One on One; Granite and fool on the Zimmerman Case

[Granite]

Should he have been afraid to go down that sidewalk?

No. And neither should have Trayvon Martin.

Should any of us be afraid to go down any side walk?

Ummm--yes. Absolutely. Depending on where you are. C'mon, man, there's plenty of places in Detroit I wouldn't feel safe walking down in broad daylight even if I was armed to the teeth.:noid:

But we have Zimmerman on the phone with the cops recording the encounter.

Okay, well, no one's denied that. But that doesn't address what I said, namely, the inconsistencies and outright falsehoods in his story.

Zimmerman lost him, encounter ended.

Lost him temporarily. And then the encounter resumed.

She said the last thing she heard was "you got a problem" followed by a "no" and that matches up with what Zimmerman said.

Absolutely incorrect: The very last thing she heard Martin say was "Get off, get off," and she also testified it was Martin screaming on the 911 call.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/justice/zimmerman-trial

But they were seperated, how did they come together again?

It appears Zimmerman found him. Caught up with him, if you like. He broke into a run to pursue Martin, fool--it's not like he just shrugged and waited for the cavalry to arrive. He was determined to get the guy.

He did.

 

[fool]

No. And neither should have Trayvon Martin.

Ok, so they were both on a sidewalk they both had a right to be on.

Ummm--yes. Absolutely. Depending on where you are. C'mon, man, there's plenty of places in Detroit I wouldn't feel safe walking down in broad daylight even if I was armed to the teeth.:noid:

Should you have to be armed to the teeth to walk down a side walk in a major American city?

Okay, well, no one's denied that. But that doesn't address what I said, namely, the inconsistencies and outright falsehoods in his story.

What's the time line on that?
Tell me what you're seeing.

Lost him temporarily. And then the encounter resumed.

Obviously, but who got the drop on whom?

Absolutely incorrect: The very last thing she heard Martin say was "Get off, get off," and she also testified it was Martin screaming on the 911 call.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/26/justice/zimmerman-trial

Of course she did.

What else would she say?

It appears Zimmerman found him. Caught up with him, if you like. He broke into a run to pursue Martin, fool--it's not like he just shrugged and waited for the cavalry to arrive. He was determined to get the guy.

He tried and failed to keep eyes on the guy.
He lost the guy.
He had the cops coming.
Did he find Martin or did Martin find him?
That's important.

He did.

Yup.
He found Martin right before he got his nose broke.........somehow.
How did he get his nose broke?
Why won't you walk in certain parts of Detroit?
Is it the same reason you wouldn't walk down certain parts of Sanford Florida?
Should that be somthing we all have to accept?
So that we aren't labeled "Reckless Vigalanties"

 

[Granite]

Ok, so they were both on a sidewalk they both had a right to be on.

Again: Neither of us have disputed as much.

Should you have to be armed to the teeth to walk down a side walk in a major American city?

No, but that's the world we live in. Or, more correctly, that's the city many of us are stuck in.

What's the time line on that?

What are you talking about? I've already mentioned his inconsistencies and lies in the thread.

Obviously, but who got the drop on whom?

I have already said no one can know for sure.

Of course she did.

I see. So you're willing to cherry pick her testimony as it suits you and then ignore what she said when it doesn't.

What else would she say?

If she's the liar you're implying her to be she could have said any number of different things that could have cast Zimmerman in a far worse light. Like I said, it's more than a little convenient for you to accept her testimony until it contradicts your conclusions.

He tried and failed to keep eyes on the guy.

And then spotted him and broke into a run. (Jeantel did testify that Zimmerman sounded a little out of breath from what she could hear on the phone.)

He lost the guy.

For a while. Until he found him again.

He had the cops coming.

Which makes him reckless or an idiot.

Did he find Martin or did Martin find him?

I thought you said we needed to stay away from speculation.

That's important.

Agreed. And Jeantel's testimony says one thing while Zimmerman's says something else.

He found Martin right before he got his nose broke.........somehow.

If you're going to be deliberately obtuse and waste my time let's end this frigging discussion right now. I've never once denied there was an altercation, and you know it, so stop screwing around.

Why won't you walk in certain parts of Detroit?

See above.

Is it the same reason you wouldn't walk down certain parts of Sanford Florida?

Never been to Sanford but it doesn't look post-apocalyptic from what I've seen.

Should that be something we all have to accept?

Economic decay and the betrayal of an entire industry isn't something we should be happy about but the reasons for Detroit's destruction are a subject for another thread.

 

[fool]

What are you talking about? I've already mentioned his inconsistencies and lies in the thread.

