Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Page 44 of 58 pages
You convienantly leave out his history of fighting, and Rachel's belief that Trayvon struck first.
(What's with the "Trayvon"? He's not your brother.)
No. This relies on a definition of "undisputed" that apparently means "Made up." None of this is the case. He had never been pursuing Martin. (What's with the "Trayvon"? He's not your brother.) He had been watching Martin, following him slowly. (We know that it was slowly because Martin was walking and Zimmerman was in a car.) Then Martin came up to the car -- this all happened during the call, narrated in real time -- circled around it, checked out Zimmerman, and then ran off behind some houses.
The dispatcher asked Zimmerman where Martin was heading, Zimmerman got out of his car to see, walked back there, couldn't find Martin. The dispatcher asked if he was following Martin, Zimmerman said yes, the dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that." Zimmerman said "okay," and started walking back to his car. Then Martin accosted him.
It's not 100 pounds, it's not 50 pounds. It's 27 pounds. Who said they were reasons nobody can explain? I can come up with reasons. They would all be speculation, since I'm not Martin, though.
What exactly are you talking about here? This part's all fictional. The only discrepancy in location is in the story that Martin was an innocent guy heading home. Because after losing Zimmerman he never went home; instead, he either stopped and lay in wait, or doubled back. We know that for a fact, because we know where the fight took place and we know where Martin's home was and we know the timeline because of the various calls.
Martin punched Zimmerman, knocked him down, jumped on him. Was punching him "MMA style" while Zimmerman was on the ground. Zimmerman was yelling for help. In the course of the fight, he reached for Zimmerman's gun, so Zimmerman pulled it and shot Martin while Martin was above him.
3/4 of Guapo's lines are the same, that it doesn't "make sense" that Martin would beat Zimmerman. But the evidence that exists strongly points to Martin beating Zimmerman.
And the rest is the strawman that Martin isn't a homicidal maniac. It's a nothing argument - there's no legal standard that to use deadly force in self-defense, the person attacking you has to be a homicidal maniac.
It's an erudite summary of the confected modern liberal world -- the one in which (*) George Zimmerman is "white" and a suggestion from a 911 rent-a-cop is an "order" necessitating slavish and unswerving devotion from private citizens. Its appeal to other modern liberals is thus easily understandable.
So it's his job to affirm the verdict in a Florida murder trial?
What *I* really want to know is, is SYG just Castle Doctrine extended everywhere, or does it relax the justification for self-defense. Cause I've read the statute, and it doesn't say anything about, "If you feel threatened, you can kill someone" (a common meme)
By not telling the public that no civil rights prosecution is going to happen because their investigation turned up nothing.
The investigation isn't over, but, again, he did pretty much say that.
By not telling the public that there is zero evidence Zimmerman's decision to follow Martin that night had anything to do with race or racism.
That's not true.
By not telling the public that the verdict was correct, that the evidence showed that Zimmerman shot Martin in self defense.
So it's his job to affirm the verdict in a Florida murder trial? What an un-Raylike thing to say.
Look, Obama said NOTHING WHATEVER about Zimmerman at any point in time. How this can be construed as inflaming passions against him is mind boggling.
Obama very clearly made a conscious decision to stay out of the weeds of the case of details. Wisely, in my opinion.
The only non-Sci-Fi way I can think to reconcile
No blood on TM's hands
The hoodie billowed away from his chest
Zimm being the one screaming for help (IMO)
Is Martin on top wailing away with elbows and forearms.
I can very easily imagine a teenager getting angry enough at being followed/harassed to hit someone.
given that Zimmerman underwent MMA training.
I seriously doubt Martin wanted to kill Zimmerman so much as give him a good beating. Still, on the receiving end, "this guy wants to kill me" and "this guy wants to give me a beating I'll never forget" don't seem so easy to distinguish.
Not sure what your point is here, other than maybe you object to the use of the word "pursue" as opposed to "follow." My point is we have a piece of undisputed evidence- the phone call- which demonstrates that George was attempting to follow Mr. Martin, and that Mr. Martin was trying to evade George. If you believe George's story, you have to be comfortable with the fact that as soon as the call ended, George retreated to his car instead of trying to continue to follow Mr. Martin (for reasons unexplained)
and that Mr. Martin decided he was going to violently attack George instead of continuing to evade him (for reasons unexplained).
