Current Events > Almost 4 years later, how do you feel about the George Zimmerman verdict?

(+) Yeah! (+)

KStateKing17 posted...

But in the case of Trayvon potentially calling the police, I'm talking about response. How long did it take for police to come to the neighborhood to respond to Zimmerman's call compared to when someone called about the scuffle and the gunshot? That's what I mean when I say they don't respond until something happens.

I don't see how this is relevant. Let alone how it justfies attempting to murder people in the street.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

KStateKing17 posted...

But in the case of Trayvon potentially calling the police, I'm talking about response. How long did it take for police to come to the neighborhood to respond to Zimmerman's call compared to when someone called about the scuffle and the gunshot? That's what I mean when I say they don't respond until something happens.

I don't see how this is relevant. Let alone how it justfies attempting to murder people in the street.

I was answering to the part where you said if he was worried he should have called the police, which in this particular case could have helped him.

But like what was said before, it was close to where his dad lived, so taking into account that he felt he was being followed by some unknown man, he wouldn't want to bring it there where his brother and dad stayed. That's where he went back and the question "is there a problem" comes up. He's already felt threatened by Zimmerman following him, if I remember correctly, they saw each other before George left his car. So if that's the case, then Martin would possibly felt that he was targeted in some way. If one knows/believes (can't ask trayvon since he's gone) that a non emergency call won't get a proper response, then the police wouldn't be considered an effective solution. How their conversation went through beyond the few sentences given, only those two know, but getting back to what the op was asking, Zimmerman was not guilty of murder, and rightly so, but the jury definitely considered manslaughter based off the response one of the jurors gave about taking a long time to look over, but not seeing a reason for an intent to murder. Which is why some here are arguing that the decisions of Zimmerman (following and intimidating if the prosecution wanted to reach for that one) did play a part in the confrontation, whether it was unlawful or not.
---

KStateKing17 posted...

I was answering to the part where you said if he was worried he should have called the police, which in this particular case could have helped him.

But like what was said before, it was close to where his dad lived, so taking into account that he felt he was being followed by some unknown man, he wouldn't want to bring it there where his brother and dad stayed.

This doesn't add up.

It's a gated community, he doesn't normally live there and he had lost Zimmerman.

He then turned round, ambushed and prevented Zimmerman from leaving.

Not only are his actions morally wrong, they are not consistant with a man who is concerned about his dad being followed.

Not to mention even if you pull the "He was just so afraid for his dad's safety" line, that still doesn't justify attempted murder

, Zimmerman was not guilty of murder, and rightly so, but the jury definitely considered manslaughter based off the response one of the jurors gave about taking a long time to look over, but not seeing a reason for an intent to murder. Which is why some here are arguing that the decisions of Zimmerman (following and intimidating if the prosecution wanted to reach for that one) did play a part in the confrontation, whether it was unlawful or not.

The Juror wanted attention and was getting flack for her call.

All the arguments that rebuked murder also rebuke manslaughter because the crux of the argument was the obvious fact it was self-defense.

Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and threatened to kill him, Zimmerman defended himself. You can phrase that in whatever honeyed words you want but its still not manslaughter and "Maybe Trayvon just thought the police would take too long!" is just dangerous fan-fiction to justify felony assault and attempted murder
---

How doesn't it add up? If you're being followed by a stranger who you've made eyes with to the place you're staying, then you'd be worried. It's not too far out to believe someone finding out where you live won't have negative consequences.

He doesn't normally live there, which makes it more worrying when you're in an unknown place and some stranger has been following you for whatever reason.

The jurors were anonymous, how would people give her issues if her name or face wasn't given?
---

KStateKing17 posted...

How doesn't it add up? If you're being followed by a stranger who you've made eyes with to the place you're staying

For a start that didn't happen. Zimmerman did not follow Trayvon home nor know where he lived.

, then you'd be worried. It's not too far out to believe someone finding out where you live won't have negative consequences.

Which is why if he had called the cops nobody would have accused him of wasting police time.

"I had to go kill that guy because I was nervous." is beyond pathetic as an excuse and you know it. That's not good enough

He doesn't normally live there, which makes it more worrying when you're in an unknown place and some stranger has been following you for whatever reason.

Speculation and irrelevant to all events.

The jurors were anonymous, how would people give her issues if her name or face wasn't given?

Because she was doing interviews and getting flack for it. The whole Jury were which is why the authorities have tried to protect them.

Her point was "Well now everyone is mad at me I'll say I think Zimmerman did it but there was no evidence to suggest this"

Which means he is still not guilty of manslaughter

It's a stupid point from a stupid girl who doesn't like the fact people responded the way they did in media. Guess what, Zimmerman didn't either
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

As in like when he told the dispatcher he was following him and then later got out of his car to follow him some more after losing him?

Which was the same incident.

We've been over this and you ran away.

It's like arguing it was actually 500 boughts of following because he kept blinking. That's now how the law works.

"that's not how the law works". Unless you have case law to substantiate your claims then your claims are invalid.
---

Trayvon LITERALLY RAN FROM ZIMMERMAN and ZImmerman followed. TRAYVON RAN. Not walked away, he RAN. Why do people RUN from strangers? The only reason Zimmerman got off without charges is solely because the only witness could not testify.
---

PokemonHunter69 posted...

Was completely self-defense, Tmart turned out to be a violent thug especially based on his social media photos of himself with guns and drugs.

That just sounds like the average American.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

As in like when he told the dispatcher he was following him and then later got out of his car to follow him some more after losing him?

Which was the same incident.

We've been over this and you ran away.

It's like arguing it was actually 500 boughts of following because he kept blinking. That's now how the law works.

"that's not how the law works". Unless you have case law to substantiate your claims then your claims are invalid.

It's funny seeing you try to argue how law works.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

"that's not how the law works". Unless you have case law to substantiate your claims then your claims are invalid.

I have done throughout the topic and you ran away.

IIRC whining about a typo.

Marmitecashews posted...

PokemonHunter69 posted...

Was completely self-defense, Tmart turned out to be a violent thug especially based on his social media photos of himself with guns and drugs.

That just sounds like the average American.

Yeah I never understood the obsession with people trying to either paint Trayvon as a choirboy or as a gun-toting drug dealing gangbanger.


Aside from establishing his violent history which is relevant, whether or not he was planning to get high is irrelevant to the fact he attacked a dude
---

A young man was robbed of his life by a trigger happy vigilante who bit off more than he can chew. He was then a victim of overzealous prosecution. A real tragedy
---

FrisbeeDude posted...

A young man was robbed of his life by a trigger happy vigilante who bit off more than he can chew. He was then a victim of overzealous prosecution. A real tragedy

Trayvon wasn't "robbed" he threw his life away when he ambushed and attacked a man

You're insulting real victims when you say that.
---

We're just going to have to agree to disagree with a lot of those, but this is day five. We might actually end up beating the number of days the actual trial went through, and quite frankly I don't see the point going back and forth all weekend.

You all have a nice day.
---

KStateKing17 posted...

We're just going to have to agree to disagree with a lot of those, but this is day five. We might actually end up beating the number of days the actual trial went through, and quite frankly I don't see the point going back and forth all weekend.

You all have a nice day.

Because there are some things which shouldn't be contested opinions

When you people say "Its okay to attack strangers for the crime of walking down the street, it's morally wrong to defend yourself and it's right that we ruin their lives." you're advocating serious evil and darkness which then people who listen to you and respect you take on board.

Now people simutaniously hate the courts for upholding law and think it's okay to murder people they dislike.

These are really bad things and need to be stood against. No one goes "There's no point in us discussing this!" unless they are not as confident in their views as they think and just don't want their worldview shattered.

Well your worldview hurts people. So it will be challenged
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

FrisbeeDude posted...

A young man was robbed of his life by a trigger happy vigilante who bit off more than he can chew. He was then a victim of overzealous prosecution. A real tragedy

Trayvon wasn't "robbed" he threw his life away when he ambushed and attacked a man

You're insulting real victims when you say that.

Cool bro
---

I dont take Zimmermans version of events at face value
---

ReignFury posted...

I dont take Zimmermans version of events at face value

Nobody did.

Good thing all the evidence completely backed him up.

But you have that world view to protect so you won't even look at the case for 3 seconds.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

ReignFury posted...

I dont take Zimmermans version of events at face value

Nobody did.

Good thing all the evidence completely backed him up.

But you have that world view to protect so you won't even look at the case for 3 seconds.

Theres no evidence to show who initiated contact or what was said between them.
---

ReignFury posted...

Theres no evidence to show who initiated contact or what was said between them.

Actually there is. Considerable evidence.

The starting point is Zimmerman's word but the fact most of what he said has been colaborated with evidence, be it witnesses or forensenics or other makes his word likely.

Another is Trayvon's girlfriend whose account over the phone primarily agrees with Zimmerman (some of the wording is different but the beats of the exchange are the same, Travyon approaches, says something, Zim responds, Travon responds, smackdown.)

