Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

"It's shadows"

Those are some odd fucking shadows, and especially odd if the officers were looking at it

At 4/2/12 06:47 PM, RacistBassist wrote: "It's shadows"

Those are some odd fucking shadows, and especially odd if the officers were looking at it

When a person shaves their head the natural bumps of a person's skull creates shadows that would otherwise seem to be oddly shaped. You also don't have any proof that the officer saw anything when he looked at the back of Zimmerman's head. The initial report stated that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of his head and the officer at the station could have simply been following up on that to determine what condition Zimmerman was in when he arrived. He had already checked Zimmerman's pockets to see what Zimmerman had with him but it wasn't a search for weapons as the officer didn't do a complete pat-down and Zimmerman's gun was taken from him at the scene not at the station. Since there haven't been any other reports coming out to indicate that officers at the station saw any injuries, Zimmerman never went to the hospital, and those supposed injuries can't be seen at any other time in the video it's far more likely that those are just shadows and not actual injuries.

At 4/2/12 06:56 PM, djack wrote: When a person shaves their head the natural bumps of a person's skull creates shadows that would otherwise seem to be oddly shaped.

I have never seen shadows to that complexity that stay in the same position while the person moves

At 4/2/12 06:56 PM, Austerity wrote:

At 4/2/12 01:40 AM, MrFlopz wrote:

Why is it self defense when Zimmerman, the man who initiated the conflict, shoots Martin, but it is not self defense when Martin tries to fight off a crazy stalker?

Following someone is not initiating a conflict. Unless you know of something Zimmerman did other than just follow him or ask him what he's doing, he deserved to use his firearm against Martin's physical attack.

Following may not be illegal but the fact that it led to a lethal shooting makes Zimmerman's motive questionable and the fact that he shouldn't have been following in the first place puts Zimmerman in a position to be charged with manslaughter if not murder.

At 4/2/12 04:23 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

I have been in a situation where it appeared that someone was following me. Luckily, I knew the neighborhood pretty well (even though it had no streetlights which just made the situation creepier). This knowledge and the fact that the neighborhood was a block grid allowed me to escape. Even then, it wasn't very easy, and I am a pretty quick guy.

The picture at the top of this article shows that escape may not have been an option. It definitely is no trap, but it doesn't look like the easiest place to hide or elude either.

Furthermore, civil law (I haven't encountered this scenario in criminal, but I haven't looked) makes it clear that if there is a fear that a person may follow you and hurt you, you have the right to use force necessary to keep them from following you.

I also find it quite hypocritical too. Those who are saying that Martin should have run and not fought are the same folk that would applaud a woman for turning and fighting off a mugger with a kinfe or a gun. Really, what changed here?

If someone is following me and there is no way out, I'd stand off to the side and look right at him and if he still walks toward me I'd say "....yeeesss?" I would not just attack them all of a sudden, because he might have a gun and defend himself against my attack, and also because I wouldn't just attack someone all of a sudden if they were following me because I don't have a nasty attitude like that.

If there is any speculation that Zimmerman did anything besides merely following someone then I'd like to hear it.

According to Martin's girlfriend, Martin did verbally confront Zimmerman before the altercation started and there's no evidence as to who started the fight. You assume is was Martin and use that as justification for Zimmerman shooting him but it could have just as easily been Zimmerman who started the fight and if Zimmerman says otherwise it's still questionable testimony.

At 4/2/12 07:02 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 4/2/12 06:56 PM, djack wrote: When a person shaves their head the natural bumps of a person's skull creates shadows that would otherwise seem to be oddly shaped.

I have never seen shadows to that complexity that stay in the same position while the person moves

They're not visible anywhere else in the video and ABC stopped the video as soon as they could be seen. Where are you getting this "moving shadows" bullshit? You said the same thing about the other shadow and it didn't move either (it's also not visible in this video).

At 4/2/12 06:56 PM, Austerity wrote: If someone is following me and there is no way out, I'd stand off to the side and look right at him and if he still walks toward me I'd say "....yeeesss?" I would not just attack them all of a sudden, because he might have a gun and defend himself against my attack, and also because I wouldn't just attack someone all of a sudden if they were following me because I don't have a nasty attitude like that.

