The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

they have a choice, but prefer to control their thinking with emotion rather than what is obvious facts and evidence.

I call that STUPID.

Calling yourself stupid I see well I will not be rude enough to disagree with you.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The evidence is at best, 50/50 as to who initiated the physical confrontation.

Once more not a mark on Trayvon other then the one gun shot wound and he would need to be far from a poor defenseless child to be able to deal with an attack by a man ten years older then him without getting a damn mark on him.

Sucker punching Zimmerman and getting on top of him before he knew what hit him is far more likely and what all the evidence happen to show.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

they have a choice, but prefer to control their thinking
with emotion rather than what is obvious facts and evidence.

I call that STUPID.

BillRM wrote:

Calling yourself stupid I see well I will not be rude enough to disagree with you.

His posts are predominantly ad hominem, pro-authoritarian; very little substance.
In my opinion, it is wise to reduce conversation with him; not worth it.
He contributes almost nothing but personal insults.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
But most people here at A2K still think you are a reasonable poster
who thinks out his responses and always is sure to see both sides
of an issue before commenting.
Upon the basis of my years of observation,
it is my opinion that "most people here at A2K" (and on Abuzz)
judge other posters not on the basis of good sportsmanship
nor of accuracy and rational judgment, but rather of partizanship;
who's ideological team that poster is on. I 've wished for some years now
that posters on both the authoritarian side and the pro-freedom side
were less ad hominem in their respective posted analyses.
David

Thank you for sharing that, David. I hope you understand that what I wrote was my way of enjoying Oralloy's remark.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
The evidence is at best, 50/50 as to who initiated the physical confrontation.

Once more not a mark on Trayvon other then the one gun shot wound and he would need to be far from a poor defenseless child to be able to deal with an attack by a man ten years older then him without getting a damn mark on him.

Sucker punching Zimmerman and getting on top of him before he knew what hit him is far more likely and what all the evidence happen to show.

Hilarious, Bill. You should do stand-up.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

The way I see these issues is that many people's emotions take away their ability to see things clearly. They have a choice, but prefer to control their thinking with emotion rather than what is obvious facts and evidence.

I call that STUPID.

Hiya, Ci, I understand where you're coming from, and there are a few posters whom your description depicts perfectly. However, looking at it from an unemotional viewpoint (not frustration)....rationally.....One who has demonstrated an inability to reason doesn't deserve our scorn and or ridicule but our understanding. (I have a sneaking suspicion you could argue with Billrm and his think-a-links interminably and never see a light come on.) One's failure to comprehend the other side of the coin, often believing he's staunchly right, yet wasn't a physical eyewitness, comes right out of the inverted Oralloy playbook....someone who is a very misinformed, possibly deluded poster. You would not try to explain "quantum mechanics I" to a child of 5 years old, would you? The more explicit reasoning you exhibit implying Zimmerman was the "stalker" and Martin merely trying to defend himself from his pursuer, the more unshakable in their opposition the pro-Zimmerman supporters become. After a while, one gives up, sensing a lost cause because there's simply no symptoms indicating illumination.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

The fact that Zimmerman continue to follow Trayvon after he called the police, Zimmerman is the pursuer and attacker by default. If he stayed in his car, nothing would have happened. Since Trayvon did not commit any crime, the police would have to release him to continue his walk home.

They simply cannot see anything past their need to defend a gun owner, ci. I realize the effort to reason with them is futile, but to just let them prevail without a fight is an insult to humanity.

The fact that they justify their position by calling Martin a criminal is beyond comprehension.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

cicerone imposter wrote:

The fact that Zimmerman continue to follow Trayvon after he called the police, Zimmerman is the pursuer and attacker by default. If he stayed in his car, nothing would have happened. Since Trayvon did not commit any crime, the police would have to release him to continue his walk home.

Frank Apisa wrote:

They simply cannot see anything past their need to defend a gun owner, ci. I realize the effort to reason with them is futile, but to just let them prevail without a fight is an insult to humanity.

U authoritarians insist upon ASSUMING
without proof, without any evidence, that there is something rong
with following someone in public. That is an insult to logic.
Following someone is a perfectly lawful, moral, decent and honorable thing to DO.
I invited u to follow me, before we go to dinner.

U have admitted (right?) that it is lawful to follow people.

As a matter of good sportsmanship in debate,
u shud EITHER prove that it is immoral to follow anyone in public
OR
stop assuming in debate that there is something rong with following.

Is that fair ?

Frank Apisa wrote:

The fact that they justify their position by calling Martin a criminal
is beyond comprehension.

I wonder whether the rate of burglary was affected after martin 's demise.

1 Reply

@Moment-in-Time,

Quote:

he more explicit reasoning you exhibit implying Zimmerman was the "stalker" and Martin merely trying to defend himself from his pursuer,

So the completely legal act of following someone on the public streets somehow and in some manner grant Trayvon a license to turn an try to killed Zimmerman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
The fact that Zimmerman continue to follow Trayvon after he called the police, Zimmerman is the pursuer and attacker by default. If he stayed in his car, nothing would have happened. Since Trayvon did not commit any crime, the police would have to release him to continue his walk home.

Frank Apisa wrote:
They simply cannot see anything past their need to defend a gun owner, ci. I realize the effort to reason with them is futile, but to just let them prevail without a fight is an insult to humanity.
U authoritarians insist upon ASSUMING
without proof, without any evidence, that there is something rong
with following someone in public. That is an insult to logic.
Following someone is a perfectly lawful, moral, decent and honorable thing to DO.
I invited u to follow me, before we go to dinner.

You insist without proof that I think there is something wrong with following someone.

I am not talking about following someone...I am talking about stalking someone...which is what Zimmerman was doing with Martin.

Anyhow...their paths crossed because Zimmerman simply would not stay put...and you nor I nor anyone else here knows who started the confrontation that ended with Martin dead after their paths crossed.

Quote:

U have admitted (right?) that it is lawful to follow people.

Yeah. Can I get you to admit that it is not lawful to stalk people?

Quote:

As a matter of good sportsmanship in debate,
u shud EITHER prove that it is immoral to follow anyone in public
OR
stop assuming in debate that there is something rong with following.

As a matter of good sportsmanship in debate, David, you should stop assuming that I think there is anything wrong with following someone. But a nutcase with a gun who is following someone his diseased mind has determined for no decent reason is a criminal with the intent of not letting him out of his sight...is stalking.

Quote:

Is that fair ?

Hell no. That is my point. It is not fair to stalk someone.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
The fact that they justify their position by calling Martin a criminal
is beyond comprehension.
I wonder whether the rate of burglary was affected after martin 's demise.

Wonder away. You just added to my amazement.

4 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

David wrote,

Quote:

I wonder whether the rate of burglary was affected after martin 's demise.

He's making assumptions that all the burglaries that occurred was perpetrated by Trayvon. He has no evidence to such a thing, but makes the presumption. The inference is very clear.

He's a arsehole first class - stuck in his own feces.

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

Quote:

The Lefty mentality, they hate everything good and honourable and decent.

Well, let me see. . . . I believe the Ku Klux Klan, which even predated fascism, definitely was an offshoot of political conservatism. I don't believe they've ever taken a single position on any issue that one would consider to be liberal or leftist. During World War II the incredibly brutal Ustashi regime in Croatia was strongly affiliated with the Catholic church. In fact, they were a Catholic regime. (I once came across a photo of Croatian nuns during the war giving the Nazi salute.) Etc., etc., etc.

The point is simply this: Regardless of whether you're talking about the scale from believer to nonbeliever or the scale from the political left to the political right, you will find jerks and those who are downright evil on both sides. No wonder I gave up on politics a long time ago.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I am talking about stalking someone.

Define the difference between following someone on the public streets to lead the police to him so he can be checked out and the word stalking someone on the public streets in order to lead the police once more to him.

You are using the word stalking as an emotional loaded word implying some illegal/immoral reasons for following him I would assume, so please tell us what illegal act do you think that Zimmerman was following/stalking him as he kept trying to get the police to arrived.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

ONCE HE CALLED THE POLICE, HIS RESPONSIBILITY AS A NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH ENDED. HE JUST NEEDED TO STAY IN HIS CAR. THAT'S NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH POLICY.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

But a nutcase with a gun who is following someone his diseased mind has determined for no decent reason is a criminal with the intent of not letting him out of his sight...is stalking.

Ok now I get it if you do not like the man and think that he does not have valid reasons to think that the man might be up to no good and on top of that is legally armed then it is stalking!!!!!!!!!!!

Walking slowly in the rain and looking at the homes as he does so, when there had been any number of break ins of homes in the area is not good enough reason to have him check out in your opinion???????

Strange as to me having someone walking slowly in the rain looking at homes in an area that had have any number of break ins seems to be valid reasons to have him check out.

If he was wrong that in no way or in no manner grant Trayvon a license to turn around and attack him.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

ONCE HE CALLED THE POLICE, HIS RESPONSIBILITY AS A NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH ENDED. HE JUST NEEDED TO STAY IN HIS CAR. THAT'S NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH POLICY.

Neighbor watch policy have zero force of law and does not limit Zimmerman rights in any manner so who give a **** about such policies.

Zimmerman have as must rights to be on the public streets as Trayvon and he also have a hundred percent right to follow him on the public streets.

Trayvon have zero right to attack him for doing so.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
I am talking about stalking someone.

Define the difference between following someone on the public streets to lead the police to him so he can be checked out and the word stalking someone on the public streets in order to lead the police once more to him.

You are using the word stalking as an emotional loaded word implying some illegal/immoral reasons for following him I would assume, so please tell us what illegal act do you think that Zimmerman was following/stalking him as he kept trying to get the police to arrived.

I am doing no such thing.

I am calling what Zimmerman did...stalking...because that is what Zimmerman was doing.

He was stalking Martin...hunting him down.

