For you.
Can anyone explain to me the significance of ping logs and why and how the idea of Traybon being 7 miles away came up or means anything? I’m completely confused.
I can’t see how there’s any relevance at all. Where Trayvon went after he left his dad’s apartment doesn’t have anything to do with his encounter with Zimmerman.
Unless he went somewhere for a drug deal. But AFAIK they didn’t find a bag of weed in his pockets. So that’s ruled out.
Even then. If they had found some crack or weed. I’m not sure the judge would have allowed it in front of the jury. Trayvon is a dear victimized angel in that courtroom. He’s never done anything wrong. At least that’s the myth they’re spoon feeding the jury.
Normally I would avoid responding to a comment so far back, but this is impugning my character, so I will respond.
Seeing as I went out of my way to say I didn’t necessarily agree, I am insulted by your comment.
I could see plenty of situations where you could have a gun and still be in fear of your life, but I can also see situations where you would not be. I don’t know the situation in this case, because my sole source for this trial is this very thread. If Zimmerman did say, as Stoid claimed, that he was in fear for his life only because Martin was grabbing for his gun, then, yes, I would think the fear should diminish once Zimmerman had a good grip on it.
Like I said, I was just clarifying someone else’s point. It bugs the crap out of me when people put words in other people’s mouths in order to make the other person sound unreasonable, and that’s what it seemed like was happening here.
Please do not call me a liar again outside the Pit.
This, right here is the your problem. I don’t know why Honesty’s science credentials are relevant to this. This is where you are wrong. You are creating a false dichotomy here. The choice is not prosecute the suspect as an adult or prosecute the suspect’s parents. There is a third option–prosecute the suspect as a juvenile.
Just because someone’s age is considered a factor in why they committed a crime does not somehow move culpability to the parents. No parent goes to jail because their kid winds up in juvenile detention.
It is possible for a child’s neurochemistry to be a factor in why they do something without it being the parent’s fault.
And I’m saying this even though I agree that a 17 year old should be treated as an adult in a murder trial. But the reason is not because the parents aren’t at fault by that age. The reason is that, even taking into account a 17 year old’s different brain, they still should have at least enough control to stop from committing murder.
Still, this doesn’t mean it’s wrong to refer to Trayvon Martin as a kid. Even though what he allegedly did is a crime, his age does factor in when trying to understand why he allegedly reacted the way he did.
And, yes, I would refer to the Columbine shooters as kids, even though I supported them being tried as adults (due to the brutality).
But not in whether Zimmerman was entitled to defend himself. I’m not sure why people are arguing that Martin was more likely to have attacked Zimmerman, because science, but it’s hardly going to show Zimmerman was the one at fault…
Revisionist much? I questioned your insistence that Martin could not be described as a kid. You were the one trying to play down his youth and the age disparity, to make Zimmerman’s actions look less disturbing. And you were wrong, in every way. That is how the topic got started.
Except that none of Zimmerman’s acts were disturbing, and Martin’s youth is irrelevant to anything. People have been describing him as a “kid” solely for emotional impact.
And this is the point. Whether Zimmerman’s actions were “disturbing” is entirely fucking irrelevant. What matters is whether they were illegal. They weren’t.
But hey, feel free to keep trying to show it’s more likely that Martin started the confrontation, as if that was ever in serious doubt.
To you…although your discomfort with people referring to Martin as what he was makes me wonder…
As has been extensively shown, he has been referred to that way because it is what he was. Perfectly natural. The fact that you find it an emotional trigger is something you might want to look at.
Indeed.
Tell you what, find a group of 17 year olds, and see if they like being referred to as kids. I strongly suspect they won’t.
Calling Martin a “kid” is just the same as referring to Zimmerman as having “stalked” him. Whilst there may be plausible deniability that you’re using the word to manipulate people’s emotions to prefer your story, it’s clear that that is what you are in fact doing.
“Kid”, when referring to a young person, suggests a carefree youngster, with no responsibilities, out enjoying life. Not a troubled teen, suspended from school for drug and vandalism related issues, with an interest in street fighting. Someone with your “truth fetish” should surely prefer a more neutral term.
Sorry. In looking at that relatively incoherent stub off words, my best recollection is that it was part of a longer series of quotes not intended to be directed at you. It was very clear to me that you didn’t say you agreed but were merely helpfully summarizing Stoid’s point and I did not plan to suggest otherwise.
Wow.
You forgot the most obvious reason its a lie. The uncle claimed to not have any knowledge about GZ’s run-in with this kid prior to hearing the tape. This was the most important event in GZ’s life (with the outing of him as an sexual abuser running a close second) and somehow this news hadn’t been brought to his uncle’s attention. Yeah right. But if we assume that this is true (and the fucked up thing is that it might very well be true since George was estranged from the family when this all went down), this suggests he lacks the familial closeness needed to confidently identify his voice out of the blue.
We can see from this that the uncle probably lies in the same kind of self-contradictory fashion that George does. Their lies bubble up so thoughtlessly that it is very easy for them to turn into trip wires later.
Ooops. Just realized I got this wrong. He did say he knew about Zimmerman’s “predicament” beforehand. My bad.
I find it telling that both you and Honesty, if not others, treat the accusation of sexual abuse as being automatically true, and evidence of Zimmerman’s poor character, instead of treating it as an accusation.
Contrast with the vigorous efforts to rebut any speculation about Martin’s character.
Your bias against Zimmerman is clouding your judgment.
That and assuming that a motive exists for someone to lie is evidence that they are actually lying. A rather disturbing presumption of guilt there.
So you pulled a Zimmerman.
Did you lie when you made the claim, or did you misremember it or were you mistaken?
He’s…he’s…a murderer! 
Since DD insisted that Trayvon made it all the way home, here’s one person’s opinion.
Interesting–I hadn’t heard until now the video clip of the dad’s girlfriend. She puts TM “on the porch” before being shot at the T in the sidewalk.
Was Trayvon’s father lying when he first said it wasn’t his son or is he lying now? Was ABC News lying when their analyst reviewed the video from Martin’s phone and compared his voice and determined the screams were most likely Zinmmerman’s?