The dictionary disagrees
Let’s keep it civil in this forum.
I’m sorry, but I just listened to 'John’s statement and he does say that Martin was laying on top of Zimmerman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx6GS61UCxQ
Go ahead to 20:00 minutes.
In listening to it, I noticed some other things.
He said that when he told them to stop it, Martin ignored him. It doesn’t sound like he was the guy that needed help.
He also mentioned that the noise gradually moved towards him. It is possible that that Martin was straddling Zimmerman when they were in front of Witness#11.
Now I’m worried since someone said that Martin left the 7-11 at 6:30 and Zimmerman didn’t see him until 7:15. I am wondering why Martin was wandering around for 45 minutes in the rain, when it is only 15 minutes from the 7-11 to the Retreat.
Is wandering-while-black a crime?
Please cite in the transcript where the witness indicates that he specifically saw Martin ignore him.
He also said that the sound from the yelling seemed to be coming from Zimmerman because Martin was facing the other direction and the yelling sounded ‘direct’, as opposed to reverberating off of the wall.
Due to pressure and specific questions from FDLE, John acknowledged that he didn’t see who was screaming and that he can’t be sure that Martin was punching Zimmerman but… it’s pretty obvious to me that he still thinks it was Zimmerman screaming and that Martin was punching Zimmerman. Whether this will come out during a SYG hearing/trial or not I’m not sure, but I would not be surprised.
(One of the funniest things in this so far is when prosecutor Rionda interviewed W6 and, slapping his fist into the palm of his hand, asked W6 if he heard the sounds when he thought Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman. All the more ridiculous was that then he asked if W6 could hear Zimmerman’s head hitting the sidewalk.)
I know. Almost as funny as the “sounds of pushing” that Deedee heard over the phone.
No, but wandering around in the rain is consistent with the behavior that Zimmerman originally cited as a reason for his finding Trayvon was acting oddly. Other than that, it’s just an interesting question.
The murder charges against Zimmerman are silly and I can’t imagine a group of 6 people would convict him of it. At some point, people will begin to have more plausible discussions, such as whether he should be guilty of manslaughter because he left his car and/or failed to identify himself, etc.
There will be some that would vote to convict him on manslaughter, but I don’t think all 6 would. In my own mind, I don’t think Zimmerman actually did anything reckless or that I wouldn’t have done.
I think convicting him on manslaughter would be like holding a rape victim accountable for injuring/killing one of her rapists on the grounds that she was advised not to go to a frat party, but did so anyway.
People have a right to leave their vehicles and move freely around their neighborhood. People have a right to keep an eye on people in their neighborhoods who they suspect are up to no good- even if their suspicions were wrong.
So, not guilty on all counts I say.
A person has the right to wander a neighborhood at night, in the rain, without
getting a bullet lodged in his chest.
But of course you know this already.
Of course. (I think it was battering Zimmerman that got him into trouble.)
I think this is your second post referring to a 6 person jury. FYI: It’s 12.
Not in Florida- except for 1st degree murder.
What part of what I said that I noticed it while listening to his statement did you not understand?
DeeDee also heard grass.
Really? How does someone behave when attacked without any signs of letting up? How does someone respond to killing another person?
Once again, you fall to insults. Is debate that hard for you?
He’s not calm, he’s in shock. There’s a difference. I put a person in the hospital once as the result of a martial arts tournament. It’s a sobering thing to do and quiet emotional. Nothing compared to what Zimmerman would have experienced.
I’ll ask you the same question, how does someone act when presented with a situation as traumatic as what Zimmerman went through?
It could be used in the medical field but that’s not how I used it.
shock/SHäk/
Noun: A sudden upsetting or surprising event or experience.
Verb: Cause (someone) to feel surprised and upset: “she was shocked at his injuries”; “shocked onlookers watched as detectives broke into the pub”.
It’s consistent with his account. He’s the one being attacked.
It matters greatly that Zimmerman showed signs of a vicious attack. The evidence is consistent with his account and that of witnesses.
You have consistently looked for “WTF” moments. When it’s pointed out that the evidence is consistent with his account you get upset and resort to putting words in other people’s mouths in response to scenarios created by you that don’t exist. You come in here convinced of Zimmerman’s intent even though he’s on record as using the prescribed method of dealing with a situation like this. He called the police. He set up a place to meet them. He abided by their instructions not to follow Martin. His account bears this out so far.
You completely ignore Martin’s irrational behavior as well as his attack on Zimmerman. He didn’t call the police. He didn’t put distance between the 2 of them or simply go home. He had ample time to walk around to the front of house after they lost sight of each other and be done with it. He didn’t show a hint of civilized behavior in the way he beat Zimmerman. In short, he did everything wrong.
Yes. Been there, done that.
You’ve clearly never been in or seen a real fight. Once one person gets on top of the other it’s over for the person on the bottom. He described the scenario accurately enough without having to parse down the precise angle and body position of Martin every nano-second of the attack. It was a fight, not a pose for a still photograph.
You’re throwing out “maybes” like beads at Mardi Gras. Zimmerman doesn’t have to prove his innocence. The State has to prove his guilt. As it stands now Witness 6 corroborates Zimmerman’s account of what happened.
Hmm, from a quick Google, it appears you’re right. I thought all murder cases had to be 12, but it appears that’s only for cases where the DP is on the table. So, not necessarily even all 1st-degree murder cases require 12 jurors, as long as the prosecutor isn’t seeking the DP.
this is so disingenuous I don’t even know where to begin.
You’re really going to liken “going to a party” to following someone into a dark back lane?
Yeah - you’re allowed to follow people around if you want to - and people that are being followed are more than reasonable when they view that as threatening and creepy and likely to be bad for them.
I don’t think that Martin deliberately tried to put a beat down on George - but if it did go down that way, I would be defending his right to self defence against the creepy prick that was threateningly following him around.