And yet it has been proven beyond question by the level of THC that Martin was in no way impaired or under the influence of any drug. I chose my words carefully. Martin at one point ran from Zimmerman, so "chased a teenager down" is appropriate and accurate. I specifically avoided pointing to Zimmerman as having caused the confrontation, but it is beyond question that he "engaged" in a confrontation with Martin. I don't know what was in Zimmerman's head that night any more than you do. However, he "initiated trouble" as soon as he stepped out of his vehicle and began following Martin even after the dispatcher specifically told him that they didn't need him to do so.
And that does what? Exonerate Martin from going medieval on Zimmerman? Another way of saying it is that to attack Zimmerman was just a natural part of his personality. That's worse! Choose more carefully then because your words have convicted Zimmerman of something that he did not do 1. to pursue in order to seize, overtake, etc.: The police officer chased the thief. 2. to pursue with intent to capture or kill, as game; hunt: to chase deer. Any Zimmerman effort, by his own words and evidence available, was simply to keep eyes on Martin until the police arrived at Zimmerman's summons. Why is that "initiating" trouble? Zimmerman was a neighborhood watchman. Check things out is what they do. I think Zimmerman could have handled the situation better but not to a criminal level and I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Martin should have handled the situation better. Did Martin "initiate trouble" by ambling through a neighborhood in a suspicious manner?
You claim that Martin attacked Zimmerman when nobody knows who attacked who. Do you have access to evidence not presented at the trial? Martin ran, Zimmerman chased in order to "overtake" per the definition. Do you read before you post? He left his vehicle after being specifically told not to by a police dispatcher. That is, at the very least, "initiating trouble." Had Zimmerman stayed in his vehicle, there would have been zero chance of trouble, therefore, leaving the vehicle was the initiation. Agreed, neither was completely free of mistakes. You are taking Zimmerman at his word that there was "suspicious" behavior. I don't trust the man who went against instructions and chased Martin down after he started running.
Well the evidence presented in the trial states thus-- granted it was primarily GZ's testimony. Circumstantially, from the looks of Trayvon, Zimmerman barely landed a blow. Trayvon was clearly in the superior position with Zimmerman on the ground having his head banged on the concrete and his nose broken. The gunshot would seems to have been all that Zimmerman could muster. Doesn't that sound like a sneak attack upon Zimmerman? Why would Zimmerman attack (much less shoot) Martin when he knows the police will arrive shortly-- unless desperate? YES, I do... OVERTAKE: 1. to catch up with in traveling or pursuit; draw even with: By taking a cab to the next town, we managed to overtake and board the train. 2. to catch up with and pass, as in a race; move by: He overtook the leader three laps from the finish. Zimmerman could have kept his eye on Martin from 25 yards if he had not run. Your language implies that Zimmerman needed to catch up to Martin to grapple with him which was not Zimmerman's claim. Also, if Zimmerman was so intent on this kind of interaction would he have given up almost immediately. "We don't need you to do that." is not an order to not exit the vehicle-- issued by someone with no authority anyway. We could keep backing this up: had Trayvon not gone to the store? Had Trayvon taken a different route home? Had Zimmerman not run out to Target? Zimmerman was initiating his voluntary duty not trouble. Still stuck on chased huh? That is mis-representative.
I thought this thread was supposed to be about a white woman who we were all happy was killed by a bunch of stand-up black men?
giddy is easily distracted, all it takes is some chain email or a Facebook post or even a shiny object off in the distance.
Threads have a life of their own. I'd have been happy to stick with that but the contrast was so stark as to be indefensible... there's just not much to say.
You are like certifiable dude. You posted this thread as some defend whitey thing after your whole black slave masters and white supremacists stuff and then you tried to implicate me in a conspiracy of your own making in which I repeatedly asked you to cite my conspiracy theory and you were unable to do so you made up your own and then you tried to push the insignificance of killings and assaults of minorities by a police department in a town known for racial issues that it's own city manager admits there is a lack of trust between the police and the residents and I quote the article "There is no trust, there is no confidence," between African Americans and Sanford authorities, said local NAACP leader Turner Clayton. "It's at an all-time low." Even embattled city manager Norton Bonaparte—who oversees Sanford's police department and is African American—acknowledges this truth. "The trust that may have existed is gone," he said, "so we have to start from ground zero." Then you put out your own theory why a tox report wasn't done, without any basis in any factual comments from the police department, despite acknowledging that a tox report unlike professional opinions do not contain a possibility of bias and then you actually tried to say that police incompetence was a sensationalistic thing. And that's YOU picking My bones. LOL You are just high comedy man. It's like a broadway show to see you work this little web of ins and outs and definitions and redefinitions and implications and insinuations and baseless race infused theories to magically come up with these conclusions.
It IS you who thinks that the fact that Zimmerman was charged right out of the box was egregious. I simply pointed out that if it was, it would have to be a conspiracy because Serino himself would not likely be allowed to make that call alone. I didn't make up my own. I cited the circumstances about which you were writing. Yes, you didn't call it a conspiracy but it does meet the definition: the Sanford PD conspiring to suppress charges. Sanford is no different than any other place. There are differences; you try to make it sound like a hellhole. You cited 2 events with Martin/Zimmerman being a third... in 7 years. Stop ranting like a lunatic, You asked me why a tox screen wasn't done. I gave a logical reason. To my knowledge there has never been a statement made about that-- otherwise why did you ask me? Your suggestion-- more conspiracy! :grin:
Every time you post you try to change what I said. Why don't you just quote me from now on so you don't have to rehash the same bull**** over and over again so you can try to change the context or invent my meaning. Here you go. I was outraged at Martin's death for several reasons. #1, an unarmed teenage boy was shot to death by a grown man who was following him in the dark and the police didn't even arrest the guy. That's outrageous. #2, strangely the police drug and alcohol tested the dead teenager but not the killer. That screams incompetence to me. #3 the lead detective recommended manslaughter charges and did not find Zimmerman credible but the district attorney declined to prosecute, which again screams incompetence. I said the LEAD DETECTIVE recommended manslaughter charges. Which he in fact did as of the time when I first read about the case. I didn't say the SANFORD PD CONSPIRED TO SUPRESS CHARGES. Do you see the difference? I said one thing and you went two and three miles down the road to suggest I said something different. Now THAT is picking YOUR bones DRY. No, I cited two events that have gained national recognition and also cited the comments of the CITY MANAGER of the city of Sanford and I quote AGAIN. "There is no trust, there is no confidence," between African Americans and Sanford authorities, said local NAACP leader Turner Clayton. "It's at an all-time low." Even embattled city manager Norton Bonaparte—who oversees Sanford's police department and is African American—acknowledges this truth. "The trust that may have existed is gone," he said, "so we have to start from ground zero." Quite CLEARLY, the city manager of Sanford AGREES that there is no trust between the black community and the Sanford police department. In HIS OWN WORDS, he says that. Doesn't imply it doesn't allude to it, he flat out says the trust is GONE. That certainly seems noteworthy to the police handling of the killing of an unarmed black teenage kid. That's not hard to follow even for you. A conjecture and theory of yours without any corroboration of the facts by the police whatsoever. You seem to give a lot of weight to your theories but any even mere inkling of some implication of some ulterior theory is just nonsense. That's convenient for you. It's also a FACT that a tox report isn't subject to the bias and incompetence of a police department that the city manager says based on a history of that department's conduct has no trust with the black community. Geez, why would anyone under those circumstances have cause for concern that a tox screen of the killer wasn't done. Other than being wrong on ALL of that, you're doing a great job. I can't wait for you to come back and twist my words and invent my meaning so I can copy and paste my own words to debunk your nonsense again. Good times.
