Zimmerman is not a white man he is a brown man

Zimmerman had several interviews and reenactments following the event. The event itself was a dynamic that included movements of the TM and GZ himself, statements made on a phone, perceptions and intentions by Zimmerman, the timeline and the physical locations. Zimmerman had to reenact the event and attempt to remember those seven things that I just mentioned and their relation to one another for the 7 minute event. Care to try that? Zimmerman's statements were not all inclusive and any perceived discrepancy fell well within what is typical for someone retelling such an event. Inconsistencies are normal. There is nothing that debunks his version of events. You reference a video but do not cite any particulars. Tell you what, find your most damning lie from Zimmerman and offer it up and I will address it.

The Young Turks? This is nothing but an extremists Left Wing fake news agency. Nonetheless, Ive seen the 100X100 pixel video at the police station which was some 10 feet away at best. Paramedics at the scene asked Zimmerman if he wanted to go to the hospital 3 times. I, being in the emergency services can assure you that you don't keep asking uninjured persons if they want to go to the hospital for no reason. Why would they ask? Why didn't they ask the police if they wanted to go as well? Or the neighbors standing on their porch? Or their dog?
Here are some better images.

Body language expert? How about the polygraph expert that gave Zimmerman a 'truthful' result? I suppose we could use an Ouija board.

The versions that he offered do not contradict one another but simply offer different detail. Which is typical of testimony from interviews.

Wrong conclusion. Zimmerman not recognizing Martin didnt make Martin suspiciuos but didn't rule out Martin from being a suspect.

Why would Zimmerman remember the street names of streets he didnt live on? Ask anyone in any apartment complex to list all of the streets within their complex. Few could do it.

Its self evident that people in the rain walk as though they are attempting to get somewhere and get out of the rain. Zimmerman didnt offer this as a stand alone reason for suspecting Martin but was part of many other elements that formed his perceptions.


Respectfully.

 

This isn't consistent to your position. Your position is that the area is a common cut through and thus it isn't suspicious at all for someone to cut through there at night and thus not warrant any further attention. What you have changed that to now is that it is in fact suspicious of Martin to cut through at night but not anymore suspicious than any other resident! Your overall position is that Zimmerman's suspicions were not founded on anything of substance.

You've altered my claim. Add in all those other elements that Zimmerman offered and I will agree. You characterize Martin as someone walking in the rain! Why the revisionism? You left out the part where he was standing in a neighbors yard that wasn't his at night, which had been burgled.
Let me change your question, "You seem to be insinuating that Zimmerman would call the police and/or follow ANYONE he saw standing in a neighbors yard at night in the rain and acting weird?"

If the people that are doing the crimes are black and it is blacks that are acting suspicious then you are supporting Zimmerman and agreeing with his perceptions. You and Zimmerman are in agreement. So, who IS it that is doing the crimes? Who is that?

Respectfully,

 

Thank you for your reply, but I'm not sure why this was directed at my post. Nonetheless, Zimmerman is half Hispanic and looks Hispanic. One thing is certain, and that he isn't white in the sense that both parents are white and identify as white. Many applications classify Hispanics as 'white or white Hispanic'. The general accusation against Zimmerman is that he is racist from an Aryan perspective, which is silly considering his family, background, actions and history.

Respectfully,

 

Zimmerman in fact has no obligation to offer any rational for following Martin. There also isn't any evidence that Zimmerman was aggressive. This is your claim to prove, not mine to disprove.

This isn't a fact. You assume that it is a fact because you believe that you are the barer of what defines Zimmerman's reasons to follow or not. You do not define who perceives who as suspicious or why watchman follow them. At all. None.

I agree, and this reasonable person that you are referring to would run or walk home. Just because someone perceives a potential threat doesn't give them license to do anything they wish in response.

I think we can agree that Martins girlfriend was truthful in this regard. But to say that Zimmerman 'chose' not to identify himself is hyperbole and doesn't take into account the suddenness of someone appearing suddenly from the dark. No one actually believes that these two persons had an actual conversation.

No, its an opinion that it may have been possible for Martin to justify SYG.

Walk out your door, pace off 150'. Run that 150'. See how long it took you to run that 150'. If your like most people that are wearing work boots, jeans and talking on a phone it will take you about 12-14 seconds probably.
Zimmermans truck was about 150' from the 'T' and it took Zimmerman about 13 seconds from the time you hear his door dinging to when the dispatcher told him 'to not do that'. Zimmerman's version of events are consistent to known evidence.

