Are the two mutually exclusive?
So, you’re happy with every aspect of the police investigation? SPD did a great job in difficult circumstances and left no stone unturned, ya think?
What are you talking about? He said he was struck by Martin and and then wrestled around and Martin got on top of him. Martin was a football player. The entire game is based on taking opponents down.
Martin did pound Z into the pavement. All your “why’s” end with the evidence.
It’s not puzzling at all based on the evidence of eye witness accounts, phone records, and injuries. It’s plain as day.
Yes, based on the evidence released so far, I think they did a great job.
Who else struck Zimmerman?
Lemme concentrate on just a few of your points in particular.
No. Dee Dee says absolutely nothing that can be construed as Martin “doubling back.” How you hear and read " And then he told me like the guy was getting close..like..and he told me the guy was getting real close to him. The next I hear, ‘What are you following me for?’” and flip that syntax around to mean Martin was getting closer to Zimmerman I have no idea.
confronted him, and even heard the “bump” where Martin knocked down Zimmerman.
[/QUOTE]
You say that last part so factually. And before you start, I’m perfectly willing to consider that Martin did knock down Zimmerman.
Yes. She certainly did. Now what of it? We all misspeak at times, right? Mix up the names of our children, that sort of thing? I’m kind of fascinated by Freudian slips, but more often a slip of the tongue is just a slip of the tongue.
That’s not what she meant, and you know it.
Zimmerman was a bouncer. The entire game is based on being able to spot troublemakers and deal with them in a controlled manner.
Z was paid for his abilities. Was Trayvon good enough to be paid yet?
You seem pretty certain of this. Go on, how many times exactly did it happen, going by the injuries? Point to specific characteristics of the injuries that indicate they could only have happened in the way stated.
You sound like MOM. “Nothing to see here, folks. It’s all a wrap and even though we know George should never have been charged, we’re just going along with the charade, knowing good old redneck Americans will see through it.”
So, we have your promise when Z is convicted, you wont be blaming SPD for their inadequacies?
Who had the most to gain from appearing injured when the police turned up? That’s who I’d be looking at.
There are no skills required to work as a bouncer and I’ve seen bouncers dropped with one punch. It wouldn’t matter if he was Joe Frazier in his prime because the evidence shows he was taken down by Martin.
I don’t have to count or be specific of anything except that Zimmerman was the person on the bottom and sustained all the injuries.
rant.
there is no evidence that contradicts Zimmermman’s testimony. “beyond reasonable doubt was explained to you.
That statement doesn’t make any sense at all given the evidence. There were witnesses right there after the fight. You seem to have great difficulty with the evidence and choose to continually post questions about stuff already answered by the evidence.
It’s implied. She said that Martin told her he was next to his house. a number of minutes pass and he’s back up at the intersection of the “T”.
There are a number of possibilities based on her testimony.
- Martin was right by his house per his conversation with Dee Dee and walked back
- Martin was close enough to his house that he considered himself "right by"and was hiding.
She states a couple of interesting things that point to both. “aint gonna run” implies there’s no need to run. He is indeed right by his house. She also says his voice gets lower and later his breathing gets heavier. That sounds like someone hiding or creeping about. If he’s hiding in the bushes along the Northeast side of the back yard area then Zimmerman’s path to the street brings him back toward the T intersection and Martin would hear him getting closer.
Whichever scenario occurred the fight still started near the T intersection which means Martin approached Zimmerman and the approach is from East to West which coincides with Zimmerman’s testimony.
How often was it done by a sober, skinny 17yr old, with no mates around to back him up or try and look impressive for?
There is evidence they were on the floor, but there’s nothing but Z’s word to say how they got there.
Still no evidence of how they occurred, beyond Z’s say so.
You’ve obviously interpreted the nen call and reenactment video in a totally different manner to me.
One very helpful witness who had the foresight to document Z’s rear head injuries, but failed to take one of his obviously bloodied face.
When you consider Z’s confused state of mind when recalling these events - no doubt a result of his extensive head injuries - isn’t it possible that Z actually caught up with TM on the dog path outside his dad’s home, and was punched so hard he was propelled all the way back up towards the top of the T?
Listen to Z’s nen call again. He obviously didn’t have a clue where he was, so for all we know, he could have been anywhere on Twin Trees Lane when he parked up.
How can we trust any of his recollections really, bearing in mind the brain damage he must have suffered?
your question is moot because the evidence shows it happened. You can stamp your feet and suggest it’s unlikely but the evidence does not support that premise.
yes, there is evidence. His bleeding nose is evidence . The prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt it didn’t happen that way. There is no other logical conclusion absent additional evidence.
Cite he was confused.
