George Zimmerman Arrested On Domestic Violence And Weapons Charge

[ksen]

I'm keeping an open mind until it is forced closed with evidence.

Uh huh. It's weird how that open mind keeps going with the side that kills black boys/men.

 

[EPresence2]

I'm keeping an open mind until it is forced closed with evidence.

Uh huh. It's weird how that open mind keeps going with the side that kills black boys/men.

Show me where I claimed one or the other side was actually correct. I'll bet you can't find it. And if you do find it, I take it back

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Uh huh. It's weird how that open mind keeps going with the side that kills black boys/men.

Show me where I claimed one or the other side was actually correct. I'll bet you can't find it. And if you do find it, I take it back

You pretty much equated two potential hypotheses.

- GZ could have attempted a detainment of TM before he got away, followed by the physical altercation and wounds on Zimmerman.
- It could also be that TM attempted to put a beat down on the "creepy cracker" for following him.

The light you put Zimmerman under is that he may have overstepped a bit, then tragedy... or on the other hand, Martin tried to beat down Zimmerman brutally (of which there is little evidence to suggest that). You are definitely swaying a bias in one direction.

 

[EPresence2]

Show me where I claimed one or the other side was actually correct. I'll bet you can't find it. And if you do find it, I take it back

You pretty much equated two potential hypotheses.

- GZ could have attempted a detainment of TM before he got away, followed by the physical altercation and wounds on Zimmerman.
- It could also be that TM attempted to put a beat down on the "creepy cracker" for following him.

The light you put Zimmerman under is that he may have overstepped a bit, then tragedy... or on the other hand, Martin tried to beat down Zimmerman brutally (of which there is little evidence to suggest that). You are definitely swaying a bias in one direction.

The former implies GZ was indeed a stupid murderer. Does that help the appearance of bias? Zimmerman is guilty of something in either case. And there is most definitely a preponderance of evidence for a beat down. What I said is also not claiming one hypothesis is correct. Most folks on this forum believe the former hypothesis to be true.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You pretty much equated two potential hypotheses.

- GZ could have attempted a detainment of TM before he got away, followed by the physical altercation and wounds on Zimmerman.
- It could also be that TM attempted to put a beat down on the "creepy cracker" for following him.

The light you put Zimmerman under is that he may have overstepped a bit, then tragedy... or on the other hand, Martin tried to beat down Zimmerman brutally (of which there is little evidence to suggest that). You are definitely swaying a bias in one direction.

The former implies GZ was indeed a stupid murderer. Does that help the appearance of bias? Zimmerman is guilty of something in either case.

Not really.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin. The evidence more suggest that he panicked and killed Martin to save his life that he wasn't actually in danger of losing. Zimmerman was a substantial contributor to the death of Martin, and that goes well beyond him shooting the teen. Zimmerman could have made two or three different decisions that night that would have led to no one dying.

 

[Rhea]

Uh huh. It's weird how that open mind keeps going with the side that kills black boys/men.

Show me where I claimed one or the other side was actually correct. I'll bet you can't find it. And if you do find it, I take it back

At no time have you entertained the possibility that everything Martin did was a reasonable reaction to the fear of being chased in the dark by a stranger. You say, "maybe he got pissed" you say, "maybe he turned and beat down" to perhaps "teach him a lesson." But at no time in any post of yours that I can find do you offer the benefit of the possibility that Martin was defending himself reasonably. Not once.

That is how I conclude that you have come down on one side over the other.

At no point ever in any of your comments do you ever suggest that Martin was correct to defend himself from a thug. It's actually the most probably scenario that fits the evidence, but you don't even accept it as possible, let alone probable. You fail to - even once - list "reasonable self-defense" as a possible motive for Martin, and when anyone else brings it up, you fail to answer. You posit, _either_ Zimmerman was correct to follow or Martin got angry/pissed and retaliated. But you do not include the possibility of reasonable self- defense. Not sure why. Everything that happened to Martin was on the way home. Everything that Zimmerman did was out of his way to follow.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

The former implies GZ was indeed a stupid murderer. Does that help the appearance of bias? Zimmerman is guilty of something in either case.

Not really.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin. The evidence more suggest that he panicked and killed Martin to save his life that he wasn't actually in danger of losing. Zimmerman was a substantial contributor to the death of Martin, and that goes well beyond him shooting the teen. Zimmerman could have made two or three different decisions that night that would have led to no one dying.