Which one is a deal breaker as far as him being attacked?

I have already said no one can know for sure.

Zimmerman passed a voice stress analysis.
So, he's pretty sure

I see. So you're willing to cherry pick her testimony as it suits you and then ignore what she said when it doesn't.



If she's the liar you're implying her to be she could have said any number of different things that could have cast Zimmerman in a far worse light. Like I said, it's more than a little convenient for you to accept her testimony until it contradicts your conclusions.

She was prepared by the prosecution to sell their story.
Also;

On March 6, 2013, prosecutors admitted that she had lied under oath, when she falsely testified that she had been in the hospital on the day of Martin's funeral. She later admitted being embarrassed about lying and that she felt guilty about Martin's death and not doing more to help.[153][154][155]
Crump had refused to disclose the identity of Witness 8, stating that she was only 16, a minor at the time of the shooting, and asked the media to respect her privacy.[156] It was subsequently revealed that she was actually 18 at the time when she said she was on the phone with Martin.[157] According to the defense, her actual age had been edited out of previously released disclosures.[158] Crump has denied intentionally giving any misleading statements about her age.[159]

That doesn't strike you as fishy?
When did Martin's call end? I can't seem to find it.

For a while. Until he found him again.

Speculation.

Which makes him reckless or an idiot.

He was going back to his car to wait for the police.
How is that reckless?

I thought you said we needed to stay away from speculation.

Indeed.
But things that are missing aren't speculation.
Those smart phones track you, show me Zimmerman's phone attacking Martin's phone. And I'll come over to your side.

Agreed. And Jeantel's testimony says one thing while Zimmerman's says something else.

See above regarding fishyness concerning Jeantel.
And, again, Martin passed a voice stress analysis.

If you're going to be deliberately obtuse and waste my time let's end this frigging discussion right now. I've never once denied there was an altercation, and you know it, so stop screwing around.

Let's stay calm here, just a couple level headed Atheists try to see things from each other's perspective.

See above.

Am I a reckless idiot for walking around Detroit at night?

Never been to Sanford but it doesn't look post-apocalyptic from what I've seen.

Detroit didn't get that way over night.
It took millions of people not caring for decades to accomplish Detroit.

Economic decay and the betrayal of an entire industry isn't something we should be happy about but the reasons for Detroit's destruction are a subject for another thread.

But if I go there and have to shoot someone am I a reckless vigilante?
Should I just stay in my car?

 

[Granite]

Which one is a deal breaker as far as him being attacked?

Not sure what you mean.

Zimmerman passed a voice stress analysis.

They're not admissable in court, and they're as worthless as a polygraph.

She was prepared by the prosecution to sell their story.

Witnesses are prepped by both sides all the time. Pretty standard stuff.

That doesn't strike you as fishy?

A teenager being embarrassed and then copping to a lie? No, not really.

When did Martin's call end? I can't seem to find it.

Neither can I.

Speculation.

Wrong. Jeantel's testimony directly contradicts his story. Given his past, his history, and his obvious lies, I'd say he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. His story is less credible than Jeantel's sworn account.

He was going back to his car to wait for the police.

Says him. Jeantel's testimony directly contradicts his account.

Am I a reckless idiot for walking around Detroit at night?

Depending on the neighborhood, yeah, it might be construed as reckless.

Detroit didn't get that way over night.
It took millions of people not caring for decades to accomplish Detroit.

Completely agree.

But if I go there and have to shoot someone am I a reckless vigilante?

It boils down to whether or not you're out looking for trouble. I think Zimmerman was, and got in over his head.

 

[fool]

Not sure what you mean.

Which inconsistincy makes you think Zimmerman found Martin?

They're not admissable in court, and they're as worthless as a polygraph.

But it is a data point, either Zimmerman is trained to beat it or really believes what he said.

Witnesses are prepped by both sides all the time. Pretty standard stuff.

No doubt, that's why I would believe some parts but not others.
They're going to show you what they think helps their case and not show you that which doesn't help their case.
If she really heard what she said she heard why didn't she call the cops?
Why was Martin John Doe till the morning?
Why wasn't she blowing up his phone?

A teenager being embarrassed and then copping to a lie? No, not really.

See above

Neither can I.

Peculiar that.

Wrong. Jeantel's testimony directly contradicts his story. Given his past, his history, and his obvious lies, I'd say he doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. His story is less credible than Jeantel's sworn account.

How does she do on the voice stress analysis?

Says him. Jeantel's testimony directly contradicts his account.

Not that I see, the physical evidence points to Zimmerman's account, unless he lost a guy that was standing ten feet away.

Depending on the neighborhood, yeah, it might be construed as reckless.

Why should it be reckless to walk down a public street in the USA?

Completely agree.

Well we've settled that at least.

It boils down to whether or not you're out looking for trouble. I think Zimmerman was, and got in over his head.

Zimmerman called the cops about a suspecious person and kept eyes on him with the cops on the phone until he lost him.
Where was Martin while Zimmerman was on the phone with the cops saying "he's gone"?
Zimmerman lost Martin, but Martin knew where Zimmerman was because he's walking on a side walk talking on his phone.
I do not buy that Zimmerman tried to apprehend Martin for an instant, he was the watch captain and had a CCW, two reasons he would know you can't go around apprehending people because they're suspecious.
As far as over his head the cops won't go to parts of Detroit in the dark. That's how it gets when no body wants to swim in the deep end.

 

[Granite]

Which inconsistincy makes you think Zimmerman found Martin?

His story in general is odd. He said he wasn't following Martin (he was). He claims to have forgotten he had a gun (incredibly tough to believe). Says he stretched out Martin's arms and patted him down (Martin's arms were under his body). Says he was scared (but didn't act like it). Ignored dispatch and broke into a run to follow the guy. Overall, his story stinks.

But it is a data point, either Zimmerman is trained to beat it or really believes what he said.

He's shown zero remorse or any shred of regret for his actions, invoked the "God's plan" card, and seems absolutely sure he did the right thing. Of that, I have no doubt.

If she really heard what she said she heard why didn't she call the cops?

Who knows? Maybe she figured he was almost home and in the clear. Maybe she was panicked. Maybe it didn't occur to her. No one can really say how they'd react to any given situation till it's actually happening to you.

How does she do on the voice stress analysis?

Again, it's inadmissable in court, doesn't mean anything, and is considered junk science by a lot of skeptics.

Not that I see, the physical evidence points to Zimmerman's account, unless he lost a guy that was standing ten feet away.

Go back and re-examine her testimony.

Why should it be reckless to walk down a public street in the USA?

Look, fool, in a perfect world we wouldn't have crime, or poverty, or urban blight, or gangs, or rampant drug use. That would be swell. And it's not the world we live in.

Zimmerman called the cops about a suspecious person and kept eyes on him with the cops on the phone until he lost him.

And pursued him. Stop trying to make Zimmerman into some innocent idler who did as he was told.

Where was Martin while Zimmerman was on the phone with the cops saying "he's gone"?

I'm not sure. Presumably doing what he was doing before--heading home.

Zimmerman lost Martin, but Martin knew where Zimmerman was because he's walking on a side walk talking on his phone.

Sure, but I can't fault a teenager for keeping an eye on some creep who was following him.

I do not buy that Zimmerman tried to apprehend Martin for an instant, he was the watch captain and had a CCW, two reasons he would know you can't go around apprehending people because they're suspecious.

Apprehend, no. But he confronted him.

As far as over his head the cops won't go to parts of Detroit in the dark. That's how it gets when no body wants to swim in the deep end.

I'm well aware of how bad the city can be. But Sanford's not exactly Motown.

 

[fool]

Well the timer has run out on this One on One and though we didn't convert each other I think we looked at what each other was looking at.
Not exactly a CSI episode but those would have the cell phone GPS and for some reason this case doesn't.
I'd like to thank Knight and the whole TOL community for this chance for a couple of Atheists to have a little space and talk freely to each other without all the usual distractions. I can see making these One on Ones a larger part of my experience here. It was very rewarding.

The last thought that I would leave my long time friend Granite with on this particular topic is a response to this;

I'm well aware of how bad the city can be. But Sanford's not exactly Motown.

Detroit wasn't Detroit until it was Detroit, and then it was too late.
Zimmerman could have just gone to the damn store and not stopped to report whatever.
We all could and do.
Zimmerman didn't want to live in Detroit, he wanted to live in Sanford.

 

[Granite]

I'd like to thank Knight and the whole TOL community for this chance for a couple of Atheists to have a little space and talk freely to each other without all the usual distractions. I can see making these One on Ones a larger part of my experience here. It was very rewarding.

Completely agree! Glad we had this chance.

Detroit wasn't Detroit until it was Detroit, and then it was too late.

Agreed, and it's a tragedy, but I also think it's just a little off-topic.

Zimmerman could have just gone to the damn store and not stopped to report whatever.

He could have done any number of things differently. Bottom line, he didn't seem to do much level-headed thinking that night.

Hopefully the one silver lining in all of this mess is the chance for people to really, really consider the implications and responsibilities involved in carrying a firearm.