Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

[OCNewbie]

Wrong... Read the FBI testimony of GZ's best friend who he called the night of the shooting. He claims GZ said he pried TM's hand off of the gun.

So GZ never told police that is what happened anyway. Is that correct? In the multiple statements GZ gave police, he didn't once mention it?

Is GZ criminally liable for embellishing the story to his friend, or if the friend misunderstood what GZ was saying? We all know GZ is certainly not a pillar of clarity in the way he describes things.

 

[TerryMathews]

Wrong... Read the FBI testimony of GZ's best friend who he called the night of the shooting. He claims GZ said he pried TM's hand off of the gun.

Nothing you said here disproves what EK said. Its right in your post "He claims GZ said..."

As sound loves to say, that's inadmissible hearsay.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

Wrong... Read the FBI testimony of GZ's best friend who he called the night of the shooting. He claims GZ said he pried TM's hand off of the gun.

Yah, and trayvon's own cousin congratulated him for assaulting an innocent bus driver, another tried to buy drugs from him...... But none of that counts since it invalidates your cherub view of trayvon.

 

[classy]

Nothing you said here disproves what EK said. Its right in your post "He claims GZ said..."

As sound loves to say, that's inadmissible hearsay.

Several things. Zimmerman's friend who wrote the book said that Zimmerman told him that. Thats not hearsay. Hearsay is a third party account or second hand knowledge. Zimmerman's brother also gave a similar account.

In the version Zimmerman’s brother Robert told CNN, Trayvon said something like, “You have a piece? You die tonight.”

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/20/3012853/zimmermans-friend-trayvon-grabbed.html#storylink=cpy

Also a guy from the Washingtonpost has been following the story and he has revealed the results of many of the blood tests, which directly goes against what Zimmerman said happened.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...0605a58-0a46-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html

Despite claims that Trayvon pummeled Zimmerman in the face and the head, none of Zimmerman’s DNA was found on Trayvon’s hoodie. Not even on the cuffs or the sleeves.
And then there are Zimmerman’s shirt and jacket.

There were 47 stains tested for the presence of blood on Zimmerman’s shirt and jacket. Of the 16 on his shirt, 14 “gave chemical indications for the presence of blood.” All matched Zimmerman’s DNA profile. Of the 31 stains tested on the jacket, 17 “gave chemical indications for the presence of blood.” Nine of the 17 matched Zimmerman’s DNA profile. The remaining eight are nothing short of curious.


“Stain E” on the jacket showed the presence of “at least two individuals.” The major contributor was Zimmerman. The profile of the minor contributor “could not be determined.”

Of the 47 stains tested for the presence of blood on Zimmerman’s shirt and jacket, Trayvon was a “partial minor DNA profile” in one stain and a “possible contributor” in another. He was “excluded as a possible contributor” in a third. That’s just three stains out of 47.

As I have stated from the beginning nothing supports the guy's story.

The kid runs away, then just attacks him.
A vicious beating, but zero defensive wounds.
The kid overpowers him, but yet doesn't struggle to take away the gun that Zimmerman says the kid knew about.
He weighs close to 175 pounds and the kid 160 on top no less, but he can reach behind his back and pull a weapon.
This is just a couple of things that doesn't make sense.

 

[emperus]

Nothing you said here disproves what EK said. Its right in your post "He claims GZ said..."

As sound loves to say, that's inadmissible hearsay.

Don't shoot the messenger.

1.) It's not hearsay if he testifies GZ told him directly.

2.) I believe he may be an interesting witness having been GZ's best friend, the person GZ's wife called the night of the shooting, and the person who hid GZ after the shooting. Interesting testimony indeed.

 

[emperus]

Yah, and trayvon's own cousin congratulated him for assaulting an innocent bus driver, another tried to buy drugs from him...... But none of that counts since it invalidates your cherub view of trayvon.

Please show me a statement from either of GZ's cousins' attesting to this. Because there is a statement (I believe FBI) that has GZ's best friend attesting to what I said.

Some on you here, are the same type who would still be arguing the earth is flat.

 

[lotus503]

Yah, and trayvon's own cousin congratulated him for assaulting an innocent bus driver, another tried to buy drugs from him...... But none of that counts since it invalidates your cherub view of trayvon.

None of it counts becauses it social media hersay, TM isnt charged the guy who shot him is.

 

[airdata]

So GZ never told police that is what happened anyway. Is that correct? In the multiple statements GZ gave police, he didn't once mention it?

Is GZ criminally liable for embellishing the story to his friend, or if the friend misunderstood what GZ was saying? We all know GZ is certainly not a pillar of clarity in the way he describes things.

It's simply another instance of his dishonesty and of his overall charactor. The whole case relies on his stories. If he's proven to be the lying sack of shit many people think he is, he's going to prison.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

It's simply another instance of his dishonesty and of his overall charactor. The whole case relies on his stories. If he's proven to be the lying sack of shit many people think he is, he's going to prison.

Rofl you are so incredibly wrong...



What happened to the info dump that was supposed to happen a few weeks back?

 

[TerryMathews]

Don't shoot the messenger.

1.) It's not hearsay if he testifies GZ told him directly.

2.) I believe he may be an interesting witness having been GZ's best friend, the person GZ's wife called the night of the shooting, and the person who hid GZ after the shooting. Interesting testimony indeed.

Talk about moving the goalposts. You said GZs statement was that TM grabbed the gun. You were corrected, that the statement was actually that TM reached for the gun. In turn, you stated that you were right and cited a statement from a third party as proof.

You're doing exactly the same things you accuse spidey of being a racist for doing. Congratulations.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I can't wait to see the prosecution prove that GZ couldn't reasonably fear he was imminent danger of death or great bodily harm in the seconds leading up to the use of force. If they can't this case is over.

 

[emperus]

Talk about moving the goalposts. You said GZs statement was that TM grabbed the gun. You were corrected, that the statement was actually that TM reached for the gun. In turn, you stated that you were right and cited a statement from a third party as proof.

You're doing exactly the same things you accuse spidey of being a racist for doing. Congratulations.

Quote where I said that? I said Mark Osterman (his best friend) said that TM grabbed the gun.

"I desperately got both of my hands around the guy’s one wrist and took his hand off my mouth long enough for me to shout again for help,” Osterman quotes Zimmerman as saying.
“For a brief moment I had control of the wrist, but I knew when he felt the sidearm at my waist with his leg. He took his hand that was covering my nose and went for the gun, saying, “You’re gonna die now, motherf-----.’ Somehow, I broke his grip on the gun where the guy grabbed it between the rear sight and the hammer. I got the gun in my hand, raised it toward the guy’s chest and pulled the trigger.”

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/20/3012853/zimmermans-friend-trayvon-grabbed.html#storylink=cpy​

 

[Tom]

I can't wait to see the prosecution prove that GZ couldn't reasonably fear he was imminent danger of death or great bodily harm in the seconds leading up to the use of force. If they can't this case is over.

No it isn't. A decider of fact could easily decide Zimmerman's actions preclude any claim of self-defense.

And the standard isn't it has to be impossible he couldn't have feared for his life. Its whether or not it was reasonable. Those are very different standards.

Depending on the applicable standard, its only lawful to meet force with force. So Zimmerman could have to establish that shooting someone with a gun is equivalent to holding someone on the ground.

There are many many issues subject to the judgement of a judge or jury. It isn't cut and dried, you only think that because you can't look at this objectively. Why ? I don't know.

 

[TerryMathews]

The word grabbed never came up in the transcripts. It was put into play by a TM supporter.

The verb used by GZ was reach

Wrong... Read the FBI testimony of GZ's best friend who he called the night of the shooting. He claims GZ said he pried TM's hand off of the gun.

Quote where I said that? I said Mark Osterman (his best friend) said that TM grabbed the gun.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/20/3012853/zimmermans-friend-trayvon-grabbed.html#storylink=cpy​

This is the whole exchange we're squabbling over. Why you think what someone says Zimmermann told him is more reliable than his official statement, I don't know. Especially since we're talking about a variation on the same story instead of a different version of events.

Once again, you're trying to build any minor inconsistency into a case proving juggernaut knowing full well that Zimmermann is too stupid to pull off that sort of deception.

How is this any different than the whole Target/grocery store molehill?

 

[emperus]

This is the whole exchange we're squabbling over. Why you think what someone says Zimmermann told him is more reliable than his official statement, I don't know. Especially since we're talking about a variation on the same story instead of a different version of events.

Once again, you're trying to build any minor inconsistency into a case proving juggernaut knowing full well that Zimmermann is too stupid to pull off that sort of deception.

How is this any different than the whole Target/grocery store molehill?

You're not trolling are you? You're asking me if what I told my friend who picked me up after the shooting and who hid me is more reliable than what I tell police who are investigating whether I killed someone? I think u can figure that out yourself and that is a question for the jury? No? I see why this thread is so long. People keep asking ridiculous questions.

 

[EagleKeeper]

You're not trolling are you? You're asking me if what I told my friend who picked me up after the shooting and who hid me is more reliable than what I tell police who are investigating whether I killed someone? I think u can figure that out yourself and that is a question for the jury? No? I see why this thread is so long. People keep asking ridiculous questions.

When you were a kid; did you every place the game in school (language class) where a student was given a phrase and told to repeat it to the next student.

By the time a simple 5-6 word phrase comes back through the class, it is completely different than what was started.

A person will change words without realizing such; partially to enhance or accentuated the meaning of the idea.

 

[emperus]

When you were a kid; did you every place the game in school (language class) where a student was given a phrase and told to repeat it to the next student.

By the time a simple 5-6 word phrase comes back through the class, it is completely different than what was started.

A person will change words without realizing such; partially to enhance or accentuated the meaning of the idea.

Well, that seemed like a very detailed account to me. It should be an interesting interview when Osterman(Gz's bff who hid him after the shooting) hits the stand shouldn't it? It will be an interesting to see what the jury believes.

Again, ur beef is with Osterman who wrote a book with this in it, not me (the messenger).

 

[EagleKeeper]

You're not trolling are you? You're asking me if what I told my friend who picked me up after the shooting and who hid me is more reliable than what I tell police who are investigating whether I killed someone? I think u can figure that out yourself and that is a question for the jury? No? I see why this thread is so long. People keep asking ridiculous questions.

When you were a kid; did you every place the game in school (language class) where a student was given a phrase and told to repeat it to the next student.

By the time a simple 5-6 word phrase comes back through the class, it is completely different than what was started.

A person will change words without realizing such; partially to enhance or accentuated the meaning of the idea.

Well, that seemed like a very detailed account to me. It should be an interesting interview when Osterman(Gz's bff who hid him after the shooting) hits the stand shouldn't it? It will be an interesting to see what the jury believes.

Again, ur beef is with Osterman who wrote a book with this in it, not me (the messenger).

The beef is that the TM crowd wants to take third party stories as gospel without considering that change in veriage can be done by the story teller, writer, editor, etc to embellish the over all story.

Going after the words of another vs the words of the originator and taking those as gospel instead.

Yet the TM crowd wants others to ignore responses of people giving congrats to TM for swinging on the driver.

 

[TerryMathews]

The beef is that the TM crowd wants to take third party stories as gospel without considering that change in veriage can be done by the story teller, writer, editor, etc to embellish the over all story.

Going after the words of another vs the words of the originator and taking those as gospel instead.

Yet the TM crowd wants others to ignore responses of people giving congrats to TM for swinging on the driver.

Exactly.

You're not trolling are you? You're asking me if what I told my friend who picked me up after the shooting and who hid me is more reliable than what I tell police who are investigating whether I killed someone? I think u can figure that out yourself and that is a question for the jury? No? I see why this thread is so long. People keep asking ridiculous questions.

I love how I'm trolling because I don't agree with you.

Let me break it down for you. Zimmerman said TM reached for the gun. Fact.

Zimmermans friend said Zimmerman said TM grabbed the gun. Fact.

Zimmermans friends statement does not make the statement "Zimmerman said TM reached for the gun" false. I doubt that a first hand account of reached versus a third hand account of grabbed would be found to be probative. For one thing, if he was reaching for the gun he was in the process of grabbing it. We're talking about a difference in verb tense, not substance.

Bottom line: if this is the silver bullet you were hoping for, prepare for Zimmerman to walk.

 

[emperus]

The beef is that the TM crowd wants to take third party stories as gospel without considering that change in veriage can be done by the story teller, writer, editor, etc to embellish the over all story.

Going after the words of another vs the words of the originator and taking those as gospel instead.

Yet the TM crowd wants others to ignore responses of people giving congrats to TM for swinging on the driver.

So basically, take the word of a murderer above everyone else. Got it. Did you take the word of Oj as to what happened that night?

 

[EagleKeeper]

So basically, take the word of a murderer above everyone else. Got it. Did you take the word of Oj as to what happened that night?

1) Words are taken out of context.

2) People enjoy their 15 minutes of fame

3) Murder has not been proven according to the law

4) You want to take his friends words but ignore the cousin's words

Standard MO - inequality when it suits you.

 

[emperus]

1) Words are taken out of context.

2) People enjoy their 15 minutes of fame

3) Murder has not been proven according to the law

4) You want to take his friends words but ignore the cousin's words

Standard MO - inequality when it suits you.

Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah. His best friend who hid him wrote a book saying that is what GZ told him happened that night. Again, spin that any way you choose.

 

[EagleKeeper]

And TM cousin congrats him for swinging on a bus driver.

Spin that any way.

Third person words have to be either accepted or rejected; but you want to cherry pick.

GZ did not say those words; someone else did for a book/interview.

If GZ said those words for the book/interview; then the story would be different

 

[Geosurface]

Keep in mind, folks... it is entirely possible for GZ to have been in legitimate fear for his life, for Trayvon really to have been the aggressor and beating on him, holding him down, etc and for Zimmerman to be entirely, completely in the clear from a legal standpoint.

AND YET

To still be embellishing and adding flourish and even outright deceiving people about the exact details.

Why is this?

Human nature, anyone who understands it won't find this as any surprise.

If you were in a situation identical to what happened to GZ, you'd feel guilty, judged, embarrassed, and like every eye was on you, like a magnifying glass was over you. In fact, you'd be right.

Even if you were completely 100% morally in the clear, you'd STILL feel like shit about it, feel guilty about it, and have a strong natural impulse to twist things a little bit to reduce your own guilt in it, to spread the blame around more, to exaggerate your peril, etc etc. You might not even be aware of this impulse, but most likely you would be to some degree. It'd be a blend of subconsciously doing this, and consciously doing it.

This is simple human nature.

So, yea GZ might be embellishing. He might be exaggerating his peril at that time. Or he might not, it's even possible that he thinks he's exaggerating it but he isn't. If that's confusing, what I mean is he could have a false idea of his peril, which he's then embellishing upward, but in REALITY his peril actually was as bad or worse than he thought.

This is the way complicated, real situations are.

It's entirely in keeping with normal, expected behavior for him to misremember (deliberately, or not, or some combination) the dispatch into saying more stuff which seemed to egg him on to following Trayvon or getting out of his car. This reduces his own guilt in his own mind. This makes his actions seem less stupid in hindsight to himself, and he hopes to those he is recounting the story to. Again, he is some MIXTURE of aware of doing this, and not aware of doing it.

So might he have flat out, 100% fabricated Trayvon noticing and going for the gun? Definitely, very real possibility that he made that up.

Might he have pulled "you gonna die tonight muthafucka" straight out of his ass? Absolutely possible. Maybe even likely.

Is he embellishing certain little elements, to reduce his own feelings of guilt, make it a better more exciting story, cover his ass legally, and try to spread the blame for what ended up happening around more onto Trayvon, more onto the dispatch, more onto the neighbors, more onto the responding officers? Abso-fucking-lutely he is. And once again I say, this is partially conscious on his part, partially subconscious.

Does ANY of this change the fact that the EVIDENCE shows lawful, moral self-defense? No.

THE BALLISTICS.
THE INJURIES.
WHAT JOHN SAW.
GEORGE'S SCREAMS.
THE END.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

No it isn't. A decider of fact could easily decide Zimmerman's actions preclude any claim of self-defense.

And the standard isn't it has to be impossible he couldn't have feared for his life. Its whether or not it was reasonable. Those are very different standards.

Depending on the applicable standard, its only lawful to meet force with force. So Zimmerman could have to establish that shooting someone with a gun is equivalent to holding someone on the ground.

There are many many issues subject to the judgement of a judge or jury. It isn't cut and dried, you only think that because you can't look at this objectively. Why ? I don't know.

One of the witnesses stated that GZ was struggling to free himself. This would meet the criteria of regaining his right to self defense if he was the aggressor in the altercation. It will come down to the prosecution being able to disprove that GZ reasonably feared he was in imminent danger in the seconds prior to him exercising force.