Anita Hill

christiefan915 said:
Nor is it against the law to ask someone why they're following you.
Click to expand...

I agree. Which is why I stated Martin had every right to question Zimmerman and Zimmerman had every right to respond with a question.

I agree this is the part where it all gets fuzzy but for different reasons than you. It's not against the law to ask someone why they're following you. "Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.'" If GZ was actually heading back to his vehicle why didn't he keep going and wait for the cops instead of asking TM what he was doing there? By this comment GZ played a part in accelerating the events.
Click to expand...

LOL... asking a question does not accelerate anything. It in no way justifies Martin attacking Zimmerman.

We have only GZ's word that he didn't "corner" TM and excuse me for not believing the person who had a vested interest in protecting his life from a murder verdict.
Click to expand...

Actually we have the scene of the crime. Where exactly do you see a corner? You already admitted it was Martin that came up and asked the first question. How do you get from there to him being cornered?


Explain to me how cuts on the head are defensive wounds. What was the sharp object GZ was defending himself against by using his head to deflect?
Click to expand...

It is not an offensive wound caused by Zimmerman attacking Martin. A defensive wound is one that is received while trying to defend oneself.

We don't know if it was speculation. It could be 100% true. It seems you're way more invested in exonerating GZ than to look at every available detail impartially.
Click to expand...

Actually, we do know it was speculation. There is no way someone on a phone can tell you what happened simply saying Martins head piece fell out when she heard a thump. It is speculation either way. No one knows. We can only look to other evidence to see what that suggests occurred.

I am looking at that impartially... you are the one that is presuming guilt. I am presuming innocence, which is what we are supposed to do.
 
christiefan915 said:
Sorry, Zimmy's testimony and evidence is only 50% of the story.
Click to expand...

Not true. You have the 9/11 transcript, Zimmermans testimony, the defensive wounds on Zimmerman, witnesses who say Martin was on top, the girlfriends comments on the call she had with Martin... all of that points to Zimmerman's story being correct.
 
Superfreak said:
I agree. Which is why I stated Martin had every right to question Zimmerman and Zimmerman had every right to respond with a question.

LOL... asking a question does not accelerate anything. It in no way justifies Martin attacking Zimmerman.
Click to expand...

GZ didn't use good judgment and didn't need to answer Martin. He could have just kept going back to the vehicle and waited for the cops. And it's pure speculation that Martin threw the first punch, so to speak.

Actually we have the scene of the crime. Where exactly do you see a corner? You already admitted it was Martin that came up and asked the first question. How do you get from there to him being cornered?
Click to expand...

You tell me. I'm simply quoting from testimony. "Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin."

It is not an offensive wound caused by Zimmerman attacking Martin. A defensive wound is one that is received while trying to defend oneself.
Click to expand...

Again, how are cuts on GZ's head "defensive wounds"? What weapon did TM have that caused cuts? The wounds are more consistent with GZ either slipping or being pushed to the ground and hitting his head on something.

Actually, we do know it was speculation. There is no way someone on a phone can tell you what happened simply saying Martins head piece fell out when she heard a thump. It is speculation either way. No one knows. We can only look to other evidence to see what that suggests occurred. I am looking at that impartially... you are the one that is presuming guilt. I am presuming innocence, which is what we are supposed to do.
Click to expand...

Yet you said "All evidence shows that her speculation is unlikely." That is taking the position that GZ's words appear more credible to you than the witness's words.
 
Superfreak said:
Not true. You have the 9/11 transcript, Zimmermans testimony, the defensive wounds on Zimmerman, witnesses who say Martin was on top, the girlfriends comments on the call she had with Martin... all of that points to Zimmerman's story being correct.
Click to expand...

A witness said he saw TM on top of GZ. But he didn't say he saw GZ getting hit.

(Reuters) - A witness in the murder trial of neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman testified on Friday that he saw Trayvon Martin on top of Zimmerman during a struggle that led to the unarmed black teenager's shooting death in a central Florida gated community last year.

But Jonathan Good, a former resident at the townhouse complex, told the jury in Seminole County criminal court that he never saw Martin slam Zimmerman's head into the concrete sidewalk, undermining a key element in Zimmerman's defense.

"I did not see that," Good told the court under questioning by a state prosecutor about the racially charged case that triggered civil rights protests and debates about the treatment of black Americans in the U.S. justice system.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/28/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE95Q0EE20130628
 
christiefan915 said:
GZ didn't use good judgment and didn't need to answer Martin. He could have just kept going back to the vehicle and waited for the cops. And it's pure speculation that Martin threw the first punch, so to speak.
Click to expand...

So walking away would have done the trick huh? Ok. Again... no defensive wounds on Martin at all.


You tell me. I'm simply quoting from testimony. "Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin."
Click to expand...

Which again makes no sense given the location. At the point Zimmerman lost Martin, Martin was within a minute of his home. The courtyard area between buildings doesn't lend to cornering anyone. The whole quote above makes no sense.

Again, how are cuts on GZ's head "defensive wounds"? What weapon did TM have that caused cuts? The wounds are more consistent with GZ either slipping or being pushed to the ground and hitting his head on something.
Click to expand...

If he was pushed to the ground it is a defensive wound. If he was trying to defend himself and Martin pounded his head in the ground, it is a defensive wound. Perhaps you should look up the definition of a defensive wound.



Yet you said "All evidence shows that her speculation is unlikely." That is taking the position that GZ's words appear more credible to you than the witness's words.
Click to expand...

Note the words ALL EVIDENCE.
 
christiefan915 said:
A witness said he saw TM on top of GZ. But he didn't say he saw GZ getting hit.

(Reuters) - A witness in the murder trial of neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman testified on Friday that he saw Trayvon Martin on top of Zimmerman during a struggle that led to the unarmed black teenager's shooting death in a central Florida gated community last year.

But Jonathan Good, a former resident at the townhouse complex, told the jury in Seminole County criminal court that he never saw Martin slam Zimmerman's head into the concrete sidewalk, undermining a key element in Zimmerman's defense.

"I did not see that," Good told the court under questioning by a state prosecutor about the racially charged case that triggered civil rights protests and debates about the treatment of black Americans in the U.S. justice system.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/28/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE95Q0EE20130628
Click to expand...

As I stated... there was a witness that saw Martin on top. You counter that by saying the witness saw Martin on top?
 
Superfreak said:
So walking away would have done the trick huh? Ok. Again... no defensive wounds on Martin at all.

Which again makes no sense given the location. At the point Zimmerman lost Martin, Martin was within a minute of his home. The courtyard area between buildings doesn't lend to cornering anyone. The whole quote above makes no sense.

If he was pushed to the ground it is a defensive wound. If he was trying to defend himself and Martin pounded his head in the ground, it is a defensive wound. Perhaps you should look up the definition of a defensive wound.

Note the words ALL EVIDENCE.
Click to expand...

Gotta go and I'll get into this later but one point, I did look up defensive wound and still don't see how it applies to the cuts on the back of GZ's head. Perhaps you can speculate.

Defence Wound

A wound sustained when a victim places a hand (often the palms), arm (lateral forearms) or other body part in harm’s way to prevent or minimise the impact of a blow or slashing by a sharp weapon
Segen's Medical Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.
 
Superfreak said:
Nope. Did not discount it at all. Following someone is not starting a confrontation. It is not against the law to follow someone.



So, again, he lost Zimmerman. He was less than a minute away from where he was staying. Yet he chose to confront Zimmerman instead. Then he chose to violently attack Zimmerman. He is dead as a result of his own actions.



This is the part that makes no sense. At the point he had lost Zimmerman, he wasn't that far from his home. 'Cornering Martin'? ROFLMAO... yeah... exactly how did Zimmerman manage that? Martin didn't try to run. If he had he would have been home long before Zimmerman 'found' him again.



So according to the girlfriend, it was Martin that initiated the confrontation. He had every right to ask that question. Zimmerman had every right to ask his return question. All evidence shows that Zimmerman had defensive wounds, none on Martin.

The 'someone pushed Trayvon, because his headset fell' is pure speculation. It also could have fallen out because Martin attacked Zimmerman. Thus, her speculation is just that. All evidence shows that her speculation is unlikely.
Click to expand...

They've just decided to change tactics, seeing as how not one of them would take me up on my ban challenge.
I can't believe that liberals are still lying about this
Especially since it just shows how stupid they truly are.
 
is that why your always sucking a cock?

you cant readjust your disposition without a big hairy one in your suckhole
 
evince said:
is that why your always sucking a cock?

you cant readjust your disposition without a big hairy one in your suckhole
Click to expand...

You like to suck cock, don't you Desh.
The real reason you spit in that Black guy's face, was because he wouldn't pay you after you let him get the money shot on you.
 
Superfreak said:
LMAO... yeah, the two are so very similar. The majority of the evidence suggested OJ brutally murdered Nicole and Ron. But Johnny raised enough reasonable doubt to acquit.

The majority of evidence in the Zimmerman case suggested that MARTIN attacked Zimmerman. That Zimmerman killed in self defense. There was no evidence of second degree murder, which the prosecutor went for. They may have been able to make a case for manslaughter, but even then the there was reasonable doubt.

Just like left wing nuts to prosecute Zimmerman in the court of public opinion rather than actually looking at the facts of the case. Instead you want to pretend his case is similar to OJ. yeah... real honest on your part. By Mutts and Maines reasoning everyone acquitted of crimes are the same as OJ.
Click to expand...

That's an assumption on your part. Reasonable doubt is reasonable doubt. Mr. Zimmerman was not found "innocent". That is not a standard used in US jurisprudence. He was found "Not Guilty". You couldn't possibly know who initiated the confrontation, as there were no witnesses, which why there was reasonable doubt.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
That's an assumption on your part. Reasonable doubt is reasonable doubt. Mr. Zimmerman was not found "innocent". That is not a standard used in US jurisprudence. He was found "Not Guilty".
Click to expand...

Evidence is evidence.

Like I said, according to you all those acquitted are the same as OJ. Good call Mutt.
 
Superfreak said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
First off, lie detector results are NOT admissible evidence in a court of law. Secondly, I put it to this idiot and his like minded compadres like this: The transcript of the event has Zimmerman telling the dispatch that while he was in his car, Martin came up to the window, checked him out then RAN AWAY. During the description, Zimmerman stated that he wasn't sure if Martin was armed. AFTER that, he's telling cops that he "lost" Martin...to wit the infamous question "Are you still following him" and statement "we don't need you to do that.
Click to expand...


First off... Christie is the one that brought up lie detectors amounting to evidence of innocence. Which is why grind brought up Zimmermans test.

Which is why I pointed out to BOTH OF THEM that lie detectors are NOT the be all, end all determiner of the truth. So your "got'cha" moment doesn't exist here.

Second... we have answered your absurdity 1000 times. But thanks for once again proving that Zimmerman as well as Martins girlfriend BOTH said that Zimmerman lost Martin and vice versa.

Stop and think, you Freak....if he "lost" him AFTER Martin comes up to the car window and sees Zimmerman (who fearfully expressed suspicion that Martin had a weapon) and runs away, WHY DID HE NOT ONLY CONTINUE PURSUIT, BUT GOT OUT OF HIS CAR? He had ALREADY notified the cops. Could it have been Georgie thinking his own gun gave him the right to play cop? If so, then he was SEEKING A CONFRONTATION, or CAUSED ONE BY HIS ACTIONS. No matter how many times you try to BS around this, you can't avoid it.

Third... saying over and over again that the cops told Zimmerman they didn't need him to follow Martin proves nothing. ONLY TO WILLFULLY IGNORANT FOLK LIKE YOURSELF, AS MY PREVIOUS ANSWER POINTS OUT. He was following him, they told him to stop... and what did he say? Why do you always leave that part of the conversation with the cops out? Oh yeah, because he said 'OK'. SEE ABOVE RESPONSE. YOU KEEP TRYING TO ISOLATE THE EVENTS TO IGNORE THE CHAIN OF EVENTS....YOU DO THIS TO GIVE A DISTORTED VERSION OF THE FACTS. YOU FAIL.

Now if Zimmerman was NOT looking for a confrontation, why the hell would he get OUT of his car to PURSUE a suspected armed criminal at night AFTER he was told the cops were on the way? Zimmerman was NOT a cop and NOT legally a part of the OFFICIAL neighborhood watch. Maybe he thought his gun gave him that right?
Click to expand...

So, getting out of your car means you are looking for a confrontation? In this case, yes....unless you're a complete moron and don't know what you're doing. Not knowing if someone was armed or not does not equate to thinking they are armed. He said he didn't know. You do not have to be a cop or a neighborhood watch to follow someone you are not familiar with in your neighborhood. Especially after a string of burglaries in your neighborhood. A rational person who is scared that of a suspected armed criminal does NOT continue pursuit and then gets out his car (AFTER HE'S REPORTED THIS TO THE POLICE AND HAS BEEN ADVISED THAT THEY'VE BEEN DISPATCHED), unless he's acting like a cop looking to confront a suspect. You can dance this same step all day, but you can't escape the facts.


But knee jerk bigots like Superfreak will time and again IGNORE the rational, logical conclusion in favor of Zimmerman's tales.
Click to expand...

Freudian slip? Nope, fact based observation. Good to see you finally admit the rational, logical conclusion is indeed in favor of Zimmerman's story.
Click to expand...

Good to see you're failed attempt to rationalize Zimmerman's BS has resulted in this childish retort...which is about all you're good for at this point. ( you forget, Zimmerman was caught in at least 2 lies in the various re-tellings of that night's events). But do continue being a stubborn stooge for the right wing bigots.
 
i can't believe I made this whole second page about trayvon martin. Even when I was completely open about it. damn. We just cannot resist TM stuff. Still juicy two years later.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Good to see you're failed attempt to rationalize Zimmerman's BS has resulted in this childish retort...which is about all you're good for at this point. ( you forget, Zimmerman was caught in at least 2 lies in the various re-tellings of that night's events). But do continue being a stubborn stooge for the right wing bigots.
Click to expand...

You really need to learn to use the quote button or simply address everything at the end.

Stop and think, you Freak....if he "lost" him AFTER Martin comes up to the car window and sees Zimmerman (who fearfully expressed suspicion that Martin had a weapon) and runs away, WHY DID HE NOT ONLY CONTINUE PURSUIT, BUT GOT OUT OF HIS CAR? He had ALREADY notified the cops. Could it have been Georgie thinking his own gun gave him the right to play cop? If so, then he was SEEKING A CONFRONTATION, or CAUSED ONE BY HIS ACTIONS. No matter how many times you try to BS around this, you can't avoid it.
Click to expand...


The above shows how dishonest you are on the topic. He 'lost' Martin AFTER he had gotten out of the car... he didn't lose him, THEN get out of the car. You just make shit up and then pretend it is what happened. As stated, it shows how dishonest you are.

A rational person who is scared that of a suspected armed criminal does NOT continue pursuit and then gets out his car (AFTER HE'S REPORTED THIS TO THE POLICE AND HAS BEEN ADVISED THAT THEY'VE BEEN DISPATCHED), unless he's acting like a cop looking to confront a suspect. You can dance this same step all day, but you can't escape the facts.
Click to expand...

More of your dishonesty. Nowhere does Zimmerman state that he thinks Martin is armed. Again, you are a dishonest hack who simply creates one straw man after another.
 
christiefan915 said:
I'm saying that just because TM was on top at a particular point in time, it didn't mean he actually hurt GZ and that's how the witness testified.
Click to expand...

Which still supports Zimmermans accounting of the events. Which is what I said. ALL of the evidence supports his story. It is not just 'taking Zimmerman's word for it' as you pretend we are doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top