How do you know Martin jumped on Zimmerman from behind? