Rush Reports Zimmerman Arrested again

[RetiredGySgt]

1) irrelevant
2) so what doesnt prove Martin attacked first
3) doesnt prove Zimmerman was attacked first
4) thats neat
5) true, but that doesnt prove he was attacked first..

Thanks for playing.

I wasn't attempting to prove Martin attacked first I was merely pointing out the facts

I should have known that logic and common sense are vague concepts to you.

Why would Zimmerman attack then shoot Martin?

Why not just shoot him in the first place?

What motivated Zimmerman to shoot Martin?

What motivated Martin to hang around and not go home?

i wasnt asking for facts, i was asking you to prove martin attacked first.

he verdict in the Court case does that. In order to rule self defense the Jury had to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that martin attacked Zimmerman.

 

[Plasmaball]

I wasn't attempting to prove Martin attacked first I was merely pointing out the facts

I should have known that logic and common sense are vague concepts to you.

Why would Zimmerman attack then shoot Martin?

Why not just shoot him in the first place?

What motivated Zimmerman to shoot Martin?

What motivated Martin to hang around and not go home?

i wasnt asking for facts, i was asking you to prove martin attacked first.

Were the questions too difficult for you?

Everything presented in court supported Zimmerman's account. Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that Zimmerman attacked first.

If you haven't seen the trial I suggest you do some research on it.

And research Martin's history. It wasn't allowed into evidence at the trial but gives great insight on his mindset. Zimmerman's history was allowed into evidence and the prosecution tried using it but it done them more harm than good.

If Zimmerman's intent was to harm Martin he would not have called the police dispatch.

Again, common sense must be applied.

again you have no proof Martin attacked first. The evidence in court did not support Zimmerman. It supported the idea that they couldnt refute Zimmermans opinion on what happened, because Martin was dead.

The reality is only TWO people can tell you what happened, and one is dead. For anyone to state otherwise means they are a liar.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

i wasnt asking for facts, i was asking you to prove martin attacked first.

Were the questions too difficult for you?

Everything presented in court supported Zimmerman's account. Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that Zimmerman attacked first.

If you haven't seen the trial I suggest you do some research on it.

And research Martin's history. It wasn't allowed into evidence at the trial but gives great insight on his mindset. Zimmerman's history was allowed into evidence and the prosecution tried using it but it done them more harm than good.

If Zimmerman's intent was to harm Martin he would not have called the police dispatch.

Again, common sense must be applied.

again you have no proof Martin attacked first. The evidence in court did not support Zimmerman. It supported the idea that they couldnt refute Zimmermans opinion on what happened, because Martin was dead.

The reality is only TWO people can tell you what happened, and one is dead. For anyone to state otherwise means they are a liar.

Wrong, the Jury specifically found Zimmerman not guilty of murder by reason of self defense.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

i wasnt asking for facts, i was asking you to prove martin attacked first.

Were the questions too difficult for you?

Everything presented in court supported Zimmerman's account. Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that Zimmerman attacked first.

If you haven't seen the trial I suggest you do some research on it.

And research Martin's history. It wasn't allowed into evidence at the trial but gives great insight on his mindset. Zimmerman's history was allowed into evidence and the prosecution tried using it but it done them more harm than good.

If Zimmerman's intent was to harm Martin he would not have called the police dispatch.

Again, common sense must be applied.

again you have no proof Martin attacked first. The evidence in court did not support Zimmerman. It supported the idea that they couldnt refute Zimmermans opinion on what happened, because Martin was dead.

The reality is only TWO people can tell you what happened, and one is dead. For anyone to state otherwise means they are a liar.

There is enough evidence to make that assumption.

Yes the evidence did in fact support Zimmerman's account.

Eyewitness testimony put Martin on top of Zimmerman. Forensic evidence supports the fact that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. Wounds on Zimmerman supports Zimmerman's account of his head being hit on concrete.

Bottom line is, I have all the proof I need and so did the jury and they got the verdict right.

 

[Pennywise]

Zimmerman clearly has issues, but at least he rid the world of another gangsta thug punk in training, so he gets a certain degree of allowance for that good public deed.

 

[Plasmaball]

I wasn't attempting to prove Martin attacked first I was merely pointing out the facts

I should have known that logic and common sense are vague concepts to you.

Why would Zimmerman attack then shoot Martin?

Why not just shoot him in the first place?

What motivated Zimmerman to shoot Martin?

What motivated Martin to hang around and not go home?

i wasnt asking for facts, i was asking you to prove martin attacked first.

he verdict in the Court case does that. In order to rule self defense the Jury had to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that martin attacked Zimmerman.

no they had to find him guilty or not guilty of murder of martin, the evidence did not support it being murder because of lack of evidence.
the court case does not state Martin Attacked first, just that there is reasonable doubt that Zimmerman attacked etc etc....

You are lying for whatever warped agenda you have. I do not. The fact remains Zimmerman went free because of a lack of evidence and nothing more.

 

[Plasmaball]

Were the questions too difficult for you?

Everything presented in court supported Zimmerman's account. Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that Zimmerman attacked first.

If you haven't seen the trial I suggest you do some research on it.

And research Martin's history. It wasn't allowed into evidence at the trial but gives great insight on his mindset. Zimmerman's history was allowed into evidence and the prosecution tried using it but it done them more harm than good.

If Zimmerman's intent was to harm Martin he would not have called the police dispatch.

Again, common sense must be applied.

again you have no proof Martin attacked first. The evidence in court did not support Zimmerman. It supported the idea that they couldnt refute Zimmermans opinion on what happened, because Martin was dead.

The reality is only TWO people can tell you what happened, and one is dead. For anyone to state otherwise means they are a liar.

There is enough evidence to make that assumption.

Yes the evidence did in fact support Zimmerman's account.

Eyewitness testimony put Martin on top of Zimmerman. Forensic evidence supports the fact that Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. Wounds on Zimmerman supports Zimmerman's account of his head being hit on concrete.

Bottom line is, I have all the proof I need and so did the jury and they got the verdict right.

ah assumptions are not facts. Your speculation is irrelevant to the actual facts of what happened.
I dont care about your "opinion"

Eyewitness testimony only gives you a small glimpse of what actually happened. The man never saw the whole lead up to seeing " person on top" at all. So no you fail again and decided your own speculation would be the truth.

Yes the evidence supports the wounds and the firing of a gun, it doesnt support who attacked first.

You literally have nothing, NOTHING but you keep trying with all these other irrelevant things.

Bottom line is you have nothing, granted the verdict was the correct call in the end due to lack of evidence. Otherwise you are talking out of your bias ass.

 

[Plasmaball]

Were the questions too difficult for you?

Everything presented in court supported Zimmerman's account. Not one shred of evidence supports the theory that Zimmerman attacked first.

If you haven't seen the trial I suggest you do some research on it.

And research Martin's history. It wasn't allowed into evidence at the trial but gives great insight on his mindset. Zimmerman's history was allowed into evidence and the prosecution tried using it but it done them more harm than good.

If Zimmerman's intent was to harm Martin he would not have called the police dispatch.

Again, common sense must be applied.

again you have no proof Martin attacked first. The evidence in court did not support Zimmerman. It supported the idea that they couldnt refute Zimmermans opinion on what happened, because Martin was dead.

The reality is only TWO people can tell you what happened, and one is dead. For anyone to state otherwise means they are a liar.

Wrong, the Jury specifically found Zimmerman not guilty of murder by reason of self defense.

they found him not guilty due to lack of evidence saying what zimmerman stated was indeed false. There was no case and it never should of went to court in the first place.

 

[Mertex]

If Zimmerman's intent was to harm Martin he would not have called the police dispatch.

Again, common sense must be applied.

Yeah, that's why he followed the advice given to him, to stay in his car.....common sense also suggests that if you don't want trouble, you don't go looking for it.

He was not advised to stay in his car. When dispatch asked if he was following Martin he was already outside his vehicle.

Splitting hairs? Told him "we don't need you to do that" when GZ answered yes to following him. Either way, anyone with common sense would know that meant not to follow him, so what did GZ do? Follow him.

So it doesn't make sense to tell him to stay in his car when he's already out of the car.


Dispatcher

Are you following him?

Zimmerman

Yeah.

Dispatcher

Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman

Ok.

OK apparently means "go to hell" in GZ's book.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Yeah, that's why he followed the advice given to him, to stay in his car.....common sense also suggests that if you don't want trouble, you don't go looking for it.

He was not advised to stay in his car. When dispatch asked if he was following Martin he was already outside his vehicle.

Splitting hairs? Told him "we don't need you to do that" when GZ answered yes to following him. Either way, anyone with common sense would know that meant not to follow him, so what did GZ do? Follow him.

So it doesn't make sense to tell him to stay in his car when he's already out of the car.


Dispatcher

Are you following him?

Zimmerman

Yeah.

Dispatcher

Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman

Ok.

OK apparently means "go to hell" in GZ's book.

No evidence supports the claim that he continued to follow Martin.

As a matter of fact Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin at that point as was looking for a street sign.