Then there's the forensic evidence. Travyon had no marks, scratches or bruises or wounds beyond his bruised knuckles and bulletwound, Zimmerman's injury both his nose and scratches on the back of the head are consistent with what he said occured, sucker punch - mounted punches - his head hit the floor. Again backing up his word.

There were no signs based on their clothes, bruises, injuries or the ground that there was a fight or a struggle beyond a sucker-punch and mounted punching.

The location and timing of the attack also adds up, which is backed up by the various calls, police, girlfriend, witnesses and the 7-11 CCTV timer

The way Zimmerman reacted after Trayvon was shot is consistent with what he said and backed by witnesses.

When Zimmerman was first interviewed by police they falsely told him the entire incident was filmed. His response was "OH thank God!"

There's also weaker but not irrelevant circumstanial evidence.

Travyon Martin was someone with a history of racism and violence.

Zimmerman was overweight and someone with a history of being utterly embarrasing physically. With his MMA trainer (something the media latched onto) saying he was soft, overweight, unathletic, unagressive, skillless, weak and a 1/10 who could barely run let alone fight.

Again backing up his word.

On top of all this, you need to prove guilt, not prove innocence. So he's not guilty by default.

But all the strong existing evidence absolutely dominates that his word was correct. At least in the key areas that are relevant to the question of what happened.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

ReignFury posted...

Theres no evidence to show who initiated contact or what was said between them.

Actually there is. Considerable evidence.

The starting point is Zimmerman's word but the fact most of what he said has been colaborated with evidence, be it witnesses or forensenics or other makes his word likely.

Another is Trayvon's girlfriend whose account over the phone primarily agrees with Zimmerman (some of the wording is different but the beats of the exchange are the same, Travyon approaches, says something, Zim responds, Travon responds, smackdown.)

Then there's the forensic evidence. Travyon had no marks, scratches or bruises or wounds beyond his bruised knuckles and bulletwound, Zimmerman's injury both his nose and scratches on the back of the head are consistent with what he said occured, sucker punch - mounted punches - his head hit the floor. Again backing up his word.

There were no signs based on their clothes, bruises, injuries or the ground that there was a fight or a struggle beyond a sucker-punch and mounted punching.

The location and timing of the attack also adds up, which is backed up by the various calls, police, girlfriend, witnesses and the 7-11 CCTV timer

The way Zimmerman reacted after Trayvon was shot is consistent with what he said and backed by witnesses.

When Zimmerman was first interviewed by police they falsely told him the entire incident was filmed. His response was "OH thank God!"

There's also weaker but not irrelevant circumstanial evidence.

Travyon Martin was someone with a history of racism and violence.

Zimmerman was overweight and someone with a history of being utterly embarrasing physically. With his MMA trainer (something the media latched onto) saying he was soft, overweight, unathletic, unagressive, skillless, weak and a 1/10 who could barely run let alone fight.

Again backing up his word.

On top of all this, you need to prove guilt, not prove innocence. So he's not guilty by default.

But all the strong existing evidence absolutely dominates that his word was correct. At least in the key areas that are relevant to the question of what happened.

Yes he got beaten up, my question was what was said between them and who initiated it, im not inviting another page of confirmation bias im being very specific. From memory much of the testimony didnt check out, thats not surprising that she would skew it in Trayvons favor and thats the initial assumption I made of Zimmerman, that his version would put him in the best light. Also Trayvon told her that he was being followed through the park, thats important context that you omitted. The confrontation could have been racially charged such as the initial profiling, or it could have been out of fear or anger, or like youve solely implied he was a thug wanting a fight.
---

ReignFury posted...

Yes he got beaten up, my question was what was said between them and who initiated it,

Yes?

And the evidence I just listed that you ignored said Trayvon.

This is my point, you're too lazy to read if you fear it challenges your worldview.

ReignFury posted...

Also Trayvon told her that he was being followed through the park, thats important context that you omitted.

No one denied that. What are you on about? Zimmerman followed Trayvon, lost him, Trayvon got home, turned round, followed and ambushed Zimmerman.

ReignFury posted...

The confrontation could have been racially charged such as the initial profiling, or it could have been out of fear or anger, or like youve solely implied he was a thug wanting a fight.

And it could have been done by aliens with magic ray guns or the magical powers of Jesus

There is no evidence to support this however and a tidal-wave of evidence that demonstrates what the confrontation was and how it started + ended.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman said or did anything to attack Trayvon. None. It's just fan-fiction on your part.

