This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
/roll eyes Whatever MyTie. I still don't buy that Zimmerman was attacked, even leaving aside any racial profiling; it's not like elitists don't exist out there, especially in regards to the gated community types.
Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. I don't know. I'm not a video doctor.
Post by
Adamsm
Your snark is still failing MyTie.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
It was that night, Boron, right as he was taken into custody.
@MyTie- I know it is quite possible that there are some injuries that were not visible in that video, but I think what people are pointing out is that if there are injuries, they're not large enough to be visible. A large amount of blood would be visible, even in that grainy footage. There is a difference between a scuffle and a fist fight in which you are being injured enough that your life may be in danger. If the only indications of the fight are a dead body (with no evidence on his hands that he'd hit anyone) and a person who had a bloody nose (which many people get very easily), it doesn't point towards self defense.
Also, looking at the video it appears that Zimmerman is in a lighter-colored T-shirt. I know in the 911 calls, the witness said that the person on top of the fight was in a white t-shirt. If we all know that Martin was wearing a hoodie, then that would point to Zimmerman- a light blue/grey t-shirt looks more like a white t-shirt than a dark hoodie. Also, another witness, at the very moment of the event, said that they heard someone crying for help, and then the shot, and the crying stopped. A third witness said that, even after the shot, Zimmerman was kneeling on top of the kid, with "his knees on his chest."
Post by
Gone
I saw Matt Damon in a movie with Densdel Washington and Meg Ryan. He was playing the part of a drugee and he looked scrawny and sickly. They did a great job making him look the part. I don't know if he had to lose weight for it, but it looked like he did. Also I remember reading that they had that white fat guy gain weight for the movie "cool runnings". I remember being appalled by that.
I remember that movie was on FX once, they said in the commentary he actually starved himself in preperation for the role to make himself look so boney and methed out, as aposed to teh great shape he was in at the begining. He was playing a marine or something right? I know its probably not that healthy but that is some serious dedication to a role right there.
EDIT: Courage Under Fire, that was the name!
Post by
MyTie
@MyTie- I know it is quite possible that there are some injuries that were not visible in that video, but I think what people are pointing out is that if there are injuries, they're not large enough to be visible. A large amount of blood would be visible, even in that grainy footage. There is a difference between a scuffle and a fist fight in which you are being injured enough that your life may be in danger. If the only indications of the fight are a dead body (with no evidence on his hands that he'd hit anyone) and a person who had a bloody nose (which many people get very easily), it doesn't point towards self defense.
Agreed, but I still insist that life threatening injuries are not always detectable through video. You'd be surprised how delicate the human body can be. Besides, in the heat of the moment, it is very difficult to tell when the injuries you are sustaining are "life threatening" and when they are not. Also, the beating a person is receiving can turn from light to deadly in less than seconds. My point is that this video is not conclusive. The people who are treating it as such are AGAIN jumping to conclusions.I saw Matt Damon in a movie with Densdel Washington and Meg Ryan. He was playing the part of a drugee and he looked scrawny and sickly. They did a great job making him look the part. I don't know if he had to lose weight for it, but it looked like he did. Also I remember reading that they had that white fat guy gain weight for the movie "cool runnings". I remember being appalled by that.
I remember that movie was on FX once, they said in the commentary he actually starved himself in preperation for the role to make himself look so boney and methed out, as aposed to teh great shape he was in at the begining. He was playing a marine or something right? I know its probably not that healthy but that is some serious dedication to a role right there.
Yeah, he was a marine in some investigation Densdel was doing into Meg ryan's actions, whether she deserved a medal or not.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I agree it's not conclusive, but I think what people are looking at are a lot of things that don't seem to add up to self defense.
I'm personally not looking at people's theories, either ones history, etc. But if you look at Zimmerman's own recorded words, and the words of witnesses as it was happening, all recorded, then add it to the coroner's report, the witness statement of the girl on the phone, etc., and think about the common sense of whether someone would run from a pursuer, then turn around, after the pursuer had stopped chasing them, and go look for them to start a fight you could have just had by not running in the first place, it really looks (to me) like this guy chased the kid down, looking at the very least restrain him and keep him there until the cops arrived. Which you can't do- you can't stop a person in the street, with no evidence of a crime (and really, not even thinking a crime occurred), and either physically restrain them or try to intimidate them to keep them from moving on.
MyTie- you are very protective of your rights. If you moved into a neighborhood, and were walking to the store, and someone chased you, got out of their car and yelled at you, and told you not to move until the cops got there, would you just stand there and wait? If he physically tried to stop you from continuing to walk, would you not resist?
Post by
MyTie
MyTie- you are very protective of your rights. If you moved into a neighborhood, and were walking to the store, and someone chased you, got out of their car and yelled at you, and told you not to move until the cops got there, would you just stand there and wait? If he physically tried to stop you from continuing to walk, would you not resist?
I would stand there and wait. I would probably call the cops myself if I had a cell phone. I would hope the cops got there quickly to sort out whatever issue was going on. I certainly wouldn't submit to his physical abuse, though. I would probably ask him why he wanted me to stop. I wouldn't fight, nor run. I'd just talk and then wait for the cops. This isn't that I don't have a right to leave, which I do. I just have enough common sense to know that the best way to address the issue is not to run, nor fight, nor chase.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Fair enough- do you think most 17-year-olds would have the common sense to wait patiently when someone out of the blue stops them when they're on their way home at night, even if the person is being insulting and aggressive? Do you think it would be a natural reaction to want to get out of that situation and get home?
Post by
MyTie
Fair enough- do you think most 17-year-olds would have the common sense to wait patiently when someone out of the blue stops them when they're on their way home at night, even if the person is being insulting and aggressive? Do you think it would be a natural reaction to want to get out of that situation and get home?
