Page 5 of 45 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 675
  1. #61
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,968
    Trayvon Martin Case Spotlights Florida Town's History Of 'Sloppy' Police Work

    ...It is now clear that police overlooked Martin's cell phone records.

    Attorneys for Martin's family said it wasn't until weeks later, when Tracy Martin, Trayvon's father, was looking through the teen's cell phone bill that he noticed the timing of the last call. The family and their attorneys then contacted Trayvon's girlfriend and heard her account of the night. Lawyer Benjamin Crump, who represents the family, recorded an interview with the girl and provided it with Martin's cell phone records to federal authorities, who by then had joined the investigation.

    The logs, obtained by The Huffington Post, show that as Zimmerman was on the phone with the 911 dispatcher reporting Martin as "suspicious," Martin answered a final call from his girlfriend.

    The call began at 7:12 p.m. Martin told her that "some strange dude" was following him, said Crump. She told Crump that Martin slowed to see who was behind him. The girl urged him to run, and he picked up his pace. Martin said he thought the man was gone, according to Crump. Instead, Zimmerman was likely closing in.

    "He's right behind me, he's right behind me again," Martin told his girlfriend, according to Crump.

    "Next thing she hears is Martin saying, 'Why are you following me?'" Crump said. "And she hears a voice that says, "What are you doing around here?' Then she hears what she believes is a push against Martin and the phone crashes to the ground. She can hear them arguing in the background. Moments later, the phone line goes dead."...

  2. #62
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    325

    Zimmerman case

    Revealed now that Zimmerman had nose broken and broken skin on Martin's knuckles.

    John Lott jnr;

    It means that Martin was hitting Zimmerman sufficiently hard and often to break the skin on his knuckles, but that Zimmerman didn't hit Martin back. That means Zimmerman didn't throw the first punch. That means that it is that much harder to believe that Zimmerman started the fight. And that is extremely important. It looks as if Zimmerman stopped following Martin when it was suggested, but even if he didn't, even if he asked Martin what he was doing, that doesn't justify Martin attacking him.

  3. #63
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,569
    Quote Originally Posted by John Lott jnr, regurgitated by Damodevo
    It means that Martin was hitting Zimmerman sufficiently hard and often to break the skin on his knuckles, but that Zimmerman didn't hit Martin back.
    No it doesn't. The broken skin may have had any of a number of causes that don't involve contact with Zimmerman and lack of broken skin being mentioned in the report could be an omission in the medical report or indicative of Zimmerman not hitting back hard enough or making contact with hard enough surfaces to break the skin.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Lott jnr, regurgitated by Damodevo
    That means Zimmerman didn't throw the first punch.
    No it doesn't. As the report does not show conclusively that Zimmerman didn't punch back or even that Martin's broken skin were caused by punching Zimmerman we don't know from the medical evidence who threw the first punch or in what order.

    However what we do know is that Trayvon Martin was walking home with a soda and skittles and was followed by an armed vigilante who thought he looked suspicious and who subsequently shot him dead.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Lott jnr, regurgitated by Damodevo
    That means that it is that much harder to believe that Zimmerman started the fight.
    What nonsense. If Zimmerman hadn't been following Martin he would have had no reason to challenge him (assuming that is how it went down). If Zimmerman hadn't pulled out his firearm and shot him he wouldn't be dead.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Lott jnr, regurgitated by Damodevo
    It looks as if Zimmerman stopped following Martin when it was suggested,
    Why? It doesn't appear that way at all and the medical report is mute on that point.

    Quote Originally Posted by John Lott jnr, regurgitated by Damodevo
    but even if he didn't, even if he asked Martin what he was doing, that doesn't justify Martin attacking him.
    Good idea. Armed vigilantes should provoke confrontations with smaller and younger men who they think look suspicious and if things get out of hand then shoot them dead.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  4. #64
    CC Grandmaster Redmond Barry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Westside
    Posts
    3,118
    Quote Originally Posted by Goughfather
    As I've pointed out already (though clearly you are too dense to understand) most crime is intraracial, whether black on black or white on white. This has much more to do with who white and black people associate with, especially the people with whom they share intimate relationships with, rather than any particular criminal tendencies. Crime is predominantly intraracial and has a much closer association with poverty than it does with race.
    This is a fairly interesting subject and fairly consistent with police statistics for perth. When I purchased a property back in 2008 and was gauging the suitability of different suburbs i made notes for the concentration of state housing (povo class) and the accompanying occurrence of assaults and thefts in the suburbs that comprised higher levels of these types of dwellings.

    what i found most interesting was that even though there was a fairly strong correlation between the level of state housing and the assault rate, the assaults were quite consistently a discriminate act between two individuals known to each other. this indicated to me that unless your ability to choose family and friends is horrendously inadequate, then living in a suburb with an above average crime rate may not be as hazardous as it indicates (unless your hobbies include frequenting the local biker bar).

