Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

In My Humble Opinion
6323

It bothers me that Zimmerman did not identify himself - but not in that whole ‘police!’ or ‘I have a gun, you are in my home, turn around!’ kinda legal anti lawsuit way.
I’m speaking more to common sense. Surely he should have known that if his assumptions were correct that Martin might mistake his intentions.

Never the less, a bad approach by Zimmerman MIGHT have avoided a conflict.
Bad actions by Martin MIGHT have caused the conflict.
We have no evidence on the former, and a bit of supporting evidence for the latter.

6324

So what? Zimmerman was under no obligation to identify himself.

Again, there is no evidence that Zimmerman provoked the assault. All the evidence available indicates that Martin “made something happen” by attacking Zimmerman.

Martin could have continued along his merry way, all the way home to his townhouse, and eaten his Skittles in peace. Zimmerman had lost sight of him at that point. Martin chose instead to double back and confront Zimmerman, punch him in the face, break his nose, blacken his eyes, and jump on top of him and bash his head against the ground.

All the evidence is that Martin was the confrontational person. Martin is the one who doubled back, who attacked, who inflicted all the injuries, who was seen on top of Zimmerman.

If you want to compare “personality traits”, by all means. AFAICT it is more or less a wash.

Zimmerman was on prescription medications for ADHD. Martin had traces of THC in his system, and had been kicked out of school for possession of drug paraphernalia. Zimmerman’s charges of resisting a police officer had been dropped after he did an alcohol education program, and he and his ex-girlfriend were both granted restraining orders against each other after a pushing incident. Martin was kicked out of school for vandalism and theft. Zimmerman was charged with speeding, but the charges were dropped when the officer failed to show up in court.

Neither one is going to win any “Citizen of the Year” awards, but neither shows up much worse than the other.

And therefore we are back to that thing with which you have so much difficulty - evidence. I’ve got it, you don’t. And every time someone points out that you don’t have any evidence, you change the subject to something else.

Do you want to argue that Zimmerman attacked Martin? I’ve got a broken nose and black eyes that say otherwise.

Do you want to argue that Zimmerman used a throw to take Martin down? I’ve got a witness who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman that says otherwise.

Do you want to argue that Zimmerman killed Martin with a police hold? I’ve got a coroner’s report that says otherwise.

Do you want to argue that Zimmerman didn’t have a broken nose and black eyes? I’ve got a doctor’s report that says otherwise.

And what do you have? Jack fucking Shit, that’s what you got.

Regards,
Shodan

6325

You could attempt to convince me that your position is reasonable, based on the evidence, and that, even if we disagree, we can respect each others views. It’s clear, however, you have no interest in forming opinions based on what the evidence actually says, or considering what would happen in a court of law, and are solely interested in finding a way, any way, to punish Zimmerman because you dislike something he did.

That seems like a good description of your position - you’ve made a decision based on politics, not on the events that happened.

Martin’s death was a tragedy, and an avoidable one. He did not deserve to die. That fact doesn’t affect whether or not Zimmerman was responsible for his death, and if - as the evidence strongly indicates - he was acting in self defence, he was not responsible.

I don’t believe, and have never believed, that race has anything to do with this case.

I believe, with some certainty, that it is legal to carry a gun in Florida, and to use one to defend oneself against a sufficiently serious attack.

I am entirely certain you couldn’t.

I’m willing to reexamine my beliefs. Please, offer your narrative, and back it up with evidence. Specifically, please show, with evidence, what Zimmerman did that was illegal, or that put Martin in such reasonable fear that his violence towards Zimmerman can be considered self defence.

Don’t simply speculate that it might have happened that way. Bring actual evidence from witnesses or physical evidence from the scene, not speculation that evidence might exist that we haven’t seen.

6326
  1. Yes. Martin was defending himself against a guy who stalked him.
  2. But there’s a witness who said Zimmerman was on top.
  3. I didn’t say that…I think a hold was used on Martin sometime during the scuffle–I didn’t say IT KILLED HIM. Reading is fundamental.
  4. Never said that shit. Making shit up, and I am calling you on it.
  5. BULL.

And you want to accuse me of making shit up.

Please.

6327

Love the disclaimer lol.

Hard to see how someone going home with skittles and iced tea would cause something and not the man in a car following him with a loaded gun–very hard.

You have to say, even on face value, something just doesn’t add up.

Again, I am still maintaining that Martin was fighting for his life and defending himself.

It makes sense.

These people want to say “I have evidence, I have evidence” but the point that I am trying to make is that for many of the things they claim, you can simply replace Zimmerman’s name with Martin’s without trouble.

You can take evidence and have differing interpretations of what it means.

A cat can be around a broken fish tank. You can assume that the cat broke the fish tank.

You can also say that maybe the fish tank broke because the leg of the table it was on collapsed. The cat went to see what happened.

The chorus will stick to the cat breaking it and then demand evidence for the latter.

But then again, there could be a third possibility.

6328

Glad to hear that–apparently that doesn’t bother some on this thread.

6329

Please provide evidence for this, I’ve not seen any. Indeed, I was of the opinion that this was the first occasion Zimmerman and Martin encountered each other.
Or are you possibly using “stalked” when you mean something else, for emotional effect at the expense of accuracy?

No there isn’t. I could be polite and ask you to cite your claim, but I’m pretty sure you are outright lying here.

Yes you did. You have repeatedly claimed that the brain injuries were caused by a hold, despite there being no evidence of any hold, nor any evidence that there is anything unusual in these brain injuries being present in someone shot in the fashion Martin was.

