The myth of the Black-on-White rape epidemic

Discussion in 'Race Relations' started by Egalitarianjay02, Aug 7, 2016.

  1. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    So basically you are dismissing George Zimmerman's history of violence and aggressive behavior including violence against women and threats because many people are "at least a little violent" and claiming that people are either lying or exaggerating about Zimmerman's violent nature.

    Here are some documented violent incidents that George Zimmerman has been accused of:

    http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2015/05/george-zimmerman-history-of-violence/nov-18-2013

    1. Shoving a cop.

    2. Threatening a girlfriend with a shotgun.

    3. Stalking a man for two days.

    4. Threw a girl across a room and injured her at a party he was providing security for (he was fired for "being too aggressive).

    5. Threw a wine bottle at his girlfriend.

    There are other incidents but this is sufficient to prove my point. One co-worker described Zimmerman as having a "Jekyll and Hyde" personality where he was usually a nice guy but was prone to violent outbursts and that when he snapped, he snapped. The nature and number of violent altercations Zimmerman has had indicate that he is mentally disturbed, extremely violent and aggressive as well as power hungry, obsessive and a control freak. I also believe he is lying about the whole incident with Trayvon Martin. One of his recent altercations involved a man at a bar punching him in the face for bragging about killing Trayvon Martin and then calling him an "N-word" lover which makes absolutely no sense (why would a racist White man beat him up for bragging about killing a Black teenager?). Since there is no video, objectively speaking we do not know what exactly happened with Trayvon Martin. If you didn't see it you don't know. What we know is that George Zimmerman called 911 to report a suspicious person even though Trayvon wasn't seen doing anything illegal. He got out of his vehicle to follow him and was told he didn't need to do that. He pursued him armed with a gun. Trayvon Martin ended up being shot dead and Zimmerman ended up with injuries from the altercation. We don't know who started the fight. We know that Martin was minding his own business going back to his father's house with snacks from a convenience store when Zimmerman decided to follow him. He wasn't looking for trouble. Zimmerman was. He called him a "****ing punk" who always gets away and then this boy ends up being shot and killed by a deranged vigilante with a history of violence who has had even more incidents after being acquitted.

    Trayvon Martin wasn't a saint. I'm not calling him that and I don't think any reasonable person would. But getting in to mutual fights in school doesn't even remotely compare to domestic violence against women, violence against cops, threatening people with a gun and stalking. Whatever problems Trayvon Martin had with fighting or drugs and whatever problems he had with his mom are simply not comparable to Zimmerman's violent past. Zimmerman is a killer and a bully. I very much doubt that he acted in self-defense in this situation. More than likely he confronted Martin, they got in a fight, Zimmerman started losing and killed him to gain the upper hand. The idea that Trayvon started the whole conflict, attempted to beat Zimmerman to death and threatened to shoot him with his own gun when he has no record of that kind of extreme violence and wasn't out to get anyone that night comes off as nonsense. Nonsense that a liar who knows enough about the law would say to increase his chances of being acquitted of manslaughter or second degree murder. Saying "he started everything and he was trying to kill me!" is a good defense and great way to take advantage of the "Stand your ground" law but it doesn't make sense to any reasonable and objective person.

    Also while this thread isn't about George Zimmerman killing Trayvon Martin I do find it ironic that the topic is about rape and Zimmerman was accused of sexually abusing a cousin. The guy comes off as a total scumbag.
     
  2. Dropship

    Dropship Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,951
    Likes Received:
    486
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    These are stills from an animation that was played to the court in the Zimmerman case, based on Z's and eyewitness testimonies-
    1- Martin (hooded) approaches Neighbourhood Watchman Zimmerman
    2/3- Martin punches Z to the ground
    4- Martin leaps on Z and begins pounding his head into the concrete

    [​IMG]


    Police photos of Mr. Z's injuries-
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2017
  3. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    The fact that George Zimmerman had injuries and witnesses claim they say Trayvon Martin put him in bad spots does not mean that:

    A) Trayvon Martin is the one that started the physical altercation.

    B) George Zimmerman's life was ever in danger from Trayvon Martin.

    Zimmeran could have easily started the conflict (ex. he could have thrown the first punch, pushed Trayvon or grabbed a hold of him telling him he needed to wait for police) and could have pulled out the gun and shot him because he was losing the fight. Shooting him was excessive force any way you look at it and there is no reason to believe Trayvon Martin threatened to shoot George Zimmerman with his own gun. We can also hear cries for help on one of the 911 call that immediately went silent after the gun shot. Who was crying for help? Experts say it wasn't Zimmerman and logically it doesn't make sense to scream for help while you are aiming and shooting a gun. More than likely that was Trayvon Martin struggling for his life against this violent maniac before he was silenced by his gun. In any case George Zimmerman killed him, I believe he got away with murder and he is a scumbag who bragged about it, posted Trayvon's corpse on social media and sold the gun at an auction that he killed him with.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2017
  4. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Old thread.
     
  5. yiostheoy

    yiostheoy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2016
    Messages:
    8,603
    Likes Received:
    3,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How do you stop 5 black dudes from raping a white chick?

    Answer:

    Throw them a basketball.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2017
  6. David Sims

    David Sims New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Some of those incidents in which Zimmerman was accused of violence were hoaxes or lies told by someone who was trying to harm him.

    For example, the incident in Lake Mary on 11 May 2015 involved an aggressor named Matthew Apperson, who shot at Zimmerman with a handgun, and then lied to the police saying that Zimmerman had been the shooter. Zimmerman was armed, but he did not shoot his firearm. An investigation by the Lake Mary police determined that George Zimmerman was not the shooter. Apperson was arrested and taken to jail.

    With regard to "threatening a girlfriend with a shotgun" (November 2013) there's a very good chance that no such thing ever happened. The girlfriend notified police that she wanted the charges dropped and, furthermore, that a restraining over prohibiting him from seeing her be lifted. The prosecutors did drop the charges. Zimmerman never went to trial. In January 2015, the same girlfriend accused Zimmerman of throwing a wine bottle at her, but later she recanted her story and said it didn't happen.

    The sex abuse allegations should be investigated, of course, but nobody should jump to conclusions. Men are sometimes falsely accused by women of sexual abuse.

    The point is that most of the allegations against George Zimmerman are not well-substantiated and, in part, were later proved false. Of course, if you don't like how his trial for shooting Trayvon Martin came out and want to see him get his reputation trashed, you'll probably believe any allegation or any criticism made against him, whether you, personally, are in a position to know the truth or not.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2017
  7. David Sims

    David Sims New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Haven't we been over this already?

    There is proof that Trayvon Martin instigated the confrontation with George Zimmerman by chasing him down as he was returning to his parked vehicle.

    You can hear, on the 911 audio tape, when Zimmerman is running after Trayvon Martin.
    You can hear, on the 911 audio tape, when he stops running.
    You can hear, on the 911 audio tape, when he says he lost sight of Martin.
    You can hear, on the 911 audio tape, when he begins heading back toward his SUV.
    You can hear, on the 911 audio tape, the moment when Zimmerman concludes his conversation and disconnects.

    It's a few seconds after that disconnection that Martin catches up with Zimmerman.

    A resident of the gated community, in a deposition, said that she heard someone running past her home, from the direction of the home of the girlfriend of Trayvon Martin's father in the direction of George Zimmerman. That was Trayvon Martin, in pursuit of Zimmerman, with violence on his mind.

    That's the proof.

    The injuries tell of the severity of Trayvon Martin's attack. But it's the 911 call and the witness testimony that proves that it was Martin who did the attacking.

    Other "experts" say that it was indeed Zimmerman who was yelling for help. Zimmerman could have drawn his pistol and shot Martin a lot sooner than he did. Instead, he chose to accept a certain amount of physical abuse at Martin's hands. Zimmerman reached for his pistol only after Martin's abuse caused Zimmerman's jacket to open, revealing it to Martin. Both men grabbed for the gun. Zimmerman was faster, and only then, at the very last moment that it would be possible for Zimmerman to act in his own defense, did he shoot Martin.

    I'd have shot him sooner.