    For these reasons gun use in australia is really quite unnecessary as a self defence mechanism. Indiscriminate acts of violence appear to be more of a statistical anomaly and are hardly compelling to warrant too great of a concern. There is far more power in maintaining the family units safety by carefully initiating each individual relationship and managing those which we choose to dissolve, those that are superficial and those we continue to prolong in strength.

    This method also appears to be cheaper than buying a firearm.

    Crime is predominantly inter-racial and in my estimation, it is simply because the kind of folks that are inclined towards these activities arent likely to be constructing detailed plans for their endeavours and will therefore target the most accessible route for their misdemeanours.
    Last edited by Redmond Barry; 17-05-2012 at 02:23 AM.
    Ruin is formal, devil's work,
    Consecutive and slow -
    Fail in an instance no man did,
    Slipping - is Crash's law,

  5. #65
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    325
    No it doesn't. The broken skin may have had any of a number of causes that don't involve contact with Zimmerman and lack of broken skin being mentioned in the report could be an omission in the medical report or indicative of Zimmerman not hitting back hard enough or making contact with hard enough surfaces to break the skin.
    Wow this is massively grasping at straws. How are you accounting for the broken nose then given Martin was witnessed on top of Zimmerman with Zimmerman on his back? The first officer on the scene reported that Zimmerman had a bleeding nose. It must be an incredible coincidence that Martin had grazed knuckles and Zimmerman had a broken nose. And what about Zimmerman's black eye's? Coincidence? All you have given is conjecture. The only hard evidence is of Martin attacking Zimmerman.

    No it doesn't. As the report does not show conclusively that Zimmerman didn't punch back or even that Martin's broken skin were caused by punching Zimmerman we don't know from the medical evidence who threw the first punch or in what order.
    Has anyone seen so much argumentum ad ignorantiam in a post? Trying to prove something true just because it has not been proven false. You have to deal with the evidence you have not throw in a whole bunch of 'does not show conclusively' or 'we don't know'.

    However what we do know is that Trayvon Martin was walking home with a soda and skittles and was followed by an armed vigilante who thought he looked suspicious and who subsequently shot him dead.
    How do you know he followed him? He said 'O.K.' after the dispatcher asked him to stop following Martin. So you really have no clue like anyone else.

    Your post is inconsistent; first you say we don't know who started the fight or threw the first punch and then you indict Zimmerman for hunting down little innocent Martin and shooting him dead;

    Armed vigilantes should provoke confrontations with smaller and younger men who they think look suspicious and if things get out of hand then shoot them dead.

  6. #66
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,417
    Quote Originally Posted by Damodevo
    If I am to be killed by a stalking, gun-wielding vigilante, I should hope I can break his nose on my way out too.
    meep meep

  7. #67
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Damodevo
    Wow this is massively grasping at straws.
    Not at all. You just quoted some nut job making leap upon leap based on faulty logic. I just pointed out the faulty logic employed by John Lott jnr.

    Quote Originally Posted by Damodevo
    How are you accounting for the broken nose then given Martin was witnessed on top of Zimmerman with Zimmerman on his back?
    Most likely it occurred in the scuffle but it is certainly not clear if it was caused by Martin's fists. Alternatively it could have been self inflicted to support the self-defense defense. The point is the medical report did not find that the broken skin on Martin's knuckles were casued by breaking his Zimmerman's nose. That is speculation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Damodevo
    The first officer on the scene reported that Zimmerman had a bleeding nose. It must be an incredible coincidence that Martin had grazed knuckles and Zimmerman had a broken nose. And what about Zimmerman's black eye's? Coincidence? All you have given is conjecture. The only hard evidence is of Martin attacking Zimmerman.
    I don't know how much physical sport you have played but a broken nose can be caused fairly easily. Black eyes are likely secondary symptoms of bruising when the nose was broken and not separate injuries. A possible scenario is at the scuffle Martin and Zimmerman where grappling and in an effort to escape Martin threw Zimmerman off, he fell face first to the ground and broke his nose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Damodevo
    Has anyone seen so much argumentum ad ignorantiam in a post?
    What you fail to understand is I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm just pointing out that the claims made by Lott and repeated by you are not proven. By offering an alternative hypothesis I'm just giving one possible alternative that also fits the evidence. The burden of proof lies with those making the claim which is Lott and by proxy you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Damodevo
    Trying to prove something true just because it has not been proven false. You have to deal with the evidence you have not throw in a whole bunch of 'does not show conclusively' or 'we don't know'.
    You're wrong. That is exactly all I need to do as I am not making any claim other than disputing that use is the only possible explanation. You can't shift the burden of proof to me when your 'explanation' is no better than mine but you ARE making positive claims.