(It appears that David has accepted George's explanation of facts as truth, but for others who may still be making up their mind, it's worth clarifying that while George said in later interviews that Mr. Martin "circled" his car, George did not tell that to the police dispatcher.
You are correct it's not 50 pounds, but in fact it's 37 pounds (George told the police in one of his interviews he was 194 pounds. My bad on the math).
Or, he stopped, and continued his phone conversation with Jeantel because he thought he had lost George and was in no hurry to get home(which would have been just as reasonable).
And in fact, George's statements on this are totally inconsistent:
Totally missed my point. It doesn't make sense that Mr. Martin would TRY TO KILL George. Get into a fight with him and land a solid punch? Totally believable. TRY TO KILL him? When he knows the cops are on the way, and he's in a fight with a guy maybe a hundred yards from his house? And the motive is, he's annoyed the guy was following him in his car?
My point stands, which is, in order to believe George's story, you have to accept that a 157 pound 17 year old without a weapon or a criminal record would decide to violently assault a 194 pound 28 year old stranger. Speculation is welcomed if you can come up with reasonable explanations. In the world I live in, that would be a pretty rare event.
-I think Zimmerman is a reckless idiot and shouldn't be allowed to walk around with a firearm. In particular, if he could have uttered the words "I'm with Neighborhood Watch. Do you live around here?" at any point before they started fighting, the whole thing could have been avoided, regardless of who started it.
“I realize it was necessary for our jury to be sequestered in order to [protect] our verdict from unfair outside influence, but that isolation shielded me from the depth of pain that exists among the general public over every aspect of this case,” Juror B37 said in a statement. “The potential book was always intended to be a respectful observation of the trial from my and my husband’s perspectives solely and it was to be an observation that our ‘system’ of justice can get so complicated that it creates a conflict with our ‘spirit’ of justice. Now that I am returned to my family and to society in general, I have realized that the best direction for me to go is away from writing any sort of book and return instead to my life as it was before I was called to sit on this jury.”
Yes, and your explanation is idiotic. You are claiming that Obama incited hatred against Zimmerman, despite never discussing him or the details of the case, by not loudly and completely endorsing your particular viewpoint on the case.
To be fair, he was apparently very bad at it. Not surprising he wasn't able to apply some very basic stuff (I would assume that they'd teach how to defend against a mount. I mean it's a central assumption that the fight is going to go to the ground and pretty much everybody sooner or later ends up in a bad position)
Not when it's used to evade the gravamen of the charge. If you do that, then it's no longer a discussion. It's just baboon ####-flinging at the monitor. That this isn't a formal debate doesn't mean that the rudimentary rule of debate shouldn't inform how discussion should proceed if it is to get anywhere. Indeed, addressing what a person actually says is simply the first rule of any kind of conversation or dialogue.
BTW how many Hispanic spokesmen, white or otherwise, have claimed Zimmerman as one of their own?
#4350 To be honest the first thing that came to my mind was the nutty, "never said 'terrorism'" responses to his Benghazi speeches.
4340. Morty Causa Posted: July 21, 2013 at 10:42 AM (#4499972)
Man, you are desperate, aren't you?
That non-response likely means there that are none, or that there are many. Which is it?
Since Latino groups tend to rally around their own along with the best of them when they smell bigotry in the air,
you'd think that there'd be a lot of pushback in the Spanish language media if Zimmerman were being perceived as having been victimized because of his ethnicity.
If the Dems run Hillary, they will lose. Two terms of Obama followed by Hillary? It won't happen.
Who's going to beat her? "The field?" Have you seen the GOP field?!
Try following their stance on the immigration bill. It might give you a small hint.
That's possibly because in this case there's very little sympathetic about a profiler rather than a profilee, which is why Zimmerman's Hispanic ethnicity has absolutely nothing to do with anything relating to this trial, other than in the fevered imaginations of a handful of his supporters.
Thus proclaimeth the Master Prophet of 2012, The Exalted Ruler of the Mystic Knights of the Unskewed Lodge.
#4337 Did not realize he was going 3 days a week. Still, he wouldn't be the first guy who couldn't apply what he'd been taught when it came to the crunch. It takes a pretty fair amount of expertise in any martial arts discipline to be actually useful in a fight.
Gee, I dunno. Because practically the whole damn country he's in charge of considers it in some way important and continues to talk about it, and often loudly? Just a guess, really.
Have you seen the GOP field?
The GOP Field:
- Paul Ryan has an uphill climb after being tarnished by the ill-fated Romney campaign.
- Jeb Bush would otherwise be a very competitive candidate, but I think his last name prevents him from getting very far.
- Chris Christie could be a very strong contender in the general election, but I have serious doubts he gets out of the primary.
- Jon Huntsman (see above)
- Marco Rubio is already losing the base over immigration, and his Jesus soaked RNC '12 speech will scare away most moderates.
- Ben Carson actually might have legs despite being a TEA Party type.
- Bobby Jindal has his SOTU response stigma to overcome AND a long track record of being extremely conservative.
- Bob McDonnell seems to be going down in flames already
- Rick Perry undid his chances in 2012.
- Rand Paul has the whole Civil Rights Act fumble to get over, but I think could actually be a very formidable contender if only because he could singlehandedly rebrand the GOP.
- Ben Carson actually might have legs despite being a TEA Party type.
By 2016, Hillary Clinton will have been a national figure for 25 years, most of that as the most popular woman in US politics. She's the most popular political figure in the United States,
but I think she's extremely electable, in particular as she refashions herself into some sort of living legend, Iron Grandma of the United States. It's worth noting that Millenials and Gen X'rs *LOVE* her and her support amongst female voters will probably be even higher in 2016 as she mounts a historic candidacy.
That interest is driven -- and can only be driven -- by the fallacious notion that Zimmerman is an "honorary White."
True. But that makes you ask how likely it was that the entirely untrained guy, who had only seen the techniques on TV, was properly executing them in the heat of the moment?
By 2016, Hillary Clinton will have been a national figure for 25 years, most of that as the most popular woman in US politics. She's the most popular political figure in the United States, she's incredibly seasoned, and while her husband was President in the 90's, he's still a nationally popular figure so talk of dynasty should be at a minimum. I personally don't love her politics, but I think she's extremely electable, in particular as she refashions herself into some sort of living legend, Iron Grandma of the United States. It's worth noting that Millenials and Gen X'rs *LOVE* her and her support amongst female voters will probably be even higher in 2016 as she mounts a historic candidacy.
But that makes you ask how likely it was that the entirely untrained guy, who had only seen the techniques on TV, was properly executing them in the heat of the moment?
All of the above was true in 2008, and yet Hillary Clinton was beaten by a back-bench U.S. senator with no notable public- or private-sector achievements* whose main attribute was being a smooth talker. Hillary Clinton just isn't a great politician when she gets out of extremely blue states like New York. (Also, her Benghazi response didn't exactly scream "Iron Grandma." Margaret Thatcher, she's not.)
I actually agree that Hillary isn't a particularly strong campaigner, but I think she's going to be basically unchallenged in the primary and her husband is one of the best campaigners of all time.
The fact that she lost to a force of nature like Barack Obama can't be held against her. He, and his campaign, were of the moment in 2008. In 6 years, he went from a State Senator in Illinois to the passage of a universal health care bill. Save for the hard-right who were focused on Benghazi, Hillary's time at State was incredibly well-received
and she is literally the most popular figure in American politics today. That wasn't true in 2008,
Americans love a feel-good moment, and the first female President is as big as they get.
So let's get this straight: Four different Spanish language outlets didn't find anything about Zimmerman's Latino heritage that might make them feel he was being persecuted for that reason, and so none of them brought up the case while interviewing Obama.
And so instead of inferring what most people might from that statement---that Zimmerman's Latino heritage did NOT have anything to do with the way the trial went down---you conclude that "the whole lot of them" should be fired for essentially not acting as the surrogate of Senor Jose Kehoskie, righteous guardian of the interests of Hispanics.
Which he'll use to remind everyone about why his crusade against immigration reform is crucial for winning the key swing states of Oklahoma and West Virginia. We won't have seen such brilliant strategizing since the days of George McGovern.
The fact that she lost to a force of nature like Barack Obama can't be held against her.
Elections tend to be about the economy, no? Since I'm not hearing disagreement ....
Can you tell me when the last time a presidential nominee was "basically unchallenged" when that nominee wasn't a sitting president?
Gore? Kerry didn't face much challenge either.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (0 members)
Page rendered in 1.1260 seconds, 48 querie(s) executed