According to the FBI notes Serino didn't feel there was enough to charge Zimmerman on and, remember, Serino knew Zimmerman prior to this event. Serino says he was pressured by other members of the department who happened to be friends/acquaintances of Trayvon Martin's father to indeed press charges. So right out of the gate for a year and a half now you've been operating under mis-information. http://www.scribd.com/doc/99942204/Serino-s-FBI-Interview-2-Pges-1 Nevertheless, I fell assured in asserting that as your conspiracy theory whether or not you use that word. Serino would not be allowed to make such a decision on his own, therefore if this decision was as egregious as you suggest, other of his superiors would have to "conspire" to let it happen. Ergo a conspiracy by definition. Well that is a problem that they have to come to grips with in their own hearts because Zimmerman was found innocent by a jury of his peers. His story is entirely possible if you remove the prejudice that Zimmerman was a racist hunting down a black teen. The facts don't naturally lead in that direction. Again read the FBI notes, Serino sensed no racist attitude in Zimmerman and he knew Zimmerman prior to this tragedy. Zimmerman was an unknown person in the local white supremest community. Without your assignment of a racist attitude onto Zimmerman due to broad circumstanc, there is no evidence of that in him... PERIOD. Zimmerman did not ID a suspicious black person to the police, he identified a suspicious person and only volunteered a racial describer when asked pointedly. I have agreed with you numerous times about the validity of a tox report. Why do you try to keep insinuating that I'm objecting to that? You asked me WHY a tox report was not done and so I gave a considered, logical response. Now you criticize me for endeavoring to answer the question. How disingenuous of you! You do know that your theory of incompetence is not in keeping with your charges of embedded racism in the department? Why don't you just go all-out and sling the accusation instead of dithering between incompetence and racism? Above all else, read the FBI notes from Serino's interview. If those are falsified, they've been at the top of both Google and BING search engines for months, so I have to believe they are genuine but in this day and age, who knows? <p style=" margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block;"> <a title="View Serino's FBI Interview - 2 Pges (1) on Scribd" href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/99942204/Serino-s-FBI-Interview-2-Pges-1" style="text-decoration: underline;" >Serino's FBI Interview - 2 Pges (1)</a> by <a title="View jeweiner2733's profile on Scribd"
Oh giddy, this your move the goal posts technique. Trayvon was killed Feb 26th, 2012, the thread was created on March 10th, 2012. I've never even seen this FBI report until you posted it. When was it made available in line? It says transcribed April 5th, 2012 so it could not have appeared online until some point after that date. You asked me and I QUOTE So you have no explanation as to why you are not outraged at this poor woman's death... in the way that you are outraged for Trayvon Martin? I replied and I QUOTE I was outraged at Martin's death for several reasons. #1, an unarmed teenage boy was shot to death by a grown man who was following him in the dark and the police didn't even arrest the guy. That's outrageous. #2, strangely the police drug and alcohol tested the dead teenager but not the killer. That screams incompetence to me. #3 the lead detective recommended manslaughter charges and did not find Zimmerman credible but the district attorney declined to prosecute, which again screams incompetence. If I had known about the FBI report why would I even mention it as a reason for my outrage? Jesus. Zimmerman wasn't found innocent, he was found not guilty. They're not the same things. You don't need to be a racist to profile based on race. You've inventing a burden of proof that is not necessary. Like we need to find a Klan hood in his truck to claim he racially profiled. Nonsense. There is evidence of his profiling, his own comments to the dispatcher are evidence to his attitude and state of mind. Giddy, you seem to try to have discussions in a vacuum. I can present you all kinds of data to the prevalence of racial profiling. You're being ridiculous, AGAIN. I gave an equally logical response considering the history of this department. So what? My logical response was sensational and yours was great though mine actually had facts behind it. Convenient for you. I've posted the facts, the history, and the belief of the Sanford community and its own City Manager. It's right there in black and white, read it again for yourself. I guess you know better though and that's why you've bent over backwards to diminish its importance.
If pointing up the truth and the facts is moving the goal posts, I guess that I am guilty. It's not my fault if you are a reckless, irresponsible poster who goes off half-cocked with your facts in error. So you've only been dead wrong since April 5th, 2012-- that is 15 months!!!!!!!!!!!!