Yep. What Rhea said. Martin had every reason to fight under Florida law. He was being stalked by a creeper who failed to identify himself or his intent. Martin could assume this man meant him harm.

 

[semiopen]

Z1 was just racist. Killing is a various serious offense and killers are rightly removed from society.

It's interesting that in the aftermath, we now can be relatively certain that cops often kill people for no good reason. Personally I was not completely convinced before (On the nature of often). Along with that is the bullshit that police work is hazardous. It's as hazardous as dozens of other professions.

Now the racist bullshit is neutral; I guess that's progress.

 

[EPresence2]

Show me where I claimed one or the other side was actually correct. I'll bet you can't find it. And if you do find it, I take it back

At no time have you entertained the possibility that everything Martin did was a reasonable reaction to the fear of being chased in the dark by a stranger. You say, "maybe he got pissed" you say, "maybe he turned and beat down" to perhaps "teach him a lesson." But at no time in any post of yours that I can find do you offer the benefit of the possibility that Martin was defending himself reasonably. Not once.

That is how I conclude that you have come down on one side over the other.

At no point ever in any of your comments do you ever suggest that Martin was correct to defend himself from a thug. It's actually the most probably scenario that fits the evidence, but you don't even accept it as possible, let alone probable. You fail to - even once - list "reasonable self-defense" as a possible motive for Martin, and when anyone else brings it up, you fail to answer. You posit, _either_ Zimmerman was correct to follow or Martin got angry/pissed and retaliated. But you do not include the possibility of reasonable self- defense. Not sure why. Everything that happened to Martin was on the way home. Everything that Zimmerman did was out of his way to follow.

Rhea, if the former scenario is correct - Martin was justified in defending himself. That could be implied from the scenario, as presented. Have you seriously considered the plausibility for the second scenario? I sure haven't heard that in this case, or the Ferguson case. Your bias is unapologetic it seems.

- - - Updated - - -

The former implies GZ was indeed a stupid murderer. Does that help the appearance of bias? Zimmerman is guilty of something in either case.

Not really.

There is no evidence that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin. The evidence more suggest that he panicked and killed Martin to save his life that he wasn't actually in danger of losing. Zimmerman was a substantial contributor to the death of Martin, and that goes well beyond him shooting the teen. Zimmerman could have made two or three different decisions that night that would have led to no one dying.

Maybe "murder" is too strong a word. Zimmerman certainly made some poor decisions and should have been convicted on appropriate charges.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

At no time have you entertained the possibility that everything Martin did was a reasonable reaction to the fear of being chased in the dark by a stranger. You say, "maybe he got pissed" you say, "maybe he turned and beat down" to perhaps "teach him a lesson." But at no time in any post of yours that I can find do you offer the benefit of the possibility that Martin was defending himself reasonably. Not once.

That is how I conclude that you have come down on one side over the other.

At no point ever in any of your comments do you ever suggest that Martin was correct to defend himself from a thug. It's actually the most probably scenario that fits the evidence, but you don't even accept it as possible, let alone probable. You fail to - even once - list "reasonable self-defense" as a possible motive for Martin, and when anyone else brings it up, you fail to answer. You posit, _either_ Zimmerman was correct to follow or Martin got angry/pissed and retaliated. But you do not include the possibility of reasonable self- defense. Not sure why. Everything that happened to Martin was on the way home. Everything that Zimmerman did was out of his way to follow.

Rhea, if the former scenario is correct - Martin was justified in defending himself. That could be implied from the scenario, as presented.

Here is the trouble. The first scenario is incomplete and somewhat irrelevent. We know Zimmerman was stalking Martin in his vehicle. We know Zimmerman got out of the vehicle and went to continue following Martin. Martin has a right to self-defense. Someone is going to lengths to follow him. This is fact. This isn't in dispute. Just some people want to pretend it isn't relevant.

Your second scenario only becomes active once Zimmerman identifies himself and explains what is going on. Zimmerman never claims he did this.

 

[EPresence2]

Rhea, if the former scenario is correct - Martin was justified in defending himself. That could be implied from the scenario, as presented.

Here is the trouble. The first scenario is incomplete and somewhat irrelevent. We know Zimmerman was stalking Martin in his vehicle. We know Zimmerman got out of the vehicle and went to continue following Martin. Martin has a right to self-defense. Someone is going to lengths to follow him. This is fact. This isn't in dispute. Just some people want to pretend it isn't relevant.