Fan-fiction in the face of hard facts
---

Zimmerman was allowed to kill Trayvon because he was getting beaten up, I dont really have an issue with that. My issue is that Trayvon was minding his business walking home and wasn't doing anything illegal, he challenged Zimmerman on why he was following him and it escalated into a fight. The angry tone Zimmerman took on the phone to dispatchers doesnt sit right with me because he could have continued that train of thought and baited Trayvon into making a move and none of us would know it.
---

ReignFury posted...

Zimmerman was allowed to kill Trayvon because he was getting beaten up, I dont really have an issue with that. My issue is that Trayvon was minding his business walking home and wasn't doing anything illegal,

And neither was Zimmerman.

he challenged Zimmerman on why he was following him and it escalated into a fight.

See this is dishonest. It didn't "escalate" he escalated it by punching a man in the face. At that moment he wasn't "Minding his own businsess walking home" he was commiting felony assault and probably attempted murder.

If he had survived he would be in prison. If he was an adult and survived he'd be in prison likely for decades.

The angry tone Zimmerman took on the phone to dispatchers doesnt sit right with me because he could have continued that train of thought and baited Trayvon into making a move and none of us would know it.

There is no evidence to support this and an enormous wave of evidence that destroys this.

What part of that are you not getting? You're creating fan-fiction because you prefer it to reality. That's not healthy, it's harmful.

You don't get to ignore the evidence and go "That doesn't sit right with me. Maybe Zimmerman actually said "In going to rape your dad lololololololol" and Trayvon just slipped and landed on him!" is silly.

And it's dangerous, that logic leads to "Maybe Muslim terrorist didn't do 9/11, it was actually George Bush and the Pentagon doing a false-flag. Yeah I don't need to see evidence, the whole thing doesn't sit right because I don't like the fact the towers fell."

Stop it. That way madness lies.

To quote Fred Durst

"Sometimes, somethings, turn in, to dumb things and that's when you put your foot down."

Trayvon was a something that turned into a dumb thing. You don't keep your foot up at this point
---

If you want to know my world view I question motives on both sides, even my own view, same with politics, because I dont want to be an echo for one train of thought.

Id like to challenge your source for the timeline where Trayvon went home and came back to set an ambush, thats very specific so lets see how it corroborates with the phone data:

-Trayvon is running away at 7:11:33
-Zimmerman loses him between 7:12 and 7:13:10
-The first calls for the gunshot are at 7:16:11
---

ReignFury posted...

If you want to know my world view I question motives on both sides,

1. I don't believe you at all

2. That's not how it works. "I question motives" is fine and dandy but when a gun is smoking it was fired.

You don't get to ignore evidence and create your own stories because you "qustion motives."

Id like to challenge your source for the timeline where Trayvon went home and came back to set an ambush, thats very specific so lets see how it corroborates with the phone data:

-Trayvon is running away at 7:11:33
-Zimmerman loses him between 7:12 and 7:13:10
-The first calls for the gunshot are at 7:16:11

Off hand I'm not sure what the timing was when he reached his home or even if we know for sure as it would be based on the recollection of his girlfriend. But it fits into that time frame perfectly.

Zimmerman lost Travyon, Trayvon got home, deciding to go back after Zimmerman, went back, hid behind a bush, ambushed Zimmerman and then was shot.

That taking 2-4 minutes fits perfectly.
---

Trayvon running away from Zimmerman (who was following him) doesnt seem to fit the thug Trayvon narrative.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

ReignFury posted...

If you want to know my world view I question motives on both sides,

1. I don't believe you at all

2. That's not how it works. "I question motives" is fine and dandy but when a gun is smoking it was fired.

You don't get to ignore evidence and create your own stories because you "qustion motives."

Id like to challenge your source for the timeline where Trayvon went home and came back to set an ambush, thats very specific so lets see how it corroborates with the phone data:

-Trayvon is running away at 7:11:33
-Zimmerman loses him between 7:12 and 7:13:10
-The first calls for the gunshot are at 7:16:11

Off hand I'm not sure what the timing was when he reached his home or even if we know for sure as it would be based on the recollection of his girlfriend. But it fits into that time frame perfectly.

Zimmerman lost Travyon, Trayvon got home, deciding to go back after Zimmerman, went back, hid behind a bush, ambushed Zimmerman and then was shot.

That taking 2-4 minutes fits perfectly.

Ok legitimate question how far was his house from the location in the park where he was shot?
---

ReignFury posted...

Trayvon running away from Zimmerman (who was following him) doesnt seem to fit the thug Trayvon narrative.

Then don't have a "Thug Trayvon Narrative"

Simple.
---

ReignFury posted...

