posters.

Why the crazy?

[patches70]

So he shouldn't be charged with any crime then. You don't think out your positions very well, do you? I ask a very simple question and you can't even answer it.

[Symmetry]

So he shouldn't be charged with any crime then. You don't think out your positions very well, do you? I ask a very simple question and you can't even answer it.

I choose not to, as you ask your questions in such a dickish manner. Try apologising first, then maybe I'll treat your posts with a degree of respect that they currently do not deserve.

[BigBallinStalin]

I'm so excited. More people are joining the extremes in this thread!

It's such an interesting story. The reactions from people are more interesting.

This kind of event happens often (white guy killing a black guy, and vice versa); however, if the stories conflict or if information is missing, then people fill in the gaps with their own preferred stories.

[BigBallinStalin]

Apart from the statement made by Zimmerman, to the police, which is by any standard, admissable as evidence. Also Martin's girlfriend's statements, also admissable as evidence.

You got conned, Scotty, again. You'd have thought that after the Planned Parenthood con, or the Shirley Sherrod nonsense, you'd be a little more skeptical about Beck and his ilk. Dude, even within this thread you were shown to have been conned by a conservative website's false photographs.

Your credulity is astonishing, and you keep going back.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Zimmerman did indeed keep following Martin after the police said "we don't need you to do that" (pay attention that this isn't an order by the police to quit pursuit BTW). Zimmerman confronts Martain and Martin punches Zimmerman in the nose, jumps on top of him and starts beating the would be neighborhood hero. Zimmerman in turn shoots Martin dead.

What crime would you propose charging Zimmerman with?

Murder 1?
Murder 2?
Manslaughter?

Keep in mind that Zimmerman had a lawful right to be walking about on the street (just as Martin did). It is also not a crime to say to someone "what are you doing?" Just as that someone has no lawful obligation to answer the the question. Did Martin have a lawful right to punch Zimmerman?
And once struck, did Zimmerman have a lawful right to defend himself, regardless of the circumstances that led to that point?

Once you start really considering these questions you can see how it's quite possible that Zimmerman can not only make the case for self defense, he can win that argument in court. Just as Martin could have won that very argument had he beaten Zimmerman to death.

Why did Martin supposedly strike Zimmerman in the nose? (Supposedly, because I haven't seen Zimmerman's medical records yet).

If Martin did initiate violence, was this action in self-defense as Zimmerman was reaching for his cell phone hand gun? Did Martin think that he was going to get shot, so he decidedly to act pre-emptively?

[BigBallinStalin]

General questions,

Why did Martin strike Zimmerman (assuming Zimmerman was punched)?

When did Martin strike Zimmerman?

Was Zimmerman reaching for a cell phone or hand gun? (And more importantly, how would have Martin perceived that act?

[keiths31]

General questions,

Why did Martin strike Zimmerman (assuming Zimmerman was punched)?

When did Martin strike Zimmerman?

Was Zimmerman reaching for a cell phone or hand gun? (And more importantly, how would have Martin perceived that act?

-Why? Scared kid attacking before he was attacked? Punk kid who thought he would teach this man a lesson for bothering him? Only Martin knows for sure.

-When? Have heard so many varying 911 calls. Tough one.

-Reaching for gun or phone? Only Zimmerman knows that one for sure and whether he was reaching for his gun or cell phone, I can guarantee he says it was his cell phone.


I think the Stand Your Ground Law is largely to blame here. From what I know about it, a person can defend themselves with as much force as they deem fit to any perceived threat. You claim self defense and as long as the police can't prove it wasn't, well, they can't charge you. So regardless if Zimmerman initiated the contact or not, because he felt threatened he was well with in the law. That doesn't make sense to me.

[patches70]

General questions,

Why did Martin strike Zimmerman (assuming Zimmerman was punched)?

Martian punched Zimmerman because he thought the latter was a threat of some type.

