Trayvon Martin

Manwë was known for many things, but wisdom and power are two that lead the rest of his attributes. Join the Councils and discuss the more weighty matters of Tolkien Fandom.

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby Minardil » Tue Jul 23, 2013 12:38 pm

According to the testamony of his friend and the voice call, Martin was "almost home" or "already home" depending on how you listen to it. The issue was that the actual altercation took place at least a couple of blocks away, which can't really be construed as "almost home."


Martin was shot about 200 feet from his door, not "several blocks" away. Go out to a football field, stand on the 33 yard line, and look at the far goal line. THAT's how far away he was. Not really far away at all. Martin's detractors, the one's who call him a "tatted up thug", like to say he was "on his back porch", but the phrase his friend used was "almost home", not that he was already at home. Remember, he was walking from a convenience store several blocks away, so even if he was still 200 feet from his back door, that really is "almost home" when measured against the full distance he was walking. There is no evidence that he was actually AT his house.

Meanwhile, the location of the shooting was about a hundred feet out of a direct line walk from the mailboxes (where Zimmerman had been on the phone with 911) to Zimmerman's car. In order to get to the location of the shooting, Zimmerman must have turned off the straight path back to his truck and walked some distance down towards the house where Martin was staying. Even if Martin HAD been on his porch, they would have met just slightly on Zimmerman's side of the halfway point between them. So, it seems that if Martin didn't go strait home, or went looking for Zimmerman, Zimmerman also went looking for Martin, and did NOT walk straight back to his truck.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby hamlet » Tue Jul 23, 2013 2:37 pm

I stand corrected, then, and only point out that I am not one of Martin's detractors while you're throwing that wide paint brush around.
User avatar
hamlet
Ringbearer
 
Posts: 10559
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 12:01 pm
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby solicitr » Wed Jul 24, 2013 6:21 am

hamlet wrote:
ToshoftheWuffingas wrote:Yes, far better if they know their place and keep quiet.


So anybody who has issue with Al Sharpton and the way he reports himself both in this instance and in other instances is actively racist and hates all brown people and wants to reinstitute slavery?

Wow, how fantastically insulting.


^^This.

Tosh, would you toss the "Islamophobe" label at any Briton who criticised the tactics and rhetoric of Anjem Choudary?
Last edited by solicitr on Wed Jul 24, 2013 6:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby solicitr » Wed Jul 24, 2013 6:24 am

My questions have to do with Martin. When he learned that HE was being followed, did HE have a right to stand his ground too and confront Zimmerman? Why won't any Zimmerman supporters answer this?="Minardil"


In fact I have, if you had been paying attention. Martin did of course have the right to 'confront' Zimmermann--- verbally. He did not have the right to physically attack him.

SYG is after all a subset of self-defence; neither one comes into play unless there is first an assault. Following someone is not an assault.
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby The Heretic » Wed Jul 24, 2013 11:31 pm

Jeantel, Martin's friend, testified "he [Martin} had told me he's in the back of his fathers fiancée's house", then, "by the back of his fathers fiancée's house".
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby Minardil » Thu Jul 25, 2013 5:40 am

In fact I have, if you had been paying attention. Martin did of course have the right to 'confront' Zimmermann--- verbally. He did not have the right to physically attack him


You haven't established that Martin was the one who initiated the physical confrontation. There are no witnesses to who threw the first punch. Zimmerman's brother said that Zimmerman had told him that the fight began when Martin tried to "disarm" him. Would Martin be within his SYG rights to attempt to take Zimmerman's gun away if he welt he was being threatened?
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby portia » Thu Jul 25, 2013 7:46 am

Not simply because Z had a gun, but only if he were doing something threatening with it.

SYG defenses can be legal, but if you have an alternative, it is stupid to rely on them. As "Monty Python" put it "Run away; run away" is usually a better choice.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby The Heretic » Thu Jul 25, 2013 8:13 am

Minardil wrote:[ Zimmerman's brother said that Zimmerman had told him that the fight began when Martin tried to "disarm" him.

