Zimmermann at it again

Amazingfun

stretchdoe wrote: »

Zimmerman's victim

I think you'll find the facts support that it was Zimmerman who was the victim of a vicious violent attack launched by Martin, and that he (Zimmerman) defended himself.

Truly amazing the lengths some will go to to support their delusional views.

Amazingfun

Did Shellie Zimmerman SWAT CALL Her Husband? – Lake Mary Police are now calling into question several statements Shellie Zimmerman made to 911
Posted on September 10, 2013


“SWATTING” – Swatting is the tricking of any emergency service (via such as a 9-1-1 dispatcher) into dispatching an emergency response based on the false report of an on-going critical incident. (link)

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/09/10/did-shellie-zimmerman-swat-call-her-husband-lake-mary-police-are-now-calling-into-question-several-statements-shellie-zimmerman-made-to-911/

MadsL

stretchdoe wrote: »

Neither part of that relating to Martin is false.

However, certainly regarding a teenager, i don't believe that that is evidence, and he was never charged with or convicted of any crime before, of someone being a less than 'salubrious character'.

That's a matter of opinion, i suppose.

But having dipped in and out of this thread since its inception, i'm pretty sure that you, unless i'm mistaking you with another poster, continually cast aspersions on Martin's character and suggested that this was important regarding the unclear matter of what transpired in their altercation.

You seem to be quite happy to point to extraneous 'circumstantial evidence' that you feel relevant regarding the character of Zimmerman's victim, yet balk at any mention of any of the various scrapes Zimmerman somehow found himself in previous to that incident, as if they could be in no way suggestive of his character.

So firstly you accuse me of something I haven't done - unless you want quote where I have.

Secondly you appear to be accusing me of slandering the moral character of TM without evidence, ironic since it is precisely what you have just done yourself about GZ.

Now where is your evidence for GZ less than salubrious nature?

stretchdoe

Amazingfun wrote: »

I think you'll find the facts support that it was Zimmerman who was the victim of a vicious violent attack launched by Martin, and that he (Zimmerman) defended himself.

Truly amazing the lengths some will go to to support their delusional views.

Nah.

Martin's dead.

He was followed and by an adult with a gripe and a gun and shot dead.

None of this would've happened if Zimmerman wasn't an unhinged wannabe vigilante.

Regardless of the court-case and, by the way, Martin's family had to kick-up, lobby and draw attention to it, in order to get the authorities to even investigate the case properly, and the decision, which i'm not saying, given the evidence brought before them, was necessarily the wrong one for the jury to make, that's the outcome.

MadsL

stretchdoe wrote: »

Nah.

Martin's dead.

True.

He was followed and by an adult

True - who lived there

with a gripe

Conjecture

and a gun

Legally held

_ Missing the attack _
As seen by witnesses. Forensics confirm TM was on top of GZ

and shot dead.

True

None of this would've happened if Zimmerman wasn't an unhinged wannabe vigilante.

...and NO EVIDENCE for this conclusion.

Regardless of the court-case

You seem to be doing a good job of ignoring alright.

and, by the way, Martin's family had to kick-up, lobby and draw attention to it, in order to get the authorities to even investigate the case properly, and the decision, which i'm not saying, given the evidence brought before them, was necessarily the wrong one for the jury to make, that's the outcome.

You have lost me now. you think the jury was right, but that GZ was a lunatic vigilante???

stretchdoe

MadsL wrote: »

So firstly you accuse me of something I haven't done - unless you want quote where I have.

Secondly you appear to be accusing me of slandering the moral character of TM without evidence, ironic since it is precisely what you have just done yourself about GZ.

Now where is your evidence for GZ less than salubrious nature?

Sorry.

It was in the original thread regarding this case, that i dipped in and out of, the one that went on for a ton of pages, that i thought you were one of the posters who cast aspersions on the moral character of TM.

I may have mistaken you for another poster: i apologise and take it back, if i'm wrong in that regard.

MadsL

stretchdoe wrote: »

Sorry.

It was in the original thread regarding this case, that i dipped in and out of, the one that went on for a ton of pages, that i thought you were one of the posters who cast aspersions on the moral character of TM.

I may have mistaken you for another poster: i apologise and take it back, if i'm wrong in that regard.

Fair dues. Thanks for the apology. I haven't made any comment about TM that wasn't (I hope) backed up with evidence.


Now back to my question I have asked I think four times. What evidence are you talking about to that paints GZ as a less than salubrious character? I assume we are not including speeding tickets.

stretchdoe

Regarding the last line of your last post MadsL:

'You think the jury was right, but that GZ was a lunatic viligante?'

Yeah, pretty much; these things aren't mutually exclusive.

Given the evidence presented to them, inconclusive as it was after a delayed and ineptly handled investigation, they may well have had no choice but to make the decision they made.

But yes, i do believe that GZ was a 'lunatic vigilante', as you put it.

MadsL

stretchdoe wrote: »

Regarding the last line of your last post MadsL:

'You think the jury was right, but that GZ was a lunatic viligante?'

Yeah, pretty much; these things aren't mutually exclusive.

Given the evidence presented to them, inconclusive as it was after a delayed and ineptly handled investigation, they may well have had no choice but to make the decision they made.

But yes, i do believe that GZ was a 'lunatic vigilante', as you put it.

But still no evidence for your conclusion? As entitled as you are to your opinion, if is just that then at least be honest to admit it. I take it you don't wish to present any supporting evidence of GZ's lunacy, or bad character?

dfx-

Jake1 wrote: »

The wife has declined to press charges.

Afterall she was probably armed with the floor too and would be found as guilty..

MadsL

dfx- wrote: »

Afterall she was probably armed with the floor too and would be found as guilty..

Well that's more armed than he was it seems.

Amazingfun

dfx- wrote: »

Afterall she was probably armed with the floor too and would be found as guilty..

Laughable comment were this not the kind of thinking behind the many death threats lobbied Zimmerman's way.


I strongly suggest you and 'strechdoe' watch these videos, and then get back to me, as it's obvious neither one of you paid attention to the details of the trial:

end of the road

Amazingfun wrote: »

I think you'll find the facts support that it was Zimmerman who was the victim of a vicious violent attack launched by Martin, and that he (Zimmerman) defended himself.

you keep telling yourself that, i can guarintee you zimmerman deliberately started all this to then shoot martin and then cry "self defense" and then tell a sob story to the courts which was believed

Amazingfun

end of the road wrote: »

you keep telling yourself that, i can guarintee you zimmerman deliberately started all this to then shoot martin and then cry "self defense" and then tell a sob story to the courts which was believed

Oh really? You can "guarintee" that, can you?

Please explain how?

dfx-

MadsL wrote: »

Well that's more armed than he was it seems.

Perhaps they both came armed with the floor. The defence at trial were all too happy to tell us how dangerous the floor is.

Sir Gallagher

When i think about the original case my main issue is, is it acceptable to shoot somebody during a physical altercation when they are getting the better of you? Does that count as defending yourself reasonably?

stretchdoe

MadsL wrote: »

But still no evidence for your conclusion? As entitled as you are to your opinion, if is just that then at least be honest to admit it. I take it you don't wish to present any supporting evidence of GZ's lunacy, or bad character?

I thought i did, at least as it would equivocate with the type of 'supporting evidence' used to slander Martin's character.

That was the very point i was making in the original post i made on entering this thread, if you wanna look back at it; the juxtaposition inherent in the argument of those who can see no fault in Zimmerman's character and can disregard the various scrapes he's been involved in and the accruing 'hearsay', if you want, regarding it, as opposed to the zeal those same people bring to using nothing but, at best, evidence of common teenage misbehaviour,to characterise Martin as a 'thug'/criminal.

But, as you've already written in response, that doesn't apply to you, so, really, i don't know why you responded to me in the first place.

Amazingfun

stretchdoe wrote: »

I thought i did, at least as it would equivocate with the type of 'supporting evidence' used to slander Martin's character.

That was the very point i was making in the original post i made on entering this thread, if you wanna look back at it; the juxtaposition inherent in the argument of those who can see no fault in Zimmerman's character and can disregard the various scrapes he's been involved in and the accruing 'hearsay', if you want, regarding it, as opposed to the zeal those same people bring to using nothing but, at best, evidence of common teenage misbehaviour,to characterise Martin as a 'thug'/criminal.

But, as you've already written in response, that doesn't apply to you, so, really, i don't know why you responded to me in the first place.

God almighty. Why are you so personally invested in trying to salvage Martin's reputation, lol.....

Amazingfun

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

When i think about the original case my main issue is, is it acceptable to shoot somebody during a physical altercation when they are getting the better of you? Does that count as defending yourself reasonably?

Having your head repeatedly smashed into concrete is not just "someone getting the better of you".

Please watch the videos I posted which lay out the facts of the case.

Amazingfun

dfx- wrote: »

Perhaps they both came armed with the floor. The defence at trial were all too happy to tell us how dangerous the floor is.