'Chase' is actually a poor use of words here really as it carries an intent to overcome or detain. If Zimmerman's intent was only to maintain an observance of Martins location until PD arrived then no, there is no chase but just an attempt on Zimmerman's part to run to a point that her could see Martin. Zimmerman had much opportunity to get out of his truck and confront,shoot at or speak to Martin. Yet he stayed in his truck. Only when Martin disappeared or was about to disappear from Zims line of sight did he feel compelled to get out of his truck.

Martin 'let' Zimmerman answer? What you are saying here is that Martin asked a question, let Zimmerman reply as he wished and then there was a confrontation. You leave out the PROBABILITY of Martin coming from the dark suddenly and catching Zimmerman off guard. Essentailly, what you doing to assuming that Zimmerman is lying because he didnt give the most logical response!

I believe the claim came from Rachel Jeantel. I have looked for the reference but didn't find it. So yes, until I find the reference I will no longer say that Martin made it home. Likewise, are you sure that you want to open the door to demanding citations? Remember, you're the vague and subjective guy, I'm the fact guy.

Respectfully,

 

I would like to suggest that - if you want responses to your assertions and questions - that you learn how to quote effectively, that way I will become aware of your responses rather than having to stumble across them while browsing threads.

As for your "points":

1) I did not say it was suspicious for anyone to utilize the cut-through. I said that it was no more suspicious for Martin than anyone else. In other words, if it was not suspicious for any random resident to walk this way (a common occurrence), it is not valid to consider it suspicious for Martin to walk this way.
2) In relation to "standing in a neighbors yard", please illustrate where that allegation was made in relation to Martin - other than walking through the cut through.
3) In relation to "acting weird", please illustrate what "weird" behavior was displayed that was noticed by Zimmerman as he drove past on a rainy night that warranted further observation.
4) What about Martin's walking in a commonly used area while on the phone at night made him a more valid burglary suspect than anyone else who walked through the area - especially since the burglaries were committed during daylight and police had a suspect in custody?

I see, you now seem to be saying that black people commit crimes, so it is valid to treat all black people as potential criminals...
If you are Caucasian, would it be fair to assume you are a potential serial killer, mass murderer, embezzler or kidnapper? Most of those crimes are committed by white people, after all...

 

Allow me to list a few:
1) Zimmerman lied to his Family Physician Assistant, EMS never stated Zimmerman had a broken nose.
Zimmerman was forced by his employer to get medical clearance before he could return to work. Zimmerman went to see his family Physician Assistant, Lindzee E. Folgate, about 9 hours after he was released from SPD, about 16 hours after he killed Trayvon Martin. His family Physician Assistant only took Zimmerman's word for it when he falsely claimed he was "told" by EMS he had a broken nose but she did not take xrays independently to verify.
It is important to underscore and emphasize that the EMS wrote (on the EMT report) that, regarding Zimmerman's nose the "mucous membrane is normal" because it highlights the fact that there was no blood and no swelling of the mucous membrane that line the sinus cavities which is one more piece of evidence that shows Zimmerman was not punched in the nose hard enough to fall "to the ground when he punched [Zimmerman] the first time" and certainly dispels Zimmerman "claim" that he was punched a subsequent 25 to 30 times in the nose while being pinned to the ground on his back.
Because Zimmerman lied to his family physician assistant, when he falsely told her that he was "told" by EMS he had a broken nose, the Physician Assistant wrote "We discussed it was likely broken." And in the insurance code she wrote he had a "closed fracture" but no xrays were done to confirm that. The Physician Assistant also wrote Zimmerman "refuses to be seen an ENT (Ear Nose and Throat doctor)" and they discussed the "risks" of him not being seen by an ENT. Gosh, after all that alleged pummeling to his nose and head, why would Zimmerman refuse to go see an ENT? Who knows.
Note also, on page 3 of Zimmerman's Family Physician Report, the Physician Assistant states that his nostrils were not bleeding and did not note any dried blood in the nostrils (nares) and wrote "does not appear to have septal deviation" which, when put all together along with the EMS report, it tells me Zimmerman was not punched in the nose 25 to 30 times 16 hours earlier.
To date, George Zimmerman has not released any xrays showing he had a broken nose nor has any licensed medical doctor ever diagnosed Zimmerman with a broken nose. And Zimmerman has never released a medical report from an Ear Nose and Throat Doctor.

