Yes he did. No, you don’t need a cite. It has already been posted a half-dozen times. :rolleyes:
Regards,
Shodan
I’ve read it a half dozen times, and it still doesn’t say what you want it to say.
Martin told his girlfriend he was “right by” his father’s fiancee’s house, and she clarified that to mean that he was there, at the back of the house, in her testimony, and that he had no reason to lie to her about it.
Why claim that’s not what happened, when it’s a matter of record that it did? If you want to argue that she couldn’t have known he was telling the truth, or that she herself is lying, go for it, but it’s foolish to claim she didn’t say what she has been recorded saying, both in her statement last year and her testimony this week.
At least one witness has the fight moving south (near Martin’s house) to north (towards the T). So it’s seems probable Martin was near his dad’s house. His phone and Zimmerman’s tactical flashlight both were found south of Martin’s body as well. The latter has no business being down there if Zimmerman went down on his back near the T.
This is one of those details, though, that we find significant because we’ve analyzed every detail of Zimmerman self-serving narrative(s). But the takeaway for the jury is likely to be far simpler.
The fight traveled. For a fight to travel, someone has to chase someone else. Who was more likely to be the one doing this chasing? The MMA enthusiasist emboldened by the gun on his hip, whose pursuit of the kid is no longer in dispute? Or the kid who from the beginning ran away from the man he pegged as creepy?
These are not complicated questions.
Because that s not what the record shows. You are mistaken.
No, I’m not. She says Martin didn’t run (which Zimmerman also says), and she says the reason he didn’t do so is he was right by the house.
Exactly. Who of the two was more likely looking for a confrontation? Not exactly rocket science.
What “kid”? Which person that “ran away”? There’s a 17 year old that walked home, after losing sight of Zimmerman, then for some reason returned to him, and beat him. If anyone is running after someone, I’d say it’s vastly more likely to be the person who caught and beat someone, not the person who stopped following and lost sight of someone.
Where do you get “his pursuit of the kid is no longer in dispute”? He didn’t, so far as we know, “pursue” him at all, he attempted, and failed, to follow him at a distance to let the police know his location, and stopped doing so at least a couple of minutes before the fight.
The one who, having the opportunity to go home and avoid any confrontation, instead went out of his way to confront and attack the other. Trayvon Martin, in case that’s not clear.
Zimmerman was obviously not looking for a confrontation, all his actions show that. He was looking to get a suspicious individual looked at by the police - you know, like anybody would do. Or at least, anyone who gives a shit about law and order where they live.
LOL!
Yeah, I know, not a great riposte…but none was needed. You post was seriously funny – if sad as well.
White Power!
She did not say he said he was “right by the house.”
Yeah, obviously the person who just called the police was out looking for a fight… Possibly the most absurd part of this whole case is that people believe that. The other contender for that prize is people who think race has anything to do with it. Unless Martin attacked Zimmerman on racial grounds, we found out in the week he had no problem using racist terms to describe him.
I don’t buy it. When you call 911 and talk about “Those fucking punks” and “they always get away”, you’re looking for a confrontation, especially if you get out of the car with a loaded gun right after you say it, and especially if it’s against the advice of the dispatcher. I give a “shit about law and order” but there’s a huge chasm between being a responsible citizen and being a vigilante. Once Zimmerman made the call to the cops, he should’ve went home to his wife, as he performed his duty as the “eyes and ears” of the Sanford Police Department. Instead, he was preoccupied in monitoring the situation to ensure that this time the bad guy would get caught.
- Honesty
He left his house to confront Zimmerman and then he beat him without any signs of stopping. There is no evidence that indicates Martin needed to defend himself. It’s now a matter of court record that he was at his house which is well away from where the fight started. The only logical conclusion is that Martin, who liked street fighting, went out of his way to confront a "crazy ass cracker ". He WENT OUT OF HIS WAY to do it.
That’s because you can’t.
No, actually you haven’t done that.
The only way the prosecutor felt it was possible to bring the charges was to by-pass the Grand Jury system. So far it’s been the same case the original Prosecutor had to work with and turned down.
Do tell how the state fucked up. Everything that’s happened in court was predicted ahead of time. The voice analysis was bullshit, Dee Dee was shredded on the stand, and a number of witnesses came forward supporting Zimmerman. the prosecution can’t make stuff up like the you have. that also was predicted. You were TOLD they couldn’t do that.
Did you ever bother to ask yourself questions like WHY Dee Dee didn’t want to get involved? Or why Martin walked 2 miles, in the rain, for ONE can of fruit juice and ONE bag of candy for his future step brother? Or why it took 46 minutes to walk less than a mile back from the store to the edge of the housing develepment. He had to be walking less than one mile an hour. sounds more like someone walking aimlessly around looking at houses and not someone walking straight home to see the playoff game.
Nothing Martin did that night rings true. It’s clear from his text messages that Dee Dee did NOT think he was a momma’s boy like she testified. She knew he was a fuck-up. His mother knew he was a fuck-up. That’s why he was living there in the first place. She couldn’t control his behavior. Martin liked to fight, liked to smoke dope, and was actively trying to buy a gun. It seems more likely that a person who billed himself as no_limit_nigga and Zimmerman as a crazy-ass-cracker was most likely buying the fruit juice and candy to mix with cough syrup and not as a treat for his step brother.
It’s time you stopped pretending Martin was a little boy gunned down without provocation. He was killed because he viciously beat someone like a crazy person without cause.
