|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On December 05 2012 07:57 mortonm wrote:I feel like a broken record here, but your delusional fantasies are impossible given the known timeline of events. To make matters worse you have no consistent story and change your lies from one post to the next. Unfortunately for you no matter how you bend and twist, no amount of lies can make the publicly available evidence disappear. "George Zimmerman loses sight of Trayvon Martin at 2:38 of the call, or about 7:13:50. Martin has until 7:16 to cover the “few dozen yards” to make it to the safety of Brandy Green’s residence. Zimmerman remains on the phone until 7:15:24. Martin’s girlfriend said the phone call went “dead” at 7:16, but Martin and Zimmerman were already exchanging words. According to Martin’s girlfriend, the conversation was initiated by Martin. The window between the end of Zimmerman’s call to the SPD and the meeting is brief. Really brief.
"Martin had over two minutes to reach Green residence. Why didn’t he go there? This suggests strongly that Martin did not go to the Green residence, but instead hid somewhere, waiting for Zimmerman, and then confronted Zimmerman. Martin spoke first to Zimmerman, not the other way around."
http://floppingaces.net/2012/04/03/the-martinzimmerman-timeline-reader-post/
Why you keep saying the word lie? What lie? You have created a new account just to post in this thread, do you have some sort of vested interest in making sure people don't think Zimmerman was a murderer?
That post is merely speculation. What you are saying is some guys blog is factually correct. Now whos lying? What he deduces is a really big stretch, its plausible but its a huge stretch. Its definitely very very far from fact.
His conclusion is basically this, that Martin ran away and hid, and then confronted Zimmerman as he was walking back to his car.
What is wrong with his post?
- This post assumes that Martin knew where Zimmerman's car was parked.
- He predicts what Martin should have done when we have no idea what was going on his mind at the time
- He predicts that Martin did not hide for the sake of protecting himself, and that running away was a better option
- That what Zimmerman said, was true.
- It assumes that Martin would have the foresight to hide and intercept Zimmerman because he KNOWS that Zimmerman would walk back to his car (the dumbest part)
You can tell when someone is full of shit, when they use someones blog, and a mere speculation at that as "proof", as if its an open and shut case.
Where does it prove that Zimmerman went back to his car? Just because he said ok in a telephone call means nothing.
If Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin, then how could Martin have hid and come back to find Zimmerman unless Zimmerman was also actively looking for Martin?
It seems a long stretch to say that Martin ran away and hid so that he could confront Zimmerman while he was walking back to the car. We don't even know if Martin knew where or what his car was or that he could even see Zimmerman while he was hiding.
A more likely story is that Martin tried to hide, while Zimmerman actively looked for Martin and eventually found him, and then Martin initiated the conversation.
The wierdest part is that Zimmerman suspected Martin of brandishing a gun, and then he chased him (wouldn't 99.999% of people do the opposite?). It sounds like he wanted a confrontration and excuse to be a "hero", and shoot if he got attacked.
|
Slugga, take the style of attack you've just applied to the blog and apply it in reverse to statements you have made about this case, for example:
Zimmerman is a racist lunatic
confront someone aggressively.....Martin was clearly running away, and Zimmerman was chasing him
Its Zimmermans own damn fault for confronting Martin
Diagnosed by his family physician. I can get my doctor to write a medical certificate so I can get an extension to a test without actually being sick.
And realise that YOU have no more evidence for the conclusions you've drawn, in fact a lot less in most instances (e.g. racist lunatic comment, that the doctor has provided an untruthful diagnosis), than those drawn in the blog.
Now consider that the onus of proof is on the prosecution to prove their case theory and rebut the presumption of innocence and your arguments fall flat on their face.