2) Zimmerman and his wife lied about their finances
Zimmerman had collected close to $135,000 in donations to his website and not only did his wife lie about the money, but prosecutors found that she transferred $74,000 out of George’s account four days before telling a courtroom she had no knowledge of any money.
They also found that Zimmerman told his wife to pay off their American Express bill and their Sam’s Club card while in jail and he apparently, while in jail, talked to a bank manager in Seminole County about transferring his account to his wife.
Prosecutors contend that the Zimmermans also spoke about the money “in code” during recorded jailhouse phone calls.

3) The night Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin he told police that he had a clean record when in fact, he had been charged in 2005 with resisting arrest during an altercation with a state alcohol officer.

4) When Zimmerman was booked into the Seminole County Jail, he told the booking officer that he had never been in a pretrial-diversion program before, but he had. After his resisting arrest Zimmerman wound up in a pretrial-diversion program, a scaled-down version of probation offered to nonviolent first-time offenders.

5) Zimmerman told his friend Mark Osterman—who has himself been a cop for over 20 years—that he was in a desperate struggle with Trayvon for Zimmerman's gun. Zimmerman never said this to police. But Osterman wrote in a book, and it was entered into evidence, that Zimmerman said, “somehow I broke his grip on the gun where the guy grabbed it between the rear site and the hammer. I got the gun in my hand, raised it towards the guy’s chest, and pulled the trigger.”
DNA evidence ruled out any real possibility that Trayvon ever touched Zimmerman's gun. The only DNA evidence on the gun's grip was that of George Zimmerman. None was Trayvon's. Zimmerman also claimed that Trayvon went for Zimmerman's holster. Anthony Gorgone, a DNA lab analyst for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, testified as an expert witness that “Zimmerman's holster tested positive for only Zimmerman's DNA as well.”

6) Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon “bashed,” “slammed,” and “wailed” his head into the sidewalk. One of Zimmerman's lawyers claimed that the sidewalk was Trayvon's “deadly weapon.” Pictures of Zimmerman's alleged injuries have been shown repeatedly on tv.
There is no way that Zimmerman's head was repeatedly slammed into the sidewalk. As Dr. Valerie Rao, a medical examiner in Florida, testified, Zimmerman's injuries were “insignificant,” “so minor” that all they required was an ordinary band-aid.

7) Zimmerman told police investigators that Trayvon was circling his car, looking in at him, while Zimmerman was on the phone with the police dispatcher.
That would obviously be a big deal, and something Zimmerman, if he was actually concerned about his safety, would say to the 911 dispatcher while he was on the phone. Yet, somehow Zimmerman never mentioned this very crucial bit of information to the dispatcher while they were actually talking.

8 ) Zimmerman claims that Trayvon was straddling Zimmerman's chest, punching him, banging his head into the sidewalk, pinching Zimmerman's nose so he couldn't breathe, and reaching for Zimmerman's gun.
Journalist Charles Blow wrote about how Zimmerman's description of the fight scene is particularly incredible, saying “...partly because of ... the idea that Martin, while straddling Zimmerman, would be able to see a gun that was presumably behind him, and the idea that Zimmerman would feel Martin’s hand snake across his body, pinch that hand underneath his arm and then reach for and retrieve the gun himself. If Zimmerman’s hand was free enough for such a maneuver, were his hands not also free enough to try to push Martin off, or force Martin to release his head and not bang it against the concrete, or to hit Martin back (which he never says he does during the entire encounter)? Did Zimmerman’s mixed martial arts training provide him no defensive options whatsoever? Something about this just doesn’t sound right. And, by the way, how was Zimmerman able to get around Martin’s leg, retrieve the gun and aim it at Martin’s chest so easily?”

9) Zimmerman claimed that Trayvon “jumped out of bushes” and hit him, knocking him to the ground.
There are no bushes to jump out of where Zimmerman claims he was assaulted. This is clearly evident on the video where Zimmerman walked through his version of what happened with some Sanford police.