He didn’t call 911. How can you not know this? He called the non-emergency number. You know, the number for NON-EMERGENCIES. He didn’t get out of the car against the advice of the dispatcher. The dispatcher asks him if he’s following Martin and he said yes and then agrees not to do it. Zimmerman stays on the top of the T. You can hear him banging his flashlight on the post along the T. He does not turn in the direction he says Martin went which is to the back of the housing project. He lost sight of Martin before he steps out of the truck and was never at any time pursuing him, gun or no gun.
The whole point of a neighborhood watch is to WATCH. By all the evidence available so far that is what Zimmerman attempted to do. If Martin had performed his duty to the community he should have called the police on a suspicious person and gone inside and watched the game.
Is this is at the T?
CMC fnord!
Jesus fucking christ, people! If you constantly feel the need to insert anything in order for your point to stand up, maybe your point isn’t as strong as you think! Remove all the spin and try it.Recognizing that you are adding WAY too much filler and trying to pass it off as pure, unadulterated truth, backed up by irrefutable evidence which has only one possible meaning, when that is so clearly not the fucking case does not bolster your credibility or the strength of your arguments, quite the reverse! Nor does picking clearly meaningless nits and refusing to give a fucking inch! Jesus!
In the case of all this crap:
I know I said “people” and I meant it, but right now it happens to be you, Steophan, “representin’”, so to speak.
Dude! DUDE! Do you really think you are sounding more rational, more fair, more reasonable when you deliberately and disingenuously inflate, exaggerate, and ignore what doesn’t fit?
STOP IT. It will not kill your position to be more reasonable and honest in your portrayal of the real facts and the real evidence, vs. those things which clearly have loads of questions and room for alternative interpretation, ***because if they didn’t this thread wouldn’t be 11,000+ posts long! *** Obviously reasonable and intelligent people can see it differently and do so honestly, or the man wouldn’t be on trial! And if it is your position that any disagreement with your POV is an automatic indicator of fundamentally inferior cognitive and reasoning skills, please just say so plainly and we can all move on.
Criminy!
For instance, you would look much more fair-minded and thoughtful if you could stand to acknowledge the actual arguments that have been made instead of manufacturing something easier to dismiss. You and your arguments would look even more fair-minded and reasonable if you would stop insisting that “we know” things that we do not know.
Remember conclusions vs. evidence?
You might also try treating all evidence by exactly the same standards, which would be another way you could win friends and influence people. I am inspired to mention this specifically because of your insistence that Rachel’s recollection of Martin’s remark is proof positive of Martin’s exact location, which is just nuts, and on that basis asserting with total confidence that Martin made a conscious, deliberate decision to leave the safety of his father’s home, find GZ, and punch him and beat him. All because this girl who clearly is no communications whiz recalls Martin saying he was near his fathers. The leaps you make are not in themselves insane, if you frame them as interesting leaps that kind of make sense to you because of this and that puzzle piece you put together, but making those leaps and asserting them as unassailable truth we all recognize definitely is.
And I give you credit for being perfectly aware of the words you choose and how inflammatory and totally invented it is for you to say things like that Martin “caught and beat” GZ. Not even GZ himself has said that, and no one else has even suggested that Martin “caught” what must have been a fleeing GZ and then “beat” him. So why do you do that? Who are you doing it for? Are you peacocking for those who agree, in which case you can just skip this altogether, or are you really trying to get those who don’t see what you see to maybe see it?
And again, it’s not just you. you with the face, c’mon, are you so incapable of giving a freaking inch? I don’t have any of your posts picked out but really, you know we share a basic view on this, but your insistence that everything is X is pretty extreme at times and undermines your credibility too.
It would be genuinely interesting and engaging to discuss these issues aand questions and differing viewpoints with total honesty about what the opposing side is saying. This shouting past each other and completely ignoring facts and cites and realities brought forth repeatedly…man, I don’t know how you guys have kept it up for so damn long.
Can anyone even acknowledge that they at least comprehend how the opposition might see it a certain way, even if you don’t? Would your head explode?
Sheesh.
I think that is a very fair way of stating it, Honesty. Good on you.
Yes, as soon as someone comes up with some evidence that Zimmerman was the aggressor, some evidence that he didn’t get his injuries from Martin, or that he didn’t stop when he said he did - at the place where the fight occurred - I’ll consider their point. When their arguments vary between baseless speculation and an outright rejection of the evidence, the law, logic, and common sense, then I won’t. I’ve repeatedly asked you to provide the evidence for your claims, and you’ve repeatedly ignored me.
I do not accept, and will not accept, anything less than proof that he was not acting in self defence to change my mind about his innocence, as that’s the standard he’s to be judged by, according to Florida law. A standard you continually reject, no matter how often you are shown it, and shown why it’s the standard that applies.
Here is the fact: your post is in no respect responsive to my post. It is you doing exactly the same thing you’ve been doing all along.
There are two ways to look at this. First, you are peacocking and you will continue to just say whatever it is you want to say while pretending you are actually responding to something someone really said, presumably because that’s all your interested in doing: using other people’s posts to repeat yourself. Which you’re certainly entitled to do.
The other possibility is that you have a genuine impairment when it comes to understanding what other people are saying to you.
In either case, you have made it perfectly clear that what you are doing has nothing to do with what I am doing. So peace to you, sir, I will no longer be engaging you directly on this subject.
You are passionate in your beliefs, clearly. I leave you to them.