George Zimmerman Arrested On Domestic Violence And Weapons Charge

[EPresence2]

because you cannot censor what other people say in a public forum? If you don't want other people commenting on what you said, then have a private discussion.

But there is a fallacy in your argument in that I did not address my post to the person being ignored. It was addressed to Athena et al. (meaning anyone who agrees with her post being addressed).

Not a fallacy, but showing your position is even weaker. You are essentially complaining that in a public forum that anyone can comment on your posts, even those you have on ignore.

No, I'm talking about someone who knows good and well I wasn't addressing them and I shouldn't be able to see their post to respond in any way. Jimmy piggybacked on somebody elses post to say his intention to do just that. Thanks again for bringing up the other perspective though. Jimmy seems happy about being off my ignore list.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Is your position that there is a justification for Zimmeman shooting Martin because martin was a jerk?

No - that would be assuming the stupid and like nothing I have ever posted. Of course, I've gone back on my word about being done with this thread. Doh!

Just wanted to make sure.

 

[fromderinside]

Shit.

About face.

 

[EPresence2]

Except you can see them if you are not logged in or someone else references that post. The feature is mostly worthless.

I assume one would put someone on Ignore because one wanted to ignore that person and what they post. The problem here appears to be your failure to actually ignore those you've chosen to put on Ignore. If you've Ignored poster X, then just ignore what they might post even when you do see it for one reason or another. That's what ignoring a poster entails.

This "failure to ignore syndrome" is very similar to what we've often seen when someone posts "I'm leaving this thread!' or "This is my last post on this thread...", but then sure as shootin' they return to the thread in a day or two because they just can't stand not replying to someone's comments.

I did fail to ignore Jimmy's response to my post addressing Athena. So I took him off the ignore list - after noticing the response while not logged in. It needed to be addressed (minimally), so I did. It just seemed like a dishonorable tactic to me, and it still does.

 

[Jayjay]

Occam's Razor is that out of multiple explanations, the one that requires least amount of additional assumptions is likely to be true. If you have some other idea of what it means, do tell.

I have shown that your scenario of Zimmerman running around the townhouses to cut Martin off and chase him back to the T requires more additional assumptions than him simply staying at the T and Trayvon turning back on his own. So application of Occam's Razor in this case means that the latter scenario is more likely.

So you do know what it means but you are applying it wrong. Occam's Razor in this case says that the person who was pursuing will continued to pursue, and the person avoiding/evading will continued to avoid/evade.

Fact: Zimmerman was the pursuer from the start. He even left his truck with a loaded gun to continue to pursue. We have no reason to believe that he suddenly changed his mind and went to look for an address instead. Moreover, in his mind he was pursuing someone who he believed was heading for the back entrance. Everyone agrees he ran across the top of the T to Retreat View Circle. Given that he was pursuing, and that he believed Trayvon was heading towards the back entrance, we have zero reason to believe that Zimmerman would reverse course and head back to Twin Trees Lane. THAT is the additional assumption. Occam's Razor supports the assumption that Zimmerman continued down Retreat View Circle for at least the length of the first building (six townhouses wide) before he cut back into the alley behind the parallel rows of townhouses.

Except that he did not turn back Twin Trees lane immediately. He stayed at RVC for at least a minute, which makes sense because from there he had a line of sight to the back entrance. So yes, that's an additional assumption, but rather small and reasonable one to make.

Your scenario on the other hand assumes several things that we have no evidence for but just have to presume to make it work:

1) That Zimmerman dropped his keys and his working flashlight at the T for no reason (as opposed to dropping them when meeting Martin)
2) That he would not only venture down RVC, but also between the houses, through the bushes and trees that were planted there, and chase Martin back up towards the T, in the dark without his flashlight.
3) That he would have the determination to both run down RVC and through the buildings without any hesitatation whatsoever even he did not see where Martin was, just on an assumption.
4) That he would made up a completely unnecessary lie about him going back to towards Twin Trees lane, and getting punched by Martin at the exact location where he dropped his keys, and which would not be contradicted by witnesses who might have seen him going down RVC, between the buildings, through the bushes, etc.

I don't see how making a simple assumption that Zimmerman stopped at RVC (when he had already stopped once before, at the clubhouse) would be somehow less plausible than the ones your pet theory requires.

Fact: Trayvon tried to avoid/evade from the start. It is an additional assumption to believe Zimmerman's ridiculous claim of Trayvon circling his truck. It is also an additional assumption to believe that Trayvon suddenly reversed course in the back alley to return to the top of the T. It doesn't make any rational sense why he might do that, and requires a whole bunch of unsupported assumptions.