Just for fun, here's a video for you highlighting some additional lies I couldn't be bothered listing for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=barj90NOCC8

And let's not even get into the whole "super George/burning car rescue" fiasco, or the altercation with his wife where he allegedly threatened his in-laws with a firearm...

 

I plead ignorance here. I have a history of not using quote functions properly. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you.

Your statement assumes that it cannot suspicious to use the cut through and that of all the people that have cut through only Martin was deemed suspicious. Semantics aside, you're proposing that someone emerging from the darkness from between buildings(even a cut through) at night cannot be a factor in ones suspicions is simply being disingenuous. This was but one component of Zimmerman's perceptions. You want to remove all other components and let this one component stand on its own apart from the rest.
Lastly, you say it "wasn't valid". Really, what makes it valid? Law? Some rule? Some list? What? Zimmerman is the absolute barer of what he defines as suspicious and answers to no authority, no law, no rule and no one. He can suspect anyone of anything and can do so without any cause or justification whatsoever. You burden Zimmerman with some rule of law that you have manufactured.

I'm not sure what your question is here. The only proofs, statements or testimony about Martins early movements came from Zimmerman, his phone call and a video from the clubhouse. Zimmerman's videotaped reenactment with PD he clearly pointed to where Martin stopped in Taaffes yard.

Zimmerman is the one that defines acting weird. It isn't required for Martin to actually be acting weird for Zimmerman to suspect him. Nonetheless, in Zimmerman's opinion Martin was acting weird in addition to Martin not being in a hurry to get out of the rain. Martin being suspicious also isn't confined to Martin himself but is also a function of location, past burglaries etc. Zimmerman isn't required to offer anything in the way of 'warranting further observation'.
He can observe anyone he pleases and suspect who he pleases and do so without any basis. But he did have a basis. Look at the NW guide for watchman which was given them by the PD. Although he wasn't obliged to follow those suggestions they said that you can suspect pretty much who you wished and its assumed that your perceptions would be unfounded many times but to err on the side of safety.

You offer a false choice in that you removed all other suspicious factors from the 'others' that would be walking through. Let me rephrase your question as to be consistent; "What about Martin's walking in a commonly used area while on the phone at night made him a more valid burglary suspect than anyone else who walked through the area that was acting weird, at night, in the rain, looking onto homes and having no obvious and purposeful destination for someone out in the rain?"
To say that the PD had a suspect in custody and thus removed the possibility of further burglaries is simply naive. There had been multiple break ins with multiple suspects. It was a persistent issue not predicated on one individual.

Ad Hominem, you are wanting to discredit my statements by involving me personally. And your accusation is a logical fallacy to boot. I'll spare us both the long winded response.
I asked you who it was that was committing the crimes in the area. I guess you didnt want to answer but to accuse me of being a racist as some puerile deflection.


Respectfully,

 

Thank you for your reply,
Remember, the context of the claim here is that Zimmerman's statements and interviews to police were reasonably consistent in regards to the event itself. And that Zimmerman wasn't caught in a bald face lie that demonstrably debunks his version of events. I made no claim that Zimmerman could prove everything that he said to everyone that he spoke to, or that one couldn't glean from his hundreds of statements to multitudes of persons over the course time what may be invented against himself.
It is typical and is assumed that a person recounting an event along with its tangent elements to various persons contain inconsistencies.
I am an advocate for the truth of what actually happened. Zimmerman cheating on his taxes or farting in church doesn't alter the Martin/Zimmerman reality.

I could spend 3 days responding to that list. But you're really just making a case that there is no proofs that factually demonstrate that Zimmerman had a broken nose! You yourself said that the EMTs looked into the nostrils of Zimmerman's nose. Why would they do that? EMTs don't look into peoples noses. Ive been in the emergency services fore 30 years. The only noses we look at are the ones that look broken or have copious blood running out. Lastly, where did Zimmerman say he was punched in the nose 30 times? There is nothing whatsoever in that paragraph that demonstrates that Zimmerman is lying.
After reading the 4 paramedics statements I don't understand your accusation that Zimmerman didn't have what appeared to be a broken nose or was suspected of having a broken nose. Everyone involved and all of the evidence demonstrates clearly that Zimmerman suffered nose damage.

Again, the reality of that nights events and Zimmerman's account of it are not connected to this paragraph.

Charges were dropped. Again, the reality of that nights events and Zimmerman's account of it are not connected to this paragraph.