Yes, it's so funny when someone gets punched in the head and then hits concrete, isn't it? In fact, here's another tale I'm sure you'll like much better, for this time the ending seems to be of the kind you'd have preferred for George Zimmerman :

A man has died after being knocked to the ground with a single punch by a stranger in a New York City square.

Jeffrey Babbitt, 62, had been left brain damaged after being punched in Union Square last week in an apparent racist attack.

Mr Babbitt died after allegedly being hit by Lashawn Marten, a 31-year-old African American, who reportedly said that he wanted to attack the next white person who walked by.

The 62-year-old, the sole carer of his 92-year-old mother Hedda, was hit so hard that he fell to the ground but later managed to stand. His condition deteriorated soon afterwards and he died at Bellevue Hospital.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2416446/Jeffrey-Babbit-dies-racist-hate-attack-stranger-Union-Square-New-York.html#ixzz2eXr7AfI4
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

dfx-

Amazingfun wrote: »

Yes, it's so funny when someone gets punched in the head and then hits concrete, isn't it? In fact, here's another tale I'm sure you'll like much better, for this time the ending seems to be of the kind you'd have preferred for George Zimmerman

If your weapon of choice is the floor, I'd probably be happy with that. When my weapon is a gun, knife, sword against yours which is a floor, I know the chances are weighted in my favour.

Amazingfun

dfx- wrote: »

If your weapon of choice is the floor, I'd probably be happy with that. When my weapon is a gun, knife, sword against yours which is a floor, I know the chances are weighted in my favour.

What are you talking about?

The facts of the case support the version of events which had Zimmerman being punched in the face by Martin, Zimmerman falling to the ground where Martin proceeded to pound his head into the concrete.

Zimmerman defended himself, and had every right to do so.

It's a pity that Jeffery Bobbit, the man in the terrible story I posted above, didn't have such a chance. All it took was a single punch to cause brain damage and eventually kill him.

end of the road

Amazingfun wrote: »

Having your head repeatedly smashed into concrete is not just "someone getting the better of you".

no, its what you get when you go and start a confrontation with an unarmed person who is just going about their business, zimmerman brought all this on himself

MadsL

end of the road wrote: »

no, its what you get when you go and start a confrontation with an unarmed person who is just going about their business, zimmerman brought all this on himself

How did GZ 'start' the confrontation in your opinion? By walking in his own neighbourhood?

My name is URL

MadsL wrote: »

How did GZ 'start' the confrontation in your opinion? By walking in his own neighbourhood?

Why are you being purposely disingenuous? You know full well that he wasn't just 'walking in his own neighbourhood'.. he was following the guy despite being instructed not to by police.

He suspected that the guy was up to no good with absolutely zero evidence to support that belief.

Anyone in their right mind would be intimidated somewhat in those circumstances. Martin reacted to that intimidation.

FTA69

MadsL wrote: »

How did GZ 'start' the confrontation in your opinion? By walking in his own neighbourhood?

By erroneously racially profiling a youngfella, following him despite being told not to by the 999 dispatcher and generally being an arse. He had form for this sort of carry on before. To be honest if I was coming back from the shop and had some racist arsehole decide to follow me around because of the colour of my skin I'd probably hop off him as well.

This entire mess was initiated by Zimmerman and as a result he ended up killing a boy. Your "walking in his own neighbourhood" lark is cheap trivialisation at its worst.

MadsL

My name is URL wrote: »

Why are being purposely disingenuous?

I'm not. I'm asking for facts rather than conjecture.

You know full well that he wasn't just 'walking in his own neighbourhood'.. he was following the guy despite being instructed not to by police.

You see. Facts. He was told by a dispatcher (not the police) that "we don't need you to do that" - no instruction, and not legally binding in any way. The dispatcher cannot see the situation.

He suspected that the guy was up to no good with absolutely zero evidence to support that belief.

Was it illegal for him to walk in the same direction in his own neighbourhood?

Anyone in their right mind would be intimidated somewhat in those circumstances. Martin reacted to that intimidation.

He could have dialled 911 too.
He could have run.
He could have kept goingt to his father's girlfriend's house and had her explain.
He could have explained himself.

No. He hid, then attacked GZ. The evidence of that is clear in the police photos.

Then, unfotunately, GZ defended himself.

But you want to blame GZ for TM's actions. That's the disingenuous bit I see there.

donvito99

MadsL wrote: »

How did GZ 'start' the confrontation in your opinion? By walking in his own neighbourhood?