The call shows he knows exactly where he is. He does not know the name of the street. He gave explicit directions and where to meet sans the street name.
As has been stated to you repeatedly by more than one person his statements have not been taken at face value. they have been measured against other evidence.
No I am not, since this isn’t remotely like the statement you made before.
Way to take a page out betenoire play book though. I believe that is from chapter 3, ‘Obfuscation, Misdirection, the Art of the Backpeddle’
It’s more that I see no reason, based on evidence, to disbelieve him.
If it did happen as a result of a clash of heads, Zimmerman would still be as stunned as if he were punched. If the broken nose and knocking to the floor was accidental - which I consider pretty unlikely, an accidental clash of heads with that much force that left no mark whatsoever on Martin is implausible - you still need to explain why he was on top of Zimmerman, attacking him, and why Zimmerman could not reasonably have been in fear of death or serious injury.
If Martin was attempting to communicate to Zimmerman that he broke his nose accidentally, continuing to attack him seems to me a poor way of going about it.
The post you are replying to was a piss-take post mocking your ability to get inside DD’s head and somewhow interpret exactly what TM did better than anyone else. The clue was in the part you didn’t respond to.
Incorrect. She describes Martin as telling her that he is running to the back of his father’s house “cause its mo’ easier”. Then Martin “say he right by his father house…” and subsequently “he ran from the back…” after “he lost him”, then Martin tells her that he “started walking back again” to where the fight took place.
Zimmerman was following Martin, then they lost sight of each other, then Martin went to his father’s house, and then doubled back and confronted Zimmerman.
Yes, we do. And sometimes we “misspeak” by forgetting what lies we have already told, and accidentally blurting out the truth.
Here is the exact quote -
What exactly she means by saying she could hear grass is not clear, but she definitely says it. She says that the reason that she could hear that somebody bumped Trayvon is that she could hear the grass.
As I said, she does not strike me as the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but for whatever her testimony is worth, it backs up Zimmerman’s account.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s your opinion and you are free to have it. Your charity towards someone responsible for the death of a 17 yr old who had been minding his own business before Z interrupted his life, is admirable.
IF it happened as Z says, this would be a fair guess, but if it happened once they’d started a standing tug of war, adrenaline is well known for keeping people going through far worse injuries.
Why are you so dubious? We know there was wet grass, which is notoriously slippery - ask football players why they have studs in their shoes - and that they were flailing around in the dark in close proximity before they went to the ground.
Would you expect an outline of Z’s nose on TM’s forehead or slightly above his hairline?
There’s no convincing evidence that TM was doing anything more than trying to get up off the crazy guy who’d grabbed hold of him. At that stage TM had a right to be in as much fear as Z, if not more.
I’m pretty sure that by the time he was struggling on the ground, apologising to Z was the last thing on his mind.
You’re still presuming him guilty here.
No. Obviously.
Apart from Zimmerman’s screams, the witnesses who saw them on the ground, the multiple injuries to Zimmerman’s head, and Zimmerman’s statement.
Add to that the fact that there’s no evidence whatsoever for your position that Zimmerman was holding him on the ground, and your argument has no force.
Also, as has been pointed out many times, if both of them were in reasonable fear, Zimmerman still had the right to defend himself.
So, congratulations on inventing an unsupported position that still doesn’t show Zimmerman did anything wrong. You’re really not very good at this, are you?
So you acknowledge he was continuing the fight whilst on top of Zimmerman? Do you also acknowledge that the law states that Zimmerman didn’t have to consider the threat ended until Martin backed off and clearly communicated that he was stopping his aggression?
No, I’m presuming TM was innocent.
What kind of mark were you expecting then? The rest of TM’s alleged blows left no evidence, so why would you expect any here? Do you think there should be a mark equal to the one found on one of his fingers?
Disputed.
None of whom could be described as having ringside seats.
Yet no witnesses who can say for sure they saw TM land a blow, despite watching from multiple viewpoints.
As bullet-proof as TM’s heart.
Well, apart from Z’s own words where he says he had to be careful where he aimed as his other hand was in danger of being hit. Remarkable consideration there by Z, under the circumstances.
I’m going to give the edge to the person without a gun being followed by a menacing-looking stranger, in the “who was more fearful?” stakes.
If you say so.
No. I think TM was trying to get back to his feet while Z had a hold of his clothing. You do realise his upper garments were being pulled away from his body when the gun was fired, don’t you?
If he was being held onto by Z, he couldn’t back off, as was apparent by him getting shot by Z at close range, even though he apparently knew Z had a gun in his hand. If you was sat on someone who you knew had a gun in his hand, would you hang around waiting for him to aim it?