Did Trayvon Martin have the right to stand his own ground?

[emeraldia]

Originally Posted by you with the face

It's a sad state of affairs when kids have to be warned about the neighborhood watch.

It's a far sadder state of affairs when kids beat up the neighborhood watch.

[al27052]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

Yes I do and I would also like to break out subdivisions like Twin Lakes that don't have a wall around the whole subdivision so criminals can just walk in and don't have a guard and leave the gate open for months at a time for construction. What Twin Lakes had was security theater. Comparing Twin Lakes to places with guards is apples to oranges.

Assuming you know what you're talking about there with the lack of a wall and the open gate, I agree.

But it's still ridiculous to carry a gun when you're just going to the goddamn grocery store.

I think I may start to see what happened here, though.

It sounds like Zimmerman didn't intentionally take his gun with him to follow Trayvon. He just happened to have it on him. As to whether he lied about what happened after, and whether or not he's truly guilty, I don't know yet.

My guess is that he lied about some pretty serious details, and is, in fact, guilty of murder. However, I'm a little less likely to call him a vigilante, strictly speaking. Still a fool, probably a murderer, but maybe not a vigilante.

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by al27052

You're serious? You're actually playing "nanny-nanny boo-boo" with me?

Wow. This issue really brings out the mature adult in you, doesn't it?

Hahaha. You're a hoot. The State of Florida allows it's residents to carry firearms because that's what the majority of Florida voters wanted.

Zimmerman wasn't violating any Florida laws by buying, owning, or carrying a firearm. Even Corey accepts the fact that Zimmerman could carry a firearm in Florida. You're out of step with reality.

[al27052]

Originally Posted by emeraldia

It's a far sadder state of affairs when kids beat up the neighborhood watch.

No it's not.

[al27052]

Originally Posted by doorhinge

Hahaha. You're a hoot. The State of Florida allows it's residents to carry firearms because that's what the majority of Florida voters wanted.

Zimmerman wasn't violating any Florida laws by buying, owning, or carrying a firearm. Even Corey accepts the fact that Zimmerman could carry a firearm in Florida. You're out of step with reality.

Please don't play "nanny-nanny boo-boo". It's just irritating.

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by al27052

Please don't play "nanny-nanny boo-boo". It's just irritating.

I'm not sure what "nanny-nanny boo-boo" is. Is that some kind of martial arts thing? Does it help you focus your chi? Does it cause chafing?

[emeraldia]

Originally Posted by al27052

If you really, honestly believe this, I am going to have to refer you to the fact that Bricker dropped his support for Dimmerman as soon as Dimmy was shown to be dishonest about his donation money.

You might want to take a clue from Bricker. He's no fool.

Who is Bricker? And even it is convincingly demonstrated to me that George Zimmerman was dishonest about his donation money, that is not of material importance to me in assessing his criminal culpability that night.

I happen to believe that Zimmerman, by and large, told the truth about what happened that night- with the usual cognitive inconsistencies, and probably some typical self-serving exaggerations.

But I don't need to believe him in order to believe he is innocent. I just need to believe the medical examiners, doctors, and other evidence that he sustained significant injuries (and that Trayvon Martin didn't). And their credibility has nothing to do with Zimmerman's.

I also need to believe that witness 6- who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman either punching him or holding him down. (and who, if you listen to his audio interview, still believes it was Zimmerman yelling for help.)

I need to hear the 911 call recordings of the screams in the background. And then apply a touch of common sense to the facts: Zimmerman sustained all the injuries up until he fired. Martin had none (but on his knuckles). Martin was on top of Zimmerman either punching him or holding him down. Occam's Razor, common sense, and the evidence lead to the somewhat obvious conclusion that Zimmerman was yelling for help.

The evidence outside of Zimmerman's account generally and convincingly supports that he was justified in shooting Trayvon Martin. If your friend Becker changed his mind based on what he perceives as the diminished credibility of Zimmerman, then I suggest he was relying too much upon what Zimmerman said in the first place. It would be silly to just take Zimmerman's word for it.

[emeraldia]

Originally Posted by al27052

No it's not.

Yes it is.

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by emeraldia

Who is Bricker?

It's just my opinion but I seriously doubt that al27052 speaks for Bricker. Or anyone else for that matter.

[Odesio]

Originally Posted by al27052

But it's still ridiculous to carry a gun when you're just going to the goddamn grocery store.

I don't know. The only murder victim I personally knew was attacked in the parking lot of a grocery store in Plano, Texas. Here in Little Rock I occasionally read in the newspaper about people who are attacked in parking lots of Walmart, gas stations or other businesses. I was once approached by an aggressive panhandler who attempted to intimidate me into giving him money at a gas station near work. So it doesn't seem ridiculous to me to carry a firearm to the grocery store.

[emeraldia]

Originally Posted by al27052

You might want to take a clue from Bricker. He's no fool.

Oh.. the Bricker that wrote:

And I'll say that if I were the judge, on the evidence that is public right now, I would dismiss the charge, finding the immunity provisions of FSA § 776.032 applied.

I suggest you "take a clue from Bricker" (or anyone else who says something I happen to agree with.)

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by al27052

Sure Dimmy had SOME kind of an excuse to take his gun to the grocery store.

What was Dimmy's excuse for taking his gun with him to go play cops 'n robbers?

Zimmerman was on his way to the shop when he saw Martin. That said, he needs no excuse to carry his gun anywhere he chooses in Florida, excepting private property where the owners don't allow it.

Your argument here, like all your others, is utterly wrong. Stop focussing on stuff Zimmerman did that you, personally, dislike, and focus on what, if anything, he did that is illegal. That is the only thing that matters.

[Bricker]

My opinion about Zimmerman hasn't changed much over the past several months. I'm not interested nearly as much in what happened -- a question that invites endless speculation -- as what the state can prove.

On the evidence the public has seen, I do not believe the state of Florida can meet their evidentiary burden on a charge of second degree murder.

But since an experienced prosecutor has gone ahead with an information that alleges that charge, I conclude that she probably has something else to support it, something the public hasn't seen.

This is the position I have held since the second degree charge was filed.

[Jack Batty]

Looks like emeraldia is looking to knock Magiver off the Wild-Ass-Speculation lead.

Originally Posted by emeraldia

I'm not convinced he lied in court to the judge, since he never testified to the judge. Having said that, everybody makes bad decisions sometimes.

Oh, he didn't lie, he just made a mistake with the truth.

Much ado has been made of the fact that he left his car, but I don't attach a ton of importance to it.

Why would you when, "fucking punks" - "these assholes always get away" is so damning to your argument.

He wanted to get an idea where this kid was running to- as well as to try to find a street sign.

You beleive that street sign nonsense?

In retrospect, we can reasonably conclude that if he hadn't left his car Trayvon Martin would not have attacked him, and consequently Zimmerman would not have shot him.

(my bolding)
Speculation that Maritn "attacked" Zimmerman, at least unprovoked. But it makes a decent point - Zimmerman should have stayed in his car and acted as a responsible Neighborhood Watch guy should have.

We can blame the parents of Trayvon for not grounding him for his 3rd suspension from school. Had he been grounded, Trayvon would be alive.

Classic blaming the victim.

But, ultimately, there is no compelling evidence that anyone acted criminally that night, except Trayvon Martin. I would say that his judgement on that night in particular was by far the worse of the two.

Wild-ass speculation.

Originally Posted by emeraldia

Well, there is no evidence that he brandished or otherwise used his gun inappropriately until he fired in self-defense.

Speculation. His claim that he didn't brandish the weapon is the only evidence thereof. I don't believe him. Then again, I don't mind admitting to speculation.

And there is no evidence that he misused the gun.

Apart from the dead teenager, of course.

Trayvon created it by committing assault and battery on Zimmerman.

Wild ass speculation. You have no idea what Zimmerman may have done to provoke him.

Trayvon created the situation when he:

a) assaulted and battered Zimmerman;
b) CONTINUED to attack Zimmerman (even as Zimmerman screamed for help dozens of times.)

It is b) that got Trayvon killed. And it is b) that causes me to not have a ton of sympathy for the kid.

It's like a string-speculation. You just keep riding that Martin is a crazy thug thing like it was Secretariat.

Originally Posted by emeraldia

And even it is convincingly demonstrated to me that George Zimmerman was dishonest about his donation money, that is not of material importance to me in assessing his criminal culpability that night.

Of course not. You've already decided Zimmerman is as pure as the driven snow; he would never lie to cover his ass.

But I don't need to believe him in order to believe he is innocent. I just need to believe the medical examiners, doctors, and other evidence that he sustained significant injuries (and that Trayvon Martin didn't). And their credibility has nothing to do with Zimmerman's.

Significant my balls. A pop in the schnozz and a couple of cuts on your head is not significant. I've gotten worse playing soccer, ferchrissakes. Now, if, say, he'd gotten a hollow point bullet through the ticker, then yeah, I'll give you the significant injury angle.

The evidence outside of Zimmerman's account generally and convincingly supports that he was justified in shooting Trayvon Martin.

The only evidence that generally and convincingly supports Zimmerman's story is Zimmerman's story itself. Amazing that we've found the one criminal suspect in history who's every word is believed beyond a shadow of a doubt. Maybe there is hope for our criminal justice system after all.

[jtgain]

Originally Posted by Bricker

But since an experienced prosecutor has gone ahead with an information that alleges that charge, I conclude that she probably has something else to support it, something the public hasn't seen.

But since she hasn't show it, especially in her affidavit, why did the judge go along with it and not dismiss the charge? She can't even give probable cause for manslaughter based on what she has so far. The job of the judge is to make sure that a citizen knows what he is specifically accused of doing, before being arrested or charged, not after having posted bond or spent months in jail until she takes her sweet ass time releasing pertinent evidence.

If she has it, why not release it? She'll have to in due time anyways, and if it's damning enough to support murder two, she could get the media off of her ass as Zimmerman's support dries up like a desert. I don't think she has anything. Michelle Wilfong should be her name.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by jtgain

If she has it, why not release it? She'll have to in due time anyways, and if it's damning enough to support murder two, she could get the media off of her ass as Zimmerman's support dries up like a desert. I don't think she has anything. Michelle Wilfong should be her name.

So for the upteenth time, why hasn't O'Mara filed motions to have the charges dropped? Why would Lester go on record saying that the evidence against Z is strong, if the truth was that she has nothing?

Both Corey and O'Mara have tried to hold back evidence, presumably so the jury won't be tainted and Z can get a fair trial.

To all who dismiss the inconsistencies and contradictions in Zimmerman's multiple accounts as being nothing out of the ordinary, what makes you more qualified to say this than an experienced homicide detective? Serino was the first one who tried to arrest Zimmerman--not Corey. Why would he go through this trouble, unless he had a good reason to believe the guy was lying about what happened?

I suspect that Zimmerman could confess to murder tomorrow, and all the people defending him would still argue that Martin attacked him. That's how deep yall are invested in his innocence.

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by jtgain

But since she hasn't show it, especially in her affidavit, why did the judge go along with it and not dismiss the charge? She can't even give probable cause for manslaughter based on what she has so far. The job of the judge is to make sure that a citizen knows what he is specifically accused of doing, before being arrested or charged, not after having posted bond or spent months in jail until she takes her sweet ass time releasing pertinent evidence.

Actually, it's O’Mara job to defend his client from false charges. O’Mara should have, or at least, could have challenged Corey's affidavit. A judge could assume that if O'Mara didn't question the affidavit, then the affidavit was truthful.

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by you with the face

.....To all who dismiss the inconsistencies and contradictions in Zimmerman's multiple accounts as being nothing out of the ordinary, what makes you more qualified to say this than an experienced homicide detective? Serino was the first one who tried to arrest Zimmerman--not Corey. Why would he go through this trouble, unless he had a good reason to believe the guy was lying about what happened?

I suspect that Zimmerman could confess to murder tomorrow, and all the people defending him would still argue that Martin attacked him. That's how deep yall are invested in his innocence.

You seem to be heavily invested in Zimmerman's guilt, you just can't prove it. You seem to object that anyone else should discuss what is so painfully oblivious to you. Innocent until proven guilty.

Serino "recommended" that Zimmerman be charged. The SA office, who knows more about court procedures and current rulings of the court, chose to ignore Serino's "recommendation".

I wonder how many times the SA's office has refused to accept Serino's "recommendations" in the past? 20%, 50%, 75% of the time?

[emeraldia]

Why would you when, "fucking punks" - "these assholes always get away" is so damning to your argument.

How is it damning to my argument? In part because he was tired of them getting away he left his car to keep an eye on the kid and where he ran off to.

You beleive that street sign nonsense?

I suppose he was *pretending* to not know what street during the taped call with the dispatcher, because he anticipated using it as an excuse to "stalk" or "chase" Martin. (Even though he had no history of every pursuing or confronting anyone he had ever called the cops on. And is on the record in a previous call as saying, "I don't want to approach him."

Speculation that Maritn "attacked" Zimmerman, at least unprovoked. But it makes a decent point - Zimmerman should have stayed in his car and acted as a responsible Neighborhood Watch guy should have.

There is no question that Martin attacked Zimmerman. And there is zero credible evidence that Zimmerman provoked the attack.

Classic blaming the victim.

I agree. Just because someone leaves their car, doesn't mean they should sustain a physical assault. He shouldn't have left his car. She shouldn't have worn that dress.

Wild-ass speculation.

Are you summarizing your case against Zimmerman, or did I miss the point?

Speculation. His claim that he didn't brandish the weapon is the only evidence thereof. I don't believe him. Then again, I don't mind admitting to speculation.

There is no evidence he brandished his weapon. He has no history of brandishing his weapon in any previous encounter.

Apart from the dead teenager, of course.

Yes the teenager who who broke his nose and bloodied the back of his head, and who Zimmerman shot in apparent self-defense.

Wild ass speculation. You have no idea what Zimmerman may have done to provoke him.

Personally, I think Martin attacked Zimmerman because Zimmerman was being a nosy Nelly, and he wanted to impress his "girlfriend". But the bottom line really is that there is no evidence he did anything that should have provoked him.

It's like a string-speculation. You just keep riding that Martin is a crazy thug thing like it was Secretariat.

You must be thinking of someone else. I haven't used the words crazy or thug, so there is no "thing". But, now that you mentioned it, I do think that Martin was a thug "wanna-be".

Of course not. You've already decided Zimmerman is as pure as the driven snow; he would never lie to cover his ass.

You must not have read what I wrote- or understood it. He's not pure as the driven snow, nor is Martin a malevolent devil. I think Zimmerman- like most people- *would* lie to cover their ass.

The physical injuries and witness statements alone support a case for self-defense. Zimmerman's credibility isn't necessary for me to have a reasonable doubt that he "murdered" or unlawfully killed this person.

Significant my balls. A pop in the schnozz and a couple of cuts on your head is not significant. I've gotten worse playing soccer, ferchrissakes. Now, if, say, he'd gotten a hollow point bullet through the ticker, then yeah, I'll give you the significant injury angle.

So if I broke your nose, blackened your eyes, and bloodied the back of your head you would tell the police that your injuries were insignificant?

The only evidence that generally and convincingly supports Zimmerman's story is Zimmerman's story itself. Amazing that we've found the one criminal suspect in history who's every word is believed beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Again, if you'd read what I wrote, you'd know that I don't believe Zimmerman's "every word beyond a shadow of a doubt". But why let reality get in the way of a perfectly effective straw man.

[Jack Batty]

Originally Posted by emeraldia

How is it damning to my argument? In part because he was tired of them getting away he left his car to keep an eye on the kid and where he ran off to.

More speculation. He left his car to chase down a perp with his shiny, shiny gun, sez I. Just as much proof as your theory.

There is no question that Martin attacked Zimmerman. And there is zero credible evidence that Zimmerman provoked the attack.

There is just as much credible evidence of Zimmerman provoking Martin as there is of Martin attaching unprovoked. Speculation.

There is no evidence he brandished his weapon.

Speculation. There is just as much credible evidence that he brandished his gun as that he didn't.

Yes the teenager who who broke his nose and bloodied the back of his head, and who Zimmerman shot in apparent self-defense.

Look who's arguing the case ... with speculation, I might add.

Personally, I think Martin attacked Zimmerman because Zimmerman was being a nosy Nelly, and he wanted to impress his "girlfriend".

Fabulous. Personally I think Matin punched Zimmerman because Zimmerman grabbed his arm, put his hand on his gun, and said, "You're not going anywhere, punk." And the beautiful thing is -- there is equal proof of both scenarios. And it's called ... say it with me, "Speculation."

You must be thinking of someone else. I haven't used the words crazy or thug, so there is no "thing". But, now that you mentioned it, I do think that Martin was a thug "wanna-be".

Glad I could help you come out of the closet, as it were.

So if I broke your nose, blackened your eyes, and bloodied the back of your head you would tell the police that your injuries were insignificant?

The last time someone punched me in the face where I fell down and bonked my noggin, what I told the cops was, "It was just a fight. No big deal." What I didn't do was shoot the guy who punched me.

[emeraldia]

So for the upteenth time, why hasn't O'Mara filed motions to have the charges dropped?

Because he knows that's not going to happen, especially in a case of this political nature. I also think this is the reason the judge is not likely to grant SYG immunity as well- and why some have even speculated that O' Mara might not try.

Why would Lester go on record saying that the evidence against Z is strong, if the truth was that she has nothing?

He only said that after he got mad about being apparently misinformed about how much money the Zimmerman's had, and he wants to keep the option open of keeping Zimmerman locked up.

Both Corey and O'Mara have tried to hold back evidence, presumably so the jury won't be tainted and Z can get a fair trial.

That is possible. I had considered the possibility that Zimmerman sent a really embarrassing text message to someone- maybe using the N-word in it or something very prejudicial to him.

But what evidence could there possible be that would discount his injuries and W6's statements? Maybe a text message saying, "I broke my own nose, caused my own lacerations, and paid off a witness named John to falsely claim that Martin was on top of me hitting me and/or pinning me down.

It would have to be something pretty big- and I can't really imagine something like that wouldn't leak. I personally think she may have something incendiary and prejudicial (but with limited to no evidentiary value) that she may be using as leverage. Then again, it won't shock me to learn that she has nothing. We'll see.

Let's also remember that their main investigator, Gilbreath (or something like that) is on record as saying that they have no evidence that materially contradicts Zimmerman's account. So, if there is such compelling evidence, then their lead investigator seemed unaware of it.

To all who dismiss the inconsistencies and contradictions in Zimmerman's multiple accounts as being nothing out of the ordinary, what makes you more qualified to say this than an experienced homicide detective? Serino was the first one who tried to arrest Zimmerman--not Corey. Why would he go through this trouble, unless he had a good reason to believe the guy was lying about what happened?

Serino wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, his specious reasoning being that if Zimmerman had stayed in his car, this wouldn't have happened. Or, if Zimmerman had more proactively identified himself as a concerned citizen/neighborhood watch person that it wouldn't have happened.

Also, if you listen to Serino's interviews with Zimmerman, you can get the sense that Serino basically thinks Zimmerman is a good guy, and basically believes Zimmerman's account. It's true that Serino could have been pretending, however, when he made the case for Zimmerman's arrest, it was not based on Serino's disbelieving Zimmerman's account. Just on the fact that he didn't think he should have left the car- and should have identified himself.

I suspect that Zimmerman could confess to murder tomorrow, and all the people defending him would still argue that Martin attacked him. That's how deep yall are invested in his innocence.

Is there anyone seriously arguing that Martin didn't attack him? I can see people making the argument (unsupported by evidence) that Martin's attack of Zimmerman was provoked by Zimmerman. But I think it's pretty well-established that Martin attacked him.

If Zimmerman confessed to murder tomorrow, he would lose credibility with me because the facts still wouldn't support the admission.

In order for me to believe it was murder, I would have to believe that the screams for help were not Zimmerman's, but Martin's.

But the only person that had any significant injuries during the screaming was Zimmerman. Why would the uninjured Trayvon be screaming for help?

I would have to believe that Zimmerman pointed a gun at Martin for a minute and a half while Martin screamed for help. I would have to believe that while this gun was being held on Martin, Martin's instinct was not to try to disarm Zimmerman or gain control of the weapon. But to break Zimmerman's nose, blacken his eyes, and hit the back of his head.

Which, of course makes not the least bit of sense. If Zimmerman admits to murdering Trayvon, Zimmerman would still have a lot of explaining to do.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by emeraldia

Because he knows that's not going to happen, especially in a case of this political nature. I also think this is the reason the judge is not likely to grant SYG immunity as well- and why some have even speculated that O' Mara might not try.

Even if O'Mara believed that the politics of this case were such that there is no hope in hell the charges would be dismissed, he would have nothing to lose by filing the motion if he had the basis for doing so. It would be negligent of him not to do this. He'd be essentially risking his reputation as a competent defense attorney.

What could possibly convince you that the detectives, lawyers, and judges involved in this case just might have a better grasp on the issue of evidence than you do? I mean, it's crazy talk I know, but these are people who deal with homicides all the time.

He only said that after he got mad about being apparently misinformed about how much money the Zimmerman's had, and he wants to keep the option open of keeping Zimmerman locked up.

While this is a nice theory and all, the simplest explanation is that the judge has seen the prosecution's evidence and believes there's a strong case to be made for murder-2.

But what evidence could there possible be that would discount his injuries and W6's statements?

How about the fact that his injuries are not consistent with his claims? He said Martin slammed his head into concrete a dozen times. That does not line up with 1) two vertical nicks inches away from his occipital area, 2) the absence of blood smear, 3) the absence of bruising or abrasions, 4) the absence of any horizontal wounds indicative of a skull making repeated contact against the edge of a sidewalk, 5) and the absence of Zimmerman's DNA under Martin's fingernails.

You have a homicide detective who thinks this statement is bollocks, at least two prosecutors saying the same thing (Corey and Gilbreath), a judge who calls the evidence strong, and two defense attorneys (O'Mara and West) who have not challenged the charges. But you, who presumably lacks their training, experience, and access to all the evidence in this case, feel more qualified than they are to say whether or not the charges are justified? I laugh at this.

It would have to be something pretty big- and I can't really imagine something like that wouldn't leak.

At this point, I can't imagine you changing your mind about Zimmerman even if something big did leak.

I mean, if hearing the guy claim with a straight face that the only reason he exited his car was to look for a street sign on the same street that he lived on is not enough to convince you he's trying to cover up his actions that night, then there probably isn't a whole lot that will.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by emeraldia

But the only person that had any significant injuries during the screaming was Zimmerman. Why would the uninjured Trayvon be screaming for help?

Are you serious? There's so much that is wrong with these two sentences that I want to pretend you're kidding.

[emeraldia]

But since an experienced prosecutor has gone ahead with an information that alleges that charge, I conclude that she probably has something else to support it, something the public hasn't seen.

That is certainly possible- and in most cases, that would be a reasonable conclusion. However, in this case, the prosecutor:

1. had tremendous media and political pressure on her to "arrest"/charge Zimmerman.
2. already seemed pre-disposed to doing so very early on in her investigation. i.e., praying with the family, publicly stating she wanted "justice for Trayvon", and chummy communications with the "arrest Zimmerman" protestors (although in the last one it could be argued that she had made up her mind at that point)
3. has a history of over-charging cases.
4. Most importantly the prosecutor's lead investigator testified that he had little to no evidence that materially contradicted Zimmerman's account of who attacked who, whose voice it was screaming for help, and other issues of fundamental importance to Zimmerman's legal culpability.

In other words, if there was a smoking gun, their lead investigator seemed unaware of it.

http://www.wral.com/news/video/11004815/#/vid11004815

His questioning of Gilbreath starts at around an hour and six minutes into it.


I agree that it is possible she has a "game-changing" piece of evidence. But I think it would be premature to actually conclude that she does.

[emeraldia]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Are you serious? There's so much that is wrong with these two sentences that I want to pretend you're kidding.

What aspects of the sentences are confusing to you?

[JoelUpchurch]

I was trying to listen to the recording of Serino's questioning of George Zimmerman on the 29th. Serino needs a lot more training about how to wear a hidden microphone. Zimmerman's and the questions by the other detective were so muffled, that it was very difficult to understand them. The noise of the microphone rubbing against cloth was very annoying.

Does anybody have a link to a transcript of the questioning?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by emeraldia

What aspects of the sentences are confusing to you?

I don't think she is confused. She apparently believes

• A broken nose, black eyes, and lacerations to the back of the head are not significant, but
• A scrape on one knuckle is.
• It makes perfect sense to scream for help while beating someone up, but
• Not while being beaten up

Regards,
Shodan

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by emeraldia

What aspects of the sentences are confusing to you?

"But the only person that had any significant injuries during the screaming was Zimmerman."

Do you think the only reason people scream is because they're injured? People scream when they are scared too. Particularly when they are screaming for HELP.

Secondly, I can't help but notice your emphasis on having injuries during the screaming. Without seeming to realize it, you've answered your own question. Zimmerman didn't suddenly become uninjured when the screaming stopped, so based on your own logic, the sound should have continued after the gun went off. But it didn't. The screaming died along with Martin. The simplest explanation is that Martin was the source of the screaming.

"Why would the uninjured Trayvon be screaming for help?

Because he predicted he was about to be shot to death. Amazingly, his prediction came true.

[emeraldia]

What could possibly convince you that the detectives, lawyers, and judges involved in this case just might have a better grasp on the issue of evidence than you do? I mean, it's crazy talk I know, but these are people who deal with homicides all the time.

There is no indication that any "detectives" wanted to charge Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder. Until the enormous protests and media pressure, the "lawyers" chose not to indict Zimmerman. So, I don't accept your premise. There are plenty of attorneys, including Alan Dershowitz that believe the case against Zimmerman is very weak. In fact, you will find precious few legal experts that think Zimmerman will be convicted. Besides, an argument established by appealing to "authority" is fallacious.

While this is a nice theory and all, the simplest explanation is that the judge has seen the prosecution's evidence and believes there's a strong case to be made for murder-2.

I like my explanation better.

How about the fact that his injuries are not consistent with his claims? He said Martin slammed his head into concrete a dozen times. That does not line up with 1) two vertical nicks inches away from his occipital area, 2) the absence of blood smear, 3) the absence of bruising or abrasions, 4) the absence of any horizontal wounds indicative of a skull making repeated contact against the edge of a sidewalk, 5) and the absence of Zimmerman's DNA under Martin's fingernails.

I don't know that Zimmerman ever claimed that Trayvon Martin scratched him, so I'm not sure how the absence of DNA matters. The detective (who you are so convinced believes Zimmerman is guilty of murder) explained that the lack of bruises may be due to the fact that Zimmerman was wearing long sleeves.

I don't know that it is a fact that his injuries aren't consistent with his claims. That is a matter for medical and forensic experts to discuss. Even if Zimmerman was exaggerating the brutality of the attack, it doesn't change the fact that he was attacked. Whether there were "horizontal lines" or not doesn't really change that. He still had a broken nose, blackened eyes, and a bloody head.

You have a homicide detective who thinks this statement is bollocks, at least two prosecutors saying the same thing (Corey and Gilbreath), a judge who calls the evidence strong, and two defense attorneys (O'Mara and West) who have not challenged the charges.

Again, your premise that the homicide detective thinks Zimmerman's statement is bollocks is untrue. He questioned certain parts of it, but -as I've already stated- he never wanted to charge Z-man with murder, just manslaughter (and even that was for reasons that were not inconsistent with Z-man's statements.)

But you, who presumably lacks their training, experience, and access to all the evidence in this case, feel more qualified than they are to say whether or not the charges are justified? I laugh at this.

As I said above, your argument ad authority/argument ad hominem are specious, in addition to containing premises that aren't supported by facts.

I mean, if hearing the guy claim with a straight face that the only reason he exited his car was to look for a street sign on the same street that he lived on is not enough to convince you he's trying to cover up his actions that night, then there probably isn't a whole lot that will.

Once again, an untrue premise leading into a specious ad hominem argument. Zimmerman stated he left his vehicle to keep an eye on where the kid was going *and* to get a street sign. You are confused and not worth debating to be honest.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Secondly, I can't help but notice your emphasis on having injuries during the screaming. Without seeming to realize it, you've answered your own question. Zimmerman didn't suddenly become uninjured when the screaming stopped, so based on your own logic, the sound should have continued after the gun went off. But it didn't. The screaming died along with Martin. The simplest explanation is that Martin was the source of the screaming.

No, the simplest explanation is that the person who was getting beaten was screaming, and stopped screaming when the beating stopped.

"Why would the uninjured Trayvon be screaming for help?

Because he predicted he was about to be shot to death. Amazingly, his prediction came true.

And your evidence that Martin made that prediction would be...?

Regards,
Shodan

[emeraldia]

Do you think the only reason people scream is because they're injured? People scream when they are scared too. Particularly when they are screaming for HELP.

I've already covered this possibility, and explained why I think it makes no sense.

Secondly, I can't help but notice your emphasis on having injuries during the screaming.

In order to determine who was screaming, one would naturally look at who was sustaining injuries while the screaming was going on.

Without seeming to realize it, you've answered your own question. Zimmerman didn't suddenly become uninjured when the screaming stopped, so based on your own logic, the sound should have continued after the gun went off. But it didn't. The screaming died along with Martin. The simplest explanation is that Martin was the source of the screaming.

Having shot Martin, why would Zimmerman continue to scream for help?

"Why would the uninjured Trayvon be screaming for help?
Because he predicted he was about to be shot to death. Amazingly, his prediction came true.

Circular logic at the end. I've already covered this possibility, and explained why I think it makes little sense given the length of time, witness statements, and injuries on Zimmerman that are completely inconsistent with somebody trying to protect themselves from a gun.

Do you care to address that, or just stick to more specious arguments?

[al27052]

Originally Posted by doorhinge

I'm not sure what "nanny-nanny boo-boo" is. Is that some kind of martial arts thing? Does it help you focus your chi? Does it cause chafing?

Did I scare you with the martial arts stuff? Sorry, man, I didn't mean to talk above your head re: that sort of thing. I just happen to have some training.

And yeah, you permanently destroyed any credibility you had with me by invoking Florida law.

My question, is, though....what kind of world do concealed-carry advocates want? Do they want a world where innocent people don't get killed in crossfire? A world where children don't accidentally hurt or kill themselves or others with guns?

Because I can get behind that.

I'm just not sure that MORE guns=LESS shooting.

I mean, let's face it, a drunken angry redneck is probably not someone who should be carrying a concealed handgun. Sadly, drunken angry rednecks are a VERY common occurrence on weekend nights. So what do you do? Have a gunfight or two on every street on Friday and Saturday nights?

I mean, it might be a good idea to find a way to control the drunk/angry problem BEFORE handing out concealed carry permits and handguns to every idiot who hasn't YET gotten a felony.

I mean, sure, eventually, all the idiots would get killed. Who wants to be ducking for cover on Friday night every week for 6 months, though?

Some of us really, honestly, don't want to be part of the gunfight. Can we not be allowed to sit quietly and watch TV?

[Mgalindo13]

Originally Posted by al27052

Did I scare you with the martial arts stuff? Sorry, man, I didn't mean to talk above your head re: that sort of thing. I just happen to have some training.

No, you don't. No one with real martial arts training talks the way you do. Next you're going to tell us that you have to register your hands as lethal weapons with the state.

Originally Posted by al27052

And yeah, you permanently destroyed any credibility you had with me by invoking Florida law.

Someone loses credit with you by referencing the law?

Originally Posted by al27052

I'm just not sure that MORE guns=LESS shooting.

A number of different threads here have discussed the statistics for those that carry concealed weapons. On the whole the statistics show those who legally carry a weapon are law abiding citizens.

Originally Posted by al27052

I mean, let's face it, a drunken angry redneck is probably not someone who should be carrying a concealed handgun. Sadly, drunken angry rednecks are a VERY common occurrence on weekend nights. So what do you do? Have a gunfight or two on every street on Friday and Saturday nights?

I mean, it might be a good idea to find a way to control the drunk/angry problem BEFORE handing out concealed carry permits and handguns to every idiot who hasn't YET gotten a felony.

I mean, sure, eventually, all the idiots would get killed. Who wants to be ducking for cover on Friday night every week for 6 months, though?

Some of us really, honestly, don't want to be part of the gunfight. Can we not be allowed to sit quietly and watch TV?

How many stereotypes can you fit in one post?

[emeraldia]

The prosecutor's have prepared an animation that simulates in vivid detail the precise events that occurred on the night Trayvon was murdered.

The re-enactment begins about :25 seconds in. I have to tell you, it changed my mind about the case.

[[link deleted]]

[doorhinge]

Originally Posted by al27052

Did I scare you with the martial arts stuff? Sorry, man, I didn't mean to talk above your head re: that sort of thing. I just happen to have some training.

And yeah, you permanently destroyed any credibility you had with me by invoking Florida law.

.....Some of us really, honestly, don't want to be part of the gunfight. Can we not be allowed to sit quietly and watch TV?

What makes you think that having credibility with "you" is of any importance to "me"?

I notice that you're the only one saying you have martial arts training. Even if that were true, you're communicating over the internet. If you were able to send a virus you "might" be considered intimidating. As it stands, you're just someone else with access to a PC.

The rest of your post doesn't even pertain to the Martin/Zimmerman confrontation. It's amusing to read but so are most rants. Have you thought about making your own "Leave Brittney Alone"-type video explaining your view of the Martin/Zimmerman incident? That could be internet gold.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by emeraldia

Having shot Martin, why would Zimmerman continue to scream for help?

Well he felt he had to hold him down has he bleed out out of fear and claimed he didnt' know he had hit him with a bullet, why would he quit?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by rat avatar

Well he felt he had to hold him down has he bleed out out of fear and claimed he didnt' know he had hit him with a bullet, why would he quit?

Because he was no longer being beaten.

Regards,
Shodan

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Because he was no longer being beaten.

Regards,
Shodan

How could this sustained savage beating upon Zimmerman be true if Martin only had one small scratch below one knuckle on one hand. How can you guys square the fact of the lack of anything but one scratch below one knuckle on one hand with the brutal, relentless, savage, and continuous beating that you keep asserting as established fact. What was he hitting Zimmerman with then? It wasn't his fists as they were pristine, save for that one tiny scratch below one knuckle. The evidence does not support that this happened at all, yet I constantly see this depicted as a brutal, savage, sustained beating. Where is the evidence of this? On Zimmerman, we have evidence of one punch to the face that is it. The two small cuts on his head could have easily been him falling back on the grass after the punch and scratching his head on a stick, or on small stones in the grass. Where is any physical evidence of this savage ongoing beating on Martin's hands? Are his hands made of stone? Impervious to damage? Fights are brutal. Skin is pretty tender. You guys keep describing this continuous, and savage beating as if this is a given, when the physical evidence supports no such thing. You constantly bleat on about not jumping to conclusions without evidence to support it, but your depiction of this supposed sustained vicious beating by Martin is not remotely supported by the physical evidence.

[rat avatar]

Originally Posted by Shodan

Because he was no longer being beaten.

Regards,
Shodan

Oh yes that non-injury causing beating slash non-scream stopping smothering.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by emeraldia

The prosecutor's have prepared an animation that simulates in vivid detail the precise events that occurred on the night Trayvon was murdered.

Knock it off. The main rule at this board is "Don't be a jerk," and that video doesn't contribute anything to the debate.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

How could this sustained savage beating upon Zimmerman be true if Martin only had one small scratch below one knuckle on one hand. How can you guys square the fact of the lack of anything but one scratch below one knuckle on one hand with the brutal, relentless, savage, and continuous beating that you keep asserting as established fact. What was he hitting Zimmerman with then?

According to Zimmerman's story, Martin punched him in the face. This is backed up by Zimmerman's broken nose, and the scrape on Martin's knuckle. Also according to Zimmerman, Martin bashed Zimmerman's head against the ground. This is backed up by the cuts to the back of Zimmerman's head.

Regards,
Shodan

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

How could this sustained savage beating upon Zimmerman be true if Martin only had one small scratch below one knuckle on one hand.

Because the autopsy was sloppy and they didn't check for subcutaneous capillary damage on Martin's knuckles. Bruises would not arise after death. After the Sanford police heard Zimmerman's story, they should have asked the medical examiner to check. Considering that Sanford doesn't have a full time homicide detective, this isn't very surprising.

[emeraldia]

Originally Posted by Marley23

Knock it off. The main rule at this board is "Don't be a jerk," and that video doesn't contribute anything to the debate.

I don't think I was being a jerk. Didn't contribute anything to the debate? It wasn't like it was a link to a "Never Gonna Give You Up" video. In addition to the obvious entertainment value inherent to the video- and the hilarity it universally provokes:

It demonstrated the necessarily absurd account of events necessary to explain the facts as we know them. For example, the animator had to show a running Trayvon Martin being overtaken by a Zimmerman, who is walking and talking on the phone.

I'm sorry you didn't care for it.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by emeraldia

I don't think I was being a jerk. Didn't contribute anything to the debate? It wasn't like it was a link to a "Never Gonna Give You Up" video. In addition to the obvious entertainment value inherent to the video- and the hilarity it universally provokes:

I felt it was an obnoxious summary of your view of people who don't agree with your version of what happened here. I admit I didn't watch it all the way through, but watching people say "coon" over and over isn't my idea of entertainment. You can go ahead and dismiss other people's arguments, but do it with your own words instead of links to cartoons.

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

Because the autopsy was sloppy and they didn't check for subcutaneous capillary damage on Martin's knuckles. Bruises would not arise after death. After the Sanford police heard Zimmerman's story, they should have asked the medical examiner to check. Considering that Sanford doesn't have a full time homicide detective, this isn't very surprising.

Ok, so if the medical examiner's report is not to be trusted, do we just assume then that he indeed had whatever damage is necessary to his hands to account for this continuous, savage, brutal beating? The lack of damage is meaningless evidently then, so do you just imagine the damage was there and blame it on shoddy investigation? How does that work? No evidence of damage to his hands is evidence of damage to his hands? Does that hold up in court?

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

Ok, so if the medical examiner's report is not to be trusted, do we just assume then that he indeed had whatever damage is necessary to his hands to account for this continuous, savage, brutal beating?

That isn't necessary. The damage to Martin's hand, and the injuries to Zimmerman's nose, are consistent with Zimmerman's having been hit in the face. The injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head are consistent with having his head beaten against the ground.

The brutal, savage, continuous beating you keep harping on consists mostly of having his head beaten against the ground, which does not necessarily damage the hands. So there isn't any inconsistency, at least with the evidence known to date.

The inconsistency lies in the notion that Zimmerman was bleeding from several injuries, and Martin had hardly a mark on him - but Martin is supposedly the one screaming for help.

Regards,
Shodan

[Airbeck]

Originally Posted by Shodan

The injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head are consistent with having his head beaten against the ground.

Really? Are you a forensic analyst? You can say this with a legal certainty? The descriptions of the two small lacerations on record are certainly not consistent with having his head repeatedly beaten against concrete. Why no smearing of the blood? Why no scrape marks? Why nothing but two clean, straight, small cuts? How does concrete make perfectly straight and clean lacerations? Look at some concrete. Can you honestly see that substance making clean, straight cuts like that? How? Are you saying that you are certain that these could not have been the result of scratching his head on a stick when he fell back on the grass?

How do you have this level of certainty? Where is the continuous, savage and brutal beating evidence? If you don't have it, then I suggest your side stop characterizing the events that way as if it was accepted and established fact. It is anything but. There is physical evidence that Zimmerman was punched in the face once. There is no physical evidence that proves that Martin repeatedly bashed his head on concrete or that there was a sustained, savage, brutal beat down. None at all. Again, Zimmerman's statements are not physical evidence. How do you savagely beat someone for an extended time, and only have one small scratch under one knuckle on one hand. Please explain how that can happen, or the whole sustained brutal beating meme needs to stop.

[Shodan]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

Really? Are you a forensic analyst?

No. Are you?

You can say this with a legal certainty?

No. Are you claiming that what you say is legally certain?

Are you saying that you are certain that these could not have been the result of scratching his head on a stick when he fell back on the grass?

I am saying that Zimmerman's, and Martin's, injuries are consistent with Zimmerman's story.

Where is the continuous, savage and brutal beating evidence?

On Martin's knuckle, Zimmerman's nose, and on the back of Zimmerman's head.

There is no physical evidence that proves that Martin repeatedly bashed his head on concrete or that there was a sustained, savage, brutal beat down. None at all.

You are simply saying that evidence that contradicts your position doesn't exist. That's unfortunate, because, well, there it is.

How do you savagely beat someone for an extended time, and only have one small scratch under one knuckle on one hand. Please explain how that can happen, or the whole sustained brutal beating meme needs to stop.

I already explained how it can happen.

Regards,
Shodan

[Airbeck]

Seriously, one small scratch under one knuckle on one hand is evidence of a sustained, savage beating? Haha. Ok, I guess I can just disregard the rest of your posts then, since you are clearly not debating with intellectual honesty on this point. Or you truly do believe that, in which case, we are evidently not in the same reality here.

Also, I'm not claiming to be certain about anything. You are the one claiming to be certain of what the injuries prove. You are the one acting like the forensic analyst on the stand, not me. So if you can't back it up, you shouldn't be so certain about what you think you know to be true.

Also, you have not explained how one can savagely beat someone for an extended period of time, but end up with pristine hands, save for one small scratch below one knuckle on one hand. You do realize that scratch could have easily already been there before this happened right? He might have scratched his knuckle reaching into the fridge for his iced tea at 7-11. I get little scratches on the backs of my hands all the time, and I have never beat anyone up.

The physical evidence is wholly inconsistent with a savage, sustained, brutal beat down. Unless you are saying that Martin had hands of stone or some other material impervious to damage.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Airbeck

Ok, so if the medical examiner's report is not to be trusted, do we just assume then that he indeed had whatever damage is necessary to his hands to account for this continuous, savage, brutal beating? The lack of damage is meaningless evidently then, so do you just imagine the damage was there and blame it on shoddy investigation? How does that work? No evidence of damage to his hands is evidence of damage to his hands? Does that hold up in court?

You seem to be engaged in a game where you exaggerate Zimmerman statements and then say that it doesn't match the forensic evidence. To get the level of damage you insist on Zimmerman would be dead and we would be trying Trayvon for Murder.