    No, that isn't "likely" at all. Making it seem likely was the biggest reason the media, from Feb 2012 to this very day, use the picture of a 12-year-old Trayvon Martin as their representational image for the much larger, tougher-looking 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

    What you believe is not all that important. What the jury believed is what counts. The jury at Zimmerman's 2013 show-trial for 2nd-degree-murder saw all the evidence, heard all the testimony, and formed a much more informed opinion about what happened on the night of the shooting than you will ever have.
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2017
  8. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    None of that proves Trayvon Martin initiated the violence. You don't know what was on his mind. You have some insight in to Zimmerman's mind as he was out to get Trayvon but you don't know what kind of intentions Trayvon had if any. For all you know he thought Zimmerman was some kind of pedophile or mugger and went up to him to question him about him following him. Do you think he didn't have a right to do that?

    There's no proof of who initiated the conflict and Zimmerman's injuries were not life threatening.

    You have absolutely no evidence that Trayvon Martin reached for Zimmerman's gun. You are just taking Zimmerman's side and believing everything he said without evidence. I'm being objective in saying "I don't know" but I see no reason to believe Zimmerman.

    This is very likely given George Zimmerman's documented history of violence which you are willing to dismiss despite multiple testimonies. They're all lying right?


    Do you believe that jurors are infallible? Was OJ Simpson innocent in your opinion? Are all White men convicted of hate crimes guilty? The fact is that George Zimmerman has a history of violence, he killed the kid, his story isn't believable and he continues to be involved in violent incidents and doing disgusting things which indicate that he doesn't have remorse for killing an unarmed teenager who was minding his own business prior to Zimmerman following him armed with a gun and killing him. The point is regardless of what happened you are just as biased as anyone who assumes that Trayvon Martin was an innocent little boy or the media for showing a picture of him at a younger age than he was the night he was killed by George Zimmerman. You have no problem taking every criticism of Trayvon at face value and believing everything Zimmerman said about him but aren't willing to take in to consideration the possibility that Zimmerman lied or the evidence that indicates that he himself is violent and mentally unstable.
     
  9. Dropship

    Dropship Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2017
    Messages:
    1,951
    Likes Received:
    486
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Tell it to the jury, they found Zimmerman not guilty..:)
    Remember, Z didn't start shooting at a distance, he only pulled his gun after Martin was on top of him on the ground.
    And it wasn't a big cannon, it was just a little Kel-Tec pistol (here being displayed to the court), but it did its job..:)
    [​IMG]


    Mr. Z simply defended himself..:)

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2017
  10. David Sims

    David Sims New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    You persist in trying to build up a false sequence of events.

    Before George Zimmerman began following Trayvon Martin, Martin had been approaching George Zimmerman with his hands at his waistband. We don't know what Martin had in mind for Zimmerman because when Martin saw that Zimmerman was talking to someone on the telephone, he changed direction and began walking rapidly away (at 1min 37sec in the 911 call audio recording).

    George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin from (1:40 to 2:38, running starting at 2:10) in the recording, but he didn't follow to the point of catching him. Zimmerman lost sight of Martin in the gathering gloom of evening. At 2:36 in the audio recording of the 911 call, Zimmerman tells the police dispatcher "He ran," meaning that Trayvon Martin was no longer in sight.

    Your objection goes both ways. For all Zimmerman knew, Trayvon Martin could have been one of those teenage-to-early 20s black burglars who had recently been breaking into homes inside the community for whose safety George Zimmerman was responsible. The facts are: (1) George Zimmerman was doing a job he had agreed to do for his community and (2) Trayvon Martin need only have told Zimmerman who he was and why he was there, and nothing bad would have happened on that evening.

    Insight into Trayvon Martin's state of mind comes, ironically, from the testimony of Rachel Jeantel, who revealed in court that Trayvon Martin had, during his phone conversation with her, referred to George Zimmerman as "a white crakka." In her testimony, Jeantel asserted that Martin's comment somehow proved that Zimmerman was a racist. Such a low IQ.

    So, no. Trayvon Martin wasn't worried that George Zimmerman was a pedophile.

    Having your head bashed repeatedly against concrete is life-threatening. Yes, indeed it is. Your skull will take only so many bashes before it breaks. And then you die.

    And you are, I think, being a racist about what circumstances justify using lethal force in self-defense. Were the races reversed in some future shooting incident, in which a white man were bashing the head of a black man against a concrete sidewalk, I'd agree that the black man had a right to defend himself with a gun. So would you, in that case. But when the white man is the one getting his head bashed, you suddenly adopt different standards regarding whether the injuries are likely to be life-threatening and whether the victim of abuse is justified in shooting his attacker in self-defense.

    You're don't know what to say about a violent situation until you first know whom are the blacks and whom are the whites in the play.

    George Zimmerman has credibility that comes from the fact that his story never changed from the moment he first related it to the police. His story was self-consistent, consistent with the physical evidence, and remained unaltered during the months that followed. That's a fairly good signal that you're dealing with an honest man who is giving you truthful testimony.

    THERE IS NO CONTRARY EVIDENCE regarding the appearance and the use of George Zimmerman's gun.

    There is a reason, though it isn't a conclusive one, to believe that Zimmerman is probably telling the truth about the way his gun came into the struggle, and that is, namely, that Zimmerman has never been caught in a lie about anything pertaining to the shooting of Trayvon Martin.

    I will simply refer you BACK to what I said last time about those unproved accusations. Twice his accusers reversed themselves and took back what they said. None of the accusations is proved. And while nobody is perfect, and I can well imagine that George Zimmerman might have hit somebody, somewhere, at some time or other, when he should not have, none of the bears on what happened between Zimmerman and Martin in February 2012. You're raising side issues that you think will cast your unsubstantiated cause in a favorable light.

    We've been over this before, too. No, I think that OJ Simpson was probably guilty of killing his wife Nicole Brown and her Jewboy lover. But the point of a trial is proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is what the jury at Simpson's trial probably did. They might have thought he was guilty, also, just as I do, but they didn't consider the evidence presented by the prosecution to measure up to the standard required.

    And that's what happened at the trial of George Zimmerman. In that case, I think that Zimmerman was justified in shooting Trayvon Martin, and therefore his act was not murder, nor manslaughter, and that the jury did the right thing. But my opinion is not what the jury acted upon. What they acted upon was the fact that the evidence presented at the trial did not prove that Zimmerman was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

    "Every criticism of Trayvon" comes from much better sources than do the criticisms of George Zimmerman do. Of the two, Zimmerman was by far the safer person to be around. Of the two, Zimmerman was the least violent and least prone to break the laws. But, these are, of course, side issues of the obfuscatory kind you continually raise.

    Here is the entire transcript of the 911 call made by George Zimmerman to the dispatcher of the Sanford, Florida, Police Department on the evening of 26 February 2012.

    0:00 DISPATCHER "Sanford Police Department..."

    0:04 ZIMMERMAN "Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy at Tree View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Tree View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about."

    0:26 DISPATCHER "Okay. Is this guy is he white, black, or Hispanic?"

    0:28 ZIMMERMAN "He looks black."

    0:30 DISPATCHER "Did you see what he was wearing?"

    0:32 ZIMMERMAN "Yeah, a dark hoodie, like a gray hoodie and either jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes. He's here now. He's just staring..."

    0:44 DISPATCHER "Okay, just walking around the area?"

    0:45 ZIMMERMAN "...looking at all the houses."

    0:46 DISPATCHER "Okay."

    0:47 ZIMMERMAN "Now he's staring at me."

    0:48 DISPATCHER "Okay, this is 1111 Tree View or 111?"

    0:52 ZIMMERMAN "That's the club house."

    0:54 DISPATCHER "That's the club house. Do you know what the—he's near the club house right now?"

    0:58 ZIMMERMAN "Yeah. Now he's coming towards me."

    1:00 DISPATCHER "Okay."

    1:03 ZIMMERMAN "He's got his hand in his waistband... And he's a black male."

    1:10 DISPATCHER "Okay. How old would you say he was?"

    1:11 ZIMMERMAN "He's got a button on his shirt. Late teens."

    1:13 DISPATCHER "Late teens. Okay."

    1:15 ZIMMERMAN "Mm-Hm... Something's wrong with him... Yep, he's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is."

    1:27 DISPATCHER "Okay. Let me know if he does anything, okay?"

    1:29 ZIMMERMAN "Please get an officer over here."

    1:30 DISPATCHER "Yeah, we got them on the way. Just let me know if this guy does anything else."

    1:37 ZIMMERMAN "These *******s, they always get away."

    1:45 ZIMMERMAN "When you come to the club house, you come straight in and make a left. Actually, you go past the club house."

    1:55 DISPATCHER "This is on the left hand side from the club house?"

    1:57 ZIMMERMAN "No, you go in, straight through the entrance, and then you make a left. You go straight in, don't turn and make a left...

    2:07 ZIMMERMAN "****, he's running."

    2:08 DISPATCHER "He's running? Which way is he running?"

    [From the increased stress in Zimmerman's breathing, you can tell that he begins running at about 2:10.]

    2:10 ZIMMERMAN "Ah, down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood."

    2:14 DISPATCHER "Okay. Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?"

    2:17 ZIMMERMAN "The back entrance."

    2:22 DISPATCHER "Are you following him?"

    2:24 ZIMMERMAN "Yeah."

    2:25 DISPATCHER "Okay, we don't need you to do that."

    2:28 ZIMMERMAN "Okay."

    2:33 DISPATCHER "All right, sir. What is your name?"

    2:36 ZIMMERMAN "George... He ran."

    [You can tell from his breathing that Zimmerman stops running at about 2:38.]

    2:40 DISPATCHER "All right, George. What's your last name?"

    2:42 ZIMMERMAN "Zimmerman."

    2:44 DISPATCHER "And George what's the phone number you're calling from?"

    2:47 ZIMMERMAN "407435----"

    2:52 DISPATCHER "Okay George we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?"

    2:56 ZIMMERMAN "Yeah"

    2:57 DISPATCHER "All right. Where are you going to be with them at?"

    2:59 ZIMMERMAN "Um, if they come in through the gate tell them to go straight past the clubhouse, and straight past the clubhouse and make a left. And then they go past the mailboxes. You'll see my truck."

    3:18 DISPATCHER "What address are you parked in front of?"

    3:22 ZIMMERMAN "I don't know. It's a cut-through sign. I don't know the address."

    3:26 DISPATCHER "Okay. Do you live in the area?"

    3:28 ZIMMERMAN "Yeah..."

    3:29 DISPATCHER "What's your apartment number?"

    3:31 ZIMMERMAN "It's a home. It's 1950. Oh crap, I don't want to give it all out. I don't know where this kid is."

    3:40 DISPATCHER "Okay, do you want to meet with them right near the mailboxes?"

    3:42 ZIMMERMAN "Yeah, that's fine."

    3:45 DISPATCHER "All right George. I'll let them know to meet you with them out there..."

    3:47 ZIMMERMAN "Could you have them call me, and I'll tell them where I'm at?"

    3:50 DISPATCHER "Okay. Yeah, that's no problem."

    3:54 ZIMMERMAN "You need my number or you got it?"

    3:55 DISPATCHER "Yeah, I got it. 407435----?"

    3:58 ZIMMERMAN "Yeah you got it."

    3:59 DISPATCHER "Okay. I'll let them know to call you when they're in the area."

    4:02 ZIMMERMAN "Thanks."

    4:03 DISPATCHER "You're welcome."
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
  11. David Sims

    David Sims New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    I think that everyone will notice that it is implausible that George Zimmerman would call the police, urge them to hurry up and come to his neighborhood, and then commit a murder the moment he hangs up the telephone.
     
  12. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    None of your account of the sequence of events contradicts anything I said. I also think it is funny that you would use Rachael Jeantel's statements to suit your needs but what about when she said that she heard Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman arguing on the phone (making statements that contradict Zimmerman's account) and the phone suddenly cut off when she heard what sounded like Trayvon being pushed and rustling in the grass.

    Do you accept those statements?

    If not you are practicing confirmation bias.

    Also I have to correct you, Rachael said that Trayvon called Zimmerman a "creepy ass cracka" indicating that he was suspicious and making him uncomfortable and she suggested herself that he could be some kind of sexual predator out to get him prompting Trayvon to avoid him. So while we don't know exactly what Trayvon Martin thought of George Zimmerman's intentions according to a witness that you yourself are using the idea that he was a pedophile was suggested as a possibility Trayvon described as "creepy" so you can't rule out the possibility that Trayvon Martin felt unsafe due to this suspicious stranger following him in his vehicle, talking to him on the phone and staring at him at night.

    Also since you don't have any evidence of the nature of their conversation other than what Rachel Jeantel said you don't know whether or not Trayvon Martin identified himself or told Zimmerman what he was doing. You also don't know that if he did Zimmerman would have just left him alone. You don't know what happened and that is my whole point which means you can't make an argument that Zimmerman acted in self-defense based on solid facts.

    Now as for Rachael saying that Trayvon Martin called George Zimmerman a "cracker" and argued during cross examination that this wasn't racist that was one of the most embarrassing moments for her during the trial. I don't agree with her. That is racist. However I think she was being truthful in her testimony on this comment because she seemed to lack the foresight and common sense to realize that this comment would be used against her and Trayvon's innocence (e.g. "Aha! So Trayvon Martin was the real racist!"). She could have left that out. She could have also said that Trayvon Martin just called him a "creepy guy" or "creep" and left out cracker. The fact that she didn't indicates to me that this is what he really said. So that wasn't smart on her part however it speaks to her naivety and youth (of course you gloating about her having a low IQ is a racist comment). A lot of the youth in urban Black communities think it is acceptable to use racial slurs. They call themselves "n*gga" and use racial slurs against White people, not necessarily with malice but because they think it is ok to be racist or even that they're not really being racist and just cracking jokes. According to Rachael Trayvon Martin also called Zimmerman a "n*gga" so this is how some of these kids talk. That language speaks to the culture Trayvon Martin was brought up in but gives no indications of his intentions that night.

    You're race-baiting. Isn't Zimmerman actually Hispanic with Multiracial ancestry and not a White man? My basis for saying that his injuries were not life threatening is that an expert stated during the trial that the injuries to the back of his head were consistent with only one collision with the sidewalk which could have happened by falling down in a struggle not from repeated blows from someone bashing his head in to the side walk. Also if he was really receiving that kind of damage how could he be conscious enough to pull out a gun and use it to shoot somebody? I've never had my head bashed in to the sidewalk but I know that blunt force trauma to the head of that nature can shake the brain and leave you dazed without any control over your body. There is no way George Zimmerman could have aimed his gun and fire it if his injuries to the head were that serious.

    Also I could pull the race card on you and say that if there was another case that was this high profile and it were a Black man the same age as Zimmerman patrolling his neighborhood and then followed and killed an unarmed White teenager buying candy from a story and returning home to watch a Basketball game that you would not put this kind of energy in to trying to defend the killer but would likely demand that he be prosecuted, convicted of murder and charged with a hate crime. If he got off you would compare the decision to the OJ Simpson trial and demand justice. If that was the case then you are the real racist. You are already a confirmed racist any way.



    Not getting caught in a lie doesn't give him any credibility. He knows what happened. All he has to do is twist events to his favor that isn't inconsistent with the evidence knowing that it is the best way for him to get away with murder. His account of events is absolutely ridiculous and his history of violence hurts his credibility as a level headed person not to mention his obsession with catching criminals in the neighborhood and reporting suspicious people without actually seeing them do anything illegal which is the case with Trayvon Martin.


    Having a history of violence of this nature is absolutely relevant. You are dismissing this evidence because it hurts your argument but have no trouble talking about Trayvon Martin getting in fights in school.


    You nasty anti-semite! I'm surprised you didn't call Nicole Brown Simpson a mudshark.....

    The fact is that jurors look at the evidence and make a decision. They are not always right. Sometimes innocents are found guilty and the guilty go free. So we can't say that jury decisions are infallible nor can we ignore that there is bias in the criminal justice system including racial bias. I highly suspect that the portrayal of Trayvon Martin as a trouble Black kid who has embraced the gangsta culture had something to do with the jury decision.



    There's no basis to your argument given that Zimmerman actually killed somebody, has physically attacked women, has threatened others with a deadly weapon, assaulted a police officer, stalked people, gets in to road rage conflicts and gets in trouble for speeding and instigates conflicts by bragging about killing people. He was even depraved enough to profit from killing Trayvon Martin by putting the gun he killed him with up for auction. That is not a safe person to be around and much more dangerous than a teenager whose worst violent activity that we know of is getting in to fights in school.

    We're talking about second degree murder here. I don't think he planned to kill Trayvon Martin. I think that he may have told him to wait for the police and grabbed a hold of him, prompting Martin to retaliate by punching him initiating a fight which Trayvon was winning and Zimmerman shot him to gain the upper hand. That's just my theory but the point is we don't know. Why did he feel the need to get out of his vehicle armed with a gun? He already called police. He didn't witness Trayvon doing anything illegal. He didn't need to do that. Even if Trayvon Martin walked up to him to confront him that doesn't mean that he started the fight.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
  13. David Sims

    David Sims New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Yes, it does.