When did Martin strike Zimmerman?

I suppose a few minutes before he ended up getting shot.

Was Zimmerman reaching for a cell phone or hand gun?

Impossible for me to know or answer.

(And more importantly, how would have Martin perceived that act?

I don't know how Martin would have perceived it, I'm not him. How would you perceive Zimmerman reaching for a cell phone? A gun?

[patches70]

If Martin did initiate violence, was this action in self-defense as Zimmerman was reaching for his cell phone hand gun?

I've maintained that had the roles been reversed and Martin had killed Zimmerman, Martin would have a good chance of using a successful self defense plea. You think the prosecution would be able to prove that Zimmerman was reaching for his cell phone hand gun?

Did Martin think that he was going to get shot, so he decidedly to act pre-emptively?

Maybe, of course I'm not a mind reader or psychic. In cases of self defense, one need not have to wait for the person to attempt to harm them before acting. In fact, if you think someone is about to kill you, don't wait for him to try it before you act. The old saying applies- "I'd rather be on trial for murdering someone than they be on trial for murdering me"
Of course, "acting" doesn't mean you have to punch the would be shooter in the nose. You could make a run for it instead.

[BigBallinStalin]

"Bad" neighborhood, guy in civilian/street clothes is following me, I lose him, then approach him (based on the stories) and ask him, "why are you following me?" He asks, "what are you doing?", and then reaches for something in his jacket...?

If I was in that situation, I'd assume the person was reaching for a gun. That's the most reasonable assumption to make, according to me.

I wouldn't attack though; I'd let him take whatever. But, I'd have very likely noticed that I'm being followed, and I'd try to lose him and keep it that way. I don't want anyone getting killed if I can avoid it by running.


As an aside thought, it's strange that Martin approached Zimmerman after Zimmerman briefly lost him. Why would Martin approach the perceived threat--armed with Skittles? It could be the case that Zimmerman might have said something offensive to draw Martin toward him.

[patches70]

"Bad" neighborhood, guy in civilian/street clothes is following me, I lose him, then approach him (based on the stories) and ask him, "why are you following me?" He asks, "what are you doing?", and then reaches for something in his jacket...?

If I'd have lost the guy following me and had thought he meant me harm, I sure as hell would then approach him.

If I was in that situation, I'd assume the person was reaching for a gun. That's the most reasonable assumption to make, according to me.

And right about that time I'd be thinking it was pretty stupid of me to have come to confront the guy after I'd lost him.

I wouldn't attack though; I'd let him take whatever. But, I'd have very likely noticed that I'm being followed, and I'd try to lose him and keep it that way. I don't want anyone getting killed if I can avoid it by running.


As an aside thought, it's strange that Martin approached Zimmerman after Zimmerman briefly lost him.

yeah, it is strange, but we'll never know what happened for sure. Even after an investigation and court case is long over and done with.
For Zimmerman, it's his story and it's up to the prosecution to show otherwise. If indeed Zimmerman can show the court that Martin was on top of him and beating him, then Zimmerman will have a very good chance of beating any charges (if he's even charged with anything).
The court might think that Zimmerman was using the best of judgment during the whole thing, but once it came to blows, Zimmerman certainly has a right to defend himself.

This whole case seems more like a surreal case of a complete misunderstanding that went beyond bad. Strange things go on in people's minds when adrenaline starts pumping.....

[Symmetry]

The Zimmerman case just keeps unravelling:

Trayvon Martin shooting: It's not George Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording, 2 experts say

As the Trayvon Martin controversy splinters into a debate about self-defense, a central question remains: Who was heard crying for help on a 911 call in the moments before the teen was shot?

A leading expert in the field of forensic voice identification sought to answer that question by analyzing the recordings for the Orlando Sentinel.

His result: It was not George Zimmerman who called for help.

Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman. Another expert contacted by the Sentinel, utilizing different techniques, came to the same conclusion.

