The cycle of this thread is “Zimmerman is shown to be lying about something, assertions that his credibility is irrelevant are brazenly made, hopscotch onto the next point, Zimmerman is shown to be lying about that, repeat.” All interspersed with “we know this is true because Zimmerman said it.”
We have zero evidence - other than Zimmerman’s statements - that he went straight through the cut-through. I can’t recall specifically, but didn’t Zimmerman bang his flashlight against the doggy potty at some point during the call? That means that
he was at least up to the T, which makes sense, as that’s the last place he saw Martin. If he did indeed go through the cut-through while on the call, why didn’t he give the dispatch a house address? Especially since according to him that’s why he went through to the cut-through. Not because he was looking for Martin, oh no sir.
There’s also no evidence that he went back to his truck. If he was at his truck, why would he need to tell the dispatch to have the cops call him when they got there and he’d tell them where he was?
Incorrect. After initially agreeing to meet -at the mailboxes - and remember, they had already established the address for the clubhouse - he clearly, and undeniably, changes his mind:
What part of ‘Actually, could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at’ do you think means ‘I’ll be at my truck where we didn’t agree to meet’?
There are several clear lies and inconsistencies in the video walk-through, but let’s start with an easy one. In the video walk through (7 minutes in on this clip. ‘Then I thought to get out and look for a street sign’, because the NEN dispatch wanted to know which way Martin went.
But on the NEN call, it’s clear as day - Zimmerman gets out of the car immediately after Martin starts running, and in fact he knows exactly which way Martin is headed: towards the back entrance. Zimmerman isn’t asked what address he’s parked in front of until long after he got out of his car.
If you hadn’t already made your thinking clear enough, this little gem tells everyone all we need to know.
Which is according to GZ, right? Except he also said he continued in the same direction as Martin, just wasn’t following him, then lost sight of him altogether and was afraid he might be close enough to hear his address so couldn’t have known where he was at that point…so I guess…um…gee… 
How is it you’re so sure when GZ isn’t? GZ had no idea at all where he went, so how could you?
And let’s not forget the lies that George told out the gate, the way he tried to hide the fact that he was going after Martin…why would he have done that, I wonder? Let’s relive the magic of the moment he got called out for that, shall we?
Nope! You may be wrong a lot but you are always creatively and inventively so!
And it looks like I’m hardly alone in seeing through his bullshit, either:
What is as clear as day on the phone call? His lie? Yeah, I know!
I’m sure you believe that, Magiver. Although it’s also crossed my mind that you dont’ actually understand what lying is. No way to tell, really.
This would be the apoplexy I referred to earlier…and the blindness. Also the creativity and inventiveness.
So you agree that Zimmerman’s desire at that point was that Martin should die? Yeah, that’s kinda what I think, too. At least we agree on that much.
The work that some peeps are putting in to making GZ’s bullshit seem less bullshitty is really remarkable. What’s the investment?
Gee, Drago, why didn’t you tell me you were gonna say all the same stuff I said before I said it? Jeez.
Ouch. 
No it doesn’t. The evidence shows that Martin was not frightened of Zimmerman. If Martin were frightened of Zimmerman, he would not have left the safe place that he had reached ‘right by his father’s house’ and gone looking for Zimmerman in order to attack him.
If you are frightened of someone, and you have lost him, and there is a perfectly safe place a few steps away, you do not leave that place and go looking for someone and attack them. You walk in the back door, where it is safe.
Then how did Zimmerman get his broken nose, black eyes, and the gashes on the back of his head, and how did Martin get the mark on his knuckle?
Regards,
Shodan
Here is the map of the townhouses. Trayvon was staying at 2631 Retreat View Cir, Sanford. The map makes more sense now that I’ve seen testimony from the neighbors. Trayvon was killed at the T (top of the map). Looks like he was maybe a couple minutes from home. Even faster if he ran. He had to reach that spot marked A on the map.
Has anyone found evidence maps giving the addresses of the neighbors that testified? They always hold up a map in court and use a sticker to indicate where the witness lived. I can’t find that map evidence online.
Well shit. The stinking link didn’t save my zoom settings. How are people saving the zoomed in map?