    #1. I provided a transcript of the entire conversation between Zimmerman and the Sanford police dispatcher, which shows that Zimmerman wanted the police to send officers immediately to his gated neighborhood. He arranged to meet with those officers when they arrived. He would not have done that if he intended to murder Trayvon Martin.

    #2. The 911 call audio proves that Zimmerman did not catch up to Martin during the time he was following him.

    #3. Further, the 911 call audio proves that Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin before the end of the call.

    #4. Testimony at Zimmerman's trial revealed that someone had run past houses in the neighborhood at about the time Zimmerman's 911 call with the police dispatcher was concluded. That would have been Trayvon Martin, rushing to meet with Zimmerman.

    So what does that mean?

    It means that Zimmerman could not have been the one to initiate violence. Zimmerman had called the police so that the police could handle the matter. A person who intends to do something illegal and violent does not call the police first and ask for officers to speed to the scene of the crime.

    Since Zimmerman would not have instigated the violence, it follows that Martin did.

    Moreover, the encounter between Zimmerman and Martin was of Martin's making. Before he took off after George Zimmerman, he was probably very near the home of his father's girlfriend, where he was staying. He could have gone inside. But he didn't. Instead, he got ballsy and wanted to act like a tough guy. He charged Zimmerman.

    So, not only is it very likely that Martin threw the first punch, it is certain that Martin is the one who closed the distance between them.

    Is that too complicated for you to understand?

    Rachael Jeantel was a poor liar because she is mentally rather dull. Although she lied about some things, her lies aren't lies because she's the one whose mouth made them. They're lies because they aren't true. However, as it is with most people even someone who lies most of the time can tell the truth some of the time.

    And, no, I don't accept Rachel Jeantel's statement that she heard Trayvon being pushed and rustling in the grass. She could not have known which man had fallen from the sound of a push or from the rustling of grass. She made up the part about being sure who was the pusher (or the hitter) and who was the pushed. She's dumb, remember? She didn't get it figured out that someone (of normal intelligence or better) would figure out that she was making too much conclusion from the evidence she had.

    And that isn't "confirmation bias." That's practicing good sense.

    Now, I will go back to the events in the gated community in Sanford, Florida, on the evening of 26 February 2012. I recently (see above) provided the transcript of George Zimmerman's 911 call to the police. Now I will provide the geography that goes with it.

    The name of the gated community where these events happened is "The Retreat at Twin Lakes" a.k.a. "The Twin Lakes Community." It is in Sanford, Florida, and has the zip code 32771. The neighborhood is roughly rectangular, except that one side has an outward bulge in it. Twin Lakes is bounded on two sides by South Oregon Avenue, and the main (or front) gate to the community is in the one of these two sides in the counterclockwise position.

    Trayvon Martin's behavior while living with his mother in Miami caused her to send him to her ex-husband, Tracy Martin, who was Trayvon's father. Tracy Martin was living with his girlfriend, Brandy Latresa Green, at her home inside the community. Retreat View Circle is the outer street that you see to the right in most images of the area. The other street, to the left in most images, is Twin Trees Lane.

    The homes facing into Twin Trees lane have four-digit house numbers beginning with the digit 1.

    The homes facing into Retreat View Circle have four-digit house numbers beginning with the digit 2.

    In between the two rows of houses is a sidewalk that separates the yards of one house row from the yards of the opposite house row.

    There is another sidewalk going from Twin Trees Lane to Retreat View Circle, which intersects the aforementioned sidewalk running between the house rows, in a T-shaped intersection. Residents of Twin Lakes referred to this intersection as "the T."

    The house numbers on the two streets increase in opposite directions, with the lowest numbers of the homes facing into Twin Trees Lane being near the T, while the lowest numbers of the homes facing into Retreat View Circle are farthest from the T.

    The address for Brandy Latresa Green was 2631 Retreat View Circle. That's the address of the house facing into Retreat View Circle that is farthest from the T. (There are a number of map-images online that incorrectly identify her address as the one on Twin Trees Lane, which faces Brandy Green's home across their back yards.)

    When Trayvon Martin returned to the neighborhood from his trip to the convenience store, he entered either at the main gate or somewhere near it. He ventured slightly off a direct route to Brandy Green's residence in order to check out the community's clubhouse. When George Zimmerman first saw him, he was walking from the direction of the clubhouse, not from the direction of the main gate. That's when Zimmerman dialed 911.

    After briefly venturing part of the way toward George Zimmerman, Martin continued along the grass in the yards in front of a row of houses (not previously mentioned), moving roughly parallel to the part of Twin Trees Lane that also runs in that direction before making a 90-degree curve to the right. At some point along this part of his trip, Martin breaks into a run.

    George Zimmerman, still talking with the police dispatcher, exits his truck and begins following Martin, leaving the truck parked near the aforementioned curve in Twin Trees Lane. Martin has such a head start on Zimmerman that he is able to travel down the length of the sidewalk, from the T, to some point near Brandy Green's home. How do we know that's where he was? Because he telephoned someone named "Deedee" and said that he was in Green's back yard.

    Zimmerman ran past the T heading for Retreat View Circle. He didn't change direction at the T, as Martin did. At Retreat View Circle, Zimmerman stops running and says "He ran..." to the police dispatcher. He finishes his conversation with the police dispatcher and starts walking back to his truck.

    Trayvon Martin saw Zimmerman walking toward his truck as he came back into sight from behind the row of houses that face into Retreat View Circle. Martin decided then to attack Zimmerman and charged from Brandy Green's back yard toward Zimmerman, who was slowly pacing past the T. Martin caught up with Zimmerman in the back yard of 1211 or 1221 Twin Trees Lane.

    According to Zimmerman, Martin said: "You got a problem?" Zimmerman replied: "No, I don't have a problem." Martin said: "You do now!" and punched Zimmerman in the face, breaking his nose, and knocking him down. Before Zimmerman could rise again, Martin sat on his chest and began smashing his head against the concrete sidewalk.

    [​IMG]

    As I said in my post just prior to this one (see it above), the opinion that George Zimmerman began the fight in which Travyon Martin was killed is not at all tenable. George Zimmerman had just called the police, asking them to send officers to his neighborhood, and had received the dispatcher's assurance that officers were indeed on the way. He would not then turn around and commit a murder immediately thereafter.

    Besides which, evidence makes it clear that the distance between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was closed to zero by the choice of Trayvon Martin.

    So the only sensible and plausible conclusion is that Trayvon Martin initiated the encounter and initiated the fight, also.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
  14. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    @David Sims

    You have absolutely no evidence confirming the following:

    1) Trayvon Martin initiated violence against George Zimmerman.

    2) George Zimmerman had to kill Trayvon Martin in self-defense.

    You are using the "Trayvon Martin doubled back" angle that conservatives have been using to claim that Trayvon started the fight then extrapolating from Zimmerman's testimony to claim that what he said happened are established facts. They are not. This is what you want to believe happened and not necessarily what happened. Even if Trayvon did approach Zimmerman that doesn't mean he initiated the violent encounter between them. What part of that do you not understand? How do you know that Trayvon picked a fight with him? You don't. How do you know that Zimmerman didn't try to restrain Martin for the police? You don't. You dismiss Rachael Jeantel's testimony of what was really said even though phone records indicate she was privy to any conversation between Zimmerman and Martin but accept at face value that Trayvon Martin called George Zimmerman a "creepy ass cracker."

    That is confirmation bias. And yes she could lie about some things and tell the truth about others but you are picking and choosing what to believe not based on logic but based on your desire to defend Zimmerman's actions. George Zimmerman was heard on the 911 call saying that someone he didn't know and didn't witness committing any crime was a "f*cking punk" who always gets away. That is an expression of hatred and suggests he had malicious intentions. He left his vehicle armed with a gun. He would not have done that unless he considered the possibility of needing to use it. He has a history of violence. You tried to dismiss it but you have no evidence that discredits any of the allegations against him that I mentioned. Calling the police doesn't exonerate Zimmerman. Calling the police and then getting out of the vehicle to chase someone you haven't witnessed committing a crime indicates that Zimmerman was out to get Trayvon Martin and make sure that he is brought to justice. After all he is one of those "f*cking punks" who is always getting away. Getting out of the vehicle to chase him proves that reporting him to the police wasn't enough. Getting out of the vehicle armed with a gun indicates that he was willing to kill if necessary. Actually killing him is a solid basis for a charge of second degree murder (an unplanned but intentional killing) or manslaughter (being responsible for the wrongful death of someone).

