Zimmerman in the news, part 438939222221093232

[ZiprHead]

I've pointed it out several times in the Z vs. M thread. Jeantel's testimony of hearing Trayvon yelling "Get off me!" several times when the confrontation starts. Then hearing the phone being knocked from M's hand.

No. The get off was after they had started wrestling on the ground. It was after she heard the grass blowing sounds. She also said that on one of the talk shows she didn't know how it started but believed Martin threw the first punch and was opening a can of whoop ass on him.

Someone doesn't "open a can of whoop ass" on another person with a phone in their hand.

“Why you following me for?” An old man said, “What are you doing around here?” She called Trayvon’s name and he didn’t answer. She said someone bumped him, and she heard the phone drop. She could hear a little bit of sound. Trayvon was saying “Get off, get off.”

 

[coloradoatheist]

No. The get off was after they had started wrestling on the ground. It was after she heard the grass blowing sounds. She also said that on one of the talk shows she didn't know how it started but believed Martin threw the first punch and was opening a can of whoop ass on him.

Someone doesn't "open a can of whoop ass" on another person with a phone in their hand.

“Why you following me for?” An old man said, “What are you doing around here?” She called Trayvon’s name and he didn’t answer. She said someone bumped him, and she heard the phone drop. She could hear a little bit of sound. Trayvon was saying “Get off, get off.”

She was the one who said it.

The location of the incident was also in contradiction to her testimony.

 

[ZiprHead]

Someone doesn't "open a can of whoop ass" on another person with a phone in their hand.

“Why you following me for?” An old man said, “What are you doing around here?” She called Trayvon’s name and he didn’t answer. She said someone bumped him, and she heard the phone drop. She could hear a little bit of sound. Trayvon was saying “Get off, get off.”

She was the one who said it.

The location of the incident was also in contradiction to her testimony.

Cite, please. How would she, being on the phone, be able to pinpoint a location?

 

[coloradoatheist]

She was the one who said it.

The location of the incident was also in contradiction to her testimony.

Cite, please. How would she, being on the phone, be able to pinpoint a location?

They both agreed on him running which was on the live call. He lost track of M at the spot of where they met later. J said he called back, started talking for a bit while walking and said he was still following. That's inconsistent with where they met. So M doubled back, most likely, or hid in the bushes but hiding in the bushes you wouldn't hold a normal conversation.

 

[ZiprHead]

Cite, please. How would she, being on the phone, be able to pinpoint a location?

They both agreed on him running which was on the live call. He lost track of M at the spot of where they met later. J said he called back, started talking for a bit while walking and said he was still following. That's inconsistent with where they met. So M doubled back, most likely, or hid in the bushes but hiding in the bushes you wouldn't hold a normal conversation.

So nothing about Jeantel pinpointing his location then adding your own speculation. Got it.

 

[laughing dog]

That is truly debatable in every sense of the word. For example, if Martin had been as big an asswipe as Zimmerman, Zimmerman would not have been alive to tell his version of events.

That's an excellent point. What if Zimmerman had died and Martin was the only one telling the story of what happened.

His story would have been "There a creepy guy following me", confirmed by his conversation with Jeantel. Zimmerman was following him, confirmed by Z's conversation with police dispatch. Z attacked M, confirmed by Jeantel's description what she heard over the phone. No conflicting testimony from Zimmerman. No defence attorney bringing in a hunk of concrete to show a weapon. If the jury and system isn't biased by racial prejudice (and I'm not saying it is), Martin would have walked.

And even if he hadn't walked, he'd still have been alive.

 

[coloradoatheist]

They both agreed on him running which was on the live call. He lost track of M at the spot of where they met later. J said he called back, started talking for a bit while walking and said he was still following. That's inconsistent with where they met. So M doubled back, most likely, or hid in the bushes but hiding in the bushes you wouldn't hold a normal conversation.

So nothing about Jeantel pinpointing his location then adding your own speculation. Got it.

Yes and no. We have the layout of the cut-through and the road and a visual of the distance. But with Martin's testimony we would have what he did. But then again, if Martin was charged with assault this case would never have been discussed.

 

[ZiprHead]

Layout, shmayout. Martin was a US citizen with a right go anywhere he wanted in a public area without being accosted by an armed, self-important douche on a vendetta.

 

[Mumbles]

At this point...