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=2631+retreat+view+circle&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&ei=C8zOUeLeEee9ywH3goCQAw&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAg
Trying again. This is much better but the saved link is still losing my zoom settings.
You mean the evidence that Martin thought George was creepy? The evidence - from George, no less - that Martin ran away? That evidence?
Please show the evidence that Martin went looking for Zimmerman. The only evidence we have shows Zimmerman looking for Martin, not the other way around. Please show the evidence that Martin looked for Zimmerman for the purpose of attacking him. If that was his motive, running away seems like a rather odd choice of action. If his motive was to attack Zimmerman, and he was able to approach Zimmerman from behind, as George says, speaking to Zimmerman and ruining any element of surprise seems like a rather odd choice.
I live ‘near’ a little convenience store on the corner. When I’m explaining where I live to someone that doesn’t know the area, it’s ‘right near by’. It’s a three minute walk.
Since Team Zimmerman seems to be seizing on the idea that he was so close to his father’s house he could have gotten there right away, surely you’d agree that even the cut-through T could be considered to be ‘right near’ his house. It’s near. It’s fairly close.
The evidence could equally be assumed that Martin was trying to stay out of sight because he didn’t want to lead the ‘creepy’ guy following him the last quarter of a mile or so right to his doorstep, stepped out to leave thinking Zimmerman was gone, and but George spotted him.
The evidence would be equally consistent with such a scenario.
We have gone over this a hundred times. Martin was “right by his father’s house”, in back, “'cause it more closer”. That’s what Dee Dee said in her deposition, and repeated in her testimony.
No it can’t. If you are trying to avoid someone, and you have lost him, and you want to stay out of sight of him, you don’t go looking for him. You walk into your father’s back door and give the Skittles and watermelon drink to your little brother, which is what you allegedly were up to in the first place.
No, it isn’t. The evidence is consistent with a scenario where Zimmerman starts following Martin, they lose track of each other, Martin is not afraid of Zimmerman, and leaves a perfectly safe spot, goes back to the last place he saw Zimmerman, finds him, confronts him, and then attacks, breaking his nose, blackening his eyes, and then jumping on his chest and pounding his head on the pavement. That’s what the evidence demonstrates, at least to date. It is backed up by the physical evidence, the relative locations of Martin’s father’s house, the place where Zimmerman parked his truck, the place where the fight took place, Dee Dee’s account of Martin’s movements, and the NEN transcript of the calls where Zimmerman reports where he is and what he is doing before the fact and before he had any reason to prevaricate.
On the other hand, to back up any other scenario, we have unfounded speculation, blatant misrepresentation, and denial.
Gosh, tough call.
Regards,
Shodan
The evidence is consistent up to that point. The rest is your spurious, wild-ass conjecture. But txs for playing.
You are correct. I should have added “or serious bodily injury”. My apologies.
That’s my point, if you fear death, or serious injury, from an individual you generally don’t decide to confront them.
I agree, but it appears that his bravado may have lead to him striking another individual. And, at this time, we have no evidence that the other individual initiated any physical contact.
Perhaps we use the term “asshole” differently. I would never use it the way you did as description of who goes around initiating fights. When someone says asshole, I think of the jerks that cut you off in traffic, Bill Lumberg or the guy screaming at his wife in Denny’s. However, if you meant it as, guys who go around manhandling people… then I digress.
I see you chose to completely ignore the the final statement of my post. Is it impossible for you to acknowledge that “probably” is not good enough to convict someone? Your own words, you are not certain.
Martin wasn’t using deadly force. He had a right to defend himself without the intensity of fear necessary for deadly force.
I am not arguing that the state has made the case, I’ve never argued that. I’ve argued the facts themselves and what truth they tell. I’ve already said several times I fully expect an acquittal, but I also fully believe that Zimmerman committed second degree murder and that was before the prosecutor brought that charge.
From what I’ve seen and read thus far, I think the state fucked up across the board here, but it’s much too late now to fix. One can only hope that this experience, even with an acquittal, will have been sufficiently unpleasant to deter Mr. Zimmerman from playing cops n’ robbers in the future.
Based upon what? The fact that he wasn’t successful in killing Zimmerman?