Not everyone is that way. Many folks, validly so, would see the situation Martin was in with Zimmerman following him as a threat, and the length of the following an indication that the threat would not go away by evasion. Just because you (claim) you wouldn't fight back, doesn't mean Martin was wrong or stupid in reacting the way people are speculating he did.

Let's remember, there are no witnesses of the initiation of the altercation except for Zimmerman and he has a buttload of reasons to skew, minimize, or even flat out lie.

If there is any speculation that Zimmerman did anything besides merely following someone then I'd like to hear it.

I'm pretty sure he intentionally shot some kid.

At 4/2/12 07:21 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Not everyone is that way. Many folks, validly so, would see the situation Martin was in with Zimmerman following him as a threat, and the length of the following an indication that the threat would not go away by evasion. Just because you (claim) you wouldn't fight back, doesn't mean Martin was wrong or stupid in reacting the way people are speculating he did.

How far was this distance? For what time span? In a neighborhood he doesn't know. For all he knows the guy is going to a friends house, calls him to let him know, and parks down the street. Better provoke that guy and start beating him over the head.

Let's remember, there are no witnesses of the initiation of the altercation except for Zimmerman and he has a buttload of reasons to skew, minimize, or even flat out lie.

He has reason to=! He did

I'm pretty sure he intentionally shot some kid.

Oh, you're pretty sure. Better convict him.

Although knowing how this plays out, you'll try to play semantics and say the gun didn't accidentally go off when he shot.

At 4/2/12 07:15 PM, djack wrote: They're not visible anywhere else in the video and ABC stopped the video as soon as they could be seen. Where are you getting this "moving shadows" bullshit? You said the same thing about the other shadow and it didn't move either (it's also not visible in this video).

My point is that while Zimm bends over, the marks are still there in the same position on the back of his head.

At 4/2/12 07:29 PM, RacistBassist wrote: How far was this distance? For what time span? In a neighborhood he doesn't know. For all he knows the guy is going to a friends house, calls him to let him know, and parks down the street. Better provoke that guy and start beating him over the head.

Oh yes, people stare at me all the time while calling their friends before getting out of their trucks and running after me.

He has reason to=! He did

It also doesn't mean he didn't but it does make his story questionable and thus worth a trial.

I'm pretty sure he intentionally shot some kid.

Oh, you're pretty sure. Better convict him.

Although knowing how this plays out, you'll try to play semantics and say the gun didn't accidentally go off when he shot.

Zimmerman outright admitted that he shot Martin and never once claimed that it was accidental. Even assuming he's justified in the use of lethal force he still intentionally shot Martin.

At 4/2/12 07:15 PM, djack wrote: They're not visible anywhere else in the video and ABC stopped the video as soon as they could be seen. Where are you getting this "moving shadows" bullshit? You said the same thing about the other shadow and it didn't move either (it's also not visible in this video).

My point is that while Zimm bends over, the marks are still there in the same position on the back of his head.

He never once bends over in that video. He's standing upright the entire time. You're either making this up or you didn't watch the video and you're basing your assumptions on what someone else said. Both are horrible positions to debate from.

At 4/2/12 07:37 PM, djack wrote: Oh yes, people stare at me all the time while calling their friends before getting out of their trucks and running after me.

1. I usually stare at people while on the phone without realizing.
2. [Citation needed]

It also doesn't mean he didn't but it does make his story questionable and thus worth a trial.

Oh hey, somebody again acting like I'm saying it isn't worth a trial.

Zimmerman outright admitted that he shot Martin and never once claimed that it was accidental. Even assuming he's justified in the use of lethal force he still intentionally shot Martin.

Called it.

He never once bends over in that video. He's standing upright the entire time. You're either making this up or you didn't watch the video and you're basing your assumptions on what someone else said. Both are horrible positions to debate from.

Shit, meant while he was walking. Sorry about that.

At 4/2/12 07:29 PM, RacistBassist wrote: How far was this distance? For what time span? In a neighborhood he doesn't know. For all he knows the guy is going to a friends house, calls him to let him know, and parks down the street. Better provoke that guy and start beating him over the head.

Because there's a question, let's believe the shooter, right?

He has reason to=! He did

So? Having strong motives to fabricate or alter increases the likelihood of such and thus Zimmerman's account must be taken with a grain of salt. His word is not gospel, as you treat it.

Oh, you're pretty sure. Better convict him.