If a person seriously thinks that Zimmerman, the guy known to be violent to strangers, coworkers, and family, who recorded himself following Martin in his car, and then getting out of his car and chasing him on foot, just suddenly said "never mind", and then Martin, who was running away from Zimmeerman, suddenly came running back and attacked him...

I simply have nothing to say, that's ridiculous on it's face.

 

[Arctish]

It not easy to see. If Zimmerman assaulted Martin first, just because Martin gets the upper hand in the fight does not equal assault, that's self-defense.

If cops show up to a fight with one person calling the police before the fight and only one person bloodied, 9 times out of 10 the person without the wounds would be charged with assault. They wouldn't have too much problem with that charge.

I disagree.

Nine times out of ten the pursuer is charged with assault, not the pursued.


ETA: Actually, I don't have a firm number for that statistic but I believe it's closer to 19 times out of 20.

 

[Arctish]

I've pointed it out several times in the Z vs. M thread. Jeantel's testimony of hearing Trayvon yelling "Get off me!" several times when the confrontation starts. Then hearing the phone being knocked from M's hand.

No. The get off was after they had started wrestling on the ground. It was after she heard the grass blowing sounds. She also said that on one of the talk shows she didn't know how it started but believed Martin threw the first punch and was opening a can of whoop ass on him.

That is incorrect.

Jeantel objected to the Defense saying Martin 'bashed' Zimmerman because it implied Martin attacked, which she reiterated he did not, and would not. She said that Zimmerman attacked Martin, and that if Martin was attacked, she believed his response would have been to 'whoop-ass'.

This lie about Jeantel's 'whoop ass' comment has been corrected so many times, and the link to the Piers Morgan interview in which it was made has been provided so many times, that I can scarcely believe people offer it up in the sincere belief that it's true.

Have you never watched the interview? Are you unable to understand her? Are you relying on the same sources Derec uses for your information? If so, I feel I should warn you his sources are so bad calling them dogshit is an understatement.

 

[ZiprHead]

At this point...

If a person seriously thinks that Zimmerman, the guy known to be violent to strangers, coworkers, and family, who recorded himself following Martin in his car, and then getting out of his car and chasing him on foot, just suddenly said "never mind", and then Martin, who was running away from Zimmeerman, suddenly came running back and attacked him...

I simply have nothing to say, that's ridiculous on it's face.

This

 

[Arctish]

Cite, please. How would she, being on the phone, be able to pinpoint a location?

They both agreed on him running which was on the live call. He lost track of M at the spot of where they met later.

Do you mean Zimmerman? Zimmerman said Martin was running and he was pursuing. We don't know where Zimmerman lost track of Martin because he didn't say on the recorded call and was fuzzy on that detail in his statements to police. In the walk through he said Martin turned a corner and then came back and circled the car only to walk away again and go around the same corner, an event that could not possibly fit into the timeframe established by the recorded call. He said he did not see Martin again until Martin approached him at the place where the fight took place. He told the cops he had gone across the top of the T intersection to look for a house number on a street where he said Martin didn't go and he himself wasn't intending to stay. It makes no sense, and it doesn't match what ear-witnesses heard.

Zimmerman had mentioned his belief Martin was heading for the back entrance earlier, so even though it is reasonable to believe Zimmerman was heading for the back entrance to cut Martin off and would have put him in the right place at the right time for the part that the neighbors heard, we don't know that that's what he did.

J said he called back, started talking for a bit while walking and said he was still following. That's inconsistent with where they met. So M doubled back, most likely, or hid in the bushes but hiding in the bushes you wouldn't hold a normal conversation.

Jeantel said she was the one who called back. She said Martin told her he didn't know if the creepy guy was still following him. She said Martin said he was going to walk home really fast.

Martin might have doubled back, or he might not have. There's no specific route he would have had to have taken to be at the place and time where Zimmerman found him. And that bullshit story about Martin hiding in the bushes and ambushing Zimmerman has been thoroughly demolished. Not even Zimmerman and his brother are peddling it anymore. So please don't bring it up. It was a shitty attempt at victim-blaming the first time it was posted, and it hasn't improved with time.

Anyway, the point about ambiguity being to the advantage of shooters in Florida remains:

ld's point did seem to escape you though, that if there is an incident between two people, it is best off to off the other guy to be able to make certain that the incident can be retold in your own favor.

It still has to be within the facts and evidence that's there though.

It can also be in a hole where there are no facts and evidence so long as it is not grossly inconsistent with said facts and evidence. For example, Apperson could have claimed that Zimmerman saw his gun and reached for it while saying "I'm gonna kill you." As long as no one [or virtually no one] witnessed this particular timeframe up close within hearing range (a hole not grossly inconsistent with evidence), the defendant is entitled to possibly be believed. I mean, look at all the stuff Zimmerman says that Martin did but no one saw Martin say he was going to kill him or that he was trying to get a gun. Even Zimmerman's claim about wrist control is inconsistent with his alleged lack of knowledge about fighting, yet there it was...

 

[RavenSky]

Maybe. If Zimmerman gets killed, the Apperson's could tell a version of events that could not be disputed by Zimmerman and which may have led to no charges.

Yep. Worked for the fuckwad Zimmerman

 

[RavenSky]

Apperson wouldn't have needed Zimmerman to have a gun out to make the claim he feared for his life anymore than the gun-toting Zimmerman needed Martin to be likewise armed to make the exact same claim.

Florida's SYG law might as well be called the Dead Men Tell No Tales law. Under its provisions, merely claiming you were afraid someone would hurt you is enough to escape prosecution for killing them.

I disagree. While it's a little broad, there is still a definition of reasonable in there. The argument has been about what is considered reasonable...

You can disagree all you want, but as Florida case law has already shown (and not just with Zimmerman), Arctish is 100% correct

 

[RavenSky]

Because more often than not, when you try and make the story up you will screw something up. But people still do get away with murder.

Yeah. Zimmerman

 

[RavenSky]

I could very easily see the police deciding to go after Martin, despite the clear evidence that Zimmerman assaulted him. In fact, the police chief came right out and said that Martin "must regret what he did", despite having no evidence that Martin did anything wrong.

But the issue is that there is no evidence that Z assaulted Martin. Only maybes.

There is no evidence Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman, you mean. We have evidence Zimmerman assault Trayvon - the bullet hole in Trayvon's chest

- - - Updated - - -

I've pointed it out several times in the Z vs. M thread. Jeantel's testimony of hearing Trayvon yelling "Get off me!" several times when the confrontation starts. Then hearing the phone being knocked from M's hand.

No. The get off was after they had started wrestling on the ground. It was after she heard the grass blowing sounds. She also said that on one of the talk shows she didn't know how it started but believed Martin threw the first punch and was opening a can of whoop ass on him.

No she didn't

- - - Updated - - -

Someone doesn't "open a can of whoop ass" on another person with a phone in their hand.

“Why you following me for?” An old man said, “What are you doing around here?” She called Trayvon’s name and he didn’t answer. She said someone bumped him, and she heard the phone drop. She could hear a little bit of sound. Trayvon was saying “Get off, get off.”

She was the one who said it.

The location of the incident was also in contradiction to her testimony.

She couldn't testify to any location. She wasn't there.

Zimmerman, otoh, was there and he changed his story multiple times

 

[RavenSky]

At this point...

If a person seriously thinks that Zimmerman, the guy known to be violent to strangers, coworkers, and family, who recorded himself following Martin in his car, and then getting out of his car and chasing him on foot, just suddenly said "never mind", and then Martin, who was running away from Zimmeerman, suddenly came running back and attacked him...

I simply have nothing to say, that's ridiculous on it's face.

It was ridiculous on it's face even before Zimmerman proved himself to be a violent asshole by assaulting a few more people afterward

 

[Arctish]

But the issue is that there is no evidence that Z assaulted Martin. Only maybes.

There is no evidence Trayvon assaulted Zimmerman, you mean. We have evidence Zimmerman assault Trayvon - the bullet hole in Trayvon's chest

We also have the fact that armed pursuit of a fellow citizen, approaching them in a hostile, confrontational manner likely to cause a person to fear for their life or safety, and attempts to physically restrain someone while not being duly authorized by law to do so is assault, and we have evidence all three occured. But I doubt that makes any difference to the die-hard pro-Zimmerman faction.

 

[Mumbles]

A quick reminder of how badly Zimmerman's reenactment compares to evidence:



It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that Zimmerman had started his feud with this other guy, because that's what he does.