Ok legitimate question how far was his house from the location in the park where he was shot?

https://viewfromll2.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/zimmermanmap.png

100 meters maybe?
---

https://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-map-911-call-timing.jpg

Ok I dont know how accurate this is but heres a map, its plausible but likely? Ill have a closer look later
---

ReignFury posted...

https://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-map-911-call-timing.jpg

Ok I dont know how accurate this is but heres a map, its plausible but likely? Ill have a closer look later

Unfair will choose to ignore this because he keeps saying he "made it home and went back out" even though this was never stated anywhere by anyone.
---

RighteousTip posted...

ReignFury posted...

https://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-map-911-call-timing.jpg

Ok I dont know how accurate this is but heres a map, its plausible but likely? Ill have a closer look later

Unfair will choose to ignore this because he keeps saying he "made it home and went back out" even though this was never stated anywhere by anyone.

Except it was by Rachel Jeantal "He said he's not gonna run, cause he said he's right by his father's house…"
---

RighteousTip posted...

ReignFury posted...

https://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-map-911-call-timing.jpg

Ok I dont know how accurate this is but heres a map, its plausible but likely? Ill have a closer look later

Unfair will choose to ignore this because he keeps saying he "made it home and went back out" even though this was never stated anywhere by anyone.

That was testimony of the girl on the phone, she says on the transcript that he was right by his fathers house, now does that mean 300 yards away or or on his fathers doorstep? making either assumption means you assume she is a credible witness. So then if we assume shes telling the truth then this is the timeline around that statement:

http://www.johnrickford.com/Writings/JeantelsLanguageZimmermanTrial/JeantelTranscript/tabid/1406/Default.aspx

- Trayvon starts running away from a guy who he says is following him
- Trayvon starts walking because he believes he has lost him, he's breathing hard at this point
- Dee tells him to keep running, but he says hes right by his fathers house
- After a few minutes Trayvon says the man is "followin’ him again, behind him"
- She tells him to run, he refuses, she believes it's because he is breathing hard
- Trayvon says the guy is getting real close to him. Trayvon says “What are you following me for?”
- The man replies "What you doing around here?"

Those last two lines are corroborated by the witnesses on the scene. So if you believe that Trayvon went inside his home then came back out (with his drink and skittles) to launch an ambush, how does he ambush a man who is following behind him?

The main problem with her version of events is that she was a trainwreck witness who changed her story several times. People on both sides cherry picked what to report and what to omit to best suits their narrative, she had a changing evolving story that makes both look guilty depending on your bias.
---

ReignFury posted...

That was testimony of the girl on the phone, she says on the transcript that he was right by his fathers house, now does that mean 300 yards away or or on his fathers doorstep? making either assumption means you assume she is a credible witness. So then if we assume shes telling the truth then this is the timeline around that statement:

And I'm good with that. But he never "went back out" and that's what Unfair keeps claiming. He "made it home" and then "went back out to hide in a bush."
---

RighteousTip posted...

ReignFury posted...

https://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-map-911-call-timing.jpg

Ok I dont know how accurate this is but heres a map, its plausible but likely? Ill have a closer look later

Unfair will choose to ignore this because he keeps saying he "made it home and went back out" even though this was never stated anywhere by anyone.

The court case and evidence says he did. Not me.

I also posted the same map before he did you fool. Actually listen instead of burying yourself head deep in a worldview


ReignFury posted...

Those last two lines are corroborated by the witnesses on the scene. So if you believe that Trayvon went inside his home then came back out (with his drink and skittles) to launch an ambush, how does he ambush a man who is following behind him?

I never said he went inside his home. I said he got home.

And because Zimmerman was looking the wrong way and it was dark.

Please for the love of God stop just googling "Arguments that support Trayvon" and then just copying what you find. Look at the case and listen to people.
---

Trayvon killed 0 people
Zimmerman killed 1 people

Killing is bad.

gmanthebest posted...

RighteousTip posted...

ReignFury posted...

https://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-map-911-call-timing.jpg

Ok I dont know how accurate this is but heres a map, its plausible but likely? Ill have a closer look later

Unfair will choose to ignore this because he keeps saying he "made it home and went back out" even though this was never stated anywhere by anyone.

Except it was by Rachel Jeantal "He said he's not gonna run, cause he said he's right by his father's house…"

"he's right by"

Not "at". Also, that whole block is right by his father's house. That also makes it sound like he was afraid he was going to go after his family.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

RighteousTip posted...

ReignFury posted...

https://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-map-911-call-timing.jpg

Ok I dont know how accurate this is but heres a map, its plausible but likely? Ill have a closer look later

Unfair will choose to ignore this because he keeps saying he "made it home and went back out" even though this was never stated anywhere by anyone.