Well, Martin might have possibly been agressive with him, so the shooting must have been legal.

Although knowing how this plays out, you'll try to play semantics and say the gun didn't accidentally go off when he shot.

And you'll soon try to tell me that Martin being in the neighborhood at all is 100% grounds to kill him.

At 4/2/12 07:39 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Oh hey, somebody again acting like I'm saying it isn't worth a trial.

But you are. You're arguing for the case to be looked at in a standard that would take trial off the table. So whether you intend to or not, you are arguing that this shouldn't go to trial.

At 4/2/12 07:39 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 4/2/12 07:37 PM, djack wrote: Oh yes, people stare at me all the time while calling their friends before getting out of their trucks and running after me.

1. I usually stare at people while on the phone without realizing.
2. [Citation needed]

1. Do you also get out of your vehicle and follow them?
2. Zimmerman's 911 call. He stated that Martin was running and he admitted to following Martin.

It also doesn't mean he didn't but it does make his story questionable and thus worth a trial.

Oh hey, somebody again acting like I'm saying it isn't worth a trial.

You're still making the same argument as adr, I'm just covering all my bases on this since it seems like no matter who I'm arguing with the other joins to make it into a two front war.

Zimmerman outright admitted that he shot Martin and never once claimed that it was accidental. Even assuming he's justified in the use of lethal force he still intentionally shot Martin.

Called it.

You're the one who used the term accidentally, I just responded to your post.

He never once bends over in that video. He's standing upright the entire time. You're either making this up or you didn't watch the video and you're basing your assumptions on what someone else said. Both are horrible positions to debate from.

Shit, meant while he was walking. Sorry about that.

Except it isn't visible while he's walking. It shows up when he's in one small area at just one angle, there's no other time when it's visible and, like I said earlier, the video clearly has another point when the "injuries" should have been visible if they were there and could only be seen from the right angle but Zimmerman's head gets covered up by the ABC news banner which strikes me as odd since they're trying to make Zimmerman appear innocent but they cover up what could be the only evidence supporting the claim that those really are head wounds. It makes it appear as if ABC intentionally put that banner there to cover up the fact that those are just shadows that are only visible when Zimmerman is in the right spot at the right angle from both the nearest light and the camera.

At 4/2/12 07:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Because there's a question, let's believe the shooter, right?

The police seemed to.

So? Having strong motives to fabricate or alter increases the likelihood of such and thus Zimmerman's account must be taken with a grain of salt. His word is not gospel, as you treat it.

Agreed, and if the police had not talked to witnesses and got corroborating testimony, you would have something to complain about.

Well, Martin might have possibly been agressive with him, so the shooting must have been legal.

No one knows either way. What they do know is that witness testimony put Martin on top of Zimmerman beating the crap out of his head.

Seriously, do you think the police are all just idiots, or simply racists? It has to be one or the other if you're going to second guess their conclusions without having the same information.

At 4/2/12 08:11 PM, adrshepard wrote: Agreed, and if the police had not talked to witnesses and got corroborating testimony, you would have something to complain about.

One witness saying they definitively saw Martin on top of Zimmerman in the middle of the night. That's hardly enough to believe the shooter as gospel.

Seriously, do you think the police are all just idiots, or simply racists?

Neither. I think the DA got scared and didn't go forward.

At 4/2/12 08:06 PM, djack wrote: 1. Do you also get out of your vehicle and follow them?
2. Zimmerman's 911 call. He stated that Martin was running and he admitted to following Martin.

1. Well considering I park down the block from my homies, and I'll be on the phone with him letting him know I'm rolling up, this similar situation has occurred. Not once has somebody started to yell at me for it though.
2. Martin running=! Zimmerman running. At some point, Martin would have to confront, unless you think the 250 ib obese man can catch up to the football player

You're still making the same argument as adr, I'm just covering all my bases on this since it seems like no matter who I'm arguing with the other joins to make it into a two front war.

I want the trial.
I want the trial.
I want the trial.
Get it?

You're the one who used the term accidentally, I just responded to your post.

Semantics and word connotations are fun are they not? We can use leading language all we want and then go by literal definitions when called on it, but hey, that's just being intellectually dishonest.

Except it isn't visible while he's walking. It shows up when he's in one small area at just one angle, there's no other time when it's visible and, like I said earlier, the video clearly has another point when the "injuries" should have been visible if they were there and could only be seen from the right angle but Zimmerman's head gets covered up by the ABC news banner which strikes me as odd since they're trying to make Zimmerman appear innocent but they cover up what could be the only evidence supporting the claim that those really are head wounds. It makes it appear as if ABC intentionally put that banner there to cover up the fact that those are just shadows that are only visible when Zimmerman is in the right spot at the right angle from both the nearest light and the camera.

When he comes from bottom of screen to not bottom of screen it is visible. I don't recall ever seeing a news station not run their logo on either the left or right depending on the station.

At 4/2/12 07:46 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Because there's a question, let's believe the shooter, right?

You do realize how burden of proof works right? Zimmerman answered the questions, what more can be done about those parts?

So? Having strong motives to fabricate or alter increases the likelihood of such and thus Zimmerman's account must be taken with a grain of salt. His word is not gospel, as you treat it.

Yet you'll take the word of people who didn't even see it happen

And you'll soon try to tell me that Martin being in the neighborhood at all is 100% grounds to kill him.

Fuck that slope dude, let's just jump off of it, it's too wet.

At 4/2/12 08:35 PM, Camarohusky wrote: One witness saying they definitively saw Martin on top of Zimmerman in the middle of the night. That's hardly enough to believe the shooter as gospel.

ITT: 7:00 PM in Florida=Middle of the night

At 4/2/12 11:33 PM, RacistBassist wrote: You do realize how burden of proof works right? Zimmerman answered the questions, what more can be done about those parts?

Yeah, the burden is probable cause, which is quite low. He admitted to intentionally shooting Martin, which is more than enough to convict on manslaughter. His story claiming self defense isn't airtight enough to override that.

Yet you'll take the word of people who didn't even see it happen

No, I just don't trust his word. There are also enough wrinkles in the story to at least give the investigation more than the once over the Sanford PD gave it.

At 4/2/12 11:33 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 4/2/12 08:06 PM, djack wrote: 1. Do you also get out of your vehicle and follow them?
2. Zimmerman's 911 call. He stated that Martin was running and he admitted to following Martin.

1. Well considering I park down the block from my homies, and I'll be on the phone with him letting him know I'm rolling up, this similar situation has occurred. Not once has somebody started to yell at me for it though.

Martin didn't yell until after Zimmerman had hung up with the 911 dispatcher. Zimmerman followed Martin for almost 2 whole minutes before hanging up the phone and Martin didn't confront Zimmerman until after Zimmerman had already hung up because Martin's voice isn't on the recording of the 911 call. Is that long enough for you to admit that Martin had good reason to believe that Zimmerman was following him?

2. Martin running=! Zimmerman running. At some point, Martin would have to confront, unless you think the 250 ib obese man can catch up to the football player

So Zimmerman just happened to walk into the same backyard as Martin then? What exactly are you trying to argue here because Zimmerman told the police he was following Martin? Side note, even when I weighed over 240 lbs and despite my non-functioning lung I could still keep pace with people who were much thinner and far more active than me (over short distances at least, the body can only function anaerobically for so long). Just because Martin was running doesn't mean he lept into a full blown sprint right away and didn't stop until he lost Zimmerman or that Zimmerman wasn't able to keep up.

You're still making the same argument as adr, I'm just covering all my bases on this since it seems like no matter who I'm arguing with the other joins to make it into a two front war.

I want the trial.
I want the trial.
I want the trial.
Get it?

Won't stop me from arguing against you as though adr could jump in at any time because he can and probably will eventually.

You're the one who used the term accidentally, I just responded to your post.

Semantics and word connotations are fun are they not? We can use leading language all we want and then go by literal definitions when called on it, but hey, that's just being intellectually dishonest.

I'm not being dishonest. I'm not the one who said Zimmerman intentionally shot Martin and I in no way forced you to use the term accidentally. But an accidental shooting is a horse of a different color from our current discussion and if I don't cover it now someone will come back to that post in a few days and try to make the claim that the shooting was accidental. You've been a member since 4 years before me and have 30 times as many posts so I'm sure you've seen it happen enough times to know that it's true.

When he comes from bottom of screen to not bottom of screen it is visible. I don't recall ever seeing a news station not run their logo on either the left or right depending on the station.

