Oh and you think you can get a gun license without training? You should probably do some more research.
On what facts do you conclude Martin attacked Zimmerman? See my post above for discussion. I posted links to the tape transcripts above in the thread. No one is claiming Z was never hit. But his injuries are not consistent with his head being pounded against any sidewalk, and especially not consistent with the "MMA pounding" claimed. Martin's body was not near any sidewalk. Martin had only a tiny abrasion on one small finger. In the autopsy, his knuckles showed no evidence of fist pounding anything. Right, so red looks black and grey looks lighter and if you didn't know that you'd guess wrong about what you saw. I think the witness said darker on top, lighter on bottom, then guessed the red was lighter. I could be wrong. It's a moot point. I don't think Z was pounding M in the face either, there's no evidence of that. What I see is the "pounding" was probably a couple punches. You have some stuff mixed up. The audio tape had the screams and the shot. The audio expert said only 3 seconds of the audio tape were of good enough quality to use in a formal analysis. You are comparing apples and oranges. Every shot in the chest is not a hollow point bullet going directly through a chamber in the heart. There's no evidence Martin was a gun toting gang banger. Zimmerman, OTOH, was admittedly a cop wannabe. I'm not going to repeat all the evidence but it consists of the language GZ used when referring to suspects and firearms, the cop school he went to and the not making it when he applied for a cop job. This is crap. In a deposition a teenager repeated a story she made up to not hurt Martin's parent's feelings. It's understandable and doesn't impune her testimony. No, I went back and looked, Martin did not return and circle GZ's car. And in addition, when GZ was doing the walk through and the story he told didn't fit the facts in the walk through he backtracked and then his timeline didn't match anymore. You're not paying attention to the thread. So for the second or third time, GZ said Martin accosted him at the T in the sidewalk, sucker punched him and immediately knocked him down. The body inexplicably lies the length of a condominium away from the T. I'm saying the wounds show Martin got in a couple punches. There's no evidence of any head pounding against any sidewalk the way GZ describes. I'll do the rest later. I'm fatigued repeating stuff that is already in my posts in this thread.
Explain to me (us) how one person who has admittedly lied in court can maintain any sort of credibility while you are condemning a man who's guilt is all based on your biased opinions. On another note: The real racism in this whole ordeal stems from the two good reverends who exploit their own race for publicity and money
So now this is about Sharpton? Great, that's objective and not racist. For anyone who has no empathy for Martin's friend or understanding why she might lie to not hurt Martin's parent's feelings, I got no time for that lack of real world thought process. How is that specific lie the least bit relative to her testimony about the phone conversation?
Because I see no reason for a man, about to commit murder, to phone the police before he does it. But there is evidence that also shows Zimmerman was hit, enough to be good and bloodied. There is evidence of cuts on the back of his head. Did he slam his own head into the concrete? Did he break his own nose? Please answer these questions. And if he didn't what do you think of the EMT stating he should probably have gone to the hospital? I'm not claiming any "MMA pounding" but I am claiming Z was getting punched repeatedly. Have you ever been punched in the head before by a grown man? I have, and unlike Hollywood you can only take so many before suffering severe consequences. No protracted trading of punches and men flying through glass. Fights are typically over inside a minute. Fists are a dangerous weapon. Okay. He wanted to be a cop and did not receive the job. Not that rare. Law enforcement jobs are tough to come by. However, your use of the term "wannabe" leads me to believe you view Zimmerman as possessing a weapon he shouldn't (which is legal for him to own and carry) and is in a place he shouldn't be (following Zimmerman). We cannot assume M is a "gang banger" because there is no evidence of this. We cannot assume Zimmerman is a "wannabe cop" because there is no evidence of this. There was no attempt at arrest (which a citizens arrest is legal) or anything out of control. Instead he called the police. I see an unarmed kid being confronted or confronting an armed law abiding citizen concerned about the safety of his neighborhood. What do you see? It makes her guilty of perjury and last I checked she's a legal adult in the United States. Her testimony should be thrown out. How can you possibly know this? Z says he did and we have no one else saying otherwise. Oh I'm paying perfect attention. You'll forgive me for dropping into the conversation late, I apologize. On this piece of evidence you actually have concrete physical evidence. Did Z say he stopped at the T? If so he lied and went further down the sidewalk. This is what the prosecution should focus on.[/QUOTE]
Well it does seem to me like you're saying he put himself in that position (by defending his community). I don't see how finding this "intruder" and asking "what are you doing" merits a beating. Do you?
1.) You would not have heard about this case if "escalating civil disobedience" was not threatened against the city and state by the reverends. That is not a racist opinion of mine; that is a quote from a person lobbying a case into national limelight. Zimmerperson was not going to be charged with this crime. 2.) Your entire position on this case is based solely on opinion. You have stated that immediate unconsciousness follows a gun shot wound to the heart. That has been disproven. You only speculate about the position of a body because it doesn't look right to you. You tell me where a body should be after the assailant obtains the full guard position and goes for a ground and pound before being shot in the chest, lifted up and most likely rolled backwards as the victim sat up. You accept the words of a confessed liar and won't believe the words of a man who is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. You deny the assault on zimmerperson's face because the wounds on Treyvon's hands when there is photographic evidence of the assault. Two police officers were on the stand today and they both stated that they believed zimmerperson's story. I am seing a correlation between people who want zimmerman found guilty and snowden not.
I am not contending that... I'm contending that if he hadn't had a gun and been wandering about looking for trouble, he wouldn't have found any. Do cops go alone after suspects? They barely make traffic stops by themselves, let alone wander around at night in the dark. This man was not trained to be doing what he was. He may have been trained enough to have a gun license, but was he trained enough to deal with the situation he was in? Obviously not. Even police officers, who have received that level of training kill people they shouldn't have in stressful situations. Now here is a man, alone and at night, with a gun that he has proven he has a minimum competency to carry, who is following someone he thinks might be a burglar. That sounds like an over confident idiot to me. The fact remains that a young man, who did not have the luxury of a trial by his peers, is now dead due to circumstances that clearly could have been avoided by better handling all around. And the culpability for that death, no matter the circumstance or motive, rests squarely on the shoulders of George Zimmerman. Now if the court decides that he acted in self defense, and does so based on evidence presented, good for them. If they decide otherwise, that's fine too. But to me, Zimmerman still bears the responsibility. He bears that responsibility because he knowingly went out looking for trouble, he took a gun with him, and after alerting the police to the situation, he didn't leave it to them. He was in an unnecessary situation, that had unnecessary consequences. He may have acted well within his rights... but that doesn't mean that what he was doing was intelligent in any way. Good intentioned, maybe. Intelligent, heck no. And now, someone is needlessly dead. Not injured, not wounded, dead. That is not something to take lightly, no matter the situation. And that is why I think he was an idiot.
That was one very long rant that blamed the victim. It's like watching people blame women for being raped because of what they were wearing.
Ehh, all Phoenix is saying is if Zimmerman hadn't followed him he wouldn't have found trouble. However, I also contend that during this rant not a single blame was placed on Treyvon Martin, who quiet possibly, brought the attack on himself as well. Either way both parties are to blame. Treyvon paid with his life. Zimmerman did nothing against the law, that we can prove, so I cannot see him getting convicted.
Again, this can be transferred over to rape. A woman goes to a party with friends and gets black out drunk. She ends up being raped by 20 guys while unconscious. She's 'partially' at fault because she should have been more careful. I somehow don't see you or any other sane person making such an argument, yet it is the exact same logic that is being applied to Zimmerman. There is only one person responsible for the attack on Zimmerman; Martin. Zimmerman made mistakes, but that doesn't make him responsible in any way, shape or form.
Not at all. If things went down the way Zimmerman asserts, then he did absolutely nothing wrong. He was legally carrying a gun for protection. Guess what? He used it for exactly its intended purpose! Wow! If he didn't have a gun, he'd probably be dead, or worse. And he was doing a service to his community and should be commended, not condemned. The facts are that Zimmerman did not racially profile Martin. He called it in, and stopped chasing Martin when told to by the dispatcher. He was awaiting the police when something went down, but I seriously doubt he would kill Martin, knowing the police were minutes away, literally around the corner.
I think the rape analogy is flawed in a few ways, but its late and I don't feel like writing another 'rant' (thanks for that). I stick by my view of Zimmerman, there are some things that a person should be able to realize are just stupid. Apparently, he is not possessing of that faculty. And we don't know what would have happened if he didn't have a gun. That's entering into speculation and there are too many variables. Suffice to say, I don't think he's the victim here, but I don't think Travon Martin was either. They sound like they were made for each other. A wanna-be thug and a wanna-be cop, match made in heaven.
Let me see if I got this straight. The guy who killed an unarmed kid is the victim akin to a rape victim that is blamed for the rape. Zimmerman was just trying to protect his neighborhood from a kid who wasn't doing anything except walking home from the store and who was actually staying in one of the condos. And our argument is, Zimmerman's to blame for volunteering his time to protect the neighborhood and using his legally owned a firearm doing so. And that is not a straw man argument. OMG it's upside down world! For the record, not that anyone wants to address the real argument, here's the one that isn't straw: Zimmerman's story doesn't match the dispatch recording or the physical scene. That's the argument. But that argument is reasonable. Better to make up a straw man argument to knock down than address the reasonable real argument. Better to claim the argument is, Zimmerman deserved to be assaulted, even though no one is making that argument. You know what's akin to blaming the rape victim for the rape? Blaming the dead kid for being murdered. The rape victim must have done something that caused the rape to occur. The dead kid must have done something to cause his murder. The evidence is consistent with Zimmerman approaching Martin. The evidence is not consistent with Martin hiding in any bushes and ambushing Zimmerman. The evidence is consistent with Martin believing Zimmerman had come after him. The evidence is consistant with Zimmerman causing the altercation. The evidence is consistent with people stereotyping Martin as some gang banger murderer despite the fact the fact smoking pot, skiping school, getting in a fight, and being a black teen doesn't make that true. That's sad.
How is it that you can see the crime scene does not match up and the cops who were actually there can. Did you watch any of the trial today? The investigating officers buried the prosecution. And, you keep saying zimmerperson deserves to have been assaulted or that trayvon had the right to punch a guy. You tell me your opinion on where feeling threatened enough to physically attack somebody begins
I'll give you the legal definition in my state, and one that is true in most states for someone having a gun. It's called "disparity of force." Zimmerman is 28 years old. Martin is 17 years old. If Zimmerman is not injured or disabled in some way BEFORE the encounter, then there is no disparity of force and he does not have the right to pull a weapon. Specifically to Florida, here is the so called "Stand your ground" law. Your question above does not equate to the law, which has within it the concept of disparity of force. In other words, if someone that is physically and skill-wise your equal approaches you and starts a fight, you do NOT have the right to pull a weapon and shoot that person. BTW, this is coming from someone who both conceal carries, and has no problem taking a life in defense of my or a family member's life, or a third party innocent life. The fact of the matter also, is that he did NOT utilize the "stand your ground" immunity hearing. Beyond all of that, whether he is legally innocent or not, what he did was utterly stupid. Unless Martin was committing a crime, you stay on the phone and wait for the police to come. Having a CWP does NOT make a person law enforcement, and "Block watch captain" or not, he had no business confronting someone on public streets unless that person was in the act of committing a felony and he felt that he had to confront in order to protect life. Yes, that's opinion, rather than law. And I firmly stand by it, regardless of whether he did or did not have the legal right to pull the trigger.
How do you know that? Can you completely claim Zimmerman's account is false? If Zimmerman's account is true and I think it is, according to the evidence, then Martin was killed for a great reason. If someone is beating you to death, which is a possibility, then shooting someone is a great idea, and he was well within his rights to do so.
This all hinges on the "pavement being used as a deadly weapon" debate. And clearly Zimmerman was not Martin's equal because he got the crap beat out of him. Further, Zimmerman claims Martin reached for his weapon. I did hear about the cops burying the prosecutor. How long is this trial? Are we halfway through or toward the end?
...and once again, your premise is flawed. If Zimmerman's account of the story is true, then there were no 'stupid moves' on his side. He did the right thing. How is that hard to understand?
I noted the specific inconsistencies. You are arguing an authority says those inconsistencies didn't exist. Are you saying I should ignore the evidence because someone said so? About the police, on the other hand, apparently the Sanford Police Dept has a history of problems, as did the State Attorney initially assigned to the case. You might want to wait for the rest of the trial if you are not familiar with what happened after obvious problems with Zimmerman's claims were not addressed by the prosecutor. Truth often being stranger than fiction, the assigned attorney then had to recuse himself when it was disclosed he had been involved in an inappropriate meeting with Zimmerman's family member(s) and the Sanford Police Chief. Letter from Martin family attorney to the federal DoJ The document is copy protected so you need to open it and read the middle paragraph. Notice also the detective you say didn't have a problem with Zimmerman's inconsistencies actually did. He wanted to charge Zimmerman. Trayvon Martin Case: Original State Attorney Wolfinger Has Troubled History Serino is the same investigator as you are now saying didn't notice any discrepancies in Zimmerman's testimony. I get it he is saying he believed Zimmerman was telling the truth. If that's really the case then he seems to be a pretty incompetent detective. The evidence is the bottom line, and the jury's opinions. Everyone's eye witness testimonies including Zimmerman's need to be evaluated against the evidence. I guess no matter how many times I tell you this was never said, you still imagine it was. But I think I see the problem. You interpret the words, 'caused' and 'deserved', as if they meant the same thing. They don't. If you fail to stop and your car crashes into the car in front of you, you caused the accident. To say you therefore deserved it would not be something I would say. To say you were responsible and deserved to pay for the other person's damaged car would be. As long as I'm posting in this thread again, the ME has just testified that all of Zimmerman's injuries were minor and could have occurred with a few as one single blow. Even if there was more than one blow, there was no evidence of repeated blows or of Z's head being smashed repeatedly against the concrete. So, yes Z was punched. We knew that. Yes his head hit the sidewalk, that's confirmed. There was no evidence Z was struggling to get away or in some drawn out battle. Z's story, he was hit repeatedly with believed life threatening force, struggling to get away, is pretty much inconsistent with his injuries. One can believe all but one or two of these dozens of blows from Martin were so weak they didn't result in a scratch on Zimmerman, or one can believe the injuries say very loudly, multiple blows never happened. In either case the injuries say the MMA pounding didn't happen.
The evidence and the friend on the phone. Whoops, the ME says otherwise. Whoops, the ME says otherwise. Martin got one or a couple of good punches in. Not exactly equal to "beat the crap out of him". Re: the detectives saying they believed Zimmerman, that may not be as critical as you believe. The evidence can show the detectives were incompetent when they didn't address the inconsistencies in Z's story.
The one thing this case shows is that you never want to be the subject of a jury trial in a high-profile case. From the start, people drew their conclusions based on initial media reports and commentary, and I've seen little evidence that later developments in the case had any impact on people's preconceived notions. It's been mostly about focusing on the evidence that supports the preconceived notion and dismissing or downplaying the other evidence. It's true on both sides, and that's got to be a scary thought if you ever end up as a defendant in a case that has been in the media.
