George Zimmerman Arrested On Domestic Violence And Weapons Charge

[RavenSky]

It was rebutted and debunked, so you need to stop peddling it in some sort of perverted defense of the thug named Zimmerman.

Where's this debunking?

everywhere including in this thread again. Stop derailing this thread with your defamation of a dead teenager. This thread is about the violent thug Zimmerman being arrested yet again for being a violent thug.

 

[Arctish]

I really appreciate the relatively thorough evaluation toward making a qualitative decision between the scenarios (and lack of snarky commentary). I certainly wasn't vilifying Martin unless the possibility of an initial punch by Martin is admitted as plausible. Although I'm not sure making a mistake or multiple mistakes makes one a villain. It is also important to make a distinction between alleged crimes and convicted crimes. You don't know the kind of people GZ has been dealing with (e.g., the cop could have been a dickhead, the cousin could have been a bigger liar). GZ definitely had/has some anger management issues and he was angry at "these guys (burglary suspects) always getting away." GZ also had a longer history of both bad and good behavior to evaluate than the younger Martin. So the comparison of records isn't really apples to apples. Teenagers do stupid things, as we all know. Then again, the older GZ's behavior pattern had more chances to calcify. There is also the possibility that being wrongfully accused of such stupid behavior (e.g., jumping TM to attempt a detainment before even calling the cops again) could contribute to some anger. I don't see many of you on this thread giving ANY benefit of the doubt, or allowance for mitigating circumstances, to GZ. No logical arguments or evidence are presented to label his family and friends as better or worse than Trayvon's family and friends. This is clearly biased.

I think what you are interpreting as bias is actually a set of conclusions reached by many members of this community following an epic multi-thread, more-than-a-year-long discussion of the George Zimmerman - Trayvon Martin case. Every scrap of information available to us was examined, challenged, tested, analyzed, poked, prodded, dissected, and debated for months. By the end of the Dying For Skittles thread and its offshoots, people had reached conclusions about the truth of certain claims. That is why you see people being very dismissive of things you haven't ever discussed with them.

I don't speak for the entire community but I think I can give you a general outline of how the discussions played out, and perhaps explain some of the current conversation.

And why would Trayvon be threatened by a man driving around IN a gated community? Obviously, he lives there and was able to get in with a vehicle. Maybe he's a pedophile looking to score a black boy with his blow gun or bare hands. If I were TM and walking back "home" at night in a gated community and noticed a car following me, driven by a "creepy ass cracker," I might walk around his car too and say "Get off me!" If he got out the car and dared question my presence there (profiling?), I might very well punch his ass (if I were young, dump, and full of you know what). And what's up with all the downplaying of the wounds on GZ? There were more than two wounds (more like 6 from the source I linked to) and a couple of witnesses who corroborated GZ's "beat down" story. And it was raining, so blood on the pavement could have washed away. That said, it is still plausible that GZ meant to detain the youth and got punched for it - and what a bone-headed maneuver that would have been. In either case, the guy deserved some punishment - which he got in the court of public opinion (e.g., death threats, hate mail)... and now more charges (back to the OP)

If you don't mind, I will address the points you raise one at a time.

And why would Trayvon be threatened by a man driving around IN a gated community?

I and several others have written about our own experiences of being followed by strangers. Those of us who've had that experience have no trouble understanding why Martin would have been worried, fearful, alarmed, and prepared to defend himself if it turned out that the guy from the car really was following him. We all understand why Martin would not have wanted to lead the stranger to his home. No one wants a creepy stranger/stalker to know where they live. And we all understand why he would have called the guy stalking him a "creepy ass cracker". I call the guy who followed me creepy, and I would have called Zimmerman the same thing if he followed me, although I would have said "that creepy skinhead looking guy".

Many of us have also had the experience of seeing something that aroused our suspicions and calling 911 to report it. But no one here has said they made the choice to engage in armed pursuit, and the overwhelming majority say they would never make that choice, especially not after the 911 dispatcher said they didn't need us to do that. The general consensus here is that Zimmerman's action was dangerous, reckless, needlessly aggressive, and just the sort of thing that would cause the person being pursued to have a reasonable fear for his life and safety. So we tend to be dismissive of scenarios in which Zimmerman's actions are considered justified but Martin's fears are not.

