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

[Tom]

You can't get around the fact two witnesses place TM on top of GZ, this is text book assault and battery by the statutes I showed.

No it isn't. If Zimmerman assaulted Martin then what Martin did in defense of himself isn't assault.

The eyewitnesses don't change that. Not to mention that until an eyewitness or Zimmerman testify and their veracity is determined by a judge or jury, it has no bearing on the facts.

You can accept the eyewitness testimony if you want, but that is your opinion, it isn't factual in any way.

 

[momeNt]

No it isn't. If Zimmerman assaulted Martin then what Martin did in defense of himself isn't assault.

The eyewitnesses don't change that. Not to mention that until an eyewitness or Zimmerman testify and their veracity is determined by a judge or jury, it has no bearing on the facts.

You can accept the eyewitness testimony if you want, but that is your opinion, it isn't factual in any way.

Jowo is very sane about the whole thing though. There's simply no evidence that TM was provoked. The only people that know if GZ could have reasonably appeared to be reaching for a gun would be GZ and TM, one of them is dead, the other will never admit to it.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

No it isn't. If Zimmerman assaulted Martin then what Martin did in defense of himself isn't assault.

The eyewitnesses don't change that. Not to mention that until an eyewitness or Zimmerman testify and their veracity is determined by a judge or jury, it has no bearing on the facts.

You can accept the eyewitness testimony if you want, but that is your opinion, it isn't factual in any way.

If GZ assaulted TM why aren't there any wounds to show this to be the case?

If there was only one eye witness that TM was on top of GZ it may be easier to say they didn't see what they claim but when there's two witnesses who have told the police/prosecution during interviews and still state the same thing it hard to say it's not the case.

 

[soundforbjt]

If GZ assaulted TM why aren't there any wounds to show this to be the case?

If there was only one eye witness that TM was on top of GZ it may be easier to say they didn't see what they claim but when there's two witnesses who have told the police/prosecution during interviews and still state the same thing it hard to say it's not the case.

Isn't the second "witness" John's wife? Or am I wrong?

 

[momeNt]

If GZ assaulted TM why aren't there any wounds to show this to be the case?

If there was only one eye witness that TM was on top of GZ it may be easier to say they didn't see what they claim but when there's two witnesses who have told the police/prosecution during interviews and still state the same thing it hard to say it's not the case.

I think you mean battered. Reaching for a gun most likely is assault. Assault is the threat of injury.

 

[Geosurface]

Can someone show where the law says you can deck someone whom you walked up to and confronted/questioned in an aggressive manner because they reach for their pocket?

And that you can then mount them and hold them down, continuing to beat them as they scream for mercy for over a minute? That you can slam their head on the pavement?

All because you supposedly think they have a gun... but, this gun, despite being in play from the very outset, despite you supposedly being aware of it from the very outset, ends up with none of your DNA on it, whatsoever. Doesn't go off, until over a minute has gone by, despite it having no external safety?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I think you mean battered. Reaching for a gun most likely is assault. Assault is the threat of injury.

There's absolutely no proof that he pulled his gun prior to the altercation. If TM knew GZ had a gun why didn't he state such when John told them he was calling the police? Seems like TM would have said "Help, he's got a gun" or something of that nature.

 

[Tom]

Jowo is very sane about the whole thing though. There's simply no evidence that TM was provoked. The only people that know if GZ could have reasonably appeared to be reaching for a gun would be GZ and TM, one of them is dead, the other will never admit to it.

There is substantial circumstantial evidence that could lead to that conclusion.

 

[soundforbjt]

Can someone show where the law says you can deck someone whom you walked up to and confronted/questioned in an aggressive manner because they reach for their pocket? Have you got proof this happened?

And that you can then mount them and hold them down, continuing to beat them as they scream for mercy for over a minute? That you can slam their head on the pavement?Same question as above.

snip

bolded. Edit: remember eye witness testimony is not always accurate.

 

[spidey07]

Can someone show where the law says you can deck someone whom you walked up to and confronted/questioned in an aggressive manner because they reach for their pocket? Have you got proof this happened?

And that you can then mount them and hold them down, continuing to beat them as they scream for mercy for over a minute? That you can slam their head on the pavement?Same question as above.

Zimmerman's sworn account to police is EVIDENCE. Plenty of evidence to show that's what happened including injuries.

If there is evidence to this fact and nothing to disprove it then in the eyes of the law, it is irrefutable FACT.

 

[soundforbjt]

Zimmerman's sworn account to police is EVIDENCE. Plenty of evidence to show that's what happened including injuries.

If there is evidence to this fact and nothing to disprove it then in the eyes of the law, it is irrefutable FACT.

bolded. No it's not.

 

[spidey07]

There is substantial circumstantial evidence that could lead to that conclusion.

As long as you're aware self defense laws allow zimmerman to shoot if he was initial aggressor when he is on back, after being badly beaten about the head and unable to retreat.

That's why this is such a clear cut case of self defense, all the what ifs you can imagine are crushed by an eye witness (to a forcible felony by martin) and multiple injuries about the head. You can make up shit all day long, those facts are what PROVE this is self defense.

 

[Tom]

If GZ assaulted TM why aren't there any wounds to show this to be the case?

If there was only one eye witness that TM was on top of GZ it may be easier to say they didn't see what they claim but when there's two witnesses who have told the police/prosecution during interviews and still state the same thing it hard to say it's not the case.

Zimmerman could have assaulted Martin without touching him in several ways.

1. he could have attempted to physically detain him and been to slow, there's one "witness" who at one point claimed to see a chase, that's consistent with Zimmerman chasing Martin.

2. He could have threatened him verbally. This can constitute assault.

 

[brianmanahan]

guys, i just calculated the sum of all posts in this thread

it is 0

 

[momeNt]

There is substantial circumstantial evidence that could lead to that conclusion.

There would need to be way too many inferences to say that based on our evidence TM thought he had a gun, and in order to save himself from great bodily injury or death, needed to mount GZ in order to save his life. There is no evidence that GZ reached for or had drawn his weapon. The only person who could prove that is GZ himself. A jury would have to think he was lying and even then I don't know how that would change the charges because it would still be simultaneous self defense.

I personally think that TM was provoked, most likely by GZ reaching for a weapon to try and keep TM in place for the cops to come. None of the evidence supports that, and if I was on a jury I wouldn't be able to come to that conclusion.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Zimmerman could have assaulted Martin without touching him in several ways.

1. he could have attempted to physically detain him and been to slow, there's one "witness" who at one point claimed to see a chase, that's consistent with Zimmerman chasing Martin.

2. He could have threatened him verbally. This can constitute assault.

Yet there's no evidence that shows GZ attempted to restrain or detain TM nor did anyone clearly hear the argument between them.

The one witness that claimed to see a chase later changed her story and said she could be sure because she wasn't wearing her contacts.

There's no doubt that GZ has facial and head wounds. Two witnesses place TM on top of GZ just prior to the shot.

 

[airdata]

Yet there's no evidence that shows GZ attempted to restrain or detain TM nor did anyone clearly hear the argument between them.

The one witness that claimed to see a chase later changed her story and said she could be sure because she wasn't wearing her contacts.

There's no doubt that GZ has facial and head wounds. Two witnesses place TM on top of GZ just prior to the shot.

DeeDee said the following transpired between the 2.

Trayvon : " Why are you following me? "
Zimmerman : " What are you doing around here?!(In angy tone which perfectly matches the situation in which he exits his car calling Trayvon a fucking punk as he runs after him)


Zimmerman's official written statement to police " The subject emerged from the darkness and asked if I had a problem, I answered no, he responded ' you do now ' and then punched me in the face '

So, if DeeDee heard Zimmerman catch up w\ Trayvon as her statement indicates, it means zimmerman is full of shit.

 

[airdata]

Jowo is very sane about the whole thing though. There's simply no evidence that TM was provoked. The only people that know if GZ could have reasonably appeared to be reaching for a gun would be GZ and TM, one of them is dead, the other will never admit to it.

Are you dense?

Did you not catch the part of the story where he's referring to trayvon in a derogatory manner without having any actual reason to do so, and then exiting his car so as to chase after him?

Just let me know if you missed all that.

Or perhaps you missed the witness who heard the 2 exchange words that would prove zimmerman to be lying in his official statement.

 

[Geosurface]

The Anti-Z folk would have you believe this is all just a wash. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Coulda been this way, but it also coulda been THIS other way!

Not so.

The substantial advantage those of us who are more Pro-Z have, is that what we are saying probably happened, is not only at least based on something (GZ's account) but also is bolstered by physical and eyewitness evidence.

So when they talk about GZ getting his gun out from the start of it, or chasing down Trayvon, or trying to detain him, or throwing the first punch, or getting up after he was decked to run after TM in a rage, sure this is all possible... to varying degrees.

But what is it based on? Did a witness describe such things? No. Did Trayvon whisper any of it to an EMT as he expired? No.

It's all fresh out of their own asses. Based on nothing except imagination.

Whereas, the stuff Pro-Z people suggest, isn't just pulled out of our asses or thin air or our imaginations, it is taken from the primary witness, GZ himself. If you don't trust him, fine, but compare what he says to what evidence shows.

He describes beating punched in the nose, his nose is injured
He describes being held down, a witness saw this.
He describes having his head slammed on concrete, the back of his head was torn up and bloody.
He claims he'd lost Trayvon entirely, the latter parts of his call to the police substantiate this.
He says he had no intent to break any law that night, this fits well with the fact that he called police before anything had yet happened.

This is why the logical people will all congregate on the more pro-Z side, because it's not just a battle of the imaginations, one side actually has SOME sort of footing in reality to stand on. Not a perfect footing, but at least SOMETHING.

 

[momeNt]

Are you dense?

Did you not catch the part of the story where he's referring to trayvon in a derogatory manner without having any actual reason to do so, and then exiting his car so as to chase after him?

Just let me know if you missed all that.

Or perhaps you missed the witness who heard the 2 exchange words that would prove zimmerman to be lying in his official statement.

You make a good point actually. I didn't follow it closely enough to see that Dee Dee's testimony counters GZ's sworn testimony.

We would still need to more than threatening words to justify TM responding in the way he did though. Words are not sufficient provocation to act the way he did in self-defense.

Simply lying doesn't mean you get convicted. He isn't trying to prove his innocence, we are trying to prove he is guilty.

 

[Tom]

Yet there's no evidence that shows GZ attempted to restrain or detain TM nor did anyone clearly hear the argument between them.

The one witness that claimed to see a chase later changed her story and said she could be sure because she wasn't wearing her contacts.

There's no doubt that GZ has facial and head wounds. Two witnesses place TM on top of GZ just prior to the shot.

There's little doubt there was some sort of verbal confrontation, witnesses call it an argument but that doesn't mean it was an argument.

Given that Zimmerman thought he was dealing with a criminal, why wouldn't he have his gun drawn, or draw it at that time ?

What if when Martin was confronted with being shot, his reaction was to attack Zimmerman quickly then hold him on the ground ? Then call for help ?

Isn't this scenario consistent with the facts as well as Zimmerman's actions and attitudes expressed on the recorded call ?

 

[momeNt]

There's little doubt there was some sort of verbal confrontation, witnesses call it an argument but that doesn't mean it was an argument.

Given that Zimmerman thought he was dealing with a criminal, why wouldn't he have his gun drawn, or draw it at that time ?

What if when Martin was confronted with being shot, his reaction was to attack Zimmerman quickly then hold him on the ground ? Then call for help ?

Isn't this scenario consistent with the facts as well as Zimmerman's actions and attitudes expressed on the recorded call ?

Sadly I think we'll never find the match that lit the fire. It will go to the grave with GZ.

 

[soundforbjt]

Yet there's no evidence that shows GZ attempted to restrain or detain TM nor did anyone clearly hear the argument between them.

The one witness that claimed to see a chase later changed her story and said she could be sure because she wasn't wearing her contacts.

There's no doubt that GZ has facial and head wounds. Two witnesses place TM on top of GZ just prior to the shot.

Is the other witness John's wife? No one has aswered me yet. And a search comes up empty.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Not sure who the second witness is but this has been known since mid-May.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/cops-witne...ermans-version/story?id=16371852#.UHhgz6T5OSp

Two police reports written the night that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin said that Zimmerman had a bloody face and nose, according to police reports made public today.
The reports also note that two witness accounts appear to back up Zimmerman's version of what happened when they describe a man on his back with another person wearing a hoodie straddling him and throwing punches.

 

[soundforbjt]

Not sure who the second witness is but this has been known since mid-May.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/cops-witne...ermans-version/story?id=16371852#.UHhgz6T5OSp

Thanks. I remember hearing that there was another witness.

I have a feeling the other "witness" is John's wife, which to me (if I'm right) "clouds the water".