Monday, July 15, 2013

The Faces of True Idiocy

When I heard that Charlie Pierce wrote another piece on the Zimmerman case, I just knew that Geoffrey would be citing that drivel as if it was true insight, an accurate reflection of reality.  One idiot praising another. 

Just focus first on that excerpt from Pierce's piece of self-satisfying ooze around which Geoffrey frames his post.  Notice the fiction necessary to come to Pierce's conclusions.  Nothing in that puke resembles the reality that the facts of the case illuminate.  "Stalked"?  Pierce and Kruse-Safford enjoy calling the mere moments Zimmerman was out of his vehicle "stalking".  The entire period from when Martin left the convenience store to the time he was shot does not allow for anything an honest person could call "stalking".

There is nothing in the facts that suggest Zimmerman was doing more than looking out for his community.  Some may recall a rather infamous incident in New York a few decades ago, wherein a woman was attacked in the night, her screams heard by many, but her demise guaranteed by their inaction.  Idiots like GKS and Pierce would chastise those people.  But here, one man takes it upon himself to do a bit more than whine about crime in his neighborhood and he is to be crucified by lesser individuals like Pierce and lil' Geoffie because the situation resulted in death.  And these pathetic idiots would suggest that not only was Zimmerman pleased with the opportunity to have shot and killed someone, but now would take his RIGHTEOUS trial verdict as license to kill more people.

The absolute arrogance and hideous self-righteousness of Pierce and GKS to ASSUME racist intentions on the part of Zimmerman is disgusting and serves nothing but to satisfy their own unjustifiably massive egos and twisted sense of morality. 

If Zimmerman is guilty of anything in this incident (based on all the facts that have been available for some time now), it is of being less than perfect in his handling of the situation in which he found himself.  Martin, however, is guilty of having brought about his own death.  We know, for example, that he had a cell phone, as he used it to talk to the prosecution's "star" witness.  If he felt at all threatened by Zimmerman's scrutinizing of his behavior, a call to the cops would have been the proper move.  The cops would have had two people calling them about the same thing.  Instead of a fatal bullet wound, there likely could have been laughs all around.  "No way!  I called the cops on YOU, dude!"  Instead, he chose to play the role evidence shows was the reputation he was creating for himself.  It got him killed. 

The Pierces, Geoffreys, Al Sharptons, Van Joneses and others like these race-baiting, morally bankrupt idiots will continue to stoke the very sentiments against which they claim to fight.  They each do it for self-serving reasons, not caring the least for the people who actually are affected by real causes of their sufferings.  They sicken me.  That they don't sicken themselves says a ton about each of them.  May God have mercy on them all.

59 comments:

Neil said...

Some of these race-baiters do it out of malice and profit (think Jesse and Al). Some are just ignorant. All are harmful to blacks. They are constantly told that if they are conservative they are Uncle Tom's and if not they are, and always will be, oppressed. So no matter how well they have it compared to the vast majority of the world they will mostly be miserable.

Feodor said...

I think what Neil means to say is, "black people." I could easily be wrong, though.

Marshall Art said...

There's no "could" about it, feo. But if, perhaps, you think there's some substantial difference between someone referencing "blacks" as opposed to "black people", then you are part of the problem of race relations in this country. You are among the race-baiters of which both Neil and I speak.

Feodor said...

"There's no 'could' about it, feo."

So you are confirming that Neil does not see black folks as fully "people"?

Perhaps, you're right. The callous tone which his syntax infers seemed to suggest what you are noting.

Marshall Art said...

Geoffrey wasn't finished with the goofy post to which I linked above. He has yet another just as wacky. He again laments the lack of justice for Trayvon Martin. I responded thus:

"Justice was served when Zimmerman was found not guilty of a crime, seeing as how he committed no crime. And what justice would you seek for a kid who was shot in the process of trying to beat the shit out of someone? Is such a person deprived of justice? Had Zimmerman no gun, can you assure anyone, Zimmerman least of all, that Martin would have ended the beating before inflicting mortal injury upon Zimmerman? Are you that fucking stupid? (Rhetorical question. Of course you are.)"

This is the real question of course. What would have been the result had Zimmerman not been armed for, good gosh, self-protection? It seems that he would have been far worse shape. Could the cops have arrived in time to prevent Zimmerman's death from repeated punches and damage to his head? The absolute lunacy of those pretending Martin is deserving of justice says volumes about just how far gone too many in this country are. All that matters is that the dead guy is a black kid. No one would have heard of this incident had Zimmerman suffered greater injury because he had no gun to stop the beating. No one would have been screaming for justice for him and he is the only one of the two involved who had justice coming.

Did Martin "deserve" to die? What does a punk beating the crap out of another individual "deserve"?

Feodor said...

See, and here I thought you would have taken the stand that young Mr. Matin should have been a gun owner so that he could defend himself from a pursuer and not end up dead.

Where is your common sense NRA argument?

Feodor said...

If the Treyvon Martin killing did not involve race, if the meeting had been race neutral, then a Neighborhod Watch volunteer would have called after the boy saying, "son, are you lost? Can I help you with something? We've had burglars around here lately and you need to get home quick."

If Treyvon were white, that's what would have gone down.

Jim said...

Here is the real question:

Why was it OK for Zimmerman to use deadly force in self defense but NOT OK for Trayvon Martin to use "deadly force" in self defense?

Marshall Art said...

First, Jim's question:

Zimmerman did nothing that would have justified deadly force from Martin. "Following" someone is not life threatening in any way. Sitting on someone's chest, beating the crap out of him, is.

Marshall Art said...

Now for feo, the race baiter:

Race, if a factor at all in Zimmerman's mind, was not the only factor. Martin's dress and behavior stoked the initial suspicion. Martin's race might not even have been known initially until he took a closer look at the person acting suspiciously.

Like so many, feo speaks from a position of hindsight, making assumptions based on what is now known, rather than on the situation as it unfolded. It's really easy to say what should have been done, or what any one of us might have done had we been in the same situation.

A true interest in the facts would preclude a use of a word such as "pursuer", which is entirely in appropriate and unjustified when the person to whom it is applied was "monitoring the movements" of a suspicious person. Now, YOU people might call the cops before you perpetrate a shooting of a 17 year old, but others concerned about the safety of their neighborhoods do not.

Finally, feo, as you are lacking in true Christian character, there is nothing in Neil's comments that even hints that he does not regard all people as people regardless of their race, despite your need to believe such a thing. The irony here is that you choose, without cause or evidence, to make such an assumption and then pretend Neil is doing the same. You have no shame.

Feodor said...

Dress and behavior. What scared Zimmerman about Mr. Martin's dress and behavior?

My daughter wears a hoodie. My daughter goes out to the store and comes back with snacks. Thank God we live in Brooklyn; otherwise I'd have no choice but to be terrified of simpleton wannabe's like you and Zimmerman.

Jim said...

Now, YOU people might call the cops before you perpetrate a shooting of a 17 year old, but others concerned about the safety of their neighborhoods do not.

Uh, what?

Is this not the very essence of vigilante-ism?

And what "safety" concerns of this neighborhood would justify "perpetrating" a shooting without calling the cops first?

Jim said...

Over a year ago Marshall et al showed that they had bought into and were disseminating the smears against Martin.

They did this as if anything, ANYTHING, about Martin-pictures, texts, or student status as of that night-had any relevance to what happened on the night of the killing.

Since Zimmerman did not know Martin, or know anything about his past, it's all irrelevant. Zimmerman's actions were dictated by who or what he thought Martin was on that night.

To suggest that any of Martin's past had anything to do with that night is to imply that he "deserved" what happened to him.

Zimmerman did nothing that would have justified deadly force from Martin.

Nobody knows if that's true. There is no living witness except Zimmerman.

Marshall Art said...

"Over a year ago Marshall et al showed that they had bought into and were disseminating the smears against Martin."

What "smears"? That he was a thug wanna-be? These "smears" were in response to what was being put forth...that he was just some small child stalked by a depraved racist killer. Nobody was using any of this to suggest that Zimmerman's actions were justified. Ever. More to the point, such FACTS about the real Trayvon Martin had nothing to do with the self-defense response Zimmerman employed to the beating he was taking.

"Nobody knows if that's true. There is no living witness except Zimmerman."

But under our legal system, only what is known can be considered and speculations by people who weren't witness to the events are the least relevant perspectives. So from what we do know, based on the only testimony of the only living participant, Zimmerman did nothing. The cops on the scene had no concerns that Zimmerman's story was false.

Gotta go... more later

Jim said...

"Following" someone is not life threatening in any way.

So you would not feel your life was threatened if you were walking down a dark street and being followed by one or more young men in hoodies?

Nobody was using any of this to suggest that Zimmerman's actions were justified.

You just did above. Physical evidence of injury to Zimmerman is consistent with a single punch to the nose and contact of the back of the head with pavement. Yet you said Martin was beating the crap out of Zimmerman. If that's the case, why no black eyes, cuts or other contusions to the face and nothing more that scratches on the back of his head? Where were the bruises, the gashes requiring stitches?

Marshall Art said...

"So you would not feel your life was threatened if you were walking down a dark street and being followed by one or more young men in hoodies?"

You're moving the goalposts. Was Zimmerman in a hoodie? Was he acting in a threatening manner simply because he was "following" Martin? How did Martin know he was being followed? Because someone was moving in the same direction as he, but from behind? This is threatening to you?

"Nobody was using any of this to suggest that Zimmerman's actions were justified.

You just did above."


Please try paying attention at least a little bit. What nobody was using to suggest Zimmerman was justified was the factual descriptions of the real Trayvon Martin, put forth to counter the propaganda pics of Martin as a ten year old. NOBODY was using these facts about his "current" self to justify Zimmerman's actions.

Martin WAS beating the crap out of Zimmerman according to witness testimony. You of the idiot group insist on ignoring all the facts of the case in your defense of the only one who truly did anything illegal. Zimmerman's injuries were documented. Go look them up. If they were bad enough to satisfy YOUR definition of a beating, tough shit. YOU don't get to decide such things. The person getting beaten does, as does law enforcement people who, on the night in question, did not find any fault in Zimmerman's version of events.

Marshall Art said...

Here's a few things that seem to be purposely ignored, dismissed or not even given the effort of investigation by those who think Martin is deserving of "justice":

-The jury found no evidence that Zimmerman's shooting of Martin did not comply with Florida law concerning the right to self-defense.

-In every state of the union, there exists laws that run along these lines: one cannot inflict injury once a threat is thwarted. That is to say, if someone is "following" you, you cannot beat the shit out of that person for simply following since simply following does not threaten your life or person. Martin throwing a single punch at Zimmerman is not in line with this simple understanding of self-defense laws.

Let's say you confront a "follower" and ask him if he's following you. Let's assume he says he is and will offer nothing more. He never touches you, he only follows you. You can't beat him up for it. The worse that can be said is that the person is harassing you. If you have a cell phone on you, as did Martin, a call to the cops would be the way to go. This can be done whilst redirecting one's walk toward the location of the nearest cop shop. But as long as that "follower" doesn't touch you, or threaten to touch you, you cannot beat his ass. If you do so, you are guilty of assault and battery, possibly aggravated assault, and liable for any medical costs the follower suffers.

If Martin wasn't breaking any laws by the manner in which he was supposedly walking back to his father's girlfriend's house, he certainly was guilty of aggravated assault for beating on Zimmerman.