Zimmerman claims self-defense in the shooting and told police he was the one screaming for help. But these experts say the evidence tells a different story.

Good that we're on a more even keel, now I can bump this piece of analysis back to where it can be seen.

[Phatscotty]

The Zimmerman case just keeps unravelling:

Trayvon Martin shooting: It's not George Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording, 2 experts say

As the Trayvon Martin controversy splinters into a debate about self-defense, a central question remains: Who was heard crying for help on a 911 call in the moments before the teen was shot?

A leading expert in the field of forensic voice identification sought to answer that question by analyzing the recordings for the Orlando Sentinel.

His result: It was not George Zimmerman who called for help.

Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman. Another expert contacted by the Sentinel, utilizing different techniques, came to the same conclusion.

Zimmerman claims self-defense in the shooting and told police he was the one screaming for help. But these experts say the evidence tells a different story.

Good that we're on a more even keel, now I can bump this piece of analysis back to where it can be seen.

Just curious, do you think the witnesses who heard or saw the scuffle started calling 911 after the first cries for help, or before the first cries. Did that 911 call catch all the cries for help?

[Symmetry]

The Zimmerman case just keeps unravelling:

Trayvon Martin shooting: It's not George Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording, 2 experts say

As the Trayvon Martin controversy splinters into a debate about self-defense, a central question remains: Who was heard crying for help on a 911 call in the moments before the teen was shot?

A leading expert in the field of forensic voice identification sought to answer that question by analyzing the recordings for the Orlando Sentinel.

His result: It was not George Zimmerman who called for help.

Tom Owen, forensic consultant for Owen Forensic Services LLC and chair emeritus for the American Board of Recorded Evidence, used voice identification software to rule out Zimmerman. Another expert contacted by the Sentinel, utilizing different techniques, came to the same conclusion.

Zimmerman claims self-defense in the shooting and told police he was the one screaming for help. But these experts say the evidence tells a different story.

Good that we're on a more even keel, now I can bump this piece of analysis back to where it can be seen.

Just curious, do you think the witnesses who heard or saw the scuffle started calling 911 after the first cries for help, or before the first cries. Did that 911 call catch all the cries for help?

Not sure in either direction. Just posting the evidence as reported.

[Night Strike]

Glenn Beck is a carnival barker. He's a fucking joke. There is a reason people who watch Fox News are less informed than those who don't.

You've bought into the big lie. Fox News viewers are "less informed" because the criteria for being "informed" is whatever the government says is the correct answer. People should be skeptical of what the government says and does.

By the way, if you're using Glenn Beck to indict Fox News viewers, why was he saying the same things on CNN HLN? Why does he continue to say the same things now that he is no longer on Fox News and instead has his own web channel?

[thegreekdog]

I'm so excited. More people are joining the extremes in this thread!

It's such an interesting story. The reactions from people are more interesting.

This kind of event happens often (white guy killing a black guy, and vice versa); however, if the stories conflict or if information is missing, then people fill in the gaps with their own preferred stories.

You know the guy isn't white right?

The reactions are definitely more interesting. I posted a link in this thread (page 15?, who knows) about some white UK guy murdered in the US by a black guy. Not only didn't the president comment on the incident, but no one here has commented. Natty and Symm haven't commented on how the black guy was racist. Phatscotty hasn't commented on how the black guy was using appropriate force.

[Symmetry]

I'm so excited. More people are joining the extremes in this thread!

It's such an interesting story. The reactions from people are more interesting.

This kind of event happens often (white guy killing a black guy, and vice versa); however, if the stories conflict or if information is missing, then people fill in the gaps with their own preferred stories.

You know the guy isn't white right?

The reactions are definitely more interesting. I posted a link in this thread (page 15?, who knows) about some white UK guy murdered in the US by a black guy. Not only didn't the president comment on the incident, but no one here has commented. Natty and Symm haven't commented on how the black guy was racist. Phatscotty hasn't commented on how the black guy was using appropriate force.