    There is nothing in that case that corroborates any of Zimmerman's testimony that he acted in self-defense. Not the injuries or the eyewitness testimonies to the fighting. No one saw who initiated the violence. There's no video of the whole encounter. All you have is Zimmerman's word. His story of being beaten senseless on a concrete sidewalk yet being able to aim and shoot a gun as well as shooting the gun because Trayvon saw it and tried to take it from him is as ridiculous as claiming a man at a restaurant punched him in the face for bragging about killing Trayvon Martin and then called him an "N-word lover."

    I can easily recognize a lie when I see it. I can't prove it. I wasn't there however I can use common sense. Lying is very easy for people to do and especially easy when you know the real facts and are able to twist events to your favor. They are even easier to tell when there are no witnesses to contradict your testimony, no video of the incident in question and the only other witness to the event isn't alive to tell their side of the story.

    Also when it comes to bias you have completely destroyed your credibility in this thread with your racist and anti-semitic statements so stop pretending that you are an objective analyst giving a fair assessment of this topic or any other related to this thread.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
  15. David Sims

    David Sims New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Yes, I do. And in my previous post I presented it. You denials will not help you. I will repeat that evidence here, in summary, once again:

    The evidence that Trayvon Martin initiated violence against George Zimmerman is that George Zimmerman called the police and requested the presence of officers in his neighborhood ASAP. The proof of the call is the 911 audio recording. Since criminals do not summon the police to the scene of crimes that they are about to commit, George Zimmerman did not immediately commit a murder upon disconnecting from his call with the Sanford Police dispatcher. No, this isn't physical evidence, but it is very good circumstantial evidence. It is, however, evidence.

    The evidence that George Zimmerman had to kill Trayvon Martin in self-defense are the injuries sustained by George Zimmerman at Trayvon Martin's hands. In truth, it wasn't necessary for Zimmerman to have waited so long before shooting Martin. The abuse he was getting would have made self-defense justifiable after the very first time Martin slammed Zimmerman's head upon the concrete sidewalk. At any rate, the documented injuries on George Zimmerman's head constitute evidence that his life was in danger, even though he did act to save himself before he died. He could hardly have exercised self-defense afterward. No one intelligent (or even decent) would propose that someone being attacked had to die, first, before he acquired the right to kill his attacker in self-defense.

    So you're wrong on both counts. And if you repeat your false statements again, then I will merely repeat my responses again. And we can go on and on and on with this for as many years as we both shall live, if that is how you'd like to waste your time.

    Yes, Trayvon Martin doubled back. Trayvon Martin had been on the telephone with "Deedee," which was his familiar name for Rachel Jeantel. While speaking with her, he mentioned that he was behind Brandy Green's house. That's a known fact. So the doubling-back theory isn't something that conservatives invented out of thin air. It's a fact that they rescued from the Orwellian "memory hole" to which the leftist mainstream media was trying to consign it.

    It isn't a criticism, really, when you say that an argument comes from "conservatives," since conservatives have substantially more credibility for truth-telling than liberals do.

    Read what I wrote AGAIN. I don't base my conclusion that Trayvon Martin instigated the encounter or started the fight by anything that George Martin said. Go ahead. Read it. You don't have to scroll up very far, since I summarized the evidence at the top of this post.

    You sure are slow. Go back up there and read the paragraph that begins with "The evidence that Trayvon Martin initiated violence against George Zimmerman is that..."

    Squirm. Squirm. Squirm.

    The reason is that the only injuries on Trayvon Martin's body, other than the gunshot wound, was on his knuckles. He didn't have any other bruises or signs of having been in a fight. In other words, Zimmerman didn't get any licks in. Martin overpowered Zimmerman and subjected him to life-threatening abuse.

    Do you want to try again?

    Yes, I do. Rachel Jeantel (that's the correct spelling of her name) could be certain that Trayvon Martin had called George Zimmerman a "creepy ass cracker," though she could only speculate about what the noises she overheard from the fight meant. She could not know who had pushed, or who had punched, or who had fallen on the ground, by the sounds coming to her through a dropped cell phone.

    And, by the way, it was George Zimmerman's jacket that was wet on the back, with grass stains on it. Not the hoodie that Trayvon Martin was wearing. And that, I think, pretty much settles that.

    Want to try again?

    No, it isn't. There's such a thing as confirmation bias, but I haven't displayed any of it here.

    When you lie, you don't fool around do you? Rather than shade the truth with a similar-but-false substitute, or with a half-truth, you go for a lie that is the complete opposite of the truth. When I decide which of Rachel Jeantel's statements are true and which are false, I use logic, and I don't use a desire to defend Zimmerman's actions.

    Nope! And that's the sort of lie that leftists like you tell day in and day out for years on end. George Zimmerman did not call Trayvon Martin a f*cking punk. He was referring to the burglars (who were mostly young black males) who had been breaking into houses in the community during the past several months. Zimmerman, speaking under his breath, says "f*cking punks," at 2:21 in the audio recording. It was spoken so softly that I missed it when I was doing the transcript, which I posted in this thread just a little while ago.

    The point is this:

    Trayvon Martin was one, single person.

    George Zimmerman used the plural noun: punks.

    Because of the mismatch in number, Zimmerman could not have been referring to Trayvon Martin as an individual, since he would in such case have used the singular noun: punk.

    So now you're the mind reader? No. His expression was not directed against Trayvon Martin as an individual, but instead referred to the members of a certain group of blacks who had been committing a rash of burglaries. All Zimmerman wanted with Martin is to find out who he was and whether he belonged in the community.

    Correct. But I'll reword your statement to put the moral emphasis in a more appropriate place. Zimmerman carried a gun because it was his right and because it makes good sense to be armed in a society such as the one he lives in. You just never know when a black thug is going to attack you.

    Most of the allegations against him need no further discrediting from me. One of the allegations was that he had shot at someone else, when a police investigation proved that it was the someone else who had shot at him. There goes that allegation, <poof!> up in smoke. Two of the other allegations involve one (or two) women who later recanted their stories and asked that charges be dropped. And there go those allegations, <poof!> up in smoke.

    When it comes to spinning out a fantasy, you are the one doing most of it. You begin fairly enough.

    "Calling the police doesn't exonerate Zimmerman." True. But Zimmerman does not need any exoneration. He isn't required to disprove your every single unsubstantiated speculation about what might have happened. The story that Zimmerman told was self-consistent, consistent with the physical evidence, consistent with the timeline, corroborated by witnesses, and confirmed by a lie-detector test which Zimmerman took at the police station. When it comes to choosing between the account that he gave, which has stood up to every test given it, and the alternative accounts that you're giving, the choice is clear. He's probably telling the truth. You're probably lying.

    There's a great deal more than Zimmerman's word. Examples include the fact that Zimmerman's jacket was wet and grass-stained on back, and the fact that Trayvon Martin's body had no injuries on it other than the gunshot wound and bruises ON HIS KNUCKLES. You are relying quite a lot on the ignorance of the people whom you try to deceive. I'm not ignorant, and that's why you aren't deceiving me.

    The range was point-blank. Trayvon Martin was sitting on George Zimmerman's torso. Not even you would have missed at that distance.

    The man's who called Zimmerman a "n*gger-lover" was Eddie (last name so far unknown). Zimmerman had gone into a restaurant (Gators Riverside Grille) on Sunday evening, 31 July 2016. He was going toward a table where some friends were waiting when he happened to walk by a table with several other people whom he didn't know. One of them had some Confederate tattoos, which Zimmerman admired and for which he gave compliments. The wearer of those tattoos, Joseph Whitmer, thanked Zimmerman and then belatedly recognized him. Whitmer asked Zimmerman "Aren't you that guy?" Zimmerman said, yes he was, and he pulled out his ID to prove it. Curious about the Trayvon Martin case, Whitmer began asking Zimmerman questions about it. As Zimmerman explained that he had had to shoot Trayvon Martin in self-defense because he'd had no other choice, another man walked up and asked, "You're bragging about that?" Zimmerman said that he wasn't bragging, but the man said, "You'd better get the [expletive] out of here." Zimmerman went to his table where several of his friends were eating. A few minutes later, the man (who has been tentatively identified as "Eddie," walked over to Zimmerman's table and said, "Didn't I tell you to get the [expletive] out of here?" Zimmerman told the man that he wasn't looking for any trouble. The man immediately punched him in the face, breaking his glasses. Restaurant staffers broke up the scuffle. Zimmerman called 911 to report the incident, which is exactly what he should have done.