If I were TM and walking back "home" at night in a gated community and noticed a car following me, driven by a "creepy ass cracker," I might walk around his car too and say "Get off me!" If he got out the car and dared question my presence there (profiling?), I might very well punch his ass (if I were young, dump, and full of you know what)

That claim Martin walked around Zimmerman's car comes from statements he made to the police that are impossible to reconcile with the recorded 911 call. It's not just a little discrepancy, either. It's a huge deviation from the chain of events reported by Zimmerman as they unfolded. I'm going to post some links you can follow to the recorded 911 call, Zimmerman's statements to Det. Serino later that night and in subsequent interviews, and the recorded walk through containing the bizarre claim that Martin walked around a corner between buildings, then came back to circle the car, and then walked back to the same corner and went between buildings, at which point Zimmerman got out of the car to check an address on a different street where Martin didn't go and Zimmerman wasn't going to stay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7qEcD8R-8
http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/audio/george-zimmermans-statements-sanford-pd-audio/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_2NeMrGCvg

It's going to take a while to listen to all of them, so you don't have to offer an opinion anytime soon. I just want you to know there was a lot of discussion of Zimmerman's statements to the police, and there is good reason to doubt parts of it. Anything that cannot be reconciled with the 911 call, time-wise and event-wise, and for which there is no other evidence, is simply not believable. Anything that even Zimmerman couldn't explain, and for which there is no other evidence, is also not believable. And I'm sure we all realize Zimmerman had every reason to cover his ass. He engaged in armed pursuit of an unarmed citizen who had every right to walk along that sidewalk unmolested, and the end result was a dead teenager. So for the most part, people here are very skeptical of Zimmerman's account. That's not anti-Zimmerman bias, it's the result of examining his claims and finding them unbelievable.

And what's up with all the downplaying of the wounds on GZ? There were more than two wounds (more like 6 from the source I linked to) and a couple of witnesses who corroborated GZ's "beat down" story. And it was raining, so blood on the pavement could have washed away.

That comes from reading the evidence the medic who examined him that night and the nurse who examined him the next day both saying the injuries were minor, and Zimmerman apparently agreed since he declined being examined by a doctor. There is a picture of him bleeding from tiny puncture wounds on the tip of his nose and from two very minor scrapes on his scalp. There are pictures of a small injury and swelling on the bridge of his nose. But there is no evidence of a "ground and pound" or of having his head bashed into a sidewalk. Various posters, including me, have compared his injuries to ones we have suffered and found them to be much less that our own minor injuries. For example, I once got a glancing blow on my forehead from a tree branch I was cutting with a chainsaw. I did not fall from my stepladder, I did not feel like I was going to die, I did not almost lose consciousness, but I did have a highly visible goose egg for the next several hours. I look at Zimmerman's pictures (http://www.mynews13.com/content/dam/news/images/2012/05/GEORGE-ZIMMERMAN-BODY-0517.jpg) and watch the video of him walking into the Sanford Police Station that night (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/george-zimmerman-sanford-police-station-16416054) and I just don't see the same kind of swelling at the alleged point of impact. So I have doubts. I think Zimmerman was playing up the "danger" he was in so that the police would think he had reason to use deadly force on the unarmed teenager he pursued through a dark neighborhood.

That said, it is still plausible that GZ meant to detain the youth and got punched for it - and what a bone-headed maneuver that would have been. In either case, the guy deserved some punishment - which he got in the court of public opinion (e.g., death threats, hate mail)... and now more charges (back to the OP)

I agree with you the guy deserved some punishment, but I don't think death threats and hate mail are appropriate ones. I think he escaped an appropriate punishment because his legal team successfully race-baited the jury with tales of a black teenaged thug who attacked a poor, noble neighborhood watchman with a sidewalk.

 

[EPresence2]

Martin "might've been" or "probably was" or "likely felt" or "would've run,"

Meanwhile
Zimmerman DID say, he DID do he DID have a record of and he HAS continued to,


Be we should probably say the best of Zimmerman and assume the worst of the other guy, because...