-If Zimmerman was looking to shoot a black kid, why would he have called the cops in the first place, and why did he not have his gun at the ready by the time Martin approached him and began beating on him?

There is no "justice" due Martin in any way. Zimmerman did nothing to him for which Martin is deserving of "justice".

Jim said...

You can't beat him up for it.

But under Stand Your Ground you can shoot and kill him.

Martin throwing a single punch at Zimmerman is not in line with this simple understanding of self-defense laws.

Unless Zimmerman pulled a gun on Martin.

he certainly was guilty of aggravated assault for beating on Zimmerman.

A single punch is not "beating on" anyone.

why did he not have his gun at the ready by the time Martin approached him and began beating on him

We don't know that he didn't have his gun at the ready. He might have and that might be why Martin punched him in the nose. The evidence doesn't support "beating on him". It only supports a single punch to the nose.

Feodor said...

I just love how you prosecute a wearing a hoodie. It confirms everything I assume about you.

Zimmerman followed - because he racially profiled - Martin by car, then by foot, and then came up to Martin invading his personal space within Martin's grasp.

A stranger pursuing someone for several minutes in the dark of night and then approaching and getting within grasp is threatening behavior. It's harassment, really.

And I'd stand my ground, too. And then if he brandished a weapon it's simply fight or flight.

Zimmerman made bad decision after bad decision which all led to a situation where Mr. Martin was killed.

That's murder two in Florida.

Everything else you're writing about is simply salve to quiet that guilty unconscious you carry around. That and the failed wannabe something special that you are.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

You obviously don't understand the Stand Your Ground laws. These laws only state that you are not obliged to run from a threat, but can stand your ground and defend yourself. So, trying to insist that such laws allow one to shoot someone for any behavior that is not directly threatening of one's life or limb is pathetically idiotic. Merely following someone does not put anyone's life or limb at risk.

Zimmerman pulled his gun after sustaining a number of blows by Martin. This was testimony not contradicted by evidence or witness accounts. And keep in mind that a witness testified that Martin was raining down blows "MMA style". Far more than a single punch.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

I just love how you recount your own imaginary tale of the case.

It wasn't Martin's race that first caught Zimmerman's attention, but the manner in which he was walking along the homes.

There is nothing in the testimony given or even in the girlfriend's testimony that suggest Zimmerman came anywhere near Martin's "personal space". The opposite, however, is true. Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle when Martin invaded his "personal space".

"And I'd stand my ground, too. And then if he brandished a weapon it's simply fight or flight."

More likely, you'd pee your Depends.

"Zimmerman made bad decision after bad decision which all led to a situation where Mr. Martin was killed.

That's murder two in Florida."


Total bullshit and obviously the jury did not find evidence that justified a conviction. And considering he's now dead, it seems the truly bad decisions were made by Martin.

"Everything else you're writing about is simply salve to quiet that guilty unconscious you carry around."

It is your own white guilt that drives your incredibly goofy understanding of the case and what it shows us. This case is nothing more than a simple one of self-defense. The issue for the idiotic is that the dead is a black kid and that means, by golly, RACISM!!!! Seek professional help and while awaiting your appointment with the shrink, read up on the facts of the case. You have no knowledge of them whatsoever.

Feodor said...

"the manner in which he was walking along the homes."

That's just Zimmerman's story to the operator. Which he would not back up by testifying.

"Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle when Martin invaded his "personal space".

This is a lie, exposed by the fact that Zimmerman hung up with the operator by saying that it was Martin who was running ("He's running.") further into the complex [so you lie] and tells her that the police should call him when they arrive so he can tell them his location which would therefore give the location of the guy he was following.

It's just four minutes after he hangs up to run after Martin, that Martin is fatally shot.

Four minutes.

"You'll need to educate yourself on the facts of the case. You obviously haven't been following it."

Feodor said...

"And considering he's now dead, it seems the truly bad decisions were made by Martin."

Not aware of the phrase, "blaming the victim," are we?

And Marting defending himself. If he were white, you'd lament his not having a gun, racist hypocrite.

Jim said...

You obviously don't understand the Stand Your Ground laws.

I understand them just fine. They encourage rather than discourage violence.

Merely following someone does not put anyone's life or limb at risk.

Risk is in the eye of the beholder.

Zimmerman pulled his gun after sustaining a number of blows by Martin. This was testimony not contradicted by evidence

This is NOT testimony. We don't know when Zimmerman pulled his gun. He did not testify. A broken nose and scratches on the back of the head are not evidence of a number of blows. No black eyes, no bruises or contusions on Zimmerman's face, no stitches needed on the back of his head. These injuries are consistent with a single blow to the nose and Zimmerman falling and hitting his head. There is no actual testimony from Zimmerman. The witness is describing what he saw from a distance in the dark on a rainy night.

This case is nothing more than a simple one of self-defense.

It's not simple at all. It is still unclear who was defending himself.

read up on the facts of the case.

Back at you. You are reciting conjecture, not facts.

Marshall Art said...

"I understand them just fine. They encourage rather than discourage violence."

That's not "understanding". That's idiotic opinion of what you don't understand. In some states, one is expected to try to evade direct threats and only retaliate when no other option is available. Stand Your Ground laws recognize one's liberty and right to be where they are without that liberty and right infringed upon by someone else. It is a great counter to the insipid concept of "being in the wrong place at the wrong time". How can any law abiding citizen be "in the wrong place" in his own country, town, community? The time and place was made wrong by the unlawful behavior of another. Criminals shouldn't be allowed to dictate the time and place of a law abiding citizen's location and SYG Laws recognize this.

But I understand where YOU'RE coming from. Like most lefties and their idiotic position on gun laws, you believe law abiding citizens are itching to shoot up the neighborhood. Idiot.