    Sure you can.

    You would do well to add to your education. There is a principle in epistemology, that the absence of evidence isn't the evidence of absence. Generally speaking, nothing outside of mathematics can be proved with mathematical rigor, and one of the ways you spot a trickster is by his habit of demanding that level of proof or else it just isn't so.

    No, I haven't. What destroys credibility isn't whether or not one stays faithful to political correctness, but, rather, whether or not one stays faithful to the truth.

    Neither antisemite nor racist (noun) mean the same thing that liar means.

    Neither antisemitic nor racist (adjective) mean the same thing that false means.

    It is quite possible that an antisemitic statement, or a racist statement, could also be a true statement. When you think about it, you realize that that really is how things are.

    The people to view with suspicion are, instead, the very people who want you to think that all antisemitic statements must be lies, or that all racist statements are false.

    Credibility isn't what you think it is.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2017
  16. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    You are simply making assumptions. Just because he called police doesn't mean he didn't intentionally kill Trayvon Martin. We don't know the exact circumstances of the encounter. We only have George Zimmerman's account which is ridiculous.

    The injuries he sustained do not mean that he acted in self-defense. He could easily have initiated the conflict and killed Trayon to gain the upper hand in a fight that he was losing.

    If you wish to defend George Zimmerman for the rest of your life then you obviously have an emotional need to do so that goes beyond the value of justice. You are just a racist rationalizing the killing of an unarmed teen because in your mind he got what he deserved.


    Your evidence is insufficient and you're engaging in troll tactics by repeating yourself needlessly and resorting to logical fallacies to prove a point.



    You usually don't leave any sign of injury by grabbing a hold of someone or even pushing them. We don't know how physical George Zimmerman got with Trayvon Martin aside from shooting him with a gun.



    Actually some of the most effective lies are shading the truth or telling half-truths. A lie is when you say something that you know isn't true. This is different from simply saying something that is false because you can make a false statement because you are misinformed. When you lie you consciously know that what you are saying isn't true and good liars know how to weave their lies in to a story that is full of established facts. In fact some liars will tell you the truth often enough to get you to trust them so that when they tell you a lie you will believe them.


    He was clearly generalizing that Trayvon Martin was a "f*cking punk" just like the other criminals he had encountered in the neighborhood and that he didn't want "this one" to get away.

    If he wanted to do that he could have just gone up to him and asked instead of sitting in his vehicle looking at him and reporting him to police without witnessing him committing a crime. Instead he assumed he was up to no good and approached him armed with a gun.

    If he has a license to carry then that is his right but why get out of your vehicle after you have already reported someone to the police? He didn't want this guy to get away and was hellbent on making sure that he did not even though he hadn't caught him in the act doing anything illegal.




    You should do your research on lie detector tests as they are basically junk science.





    I did some research on this when that pathological liar and career criminal Larry Sinclair made up his lies about Barack Obama to derail his campaign. Polygraph testing is a pseudoscience. In any case I can not be accused of lying about this case as I am simply giving my opinion. I can be wrong but being wrong does not mean I am lying. Remember that a lie is saying something you know isn't true. I wasn't there so I don't know either way whether or not George Zimmerman is lying or telling the truth. I just don't believe him given his history of violence, evidence for his state of mind during the 911, erratic and aggressive behavior before and after his trial and the absurdity of his account of events.


    I haven't tried to deceive any one. None of the physical evidence indicates that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. There is simply no credible evidence that you can base that opinion on.



    Why would a White Supremacist call George Zimmerman a "n*gger lover" for bragging about killing an unarmed Black teenager?


    I didn't say that you were automatically lying by being a racist and anti-Semite only that you are biased. You are not an objective analyst. You have an agenda which is to defend your racist ideology. You have done that throughout this thread with racist logic and overt racist comments. You are the one who accused me of racist bias so I am charging you with the same however I have actual examples of your racism and antisemitism to point to.

    So at best you can say "Yes, I am racist and anti-Semitic. Does that make me wrong?"

    Well not necessarily however it does make you biased. You don't like Blacks and Jews. You can say that you think you are right but you are being dishonest if you pretend that you aren't biased.
     
  17. David Sims

    David Sims New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Part 1 of 2 parts.

    Zimmerman's account isn't "ridiculous." It's supported by the physical evidence. It's supported by witness testimony. It's supported by a lie detector test, which Zimmerman took and passed. The police found Zimmerman's account credible, not "ridiculous." The local District Attorney found Zimmerman's account credible, not "ridiculous." The trial jury found Zimmerman's account credible, not "ridiculous."

    Apparently, you sling around characterizations as suits your political convenience. You use words in a self-serving way.

    Nope. That's not true. You have not been listening.

    Trayvon Martin's body was examined by the county coroner. His only injuries were the gunshot wound and bruises on his knuckles. He had not been punched or kicked or slammed around by Zimmerman at all. So not only is the account given by Zimmerman decidedly not-ridiculous, and not only is it plausible, it is by far the most plausible account of the fight that exists.

    You're wrong again, O presumptuous one. I'm here because you're here, and I will not be the one to quit first. I'm defending justice; you are supporting the general leftist agenda that started when the leftist mass media establishment tried to use George Zimmerman to bring about the repeal of laws favoring gun ownership and the idea of stand-your-ground, and to raise blacks up into a howling mob against white people across the United States. At the time that agenda was launched, the media bosses (who, mostly, are Jews) believed that George Zimmerman was a white man. By the time they learned differently, the program that they'd set into motion could not be canceled in favor of waiting for a more definitively white man to shoot a black teenager somewhere. They had to go with what they had, and what they had was George Zimmerman, a half-white, half-Peruvian mestizo.

    But they certainly made the most of it. Using photos of both Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman that were five or six years out-of-date, they made Martin seem to be a cute little kid, when in reality he was a 17-year-old drug-dealing thug who had been suspended three times for some combination of theft, drugs, and fighting, and who was planning yet another attack on a classmate when his mother sent him out of Miami to Sanford. And the media bosses made George Zimmerman look fat and disreputable by showing him after his 2005 arrest at the University of Central Florida for resisting a police officer.

    What lying leftists (like you) never reveal about that arrest is that the officers were undercover agents of Florida's ABT division, not in uniform, and Zimmerman didn't realize that they were law enforcement. Lying leftists (like you) never convey the rather significant detail that Zimmerman's arrest followed his refusing to end a conversation he was having with a friend whom one of the undercover agents was trying to arrest, and that when the agent pushed, Zimmerman pushed back, still unaware that he was shoving a cop. Charges against Zimmerman were later dropped. Still later, on his application to the citizens' police academy, Zimmerman disputed the police report, insisting that the undercover agent "never told me he was an officer," and he said "I hold law enforcement officers in the highest regard as I hope to one day become one. I would never have touched a police officer."

    That's the kind of thing you leftists misuse, leaving out any inconvenient detail, so that you can smear whomever you set out to besmirch.

    I'll repeat myself, again. Generally speaking, nothing outside of mathematics can be proved with mathematical rigor, and one of the ways you spot a trickster is by his habit of demanding that level of proof or else it just isn't so. My evidence is sufficient to meet the standard of preponderance of the evidence all of the time, and beyond a reasonable doubt some of the time. Your narratives aren't even supported that far. Not even close. You merely propose alternative scenarios that you think might be possible. Sometimes, they aren't even possible. And in no case have you produced any evidence that would give a reasonable person any reason to prefer it over Zimmerman's own account, which, as I said, has passed quite a few tests, including a police investigation, a lie detector, and a criminal trial.

    I'm not the one resorting to logical fallacies. You are.

    I'm not the one engaging in troll tactics. You are.

    There you go, yet again, manufacturing a fantasy alternative with no evidence to back it up. You imagine that Zimmerman manhandled Trayvon Martin, but only in gentle ways that left no marks on him... while at the same time taking punches to his face and having his head bashed on the sidewalk by Trayvon Martin. I wonder how that might have been played out.

    But, of course, you're just spinning out words now, in an attempt to create the impression that you still have something left to say. To cover your butt.

    Quite right. Yes. And there's the old DARVO routine (Deny-Attack-Reverse-Victim-Offender).

    Indeed, some liars will deceive by telling the truth poorly, in such a way that listeners will form the opinion that they are being lied to. For example, if the media hire a trained actor to pretend to be a neo-Nazi, the actor might be given a script that calls for him to say something like "We all know that the Jews control the media," in a self-important, condescending way that will cause listeners to dislike him and think that they are being told a contemptible lie. I'm an observer of media propaganda tricks, and have been for a long time, but I'll promptly admit that the media probably still have tricks for deception that I don't yet know about.

    George Zimmerman was referring to the burglars in his neighborhood, all of whom were young blacks. He did entertain the possibility that Trayvon Martin might be one of them. But he hadn't made up his mind about it. He wanted to find out what the truth was, and he could do that only if he was able to discover why he was inside the gates of Twin Lakes.

    Make up your mind. George Zimmerman carried a gun, as was his right. He isn't to be assigned any blame for exercising a right. You appear to be prepared to find fault with Zimmerman regardless of whether he approached Martin himself or called the police to do it for him.

    Zimmerman knew most of the people who belonged in his community. At least by facial recognition. He saw someone whom he did not recognize. The reason a gated community has gates is to segregate the residents from non-residents. It's a security measure. But a gate is only as strong as its defenders make it. Zimmerman, a member of the neighborhood watch, did have reason to suspect that he was looking at a trespasser, and Martin did fit the general description of burglars who were known to be in the area. Zimmerman wanted to make sure that his neighbors were safe, so he followed Martin to make sure of his intentions.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2017
  18. David Sims

    David Sims New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Part 2 of 2 parts.

    No, they aren't. Lie detector tests can be poorly done, either because the equipment is faulty or of an early and inadequate design, or because the interpreter of the data is incompetent. But with state-of-the-art lie detection equipment and an expert interpreter of the data, the tests are usually very reliable.

    Fair enough. But Zimmerman's account of his encounter with Trayvon Martin was (as I said before) self-consistent, consistent with the physical evidence, consistent with the timeline, consistent with most of the witness testimony, and remained unaltered as the months went by. Zimmerman's account satisfied the police, the county DA's office, and a trial jury that it was accurate, or, at least, contained no flaw that they could see. All of the little details that one might expect to betray a false story lined up in the case of Zimmerman's story: the grass stains, which side of his jacket was wettest, the injuries on his face and the back of his head, and so on.

    Even Tracy Martin, Trayvon's father, initially said "That is not my son" when he listened to a recording of someone calling for help. He changed his story later, after conferring with Benjamin Crump, his lawyer.

    Does George Zimmerman really have a "history of violence"? Or is one being mendaciously imputed to him?

    What "evidence" do you see in the 911 audio recording? I'd really like to know.

    What "absurdity" do you find in his account of events? You haven't found one yet, as far as I can see. Everything you've brought forward so far isn't what you've tried to make it seem to be.

    How do you expect me to believe that you haven't tried to deceive anyone when, in almost the same breath, you repeat one of your attempts to deceive everyone you can?

    The evidence that George Zimmerman had to kill Trayvon Martin in self-defense are the injuries sustained by George Zimmerman at Trayvon Martin's hands. In truth, it wasn't necessary for Zimmerman to have waited so long before shooting Martin. The abuse he was getting would have made self-defense justifiable after the very first time Martin slammed Zimmerman's head upon the concrete sidewalk. At any rate, the documented injuries on George Zimmerman's head constitute evidence that his life was in danger, even though he did act to save himself before he died. He could hardly have exercised self-defense afterward. No one intelligent (or even decent) would propose that someone being attacked had to die, first, before he acquired the right to kill his attacker in self-defense.

    And there it is. Again. Do try not to miss it this time.

    Um, we don't know that "Eddie" (the man who called Zimmerman a n*gger lover before punching him in the face at a restaurant, then driving off on a motorcycle) was a white supremacist. Two hundred years ago, most Americans were white supremacists, even though not many of them hated blacks. They just regarded blacks as inferiors whose proper place was servitude to the white race. Today, things have changed. While there are still racists around, hardly any of them is a supremacist. Instead, they are separatists, or nationalists, who would agree with the liberals that slavery is a very, very bad thing. The reasons for which racial nationalists disapprove of slavery aren't the same as the reasons liberals do, however. White nationalists don't want black slaves, or blacks in any status whatever, in their country. White nationalists want the kind of "zion" that the Jews have, with a gigantic wall to keep out all the non-whites, just as the Jews have one between Israel and Gaza. Oh, and to a white nationalist a Jew is a non-white, even if many of them can pass as white.

    Back to the subject. Zimmerman said that he believed the man who punched him in the restaurant, this "Eddie" something, might have misunderstood what he heard of Zimmerman's conversation with the tattooed fellow (Joseph Whitmer). Eddie might have gotten the idea that Zimmerman was Matthew Apperson, who had shot at Zimmerman in May 2015. If Eddie had confused Zimmerman with Apperson, then his descriptive language would make some sense.

    So you do understand that some antisemitic and some racist statements are true, and that the truth of those statements should be defended no matter how unpopular you might become as the result. Good, then.

    Not so. I have an agenda to defend the truth, and it just so happens that some truths are racist, additionally. Now, popular true statements don't need any defending. I therefore devote my time to defending the truths that seem to need rescue from the lies that might otherwise smother them. I don't have an ideology. I have a philosophy, and, when there is time, I might explain it.

    I don't deny being a racist. I wasn't always a racist. From my early teenage years until age 35, I was a liberal, leftist, with Marxist leanings. I'd volunteer to assist a group run by lesbian feminists whose self-appointed mission was to bring about social reform for the benefit of homeless people. But they were hypocrites in some ways. Man-haters. I got a lot of spite from them, even though I worked for them for free. My day job back then was working as a celestial mechanic and electrical engineer (signal processor) for a defense research company on classified military projects.

    I can say, "Yes I'm a truth seeker, and that's what makes me a racist and an antisemite. Someone who isn't both of those things either does not know what I know, or he knows and intentionally makes the wrong choices."

    You are mistaken. I don't like what blacks and Jews do.

    I don't like the fact that the 3% of the US population comprised by black males between the ages of 15 and 45 commit as many murders as the other 97% of the US population put together. Since I don't see any way to change black males, I would as soon my country be rid of them. Not because black males smell bad, or because they are ugly, or because they have a dark skin color... but because they cost more than they are worth.

    And the same is true, even much more so, with regard to Jews. I'll leave the elaboration of that for another time.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2017
  19. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Good. I rest my case.

    We don't need to go over this George Zimmerman nonsense which you admit you are willing to defend for the rest of your life. I'm not going to waste any more time with you on that.


    Unless technology reaches a point where they invent a lie detector test that can read your mind and objectively tell if you are lying then no a lie detector test can not reliably tell if you are lying. They look at fluctuations in your body's reaction to control questions and relevant questions to see if there is an indicator that you are lying. The problem is that your body could be reacting to these questions for different reasons other than lying such as being nervous, angry, embarrassed, scared etc. The state-of-the-art equipment means absolutely nothing if the methodology itself is unscientific. If you look at the video I posted this was proven by the fact that experts have devised counter measures to trick the polygraph in to generating a truthful score to test takers that were proven to be lying. So an innocent person can fail a test because of factors other than lying, a test taker can be formally trained to use counter measures and in the case of pathological liars who are so good at lying their body doesn't react in a normal way they can get a truthful score while lying their ass off.

     
    Last edited: May 4, 2017
  20. David Sims

    David Sims New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    3
    You've rested on a losing case, then.

    I'm a racist, but George Zimmerman is not a white man. He's a half-Peruvian mestizo Hispanic. But he's in the right, and I support people who are in the right against organized liars' crusades having unjust vilification as their purpose. I will continue to counter the efforts of those liars for as long as necessary.

    Controlled scientific testing indicates an accuracy between 80% and 95%.

    You're right that pathological liars can pass polygraph tests because their bodies don't react normally, and you're right that a small percentage of truth-telling people will be flagged as liars, by polygraph tests. But polygraph testing is significantly better than guessing, and so using a polygraph can make a good initial working assumption regarding whether or not someone is lying.
     
    Last edited: May 4, 2017
  21. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Could have" doesn't mean "absolutely." Now you're throwing unproven theories because you still want to be on Martin's side.
     