Yes. Then he 'confronted' Mr Martin and shot him dead.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

oh, he just shot him there and then, no provocation whatsoever?
jesus I can't believe that didn't come out in court

MadsL

donvito99 wrote: »

Yes. Then he 'confronted' Mr Martin and shot him dead.

He just walked up to him and shot him. Is that your contention?

MadsL

FTA69 wrote: »

By erroneously racially profiling a youngfella, following him despite being told not to by the 999 dispatcher and generally being an arse. He had form for this sort of carry on before. To be honest if I was coming back from the shop and had some racist arsehole decide to follow me around because of the colour of my skin I'd probably hop off him as well.

This entire mess was initiated by Zimmerman and as a result he ended up killing a boy. Your "walking in his own neighbourhood" lark is cheap trivialisation at its worst.

Trivialisation?

Oh let's see what assumptions you made.

Racial Profiling? Any evidence for that? In 47 calls to police back to 2004; GZ mentions "black" 5 times.

Not illegal to follow someone. Even if told "we don't need you to do that"
by a dispatcher. There had been violent incidents involving GZ neighbours previously.

And what evidence is there that TM know that GZ walking towards him was because he was black - if anyone brings up race in the whole encounter it is TM's description of GZ as a "creepy-ass cracker".

Form? What do you mean "form" - what incidents are you referring to? More vague accusations?

And boy? A 17 year old is hardly just a 'boy'.

donvito99

MadsL wrote: »

He just walked up to him and shot him. Is that your contention?

No. My contention has been that Mr Zimmerman is a scummer, it's why I started this thread. He has been vindicated by the court, but his actions since then have been downright insulting and provocative.

And this isn't to mention, to answer your question, the fact that this wannabe cop was permitted to look for a fight by the ridiculous - to someone living in Ireland/Britain (sensible jurisdictions) - State of Florida's gun laws.

Dyr

The cops didnt tell zimmerman not to follow martin.

If youre familar with self defence law in the US youll know that these " he started it" arguments are nonsense.


Reasonable and proportionate are the key words Zimmermans decision was both

MadsL

donvito99 wrote: »

No. My contention has been that Mr Zimmerman is a scummer, it's why I started this thread. He has been vindicated by the court, but his actions since then have been downright insulting and provocative.

Which actions?

Helping people in a car accident?
Speeding ticket?
Arguing with his wife?

What a scummer. :rolleyes:

And this isn't to mention, to answer your question, the fact that this wannabe cop was permitted to look for a fight by the ridiculous - to someone living in Ireland/Britain (sensible jurisdictions) - State of Florida's gun laws.

Even Ireland permits you to defend yourself when attacked. Even if you follow someone down a street that is in your neighbourhood, even if you are on the phone to the Gardai and they say "no need to follow them", even if they then attack you, you are allowed to defend yourself. In Ireland. Legally.

Now, all we are left with is using the gun. Which in Florida is legal for self-defence.

None of this makes him 'a scummer'.

Ush1

Legality aside, why was Zimmerman following him?

If you're following someone you normally have a 'gripe' with them.

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Legality aside, why was Zimmerman following him?

If you're following someone you normally have a 'gripe' with them.

My take is this:

Given a spate of burglaries and home intrusions, he was following someone he didn't recognise as he was Neighbourhood Watch and wanted to keep an eye on him until the police arrived. Hence his comment "they always get away". He followed TM because he got out of visual sight around a corner.

GZ walked over to the path to see where he went. TM emerged from where he had hidden and attacked GZ. GZ then defended himself.

donvito99

MadsL wrote: »

In Ireland. Legally.

Eh, not exactly. From R. V. Browne, Lowry Lord CJ.

“The need to act must not have been created by the conduct of the accused in the immediate context of the incident which was likely or intended to give rise to that view”.

... so I am not entitled to pace my road with a shotgun and approach the first hooded male I see.

Now, all we are left with is using the gun. Which in Florida is legal for self-defence.

Which I clarified.

None of this makes him 'a scummer'.

That's subjective. If I was him, I'd lay low for a while, you know. Out of respect.

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

My take is this:

Given a spate of burglaries and home intrusions, he was following someone he didn't recognise as he was Neighbourhood Watch and wanted to keep an eye on him until the police arrived. Hence his comment "they always get away". He followed TM because he got out of visual sight around a corner.

GZ walked over to the path to see where he went. TM emerged from where he had hidden and attacked GZ. GZ then defended himself.

Right so he followed him because he thought this guy is up to no good?