I keep providing quotes disproving what Minardil says. Now Minardil, why don't you provide the actual quote, which I think was hmmm... different than how you are making it out.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby solicitr » Thu Jul 25, 2013 1:14 pm

Minardil wrote:
In fact I have, if you had been paying attention. Martin did of course have the right to 'confront' Zimmermann--- verbally. He did not have the right to physically attack him


You haven't established that Martin was the one who initiated the physical confrontation. There are no witnesses to who threw the first punch.


Man, when you're losing you really do cover up and obdurately pretend density, don't you?

We do know, beyond any alternate rational interpretation of the evidence, that after all contact between the two had been broken that it was Martin who chose to re-engage and re-initiate contact.

Zimmerman's brother said that Zimmerman had told him that the fight began when Martin tried to "disarm" him.
A distortion worthy of your President himself. Cobblers.

Would Martin be within his SYG rights to attempt to take Zimmerman's gun away if he welt he was being threatened?

Given your added condition, yes..... but not within his "non-retarded person" rights. Are you such a racist that you think Trayvon as a black person was therefore a moron?
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby portia » Sat Aug 17, 2013 8:08 am

We, as a society, have decided to follow the "innocent until proven guilty" formula. That means that the prosecution has to be able to prove that a crime was committed and that the defendant did it, to get a conviction. Reality is not that tidy. Sometimes the evidence just isn't there. We have decided to let those cases result in an acquittal (or, in some places, "not proven").

I have a friend who has said pretty much the equivalent of "I do not care about lack of evidence, I know what happened."
Is that how we want our trials to go? I certainly hope not; it would be a disaster.
I restrained myself in talking to her, as we have been good friends for a long time. She is an educated intelligent woman and it was depressing to hear her say all that.

And I also have to ask what is the "justice" that Martin's suporters were asking for? He was arrested, he was tried and there was a result. Is it "justice" if only the result that Martin's supporters wanted is obtained? That is not "Justice;" that is a kangaroo court.

Well, there are things to be learned from that case, for both sides. I hope they are learned.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top


Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby Minardil » Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:40 pm

We do know, beyond any alternate rational interpretation of the evidence, that after all contact between the two had been broken that it was Martin who chose to re-engage and re-initiate contact.


I understand that YOU believe this to be the case, and I agree that it may in fact be true, but we most definitely do not KNOW this to be the fact, and testimony from the one witness who was in any contact with either of the two men (the young lady on the phone with Martin at the time), suggests that Martin found himself surprised by Zimmerman.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby Minardil » Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:43 pm

Minardil wrote:
We do know, beyond any alternate rational interpretation of the evidence, that after all contact between the two had been broken that it was Martin who chose to re-engage and re-initiate contact.


I understand that YOU believe this to be the case, and I agree that it may in fact be true, but we most definitely do not KNOW this to be the fact, and testimony from the one witness who was in any contact with either of the two men (the young lady on the phone with Martin at the time), suggests that Martin found himself surprised by Zimmerman.




Would Martin be within his SYG rights to attempt to take Zimmerman's gun away if he felt he was being threatened?

Given your added condition, yes..... but not within his "non-retarded person" rights. Are you such a racist that you think Trayvon as a black person was therefore a moron?


Hmm, are you suggesting that it would be retarded of Martin (or anyone else) to attempt to disarm someone who was threatening him with a gun? Or this is just a bit of logical contortionism as you struggle to avoid admitting even the possibility that Zimmerman might be guilty of doing something wrong here?
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby Minardil » Mon Sep 09, 2013 12:55 pm

Zimmerman's brother said that Zimmerman had told him that the fight began when Martin tried to "disarm" him.

A distortion worthy of your President himself. Cobblers.


The word "disarm" comes directly from the transcript of the interview that Zimmerman's brother gave shortly after the incident.

Here is the relevant section of text:

MORGAN: But he did pull out a gun and shoot him, right?

ZIMMERMAN: Well, he stopped someone from disarming him and shooting him. He didn't pull out a gun and shoot him. George showed tremendous restraint --

MORGAN: But he had the gun on him, right?

ZIMMERMAN: He had a permit to carry that gun --

MORGAN: Where was the gun?

ZIMMERMAN: The gun, I believe, was in his -- inside -- tucked inside his pant waist --

MORGAN: Right.

ZIMMERMAN: In a waist holster.

MORGAN: So he has pulled it out and he has fired it?

ZIMMERMAN: Well, he has taken control of his firearm, he prevented his firearm from being taken from him and used against him. And that's called saving your life.



So, in this section, Zimmerman's brother twice indicates that his brother felt that Martin was going for his gun. This isn't a distortion, but I'll certainly allow that it is hearsay, which is how I presented it.

Full transcript at link below.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/29/pmt.01.html
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby The Heretic » Mon Sep 09, 2013 3:46 pm

Minardil wrote:
Zimmerman's brother said that Zimmerman had told him that the fight began when Martin tried to "disarm" him.

A distortion worthy of your President himself. Cobblers.


The word "disarm" comes directly from the transcript of the interview that Zimmerman's brother gave shortly after the incident.

Here is the relevant section of text:

MORGAN: But he did pull out a gun and shoot him, right?

ZIMMERMAN: Well, he stopped someone from disarming him and shooting him. He didn't pull out a gun and shoot him. George showed tremendous restraint --

MORGAN: But he had the gun on him, right?

ZIMMERMAN: He had a permit to carry that gun --

MORGAN: Where was the gun?

ZIMMERMAN: The gun, I believe, was in his -- inside -- tucked inside his pant waist --

MORGAN: Right.

ZIMMERMAN: In a waist holster.

MORGAN: So he has pulled it out and he has fired it?

ZIMMERMAN: Well, he has taken control of his firearm, he prevented his firearm from being taken from him and used against him. And that's called saving your life.



So, in this section, Zimmerman's brother twice indicates that his brother felt that Martin was going for his gun. This isn't a distortion, but I'll certainly allow that it is hearsay, which is how I presented it.

Full transcript at link below.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1203/29/pmt.01.html

Your claim was that he said the fight began when Martin tried to disarm Zimmerman. What you have provided does not support your claim.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby solicitr » Mon Sep 09, 2013 7:57 pm

I understand that YOU believe this to be the case, and I agree that it may in fact be true, but we most definitely do not KNOW this to be the fact, and testimony from the one witness who was in any contact with either of the two men (the young lady on the phone with Martin at the time), sug
gests that Martin found himself surprised by Zimmerman
.


Abosolutely the reverse! Jeantel's testimony established that Martin was on or near his back porch at the same time that we know Zimmerman was at the end of the street 100+ yards away, talking to the police operator.
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby GlassHouse » Tue Sep 10, 2013 12:24 am

User avatar
GlassHouse
Mariner


 
Posts: 7479
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2001 6:51 pm
Location: NH
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby Minardil » Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:30 am

solicitr wrote:
I understand that YOU believe this to be the case, and I agree that it may in fact be true, but we most definitely do not KNOW this to be the fact, and testimony from the one witness who was in any contact with either of the two men (the young lady on the phone with Martin at the time), sug
gests that Martin found himself surprised by Zimmerman
.


Abosolutely the reverse! Jeantel's testimony established that Martin was on or near his back porch at the same time that we know Zimmerman was at the end of the street 100+ yards away, talking to the police operator.


You are cherry picking her testimony. While she did indeed testify that Martin was near his house, but she also said that Martin had told her that he was trying to get away from Zimmerman, when Martin discovered that Zimmerman was STILL FOLLOWING HIM. And THAT is when the physical confrontation began.

Here's CNN's transcript:


Jeantel testified that as he neared the home of his father's girlfriend, Martin tried to lose Zimmerman.

"And then he said, 'That N-word is still following me now,'" said Jeantel. "I asked him how the man looked like. He just told me the man looked 'creepy.' 'Creepy, white' -- excuse my language -- 'cracker. Creepy [expletive] cracker."