You use exaggerated, emotive, sensationalist claims and language in practically every post you make on this topic. Do you really need me to quote every specific example for you?
|
On December 05 2012 08:47 sluggaslamoo wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 05 2012 07:57 mortonm wrote:I feel like a broken record here, but your delusional fantasies are impossible given the known timeline of events. To make matters worse you have no consistent story and change your lies from one post to the next. Unfortunately for you no matter how you bend and twist, no amount of lies can make the publicly available evidence disappear. "George Zimmerman loses sight of Trayvon Martin at 2:38 of the call, or about 7:13:50. Martin has until 7:16 to cover the “few dozen yards” to make it to the safety of Brandy Green’s residence. Zimmerman remains on the phone until 7:15:24. Martin’s girlfriend said the phone call went “dead” at 7:16, but Martin and Zimmerman were already exchanging words. According to Martin’s girlfriend, the conversation was initiated by Martin. The window between the end of Zimmerman’s call to the SPD and the meeting is brief. Really brief.
"Martin had over two minutes to reach Green residence. Why didn’t he go there? This suggests strongly that Martin did not go to the Green residence, but instead hid somewhere, waiting for Zimmerman, and then confronted Zimmerman. Martin spoke first to Zimmerman, not the other way around."
http://floppingaces.net/2012/04/03/the-martinzimmerman-timeline-reader-post/ Why you keep saying the word lie? What lie? You have created a new account just to post in this thread, do you have some sort of vested interest in making sure people don't think Zimmerman was a murderer? That post is merely speculation. What you are saying is some guys blog is factually correct. Now whos lying? What he deduces is a really big stretch, its plausible but its a huge stretch. Its definitely very very far from fact. His conclusion is basically this, that Martin ran away and hid, and then confronted Zimmerman as he was walking back to his car. What is wrong with his post? - This post assumes that Martin knew where Zimmerman's car was parked. - He predicts what Martin should have done when we have no idea what was going on his mind at the time - He predicts that Martin did not hide for the sake of protecting himself, and that running away was a better option - That what Zimmerman said, was true. - It assumes that Martin would have the foresight to hide and intercept Zimmerman because he KNOWS that Zimmerman would walk back to his car (the dumbest part) You can tell when someone is full of shit, when they use someones blog, and a mere speculation at that as "proof", as if its an open and shut case. Where does it prove that Zimmerman went back to his car? Just because he said ok in a telephone call means nothing. If Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin, then how could Martin have hid and come back to find Zimmerman unless Zimmerman was also actively looking for Martin? It seems a long stretch to say that Martin ran away and hid so that he could confront Zimmerman while he was walking back to the car. We don't even know if Martin knew where or what his car was or that he could even see Zimmerman while he was hiding. A more likely story is that Martin tried to hide, while Zimmerman actively looked for Martin and eventually found him, and then Martin initiated the conversation. The wierdest part is that Zimmerman suspected Martin of brandishing a gun, and then he chased him (wouldn't 99.999% of people do the opposite?). It sounds like he wanted a confrontration and excuse to be a "hero", and shoot if he got attacked.
I say lie because you continually say things which are wrong, then when confronted about how wrong you are you just make up more things that are wrong. Apparently you are being wrong on purpose, as the facts proving the things you say wrong are readily available in the OP. Saying things which are wrong on purpose is called "lying".
The timestamps in the link I mentioned are from the police recordings. You can verify them yourself.
The timestamps show unequivocally that Trayvon had over two minutes to put distance between himself and Zimmerman.
Zimmerman sustained wounds in a beating while the only wounds on Trayvon were scraped knuckles from striking Zimmerman in the face and a gunshot wound from Zimmerman defending himself.
Furthermore the location where Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman is out in the middle of the open lawns where the sidewalk was, an impossible place to hide. Zimmerman could not have discovered Trayvon in a hiding spot in this location, it only would be possible if Trayvon initiated the confrontation.
+ Show Spoiler [point by point rebuttal hidden for bre…] +On December 05 2012 08:47 sluggaslamoo wrote:
- This post assumes that Martin knew where Zimmerman's car was parked.
