George Zimmerman Arrested On Domestic Violence And Weapons Charge

[Nexus]

How do you know Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin, thus starting the physical altercation that escalated.

The evidence fits that scenario best. He was angry that night because of his wife, his "they always get away" quote, the tone of his voice to the dispatch and telling her he was following despite being asked not to and the fact he was a wannbe cop and a lone self appointed neighborhood watch. Given all that plus his now well documented violent tendencies, its clear he wasn't following Martin to passively observe.

 

[Rhea]

Okay, I understand some people have a problem understanding the differences between similarly defined words, such as "self-defense" and "lethal self-defense". But you'll just need to take our word for it... the difference is big enough that the statement you made is incorrect.

And of course, there is the whole... not suffering much in the way of actual injuries from the "ground and pound" beat down that Zimmerman claimed to be receiving.

There was abundant physical evidence of a ground pounding and no injuries on Martin other than the gunshot wound.

Nope there was not abundant evident. There were a couple of scratches on Zimmerman. He needed no medical treatment, no stitches, had no concussion. I've been beat up worse by my siblings.

 

[EPresence2]

How do you know Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin, thus starting the physical altercation that escalated.

The evidence fits that scenario best. He was angry that night because of his wife, his "they always get away" quote, the tone of his voice to the dispatch and telling her he was following despite being asked not to and the fact he was a wannbe cop and a lone self appointed neighborhood watch. Given all that plus his now well documented violent tendencies, its clear he wasn't following Martin to passively observe.

And how does this sort of argument play out in court? There are multiple interpretations of "they always get away" in terms of what Zimmerman intended. Your asserted conclusion is by no means clear.

 

[EPresence2]

There was abundant physical evidence of a ground pounding and no injuries on Martin other than the gunshot wound.

Nope there was not abundant evident. There were a couple of scratches on Zimmerman. He needed no medical treatment, no stitches, had no concussion. I've been beat up worse by my siblings.

Bullshit - there was more than that Rhea - http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zim...heds-light-injuries-trayvon/story?id=16353532. Does the guy have to wait for unconsciousness to defend himself (if second scenario is true)? One hit in the right place on the back of the head can knock you out. You also knew your siblings and (I hope) doubted they would kill you.

 

[Rhea]

The evidence fits that scenario best. He was angry that night because of his wife, his "they always get away" quote, the tone of his voice to the dispatch and telling her he was following despite being asked not to and the fact he was a wannbe cop and a lone self appointed neighborhood watch. Given all that plus his now well documented violent tendencies, its clear he wasn't following Martin to passively observe.

And how does this sort of argument play out in court? There are multiple interpretations of "they always get away" in terms of what Zimmerman intended. Your asserted conclusion is by no means clear.

Can you describe one that does not indicate his interest in and willingness to chase down the innocent teen?

 

[coloradoatheist]

There was abundant physical evidence of a ground pounding and no injuries on Martin other than the gunshot wound.

Nope there was not abundant evident. There were a couple of scratches on Zimmerman. He needed no medical treatment, no stitches, had no concussion. I've been beat up worse by my siblings.

And we also have cases where people have seemed perfectly fine and coherent after head injuries and then find out they had serious concussions and in some cases death. It's not up to the person to have to make the decision, three hits to the head is okay, but on the fourth one that I get to use self-defense.

 

[EPresence2]

And how does this sort of argument play out in court? There are multiple interpretations of "they always get away" in terms of what Zimmerman intended. Your asserted conclusion is by no means clear.

Can you describe one that does not indicate his interest in and willingness to chase down the innocent teen?

That is your interpretation of that statement - it could have referred to an intention to follow. You are the one being biased here. I don't know which is more likely beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

In other states maybe, but in Florida? Lock 'n load baby!

Is that also coming from the side that said having your head bashed a couple of times and hit a few times wasn't enough to justify self-defense killing somebody you were stalking?

FIFY

 

[Rhea]

Nope there was not abundant evident. There were a couple of scratches on Zimmerman. He needed no medical treatment, no stitches, had no concussion. I've been beat up worse by my siblings.

Bullshit - there was more than that Rhea - http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zim...heds-light-injuries-trayvon/story?id=16353532. Does the guy have to wait for unconsciousness to defend himself (if second scenario is true)? One hit in the right place on the back of the head can knock you out. You also knew your siblings and (I hope) doubted they would kill you.

Oh, please. You can see the pictures of him after the crime yourself.
I've had my nose broken 3 times, I know what it feels like, and Zimmerman has it happen and "fears for his life"? His injuries are not consistent with his claim. Zimmerman was in MMA training, for the love of reason, and he can't handle himself in a fistfight that he started?

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by EPresence2 View Post
And how does this sort of argument play out in court? There are multiple interpretations of "they always get away" in terms of what Zimmerman intended. Your asserted conclusion is by no means clear.

Can you describe one that does not indicate his interest in and willingness to chase down the innocent teen?

That is your interpretation of that statement - it could have referred to an intention to follow. You are the one being biased here. I don't know which is more likely beyond a reasonable doubt.

I asked you to provide an alternative interpretation. Can you?
The "intention to follow" reasonably makes him into a creeper in the eyes of his victim, who will have the right to self defense.

 

[EPresence2]

Bullshit - there was more than that Rhea - http://abcnews.go.com/US/george-zim...heds-light-injuries-trayvon/story?id=16353532. Does the guy have to wait for unconsciousness to defend himself (if second scenario is true)? One hit in the right place on the back of the head can knock you out. You also knew your siblings and (I hope) doubted they would kill you.

Oh, please. You can see the pictures of him after the crime yourself.
I've had my nose broken 3 times, I know what it feels like, and Zimmerman has it happen and "fears for his life"? His injuries are not consistent with his claim. Zimmerman was in MMA training, for the love of reason, and he can't handle himself in a fistfight that he started?

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by EPresence2 View Post
And how does this sort of argument play out in court? There are multiple interpretations of "they always get away" in terms of what Zimmerman intended. Your asserted conclusion is by no means clear.

Can you describe one that does not indicate his interest in and willingness to chase down the innocent teen?

That is your interpretation of that statement - it could have referred to an intention to follow. You are the one being biased here. I don't know which is more likely beyond a reasonable doubt.

I asked you to provide an alternative interpretation. Can you?

What part of "intention to follow" (as opposed to follow and detain) did you not understand? He needed the police to detain, unless he was truly that stupid. You don't know Z started the fist fight, and neither did Rachel.... for the love of reason indeed.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Okay, I understand some people have a problem understanding the differences between similarly defined words, such as "self-defense" and "lethal self-defense". But you'll just need to take our word for it... the difference is big enough that the statement you made is incorrect.

And of course, there is the whole... not suffering much in the way of actual injuries from the "ground and pound" beat down that Zimmerman claimed to be receiving.

There was abundant physical evidence of a ground pounding and no injuries on Martin other than the gunshot wound.

You mean the FATAL one?

If Zimmerman stays in the vehichle, does any of this happen?

Zimmerman ignores police advice
Zimmerman arms himself
Zimmerman gets out of his truck and follows Martin
Zimmerman puts himself in a situation his actions created
Zimmerman gets himself involved with a physical altercation with a kid smaller than himself, but evidently he can only successful fight females.
Zimmerman shoots and kills unarmed youth who's only crime that day was doing a favor for his kid brother.

 

[Nexus]

That is your interpretation of that statement - it could have referred to an intention to follow.

But its wasn't considering all the other things I listed about Zimmerman. And besides we don't have to hypothesize what Zimmerman intended to do. We know that he killed him and given his other violent confrontations with people the most likely is Zimmerman violently engaged Martin just like the other five people in his past and future.

I don't find it plausible that a guy with that many violent incidences and run ins with the police just happen to kill a man the one night he kept his cool and was truly blameless.

 

[Rhea]

I asked you to provide an alternative interpretation. Can you?

What part of "intention to follow" (as opposed to follow and detain) did you not understand? He needed the police to detain, unless he was truly that stupid.

Oh I understand it all right. Following someone in the dark is an action you think is reasonable and won't trigger fear in the pursued person? Especially if you come around the building and show up in front of the person who thought he'd lost you? How is this different from "chasing down" which is the phrase I used.

You still don't think it was reasonable for Martin to be alarmed and act in self defense when confronted with the creeper for the second time?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Okay, I understand some people have a problem understanding the differences between similarly defined words, such as "self-defense" and "lethal self-defense". But you'll just need to take our word for it... the difference is big enough that the statement you made is incorrect.

And of course, there is the whole... not suffering much in the way of actual injuries from the "ground and pound" beat down that Zimmerman claimed to be receiving.

There was abundant physical evidence of a ground pounding and no injuries on Martin other than the gunshot wound.

No black eye or broken nose. Mild bleeding on the scalp that could in theory have been cause be being pushed and falling on to the sidewalk. His injuries were not life threatening. They weren't even that bad. His face was a little puffy. That Martin was uninjured just indicates Zimmerman was losing, not in danger for his life.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

What part of "intention to follow" (as opposed to follow and detain) did you not understand? He needed the police to detain, unless he was truly that stupid. You don't know Z started the fist fight, and neither did Rachel.... for the love of reason indeed.

Are you not seeing the danger of following somebody and failing to identify yourself and your intentions? Let say you follow a woman down a dark alley. She knows you are following her. She asks you why you are following her; you do not answer but continue to approach. Should she be prepared to defend herself?

 

[ksen]

The evidence fits that scenario best. He was angry that night because of his wife, his "they always get away" quote, the tone of his voice to the dispatch and telling her he was following despite being asked not to and the fact he was a wannbe cop and a lone self appointed neighborhood watch. Given all that plus his now well documented violent tendencies, its clear he wasn't following Martin to passively observe.

And how does this sort of argument play out in court? There are multiple interpretations of "they always get away" in terms of what Zimmerman intended. Your asserted conclusion is by no means clear.

I see your open mind still has you vigorously defending zimmerman.

 

[Deepak]

What part of "intention to follow" (as opposed to follow and detain) did you not understand? He needed the police to detain, unless he was truly that stupid.

Oh I understand it all right. Following someone in the dark is an action you think is reasonable and won't trigger fear in the pursued person? Especially if you come around the building and show up in front of the person who thought he'd lost you? How is this different from "chasing down" which is the phrase I used.

You still don't think it was reasonable for Martin to be alarmed and act in self defense when confronted with the creeper for the second time?

I'm sure that the answer will be consistent with EPresence2's daughter, sister, or mother playing the part of Martin.

 

[Mumbles]

What part of "intention to follow" (as opposed to follow and detain) did you not understand? He needed the police to detain, unless he was truly that stupid. You don't know Z started the fist fight, and neither did Rachel.... for the love of reason indeed.

Yeah...here's the thing. Zimmerman's alternate story is that "the suspect" (suspected of what, who knows.) left the area, then came back and circled his car, and then ran away again, and then came back yet again, and *then* attacked him. To put it mildly, this story is stupid.

Again, the argument is that Zimmerman started a fight (as he has a long record of doing), lost, and then killed the random guy that he started to fight. Although, considering that only one person claims to have seen Martin on top of Zimmerman, and the fallibility of human memory, it could have been even worse than that, easily.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What part of "intention to follow" (as opposed to follow and detain) did you not understand? He needed the police to detain, unless he was truly that stupid. You don't know Z started the fist fight, and neither did Rachel.... for the love of reason indeed.

Are you not seeing the danger of following somebody and failing to identify yourself and your intentions? Let say you follow a woman down a dark alley. She knows you are following her. She asks you why you are following her; you do not answer but continue to approach. Should she be prepared to defend herself?

Yeah, but she probably wanted to be followed, but then changed her mind and lied about it. Whoops, sorry... wrong thread.

 

[EPresence2]

What part of "intention to follow" (as opposed to follow and detain) did you not understand? He needed the police to detain, unless he was truly that stupid.

Oh I understand it all right. Following someone in the dark is an action you think is reasonable and won't trigger fear in the pursued person? Especially if you come around the building and show up in front of the person who thought he'd lost you? How is this different from "chasing down" which is the phrase I used.

You still don't think it was reasonable for Martin to be alarmed and act in self defense when confronted with the creeper for the second time?

If the "stalker" hasn't done anything (physically) to you yet, then physical self-defense isn't warranted. How would that play out in Court if GZ had been more severely beaten or killed (with Martin on trial)? Martin - "I punched him because he was creepy dude following me too much" Since when is a preemptive strike okay?