    Quote Originally Posted by Damodevo
    How do you know he followed him? He said 'O.K.' after the dispatcher asked him to stop following Martin. So you really have no clue like anyone else.
    Your second sentence says he followed him until he was asked to stop. Ergo, you admit he followed him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Damodevo
    Your post is inconsistent; first you say we don't know who started the fight or threw the first punch and then you indict Zimmerman for hunting down little innocent Martin and shooting him dead;
    There is no inconsistency there. Zimmerman profiled Martin and followed him. We know that from the 911 call. Martin was on his way home with snacks from the 7-eleven. Who was looking to confront who?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  8. #68
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Damodevo
    Has anyone seen so much argumentum ad ignorantiam in a post? Trying to prove something true just because it has not been proven false. You have to deal with the evidence you have not throw in a whole bunch of 'does not show conclusively' or 'we don't know'.
    Actually the argument from ignorance is clearly Lott's. Lott can't imagine any cause for the injuries other than what he outlines, therefore that must have been the cause for the sequence of events (according to him). Rincewind is simply pointing out that there are many logically possible alternatives that there is insufficient evidence to exclude.

  9. #69
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    No it doesn't. The broken skin may have had any of a number of causes that don't involve contact with Zimmerman and lack of broken skin being mentioned in the report could be an omission in the medical report or indicative of Zimmerman not hitting back hard enough or making contact with hard enough surfaces to break the skin.
    But it sure lends plausibility to the account that Zimmerman was acting in self-defence against someone who physically viciously attacked him, enough to break his nose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind
    What nonsense. If Zimmerman hadn't been following Martin he would have had no reason to challenge him (assuming that is how it went down). If Zimmerman hadn't pulled out his firearm and shot him he wouldn't be dead.
    Zimmerman was looking after a neighbourhood which had already experienced crime, and Martin wasn't part of the neighbourhood. It was reasonable to follow him, and unreasonable for Martin to start punching him.

    But ChessChat's resident leftards all think that people should put up with having their face bashed in rather than use a gun in self-defence. They would also rather see that elderly South African couple beaten to death by iron-bar-weilding thugs than use a gun to scare them off. I'm waiting for the race-baiters like GF to accuse these Afrikaners of hating blacks.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  10. #70
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,415
    Quote Originally Posted by Damodevo
    Wow this is massively grasping at straws.
    Meet RW, straw-grasper extraordinaire.

    Quote Originally Posted by Damodevo
    Has anyone seen so much argumentum ad ignorantiam in a post?
    When you read RW and his ilk for a while, you get used to it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Damodevo
    Your post is inconsistent; first you say we don't know who started the fight or threw the first punch and then you indict Zimmerman for hunting down little innocent Martin and shooting him dead;
    Not surprising that the likes of RW are inconsistent. Leftards want Zimmerman's blood, hence no prosecution for the New Black Panthers who put a price on his head. We wonder if they will even accept a "not guilty" verdict and hound him through the civil courts as well. Of course, it fits their agenda of racist white hispanics and their gun control fanaticism.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  11. #71
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    But it sure lends plausibility to the account that Zimmerman was acting in self-defence against someone who physically viciously attacked him, enough to break his nose.
    Or another possibility is he was involved in a fight with someone who was genuinely in fear of their life as you would be if you were followed and confronted by a armed vigilante.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Zimmerman was looking after a neighbourhood which had already experienced crime, and Martin wasn't part of the neighbourhood. It was reasonable to follow him, and unreasonable for Martin to start punching him.
    And clearly unreasonable for Zimmerman to shoot Martin dead.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    But ChessChat's resident leftards all think that people should put up with having their face bashed in rather than use a gun in self-defence. They would also rather see that elderly South African couple beaten to death by iron-bar-weilding thugs than use a gun to scare them off. I'm waiting for the race-baiters like GF to accuse these Afrikaners of hating blacks.
    Stop trying to equate an 18 year old boy on his way home from the 7-eleven with an iced tea and skittles with some iron-bar wielding thug from Jo'berg. Zimmerman did not use his firearm to scare Martin off, he pointed it at his chest, pulled the trigger and shot him dead. He is a killer, pure and simple and the instigator of the incident acting as he was as a local neighbourhood vigilante.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  12. #72
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Meet RW, straw-grasper extraordinaire.
    I should have known the difference between making a positive claim and presenting an alternative plausible scenario to counter a positive claim would be lost on the clueless.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    When you read RW and his ilk for a while, you get used to it.
    As I wasn't the one offering the argumentum it looks like Damodevo and Jono are the ignorantium.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono
    Not surprising that the likes of RW are inconsistent.
    Damodevo's claim of inconsistency has already been dealt with above and as usual Jono offers nothing of substance on the matter.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  13. #73
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    325

    John Lott Jnr.