No, when he get past the banner to when he stops it's visible which is no more than 2 steps. I apparently can't go back and tell you exactly how far he moves because the video has since been edited so that it doesn't show Zimmerman walking at all, it just jumps from when he can't be seen because of the banner (which is separate from the logo because that's at the bottom right of the video the entire time and blocks nothing) to a freeze frame of him standing in the perfect lighting to show these "injuries". I'm also pretty sure that the first time I saw the video the banner didn't appear until about a minute into the whole thing which was only shortly before the part where Zimmerman is moved to the bottom of the screen where we should be able to see whether he's injured or not and compare it with their freeze frame.

The Police Reports on the case have been released. They don't say much new. I would have to comment that these police reports are extremely scant (I have seen a police report regarding a follow up to a DV event where no one was home...). Either there are reports that haven't been released, information that wasn't put in the reports, or they are a sad sign of the investing, though I am leaning toward the middle explanation.

At 4/3/12 05:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote: The Police Reports on the case have been released. They don't say much new. I would have to comment that these police reports are extremely scant (I have seen a police report regarding a follow up to a DV event where no one was home...). Either there are reports that haven't been released, information that wasn't put in the reports, or they are a sad sign of the investing, though I am leaning toward the middle explanation.

Oh shit, looks like there's nothing in there about him being stained by grass stains that magically disappeared like people keep harping on about. Merely noted that there was grass on him, which, as almost all of us know, is easy to pick off without leaving a mark, and doesn't mean that police would have to wash his clothes.

At 4/3/12 05:51 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Oh shit, looks like there's nothing in there about him being stained by grass stains that magically disappeared like people keep harping on about.

I'm not sure I saw any comments regarding the presence or lack thereof of grass stains at all, let alone any significance of it.

At 4/3/12 05:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I would have to comment that these police reports are extremely scant

I was thinking about this and I came a realization. No wonder the DA didn't charge anaything. If these two reports were all he got, he's got nothing to go on. I don't know how things are done in Seminole County, but here, those two reports for pretty much any investigation would not be tolerated. The officers didn't include any description of the scene, or any statement from witnesses, or any statement from Zimmerman, or much facts relevant to homicide or self defense in the report. Now this may be how things are done there, likely including the extra information with the reports, but these alone don't help at all. At the very least they should indicate the officers' views of the case. These just seem to be informational reports that don't have much... information.

At 4/2/12 12:10 AM, djack wrote: The tape of Zimmerman's 911 call. It was when Zimmerman was in his car telling the police that Martin seemed suspicious and was "looking around", then Martin looked right at Zimmerman and shortly afterward Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin was running (it's also at this point that the sound of air rushing past the mic of Zimmerman's phone indicates that either he's running or there's a strong wind and the noise manages to cover up what may or may not be Zimmerman using a racial slur).

Ok, so there's the same amount of evidence for Martin running that there is for Martin never running. Just wanted to have that be cleared up. Thank you muchly :)

At 4/2/12 04:16 PM, adrshepard wrote: He's making a stupid choice that has a very good chance of ending badly, and it did.

Yep.

But that's not illegal.

Shooting a guy to death isn't illegal now? Wow...Florida has some crazy laws.

It's also why the whole "neighboorhood watch protocol" thing is irrelevant.

Oh, but it is if people are going to keep trying to push this ridiculous notion that Zimmerman was well within his rights to follow Martin with deadly weapons and confront him and that somehow he is the victim of a "beating" that there seems to be little and less evidence for all the time. Not the unarmed kid he shot and killed.

I don't think it's suspicious.

REALLY?

Driving a car and carrying a gun does not mean that person is going out looking for trouble.

Except that is NOT all that Zimmerman did! Good God! Let's actually argue ALL the facts, or not argue at all already. You know damn well that is not all he did in this case, nor is that what I'm even talking about. I'm talking about his actions, while in possession of two deadly weapons, as it relates to Treyvon Martin.

That's what's been proposed so far by the people here.

Then you're not reading posts correctly (which you're reply to my last one does lend credence to). People have posted a variety of other evidence...stuff that is very very inconvenient to folks on your side of the fence, who seem to only have hypotheticals, and theories based on a selective reading of the known facts.

As for the witnesses against him, I have to stipulate to the judgment of law enforcement.