So, again you are lying, this time about what you said, and still making unsupported claims. You “think” Zimmerman used a hold. I “think” you’re a liar and a fool, with no qualms about trying to send someone who’s committed no crime to jail, and no understanding of why that’s immoral. The difference is I have evidence for my position - namely your entire posting history on this board - and you have none.

You’ve claimed that Zimmerman’s injuries are not as we describe. Again, lying about what you said, and making unsupported assertions.

Then bring it. Bring your evidence, bring your supported narrative where Zimmerman is guilty. We’re all waiting for it.

Yes, yes I do. Indeed, I have done, repeatedly. I’ll do it again - you’re making shit up.

It’s ok, I’d have done so even without you asking nicely.

6330

Show me a law in Florida that says someone has to identify themselves before following someone and asking them what they’re doing, and it’ll bother me.

Seriously, it will. Because then, you’d have strong evidence of wrongdoing on Zimmerman’s part - something I and others have repeatedly asked you to provide, based on your repeated assertions that it exists, and that, for unknown* reasons you have failed to provide.

*They’re not actually unknown, just not really able to be mentioned in this forum.

6331
  1. You are really heartless. No obligation. Of course not.

No evidence he provoked the assault? HAHAHAHA!!!

Can the moderators put a laughing emoticon on here please? Believe that if you wish.

1a. All the evidence? ALL?? :wink: yeah buddy, sure. All of it.
So the cries were Zimmerman’s too, right–of course they were.

  1. Zimmerman could have gone shopping. Zimmerman could have called and let the police do their job rather than playing cop.

All the evidence? Again?

  1. I am done.
6332

Yes, that’s correct, no evidence. Of course, if you’re that sure we’re wrong, you’d be happy to provide the evidence, right? Right? {sound of crickets}

They may well have been, certainly his family identified them as his, as did at least one expert. So yes, there’s evidence that they were Zimmermans.

That’s precisely what he did, until the point Martin punched him. Unless, of course, you have any evidence that Zimmerman tried to stop Martin doing anything, or to restrain him. Not just speculation that it might have happened, please provide the evidence for that speculation.

Here’s hoping this doesn’t turn out to be another of your lies.

6333

No, there wasn’t. There was a witness who said that after the shot they saw Zimmerman over Martin - but then Zimmerman already said that was true.

If you can find a witness who said that Zimmerman was on top - cite.

Quote the alleged witness who said that Zimmerman was on top during the fight. Or, even better, link to the testimony (since all the witness testimony has already been released).

6334
  1. Start reading from page 41 and work your way down.

I have read all of it–maybe you should too. It stops at page 183.

  1. I asked a simple question on the relationship between the brain injuries and the gunshot. the research I did seems to point to asphyxiation as the cause of that particular injury. Zimmerman WAS ON TOP OF MARTIN. EYEWITNESSES VERIFIED THIS. THEY WROTE THIS IN WITNESS STATEMENTS. You are fucking ridiculous.

  2. And I think you are a bigoted, cold, despicable human being.

6335

Reading is fundamental:

evidence dump

Start at page 41.

6336

So we ask you to back up a specific claim about a specific witness, and you point to 140 pages? Which specific page is that specific claim on? Back it up or admit it was a lie.

Page 41 shows that Zimmerman stood over Martin after the shot. That’s not a controversial piece of evidence since it confirms what Zimmerman testified to.

If you have anything where any witness says Zimmerman was on top during the fight - cite it. Or ignore it and continue the lies, like you usually do.

6337

It’s not my point, it’s yours. What situation was Zimmerman in. I’m asking you to explain your own post.

No, you haven’t given any reason for the lack of marks on Martin. How does Zimmerman attack him without leaving any marks?

Cite any racial attacks.

The physical evidence is the cut on Martin’s hand which is consistent with Zimmerman’s story. He didn’t say he was kicked or hit with an object. He said Martin punched him.

fail to acknowledge his humanity? What does that mean?

to start with Zimmerman was inside his car on the phone with the Dispatcher. Secondly, He did not position his vehicle between Martin and his destination. According to Zimmerman Martin came from the back of the houses when he circled his car.

You have provided no explanation to refute the evidence of the 2 phone calls.

The jury will never hear unfounded theories. The prosecution has to show how Martin came to be where he was given what he said to Dee Dee and Zimmerman’s call to the Dispatcher. They cannot simply make stuff up. Zimmerman’s testimony will be entered into court. The phone call to the Dispatcher will be entered into court. Dee Dee might be called to testify which means her recount will be entered into court.

6338

Watch this interview

Better?

6339

Care to cite evidence for these claims? Otherwise, they’re as unfounded as your views on the case we’ve been discussing, and it turns out I’m a fucking great guy.

I’d defend myself, but I really don’t care enough, and frankly having someone like you despise me shows I’m doing something right.

6340

According to the autopsy both his lungs were collapsed. On top of that it was explained that his fingernails were observed to be blue. this was an indication his body used up all the available oxygen. You can read about it here page 1. :

" Shiping Bao, the associate medical examiner in Volusia County who performed the autopsy, wrote that Trayvon had “cyanotic nail beds.” That means they had turned blue, something that happens when there’s not enough oxygen in the blood.

Because Trayvon’s heart was weakened by blood loss and dropping blood pressure, it could no longer pump blood to his lungs. That means vital organs, including the heart, were no longer receiving the oxygen-rich blood they needed."

6341

" He says both men were on the ground and he watched them struggle as the gun went off. The witness also says he thinks the shooter, George Zimmerman, was on top of Trayvon and that Zimmerman didn’t appear hurt."

If Martin was on the ground why is Zimmerman’s shirt wet and why does he show signs of a fight and not Martin.

Why did you post something this stupid knowing what we know?

6342

Read closely, Terr. Again, page 41. Start with the first paragraph.

Draw some inferences.