No it doesn't. The shooting didn't even take place in sight of his car. And Trayvon knew where the car was anyways: he saw Zimmerman get out of it. Your extreme ignorance of the case is showing again. On December 05 2012 08:47 sluggaslamoo wrote:
- He predicts what Martin should have done when we have no idea what was going on his mind at the time
He correctly notes that Trayvon had already twarted his pursuer and had two minutes to do what he wanted, but for some reason stayed in the area and ended up assaulting Zimmerman. His state of mind is not relevant, as Zimmerman was justified in defending himself regardless of why Trayvon attacked him. On December 05 2012 08:47 sluggaslamoo wrote:
- He predicts that Martin did not hide for the sake of protecting himself, and that running away was a better option
If he hid, he came out of hiding to attack Zimmerman. The location of the confrontation is the middle of lawns between houses the open area with a paved walkway. Furthermore he was talking to his girlfriend on the phone at the time, which would not make a good hiding spot. It is more likely he doubled back. On December 05 2012 08:47 sluggaslamoo wrote:
- That what Zimmerman said, was true. The timestamps and the fact that Zimmerman stopped chasing can be verified by the police tape. There is no need to take Zimmerman's word on it. The only time Zimmerman's testimony is relevant it is also verified by the girlfriend who was talking to Trayvon: that is the fact that Trayvon spoke first in the confrontation. On December 05 2012 08:47 sluggaslamoo wrote:
- It assumes that Martin would have the foresight to hide and intercept Zimmerman because he KNOWS that Zimmerman would walk back to his car (the dumbest part) It assumes no such thing. That is a preposterous strawman. It points out that the timeline shows Trayvon attacked within less than 30 seconds after Zimmerman hung up the phone. Assaulting a guy after he was standing talking on the phone for two minutes requires no great foresight. On December 05 2012 08:47 sluggaslamoo wrote:
You can tell when someone is full of shit, when they use someones blog, and a mere speculation at that as "proof", as if its an open and shut case. Everything I have used in this argument is 100% verifiable fact directly from police recordings. The blog provides a nice timeline, but you can check it yourself with the police tapes. You can do the same with the girlfriend's testimony, the wounds from the autopsy, police report, etc. Meanwhile you have repeatedly lied over and over again, saying absurdly untrue things. Then just jumping to a new lie when proven wrong. Not once have you provided any factual basis for your posts, just lies and rampant fantasy based on nothing. On December 05 2012 08:47 sluggaslamoo wrote:
If Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin, then how could Martin have hid and come back to find Zimmerman unless Zimmerman was also actively looking for Martin? Zimmerman was standing in the open talking to police. Trayvon disappeared into a dark alley between houses, and Zimmerman on the recording even doesn't want to give his personal details because he is aware that Trayvon could be lurking somewhere within earshot. On December 05 2012 08:47 sluggaslamoo wrote:
It seems a long stretch to say that Martin ran away and hid so that he could confront Zimmerman while he was walking back to the car. We don't even know if Martin knew where or what his car was or that he could even see Zimmerman while he was hiding. There was no need to know where the car was, as the assault took place in the alleyway between houses, not at the car. Furthermore he knew exactly where the car was: he saw Zimmerman in it, and saw him get out. On December 05 2012 08:47 sluggaslamoo wrote:
A more likely story is that Martin tried to hide, while Zimmerman actively looked for Martin and eventually found him, and then Martin initiated the conversation. That's highly impossible given the location of the assault was in the wide open space on the paved walkway far away from any hiding spot. Trayvon would have had to travel quite a distance from any hiding spot to initiate the confrontation. Again your ignorance of this case is showing.
On December 05 2012 08:47 sluggaslamoo wrote:
The wierdest part is that Zimmerman suspected Martin of brandishing a gun
WHAT?!
The weirdest part is that you keep making up such absurd lies like this.
|
sluggaslamoo should be banned for posting malicious and false information. Either he didn't read all the information or he's one big fat troll. All of his posts are subjective speculation and no facts.
The facts are:
- There was a cry for help from one of the men
- Witnesses seeing one man on top of another and beating him
- Martin having no physical injuries apart from scratches on his hands and a bullet to the chest
It's clear that Zimmerman did not throw the first punch, not any punches. On the tape recording of Martin's friend you can clearly hear Zimmerman asking "What are you doing here?" so even if Zimmerman did pursue Martin, it was clear that Zimmerman had no intention to fight him, but simply question him.
User was warned for backseat modding.
|
Yeah, the moderation is heavily and blatantly biased. KwarK is warning people for complaining about people disregarding the mod note at the top of the thread, yet he refuses to enforce the mod warning.
Original Message From KwarK: I'm reluctant to moderate anyone for outlandish interpretations of the evidence before the trial itself because I'm aware of my lack of knowledge of the events. I don't feel there has been anything actionable so far, you two disagree about what happened but I see no need to moderate either of you. Show nested quote +Original Message From mortonm: Hi, sluggaslamoo is telling extremely blatant lies and showing stubborn ignorance and lack of knowledge in the Trayvon thread. In a moderator warning from KwarK I was told to PM these instances to mods instead of publicly discussing how the mod warning at the top of the thread is being violated. If these lies and misinformation being spread by sluggaslamoo are actually acceptable just let me know and I will stop reporting them. On December 05 2012 08:47 sluggaslamoo wrote:
The wierdest part is that Zimmerman suspected Martin of brandishing a gun http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=17134436
That's not an "outlandish interpretation of the evidence", it's an outright lie.
Essentially my post you warned me for in This thread was accurate, people can say anything they want no matter how untrue and easily debunked as long as they join the anti-Zimmerman hate bandwagon.
Thanks for clearing that up.
User was banned for willful disregard of a prior warning on bitching about moderation in the topic in question and not for his stance.
|
its been awhile, but i recall an allegation that zimmerman saw trayvon reaching into his waistband for something. i have never seen an allegation that trayvon was "brandishing a gun." i will take a look back at what has been reported.
edit:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/nation/11360266-418/911-tapes-in-trayvon-martin-shooting-released.html
"“This guy looks like he is up to no good. He is on drugs or something,” Zimmerman told the dispatcher from his SUV. He added that the black teen had his hand in his waistband and was walking around looking at homes."
|
On December 04 2012 20:34 stevelouise wrote:For a good laugh go back and read the first TL Trayvon thread which was locked after the tide started turning against the raving hordes of social justice crusaders: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322664I wonder: do leftists ever get sick of being wrong? When they are so consistently wrong and time and time again embarrass themselves when they jump on politically correct bandwagons (Duke lacrosse rape hoax comes to mind), you would expect them to reassess the beliefs they hold so dear.
Especially the number of mods who chimed in considering the case closed after a couple news reports. Pathetic. At least there is overall a pretty good legal system in the US to avoid insane mobs of people who believe everything they hear.
Also, well done to daphreak for updating this and being one of the first at the start to call for civility and the legal process to work.
|
|
|
Wow, I missed that first thread, thank fuck... The tendency of people to jump to almost comical conclusions is more than a little disconcerting.
|
On December 06 2012 09:13 Brett wrote:
Wow, I missed that first thread, thank fuck... The tendency of people to jump to almost comical conclusions is more than a little disconcerting.
just read back on the original thread. man, people really didn't like hearing me say that they should stop jumping to conclusions.
You're trying way to hard to hide your very mediocre intelligence behind a facade of fake rationality.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322664¤tpage=8#150
yeah, and you also think nobody should be able to claim him guilty until he is convicted by that jury. That is where everyone in this thread disagrees with you.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=322664¤tpage=8#151
people can go back and see their own blatantly biased opinions on the subject as well. its interesting how much this case has turned around in the last few months. everyone wanted to lynch zimmerman at first, and, now, although the case is still not clear-cut, people are questioning whether he actually committed a crime.
|
I wonder, will the prosecutor face any repercussions for only releasing a degraded photo and trying to avoid giving the original to the defense?
It does seem to be a deliberate attempt to be deceptive and hide evidence.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iSD3a.jpg)
|
On December 06 2012 09:32 dAPhREAk wrote:people can go back and see their own blatantly biased opinions on the subject as well. its interesting how much this case has turned around in the last few months. everyone wanted to lynch zimmerman at first, and, now, although the case is still not clear-cut, people are questioning whether he actually committed a crime. it's because we who realize that it was a kid with some candy in his pocket on his way home that got confronted and shot by some crazy man don't comment in this thread, and we let it go. this is while people with opinions like you keep posting because you are excited that you find more evidence every day. it's so cool to have had a different opinion from the very beginning is perhaps what you feel?
|
On December 06 2012 23:20 Jellikit wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 09:32 dAPhREAk wrote:people can go back and see their own blatantly biased opinions on the subject as well. its interesting how much this case has turned around in the last few months. everyone wanted to lynch zimmerman at first, and, now, although the case is still not clear-cut, people are questioning whether he actually committed a crime. it's because we who realize that it was a kid with some candy in his pocket on his way home that got confronted and shot by some crazy man don't comment in this thread, and we let it go. this is while people with opinions like you keep posting because you are excited that you find more evidence every day. it's so cool to have had a different opinion from the very beginning is perhaps what you feel?
Apparently you do comment in this thread.
Also, regardless of whether there's a tragedy in there somewhere, due process exists for a reason. It's funny, when due process gets ignored a la Guantanamo, it's "fuck that" (for good reason). When due process starts to suggest a guy might get acquitted for something like this, it's "fuck that".
Can we at least catch a break one way or the other?
|
On December 06 2012 23:20 Jellikit wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 09:32 dAPhREAk wrote:people can go back and see their own blatantly biased opinions on the subject as well. its interesting how much this case has turned around in the last few months. everyone wanted to lynch zimmerman at first, and, now, although the case is still not clear-cut, people are questioning whether he actually committed a crime. it's because we who realize that it was a kid with some candy in his pocket on his way home that got confronted and shot by some crazy man don't comment in this thread, and we let it go. this is while people with opinions like you keep posting because you are excited that you find more evidence every day. it's so cool to have had a different opinion from the very beginning is perhaps what you feel?
No. "I told you so" is the rightful spoil of war, and rubbing your enemies' noses in the mud of their errors is one of the few civilised uses of sadism.
dAPhREAk's attitude was wiser and more cautious from the outset, and he has every right to remind everyone else that they got it wrong. He's not being paid in gold or virgins, only in moral satisfaction. It's one of the few incentives we get for being right in the first place. If you hate it, maybe you should learn your lesson and get things right more often in the future.
|
On December 06 2012 23:20 Jellikit wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 09:32 dAPhREAk wrote:people can go back and see their own blatantly biased opinions on the subject as well. its interesting how much this case has turned around in the last few months. everyone wanted to lynch zimmerman at first, and, now, although the case is still not clear-cut, people are questioning whether he actually committed a crime. it's because we who realize that it was a kid with some candy in his pocket on his way home that got confronted and shot by some crazy man don't comment in this thread, and we let it go. this is while people with opinions like you keep posting because you are excited that you find more evidence every day. it's so cool to have had a different opinion from the very beginning is perhaps what you feel?
Okay, that's precisely it though. dAPhREAk didn't HAVE an opinion, at least not that he publicly expressed, one way or the other at the outset. He waited for the evidence like a rational human being.
|
On December 06 2012 23:20 Jellikit wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 09:32 dAPhREAk wrote:people can go back and see their own blatantly biased opinions on the subject as well. its interesting how much this case has turned around in the last few months. everyone wanted to lynch zimmerman at first, and, now, although the case is still not clear-cut, people are questioning whether he actually committed a crime. it's because we who realize that it was a kid with some candy in his pocket on his way home that got confronted and shot by some crazy man don't comment in this thread, and we let it go. this is while people with opinions like you keep posting because you are excited that you find more evidence every day. it's so cool to have had a different opinion from the very beginning is perhaps what you feel?