You overstate the case here. There was no DNA found on the gun by Martin but that doesn't mean that he didnt touch it. The absence of DNA doesn't directly translate to Martin not touching the gun.

The fight was on the sidewalk only momentary. When Zimmerman said that his head hit the concrete and that he hit his head 30 times you wrongfully conclude that all 30 hits were on the sidewalk. The cuts were seen by paramedics, police and the doctor. Where do you suppose that they came from? Ive seen piles of MMA fights where some guy gets his bare head slammed on the mat 50 times with no injury at all. I'm assuming that 28 hits on the grass would yield the same. Lastly, you want to assume that the hits were of full and direct force. Zimmerman in an attempt to protect himself would have some ability to minimize the veracity of the hits.

This is a lie? This is an inconsistency? What would be the motive for such an abstract addition to his tall tail? These 'lies' that you are referring to are minutia that doesn't fortify his version of events. I suppose he could have said that Martin had purple shoe laces when in reality they were actually lavender per the manufacturer. GOTCHA ZIMMERMAN!!

In the context of two men wallowing around on the ground for some 60-90 seconds with arms legs and hands all over the place and bodies contorting every which way do you really want to stick with those assertions?

Zimmerman said that he didnt know where Martin came from but appeared suddenly. He assumed that Martin was using some sort of cover such as bushes and said as much. There ARE bushes at every apartment unit along with a half wall. Zimmermans assertions that Martin was utilizing a hiding place is perfectly tenable if you look at the video.


Tell me, what did youi have for breakfast? Hmmm... you failed to mention that you a had a pat of butter. And you failed to mention what was on your TV as well. You are lying. The point is is that there is no substance to your accusations beyond tit for tat.

Respectfully,

 

Not a problem... In order to quote, please feel free to use the "Reply with Quote" function at the bottom of the post you wish to reply to.
While we're at it, what's with all the use of color?

Straw man.
I did not say that "someone emerging from the darkness from between buildings(even a cut through) at night cannot be a factor in ones suspicions". What I said was more along the lines of "if a cut-through is regularly used by people who are not immediately deemed suspicious, then immediately deeming somone suspicious cannot be a function of them using the cut-through."

Ok, let's presume we take the word of the only person in this fiasco who has a reason to lie... Let's say he watched Martin stop momentarily in Taaffe's yard...
This means Martin stopped at a point when Zimmerman was already watching him, and Zimmerman had already deemed him suspicious. Unless Zimmerman's balls are crystal, he did not look into the future to determine that Martin was going to do something suspicious. Keep trying.

You keep saying he had a "basis" or reason to consider Martin suspicious, but you aren't able to present anything that isn't totally subjective or based on race.
The PD also said not to follow him... how'd that work out again?

Ok, so now you've listed the following contributing factors:
1) walking in a commonly used area
2) being on the phone
3) walking at night
4) not being afraid of getting drenched by rain on an evening that netted 5mm of rain (http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KSFB/2012/2/26/DailyHistory.html)
5) "Acting weird" (though even you have agreed that his subjective perception has no bearing on reality)
6) Looking at houses as he walked past (because anyone who isn't suspicious doesn't look around as they walk)

Seriously? Most people do these things on a regular basis.

Really? How many burglaries were reported in which eye witnesses reported seeing more than one offender?
And the burglaries STILL all happened in daylight hours...

Please explain how what I said was a personal insult and/or accusational rather than a hypothetical situation illustrating that it is not sensible to make hasty generalizations.

You did ask that. You also insinuated that because black people had committed crimes in the area, a hasty generalization that all black people are suspicious was somehow reasonable. I never used the term "racist". Hyper sensitive on this issue?

 

"nose damage" related to a bloody nose is hardly the equivalent of a broken nose. You, of all people, (if you're not misrepresenting your experience) should be aware of that; which means your reply is "purile deflection" at best - intellectual dishonesty at worst.

How many broken noses have you seen that didn't result in any blook on clothing, particularly if the person with the broken nose spent time on their back thrashing around? Oops.

Right, because the fact that Martin had been suspended from school is fair game, and the fact that he took a picture of a firearm is fair game -- but the fact that Zimmerman has a history of manipulation and dishonesty is not relevent to his credibility as the only living witness...

Oh, I see... Were Martin's prints on any part of the gun or holster? Nope...