"Risk is in the eye of the beholder."

It's also in the eye of the law as I have already explained. I'd wager big money that you couldn't find one municipality that would find beating up someone who merely "followed" you less than aggravated assault.

"This is NOT testimony."

Oh, but it IS. It is the his testimony to the arresting officers. They found no reason to doubt him. It was the testimony of the witness who used the term "MMA style" in his description of the beating Zimmerman was getting. (Obviously, the gun was not drawn as yet.)

"A broken nose and scratches on the back of the head are not evidence of a number of blows."

You are confused by what a beating MUST mean and what a victim of one MUST suffer. You idiots want to dictate what a beating must consist of, what state of mind a victim must be in while receiving the blows, how hard and damaging the blows MUST be and all this and more MUST meet your selective description in order to justify one feeling one's life is in mortal danger, when only fear of serious injury or suffering is enough to justify deadly force (in some cases). Both the cops AND the jurors felt the injuries sustained validated Zimmerman's version of events.

"No black eyes, no bruises or contusions on Zimmerman's face,"

ABC News report of Zimmerman's injuries, including black eyes and swelling of the face.

"The witness is describing what he saw from a distance in the dark on a rainy night."

Stupid and desperate attempt here. The witness accurately described the fact that the guy in red was on the bottom and the guy in the hood was on top raining down blows. What's more, his testimony shows that blows were delivered first and before any shot was fired. Try again.

"It's not simple at all. It is still unclear who was defending himself."

Only to idiots, race-baiters and those who refuse to accept reality. Even Martin's phone pal, the girl prosecutors foolishly thought would be their star witness has said she believes Martin threw the first punch. Conjecture? Give me a freakin' break! Conjecture is the basis of all the arguments laid out by the "justice for Trayvon" crowd. If it didn't involve a dead kid and an innocent man on trial for murder, it would be a joke.

Marshall Art said...

...now for more of feo's idiocy...

"That's just Zimmerman's story to the operator. Which he would not back up by testifying."

You are aware, I hope, that he is not required to testify AGAIN to what happened. I'm not surprised a racist like yourself would take the position that a defendant choosing not to help the prosecution just has to be guilty of what the prosecution hopes to prove.

"This is a lie,"

No, but you are a flaming idiot. Your version of events is totally inconsistent with the transcript of Zimmerman's call to the police, as you can see from my link at Geoffrey's laugh-fest. It indicates he had lost sight of Martin which is why he didn't want to mention his exact address to the dispatcher.

"Not aware of the phrase, "blaming the victim," are we?"

Well, idiot, that's what this whole thing is about, isn't it? It's about race-baiters and racists blaming the victim of an assault from defending himself by shooting his assailant. Martin was only the victim of a fatal gunshot. He wasn't the victim of a crime.

"And Marting defending himself. If he were white, you'd lament his not having a gun, racist hypocrite."

This is an absolute and incredibly typical lie. Martin was NOT defending himself. He was assaulting Zimmerman. Even if we were to concede that somehow Zimmerman threw the first punch, once Martin was on top of Zimmerman, he became the assailant. But there is nothing to prove that Zimmerman did anything more than seek to maintain surveillance on Martin until the cops got there. That is why he called the cops, that is why he tried to run after Martin. There is absolutely nothing to even hint that he intended to do any more than this. And while neighborhood watch volunteers aren't necessarily encouraged to follow suspicious characters, considering the history of crime in the gated community, Zimmerman didn't want to chance letting a possible perpetrator get away. Perhaps not advisable, but not unreasonable and again, nothing indicates he intended to do more than keep Martin in sight. Too bad he lost him for as long as he did. Had he seen him coming, perhaps he would have drawn his gun and prevented the whole incident from escalating as it did. Now for the second part of your lie:

"If he were white, you'd lament his not having a gun, racist hypocrite."

If he were white, he'd be a dead WHITE punk who unjustly assaulted a neighborhood watch volunteer looking to protect his community. You, being the fraudulent race-baiter you are, can only wish I was a racist as you have yet to provide even a hint of racism in any of my past comments. This must frustrate the hell out of you as you scrape and claw at anything that you think you can twist to suggest racism within me. "Racist hypocrite" indeed. What sham you are, but perfectly suited for the term "true idiot".

Feodor said...

‘And the government has shown it's inability, or either it's unwillingness to do whatever is necessary to protect life and property where the black American is concerned. So my contention is that whenever a people come to the conclusion that the government, which they have supported, proves itself unwilling, or proves itself unable to protect our lives and protect our property, because we have the wrong color skin, we are not human beings unless we ourselves band together and do whatever, however, whenever, is necessary to see that our lives and our property is protected, and I doubt that any person in here would refuse to do the same thing were he in the same position, or I should say were he in the same condition’

Jim said...

That's not "understanding".

Sure it is. The philosophy behind SYG which you have accurately described is that it is more important for a person to justify carrying a gun and use it than it is to avoid physical and deadly violence if they can.

If you are such an advocate for SYG, why doesn't SYG apply to Martin. He was legally where he was entitled to be and had no obligation to retreat. His mistake, apparently, was not possessing a gun with which to do the Standing.

you couldn't find one municipality that would find beating up someone who merely "followed" you less than aggravated assault.

Zimmerman was more than following Martin. There was obviously a confrontation. Zimmerman apparently claims that it was when Martin tried to take the gun out of Zimmerman's belt, that he himself grabbed in and shot Martin.

By Zimmerman's own statement, then, Martin knew that he had been followed by a man with a gun. Self defense is reasonable under SYG.

What's more, his testimony shows that blows were delivered first and before any shot was fired.

Duh!

said she believes Martin threw the first punch.

In self defense.

Jim said...