The court case and evidence says he did. Not me.

I also posted the same map before he did you fool. Actually listen instead of burying yourself head deep in a worldview


ReignFury posted...

Those last two lines are corroborated by the witnesses on the scene. So if you believe that Trayvon went inside his home then came back out (with his drink and skittles) to launch an ambush, how does he ambush a man who is following behind him?

I never said he went inside his home. I said he got home.

And because Zimmerman was looking the wrong way and it was dark.

Please for the love of God stop just googling "Arguments that support Trayvon" and then just copying what you find. Look at the case and listen to people.

"I said he got home. " and where was this substantiated? We don't know if he got home or if he was near home, hell "at" could mean the gated community and he was telling her he was in that area so she knew he wasn't on the other side of town right now and why he was trying to lose him to begin with.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

"I said he got home. " and where was this substantiated?

In the court case throughout all the evidence we've been talking about over and over and over that you keep childishly ignoring

Christ.

Please either look into the case or don't join in the convsersation, refusing to listen and then demanding everyone repeat the points you refuse to listen too is irritating:

UnfairRepresent posted...

The starting point is Zimmerman's word but the fact most of what he said has been colaborated with evidence, be it witnesses or forensenics or other makes his word likely.

Another is Trayvon's girlfriend whose account over the phone primarily agrees with Zimmerman (some of the wording is different but the beats of the exchange are the same, Travyon approaches, says something, Zim responds, Travon responds, smackdown.)

Then there's the forensic evidence. Travyon had no marks, scratches or bruises or wounds beyond his bruised knuckles and bulletwound, Zimmerman's injury both his nose and scratches on the back of the head are consistent with what he said occured, sucker punch - mounted punches - his head hit the floor. Again backing up his word.

There were no signs based on their clothes, bruises, injuries or the ground that there was a fight or a struggle beyond a sucker-punch and mounted punching.

The location and timing of the attack also adds up, which is backed up by the various calls, police, girlfriend, witnesses and the 7-11 CCTV timer

The way Zimmerman reacted after Trayvon was shot is consistent with what he said and backed by witnesses.

When Zimmerman was first interviewed by police they falsely told him the entire incident was filmed. His response was "OH thank God!"

There's also weaker but not irrelevant circumstanial evidence.

Travyon Martin was someone with a history of racism and violence.

Zimmerman was overweight and someone with a history of being utterly embarrasing physically. With his MMA trainer (something the media latched onto) saying he was soft, overweight, unathletic, unagressive, skillless, weak and a 1/10 who could barely run let alone fight.

Again backing up his word.

On top of all this, you need to prove guilt, not prove innocence. So he's not guilty by default.

But all the strong existing evidence absolutely dominates that his word was correct. At least in the key areas that are relevant to the question of what happened.

And TM's girlfriend saying he got home colaborates that.

Saying "Maybe he didn't reach his door, maybe he reached his front lawn and then turned around and ambushed Zimmerman" changes nothing

He was home, he was safe, he was alone.

Then he went after and ambushed Zimmerman. That's an established fact as much as much as the existence of George Bush Sr is
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

RighteousTip posted...

ReignFury posted...

https://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-map-911-call-timing.jpg

Ok I dont know how accurate this is but heres a map, its plausible but likely? Ill have a closer look later

Unfair will choose to ignore this because he keeps saying he "made it home and went back out" even though this was never stated anywhere by anyone.

The court case and evidence says he did. Not me.

I also posted the same map before he did you fool. Actually listen instead of burying yourself head deep in a worldview


ReignFury posted...

Those last two lines are corroborated by the witnesses on the scene. So if you believe that Trayvon went inside his home then came back out (with his drink and skittles) to launch an ambush, how does he ambush a man who is following behind him?

I never said he went inside his home. I said he got home.

And because Zimmerman was looking the wrong way and it was dark.

Please for the love of God stop just googling "Arguments that support Trayvon" and then just copying what you find. Look at the case and listen to people.

"I said he got home. " and where was this substantiated? We don't know if he got home or if he was near home, hell "at" could mean the gated community and he was telling her he was in that area so she knew he wasn't on the other side of town right now and why he was trying to lose him to begin with.

He allegedly told her he was right by his fathers house, now that could be construed as right outside the house in which case you could say he went home and came back out to hunt the man down and launch his ambush, but the rest of her chronological testimony doesn't support that theory. Alternatively you could argue that her timeline is mixed up or confused in which case her testimony would not reliable.