You are totally delusional. He said the legal process should be allowed to work and that we shouldn't jump to conclusions. He STILL isn't jumping to conclusions.
Meanwhile, your post is full of deliberately deceptive comments. There is zero evidence zimmerman is a "crazy man." Then, portraying Trayvon as just standing there with candy and just being randomly shot is completely false. Clearly Zimmerman sustained significant injuries from him.
|
On December 07 2012 00:04 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On December 06 2012 23:20 Jellikit wrote:On December 06 2012 09:32 dAPhREAk wrote:people can go back and see their own blatantly biased opinions on the subject as well. its interesting how much this case has turned around in the last few months. everyone wanted to lynch zimmerman at first, and, now, although the case is still not clear-cut, people are questioning whether he actually committed a crime. it's because we who realize that it was a kid with some candy in his pocket on his way home that got confronted and shot by some crazy man don't comment in this thread, and we let it go. this is while people with opinions like you keep posting because you are excited that you find more evidence every day. it's so cool to have had a different opinion from the very beginning is perhaps what you feel? Okay, that's precisely it though. dAPhREAk didn't HAVE an opinion, at least not that he publicly expressed, one way or the other at the outset. He waited for the evidence like a rational human being.
to be fair, i thought he was guilty at first but recommended people wait to hear more evidence. people have consistently accused me of supporting zimmerman just because i challenged their knee jerk reactions. i actually still think zimmerman might be guilty of manslaughter, not murder, but think the prosecutor has a hard road ahead of them because of the burden shifting. at the end of the day, this is a huge tragedy.
|
On December 07 2012 03:12 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 07 2012 00:04 Kimaker wrote:On December 06 2012 23:20 Jellikit wrote:On December 06 2012 09:32 dAPhREAk wrote:people can go back and see their own blatantly biased opinions on the subject as well. its interesting how much this case has turned around in the last few months. everyone wanted to lynch zimmerman at first, and, now, although the case is still not clear-cut, people are questioning whether he actually committed a crime. it's because we who realize that it was a kid with some candy in his pocket on his way home that got confronted and shot by some crazy man don't comment in this thread, and we let it go. this is while people with opinions like you keep posting because you are excited that you find more evidence every day. it's so cool to have had a different opinion from the very beginning is perhaps what you feel? Okay, that's precisely it though. dAPhREAk didn't HAVE an opinion, at least not that he publicly expressed, one way or the other at the outset. He waited for the evidence like a rational human being. to be fair, i thought he was guilty at first but recommended people wait to hear more evidence. people have consistently accused me of supporting zimmerman just because i challenged their knee jerk reactions. i actually still think zimmerman might be guilty of manslaughter, not murder, but think the prosecutor has a hard road ahead of them because of the burden shifting. at the end of the day, this is a huge tragedy.
Well said. I think Zimmerman should be guilty of something (Personally I think leaving his car to follow should be considered initiating a confrontation but I don't know the law enough to comment) but I don't think he's a murderer. Definitely overzealous but either way it's a tragedy that could have been avoided. At least there can be some good that comes out of this (reform on stand your ground, maybe a return to journalistic integrity(doubtful but I can dream) and an overall greater awareness on what citizens should do). This isn't even the worst of the stand your ground cases yet this hasn't really brought a public outcry of the more ridiculous ones.
|
Can people seriously stop debating a legal matter in which they have little to no expertise in dealing with.
I can't believe this shit is still on the news or even being debated. Your opinions don't matter.
|
On December 07 2012 03:58 stevarius wrote:
Can people seriously stop debating a legal matter in which they have little to no expertise in dealing with.
I can't believe this shit is still on the news or even being debated. Your opinions don't matter.
Apply this logic to your own utterance; no one cares that you can't believe this shit is still on the news, we live in a society of the spectacle and everyone does what they can to play a part, as you've just shown us. People want to get worked up over a racially charged court case, the sun also rises.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