'When the unarmed 17-year-old was shot dead by neighbourhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman on 26 February 2012, the killer wasn’t even arrested for 44 days, having said that he fired in self-defence. Self-defence? He’d already called the police, telling the operator that Martin was acting suspiciously – “up to no good, on drugs or something”. Zimmerman had been told by the operator not to follow the teenager. But nevertheless he found himself and his gun right next to Martin, provoking a struggle. What kind of self-defence is this, when you decide that someone is trouble, and that you’re going to stalk him, safe in the knowledge that if things get out of hand … well, you’re armed? Yet a jury decided that going out armed, looking for a particular person to defend yourself against, is still self-defence, and on 13 July Zimmerman was acquitted of murder.' - Deborah Orr, The Guardian

Marshall Art said...

feo,

Who is the source of your quote and what is its relevance here? It is filled with many of the same assumption that are nothing more than subjective opinion. This is a great part of the problem with race relations in this country.

Marshall Art said...

"The philosophy behind SYG which you have accurately described is that it is more important for a person to justify carrying a gun and use it than it is to avoid physical and deadly violence if they can."

Again you demonstrate a sad lack of understanding. The philosophy behind SYG is that one is not required to run from trouble when one is not in the wrong. It does not encourage violent behavior, but only indicates that the criminal among us are not invested with any authority to dictate the behavior of law abiding citizens. No one is obliged to justify carrying a weapon for self-defense. This is an idiotic expectation. As we have the Constitutionally protected right in the first place, it is no one's business why a law abiding person might carry.

Also, one is not obliged to be carrying in order to stand his ground in the face of a threat. You seem to believe that one MUST do anything to avoid violence, and SYG does not infringe on that belief if you wish to live that way. It simply allows that such a decision is your to make one way or the other.

"...why doesn't SYG apply to Martin. He was legally where he was entitled to be and had no obligation to retreat."

It does apply to him, except that he was under no threat that would avail him of the opportunity. And once again, since you, like so many others, wish to ignore the facts, it was not his mere location that drew attention to him, but the manner in which he was "just walking home". Are there any other witnesses to his movements aside from Zimmerman to support this? Of course not. But the lack of such testimony does not give idiots the right to insist that he was innocent of doing anything to justify Zimmerman's scrutiny.

what's more, as is the case, there is nothing from which he needed to retreat. "Being followed" does not impeded one's progress to one's destination, particularly when there is nothing to indicate that the person following is doing more than walking (or driving) in the same direction, but from behind. If Martin thought he was being followed, as seems to be the case, he did nothing to find out for sure. He merely assumed some "cracker" was looking for trouble. Rather judgmental and racist. Being the hard ass, it seemed he was more interested in cracking the cracker's head than in finding out of there is some misunderstanding that he could clear up.

"Zimmerman was more than following Martin."

And Zimmerman never said anything to contradict this. His intention, and he makes it clear, was that he was trying to maintain surveillance on someone he felt seemed suspicious. What a freakin' crime that is!!! Let's hang 'im!!!

"By Zimmerman's own statement, then, Martin knew that he had been followed by a man with a gun."

This was not what Zimmerman ever said at all. Again. Get yourself some facts. Zimmerman said Martin attacked him first, and it was during the scuffle that Martin became aware that Zimmerman was carrying as its presence became exposed while he was sitting on Zimmerman's chest. It was then that he tried for the gun.

"said she believes Martin threw the first punch.

In self defense."


I don't believe she said that at all. You are speculating again based on what you want to believe, rather than what the facts say.

Marshall Art said...

As to your slanted quote from Deborah Orr, this does not qualify as a listing of the facts, especially since so much of it is counter to the facts.

"Zimmerman had been told by the operator not to follow the teenager."

This is not true. The dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that." to which Zimmerman responded "OK". If you listen to the tapes, you can tell he stops running at this point, and it was at this point that Zimmerman states that he began his return to his vehicle.

"But nevertheless he found himself and his gun right next to Martin, provoking a struggle."

This suggests a story different from what Zimmerman related. Martin, at this point, found Zimmerman, who had lost sight of Martin. Martin approached Zimmerman, and began his hard-ass act.

"What kind of self-defence is this, when you decide that someone is trouble, and that you’re going to stalk him, safe in the knowledge that if things get out of hand … well, you’re armed?"

Orr is now officially amongst those idiots to which I refer in the title of this post. What kind of self-defense is it when a trained fighter feels safe in the knowledge that if things get out of hand...well, you're a trained fighter? This is rank stupidity. Self-defense is based upon the facts of a given situation. Who attacked whom, how aggressively and was the lethal response thereby justified. It has nothing to do with schemes Orr imagined Zimmerman didn't have, which, if proven, would have led to his conviction.

"Yet a jury decided that going out armed, looking for a particular person to defend yourself against, is still self-defence..."

What evidence does Orr, or anyone else have, to prove that Zimmerman was looking for someone against whom he could legally defend himself? This stupidity in this comment is not unique amongst those seeking "justice for Trayvon" as such people will twist and distort and accuse without basis regardless of the truth just to portray the two as they prefer them to be portrayed. And they do it without the least shred of shame.

Being armed is so one can successfully defend one's self from attack. That's the freakin' point of being armed. But to suggest that to be armed means one is seeking out an opportunity to shoot someone to death is the height of royalty amongst assholes.

"...and on 13 July Zimmerman was acquitted of murder."

Because on the 13th of July, there had been no evidence presented that proved Zimmerman was guilty of murder. It's really that simple, but the simple, who are race baiters and haters of 2nd Amendment proponents and filled with white guilt and hatred for non-blacks...such people don't care about truth, facts or reality. They only care about stoking the flames of racism rather than dealing honestly with a cut and dried situation that happened to result in the death of a 17 year old black kid who wanted the thug life.

Feodor said...

"it was at this point that Zimmerman states that he began his return to his vehicle."