MadsL

donvito99 wrote: »

Eh, not exactly. From R. V. Browne, Lowry Lord CJ.



... so I am not entitled to pace my road with a shotgun and approach the first hooded male I see.

GZ did not do this.

He did not according to any witness have his gun drawn (pity, TM might be alive had he done so)

He didn't 'approach' him - he walked down a pathway.

Which I clarified.

The gun was legal held and used, was it not?

That's subjective. If I was him, I'd lay low for a while, you know. Out of respect.

He did. he moved out of the neighbourhood and was 'laying low' at an unknown location until the wife decides to SWAT call the police.

donvito99

Ush1 wrote: »

Right so he followed him because he thought this guy is up to no good?

It seems that there had been burglaries so he decided to take the law into his own hands, by "standing his ground" as it were, and taking the law into his own hands. If I had been followed around a corner, with a bag of skittles, I'd be frightened too.

But I'm not African American, you see.

MadsL

Ush1 wrote: »

Right so he followed him because he thought this guy is up to no good?

He tried to keep him in sight if that is what you mean, whilst reporting it to the police.

Is that a questionable act if you see strangers walking around your private community?

donvito99

MadsL wrote: »

He did. he moved out of the neighbourhood and was 'laying low' at an unknown location until the wife decides to SWAT call the police.

And visited a gun factory and had a photo of him emerged. Come on, you cannot deny that this would no doubt only further the anger felt by many - mostly black - Americans?

MadsL

donvito99 wrote: »

It seems that there had been burglaries so he decided to take the law into his own hands, by "standing his ground" as it were, and taking the law into his own hands. If I had been followed around a corner, with a bag of skittles, I'd be frightened too.

But I'm not African American, you see.

Pure conjecture. And not supported by the facts.

Are you suggesting that TM did not strike GZ?

Ush1

MadsL wrote: »

He tried to keep him in sight if that is what you mean, whilst reporting it to the police.

Is that a questionable act if you see strangers walking around your private community?

Ah youre a gas man. Why rephrase what I said. He was followig him because he thought he was up to no good. It's fairly simple.

Following someone is always a questionable act.

Again, legality aside, GZ played a huge part in what the situation escalated to.

He followed someone of no threat to him, he had suspicion of with a loaded gun...

I'm sure he was defending himself in the end but he has surely some responsibilty for the situation.

donvito99

MadsL wrote: »

Pure conjecture. And not supported by the facts.

Are you suggesting that TM did not strike GZ?

I have been challenging the permissibility of this type of behaviour - ILLEGAL in this State - in certain parts of the United States, while also noting this man's unflappability so soon after a divisive trial.

MadsL

donvito99 wrote: »

I have been challenging the permissibility of this type of behaviour - ILLEGAL in this State - in certain parts of the United States, while also noting this man's unflappability so soon after a divisive trial.

Sorry what? You are saying it is illegal in Ireland to defend yourself if attacked when walking in the same direction as someone in a public place? Is that what you are saying?

Unflappability? The guys marriage is on the rocks!

Logical Fallacy

Bambi wrote: »

The witch hunt failed boys, move on. I'm sure some other little angel will get offed by evil whitey soon enough, just keep the pitch forks in reserve till then

Zimmerman is brown bro.

donvito99

MadsL wrote: »

Sorry what? You are saying it is illegal in Ireland to defend yourself if attacked when walking in the same direction as someone in a public place? Is that what you are saying?
!

Are you saying it is legal to patrol an Irish street with a firearm? Well? Point me in the direction of some legislation/precedent kindly please.

Our police are unarmed...

And BTW, the only clarification in recent years on this matter, has come from the Defence and the Dwelling (not the high street) Act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0035/sec0002.html#sec2

MadsL

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Zimmerman is brown bro.

Yeah, you would think the flaming torches would have illuminated his face better.

MadsL

donvito99 wrote: »

Are you saying it is legal to patrol an Irish street with a firearm? Well? Point me in the direction of some legislation/precedent kindly please.

I clearly separated the differing firearms legislation.

Our police are unarmed...

Only in the popular mythology. Some Irish police are unarmed.

And BTW, the only clarification in recent years on this matter, has come from the Defence and the Dwelling (not the high street) Act.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2011/en/act/pub/0035/sec0002.html#sec2

I'm familiar with it. Now leaving aside the gun legislation. Are are saying it is illegal in Ireland to defend yourself if attacked when walking in the same direction as someone in a public place?

Ush1 wrote:

I'm sure he was defending himself in the end

Case closed so.