Zimmerman apparently thought he had good reasons for hunting Martin down...for stalking him. I am not addressing those reasons. I am merely calling the obvious to your attention...that Zimmerman was stalking Martin.

I hope that clears it up for you.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
But a nutcase with a gun who is following someone his diseased mind has determined for no decent reason is a criminal with the intent of not letting him out of his sight...is stalking.

Ok now I get it if you do not like the man and think that he does not have valid reasons to think that the man might be up to no good and on top of that is legally armed then it is stalking!!!!!!!!!!!

Walking slowly in the rain and looking at the homes as he does so, when there had been any number of break ins of homes in the area is not good enough reason to have him check out in your opinion???????

Strange as to me having someone walking slowly in the rain looking at homes in an area that had have any number of break ins seems to be valid reasons to have him check out.

If he was wrong that in no way or in no manner grant Trayvon a license to turn around and attack him.

As I said...Zimmerman was stalking Martin. Zimmerman apparently thought his reasons for stalking Martin were valid...and you seem to agree with that (after all, Martin did have the poor taste to wear black skin while walking)...

...but that does not change the fact that Zimmerman was stalking Martin.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
ONCE HE CALLED THE POLICE, HIS RESPONSIBILITY AS A NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH ENDED. HE JUST NEEDED TO STAY IN HIS CAR. THAT'S NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH POLICY.

Neighbor watch policy have zero force of law and does not limit Zimmerman rights in any manner so who give a **** about such policies.

Zimmerman have as must rights to be on the public streets as Trayvon and he also have a hundred percent right to follow him on the public streets.

Trayvon have zero right to attack him for doing so.

You do not know the mechanics of the encounter, Bill. Trayvon may have attacked Zimmerman...but only after Zimmerman first attacked him.

WE DO NOT KNOW...and we only have Zimmerman's word for what happened. Martin also had the poor taste to die of the gunshot wound to his chest.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
The fact that Zimmerman continue to follow Trayvon after he called the police, Zimmerman is the pursuer and attacker by default. If he stayed in his car, nothing would have happened. Since Trayvon did not commit any crime, the police would have to release him to continue his walk home.

Frank Apisa wrote:
They simply cannot see anything past their need to defend a gun owner, ci. I realize the effort to reason with them is futile, but to just let them prevail without a fight is an insult to humanity.
U authoritarians insist upon ASSUMING
without proof, without any evidence, that there is something rong
with following someone in public. That is an insult to logic.
Following someone is a perfectly lawful, moral, decent and honorable thing to DO.
I invited u to follow me, before we go to dinner.

Frank Apisa wrote:

You insist without proof that I think
there is something wrong with following someone.

Thank u for correcting me; it aids understanding.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I am not talking about following someone...I am talking about stalking someone...
which is what Zimmerman was doing with Martin.

Please define the distinction that u r making between following n stawking.

Zimmy lamented on the 911 tape that: "these punks always get away"
and the 911 operator asked him for a more specific location.
He followed martin for a period of time, to help police find him.
That 's very helpful, civic-minded, naborly n decent.
He agreed to end his surveillance when the 911 operator suggested
that he do so. While he was looking for the location, trying to find
street signs, etc, martin jumped him n pounded him; sadist.
I take the inference that he wanted to brag to his MMA friends
of his beating the hell out of a white. (Remember the text qua
one of martin's victims failing to bleed sufficiently??)

Frank Apisa wrote:

Anyhow...their paths crossed because Zimmerman simply would not stay put...

He was being a nice guy; trying to find the location
for the police. Good credit to him!!!

Frank Apisa wrote:

and you nor I nor anyone else here knows who started the confrontation that ended with Martin dead after their paths crossed.

It was more than a confrontation.
It was a fight for Zimmy 's life.
Every time Zimmy 's head got slammed, he had no way of knowing
whether that impact or the next 'd inflict significant permanent injuries, possibly including death.

DAVID wrote:

U have admitted (right?) that it is lawful to follow people.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Yeah. Can I get you to admit that it is not lawful to stalk people?

NO, except in very limited circumstances, to wit:
if the stawker has been judicially enjoined
from that following. If there IS an extant Court Order
to that prohibitory effect, then its violation is a contempt of court,
and possibly a statutory violation, in some jurisdictions.
In the absence of judicial intervention: it remains perfectly legal,
equally as legal as looking up at the stars in the sky to stawk.

DAVID wrote:

As a matter of good sportsmanship in debate,
u shud EITHER prove that it is immoral to follow anyone in public
OR
stop assuming in debate that there is something rong with following.

Frank Apisa wrote:

As a matter of good sportsmanship in debate, David, you should stop assuming that I think there is anything wrong with following someone. But a nutcase with a gun who is following someone his diseased mind has determined for no decent reason is a criminal with the intent of not letting him out of his sight...is stalking.

OK. We made some progress,
but there has never been any psychiatric diagnosis impugning Zimmy's mental health.
Stalking to maintain surveillance to help police find martin was good
and it was 1OO% lawful. Give that boy a medal and a tax credit.

Give him a better gun!

David

1 Reply

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know