So, clearly, Zimmerman is a liar.

FACT: Martin was killed FURTHER AWAY from where he stopped and his car and FURTHER AWAY from where he hung up from the operator.

Get some facts, Marshall.

Marshall Art said...

You have not presented anything that resembles facts or evidence that shows where or how Zimmerman lied. Saying so doesn't make it so.

As to your "FACT", you'll need to restate it in a more articulate manner because what you've got instead is jibberish. I can't, and won't even try to, respond to such.

Feodor said...

A--------B------------------------C

A = Zimmerman's car

B = After running a bit, Zimmerman hangs up with operator saying he was returning to car.

C= Where Treyvon Martin was killed.


FACT: Zimmerman was pursuing Martin not returning to his car.

Jim said...

1) Zimmerman was carrying a gun. It was black.
2) Zimmerman was carrying the gun in an internal holster.
3) Zimmerman demonstrated that he positioned the gun and holster inside his pants above his right rear pocket.
4) It was dark.
5) Zimmerman stated that Martin was on top of him MMA-style and Martin attempted to reach for Zimmerman's gun.
6) A witness testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman in an MMA position with knees on either side of Zimmerman. The defense council demonstrated this in the courtroom.
7) Zimmerman stated that he drew the gun and fired it at Martin while Martin was on top of him.

Would you care to explain how Marten knew that there was a gun to reach for if it was underneath Zimmerman and Martin was on top of him?

Would you care to explain how Zimmerman could have drawn the gun that was inside his pants underneath him while a 165 pound "thug" was on top of him "beating the crap" out of him?

Occam's Razor applies: The simplest answer is usually the correct one. Zimmerman drew the gun before the physical contact. Ergo, Martin was defending himself.

Marshall Art said...

Ah. I see what you're saying now...that Zimmerman was NOT returning to his car and still seeking out Martin to confront him, or that his direction of movement after hanging up with the police was other than toward his car. You state that this is the FACT. But until now, I've neither read nor heard of ANYONE making this suggestion. Nor do I believe you can provide anything that supports this. You're welcome, of course, to try.

Marshall Art said...

One more thing for feo:

You, like everyone else looking for "justice for Trayvon", continue to use words like "pursuing". This is dishonest as nothing in Zimmerman's account suggest he was doing more than trying to maintain surveillance until police arrived. This kind of talk is defamatory and unChristian when you don't have first hand knowledge of the events leading to the shooting. It makes you a liar, which is not surprising of a false priest.

Marshall Art said...

Jim,

"Would you care to explain how Marten knew that there was a gun to reach for if it was underneath Zimmerman and Martin was on top of him?"

No. I would not. That is, I could, but I won't. It would call for speculation regarding details I cannot know. You want to think that events could only have happened in a precise and pre-determined manner. I know that shit happens. Unlike you and the other idiots pretending to have the psychic ability to know how events MUST have played out, like the blogger to whom you linked, I, like the jurors and cops, go by what can actually be known. They call it evidence.

Feodor said...

Here you go, enfeebled one:

http://www.hlntv.com/interactive/2013/06/17/zimmerman-trayvon-map-interactive

Pretty easy to find, Marshall, when one is not afraid of the facts.
________________

"You, like everyone else looking for 'justice for Trayvon', continue to use words like "pursuing". This is dishonest as nothing in Zimmerman's account suggest he was doing more than trying to maintain surveillance until police arrived."

You are so ignorant and so blind to how small a box you are in that you can't realize that Treyvon Martin didn't know who the hell was following him. And when you don't know who the hell is following you by car, then by foot, the feeling (if only you had feelings, Marshall) is that you are being pursued.

Though I will allow stalking, if you prefer.

What an idiot you are.
_________________

"Zimmerman said he saw spectators gather around and heard a man say he was going to call 911, and Zimmerman told police that’s when he yelled 'Help me, he’s killing me!'"

Really? Where are all those noise making spectators now?

Marshall Art said...

I saw that interactive. I'm surprised you are using it as "proof". In it, it clearly shows (if you look to the video to the right) that Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle as I said was his testimony. You apparently think that the relationship between his location at the time of the encounter to the location of his parked vehicle proves he was pursuing Martin. But again, the recorded call to the police indicate clearly that surveillance was the intention.

As to what Martin might have feared was happening, a simple "are you following me?" would have prevented the whole thing. What's more, it is highly doubtful that a judge would accept "I thought he was stalking me" as an excuse for beating the snot out of someone when that simple question could have easily been asked, and that is simply because the person being "followed" could be mistaken as to whether or not his "stalker" was truly following him.

As to your final quote, I've been unable to find anything that suggests that. This account of police testimony is but one I've found where this quotation is absent. Seems a significant omission. Give it up. Zimmerman murdered no one.

Jim said...

It would call for speculation regarding details I cannot know.

But you've been doing that for over a year now. Why stop?

You want to think that events could only have happened in a precise and pre-determined manner.

Huh? Pre-determined manner? Uh no. Logical manner. How could a man lying on his back with a 165 pound "thug" on top of him reach underneath himself and draw a gun? How did Martin know he had a gun?

Pretty basic.

Marshall Art said...

"But you've been doing that for over a year now."

Nonsense. Speculation has been the tool of the tools of the "justice for Martin" crowd, like yourself.

What's "basic", aside from your cognitive abilities, is the fact that fights do not proceed in a predictable manner. You cannot say with any certainty what could or could not happen in a STRUGGLE, which is almost the definition of unpredictable outcome. Your speculations assume Zimmerman just laid there allowing Martin to beat on him. Who does this? Who wouldn't instead be struggling and squirming and moving to the best of his ability to avoid the punishment? How much room do you believe is required to slip one's own hand to where one's own possession on one's own person is located and remove that possession, in this case, the gun? You demand that what is unlikely simply cannot happen and real life doesn't work that way. Fights don't work that way and never have.