I'm far more interested in the specifics of the transcripts than some condescending interpretation.
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

And TM's girlfriend saying he got home colaborates that.

She didn't say that though.
---

ReignFury posted...

He allegedly told her he was right by his fathers house, now that could be construed as right outside the house in which case you could say he went home and came back out to hunt the man down and launch his ambush, but the rest of her chronological testimony doesn't support that theory. Alternatively you could argue that her timeline is mixed up or confused in which case her testimony would not reliable.

See this is where you Travyon defenders fall flat and become the same as religious creationists.

You ignore all the facts and ignore everyone making them. Disregarding evidence. Then pick one single thing, demand it proves your point. Then when that fails you move on to another and demand that proves your point. All the while ignoring everything else and everything that was said.

First off her testimony is unreliable because she was so inconsistent, biased and bad at communicating. But that doesn't change how some the details are true across all accounts and fit in the evidence.

This is basic 101 understanding of historical events and you should have taught it when you were 8 years old. IF one letter says "We went to the Frog March on April 6th 1205 and it was shit because the sun was beaing so badly that the hear ruined the parade." and another says "We went to the Frog March on APril 6th 1205 and it was canceled due to raining." Its still a historical fact that the Frog March occured on April 6th 1205

I shouldn't have to explain this to you. You can't go "Well there was an inconsistency in the account so throw every thing I don't like out" that's religious insanity

Tray went to the 7/11, Saw Zimmerman, breif exchange, ran away, got home, turned around, went after Zimmerman, attacked him.

You're going "Maybe she lied and Trayvon didn't actually get to his front door, he just got NEAR his home, then turned around, followed and attacked Zimmerman!"

And have forgotten to realize that

1. It's a moot point. The actual facts and details are the same.

2. The rest of the evidence that you've purposefully ignored supports that he made it. The time passing, the location of the attack, Zimmerman/Trayvon's conversation.

For Trayvon NOT to have made it home, and NOT to have turned around and assulted Zimmerman means Zimmerman, Travyon's girlfriend, the witnesses and the police are all lying, the forensic evidence was faked

And it also means Zimmerman and Trayvon engaged in some kind of Charlie Chaplin/Albert and Costello routine where they both with their backs to each other walked in circles for 2 minutes.

Will you do me a favor and take 14 seconds to reflect on yourself and ask "Why am I trying so hard to intentionally ignore facts just to push something I want to be true over reality?"

I know you won't, but your life would be better if you did
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

First off her testimony is unreliable

You literally cited it as well.
---

Case and point.
---

DawkinsNumber4 posted...

UnfairRepresent posted...

First off her testimony is unreliable

You literally cited it as well.

He also cited her testimony as proof that Trayvon went home, lending to the theory that he he went home then left his house to hunt the man down and ambush him.
---

ReignFury posted...

He allegedly told her he was right by his fathers house, now that could be construed as right outside the house in which case you could say he went home and came back out to hunt the man down and launch his ambush, but the rest of her chronological testimony doesn't support that theory. Alternatively you could argue that her timeline is mixed up or confused in which case her testimony would not reliable.

I'm far more interested in the specifics of the transcripts than some condescending interpretation.

None of this is even remotely relevant to the facts and evidence of the case...
---

UnfairRepresent posted...

ReignFury posted...

He allegedly told her he was right by his fathers house, now that could be construed as right outside the house in which case you could say he went home and came back out to hunt the man down and launch his ambush, but the rest of her chronological testimony doesn't support that theory. Alternatively you could argue that her timeline is mixed up or confused in which case her testimony would not reliable.

See this is where you Travyon defenders fall flat and become the same as religious creationists.

You ignore all the facts and ignore everyone making them. Disregarding evidence. Then pick one single thing, demand it proves your point. Then when that fails you move on to another and demand that proves your point. All the while ignoring everything else and everything that was said.

First off her testimony is unreliable because she was so inconsistent, biased and bad at communicating. But that doesn't change how some the details are true across all accounts and fit in the evidence.

This is basic 101 understanding of historical events and you should have taught it when you were 8 years old. IF one letter says "We went to the Frog March on April 6th 1205 and it was shit because the sun was beaing so badly that the hear ruined the parade." and another says "We went to the Frog March on APril 6th 1205 and it was canceled due to raining." Its still a historical fact that the Frog March occured on April 6th 1205

I shouldn't have to explain this to you. You can't go "Well there was an inconsistency in the account so throw every thing I don't like out" that's religious insanity

Tray went to the 7/11, Saw Zimmerman, breif exchange, ran away, got home, turned around, went after Zimmerman, attacked him.