So...if the cops don't investigate something, they're automatically right because they're cops? Because cops never fuck up, or do anything wrong at all? You realize how easy that is to disprove right?

For whatever reason, either the district attorney, the police, or both, did not think the testimony portraying Martin as the victim was solid enough to make an arrest.

Which is pretty fucking ridiculous because clearly this kid was a victim of violence. He's dead, even if you can in the end rule it a justifiable homicide, that still requires an investigation.

Was that their decision to make? I think it can be, if it's apparent that those witnesses were in no position to really see anything or offer contradictory details. I think the position of the body and the location of the bullet would say more about which person was on top of the other at the time of the shooting.

I think it could too...but apparently there wasn't much investigation of that even from what we're told. Basically it looks like Zimmerman gave a statement, the cops bought the statement, and sent him on his way and were perfectly happy not to follow it up until this exploded in the media.

Not necessarily. I don't see how Treyvon's girlfriend's testimony would be useful, considering that she wasn't even there but had to interpret voices on a cell phone, plus nothing she could say would be verifiable.

Some people seem to think what Zimmerman told a 911 Dispatcher is relevant. Considering she was actually speaking to Treyvon at the time, I think it could have some use in illuminating the situation a bit...sure it's no slam dunk piece of evidence either way, but it's a kind of evidence nonetheless.

Define "more." Do we even know exactly what steps the police took, what possibilities they considered? What should the police have done that they did not yet had reason to do?

They should have investigated the crime scene more, interviewed more witnesses, followed up. I cannot think of a single case like this I have ever heard of where the police questioned someone who shot someone else, and did this little before releasing him and essentially saying "case closed".

It can be said that it was a stupid move, but not an illegal one.

But what resulted from that "stupid move" may in fact, be illegal. That's what people want to see investigated further.

Not at all. I'm agreeing with the police's and Sentinel's (they interviewed the key witness that identified Martin beating Zimmerman into the ground) original reports of the situation. This incident wasn't handled by one yokel officer, nor was the choice not to arrest decided by one. It was a whole team of officers and investigators that handled this. I don't think that incompetence, corruption, or racism are plausible reasons to doubt the final decision. I'll believe that they were doing their job properly until I have reason to believe otherwise, and I haven't seen any yet.

Yeah, I just can't see it myself, because Zimmerman's story is implausible to me, and the fact that he was supposedly assaulted so badly as to draw blood from his head, and yet we see on the video o evidence of bleeding, no bandaging, no evidence of sutures...nothing. Sorry, it says something is very rotten in the state of Denmark to me.

At 4/3/12 10:33 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Shooting a guy to death isn't illegal now? Wow...Florida has some crazy laws.

Not if it really was self defense, which we've yet to disprove.

Oh, but it is if people are going to keep trying to push this ridiculous notion that Zimmerman was well within his rights to follow Martin with deadly weapons and confront him and that somehow he is the victim of a "beating" that there seems to be little and less evidence for all the time. Not the unarmed kid he shot and killed.

But if we add that he was a neighborhood watch who was looking out for suspicious activity after a string of robberies in a Gated Community who went up to someone he didn't recognize....

Suddenly it's not so clear cut.

But go ahead and keep leaving out information... it makes it all the more amusing when you demand a "proper investigation."

I love how you people act as if Cops don't do things like this on a regular basis with... *GASP* ... weapons.

Think about it: If you're a neighborhood watch whose making sure no one gets robbed in your community after a reported string of robberies.... why wouldn't you be carrying a gun?

Are you fucking retarded?

Except that is NOT all that Zimmerman did! Good God! Let's actually argue ALL the facts, or not argue at all already.

Yes, let's argue ALL the facts by leaving out information like you did above!

Then you're not reading posts correctly (which you're reply to my last one does lend credence to). People have posted a variety of other evidence...stuff that is very very inconvenient to folks on your side of the fence, who seem to only have hypotheticals, and theories based on a selective reading of the known facts.

Let's test that!

Yeah, I just can't see it myself, because Zimmerman's story is implausible to me, and the fact that he was supposedly assaulted so badly as to draw blood from his head, and yet we see on the video o evidence of bleeding, no bandaging, no evidence of sutures...nothing. Sorry, it says something is very rotten in the state of Denmark to me.

So when an out of focus video appears to show no marks on his head, it's proof he's lying...
But when an enhanced video does, it's still proof that he's lying because his injuries weren't "severe enough", even though he was TREATED at the scene?