Show

No "because." I can't think of any reason why a thoughtful person would promote the maybes that might justify over the certains that don't justify. No reasonable reason at all. I don't get it and I can't wrap my head or my heart around the hate and fear exuding from the statements made about this case. It blows my mind and hurts my heart. Peace out.

Let me fill in the blanks for you Rhea:

Zimmerman DID say "these guys (burglary suspects) always get away" & He DID say "What are you doing here?"

Zimmerman DID follow Trayvon & he DID shoot Trayvon. There is no evidence of a "grab and shoot" murder - Trayvon's words ("Get off me!") are ambiguous unless you are a mind reader. There is a plausible alternative to your story of a completely innocent victim. That also doesn't necessarily favor one scenario over the other. Why is that so hard to understand?

Zimmerman had a record of pushing a policeman, allegedly throwing down a drunk woman, was issued a restraining order after a domestic dispute, and was involved in a fight when he was Trayvon's age (so was Trayvon). Of course that is all to Zimmerman's life of any interest to you. Who cares about what witnesses, friends and family say or the spat of robberies leading up to the incident and the erroneous assumption that just because suspects were apprehended means no more robberies will occur. He obviously thought they could by what he DID say.

When faced with two possible scenarios, how can you honestly say that both assume the worst of TM and the best GZ? This is quite frankly a stupid conclusion when you are offered two scenarios in which GZ starts out wrong in both, but more wrong in one than the other. This isn't hate you are seeing from me Rhea... it's lack of faith in your exclusive conclusion. However, by virtue of the mere possibility that Zimmerman tried to detain Martin I would share a measure of anger toward the guy who took a young man's life for no good reason. It was a tragic mistake on his part. Regardless of which scenario is true, this case serves as a warning to citizens who would take the law into their own hands. Let the police with their new body cameras handle the situation...

 

[EPresence2]

I think what you are interpreting as bias is actually a set of conclusions reached by many members of this community following an epic multi-thread, more-than-a-year-long discussion of the George Zimmerman - Trayvon Martin case. Every scrap of information available to us was examined, challenged, tested, analyzed, poked, prodded, dissected, and debated for months. By the end of the Dying For Skittles thread and its offshoots, people had reached conclusions about the truth of certain claims. That is why you see people being very dismissive of things you haven't ever discussed with them.

I don't speak for the entire community but I think I can give you a general outline of how the discussions played out, and perhaps explain some of the current conversation.

And why would Trayvon be threatened by a man driving around IN a gated community? Obviously, he lives there and was able to get in with a vehicle. Maybe he's a pedophile looking to score a black boy with his blow gun or bare hands. If I were TM and walking back "home" at night in a gated community and noticed a car following me, driven by a "creepy ass cracker," I might walk around his car too and say "Get off me!" If he got out the car and dared question my presence there (profiling?), I might very well punch his ass (if I were young, dump, and full of you know what). And what's up with all the downplaying of the wounds on GZ? There were more than two wounds (more like 6 from the source I linked to) and a couple of witnesses who corroborated GZ's "beat down" story. And it was raining, so blood on the pavement could have washed away. That said, it is still plausible that GZ meant to detain the youth and got punched for it - and what a bone-headed maneuver that would have been. In either case, the guy deserved some punishment - which he got in the court of public opinion (e.g., death threats, hate mail)... and now more charges (back to the OP)

If you don't mind, I will address the points you raise one at a time.

And why would Trayvon be threatened by a man driving around IN a gated community?

I and several others have written about our own experiences of being followed by strangers. Those of us who've had that experience have no trouble understanding why Martin would have been worried, fearful, alarmed, and prepared to defend himself if it turned out that the guy from the car really was following him. We all understand why Martin would not have wanted lead the stranger to his home. No one wants a creepy stranger/stalker to know where they live. And we all understand why he would have called the guy stalking him a "creepy ass cracker". I call the guy who followed me creepy, and I would have called Zimmerman the same thing if he followed me, although I would have said "that creepy skinhead looking guy".