 

[Plasmaball]

He was not advised to stay in his car. When dispatch asked if he was following Martin he was already outside his vehicle.

Splitting hairs? Told him "we don't need you to do that" when GZ answered yes to following him. Either way, anyone with common sense would know that meant not to follow him, so what did GZ do? Follow him.

So it doesn't make sense to tell him to stay in his car when he's already out of the car.


Dispatcher

Are you following him?

Zimmerman

Yeah.

Dispatcher

Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman

Ok.

OK apparently means "go to hell" in GZ's book.

No evidence supports the claim that he continued to follow Martin.

As a matter of fact Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin at that point as was looking for a street sign.

our evidence is the phone call till he hung up and "then went back to his car to find the cops". Then we go into a grey area where nobody but zimmerman and Martin could tell what happened.

Somehow no evidence supports he followed Martin but there is evidence Martin attacked first.....

Yeah....bias they name is Lonestar

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Splitting hairs? Told him "we don't need you to do that" when GZ answered yes to following him. Either way, anyone with common sense would know that meant not to follow him, so what did GZ do? Follow him.


OK apparently means "go to hell" in GZ's book.

No evidence supports the claim that he continued to follow Martin.

As a matter of fact Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin at that point as was looking for a street sign.

our evidence is the phone call till he hung up and "then went back to his car to find the cops". Then we go into a grey area where nobody but zimmerman and Martin could tell what happened.

Somehow no evidence supports he followed Martin but there is evidence Martin attacked first.....

Yeah....bias they name is Lonestar

Ok let's look at the transcript from when the dispatcher said "Ok, we don't need you to do that." and Zimmerman replied, "ok".

Please highlight the part that indicates he is still following Martin.

Dispatcher
Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman
Ok.

Dispatcher
Alright sir what is your name?

Zimmerman
George…He ran.

Dispatcher
Alright George what's your last name?

A clicking or knocking sound can be heard here

Zimmerman
Zimmerman

Dispatcher
And George what's the phone number you're calling from?

Clicking or knocking sound is heard again

Zimmerman
[phone number removed]

Dispatcher
Alright George we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?

Zimmerman
Yeah.

Dispatcher
Alright, where you going to meet with them at?
For the remainder of the recording, Zimmerman sounds distracted. The knocking sound occurs several times during the final exchange with the dispatcher

Zimmerman
Um, if they come in through the, uh, (knocking sound) gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, (knocking sound) straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, that's my truck...[unintelligible]

Dispatcher
What address are you parked in front of?

Zimmerman
I don't know, it's a cut through so I don't know the address.

Dispatcher
Okay do you live in the area?

Zimmerman
Yeah, I...[unintelligible]

Dispatcher
What's your apartment number?

Zimmerman
It's a home it's [house number removed], (knocking sound) oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is.

Dispatcher
Okay do you want to just meet with them right near the mailboxes then?

Zimmerman
Yeah that's fine.

Dispatcher
Alright George, I'll let them know to meet you around there, okay?

Zimmerman
Actually could you have them, could you have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at?

Dispatcher
Okay, yeah that's no problem.

Zimmerman
Should I give you my number or you got it?

Dispatcher
Yeah I got it [phone number removed]

Zimmerman
Yeah you got it.

Dispatcher
Okay no problem, I'll let them know to call you when you're in the area.

Zimmerman
Thanks.

Dispatcher
You're welcome.

 

[Sallow]

Going over the trial again?

Just listen to the 911 tape of the latest incident.

Zimmerman lies his ass off as the police are banging on the door of a house he didn't even own.

He tossed his girlfriend out of her house then called 911 because he wanted "everyone to know the truth". And that was the end of the truth during that call.

It's a good thing he left the person alive.

 

[JimH52]

Zimmerman arrested on assault charge, judge orders $9,000 bond | Fox News

Schott also ordered that Zimmerman must stay away from Scheibe's home and cannot possess guns or ammunition.

At least the little squirrel won't have his gun for a while.

 

[Plasmaball]

thats neat lonestar, i know of the full context of the phone call. You dont need to show me. I know im right

 

[WorldWatcher]

Why would Zimmerman attack then shoot Martin?

Just to check, do you really want a hypothetical answer?


>>>>

If you have one that makes any sense then by all means let's hear it.

OK, remember you asked for a hypothetical...

OK, we know Zimmerman desired a career in law enforcement and had applied for positions on the force and had been turned down. He hoped to further his career in law enforcement and thought that Neighborhood Watch Captain would look good on an application. So he steps up. Frustrated with the break-ins in the development and the previous instance of "them getting away" Zimmerman finds himself on a dark stormy night following an African-American youth walking through the development. He calls the non-emergency number to get the individual checked by the police. Was Martin really acting "suspicious" or was Zimmerman call just pushing the right buttons to elicit a police response, we'll never know.