Given that Zimmerman's defense was founded on the notion that Martin attacked Zimmerman with potentially lethal force - using the sidewalk as a lethal weapon - this makes little sense.

What's the motive for demonizing the person you're accusing of attacking you so that you can justify your actions in killing him...? Let's ponder that for a moment...

I believe it's certainly more relevent to Zimmerman's story than the color of shoelaces. Sad attempt at a strawman.

Yes, because Zimmerman's version of events indicates that Martin was on top of him, straddling his chest and focusing entirely on Zimmerman's head for the duration of the confrontation... then suddenly Martin was able to see and reach for a gun on Zimmerman's hip - and Zimmerman was able to pin Martin's hand and reach the gun with one arm...
Seems kinda odd that he so easily did this to someone who was allegedly overpowering him, especially given that Martin's leg should have been in the way...

His various assertions don't match up.

My 5 year old couldn't hide behind those bushes.

Given that you are clearly not being "respectful" in this, there's really no need to continue closing with "Respectfully,"...

 

Rule 11.

I keep reading you and others refering to the grass between the two houses as a commonly used cut through yet have never ever seen the source for said claim.

From the video there is no visual evidence of it being a common cut through. I know that in my neighborhood the commonly used short cuts hsvr beaten paths because of all the foot traffic. That leads me to believe that your claim is pure immigration.

Either produce evidence or admit that you made it up.

 

The network newcast had film of teens on foot taking the shortcut thru the unfenced area ... The path came out next to Taffe's house.

 

Produce it.

 

They broadcast it 24/7 for days.. Where were you?

 

Then it shouldn't be too hard to find should it?

 

Thank you for your reply,
Our exchange here is becoming somewhat unwieldy. I am going to address only the more defined arguments and leave alone the 'he said-she said' vagaries. If there are any of those that you want to discuss just re-post them. I concede nothing. BTW, I like colors.

Lets reboot here, isnt it your contention that Zimmermans claim about having an actual broken nose somehow debunks his story or version of events? I don't get the connection.

Broken nose or no broken nose Zimmerman had visible damage to his nose. Are you actually disputing this now? Did you look at the Paramedics reports? Here are three different paramedics statements;

"Zimmerman had what looked to be a fractured nose"

"His nose looked like it had some damage."

"His nose was injured"

Why would they be? If you think that any touching of a gun or holster will always leave a print then you need some remedial fingerprinting school.

You changed the subject. Your claim was that all 30 slams were on the concrete and I addressed that.

You changed my question. My question was how Martin circling Zimmerman's car was benefiting Zimmerman's version of events? I suppose that Zimmerman could have mentioned that there were leaves in the gutters but that wouldn't fortify the narrative.

As I have said before, there is no mystery as to how over the course of a 60-90 second struggle that a multitude of things could happen to where arms, legs and guns come and go. What would be a plausible alternative scenario in regards to the gun?

You can compare the height of the bushes to the height of the door knobs on doors next to them. Standard door knob heights for 80" doors are 34"-36". The bushes are 32"-38" high. Nonetheless, Zimmerman didnt say that he seen Martin come from behind any bushes but that he surmised that he did. It isnt required for Martin to have actually hid or been able to hide behind any bush for Zimmerman to be truthful and consistant.

LOL, I wished I had read this first before I responded to the rest of this. Anyway, my apologies if I have offended. Again, if you want to narrow our argument to a singular claim we can.

Respectfully,

 

Wrong conclusion. Your citation of the cut through and its relation to suspiciousness strips away any other compounding factors such as darkness, familiarity, manner of dress and physical actions. From now on when you speak of the cut-through be sure and only speak of the people that are unfamiliar to Zimmerman, at night and are looking around and moving slowly for someone in the rain. Be sure and exclude the pastor and his daughter on Sunday afternoon using the cut through.
You want to include ALL persons using the cut through 24/7 in your test group which is disingenuous.

Leap in logic, there is no testimony or evidence that demonstrated the point in which Zimmerman deemed Martin suspicious relative to Martin stopping in Taaffes yard. Nonetheless, Zimmerman has the right to deem anyone suspicious that he wants to 24/7 without cause or justification. It doesn't have to have any merit or be based in any reality.