Jeantel says she heard Martin talking to Zimmerman in the background of the call.

"He said, 'Why are you following me for?' And I heard a hard-breathing man say, 'What you doing around here?'" said Jeantel.

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


Here we don't see Martin going after Zimmerman, we see Martin talking to his friend, saying he's trying to get away, and discovering that Zimmerman was still following him. You have simply not established that Martin went looking for Zimmerman, nor have you established who started the fight.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby Minardil » Tue Sep 10, 2013 5:45 am

Your claim was that he said the fight began when Martin tried to disarm Zimmerman. What you have provided does not support your claim


Again, you are cherry picking. My argument (as has been stated earlier) is that it is possible that Zimmerman drew his weapon at some time prior to the physical altercation, and that Martin, IF he "attacked" first, did so in self defense, "STANDING HIS GROUND" as it were. There are no witnesses to this series of events (well, living ones apart from Zimmerman himself, that is), so I am not so foolish as to state categorically that my theory is absolutely and undeniably factual, but I do feel that it is plausible and fits the facts that are in evidence, and the interview that Robert Zimmerman gave, in which he says that his brother feared that Martin was attempting to disarm him. How would Martin KNOW if Zimmerman had a gun to take away, if that gun were hidden?

Also, since Zimmerman's supporters were so eager to use Martin's history of fighting etc, as proof that Martin must have started the fight, I think it only fair to use Zimmerman's recent detention on suspicion of threatening his ex-wife and father in law with a gun as "proof" that Zimmerman is the sort of guy that likes to take his gun out and wave it around when he gets angry or feels threatened. Seems very likely to me that he had his gun out on that night, long before Martin was anywhere near him.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby solicitr » Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:11 am

How would Martin KNOW if Zimmerman had a gun to take away, if that gun were hidden?


Wow. You have an absolutely amazing capacity to pretend that facts that run contrary to your preference don't exist.
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby solicitr » Tue Sep 10, 2013 10:12 am

Zimmerman's recent detention on suspicion of threatening his ex-wife and father in law with a gun


Nope. No gun. Sorry- a 'detail' invented by the overheated lynch-mob press.
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby Minardil » Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:37 am

solicitr wrote:
How would Martin KNOW if Zimmerman had a gun to take away, if that gun were hidden?


Wow. You have an absolutely amazing capacity to pretend that facts that run contrary to your preference don't exist.



Uh huh. And you, as usual, simply resort to rather lame attempts at insults when you have nothing to back up your own arguments. You are free to believe what you wish, I'm not attempting to convince you, simply making an argument based on the information that is out there.

Meanwhile, it seems that Mr. Zimmerman smashed the iPad that allegedly contained a filmed recording of his recent altercation with his ex-wife and ex-father in law. So hey, you know he must be totally cool. I mean, guys smash iPads all the time.

http://news.yahoo.com/ipad-video-could-key-george-zimmerman-case-162947221.html
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby Minardil » Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:44 am

solicitr wrote:
Zimmerman's recent detention on suspicion of threatening his ex-wife and father in law with a gun


Nope. No gun. Sorry- a 'detail' invented by the overheated lynch-mob press.


The detail of the gun was not invented by the press. His wife stated on the 911 call that her husband was armed with his "hand on his gun". Meanwhile, his former attorney (who is NOT representing him in this case) says that Zimmerman "acted properly" and "did not take the gun out", so there doesn't seem to be any claim to be made that Zimmerman was unarmed at the time, only some doubt as to what role his gun played.

And again, I'll note that you are not discussing the issue, just throwing insults at people.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/09/us/george-zimmerman-detained/index.html
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby solicitr » Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:21 pm

Insults? Calling the press a "lynch mob" in this case is true, and therefore not an insult no matter how unflattering. If the torch and pitchfork fit, NBC et al can wear them.
User avatar
solicitr
Ranger of the North

 
Posts: 1390
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:45 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby The Heretic » Tue Sep 10, 2013 4:07 pm

Minardil wrote:
Your claim was that he said the fight began when Martin tried to disarm Zimmerman. What you have provided does not support your claim


Again, you are cherry picking. My argument (as has been stated earlier) is that it is possible that Zimmerman drew his weapon at some time prior to the physical altercation, and that Martin, IF he "attacked" first, did so in self defense, "STANDING HIS GROUND" as it were.