Martin attempts to leave the vicinity of the weird guy in the pick-up truck at least twice (more likely three times) [1 - walking away from the corner near initial house, 2 - walking away from the clubhouse, 3 - running away from the vehicle]. Zimmerman determined not to have a repeat of the prior incident were the youths ran away exits the truck to follow on foot. Finds Martin behind the house and approaches. Martin being on the phone at the time doesn't notice Zimmerman until he's close. Martin turns to leave and Zimmerman grabs him buy the hoodie to prevent another "escape". If Zimmerman grabbed Martin, then Martin was fully justified in defending himself.​

And then explain why Zimmerman would call police dispatch if his intent was to attack then shoot Martin.

Being the initial aggressor and "intent to shoot" are two different things.

Under the hypothetical that you asked for Zimmerman exited the vehicle with an intent to follow which may have resulted in him being the initial aggressor, that does not mean that Zimmerman exited the vehicle with an intent to shoot. The intent upon exiting may have been to report, the action may have been to delay/restrain. Calling the police with those intents is logical.

Such a scenario would fall more under Manslaughter or Negligent Homicide instead of the Murder 2 charge the Prosecutor leveled.


*************************

But because Zimmerman is the only survivor of the encounter we are unable to "hear" Martins side of the story.

As they say, history is written by the victors. (And no, evidence of losing a fight is not evidence of who started a fight.)



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

i was asking you to prove martin attacked first.

he verdict in the Court case does that. In order to rule self defense the Jury had to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that martin attacked Zimmerman.

The verdict doesn't prove that Martin attacked first. The verdict was "not guilty" with no reason given. The reason could be "lack of evidence" or "self defense". The defense argued "self defense", the prosecution was handed a shit case for Murder 2 and didn't prove their case for Murder 2.

The jury made the right call on not guilty, but that doesn't mean they voted for self-defense.

Wrong, the Jury specifically found Zimmerman not guilty of murder by reason of self defense.

No they didn't. The verdict was "not guilty" there was no reason stated.

Go back and watch the videos again or request a copy of the court documents in the case, you will not find a reason stated as to why a juror voted the way they did.



>>>>

 

[MarcATL]

Resisting arrest, domestic violence (2005), killing an unarmed kid (2012), more domestic violence with wife (2013), and now another domestic violence incident involving guns and for which he his awaiting arraignment today before a judge....

Ask yourself what the COMMON DENOMINATOR is in all this, and stop making excuses for this ignorant piece of trash who is STILL allowed to possess firearms.

Somebody is going to end up dead....again.

And I will gladly drag Zimmerman supporters over the coals with a SYG rake when it happens.

The more people like Martin that wind up dead is better for society

-Geaux

His crime was ..... ? Smoking weed? Wearing a hoodie? Getting suspended from school? Getting into some fights? Having never been arrested?

That's deserving of a death penalty, in your eyes?

In his eyes, and those of his ilk's, yes, you're guilty if you're black.

It's sick and disgusting, and reprehensible.

But, that's how they roll.

 

[WorldWatcher]

He was not advised to stay in his car. When dispatch asked if he was following Martin he was already outside his vehicle.

Splitting hairs? Told him "we don't need you to do that" when GZ answered yes to following him. Either way, anyone with common sense would know that meant not to follow him, so what did GZ do? Follow him.

So it doesn't make sense to tell him to stay in his car when he's already out of the car.


Dispatcher

Are you following him?

Zimmerman

Yeah.

Dispatcher

Ok, we don't need you to do that.

Zimmerman

Ok.

OK apparently means "go to hell" in GZ's book.

No evidence supports the claim that he continued to follow Martin.

As a matter of fact Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin at that point as was looking for a street sign.

Ya, looking for a street sign (a) behind darkened houses and (b) going east when the only street signs in the development would have been located to the west or south.**


You can look at overhead photography of the development. Street signs are located at intersections. The nearest intersection was the North Gate at Retreat View Circle and Twin Trees Lane - to the west. The next nearest was the South Gate at Retreat View Circle and Twin Trees Lane - to the South. The road on the other side of the houses where the incident took place (Zimmerman's east travel) was the loop of Retreat View Circle joining the north and south entrances, there are no street signs along straight sections of road with no intersects.


>>>>

 

[TemplarKormac]

Man this thread has turned into a "I hate Zimmerman" liberal clusterfuck. Exiting.