Well Fan-Fucking-Tastic!

At 4/3/12 11:23 PM, Memorize wrote: But if we add that he was a neighborhood watch who was looking out for suspicious activity after a string of robberies in a Gated Community who went up to someone he didn't recognize....

Suddenly it's not so clear cut.

But go ahead and keep leaving out information... it makes it all the more amusing when you demand a "proper investigation."

I love how you people act as if Cops don't do things like this on a regular basis with... *GASP* ... weapons.

I'm sorry, I got to here and there was just too much stupid for me to finish. Can you come back and make a reasonably intelligent argument?

At 4/3/12 11:23 PM, Memorize wrote: So when an out of focus video appears to show no marks on his head, it's proof he's lying...
But when an enhanced video does, it's still proof that he's lying because his injuries weren't "severe enough", even though he was TREATED at the scene?

Actually, many of us have pointed out the enhanced video still has a clear shot of the head that appears to be wound free. The magically appearing mark on his head casts some doubt as to it being a permanent phenomenon.

At 4/3/12 11:31 PM, djack wrote:

I'm sorry, I got to here and there was just too much stupid for me to finish. Can you come back and make a reasonably intelligent argument?

Hahaha!

Sorry, I just thought it was funny that a whiny, little bitch like you actually believed that I cared about your worthless opinions.

At 4/3/12 07:55 PM, Camarohusky wrote: I'm not sure I saw any comments regarding the presence or lack thereof of grass stains at all, let alone any significance of it.

Haven't really seen that much on here. There was one guy in the other thread, and a few on facebook who were wondering how his clothes magically got rid of the stains. Whoopsy, turns out the word stain was never used in the report.

At 4/4/12 04:19 AM, Memorize wrote: Hahaha!

Sorry, I just thought it was funny that a whiny, little bitch like you actually believed that I cared about your worthless opinions.

It's not my opinion, it really was an immensely stupid argument. To claim that there can be any comparison between the neighborhood watch, a group of untrained voluntary individuals whose purpose is to watch for suspicious behavior in order to alert the police, and the police, people with authority who have been thoroughly trained to both protect themselves and to gauge the situation in order to respond with appropriate force, is an idiotic statement and I can't stop laughing long enough to finish your post once I get to that point. If you can't see what a worthless argument it is you should stop posting. Otherwise come up with an argument that isn't completely moronic so that there's something worth a real response.

At 4/3/12 10:33 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Shooting a guy to death isn't illegal now? Wow...Florida has some crazy laws.

Don't be dense.

It's also why the whole "neighboorhood watch protocol" thing is irrelevant.

Oh, but it is if people are going to keep trying to push this ridiculous notion that Zimmerman was well within his rights to follow Martin with deadly weapons and confront him

No, it still isn't! Zimmerman can legally carry a concealed weapon. Zimmerman can legally drive a car. Zimmerman can legally get out of a car and talk to someone. You need to distinguish between what you personally don't like and what the law actually says.

As for the witnesses against him, I have to stipulate to the judgment of law enforcement.

So...if the cops don't investigate something, they're automatically right because they're cops? Because cops never fuck up, or do anything wrong at all? You realize how easy that is to disprove right?

So because "cops" have screwed up in the past, it's rational to presume that cops always screw up in the present? And you're talking about what can be disproven?
It'd be one thing if we could all experience it as the police did, seeing everything they saw and talking to everyone they did. Then, you might have some reason to dismiss their findings. But you don't; all we have are bits and pieces of an event. When witnesses give two different accounts and the police accept one of them, it tells me that one account was more credible. How could I believe otherwise without assuming that they are stupid, corrupt, racist, etc? Can't we agree that those are all unlikely scenarios?

They should have investigated the crime scene more, interviewed more witnesses, followed up.

Of course; they should have "done more." Not that you know with any certainty what they actually did or didn't do, but you're damn sure it was inadequate because the outcome displeases you. That's your argument in a nutshell, and it's the same argument that people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton use to rouse the mob for their own political gain. Do you really want to be like them?

At 4/4/12 03:21 PM, djack wrote:

It's not my opinion,

"I'm sorry, I got to here and there was just too much stupid for me to finish. Can you come back and make a reasonably intelligent argument?"