Many of us have also had the experience of seeing something that aroused our suspicions and calling 911 to report it. But no one here has said they made the choice to engage in armed pursuit, and the overwhelming majority say they would never make that choice, especially not after the 911 dispatcher said they didn't need us to do that. The general consensus here is that Zimmerman's action was dangerous, reckless, needlessly aggressive, and just the sort of thing that would cause the person being pursued to have a reasonable fear for his life and safety. So we tend to be dismissive of scenarios in which Zimmerman's actions are considered justified but Martin's fears are not.

If I were TM and walking back "home" at night in a gated community and noticed a car following me, driven by a "creepy ass cracker," I might walk around his car too and say "Get off me!" If he got out the car and dared question my presence there (profiling?), I might very well punch his ass (if I were young, dump, and full of you know what)

That claim Martin walked around Zimmerman's car comes from statements he made to the police that are impossible to reconcile with the recorded 911 call. It's not just a little discrepancy, either. It's a huge deviation from the chain of events reported by Zimmerman as they unfolded. I'm going to post some links you can follow to the recorded 911 call, Zimmerman's statements to Det. Serino later that night and in subsequent interviews, and the recorded walk through containing the bizarre claim that Martin walked around a corner between buildings, then came back to circle the car, and then walked back to the same corner and went between buildings, at which point Zimmerman got out of the car to check an address on a different street where Martin didn't go and Zimmerman wasn't going to stay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7qEcD8R-8
http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/audio/george-zimmermans-statements-sanford-pd-audio/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_2NeMrGCvg

It's going to take a while to listen to all of them, so you don't have to offer an opinion anytime soon. I just want you to know there was a lot of discussion of Zimmerman's statements to the police, and there is good reason to doubt parts of it. Anything that cannot be reconciled with the 911 call, time-wise and event-wise, and for which there is no other evidence, is simply not believable. Anything that even Zimmerman couldn't explain, and for which there is no other evidence, is also not believable. And I'm sure we all realize Zimmerman had every reason to cover his ass. He engaged in armed pursuit of an unarmed citizen who had every right to walk along that sidewalk unmolested, and the end result was a dead teenager. So for the most part, people here are very skeptical of Zimmerman's account. That's not anti-Zimmerman bias, it's the result of examining his claims and finding them unbelievable.

And what's up with all the downplaying of the wounds on GZ? There were more than two wounds (more like 6 from the source I linked to) and a couple of witnesses who corroborated GZ's "beat down" story. And it was raining, so blood on the pavement could have washed away.

That comes from reading the evidence the medic who examined him that night and the nurse who examined him the next day both saying the injuries were minor, and Zimmerman apparently agreed since he declined being examined by a doctor. There is a picture of him bleeding from tiny puncture wounds on the tip of his nose and from two very minor scrapes on his scalp. There are pictures of a small injury and swelling on the bridge of his nose. But there is no evidence of a "ground and pound" or of having his head bashed into a sidewalk. Various posters, including me, have compared his injuries to ones we have suffered and found them to be much less that our own minor injuries. For example, I once got a glancing blow on my forehead from a tree branch I was cutting with a chainsaw. I did not fall from my stepladder, I did not feel like I was going to die, I did not almost lose consciousness, but I did have a highly visible goose egg for the next several hours. I look at Zimmerman's pictures (http://www.mynews13.com/content/dam/news/images/2012/05/GEORGE-ZIMMERMAN-BODY-0517.jpg) and watch the video of him walking into the Sanford Police Station that night (http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/george-zimmerman-sanford-police-station-16416054) and I just don't see the same kind of swelling at the alleged point of impact. So I have doubts. I think Zimmerman was playing up the "danger" he was in so that the police would think he had reason to use deadly force on the unarmed teenager he pursued through a dark neighborhood.

That said, it is still plausible that GZ meant to detain the youth and got punched for it - and what a bone-headed maneuver that would have been. In either case, the guy deserved some punishment - which he got in the court of public opinion (e.g., death threats, hate mail)... and now more charges (back to the OP)

I agree with you the guy deserved some punishment, but I don't think death threats and hate mail are appropriate ones. I think he escaped an appropriate punishment because his legal team successfully race-baited the jury with tales of a black teenaged thug who attacked a poor, noble neighborhood watchman with a sidewalk.