    RW calls John Lott jnr., the Yale economist who has many publications under his belt and a serious contender in the academic gun control debate, a 'nut job'. More likely he dared to question the 'Zimmerman is a gun toting, racist' line that lefties want so desperately to be true. Which, ipso facto, makes one an automatic 'nut job' in the simple, black-and-white world of the left.

  14. #74
    CC Candidate Master
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    325

    Martin and Zimmerman

    At 2:13, you can clearly hear the car door slamming shut, and the alarm stops.

    At 2:17, Zimmerman’s voice wobbles and he starts breathing heavily into the phone, indicating that he has started running.

    At 2:22, without any prompting other than the aforementioned noises and breathing, the dispatcher asks “Are you following him?” to which Zimmerman responds, “Yeah.”

    At 2:26, the dispatcher says, “Okay, we don’t need you to do that,” to which Zimmerman responds, “Okay.”

    Zimmerman proceeds to give the dispatcher his name. Then he says, “He ran.”

    Zimmerman can still be heard breathing into the phone until about 2:39, at which point the heavy breathing stops entirely, a mere 13 seconds after the dispatcher asked him to stop following. A very calm and collected Zimmerman then proceeds to give the dispatcher his own information, directions and a description of his location for another 1 minute and 33 seconds.

    The difference between someone running while on the phone and not running can be heard quite clearly, and I encourage readers to listen for themselves.

    There’s another reason to believe that Zimmerman stopped following Martin: After he gives the dispatcher his personal address, at 3:35, he says, “Oh crap, I don’t want to give that all out. I don’t know where this kid is,” meaning he is worried Martin might hear where he lives. If Zimmerman doesn’t even know where Martin is, would it even be possible for him to still be following Martin at this point? Would it even be possible for him to have continued following Martin after hanging up the phone — a full two minutes after he first got out of his car and a minute and a half after he fully stops breathing heavily — unless Martin came back and revealed himself?
    And here is yet another reason to believe that Zimmerman was out to hunt Martin down and kill him. Why on earth would he call 911 if that was his intention?

  15. #75
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,569
    Quote Originally Posted by Damodevo
    RW calls John Lott jnr., the Yale economist who has many publications under his belt and a serious contender in the academic gun control debate, a 'nut job'.
    He is an economist who has worked at Yale in the past. He was not trained there (he did his undergrad and PhD at UCLA) and he is not currently working there and so to describe him as a "Yale economist" is misleading. So with your permission I will refer to him as "Yale nutjob" for the time being.

    Judging him as a "serious contender" also needs to be taken with a grain of salt. All his papers and editorial pieces concerning guns appear to be pro-gun. Certainly all the ones I looked at. So he is not an neutral social scientist looking for the data on gun control. He is wedded to a side and publishing only material which can be shown to support his ideological position.

    Quote Originally Posted by Damodevo
    More likely he dared to question the 'Zimmerman is a gun toting, racist' line that lefties want so desperately to be true. Which, ipso facto, makes one an automatic 'nut job' in the simple, black-and-white world of the left.
    More likely he makes leap from unsubstantiated leap to conclusions which are not the only possible conclusions from the evidence as if they are incontrovertible facts. Claims like...

    Quote Originally Posted by Yale nutjob
    Zimmerman didn't throw the first punch
    This is totally not supported by the evidence. Maybe Martin through the first punch maybe Zimmerman did, but there is no medical evidence supporting it was Martin that instigated physical violence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yale nutjob
    it is that much harder to believe that Zimmerman started the fight
    Well no, this is a leap to a conclusion based on the first punch hypothesis which has already been shown to be not established by YNJ.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yale nutjob
    even if he asked Martin what he was doing, that doesn't justify Martin attacking him
    As we don't know who threw the first punch suggesting that Zimmerman politely asked Martin what he was doing and Martin then attacked him is complete speculation.

    But why does this YNJ care? Because he is a vociferous supporter of removing restrictions on gun ownership. His catch cry is more guns, less crime and so the idea that someone with a gun might senselessly kill someone in a piece of tragically amateur detective work is threatening to that position. Surely the gun owner was in the right, it was self-defence, stand your ground, etc right?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2420
    Last Post: 18-08-2019, 06:08 AM
  2. Pro Or Anti Gun Control ?
    By Axiom in forum Politics
    Replies: 2411
    Last Post: 06-08-2019, 10:35 AM
  3. Melbourne Chess Club Calendar 2007
    By Bereaved in forum Completed Tournaments
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13-01-2007, 05:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •