The Other George Zimmerman Trial

[Berzerker]

Only you still haven't shown that is actually true. And even if she did state it exactly as you claim, that would just mean that she doesn't understand the case any more than you do.

Go watch her interview on the Rev Al Show, and she agrees with you about the relevance of the gun. She's your ally and uses your arguments and she doesn't understand the case. I knew that

She was probably complaining that they didn't stress it enough.

Thats what I said

Yet that isn't what Zimmerman or the defense attorneys claimed is what occurred. Now is it?

Zimmerman wouldn't know what tipped Martin off about the gun, not if Martin felt it with his leg and then looked. All Zimmerman would know is Martin looking down to see what his leg was bumping up against.

You mean just like the prosecution did? And Zimmerman clearly did say that after his father initially stated that was what occurred to the media:

What are you talking about? You accused Zimmerman of lying about Martin seeing his gun because it was hidden in the small of his back and he was laying on it. He didn't say that, you did and edited your post and you call him a liar. His gun was on his right hip and if Martin was straddling him for ~30 seconds he would have felt the gun and looked. If his lawyers didn't explain that they screwed up, not that I believe anything you say about them either.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Go watch her interview on the Rev Al Show, and she agrees with you about the relevance of the gun. She's your ally and uses your arguments and she doesn't understand the case. I knew that

I don't have to watch the video because I know what transpired during the trial. And you just stated that she effectively has been saying what I and many others have stated about it. Now didn't you:

She was probably complaining that they didn't stress it enough.

Thats what I said.

It just unfortunate that you do not also "understand the case" given how much you continue to discuss stuff that clearly did not happen. And here is yet another example:

If his lawyers didn't explain that they screwed up, not that I believe anything you say about them either.

If they had tried to "explain that", it would have directly contradicted one of Zimmerman's own lies.

I suggest you watch the trial. Then we can discuss what actually occurred instead of all this unfounded speculation on your part.

 

[IglooDame]

That never happens. Well, it does happens but then you might be dealing with somebody that's a veteran of firing shots in anger. There's some term for it that I can't remember, but once somebody starts firing there is a massive tendency for that person to keep firing until the magazine is empty. If you are looking for a moment of reflection in a shooter on whether or not to continue, that moment, more realistically, is reloading.

Indeed. And I'd note, this guy may have figured that if he had one attacker with a gun, that he had a car filled with them.

We expect police to maintain shooting discipline (or whatever you'd call it) and not go with the "when in doubt, empty the magazine" approach to ending deadly threats to them, moreso when the police outnumber the threat and are looking for the safest way to apply handcuffs. We don't typically expect someone who has probably never shot at a human being before, doesn't prepare for it as part of their job, and is not required to arrest violent or psychopathic people but just escape from them, to be calm and reasonable regarding how many times they pull the trigger.

All that said, yeah, this guy's imprisonment appears to be deserved.

 

[IglooDame]

You take someone to task for quoting "propaganda from Fox News", and then post a statement from the victim's mother like it's some kind of unbiased evidence?

That aside... I am looking forward to reading the no-doubt-forthcoming details supporting your contention that "the rationale behind [SYG] isn't completely warping the self-defense statutes of the judicial system in 26 states."

Is that your take on me merely posting an article? That it must be "unbiased evidence" instead of merely a statement from the victim's mother?

Try reading the articles I posted and even bolded. Then present your own support of the "contention" regarding how the facts presented in them must be wrong.

Well, what is the point of quoting the victim's mother? Was there anything remotely surprising in her statement at all, or was it simply inconveniencing more electrons?

And you posted a lot of articles - one, even, from the victim's mother. I'm not dredging through Mother Jones opinion pieces looking for your argument any more than you're dredging through Fox News "news" looking for unbiased facts.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Well, what is the point of quoting the victim's mother?

What was the point of trolling by claiming I thought it was "some kind of unbiased evidence"?

I already told you why I posted it. Either accept it or not. I really don't care. Either way, I certainly think her own personal opinions carry just as much weight as anybody who has posted in this thread.

And you posted a lot of articles - one, even, from the victim's mother. I'm not dredging through Mother Jones opinion pieces looking for your argument any more than you're dredging through Fox News "news" looking for unbiased facts.

So the mere fact that I included an "opinion piece" from Mother Jones laden with the very same facts found in the other articles as well, and which haven't been disputed in the least by you or anybody else, is apparently causing you to ignore them all?

I frequently post Fox News news articles myself. There isn't anything inherently wrong with them if they stick to the facts and report the news in a relatively unbiased manner, which they frequently do.

And how exactly are facts "biased" or "unbiased"?

 

[IglooDame]

What was the point of trolling by claiming I thought it was "some kind of unbiased evidence"?

I already told you why I posted it. Either accept it or not. I really don't care. Either way, I certainly think her own personal opinions carry just as much weight as anybody who has posted in this thread.

So the mere fact that I included an "opinion piece" from Mother Jones laden with the very same facts found in the other articles as well, and which haven't been disputed in the least by you or anybody else, is apparently causing you to ignore them all?

I frequently post Fox News news articles myself. There isn't anything inherently wrong with them if they stick to the facts and report the news in a relatively unbiased manner, which they frequently do.

And how exactly are facts "biased" or "unbiased"?

Regarding Mom, I'm simply uninterested in reading either random opinions, or opinions that are as predictable as the sun rising in the east.

And I looked at the URLs of three of your "articles" (a week or so ago, I'm working off of memory here) and one was MotherJones, one was HuffingtonPost, and I forget the third one but it apparently didn't leave a mark as a particularly respected source - more because the URLs indicated "opinion piece" rather than "news article". I'd simply prefer that you actually specify your facts instead of making everyone scroll up and read "articles" trying to find where the judicial system in 26 states are getting warped, but such is life I suppose.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Regarding Mom, I'm simply uninterested in reading either random opinions, or opinions that are as predictable as the sun rising in the east.

Nobody is forcing you to do so. Now are they?

Is that your excuse for trolling me? Because you weren't personally interested in the article?

And I looked at the URLs of three of your "articles" (a week or so ago, I'm working off of memory here) and one was MotherJones, one was HuffingtonPost, and I forget the third one but it apparently didn't leave a mark as a particularly respected source - more because the URLs indicated "opinion piece" rather than "news article". I'd simply prefer that you actually specify your facts instead of making everyone scroll up and read "articles" trying to find where the judicial system in 26 states are getting warped, but such is life I suppose.

So you still have no refutation of the statements and facts which I even embolded in the post? Just more complaints that two of the sources, which all stated essentially the same thing, were those which you apparently personally dislike?

BTW the other source was the Miami Herald. Perhaps you have heard of it before?

 

[Berzerker]

I don't have to watch the video because I know what transpired during the trial.

How does knowing what transpired during the trial inform you about what Lisa Bloom said in a recent interview?

And you just stated that she effectively has been saying what I and many others have stated about it. Now didn't you:

You accused Zimmerman of claiming his gun was behind him in the small of his back, she said it was on his back right hip and provided the same photo you posted during your edit.

It just unfortunate that you do not also "understand the case" given how much you continue to discuss stuff that clearly did not happen. And here is yet another example:

If they had tried to "explain that", it would have directly contradicted one of Zimmerman's own lies.

What lie? Their explanation would put to rest this nonsense that Martin couldn't have seen the gun.

I suggest you watch the trial. Then we can discuss what actually occurred instead of all this unfounded speculation on your part.

How is it unfounded? You mentioned during the trial how a dummy was used to show Martin straddling Zimmerman, true? I saw the video of that. If a holstered gun was on that dummy's right hip, wouldn't the person straddling the dummy notice the bulge with their left leg and look to see what it is? You accused Zimmerman of lying about Martin seeing his gun and you didn't tell the truth about the location of his gun.