I agree that death threats and hate mail weren't the appropriate punishment - I meant to edit that. Maybe he escaped appropriate punishment because the charge of second degree murder was inappropriate for the evidence. I also don't think the jury was swayed by black teenaged thug imagery - but rather the lack of evidence to overcome a reasonable doubt. You don't have to be a "thug" to punch a creepy ass cracker (with no muscle tone) who gets out of the car to confront you for just walking down the street. I'm also curious what gave you the impression I haven't reviewed all the pertinent information? I could have left the part out about circling the car and retained the basic scenario. I have no doubt Z covered his ass to some degree. It's very possible he shot prematurely knowing only that he was loosing the fight. I still don't see a connection to an overwhelming likelihood that Z actually attempted to detain Martin. That seems based entirely on conjecture, assuming a homogeneous pattern of behavior, and making a leap to an absurd conclusion. Maybe you and others here see it as more of a baby step. You can believe that, but I and many others don't see it necessarily that way.

I know it won't happen, but I hope when the next racial tragedy strikes that people will reserve their judgement until epic discussions/trials are concluded. Humans are all too quick to form strong opinions into which they try to fit all the evidence.

 

[Nexus]

I still don't see a connection to an overwhelming likelihood that Z actually attempted to detain Martin. That seems based entirely on conjecture, assuming a homogeneous pattern of behavior, and making a leap to an absurd conclusion.

Its hardly an absurd conclusion to assume Zimmerman went to detain Martin because we have these undeniable facts: a man with a thuggish past/future, after angrily saying they always get away, left the safety of his vehicle while armed, then had a fight with his suspect and killed him.

 

[Arctish]

I agree that death threats and hate mail weren't the appropriate punishment - I meant to edit that. Maybe he escaped appropriate punishment because the charge of second degree murder was inappropriate for the evidence. I also don't think the jury was swayed by black teenaged thug imagery - but rather the lack of evidence to overcome a reasonable doubt. You don't have to be a "thug" to punch a creepy ass cracker (with no muscle tone) who gets out of the car to confront you for just walking down the street. I'm also curious what gave you the impression I haven't reviewed all the pertinent information?

You give that impression when you say things like "You don't have to be a "thug" to punch a creepy ass cracker (with no muscle tone) who gets out of the car to confront you for just walking down the street". At the time of Martin's death George Zimmerman had been working out and taking classes at a MMA gym 3 times a week for 2 years. He had muscle tone to spare.

Also, I can't help but notice that the "what if...?" scenario you present here has all the aggression being assigned to Martin and none to the guy with a documented history of aggression.

Quick review of facts in evidence and statements made to the police by eye witnesses:

Martin: 1 fight at school when he was a teenager (not known if he was aggressor or victim).

Zimmerman: 1 fight when he was a teenager (not known if he was aggressor or victim) + 1 restraining order for domestic violence + 1 assault of a police officer + 1 witness statement from former co-worker Zimmerman threw a woman down onto a sidewalk + 1 witness statement from Zimmerman's cousin that he bullied and sexually assaulted her for 10 years.

How does this translate into Martin being the aggressive asshole? How is it possible to believe that Zimmerman wasn't being an aggressive asshole when he got out of his car to engage in armed pursuit of a teenager who had done nothing at all to warrant it? Why is Martin still being portrayed as the one who throws punches while Zimmerman, with his record of violent confrontational behavior prior to and since the trial, is still being portrayed as a passive milquetoast?

I could have left the part out about circling the car and retained the basic scenario. I have no doubt Z covered his ass to some degree. It's very possible he shot prematurely knowing only that he was loosing the fight. I still don't see a connection to an overwhelming likelihood that Z actually attempted to detain Martin. That seems based entirely on conjecture, assuming a homogeneous pattern of behavior, and making a leap to an absurd conclusion. Maybe you and others here see it as more of a baby step. You can believe that, but I and many others don't see it necessarily that way.

Zimmerman attempting to detain the person he called one of the "assholes" who "always get away", the person he decided to pursue in the dark and the rain, is more likely than Martin attacking the creepy ass cracker* he was trying to avoid. Also, you are still overlooking Martin having a reasonable fear for his life and safety, and his right to stand his ground.

I know it won't happen, but I hope when the next racial tragedy strikes that people will reserve their judgement until epic discussions/trials are concluded. Humans are all too quick to form strong opinions into which they try to fit all the evidence.

You know it won't happen that people will carefully consider the facts before reaching conclusions? You are sorely misjudging people on this board.

*per Jeantel's recollection of the conversation; Zimmerman's words were recorded, Martin's weren't.

 

[Arctish]

Here's a thought experiment: what happens if we take the past behaviors (documented and told to police by first hand witnesses) of Martin and Zimmerman and use them as a basis for conjecture about what happened that night?

What if Zimmerman gets out of his car and pursues Martin between the townhouses, and when they meet up .......

1. Zimmerman fights with Martin. We don't know who was the aggressor and who was the defender.
2. Zimmerman threatens and slaps Martin to force him to comply with Zimmerman's wishes.
3. Zimmerman throws Martin against a wall to stop him from doing something Zimmerman doesn't like.
4. Zimmerman throws Martin down onto the sidewalk because he's angry Martin won't comply with his wishes.
5. Zimmerman bullies and assaults Martin and forces him to comply with Zimmerman's wishes.
6. Martin fights with Zimmerman. We don't know who was the aggressor and who was the defender.
7. Martin shows up late.
8. Martin writes W.T.F. on something.
9. Martin smokes pot. He may or may not offer Zimmerman a toke.

It's interesting that when you look at it this way, it appears Zimmerman might have been trying to make Trayvon Martin his bitch.

 

[Mumbles]

Exposed as a burglar.

So, who did he burgle? Even Zimmerman's own statements implies that Martin was just walking down the street.

Who knows what would have happened? We basically know he committed at least one burglary and Zimmerman felt he was casing houses.

Could you link to a police report and court case. Oh I see others have asked for this as well.

Yeah, the standard approach--when I say the sky is blue you guys ask for evidence.

Most of you were around here when the issue came up originally, the evidence was widely discussed. You know where it came from.

Yes, the guy who posted it isn't the most upstanding character. That doesn't change the fact that his argument was basically a collection of official documents along with enough text to connect the dots.

Here's another point. Martin wrote "WTF" on the inside of his locker, maybe smoked weed, and for that...he gets suspended?

What the hell?

We're supposed to be trying to keep kids *in* class, not looking for reasons to throw them out.

"Oh, this kid graffitied up the inside of his locker this one time I couldn't have possibly known, Let me get out of my car and chase him down the street, with a gun on me."

What? That's just crazy.

ETA: and as always, when I say "crazy", I mean "dangerous".

 

[bleubird]

After almost three years conjecture and speculation we still do not know what happened.However,we know that Zimmerman had problems before and after he killed Marten.
What I see in some of the Zimmer defenders is a need to just argue for the sake of argument.Armchair Lawyers.Experts on everything. Do you have a dog in this fight?Are you in danger of young black kids "that all was get away'

 

[Frikki]

Do you guys know what it is called when you are detained with out legal authorization? Unlawful arrest. With out clear evidence of a crime committed by Martin, that is what Zimmerman was going to do. Zimmerman set out to break the law. And then we have the racists defending the fuckwit.

 

[bleubird]

Could be the Forth Amendment.
To say that Zimmer set out to protect laws would give Zimmer too much credit.

 

[Rhea]

You don't have to be a "thug" to punch a creepy ass cracker (with no muscle tone) who gets out of the car to confront you for just walking down the street. I'm also curious what gave you the impression I haven't reviewed all the pertinent information?

Interesting juxtaposition of these two sentences.
Here's a quick test. Go search for a picture of George Zimmerman on the night of the murder. And tell me again he has no muscle tone? He had been working out at a mixed martial arts center. Look for the images of him walking into the police station.

If you have reviewed the information, you would have known this without question.
Zimmerman was buff on the night of the murder. He quickly gained 100 pounds by the trial. So that people like you could think he was a marshmallow. It seems to have worked.

By the way looking at pictures you can also see the head wounds and how much blood there wasn't.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Add to that the narratives the bloggers were putting out that Martin was fully trained and competent in "hand-to-hand combat" implying he was some sort of Special Forces killing machine when really some other kid was teaching how to box and take hits like most teenage boys do.

 

[EPresence2]

You give that impression when you say things like "You don't have to be a "thug" to punch a creepy ass cracker (with no muscle tone) who gets out of the car to confront you for just walking down the street". At the time of Martin's death George Zimmerman had been working out and taking classes at a MMA gym 3 times a week for 2 years. He had muscle tone to spare.

Not according to his MMA instructor. He was rated a 1 (at best) on a scale of 0-10 by trainer Adam Pollock.

Also, I can't help but notice that the "what if...?" scenario you present here has all the aggression being assigned to Martin and none to the guy with a documented history of aggression

Maybe that's because I've allowed for two possible scenarios - one in which GZ steps over the physical/non-physical line to attempt detaining Martin.

Quick review of facts in evidence and statements made to the police by eye witnesses:

Martin: 1 fight at school when he was a teenager (not known if he was aggressor or victim).

Zimmerman: 1 fight when he was a teenager (not known if he was aggressor or victim) + 1 restraining order for domestic violence + 1 assault of a police officer + 1 witness statement from former co-worker Zimmerman threw a woman down onto a sidewalk + 1 witness statement from Zimmerman's cousin that he bullied and sexually assaulted her for 10 years.

How does this translate into Martin being the aggressive asshole? How is it possible to believe that Zimmerman wasn't being an aggressive asshole when he got out of his car to engage in armed pursuit of a teenager who had done nothing at all to warrant it? Why is Martin still being portrayed as the one who throws punches while Zimmerman, with his record of violent confrontational behavior prior to and since the trial, is still being portrayed as a passive milquetoast?

... in one of the scenarios he is portrayed somewhat less aggressively. He is overly aggressive in both - where is the unstoppable slippery slope to attempting an unlawful detainment?

I could have left the part out about circling the car and retained the basic scenario. I have no doubt Z covered his ass to some degree. It's very possible he shot prematurely knowing only that he was loosing the fight. I still don't see a connection to an overwhelming likelihood that Z actually attempted to detain Martin. That seems based entirely on conjecture, assuming a homogeneous pattern of behavior, and making a leap to an absurd conclusion. Maybe you and others here see it as more of a baby step. You can believe that, but I and many others don't see it necessarily that way.

Zimmerman attempting to detain the person he called one of the "assholes" who "always get away", the person he decided to pursue in the dark and the rain, is more likely than Martin attacking the creepy ass cracker* he was trying to avoid. Also, you are still overlooking Martin having a reasonable fear for his life and safety, and his right to stand his ground.

Now you are putting thoughts into Martin's head - maybe he wasn't afraid of this guy [rated 1 on a scale of 1-10 in physical prowess] confronting him in a gated community. Maybe Martin got tired of the misguided/audacious tailing or maybe Zimmerman decided to "not let this asshole get away" in a more literal interpretation of the phrase.

I know it won't happen, but I hope when the next racial tragedy strikes that people will reserve their judgement until epic discussions/trials are concluded. Humans are all too quick to form strong opinions into which they try to fit all the evidence.

You know it won't happen that people will carefully consider the facts before reaching conclusions? You are sorely misjudging people on this board

*per Jeantel's recollection of the conversation; Zimmerman's words were recorded, Martin's weren't.

I was not nececessary referring to posters on this discussion forum - it was more of a general statement. People on this board are not a monolithic entity; there appears to be disgreement even now on some aspects of the case. I'm still not sure if Zimmerman went so far as to grab Martin - that's beyond stupid. It reminds me (a little) of the portrayal of officer Wilson as the completely stupid asshole and Brown as the completely innocent victim. The reality may very well be more nuanced.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

... in one of the scenarios he is portrayed somewhat less aggressively. He is overly aggressive in both - where is the unstoppable slippery slope to attempting an unlawful detainment?

I would say it begins with his failure to identify himself or his intentions to Martin. By his own admission, he never asked Martin who he was or what he was doing in the neighborhood. Almost if he had made up his mind as to stop this "crime" in action.

I was not nececessary referring to posters on this discussion forum - it was more of a general statement. People on this board are not a monolithic entity; there appears to be disgreement even now on some aspects of the case. I'm still not sure if Zimmerman went so far as to grab Martin - that's beyond stupid. It reminds me (a little) of the portrayal of officer Wilson as the completely stupid asshole and Brown as the completely innocent victim. The reality may very well be more nuanced.

* caveat * We don't know exactly what happened.

But...

Why would it be stupid to assume Zimmerman grabbed/punched/flying tackled Martin? It makes more sense than Martin attacking Zimmerman, especially while Martin was talking on a cell phone. It would be very strange for a man talking on a cellphone (most likely using the dominant hand to hold the phone) to (1) surprise a victim (2) use both arms properly to grab/punch/flying tackle.

Throwing away/dropping the cellphone makes more sense if Martin must now use his hands to defend himself (or knocked out of his hand by Zimmermen).

All other scenarios need Martin to be almost superhuman.

 

[EPresence2]

You don't have to be a "thug" to punch a creepy ass cracker (with no muscle tone) who gets out of the car to confront you for just walking down the street. I'm also curious what gave you the impression I haven't reviewed all the pertinent information?

Interesting juxtaposition of these two sentences.
Here's a quick test. Go search for a picture of George Zimmerman on the night of the murder. And tell me again he has no muscle tone? He had been working out at a mixed martial arts center. Look for the images of him walking into the police station.

If you have reviewed the information, you would have known this without question.
Zimmerman was buff on the night of the murder. He quickly gained 100 pounds by the trial. So that people like you could think he was a marshmallow. It seems to have worked.

By the way looking at pictures you can also see the head wounds and how much blood there wasn't.

I've seen the pictures already Rhea - 0 muscle tone was an overstatement... and so is the buff descriptor! I actual agree that he shot Trayvon before receiving any serious injuries (how could I not) - it's more plausible that he shot simply because he was losing the fight. Remember, he was rated a 1 on a scale of 1-10 in fighting prowess.

 

[Rhea]

Not according to his MMA instructor. He was rated a 1 (at best) on a scale of 0-10 by trainer Adam Pollock.

Note carefully that the instructor DID NOT say that Zimmerman lacked muscled tone or lacked a fit look. The instructor said he couldn't fight for shit. Are those the same things to you? To a stranger on a dark street?

Nope. Just look at the pictures and you'll see what Martin saw. A sturdy skinhead coming at him.

 

[Rhea]

I've seen the pictures already Rhea - 0 muscle tone was an overstatement...

Thank you.

and so is the buff descriptor!

The look from a distance and or in teh dark? I disagree. Look again at his photos entering the police station (so you can see his walk and chest) and his video of "the walkthrough" which he does in a polo shirt. That is the look of someone who is fit.

I actual agree that he shot Trayvon before receiving any serious injuries (how could I not) - it's more plausible that he shot simply because he was losing the fight. Remember, he was rated a 1 on a scale of 1-10 in fighting prowess.

Indeed, which is probably why he's a man who carries a gun. because he wants trouble and knows he can't handle it.

 

[EPresence2]

... in one of the scenarios he is portrayed somewhat less aggressively. He is overly aggressive in both - where is the unstoppable slippery slope to attempting an unlawful detainment?

I would say it begins with his failure to identify himself or his intentions to Martin. By his own admission, he never asked Martin who he was or what he was doing in the neighborhood. Almost if he had made up his mind as to stop this "crime" in action.

Rachel said that he asked Martin "What are you doing here?" If that's not what he said, what does that tell you about her testimony? Of course it doesn't mean she lied about everything, and neither does Z's previous history necessary mean he stepped over the line again.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I would say it begins with his failure to identify himself or his intentions to Martin. By his own admission, he never asked Martin who he was or what he was doing in the neighborhood. Almost if he had made up his mind as to stop this "crime" in action.

Rachel said that he asked Martin "What are you doing here?" If that's not what he said, what does that tell you about her testimony? Of course it doesn't mean she lied about everything, and neither does the Z's previous history necessary mean he stepped over the line again.

Did Zimmerman identify himself?