Yeah, sure.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
I think that's why so many people are upset- if this guy Zimmerman had found a teenager spray-painting his car, or breaking his window, or something like that, he still wouldn't have been justified in chasing down the kid and shooting him (if that was how it happened), but people would have at least felt that he had a reason to chase down the kid, and that the kid had done something to bring it on himself, even if the response far more than was legal or appropriate.
But everyone with a teenage son knows that teenagers don't necessarily make the best choices, and if some strange man stopped their kid at night, screaming at them and maybe even physically trying to restrain them, the kid would probably either try to run, or fight the guy off. And in this case, they would have gotten killed. And the cops would then say it's ok, and the guy who chased down your kid who wasn't even looking like he had actually done something wrong, which led to the struggle which ended up with him shooting him dead, was within his right because the kid should have known better.
The kid....who was chased in the middle of the night and confronted by an angry adult who had a gun, and who was refusing to let the kid go home...should have known better than to let that become a fight. And so the man who shot him didn't do anything wrong, and won't go to jail. That's scary. It's scary for a parent, who knows that even if their kid is a good kid they could have been a target of this because the kid who got shot wasn't doing anything but walking home. It's scary because the guy went free, so it could be their kid next time- whether it's him or someone else. It's scary because it doesn't make any sense.
Maybe that's why people want to blame racism even if there's no concrete evidence of it. It make more sense than the idea that an adult can chase and a harass a kid, and then get away with shooting him if the kid fights back.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Video
They actually do do a closeup in this one.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
@ MyTie - is it possible that your news source has succumbed to the bias in reporting that you think all the other news sources have? Could it just be that they've made some leaps in assumptions to come to the 'self defence' sequence of events that you've been suggesting?
What is up with religion and child abuse? First Catholics, now Jews, who is next? Buddhists? Thoughts?
It's not about 'religion' and child abuse. It's about 'people' and child abuse. Not all child abusers are religious - it just happens that it makes the best headlines.(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
@ MyTie - is it possible that your news source has succumbed to the bias in reporting that you think all the other news sources have? Could it just be that they've made some leaps in assumptions to come to the 'self defence' sequence of events that you've been suggesting?
Innocent until proven guilty.
Post by
Orranis
@ MyTie - is it possible that your news source has succumbed to the bias in reporting that you think all the other news sources have? Could it just be that they've made some leaps in assumptions to come to the 'self defence' sequence of events that you've been suggesting?
Innocent until proven guilty.
You could argue the same thing about the kid.
Post by
Adamsm
@ MyTie - is it possible that your news source has succumbed to the bias in reporting that you think all the other news sources have? Could it just be that they've made some leaps in assumptions to come to the 'self defence' sequence of events that you've been suggesting?
Innocent until proven guilty.
You could argue the same thing about the kid.
More so, since Martin can't speak for himself...since someone killed him for being in the wrong place at the wrong time; cause we all know how deadly those skittles are.
Post by
MyTie
More so, since Martin can't speak for himself...since someone killed him for being in the wrong place at the wrong time; cause we all know how deadly those skittles are.
Let's speak strictly hypothetically. Let's say someone of your exact physical stature, named Wayne were to be standing in a field. Now lets say a 17 year old, over 6 foot 3 inches, over 150 pounds named Gary were also in the field, and he had a bag of skittles. Now let's say that Gary were to decide to drop his bag of skittles on the ground, and beat Wayne to death with his bare hands. I've got a hunch that Gary might stand a good chance of killing him.
Now, let me break down what you said. Martin is more innocent than Zimmerman. Zimmerman is not dead. This does not somehow make Zimmerman automatically guilty.
However, you have already decided why Zimmerman killed him. See there "for being in the wrong place at the wrong time".
My entire point with this is not the guilt of Zimmerman, nor the guilt of Martin. You've missed the point of all this... again.... and again... and again. You don't seem to pay attention to what I've been saying. I know you pay attention if it is pointed at
you
personally. So that you hear me, I will make this pointed:
You are wrong, Adamsm. You are wrong in thinking that you know what happened. You don't. I'm not saying I do, and I'm not saying that anyone else does. I'm saying that
you don't
. Further, it comes accross as arrogant, brash, and unjust to wave around your uninformed opinions. So, either provide your empirical evidence for the guilt of Zimmerman, and further your authority to decide guilt, or stop pretending you have either.@ MyTie - is it possible that your news source has succumbed to the bias in reporting that you think all the other news sources have? Could it just be that they've made some leaps in assumptions to come to the 'self defence' sequence of events that you've been suggesting?
Innocent until proven guilty.
You could argue the same thing about the kid.Yes you could. That's pretty much the point. We don't know what happened, neither does the news, and I doubt pretty much anyone does. Zimmerman probably knows, and perhaps the witnesses. Other than that, no one does, but many many are speculating. Why? Because of racial victimization, which is itself, racist.
Post by
asakawa
You are wrong, Adamsm. You are wrong in thinking that you know what happened. You don't. I'm not saying I do, and I'm not saying that anyone else does. I'm saying that
you don't
. Further, it comes accross as arrogant, brash, and unjust to wave around your uninformed opinions. So, either provide your empirical evidence for the guilt of Zimmerman, and further your authority to decide guilt, or stop pretending you have either.
I asked you on the previous page to "play nice" and I shouldn't have to repeat that. Adamsm isn't doing anything out of the ordinary by stating his opinion based on the material he's seen. You've been doing the same. It is uncalled for to suggest that someone else giving their opinion on the forum is "arrogant, brash and unjust" simply because you disagree with them.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.