Your second scenario only becomes active once Zimmerman identifies himself and explains what is going on. Zimmerman never claims he did this.

I think you are mischaracterizing the scenarios. The primary difference is who started the physical altercation that escalated - not who was following whom. I wasn't disputing that GZ was following TM. I sense the mischaracterization train getting up steam again.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Rhea, if the former scenario is correct - Martin was justified in defending himself. That could be implied from the scenario, as presented.

Here is the trouble. The first scenario is incomplete and somewhat irrelevent. We know Zimmerman was stalking Martin in his vehicle. We know Zimmerman got out of the vehicle and went to continue following Martin. Martin has a right to self-defense. Someone is going to lengths to follow him. This is fact. This isn't in dispute. Just some people want to pretend it isn't relevant.

Your second scenario only becomes active once Zimmerman identifies himself and explains what is going on. Zimmerman never claims he did this.

I'm sorry I disagree with that. You don't have a right to hit someone just because the followed you. His duty would have been to call 9/11 and tell the dispatcher that someone was following you and please have an officer check it out.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here is the trouble. The first scenario is incomplete and somewhat irrelevent. We know Zimmerman was stalking Martin in his vehicle. We know Zimmerman got out of the vehicle and went to continue following Martin. Martin has a right to self-defense. Someone is going to lengths to follow him. This is fact. This isn't in dispute. Just some people want to pretend it isn't relevant.

Your second scenario only becomes active once Zimmerman identifies himself and explains what is going on. Zimmerman never claims he did this.

I'm sorry I disagree with that. You don't have a right to hit someone just because the followed you. His duty would have been to call 9/11 and tell the dispatcher that someone was following you and please have an officer check it out.

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

 

[coloradoatheist]

I'm sorry I disagree with that. You don't have a right to hit someone just because the followed you. His duty would have been to call 9/11 and tell the dispatcher that someone was following you and please have an officer check it out.

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?

 

[Rhea]

Rhea, if the former scenario is correct - Martin was justified in defending himself. That could be implied from the scenario, as presented. Have you seriously considered the plausibility for the second scenario? I sure haven't heard that in this case, or the Ferguson case. Your bias is unapologetic it seems.

I seriously considered it at length over hundreds of pages and thousands of posts last spring. I concluded after that lengthy consideration that evidence does not support any justification for any of Zimmerman's actions in any way after the initial call to police while still inside his truck. Everything he did after that point was an unjustified action that put Martin in mortal danger for no reason.

 

[Rhea]

Here is the trouble. The first scenario is incomplete and somewhat irrelevent. We know Zimmerman was stalking Martin in his vehicle. We know Zimmerman got out of the vehicle and went to continue following Martin. Martin has a right to self-defense. Someone is going to lengths to follow him. This is fact. This isn't in dispute. Just some people want to pretend it isn't relevant.

Your second scenario only becomes active once Zimmerman identifies himself and explains what is going on. Zimmerman never claims he did this.

I'm sorry I disagree with that. You don't have a right to hit someone just because the followed you. His duty would have been to call 9/11 and tell the dispatcher that someone was following you and please have an officer check it out.

Until the guy (Z) jumps out at you (M) and grabs you, then you start waling on him to defend yourself against his attack. You do have that right.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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?

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.

 

[EPresence2]

Rhea, if the former scenario is correct - Martin was justified in defending himself. That could be implied from the scenario, as presented. Have you seriously considered the plausibility for the second scenario? I sure haven't heard that in this case, or the Ferguson case. Your bias is unapologetic it seems.

I seriously considered it at length over hundreds of pages and thousands of posts last spring. I concluded after that lengthy consideration that evidence does not support any justification for any of Zimmerman's actions in any way after the initial call to police while still inside his truck. Everything he did after that point was an unjustified action that put Martin in mortal danger for no reason.

How do you know Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin, thus starting the physical altercation that escalated. I seriously considered the issue in a different forum last spring as well. But how can I corroborate that for you, and for you to do likewise? The strength of your words or mine is only as strong as "we" share the same evidence and logic - not how much we claim to have researched the issue.

 

[EPresence2]

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?

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.

 

[Rhea]

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

It makes more sense. Zimmerman already demonstrated he was after Martin, Martin already demonstrated he was trying to get away.
He was heard to say "get off me" on the phone.
Zimmerman was not actually hurt beyond a scratch.

plus a bunch more. That's enough to start.
Zimmerman's entire account is implausible
and his own words in his own voice on police recording show his intent.