On that note, Medved was talking to, I think it was Wayne Perriman, who a a black man Medved's had on many times before. Perriman is usually quite logical in his comments on whatever subject is being discussed. But in this case he fell into the same trap of assuming what he's experienced must dictate the only possible outcome in his mind. He referred to the number of blows Zimmerman claimed to have suffered, a number I doubt he was taking much time to take an accurate count, and insisting that, based on his own street fights in his past, was a number no one could sustain successfully. But Zimmerman's number did not include the severity of each blow, did not mention how perfectly executed each blow was. In other words, "I got hit 70,000 times. I didn't say any of them hurt." No one can know about such things without firsthand knowledge. So your speculation is worthless and does nothing to support your contention regarding what Zimmerman did and his intentions at the time.

Feodor said...

How obtusely hypocritical can you be, Marshall? Your inability to keep your own thoughts and values from one day to the next is astounding.

You said I had no factual basis for saying that Zimmerman pursued (stalked) Martin. So I gave you the facts that allow me to say that: where Martin was killed is further from the where Zimmerman hung up with the operator and even further than that from where he left the car.

A -------B--------------C

Now you take the video reenactment OF ZIMMERMAN'S STORY - that he kept going and then doubled back - as contradicting the facts. But how can it, it is just his story? There are not facts to support his doubling back.

What's more, he says he continued on in order to get a street location. So he, the Neighborhood Watchman, in a housing compound with three streets, has to go find what street he's on?

Try and keep up with yourself, buffoon.

Marshall Art said...

I've lived in my current home for around 25 years. I couldn't tell you the names of all the streets surrounding my property. What difference does that make? I'll tell you: none. But he could have been trying to verify the street, not find out what the name was. Who knows. The point here is that this trivia is a desperate attempt by idiots like yourself to disparage the guy, as you've been doing since the story first broke. Since that time you idiots have been bending over backwards to make him the villain. Because you have no shame or sense of true righteousness or virtue.

As to the re-enactment, I've seen it before, but it is CNN's re-enactment and I don't see how anyone who isn't an idiot would rely on it as if from the police, courts or lawyers involved in the case. I haven't followed ANY CNN coverage of the case. Can you guarantee they are not slanted in their reporting of it? Until you can, it is only their interpretation of events. It is NOT THE interpretation of events.

For my part, I've tried to rely on something a bit more "official" than CNN. You should as well so you won't be just another idiot.

Feodor said...

It's a 3 street enclave. Not that I doubt that remembering three streets is easy for Mr. Zimmerman.

No matter whose reenactment one views - or no reenactment at all, since any reenactment represents solely the story of Zimmerman - the FACTS (which you are still searching for) clearly contrindicates Zimmerman's story.

The facts do reveal that Zimmerman kept pursuing young Mr. Martin.

Marshall Art said...

Of course they don't. If they did, the cops and the jurors would have felt differently. And it isn't facts that you think you have on your side. It is how those facts are interpreted by the people who, like you, wish to hang an innocent man for a crime he didn't commit.

At the same time, I have had no need to search for facts that are readily available, such as the fact that the cops on the scene, even after three interviews, found no reason to arrest GZ, as well as the fact that the jurors found nothing in the prosecution's case that gave them reason to find GZ guilty of the charges against him, charges that should never have been brought.

But as you continue to prove, you "justice for Trayvon" idiots don't care about the facts, but only how to find a way to convict GZ for something of which is not guilty. You desperately want to make this non-crime a crime simply because TM is black, and the fact that black kid was shot to death incites you to self-satisfying pontification about racism that is not as bad as you irrationally need it to be.

It's pathetic, really. One would think the death of the kid would have been enough for you. Of course, if his death was really the basis for your concern, you'd spend more time on the factors that led to his multiple suspensions, his having stolen property in his possession, his toxicology report showing drugs in his system, his involvement in "fight clubs", and his desire to beat up "crackers". But no, you want to crucify an innocent man. Typical.

Feodor said...

"If they did, the cops and the jurors would have felt differently."

Amazing how once you ask for facts you start forgetting all of them. It really goes to character, how you lie to yourself and to all of us.

The fact you are now in denial of - that Zimmerman kept pursuing Martin - is not a crime. And the police, in the absence of eye witnesses, felt they had no other choice than go with Zimmerman's story.

And, since Zimmerman refused to testify, the jurors were not allowed to evaluate it.

This is ground you and Jim have gone over and over. These are simple facts.

1. Zimmerman kept pursuing Martin.
2. There were no eye witnesses for the police to interview.
3. The jurors were not allowed - or at least felt they were not allowed - to consider any thing about what led up the fight.

All things you can deny if you want. Such is the freedom of deceivers.

Marshall Art said...

"The fact you are now in denial of - that Zimmerman kept pursuing Martin - is not a crime."

What I deny is the use of the word "pursue" as regards GZ's intentions. Three on-line dictionaries begin their definition of the word in this manner:

"to follow in order to overtake, capture, kill, or defeat"

There is no evidence to indicate that GZ's intentions were any more than to maintain surveillance of TM's location in order to allow police to investigate whether or not GZ's worries were valid.

Idiots like yourself do not possess the honesty and honor to refrain from framing GZ as someone intent on doing harm to whatever black kid opportunity might provide him. Continuing to insist that he was "pursuing" or "stalking" Martin bears this out.

"And the police, in the absence of eye witnesses, felt they had no other choice than go with Zimmerman's story."

But there were eyewitnesses. And none of them mitigated police opinion that GZ was speaking truthfully and cooperating fully.

So that clearly corrects point #2 of your three simpleminded facts. I corrected point #1 by reminding you again the slanted and biased use of the term "pursue". As to point #3, jurors are always instructed to consider only what is factual and relevant to the case. When viewed in their proper and honest context, the real facts do not support your racist contentions about what happened on that fateful night.

And here's a final thought that should correct your deceitful idiocy:

"And, since Zimmerman refused to testify, the jurors were not allowed to evaluate it."

Defendants are never required to testify against themselves. As they are so often encouraged to follow the advice of their lawyers, the decision to put him on the stand was likely a collective decision. What's more, his "refusal" is irrelevant to his guilt or innocence. That's the way our criminal justice system works and it has served our nation well for some time.

It is too bad that small minded and hateful people like you, and most of those who comprise the "justice for Trayvon" crowd, didn't get the chance to see GZ burn. It is too bad for you that your chance to pontificate about imagined grievances against the black race is rendered silly by the true facts of this case. It is crystal clear that all that matters to you idiots is that the dead is a black kid and since the dead is a black kid, well by golly some great racial injustice has been done. This is why you're all idiots, for all that is truly relevant and of any meaning whatsoever is that two people came together in a manner that led to the death of one of them. It didn't have to happen, but that never matters. Neither does the race of either of the two, as much as it means to small people like yourself.

Feodor said...

Jesus to God, but you are a buffoon.

1. Zimmerman kept pursuing Martin.

"Pursuing: 1) follow to overtake..." Well, since the fact is that Zimmerman killed Martin further from the car than the point at which he said he would return to the car, he necessarily OVERTOOK him.


2. There were no eye witnesses for the police to interview.

About the pursuit, dickwad, There were witnesses to two men fighting but none on how they crossed paths.


3. The jurors were not allowed - or at least felt they were not allowed - to consider any thing about what led up the fight.

Your nonsense on this doesn't change it.


Fact: Zimmerman refused to testify in his own defense. Remember, it's called a defense, idiot. And he did not contribute to it, though he could have. I didn't say anything about requirements, which only children and you need to be reminded about.

It's good to know you can count. Now try reading without and using common sense without deception.

Marshall Art said...

feo,

"Jesus to God, but you are a buffoon."

Not surprised a false priest would speak in this exceedingly irreverent manner, but wishing I was a buffoon doesn't make me one. You need to prove it and you fail with buffoonish expertise.

"Well, since the fact is that Zimmerman killed Martin further from the car than the point at which he said he would return to the car, he necessarily OVERTOOK him."

An example of said expertise. That the two came into contact with each other does not prove that GZ "overtook" TM, but only that they came together. How it came to be is in question, but one testimony is that after having lost sight of him, TM came upon GZ, not the other way around as you desperately need it to be in order to crucify GZ. Your constant refererring to GZ's location in relation to the location of his vehicle does not prove any intention on GZ's part to "overtake" anyone. It isn't even speculation, but accusation based on what you want the facts to be rather than what they are or what the known facts actually say. But you keep trying to make things fit the way you like them. I've long stopped expecting anything honorable from the likes of you.

Point #2. Don't call me names because you fail to adequately explain yourself. I can't be expected to follow your fantasies about the case in the exact manner they swirl about in your swollen head. If there were no eyewitnesses to relate how they crossed paths, then the only evidence we have of it is GZ's testimony. Everything else is speculative which doesn't wash in ANY court of law. There's a reason it doesn't that has to do with honesty, reason and the basic understanding that what isn't known with certainty might be something speculators like yourself lack the capacity to even imagine.

#3 is meaningless. I haven't even attempted to change that fact, but as you whine, there were no witnesses aside from GZ to provide info to consider. So where's your problem here, except that all they have is the survivor's testimony which doesn't match your preferred version of events.

Here's the "fact", idiot. Zimmerman didn't testify because he isn't required to do so. He gave his testimony three times to the police upon his being taken into custody. That's all that is required of him. What assholes like you hope for is that one more time might provide something that can be used to force a hole into his story. A defendant can be totally honest and perfect in his memory of events, and still be too nervous or imperfect in the telling of his side of the story. A defendant isn't required to help the prosecution make his case. Apparently, haters like you need to be reminded of why the law does not require a defendant to take the stand. You should study this before you add evidence of your own stupidity.

When you can find some evidence I intend to deceive, I'm more than happy to review it. Until then, you've only got your wishful speculation there as well. Idiot.

Feodor said...

"When you can find some evidence I intend to deceive..."

OK, that made me laugh twice. 1 The clarity of it, and 2 that you can't get the contradiction AND the irony of the contradiction.

Marshall Art said...

That you found anything in my comment comical only shows your own mental imbalance. The two "points" that follow your admission do nothing to explain why you would laugh.

Personally, I find nothing funny about know-nothings pretending they can re-create the events and with what they think is 20/20 hindsight, determine with absolute certainty that Trayvon is now somehow denied justice. It's pathetic that anyone would, but then, you've proven yourself pathetic over and over again.

Feodor said...

I'm just today reminded what kind of deceiver you are, Marshall. You are just like the smarmy Pyotr Petrocich Luzhin.

Marshall Art said...

Really. And what kind of deceiver would that be? I am truly keen to know how a false priest would describe such a thing.

More than likely, you would project an image you want and need to be true, just like you want Zimmerman to be the racist killer you need him to be. You're so sadly pathetic.

Feodor said...

Look it up, simpleton.

Marshall Art said...

Look up what, exactly, false priest? Who Lushin is? That ain't the question. The question is how I can be described as a deceiver based on any comment I've published in any blog. Comparing me to some fictional character still requires an explanation as to how that comparison is appropriate. You can't do it, even with your penchant for projection. All that education. All those books...

Feodor said...

I'm sorry, you're right. It's above you.

Marshall Art said...

You're right. You're sorry. Sorry and pathetic. But hey, nice dodge, coward.