Trayvon though he'd evaded Zimmerman already, and it was dark, so it's hardly irrational to think that he might have turned back from the path between the houses to proper sidewalk and get back home that way. Besides, as far as Trayvon knew, Zimmerman was on a truck on Twin Trees Lane and the patch between the houses crosses with Twin Trees Lane. It would have made perfect sense for Trayvon to turn back to avoid Zimmerman, not to confront him.

Quite frankly, though, looking again at the crime scene map I'm thinking Zimmerman's actual lie was ever making it as far as Retreat View Circle. My original assumption was that he did because he made such an issue about the back entrance. What makes more sense is that he started across the top of the T for that reason, but then spotted Trayvon about 50 feet into the T and took off after him again. This would explain why Zimmerman's key chain and small flashlight were about 40 feet north of the body near the top of the T, but his bigger flashlight and Trayvon's cell phone were found several feet south of Trayvon's body.

Maybe, but that would mean Zimmerman did not reach the T until end of his 311 call. So why couldn't he tell the address where he was at? All he had to do was look at the number on the closest building. And why would he say that he went all the way to RVC, when he could have said Martin ambushed him on his way there? And if he told the dispatch he was following him, where was he then? Did he stop following when instructed to do so?

 

[EPresence2]

Actually, I think they may be more complaining that I could respond to them and it would appear I defeated them because they hadn't responded back to. Which, oddly enough, is exactly what I said earlier in this thread after they said they were putting me on ignore.

Funny you use the term "defeat" as if this were a game. The feat can be done without the feature.

 

[Jayjay]

But the evidence does suggest that he was going back to his truck, instead of running around the townhouses as suggested by some people here.

There is zero evidence he was going back to his truck. Even the key chain was several feet south down the alleyway (but still approx 40 feet north of Trayvon's body), which is impossible if he was on the top of the T walking back to his vehicle.

That certainly puts a dent in the theory that he was ambushed and punched out of nowhere. But it also makes it even less likely that he had dropped them when going to the other direction towards RVC. More likely, he and Martin noticed each other at the T, and Zimmerman approached Martin before the fight ensued.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I assume one would put someone on Ignore because one wanted to ignore that person and what they post. The problem here appears to be your failure to actually ignore those you've chosen to put on Ignore. If you've Ignored poster X, then just ignore what they might post even when you do see it for one reason or another. That's what ignoring a poster entails.

This "failure to ignore syndrome" is very similar to what we've often seen when someone posts "I'm leaving this thread!' or "This is my last post on this thread...", but then sure as shootin' they return to the thread in a day or two because they just can't stand not replying to someone's comments.

I did fail to ignore Jimmy's response to my post addressing Athena. So I took him off the ignore list - after noticing the response while not logged in. It needed to be addressed (minimally), so I did.

Addressed? You mean derail, right?

It just seemed like a dishonorable tactic to me, and it still does.

And why is that? Are you the only person reading the thread? Is there not a peanut gallery reading, but not contributing? Why should your post become off target because you don't like being demonstrated as having a faulty position?

 

[EPresence2]

I did fail to ignore Jimmy's response to my post addressing Athena. So I took him off the ignore list - after noticing the response while not logged in. It needed to be addressed (minimally), so I did.

Addressed? You mean derail, right?

It just seemed like a dishonorable tactic to me, and it still does.

And why is that? Are you the only person reading the thread? Is there not a peanut gallery reading, but not contributing? Why should your post become off target because you don't like being demonstrated as having a faulty position?

I'm sure no one will come to my defense vs. your continued mischaracterizations of my posts and laughable declarations of victory. You'd think I slapped your momma or something.

 

[Mumbles]

...

 

[coloradoatheist]

There is zero evidence he was going back to his truck. Even the key chain was several feet south down the alleyway (but still approx 40 feet north of Trayvon's body), which is impossible if he was on the top of the T walking back to his vehicle.

That certainly puts a dent in the theory that he was ambushed and punched out of nowhere. But it also makes it even less likely that he had dropped them when going to the other direction towards RVC. More likely, he and Martin noticed each other at the T, and Zimmerman approached Martin before the fight ensued.

Not quite. As Z said was that as he is walking back M jumps out from the side on the house and they both approach each other slightly . He isn't punched right away, but they exchange one or two questions and then gets hit. The keys ending up in front of the house or behind the houses the other way would support the theory he went around.

 

[EPresence2]

I'm not going to repeat things I've said on this thread or connect the dots for you. E2 was done with this thread a few pages back, and that's mostly true (exception being what I wrote to Athena et al. that connected with another thread). What I've said is documented in earlier pages, interspersed with wonderful unbiased commentary from the peanut gallery.

It would have taken you less time to just answer the question than to write this.

I doubt that - which is why I wrote this. But you could be right. What the hell, here you go: Jimmy said that Martin could have been a jerk/bully. If Martin was a jerk/bully and there is reasonable doubt that Z attempted to detain him... it stands to reason that Martin may have punched Z for having the audacity to confront him. I've said this already in this thread, but without the explicit statement that M could have been a jerk/bully; only that we don't know much about him.

 

[Nexus]

I agree with you that if Zimmerman had been deliberately lying, it would be extraordinarily stupid (as he would know the call is on record), but that's precisely why it is implausible that he was lying. Extraordinary claims such as this require extraordinary evidence.

Its not implausible because he has demonstrated himself to be a stupid liar. The perjury charges of his wife, the art fraud, the saving people from a car wreck etc.

Bronzeage point this out earlier about compulsive liars. Perhaps you never encountered one so you find their existence to be unbelievable. But are are people that will tell lies that are guaranteed to be discovered even lies that don't seem to advance the interests of the liar.

 

[Jayjay]

I agree with you that if Zimmerman had been deliberately lying, it would be extraordinarily stupid (as he would know the call is on record), but that's precisely why it is implausible that he was lying. Extraordinary claims such as this require extraordinary evidence.

Its not implausible because he has demonstrated himself to be a stupid liar. The perjury charges of his wife, the art fraud, the saving people from a car wreck etc.

Bronzeage point this out earlier about compulsive liars. Perhaps you never encountered one so you find their existence to be unbelievable. But are are people that will tell lies that are guaranteed to be discovered even lies that don't seem to advance the interests of the liar.

Here we have theories about Zimmerman, one which requires an assumption that he is a compulsive liar, and one that does not. And none of your examples show that he is a compulsive liar that would make up incredibly elaborate scenarios even when it doesn't benefit him in any way - only that he makes stupid and rather simple lies to cover his own ass.

An example of an elaborate lie would be somethign akin to what I mentioned before, that maybe he did not have a car at all but actually was riding a bicycle. If you think Zimmerman is a compulsive liar, how do you know he didn't have a bicycle? Or a unicycle for that matter, as long as we are accepting any crazy shit just based on the assumption that everything that Zimmerman said must be a lie.

 

[Bronzeage]

Its not implausible because he has demonstrated himself to be a stupid liar. The perjury charges of his wife, the art fraud, the saving people from a car wreck etc.

Bronzeage point this out earlier about compulsive liars. Perhaps you never encountered one so you find their existence to be unbelievable. But are are people that will tell lies that are guaranteed to be discovered even lies that don't seem to advance the interests of the liar.

Here we have theories about ZImmerman, one which requires an assumption that he is a compulsive liar, and one that does not. And none of Mumbles' examples show that he is a compulsive liar that would make up incredibly elaborate scenarios even when it doesn't benefit him in any way - only that he makes stupid and rather simple lies to cover his own ass.

How does this make his trustworthy or credible? Does he tell the truth when his ass does not need cover?

Compulsive liar are not delusional. They don't make up elaborate scenarios. They make up plausible scenarios. The fact that he is so poor at it, is not evidence that he not a compulsive liar. That is one of the strange things about lying. One doesn't really get better with practice.

 

[Mumbles]

I agree with you that if Zimmerman had been deliberately lying, it would be extraordinarily stupid (as he would know the call is on record), but that's precisely why it is implausible that he was lying. Extraordinary claims such as this require extraordinary evidence.

Its not implausible because he has demonstrated himself to be a stupid liar. The perjury charges of his wife, the art fraud, the saving people from a car wreck etc.

Bronzeage point this out earlier about compulsive liars. Perhaps you never encountered one so you find their existence to be unbelievable. But are are people that will tell lies that are guaranteed to be discovered even lies that don't seem to advance the interests of the liar.

Criminals of many types will do this. "Search my car! There's nothing in it!"

(cop opens trunk, pulls out blocks of cocaine)

The simple fact is, the sort of guy that will leave the safety of a car and chase a stranger because he saw the stranger walking down the street and assumed he was "up to no good", is not gifted with wisdom and caution.

 

[Mumbles]

Its not implausible because he has demonstrated himself to be a stupid liar. The perjury charges of his wife, the art fraud, the saving people from a car wreck etc.

Bronzeage point this out earlier about compulsive liars. Perhaps you never encountered one so you find their existence to be unbelievable. But are are people that will tell lies that are guaranteed to be discovered even lies that don't seem to advance the interests of the liar.

Here we have theories about Zimmerman, one which requires an assumption that he is a compulsive liar, and one that does not. And none of your examples show that he is a compulsive liar that would make up incredibly elaborate scenarios even when it doesn't benefit him in any way - only that he makes stupid and rather simple lies to cover his own ass.

An example of an elaborate lie would be somethign akin to what I mentioned before, that maybe he did not have a car at all but actually was riding a bicycle. If you think Zimmerman is a compulsive liar, how do you know he didn't have a bicycle? Or a unicycle for that matter, as long as we are accepting any crazy shit just based on the assumption that everything that Zimmerman said must be a lie.

You are confused. We have concluded that he's lying, because his story is contradicted at nearly every point by the evidence - Jeantel's testimony, his police recording, the fight location, basic understanding of human behavior.

 

[Jarhyn]

Having met, known, and even grown up next to compulsive liars, I know for a fact that they can and do tell some pretty implausible and fantastic stories. One claimed to have invented cold Fusion but had all his shit confiscated in a government coverup. In another story when he was in his army lies phase he claimed to have been in a field exercise involving a tank armed with paintball rounds. Later he claimed to have invented a virus which was capable of damaging hardware on an arbitrary target, and when I called him on the latter, attempted to claim it was under the auspice of helping a paychogist friend with research into bullshit detection.

My brother lied more to hide and cover antisocial behavior, which he was also bad at. Usually it was to cover the fact he spent all his time at university being high and skipping out of class. Later it was to hide unemployment.

So no. Compulsive liars aren't necessarily any good at it. Often they are quite bad at it. Many are dumb and make bad choices. Zimmerman has all the hallmarks of a liar but the thing that stands out is that he CONSPIRED to lie with an accomplice. That seems out of place. I've never see. A compulsive liar do that; I suspect that instead, he's not compulsive, he's just an average run-of-the-mill liar. Which is, in my mind, far more repugnant.

 

[Playball40]

Having met, known, and even grown up next to compulsive liars, I know for a fact that they can and do tell some pretty implausible and fantastic stories. One claimed to have invented cold Fusion but had all his shit confiscated in a government coverup. In another story when he was in his army lies phase he claimed to have been in a field exercise involving a tank armed with paintball rounds. Later he claimed to have invented a virus which was capable of damaging hardware on an arbitrary target, and when I called him on the latter, attempted to claim it was under the auspice of helping a paychogist friend with research into bullshit detection.

My brother lied more to hide and cover antisocial behavior, which he was also bad at. Usually it was to cover the fact he spent all his time at university being high and skipping out of class. Later it was to hide unemployment.

So no. Compulsive liars aren't necessarily any good at it. Often they are quite bad at it. Many are dumb and make bad choices. Zimmerman has all the hallmarks of a liar but the thing that stands out is that he CONSPIRED to lie with an accomplice. That seems out of place. I've never see. A compulsive liar do that; I suspect that instead, he's not compulsive, he's just an average run-of-the-mill liar. Which is, in my mind, far more repugnant.

He's a liar and a sociopath. Blech.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Having met, known, and even grown up next to compulsive liars, I know for a fact that they can and do tell some pretty implausible and fantastic stories. One claimed to have invented cold Fusion but had all his shit confiscated in a government coverup. In another story when he was in his army lies phase he claimed to have been in a field exercise involving a tank armed with paintball rounds. Later he claimed to have invented a virus which was capable of damaging hardware on an arbitrary target, and when I called him on the latter, attempted to claim it was under the auspice of helping a paychogist friend with research into bullshit detection.

My brother lied more to hide and cover antisocial behavior, which he was also bad at. Usually it was to cover the fact he spent all his time at university being high and skipping out of class. Later it was to hide unemployment.

So no. Compulsive liars aren't necessarily any good at it. Often they are quite bad at it. Many are dumb and make bad choices. Zimmerman has all the hallmarks of a liar but the thing that stands out is that he CONSPIRED to lie with an accomplice. That seems out of place. I've never see. A compulsive liar do that; I suspect that instead, he's not compulsive, he's just an average run-of-the-mill liar. Which is, in my mind, far more repugnant.

But there is also a huge difference in the scenario here too where with your friend he has no reprocussions if he is found out to be a liar, where Zimmerman has to either be very close to the truth. There are a lot of things that break if there is an unknown witness. One of the arguments is that he ran in front of the houses. All it would have taken if was somebody looking out their front window, or possibly a twig broken with some clothing on it, etc. And none of the witnesses heard somebody running in front.

With the walkthrough the cops weren't interested in any specific misunderstandings, they were just worried about the big picture at the time. They could have asked clarification on some things to make sure that he was remembering correctly. Been through enough non-stressful events where I've had to retell the steps and what was done I know how your mind mixes things and forgets things. It's funny how we think Jeantel's story has to be true even though at the time she didn't think the event was important and she never referenced a journal or anything where she wrote things down to remember.