  22. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I didn't say absolutely. The reality of the Trayvon Martin case is that no one who wasn't there truly knows what happened. If you didn't see it, you don't know. What I have maintained is that based on the available evidence the jury had to make a judgment call on what they believed is correct and I believe they made the wrong call. George Zimmerman's account does not sound believable to me. I think it is obvious that he twisted and fabricated parts of his story to make a case for self-defense and the truth is more likely that he started the whole altercation, started losing a fight, pulled out his gun and shot an unarmed teenager who was minding his own business walking home and then lied to the police in order to avoid going to prison. The jury's decision looks like another case of racial bias in the criminal justice system and the people going on and on about it in this thread are racists and conservatives that are defending George Zimmerman, not because he has any credibility (that has been destroyed by his history of violence and erratic behavior before and after the trial) but because they want to "score points" on the subject of race & crime.

    I'm glad this thread got bumped because I wanted to explore an issue on this topic concerning White women lying about Black men raping them. Earlier this year a teenager in Texas claimed that she was kidnapped and gang raped by 3 Black men. She later recanted her story, admitted she lied and stated that the injuries to her body were self-inflicted.



    I posted an article about this story in another thread but the story is very relevant to this thread as well. The article mentioned that there was a thread running on Stormfront about the story. I read the full thread and some of the comments were incredibly disgusting. First of all, they changed the thread title from complaining about the "anti-White" media suppressing the story and Black men gang raping a White girl to saying that she was a beautiful White girl who happened to be a race-traitor. Apparently the thread was closed before it was revealed that she lied about the whole thing so the full discussion reads like a typical racist discussion about how savage Black animals are raping beautiful White women and the media is ignoring these stories because of a racist conspiracy against White people. When they found out her fiancé was a Hispanic "Mestizo" some of the comments became less sympathetic. This one is particularly disturbing:

    [​IMG]

    This wasn't the only comment of its kind but it set the tone for the rest of the discussion and reveals the sinister nature of White Supremacy when it comes to "outrage" over Black-on-White rape. White Supremacists generally DO NOT care about White women being raped by Black men. They are only using this as a tool to promote racism. If you are a White woman and you were raped by a Black man unless you are "racially aware" many of them don't give a damn about you. This poster went as far as to say that she "got what she deserved." Now some of the White Supremacists criticized this poster saying that no one deserves to be raped and accused posters who agreed with this with being "idiots" and trolls." I have read enough posts of this kind to know that they are not all trolls. All of them are idiots but some are less extreme than others. So it doesn't matter whether this particular poster was a troll or not. Too many of them think this way to just dismiss the reality that deep down White Supremacists are simply trying to justify their racist stereotypes when they fixate on this story.

    These are the important issues to consider here:

    1) There is no anti-White conspiracy by the media to suppress stories of Black men raping White women (which is absurd given that most of the American and Western media is run by Whites whose main audience is White and no matter how liberal the networks are or how many Jews you can name in high positions these are mostly White people with families involved in this business who are not conspiring against a group that they are a part of).

    2) The statistical research on this subject does not indicate that there is a Black-on-White rape epidemic. As Tim Wise explained in his comment over 80% of rapes of women were committed by men who are the same race as they are. Most men who rape White women are White. If White women should be afraid of any man potentially raping them it should be men they meet in their daily lives which for White women is usually White men. Interracial rape is statistically very low and the estimates put out by the FBI are not reliable because they rely on small sampling.

    3) Some women are lying about being raped. Breana Talbott lied. She wasn't the first White woman to do this and she won't be the last. She said that three Black men raped her. Not three men of different races. Not three White men. Not even 2 Black men and 1 White man. She said 3 Black men. But how many Black men actually did it? Zero. This plays in to the fears of White communities and potentially harms innocent Black men as there was a manhunt in the area for Black rapists who in this case don't even exist. Not only do stories like this fuel racial tensions they threaten the trustworthiness of rape victims. Most accusers are telling the truth but the liars create distrust and help actual rapists get away with rape because they can say their accuser lied and point to examples of someone who did it. So the next Black man who really does rape a White woman can say, "I didn't do it. She's lying, just like Breana Talbott."

    4) Many White Supremacists DO NOT care about these victims. They only care about how they can use them to further their agenda. Go ahead and look at other threads on Stormfront and other White Supremacist message boards where these racists talk about White women who accused Black men of rape. They express outrage but they want to know the circumstances. Was she on a date with the Black man? Has she dated other Black men? Does she have Black friends? Does she go to parties with Black people? Unless a Black man approached her at random or broke in to her house and raped her and she developed a fear of Black men and became racist like them they don't truly care. They only care that the victim was White, the perpetrator was Black and that the story can be used to help spread racism. If the woman or girl is beautiful even better. If she has blonde hair and blue eyes and a photogenic picture from social media helps her pass off as a Nordic Aryan Goddess even better. But the victim is only important to them as a propaganda tool to use in their pursuit of vilifying Black men as violent, sex-crazed, monsters seeking to violate White women to satisfy their animal lust.

    If you are a victim of these Negroid beasts and you are a White Supremacist you are their sister and they will fight for your honor. But if you promote Multiculturalism in any way or have ever been involved in a consensual interracial relationship....well....you are a race-traitor and a whore who got what you deserved and they won't waste time caring. They'll just move on to the next story they can use.
     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2017
  23. Egalitarianjay02

    Egalitarianjay02 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2014
    Messages:
    2,289
    Likes Received:
    131
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    http://www.theroot.com/white-woman-who-lied-about-being-kidnapped-raped-by-3-1797302783

    So in a follow up to my last post, which no one replied to after over 2 weeks, it turns out that Breana Harmon Talbott is facing felony charges in relation to her claim that she was kidnapped and raped by 3 Black men which she later admitted was a lie. Not surprisingly no one in this thread replied to this story, even though the thread itself spanned 5 pages and nearly 100 posts.

    Why?

    Because White Supremacists don't care. On Stormfront I can't find anything about this latest development in the story. There is no active thread on the topic. A search for her name turns up nothing. No one on the largest White Nationalist board on the internet seems to care. Now why should the care? If they cared anything about the plight of rape victims, especially White women raped by Black men they would make a thread to have a discussion about this. Obviously White Supremacists don't care about the potential innocent victims of this case, which are Black men who could have been potential suspects for a crime that didn't happen which could ruin their lives or get them killed. They don't care about them. But at the very least if they really cared about this they would discourage women who lie about rape and sexual assault because they make it harder for real victims to get justice.

    How many other young White women have done what Breana did? How many other false testimonies are reflected in that bogus statistic that Black men in America rape 30,000 White women per year? That image claiming that 100 White women are raped or sexually assaulted in America per day is not based on arrests, convictions, physical evidence or eye witness testimony. It is based on survey data from a small sample size that is used to give a rough estimate of a figure on rape and sexual assault. If even one woman in those surveys is lying then that throws of the accuracy of the data by a large margin. So how many are actually lying? Why don't White Supremacists care?

    You cared when I presented the arguments of Tim Wise about the unreliability of the research on interracial rape statistics. You defended the reliability of the data. Some of you defended the narrative that Black men are prone to rape and target White women as victims. But when it comes to false testimony of women like Breana none of you will even attempt to address it. Why? Because you don't care. You don't really care about the real victims. You don't care about how false reports affect those real victims. You don't care about innocent Black men being targeted by false reports like this. You only care about the narrative of Black men raping White women at alarming rates because it helps promote racism.

    False reports of rape or sexual assault have dire consequences. A White woman lying about being sexually harassed led to the death of Emmett Till, a teenage boy who was murdered by her husband and his brother because they believed he molested her. She confessed decades later to at the very least have lied about the nature of their encounter and the two White men were acquitted of the murder by an all White jury.

    Dylann Roof is in prison for going in to a church and murdering 9 Black people. He admitted to be motivated by White Supremacist propaganda on the internet and cited Black men raping White women as one of the reasons why he went in to a church and killed innocent people. His victims included 6 women.

    These stories are important because they address the consequences of racist propaganda which affects innocent people every day.
     
  24. Maquiscat

    Maquiscat Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,921
    Likes Received:
    2,153
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You seem to keep trying to twist the words around. Mind you I am only responding at the point of this post, and have not seen others. He I said pointing out that because that this particular statistic of interracial rape is based upon an extremely low number of cases, that the number could well be unreliable. The over all statistics for rape in and of themselves are based upon a large population and thus more accurate, and as long as the other crimes are alllso based upon large populations, they too hold a large degree of accuracy. If there is any crime or demographic specific subdivisions of a crime which possess low population numbers then the accuracy of the rate of that crime will be suspect and unreliable.
     
    Egalitarianjay02 likes this.
  25. Cigar

    Cigar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2011
    Messages:
    11,478
    Likes Received:
    2,646
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Maybe it's because White Men are too busy raping little White boys and Back Women fight back. .
     

Share This Page