Your definition of 'suspicious' assumes a provable demand upon Zimmerman's perceptions. The basis for Zimmerman suspecting someone may be that they didn't have their shoes tied. That's up to him. The PD watch program guidelines are consistent to this and inconstant to your demand for tangible proofs. But yes, Zimmerman had a basis for suspecting Martin.
The PD watch guidelines say to call 911 if you suspect a threat to life or property. Otherwise, if you in your opinion using your 'instincts' perceive someone as being suspicious to call the non emergency line and convey your suspicions even the if they are "unfounded". Zimmerman wasn't calling PD about Martins possible criminal behavior but calling PD about his own suspicions.
Zimmerman had no legal obligation to follow guidelines but this demonstrates that the PDs understanding of 'suspiciousness' isn't the same as yours.

The police didn't tell Zimmerman to do anything. He never talked to the police. He did talk to a civilian dispatcher who had no authority to tell Zimmerman to do anything. Even so, when the dispatcher told Zimmerman to stop following Martin, Zimmerman quit following him. Zimmerman said, "okay" and then proceeded to have a calm conversation with the dispatcher. There is no proofs or testimony that Zimmerman followed Martin after that moment. You got that from Bill Mahar or MSNBC.
How did that work out? Your question implies that it wasn't possible for Zimmerman to have thwarted a crime by Martin. Zimmerman had in fact thwarted a crime before by his presence and Martin was a self confessed criminal himself.

See red.

Young blacks were in fact the predominant if not the sole representation of the known criminal element recently at Twin lakes. Your use of hyperbole to characterize my statements is not reflective of the truth. But yes, given that most all crimes were committed by young blacks at Twin Lakes recently I would tend to suspect a young black male, in the dark, in the rain, with no obvious destination, looking around, looking like he was on drugs, stopping in your neighbors yard that had been broken into etc. yes, I would suspect that person to an extent that it warranted calling the PD non emergency number with my suspicions that were according to my 'instincts' and may have been 'unwarranted" as to play it safe according to the Sanford PDs guidelines.

Respectfully,

 

You should keep in mind, while making demands of others, that the purpose behind rule #11 is clearly stated: "for the purpose of civil and productive discussion"... Your somewhat abrupt demands are neither civil nor productive.

Additionally, you should be aware of the following component of rule #11: "The fact that someone is asking another poster for a cite does not necessarily mean that a moderator will agree that one is necessary, and asking for frivolous cites may also be regarded as thread derailment."

In short, please stop derailing the thread.

 

All people using the cut-through around 7pm and who are unfamiliar to Zimmerman...
a) 7pm is not an unusual time for there to be pedestrian traffic, especially in the direction of Rinehart Rd (where the closest restaurants and movie theater are).
b) Zimmerman couldn't remember the name of a street where he was neighborhood watch captain (in a complex with only 3 streets). Given that incredibly poor memory, I doubt he'd memorized many of the faces of local residents.
c) People who look around while they walk (as opposed to what? Staring at their feet?) are the norm.
d) The rain at the time in question was not a downpour but a light drizzle... That means putting a hood up would be sufficient protection from the rain for any reasonable person. So why should wearing a hood while it is drizzling be suspicious?

That's funny. Asserting that it was valid for Zimmerman to find Martin suspicious on the basis that Zimmerman did find Martin suspicious is a logical fallacy referred to as "affirming the consequent". It's tantamount to saying it is my 5 year old is correct to say 5+5=11, on the basis that he has made the claim that 5+5=11.

Even if you were correct that the PD watch program encouraged people to waste police time by requesting police response for untied shoelaces, Zimmerman had no cause to stalk a teenager at night (against police direction) and then fail to identify himself when asked what his problem was. This would cause any reasonable person to see him as a probable imminent threat, at which point they would have the legal right (thanks to SYG) to use non-lethal force to defend themselves (as Martin did).

Sean Noffke, the operator Zimmerman spoke to, is also a 911 operator and works for the Sherriff's Department. Nice try.
The time between Zimmerman starting to follow Martin on foot and the time you claim he stopped is a matter of seconds. Given how far Zimmerman travelled, and the fact that he was looking around for Martin at the time, this simply isn't believeable - especially compounded by the fact that he went from agreeing to meet the police by the mailboxes to suddenly not knowing where he'd be when they arrived (as he was still searching for Martin).

It is a fact that most that white males are in fact the predominant if not the sole representation of known serial killers and embezzlers. Your claim that similar profiling is valid in other circumstances must mean you believe it would be an equally responsible sign of vigilance to consider as potential criminals all quiet and well-dressed white males who exhibit habits that may be found "weird" in the subjective opinion of an observer... Unless your racial stereotyping only works one way...

 

Thank you for your reply, its all good.

You remove the possibility that its possible to utilize a hood for anonymity in the rain. Yet, the reason that the rain made Martin more suspicious was that he wasn't reacting to the rain as Zimmerman might have expected. He defines this and can do so without merit, without basis and upon any unfounded rational.


That's funny. Asserting that it was valid for Zimmerman to find Martin suspicious on the basis that Zimmerman did find Martin suspicious is a logical fallacy referred to as "affirming the consequent". It's tantamount to saying it is my 5 year old is correct to say 5+5=11, on the basis that he has made the claim that 5+5=11.

Not so, in order for the logical fallacy to be valid it would have to require an outside qualifier in order the validate the closed statement. There does not exist any law, any rule or any ethos that Zimmermans suspicions were subject to. His self proving rational does validate itself because it isn't subject to any third party qualifier. He has the absolute right to determine what he sees as suspicious. Thus, if Zimmerman sees a cloud that looks suspicious to him, then in fact that cloud is suspicious to Zimmerman. There is no list or rule for determines any limitation as to what constitutes a suspicious cloud.

That's correct, and Zimmerman still called the non emergency line which is relevant. And Noffke still isn't the police and Noffke still doesn't have any authority. And Zimmerman still stopped 'following' Martin when Noffke asked him to.

Its 13 to 14 seconds, just listen to the tape and watch your watch and count the seconds. Pretty easy. Fourteen seconds to go 150 foot. The tape is all over the web and the map of the complex is readily available as well. He wasnt still searching for Martin, he was went another 150' straight to get the address off of a building on the next street. He done a u-turn and was met by Martin back at the T.

We could go around and around with your Tu Quoque mousetrap. I'll decline.


Respectfully,

 

You first argued that the area between the two houses was paved. That was false. Now you've repeated over and over again that it is a commonly used cut through yet the ground in the reenactment video shows no sign of common foot traffic.

The simplest conclusion is that you are making it up because you have no explanation for why Martin was on someone's lawn.

 

It is very sad that they just refuse to accept facts and they are acting like a bunch of lynch mob. The biggest bungling here is not Martin it is his supporters who have make him look bad, RIP truly I am sure Martin's soul is begging his extreme supporters to stop tainting his death with all this false claims.

 

The only area between houses in the reenactment video I've seen is paved... This is not referring to the cut-through where the altercation occurred. We are discussing the cut-through used by Martin to enter the complex on his way home from the 7-11.

As for who initially raised that claim, you might want to re-read the thread because you assertion that it was me is incorrect.

 

Then you should watch it in full I including when he is in the car and points out where he saw Martin for the first time. Its not paved.

Yes shows no sign of being a common cut through. The ground shows no sign of foot trafic. Rule 11 supply evidence or admit you are making it up because you cant give an explanation of what marti. Was doing on someone's lawn.

 

People don't want to burden Martin with providing an explanation for where he stood and why They say Martin can walk where he wants, when he wants and do so without any reason or explanation. He can wear what he wants and do so without cause.
He can talk on the phone with who he wants and run where he wants. He can run into the dark. They say that he could do just about anything without question.
Yet those same people say that Zimmerman had no right to watch Martin or to suspect Martin. They say that Zimmerman didnt have a right to drive his truck where or how he wanted. They didnt like him calling a dispatcher with his concerns. They say he must give reason as to why he called as to why he suspected and to why he drove where he did. They don't want Zimmerman to get out of his truck and say that he was stupid and must give a reason for doing so. And it goes on and on.
Zimmerman's every movement and perception is questioned in micro-detail against a set of non existent rules and laws that they have fabricated. Any of Martins actions are dismissed most cavalierly by these same people.
Lastly, these people impart guilt upon Zimmerman because they perceive that there was oppurtunity for Zimmerman to have made better decisions. But again, they hold Zimmerman to a threshold of resposnibility that they have invented. Zimmermans decisions and actions should be contrasted within an envelope of reasonable expectation of likewise persons in the same situation and even that is limited to legal and ethical laws in place.