Bricker, how do you think my estimated times for the fight’s segments pan out to your analytical mind? Do you think they are wildly out of sync with the reality of what happened, if Z’s account was true?
Actually someone asked him if he was, and he sorta acknowledged.
How about you, Saraya? Do you think I’ve under or over-estimated the amount of seconds involved? If they were to be accepted as accurate, what would that tell us about Z’s recollections and likely honesty?
I can’t really claim enough experience in fights to judge how realistic your time estimates are. As a general principle, if I had to guess, I think Zimmerman embellished – outright lied – about the events, though, so I’m already in the camp of thinking his account is false.
You and Zimmerman have done both - over and under but you already know that.
There’s certain actions that would require exact timing in order for them to be significant factors, otherwise they most likely won’t get mentioned to the jury.
I’d like to see where a CCTV angle leads though.
It would be hilarious if footage shows Zimmerman’s timing up until the fight to be completely fabricated and yet there’s no actual footage of the encounter itself.
They still could not convict him.
Like I said before and will keep on saying, when it comes to timing, Zimmerman’s biggest problem comes when you compare his claim of seeing Martin walking down the street at the clubhouse with what seems to be transpiring during his convo with the dispatcher.
Even if we add in some wiggle room to his reenactment account–and even if we go so far as to completely take the “doubling back and circling his truck 3 times” claim out of the picture–Martin would not been able to travel the amount of distance Zimmerman claimed he did, in such a short period of time. This will be very easy for the prosecution to demonstrate at trial: all they have to do is play back the NEN call and match it up with Zimmerman’s reenactment. The incongruency will be obvious.
So either Zimmerman is lying about where he was when he on the phone with dispatch. Or he’s lying about where Martin was when he was on the phone with dispatch. Either way, it spells problems for Zimmerman. Not that he doesn’t have a-plenty already.
The best you could stretch for from that, is that Zimmerman was the aggressor and started what led to a fight.
It still doesn’t pin him for murder and maybe not even manslaughter.
I’m with you on the unjustly part. With Florida law and the known evidence being what they are, it doesn’t look good for proving it was illegal.
Maybe in hick country USA, but in this forum and especially from the Europeans here, I’d be surprised if that is the case with even one.
Shouldn’t there only be two choices for an “either”? 
I agree, however I don’t think that gave Martin justification for striking him. That is an escalation and probably puts Zimmerman back on the right side of the law. I still think Martin “fighting” to get away from Zimmerman’s restraint is the likely cause for Zimmerman’s injuries and is consistent with the known evidence.
Racial stereotypes or an attempt at logical reasoning? There is much we don’t know about the events and people are trying to make sense of it. Such as:
“Why would Marting strike Zimmerman?”
It seems an odd thing to do. So one can look at what evidence there is and suppose that Martin fancied himself a hard ass and wasn’t going to be disrespected. Presuming innocence of the charged party, that is a reasonable place to start. Or alternatively one can posit that Zimmerman did something that incited such a response from an otherwise easy going 17 year old. Such as physically restraining him.
Good thing the case doesn’t hinge on one solitary detail, because otherwise you’d be right.
Aye that is the rub.
It is pretty simple to look at the known evidence and Zimmerman’s character and describe a scenario of events that accounts for all and has Zimmerman in the wrong. It is also pretty simple to look at that same evidence and describe a scenario of events showing Zimmerman exercising self defense. Making it all but impossible to prove the first scenario beyond a reasonable doubt. Or perhaps even get it to trial.
I get what Bete and Dimmy are on about. They are trying to describe a scenario of events based on known evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was the bad actor. But are taking liberties, splitting hairs, interpreting evidence in the best light and twisting a lot of things around in an attempt to justify their opinion. It might fly in the court of public opinion, but won’t in a court of Florida law.
My opinion is my opinion I don’t have to justify it. I can make a pretty well reasoned case for my opinion, but not a “beyond a reasonable doubt case”. I just hope this case results in some reform of the SYG and Self Defense laws in Florida. I know that no system can be infallible, but I think Florida’s could be a bit better.
The only sure outcome is justice will not be served in this case.
I think the problem stems from relying on Zimmerman’s reenactment. If you want to present that Zimmerman is a liar and nothing in his account is reliable, it is going to be hard to use his reenactment as evidence that he is lying. You kind of backed the prosecution into the corner of believing a lie to prove a liar.
I don’t see how you figure that. There is no better to impeach Zimmerman’s credibility than to demonstrate his story is contradicted by other evidence.
If he can’t even tell us where he was when he spotted Martin without running into problems with the space-time continuum, then why should we believe him when he said Martin beat him up?
Because he had a broken nose, two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his head, an eye witness saw Martin on top of him, and Martin had a mark on his knuckle consistent with his having punched Zimmerman.
Regards,
Shodan
What’s funny is that none of this is established fact. None of it.
This is why the claim that people are just looking at the evidence differently isn’t so.
On the one side, we have a group who is looking at the evidence as far as it is known, and basing their conclusions on that.
On the other, we have people who are making conclusions and then claiming that the evidence that contradicts them doesn’t exist.
Regards,
Shodan
No, what you are doing is conflating assertions, assumptions, and claims (e.g., “Zimmerman had black eyes”) with facts and knowledge.
We don’t know whether Zimmerman had a broken nose or black eyes, because none of the available evidence proves that he did. We also don’t know whether the witness truly saw Martin on top, since it was dark and he has recanted some of his earlier claims, which lessens the crediblity of his statement. And we definitely don’t know whether that scratch on Martin’s finger is consistent with a punch. That would need to be verified by an expert qualified to make that assessment.
We do know that Zimmerman had two minor cuts on the back of his head, but we don’t know how he incurred these injuries.
Maybe I misunderstood. I took it that you were suggesting the use of Zimmerman’s call, and matching that with the reenactment to show his testimony about events is false.
But if his testimony about events is false shouldn’t his reenactment be considered false? So then what do you have to time events with the call? (head explodes)
I agree we shouldn’t. However to get a conviction in Florida the prosecution is going to have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin did not beat him up.
I also love the constant claim from **Magiver **that “Martin went out of his way to confront Zimmerman.”
Martin was walking home. Zimmerman was in his truck. Martin went behind the houses. Zimmerman got out of his truck and followed Marting behind the houses. How the bleeding hell is that Martin going out of his way and not Zimmerman?
Yes, I know, there’s nothing illegal about getting out of your truck and taking a little stroll. Especially when you’re a law-abiding gun owner who would never do anything wrong. Double especially if you have your gun with you while innocently trying to keep a sight-line on one of those “assholes who always get away.”
I say again. Zimmerman was looking for Martin. And, holy shit, he found him. Zimmerman was the catalyst for this whole fucked up mess, not Martin.
Let us set aside facts. There is evidence that Zimmerman had such injuries. Maybe this is one for Bricker, but somebody (defense or prosecution) has to either prove said evidence factually existed or did not from a scuffle with Martin.
And none of that matters under Florida law if Martin attacked him as claimed.
Jack we know how you feel about guns, but the problem here isn’t just pointing out one or two inconsistencies, or even a string of less than brilliant decisions. When push comes to shove Martin ends up some distance from where one expects he would be and in a scuffle with Zimmerman.
Now I think it was a “hey why are you following me”, followed by “what are you doing here, let’s talk to the cops” and then Zimmerman trying to strong arm him back to the street. Struggle ensues, Martin is going to break free, bang he’s dead. With no eyewitness to counter, Zimmerman’s testimony though, it is difficult to establish that this scenario is the correct one without reasonable doubt. I murder mystery writer would be hard pressed to craft a better whodunit opening scene.