Zimmerman Not guilty

by mouthy 480 Replies latest social current

• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Speculation? If we believe Martin was running AWAY then how on earth does he end up back in Zimmerman’s lap nearer Zimmerman’s truck than in front his father’s house where he told his friend he was at?

  Great question. Perhaps you should look up "doubling back". If someone is chasing you, the idea is to get them chasing you in one direction while you try to get behind the direction they think you went. It's misdirection.

  It's also possible he simply took a wrong turn in the dark and in the rain. We'll never actually know since GZ created a by situation that ultimately ended up with many lives ruined.

  EntirelyPossible, you’re making stuff up as you go.

  Interestingly, I have not done that a single time. Do you have a concrete example of that?
• 

  bohm

  Finkelstein: EntirelyPossible, you’re making stuff up as you go.

  EP: Interestingly, I have not done that a single time. Do you have a concrete example of that?

  Well, I got on. on page 8 where you said:

  he saw zero crime being committed and he chased someone down. GMs actions created the entire situation.

  So here is the bit you made up: you dont know he chased someone down. You can get out of a car with other intentions than chasing someone down.

  Let me make the logic clear because I think you might miss it: Saying something did happend, when you only know it might have happened, thats called making something up.

  But I bet you wont accept that.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  GZ should have had foresight into the future ? But he did not have a Back to the Future DeLorean.

  Absolutely. He should have had the foresight to know that it was a bad idea to follow someone with a gun. Anyone who doesn't have that foresight shouldn't have a gun.

  Would Zimmerman still be 100% responsible for creating the situation?

  Yes. He followed someone with a gun. Having said that, TM would bear responsibility for his actions, but GZ still created the situation in which those actions could occur.

  So what the frak is it supposed to mean he was 100% responsible for creating the situation?

  It's been explained many times.

  Surely it cannot refer to the situation leading up to him getting punched in the face; so what happened after after he was punched in the face that retro-causally made the entire situation his fault?

  It absoolutely does refer to him creating the situation. Each party bear responsibility for what they did once the situation was created, but GZ alone created the situation in which the actions could take place.

  him getting the head banged against the sidewalk? it cannot be that he was armed, or ignored your "rule", because that would equally apply to the situation where he had died from the raptured vein.

  His being armed was a large part of it. Him following TM, armed or not, was another component. TM, whatever actions he took once the situation was created, bears responsibility for taking those actions, but they did not happen in a vacumn, they happened in a situation that was created by GZ.

  So here is the bit you made up: you dont know he chased someone down. You can get out of a car with other intentions than chasing someone down.

  Actually, there IS evidence he chased TM down. He got out of his car, minutes later was out of breath and cursing and said he had been following TM. TM is running, GZ is out of breath and said he has been following him. That's chasing.

  But I bet you wont accept that.

  Of course not. All evidence indicates GZ created the situation and was, in fact chasing TM. He gets out of his car, minutes later is out of breath, cursing and says he lost someone that was running. It's all on the call recorded by police.

  I'm almost out of posts, so I'll respond again later today when some free up, unless Simon wants to up my post count above 25.
• 

  sosoconfused

  Sammie you are good at ignoring what I write and not remembering what I said. I never wanted Zimmerman in jail for life. I feel manslaughter fits. I would never rejoice. To say that I would says alot about how confused and biases you are about certain groups of people.

  I am sure you would not give a rats ass about the woman mentioned above truly needed to do what she did and never killed anyone
• 

  Simon

  EP: just keep ignoring or finding a way not to answer questions. Your 'arguments' and fanciful stories of what might have been are fascinating. Completely irrelevent and of zero value but they show plainly how biased and desparate you are to twist things to suit the idea that you have decided is true.

  I guess you must hate hispanics or something? Hard to understand "why" people chose to intentionally ignore the facts and cling to "evidence" which is no more than stories in their own head.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  I guess you must hate hispanics or something?

  Wow. That's an incredibly cheap shot. You have been dishonest about my comments and are now calling me a racist?

  Weak, Simon, weak. I really didn't expect such a cheap shot from you.
• 

  happytobefree

  Entirely Possible...I have read your post and rarely agree...but I agree 100%...yes is not guilty as per the law...but yes he is 100% responsible....and he will nevery have peace in the realm.

  And Simon...I'm just disgusted with your vile responses...everything you ask other not to do....WOW just WOW...You must really be going through something.
• 

  bohm

  okay EP, So according to you:

  If i walk up to someone, he punch me on the nose because he think i am creepy, and i die right there from a raptured vein, I would "100%" have been creating the situation?
• 

  Simon

  EP: there has to be an explanation of why you refuse to accept all the evidence that shows GZ is innocent and instead keep inventing make believe scenarios to portray him as guilty with no responsibility apportioned to TM whatsoever.

  Seems like you are biased for some reason, I'd like to know why. The only thing I can guess is that it's because of race.
• 

  Violia

  in response to a post a couple pages back,

  Neighborhood watch groups can carry guns if it is legal in their state to do so and they have met with all laws pertaining to gun ownership.

  A few yrs ago we had a 90 yr old woman beaten and robbed in her own home by lawn care workers who just come to your door uninvited. Thanks to the watchful neighbors, the men were caught and went to jail. We have a lot of folks who just come to your door ( like jws do-uninvited) offering car repair, lawn care, etc. The police call them gypsies and said they had not seen anything like this since The Great Depression. So the neighborhood organized and we all started watching out for each other. and yes, we had folks who patrolled in their cars. I think it is an excellent crime deterrent if the criminal knows there might be immediate consequences for their actions.

  btw, I have never heard of such an thing as having to put a sign on your car saying you are a watch group. it sort of defeats the purpose and sounds like you want to make him official. Why can't neighbors protect their home? the criminals should feel frightened.