Even if Martin was initially the defender, if the tides turned and he became the aggressor, it could still devolve into Zimmerman having a legal right to defend himself.
The unfortunate reality here is that there really doesn’t seem to be enough definitive evidence to say that Zimmerman beyond a shadow of a doubt may not have had the right to defend himself.
I concur, but there is never going to be a fully factual accounting of what took place that night. As evident by the twisted logical leaps and the reliance on “innocence of youth” to support a narrative that satisfies your desire that this case be an example to all wannabe meddlers…
Anyone capable of separating rational thought from emotional desire should have seen the state had a losing hand from the get go (excepting some blockbuster evidence that never was released to the public).
This case is a great lesson. Not in the dangers of playing wannabe cop. Rather it is a great lesson in what we as a people have to be willing to sacrifice and accept in order to maintain a legal system that presumes innocence until proven guilty. Small comfort for Martin’s family, but in the end a good (but sad) outcome for all Americans.
I fully support and believe in the presumption of innocence, but I am appalled that in a situation such as this, where there are no living witnesses to the full incident other than the person responsible for the killing, that anything short of an immediate, thorough and aggressive investigation would ever be acceptable. And that’s definitely not what happened here. Furthermore, I think that in such a case as this, even though the state could have and should have done WAY better, that it is right and proper for the determination of whether this was justifiable use of deadly force to be made by a jury. Only in the clearest of cases should there be anything less. Innocent until and unless proven guilty, but let’s make sure we use the system we have to thoroughly test and probe the facts.
I think we owe it to the dead people and the people who are mourning them to do everything we can to determine the truth of how they died.
I don’t think you can conclude this if you’re using second-hand accounts. This is just the first week, and there is so much spin going on that it’s hard to get an objective assessment of how things are really playing out in the courtroom.
The jury’s experience in all likelihood is completely different from spectators. Especially if they are coming at this relatively uninformed. Everyone who has participated in this thread is knowledgeable about the claims that have been made, which means we’re more apt to see significance in certain details and fixate on them inordinately. But for the jury, a lot these details will merit a big friggin’ deal. For instance, the whole issue with how far away they were from the T. Or where Zimmerman’s keys were found in proximity to the T. Or whether or not its reasonable that someone could forget their street address.
While the defense tries its best to make testimony kinda sorta conform to Zimmerman’s not-entered-as-evidence-yet narrative about the fight itself, they ignore bigger issues. Like Zimmerman relentlessly following Martin before the fight started. West basically conceded that this happened. But of course, you won’t see anyone on the pro-Z side talk about this, even though for the past year much ado has been made over how Zimmerman was only looking for a street sign.
If this jury is fair-minded and reasonable (which is a big “if”), they will probably be mostly focused on big picture things. I think the prosecution’s strategy this week has been to present the big picture story using the crime scene witnesses and first responders. Getting bogged down on tiny details in the beginning means they risk losing the jury’s attention, and its also sends the message that this a complicated case when it isn’t. I don’t know if this is smart strategy in a case like this one, but it doesn’t sound like a stupid one, either. Hopefully in the following weeks, they get more rigorous.
Who says it was “safe”? You are in the dark and have no way of knowing whether you are safe or not.
Besides, ever hear of the “fight or flight” instinct? Human nature. Old as I am, I would have chosen the first. Why? Because I’ve done it before – lucky to be alive really.
Just two years ago I fought two burglars in my house. Result? A broken hand, lots of bruises and tons of legal problems. Of course, I don’t live in Florida.
Well, he’d have the opportunity to put a locked door between him and the “creepy-ass cracker”, then phone the police, so probably safer that going back to him and punching him.
According to Dee Dee, Martin was by his father’s house, and said so. Of course he knew it was safe - it was where he came from.
Well, isn’t that the point? Martin chose first to fly. Then he was safe. Then he chose to go back and fight. He was legally justified to run. He was legally justified to tell Zimmerman to piss off. He was legally justified to do a lot of things. What he chose to do was go looking for Zimmerman, punch him in the face, knock him down, and jump on his chest and pound his head on the sidewalk. That, he was not legally justified in doing.
Regards,
Shodan
No he didn’t.