Dude was arrested, tried, and found guilty of the crime. How is that in anyway similar to a case in which protests and arguments revolve primarily around justice not being served?

[thegreekdog]

I'm so excited. More people are joining the extremes in this thread!

It's such an interesting story. The reactions from people are more interesting.

This kind of event happens often (white guy killing a black guy, and vice versa); however, if the stories conflict or if information is missing, then people fill in the gaps with their own preferred stories.

You know the guy isn't white right?

The reactions are definitely more interesting. I posted a link in this thread (page 15?, who knows) about some white UK guy murdered in the US by a black guy. Not only didn't the president comment on the incident, but no one here has commented. Natty and Symm haven't commented on how the black guy was racist. Phatscotty hasn't commented on how the black guy was using appropriate force.

Dude was arrested, tried, and found guilty of the crime. How is that in anyway similar to a case in which protests and arguments revolve primarily around justice not being served?

It's not similar. I'm not sure what your point is.

You and Natty are certainly not commenting in this thread because the shooter wasn't arrested, wasn't tried, and wasn't found guitly. Or are you? Why aren't you commenting on other, similar killings?

[Symmetry]

I'm so excited. More people are joining the extremes in this thread!

It's such an interesting story. The reactions from people are more interesting.

This kind of event happens often (white guy killing a black guy, and vice versa); however, if the stories conflict or if information is missing, then people fill in the gaps with their own preferred stories.

You know the guy isn't white right?

The reactions are definitely more interesting. I posted a link in this thread (page 15?, who knows) about some white UK guy murdered in the US by a black guy. Not only didn't the president comment on the incident, but no one here has commented. Natty and Symm haven't commented on how the black guy was racist. Phatscotty hasn't commented on how the black guy was using appropriate force.

Dude was arrested, tried, and found guilty of the crime. How is that in anyway similar to a case in which protests and arguments revolve primarily around justice not being served?

It's not similar. I'm not sure what your point is.

You and Natty are certainly not commenting in this thread because the shooter wasn't arrested, wasn't tried, and wasn't found guitly. Or are you? Why aren't you commenting on other, similar killings?

Bizarre argument- it's precisely why this case has gained prominence that the shooter wasn't arrested, or tried. I'm a little surprised as to how you missed that. There were protests and everything.

Which similar killings (that obviously you have been investing time in) would you suggest I look in to?

[thegreekdog]

Bizarre argument- it's precisely why this case has gained prominence that the shooter wasn't arrested, or tried. I'm a little surprised as to how you missed that. There were protests and everything.

Which similar killings (that obviously you have been investing time in) would you suggest I look in to?

Any unsolved murders in the United States. Any unprosecuted muders in the United States.

The case gained prominence because the initial reports indicated that a young black child was killed by a white man in an unprovocated fashion and because the president and prominent African American leaders commented on it and then conservatives commented on it.

The first part of this happens often and happens often in my area of the United States. People are murdered with startingly high regularity in Philadelphia and Camden (my area). Young black children are murdered in my area. The president doesn't comment on it. The national news media doesn't comment on it. African American leaders don't comment on it. Conservative news media doesn't comment on it.

As I've indicated any number of times in this thread, this story should not have received any national press at all. Maybe it should have, but then so do all these other cases and stories.

[Night Strike]

The guy wasn't arrested, muchless tried, because the law specifically states that if law enforcement has reason to believe the Stand Your Ground was appropriately applied, they cannot arrest the person. The police do not have the power to go around arresting people without also charging them for a crime, and preliminary investigations did not provide conclusive enough information to lead to an immediate arrest. The prosecutor has not charged Zimmerman, so he can't just be arrested. If the grand jury decides there is enough evidence to press charges, he can then be arrested. It is against his constitutional rights to arrest him before then (even though Al Sharpton's mob wants to deny him his rights).