Zimmerman is not a white man he is a brown man

Please feel free to provide a link supporting your assertion.

BTW, did you notice my request for a source was not rude or abrupt, and did not invoke threats about forum rules?

 

From the start of the video from the car that had Zimmerman.
[video=youtube;7qfkRTC5gF4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4[/video]

No sign of foot common traffic.


For a better view
[video=youtube;tC_0cgsmCfQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC_0cgsmCfQ[/video]
This is from the car following Zimmerman you can get a view of the area starting about 00:54. No sign of common foot traffic.

BTW, you did notice that I supplied it instead of pretending that it was true.

Now rule 11 supply your evidence that it is a commonly used cut through or admit that you made it up.

 

Neither of those videos provide more than a couple of seconds of shaky footage – from a distance – of the area in question. The second video would provide decent footage, if there weren’t a car blocking the view...

As for evidence that there is a short cut:
Try scrolling through the slides on this link, and pay close attention to slide 3:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...g-to-the-shooting-of-trayvon-martin.html?_r=0

 

Did you. The area that the NYT, of white Hispanic fame, claims is a short cut isnt where Zimmerman spotted Martin.

 

Ive never caught the difference in the cut through. Zimmerman was familiar with the particular buildings in that he had known of burglaries there before. He also knew Frank Taaffes home as he has observed a burglar there before that resulted in police reports and talks with Taaffe. Its very reasonable that Zimmerman specifically knew where Martin walked through. There is no evidence or testimony to suggest otherwise.
Considering the route that Martin took along the roadway once he got inside the complex its odd that he would take that cut through. Not to mention that Martin passed the shorter route home on the paved walkway that led directly to his house and away from the 'creepy cracker' that was 'stalking him' that he was 'so scared of'.
According to the map, the audio, the video re-enactment and the clubhouse video it can be demonstrated that Martin followed after Zimmerman for some 400' feet from 1460 Retreat view Circle(cut thru) to the clubhouse. Thus, using the same accusatory vernacular and disingenuous hyperbole that the anti Zimmerman crowd uses, lets do our own narrative;

"Martin, a known drug dealer, fence and self professed 'gangster' was casing homes at his fathers girlfriends crash-pad after Martin was kicked out of his home by his mother for the 3rd time. Martin, employing his skills as a jewelry thief was looking into homes when he noticed a possible car jacking oppurtunity with a defenseless white dude in a nice car driving by. Then, Martin marched toward his mark with fists clutched just waiting to beat the dude up and steal his car. Martin passed on walking straight home but he wanted to hunt down the innocent childlike Zimmerman in the truck that he had worked hard for as a tax paying citizen and that he used as part of his volunteerism efforts for the children in his community......................................................................................"

Man, that's easy to manufacture a slant.

 

Yeah, Zimmerman claims he spotted Martin on a paved sidewalk... Fail.

 

First video I posted he says he spotted him on the grass between the houses.

You watched the video so what you just said was an outright lie.

 

Zimmerman is of course not a White man, but the left has to make him White because otherwise he would not fit into the White man = evil - scheme.

 

Make up your mind, did he see him on the sidewalk or between the houses (on what reports indicate is a common short cut)?

 

I've never said he saw him on the side walk. So again you are telling lies. This time about what I have said. You just made that up. He says in the first video that he spotted him between the grass between the houses.

And your source doesn't mark where he spotted him as a "short cut". Where your source marks is a full building away so you lose. Rule 11. Supply a source that says the area he spotted him was a common short cut or admit you are making it up.

 

The source I provided indicates he was on the sidewalk, but you want to disregard that while accepting the source is correct about the short cut. Cherry pick much?

 

The source you provided says no such thing.

Ive provided the source from Zimmermans reenactment to the police. He clearly states that he spotted him on the grass between the houses. To insist otherwise is a lie.

 

The source I provided (on slide 3, which I asked you to pay close attention to) highlights the spot where Martin was first spotted - looks like he was on a sidewalk... certainly not between houses.
I'll provide the link again: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...rtin.html?_r=0

Are you done derailing the thread yet?

 

Its a vague circle that looks like the grass between the two houses. Right where Zimmerman pointed. After watching the video of Zimmerman's reenactment to insist other wise is a lie.

No I'm not done. If you continue to post arguments that you know to be lies I will continue to call you on it.

 

Contrary to the OP's topic title, George Zimmerman is indeed a white man. He's obviously one-half white Hispanic.

Skin color does not determine whether one is a "black" or not. Many people throughout the world have the blackest of skin color -- but they are not ... they are not ... uh, black like black people in the U.S. whose ancestors are from the Nigerian and Congo basins of west-central, equatorial Africa.

 

Some say that Zimmerman is white. But that is an oversimplification. The assertion of Zimmerman being white carries an accusation with it. Although he may be 'technically' white that isn't what is being offered here. Zimmerman is being accused of representing or personifying white attitudes and racist inclinations(perceived or real) which is supposedly proven to be true since he is white. A logical fallacy called 'affirming the consequent'.
Thus, if Zimmerman is white, then he is also guilty of actions typical of whites. That is what is asserted here.

Respectfully,

 

True, there is no evidence or testimony that Martin was first sighted on any pavement or walkway. The reinactment is clear in that Zimmerman claims that he first spotted Martin in the grass in Frank Taaffes front yard at 1460 Retreat View Circle.
Even if Martin was on the sidewalk at 1460 there is no reason for Martin being there. Unless of course he just wanted to extend his stroll in the rain. Odd, why would Martin not use the 'interior' walkways that were shorter, more scenic and safer? He walked along a street in lieu of a shorter paved path around the lake?

 

Given that his mother has Afro-Peruvian ancestry that totally blows your argument out of the water.

 

Even if this was accurate, so what?
There is no evidence or testimony that Martin was doing anything illegal either.
Someone having a conversation on the phone didn't take the most direct route... How does this justify being harassed?

 

And all this time I thought that the "one drop rule" had disappear with the increase in education!

I guess stupidity will always prevail!

 

The issue here isn't so much if Martin was on the grass or not as it was you saying that he wasn't. You said 'paved', another said grass. You both referenced evidence. Your evidence proved unusable, theirs showed clearly that Martin was in the grass. While you can dispute Zimmerman's reenactment you really cant dispute the content of the video. For instance, although the movie 'Star Wars' was fictional, it is in error to say that I saw Darth Vader twerking naked on the movie.
Thus, you can concede the point or you can offer other evidence.

There is no claim by Zimmerman or by anyone else of relevance that Martin was doing anything illegal except that his actions were characteristic with criminal behavior. To be observed or deemed suspicious by a Zimmerman required no action or error on behalf of Martin. Martin had no right to not be observed or perceived as suspicious. I myself have been on hundreds of walks in my life through my own neighborhoods and those of friends and family. I'm quite sure it is reasonable that I was watched, observed and deemed suspicious by others that warranted watching me to an extent that they felt necessary or relevant. That is their right. They owe me no apology. They also do not require any remedial 'watch' training from the 'Bill Mahar Institute of PC living'.

Straw Man. This wasnt the claim. The claim was that Martin had an opportunity to choose better routes that were away from Zimmerman. Martin walking towards Zimmerman for some 400' flies in the face of the anti-Zimmerman narrative being parroted.

Essentially, most all of our information about the event comes from Zimmerman's own statements and accounts. And those statements and accounts are consistent to his narrative, consistent to the complex's layout and consistent to the time line. But yes, there is certainly room to glean what you may from that account as to be invented against itself.

Respectfully,

 

Did you watch the trial and the defense witness whose house had been invaded by the two black men?

That was O'Mara's way of justifying Piglet's 'suspicions' of Trayvon that night although a suspect had been arrested for the burglaries two weeks before Trayvon was shot.

 

Yeah except where was George for that mission 2 and a half minutes.

 

So you believe a watchman who claims that he can't remember any of the three streets in his neighborhood has the capacity to determine what is and what isn't suspicious activity?

GTFOOH!!!

 

Thank you for your reply. One good thing here is that all calls to the Sanford PD all have the same time stamp on a continuous rolling recording. Thus, there is no disputing time stamps on the calls made to the PD. Even if the time stamps were off by a few seconds they ALL would be off by that same exact amount.
Zimmerman's call to Non Emergency ended at 7:13:41. The first 911 call to come in was at 7:16:11, Thus 2-1/2 minutes between Zimmerman hanging up and someone getting through to 911 to report the incident. Here is what is compressed into that 2-1/2 minutes. Some of these things may have only been for a few seconds but collectively are relevant;



1. Zimmerman walked an unknown distance from where he last saw Martin to a side street to obtain an address.
2. Zimmerman may have stood there watching for Martin southward for an unknown period of seconds in addition to looking for an address.
3. Zimmerman walking back to the 'T' where he last saw Martin or some 100', Zimmerman may have walked slowly as he stared southerly to see Martin.
4. Martin approaching Zimmerman from behind and the two exchanging a few words.
5. Martin punching Zimmerman and the two moving southward some 20' due to Zimmerman "pushing Martin away" and "stumbling".
6. The two men fought for an unknown length of time.
7. The 911 caller heard the noise outside.
8. The 911 caller listened to the noise for a indeterminate amount of time.
9. The 911 caller at some point felt compelled to call 911 and had to go to a phone or reach for a phone.
10. The 911 caller dialed 911 and went through an undetermined amount of waiting and being switched before getting through to 911.

Remember, your claim here is that the ENTIRE 2-1/2 minutes is unaccounted for! You would need to subtract the above 10 things from that 2-1/2 minutes and come up with a revised 'missing amount of time'.
I'm not real confident that one could make a definitive argument in support of 'missing time'. The only thing you can do to make a case for 'missing time' is to compress the above 10 things into a smaller package using subjective observations, opinions and 'what ifs'. Likewise, I could enlarge the amount of time as well using the same subjective observations, opinions and 'what ifs'.

Respectfully,