You're going "Maybe she lied and Trayvon didn't actually get to his front door, he just got NEAR his home, then turned around, followed and attacked Zimmerman!"

And have forgotten to realize that

1. It's a moot point. The actual facts and details are the same.

2. The rest of the evidence that you've purposefully ignored supports that he made it. The time passing, the location of the attack, Zimmerman/Trayvon's conversation.

For Trayvon NOT to have made it home, and NOT to have turned around and assulted Zimmerman means Zimmerman, Travyon's girlfriend, the witnesses and the police are all lying, the forensic evidence was faked

And it also means Zimmerman and Trayvon engaged in some kind of Charlie Chaplin/Albert and Costello routine where they both with their backs to each other walked in circles for 2 minutes.

Will you do me a favor and take 14 seconds to reflect on yourself and ask "Why am I trying so hard to intentionally ignore facts just to push something I want to be true over reality?"

I know you won't, but your life would be better if you did

If I filter through this diatribe you still haven't countered any points or timelines that I've cited. The bolded part is the problem, we both suggested she isn't a reliable witness but you still cherry picked points that you say "fit in the evidence" which is basically an admission of confirmation bias, you don't "fit in the evidence" to meet your preferred outcome.
---

rickjameslich posted...

None of this is even remotely relevant to the facts and evidence of the case...

Nothin he has said is.

He's just not listening to people because he doesn't like reality.

It's silly.
---

rickjameslich posted...

ReignFury posted...

He allegedly told her he was right by his fathers house, now that could be construed as right outside the house in which case you could say he went home and came back out to hunt the man down and launch his ambush, but the rest of her chronological testimony doesn't support that theory. Alternatively you could argue that her timeline is mixed up or confused in which case her testimony would not reliable.

I'm far more interested in the specifics of the transcripts than some condescending interpretation.

None of this is even remotely relevant to the facts and evidence of the case...

Wait, so what he was telling her that night wasn't relevant? or do you mean it wasn't relevant because she wasn't a reliable witness? if shes not reliable then saying Trayvon was by his dads house isn't a reliable statement. If we're demonizing Trayvon then we can say shes unreliable except for the part where he went home because that makes it look like he went back for revenge.
---

ReignFury posted...

Wait, so what he was telling her that night wasn't relevant? or do you mean it wasn't relevant because she wasn't a reliable witness? if shes not reliable then saying Trayvon was by his dads house isn't a reliable statement. If we're demonizing Trayvon then we can say shes unreliable except for the part where he went home because that makes it look like he went back for revenge.

This was literally answered in the previous post and you ignored the answer childishly


First off her testimony is unreliable because she was so inconsistent, biased and bad at communicating. But that doesn't change how some the details are true across all accounts and fit in the evidence.

This is basic 101 understanding of historical events and you should have taught it when you were 8 years old. IF one letter says "We went to the Frog March on April 6th 1205 and it was shit because the sun was beaing so badly that the hear ruined the parade." and another says "We went to the Frog March on APril 6th 1205 and it was canceled due to raining." Its still a historical fact that the Frog March occured on April 6th 1205

I shouldn't have to explain this to you. You can't go "Well there was an inconsistency in the account so throw every thing I don't like out" that's religious insanity

Tray went to the 7/11, Saw Zimmerman, breif exchange, ran away, got home, turned around, went after Zimmerman, attacked him.

You're going "Maybe she lied and Trayvon didn't actually get to his front door, he just got NEAR his home, then turned around, followed and attacked Zimmerman!"

And have forgotten to realize that

1. It's a moot point. The actual facts and details are the same.

2. The rest of the evidence that you've purposefully ignored supports that he made it. The time passing, the location of the attack, Zimmerman/Trayvon's conversation.

For Trayvon NOT to have made it home, and NOT to have turned around and assulted Zimmerman means Zimmerman, Travyon's girlfriend, the witnesses and the police are all lying, the forensic evidence was faked

And it also means Zimmerman and Trayvon engaged in some kind of Charlie Chaplin/Albert and Costello routine where they both with their backs to each other walked in circles for 2 minutes.

Will you do me a favor and take 14 seconds to reflect on yourself and ask "Why am I trying so hard to intentionally ignore facts just to push something I want to be true over reality?"

I know you won't, but your life would be better if you did


This is the point. You ignore facts and reality because you want to believe something else.

going "In one interview she said he got home and in another she said he got nearly home." doesn't mean you can dimiss her testimony especially when it colaborates with the other evidence AND is a moot point to begin with.
---