Nope. I asked you to support your claim that, quoting you:
"Zimmerman's brother said that Zimmerman had told him that the fight began when Martin tried to "disarm" him."
What you provided does not support your claim. Saying that is not cherry picking. That is just showing you to be wrong.

Re Zimmerman and wife:
"Deputy Police Chief Colin Morgan said officers did not recover a gun, and Bracknell said Shellie Zimmerman later dropped her claim that a gun was involved."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... n/2788443/
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby portia » Thu Sep 12, 2013 7:52 am

There was no gun. People seem to have been making assumptions, that were untrue.
This strikes me as a relatively mild confrontation between people who are divorcing. Only Zimmerman's name made it news.

Mrs. Zimmerman was lucky. A man who wrongly reported someone with a gun in CA was prosecuted when the police believed him and someone died. But, I expect, there are fairly often wrongful claims that someone has a gun in domestic cases, so sensible police will not necessarily believe the claim.
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby Minardil » Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:50 am

"
Zimmerman's brother said that Zimmerman had told him that the fight began when Martin tried to "disarm" him."


Zimmerman's brother is not clear on how fight started, he is only clear in saying that Martin attempted to disarm his brother. It is a reasonable assumption that it MIGHT have started when Martin attempted to take Zimmerman's gun away.
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby Minardil » Thu Sep 12, 2013 8:59 am

portia wrote:There was no gun. People seem to have been making assumptions, that were untrue.
This strikes me as a relatively mild confrontation between people who are divorcing. Only Zimmerman's name made it news.

Mrs. Zimmerman was lucky. A man who wrongly reported someone with a gun in CA was prosecuted when the police believed him and someone died. But, I expect, there are fairly often wrongful claims that someone has a gun in domestic cases, so sensible police will not necessarily believe the claim.



This was the original claim made by Mrs Zimmerman on the 911 call. It was not manufactured or invented by a rabid press, as others have claimed. She appears to have changed her story now, which is also not uncommon in domestic situations even when the original story was true. And what the police said was "he didn't have a gun ON HIS PERSON". He may well have had the gun in his truck, it is known that he had his gun in the glove compartment of his truck during his recent traffic stop.

But let's see if he shoots someone else anytime soon. If he doesn't, you guys are right and he's a peachy dude. If he does, I'm right. Fair enough?
User avatar
Minardil
Mariner


 
Posts: 9943
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2001 8:06 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby The Heretic » Thu Sep 12, 2013 3:34 pm

Minardil wrote:"
Zimmerman's brother said that Zimmerman had told him that the fight began when Martin tried to "disarm" him."


Zimmerman's brother is not clear on how fight started,

That is not what you said previously. As I quoted your statement above
Minardil above wrote:
"Zimmerman's brother said that Zimmerman had told him that the fight began when Martin tried to "disarm" him."

he is only clear in saying that Martin attempted to disarm his brother. It is a reasonable assumption that it MIGHT have started when Martin attempted to take Zimmerman's gun away.

But that is not what you said above, when you made a false claim about what Zimmerman's brother said. And which you were unable to support when challenged.
But this is what you do all too often Minardil. You have this dishonest habit of making false statements about what others say, think, or believe.
The Heretic
Rider of the Mark

 
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon May 23, 2011 7:01 am
Top

Re: Trayvon Martin

Postby portia » Sun Sep 15, 2013 5:56 pm

Unfortunately, some cretin may want to make a "name" for himself by shooting Zimmerman. If that happens, I hope Z does have a gun and shoots back.

(Mrs. Z, by some reports, claimed he had his hand on his gun, that is "on his person," that was not true.)
User avatar
portia
Ringbearer

 
Posts: 10841
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 9:57 pm
Location: Lost in the forest
Top

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy: Councils of Manwë

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests