That was witness #2 and she never said she saw anybody brandishing a firearm and now she she says she never saw anybody chasing anybody.
Witness 2
Since here house was south of where Martin’s body was found, then her statement is actually inconvenient for the prosecution. It would tend to favor the the “Martin doubled back” theory. Of course, she might have seen Mclendon chasing his dog. I don’t know which way the dog ran.
Huh? Are you doubting that Zimmerman was the one that shot Martin?
Speaking of the margin, do you recall that the original investigation recommended charges against Zimmerman in part because those injuries were only “marginally consistent with his statement”?
Uhh, so your evidence that he got two small cuts on his head from having his head violently slammed into the cement repeatedly while retaining consciousness is that you hit your head on cement once hard enough to lose consciousness, and it didn’t even break the skin. And you somehow think this “evidence” *supports *your conclusion? [cue Twilight Zone music]
I don’t need to marginalize them, they speak for themselves. GZ’s unencumbered actions immediately afterwards, and his declining multiple recommendations to go to the hospital, speak for themselves, as well. It is you who is trying to quite unconvincingly exaggerate his “multiple injuries.”
Much more believable to people with a firm grip on reality and not some cheesy B-movie dialog. One version is from someone with great incentive to lie, and has been proven to do so repeatedly. The other version is from someone who has nothing to gain or lose by lying, hasn’t been shown to lie, and if they had been inclined to do so, could have lied in order to incriminate GZ much more.
You say this a lot. Why do you think who spoke first is significant? It is completely reasonable to speak first and ask why someone is following you when someone approaches you after they’ve been following you.
So, GZ’s account of the dialog is much more likely given GZ’s account of TM’s behavior? Got it. Do you see your problem there?
LOL, I’ll let that speak for itself and your powers of deduction.
You don’t know what reasons he had. Maybe he wanted to smoke a cig, maybe he didn’t get cell phone reception indoors, maybe he didn’t want the weird, freaky guy who was following him to see where he lived.
The same time frame allows GZ to safely stay in his car instead of following an innocent teenager on his way home. TM had much better reasons to be there than GZ did.
No, there really isn’t, no matter how much you wish it, and how often you repeat it. There is no evidence that TM struck GZ more than once on the nose. And please, keep saying that GZ’s own unsupported and contradictory statements are the evidence, because that only serves to prove my point about you.
Comedy. Gold. GZ himself said that TM tried to get the gun. So what he says is “evidence” except for when it’s inconvenient to your narrative?
Oh, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that’s how it works. I didn’t know that you get to completely make shit up, then declare it immune from debate. Forgive me.
The logical conclusion from the unassailable “evidence” of whatever GZ says happened, except for the parts you find it convenient to dismiss. I’m starting to understand how this works, and it’s fascinating.
It’s not a matter of his injuries being insufficient to claim self-defense, it’s a matter of his injuries NOT NEARLY matching up with the “GZ says so” evidence.
Oooo, “Magiver says so” evidence! Is this up for debate? Oh wait, you already debated against yourself in the first few sentences of your post, so I guess so.
Too funny. I can’t top that, so I’ll let it stand in all it’s brilliance.
Two can play this game:
Was he struck down after trying to restrain TM? It appears so.
Was Martin on top of him at some point and doing nothing but attempting to avoid getting shot and yelling for help? It appears so.
Did GZ deserve a bunch to the nose for attempting to restrain TM for no good reason? It appears so.
(And with that, Magiver, you’re free to respond and get in the last word, because I do not enjoy your circle dance and I’m done with it. I don’t know why I even bothered, since you do such a good job of arguing against yourself, you don’t need my help.)
No, the original investigation did not recommend charges against Zimmerman.
There has been a huge amount of digital ink spilled over the idea that Zimmerman was supposed to bleed like water over Niagara Falls or his wounds didn’t somehow count. I pointed out you don’t have to bleed at all to sustain a serious injury or more importantly, fear for a serious injury.
His wounds indicate he was assaulted. They are consistent with his account.
So do Martin’s.
So put it all together you have one person with wounds who was on the receiving end of another person without any wounds except a gun shot wound that occurred after an extended period of time.
Conclusion, Zimmerman was assaulted and eventually shot the person assaulting him.
I don’t see how the former leads inescapably to the latter. That is why we have courts.
Absent evidence to the contrary over what occurred in the the physical exchange prosecution doesn’t have a case.
There is no “they”. The person responsible for bringing charges declined to do so. It’s the difference between an EMT and a Doctor’s opinion as to what treatment will given.
There is a “they”. In this sentence, the subject is the original investigative team, who recommended charges to the state attorney based (in part) on how trivial Zimmerman’s injuries seem in contrast with what he said had happened. The ones you say ate totally consistent with his fantastic narrative.
You can keep repeating that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm, but it really is a stretch. You have to take Zimmerman’s tale as gospel, and it does not seem very plausible when considered with other evidence, including his injuries.
Aren’t y’all wondering why there seems zero talk about an immunity hearing? This whole thing is playing out like just normal self-defense case.
The person responsible for determining the viability of the case did not agree with the people who investigated the case. They’re different skill-sets. I understand that the detectives had a legal opinion but it’s not relevant.
It’s not a stretch to understand that getting repeatedly punched in the face and having one’s head struck against cement is a serious problem. Combined with the time frame involved in the assault there was no way Zimmerman could determine if and when the assault would end. This is the poster-child of defend-able situations.
The prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman didn’t fear for his life after an assault that lasted a considerable amount of time.
No, they do not have to prove he didn’t fear for his life. They only have to show his fear was not reasonable.
I think I may need to apologize to the SPD. From what I read, the hands are bagged at the scene and the ME is responsible for collecting any evidence from them. I checked the evidence list and fingernail scrapings were collected by the medical examiner. Of course, if it was the SPD responsibility to notify the ME if they wanted data collected than wasn’t SOP, then I was right the first time. Fingernail clippings are SOP.
It’s not so much a difference of skills as a different set of motivations. There is a lot
Of tutr-tutting about the possibility of the state prosecutor’s office electing to prosecute out of political consideration, but naturally the decision to dedicate resources to slam dunk cases over cases where there is more room for a not guilty verdict. Playing to stats is part of the game.
But the point is that the injuries you point to as firm support for Zimmerman’s account really aren’t.
Quite apart from that, other evidence makes his story extremely implausible.
No they don’t, and no they aren’t.
Look at the video taken 45 minutes after the shooting. Look at the video taken 24 hours after the shooting, including the re-enactment video. Does that look like someone that had just been repeatedly punched in the face and head slammed into a cement sidewalk?
The best evidence we have here is the detectives sitting across from GZ the very next day: They thought his wounds didn’t match his account of what happened.
Finally - I can’t help but notice the deafening silence from GZ’s supporters on the massive holes in GZ’s story - I’ve pointed them out in post #2802, #2816, #2837 etc.
There’s a world of difference between manslaughter and murder. Third degree manslaughter, as an example, is essentially a misdemeanor.
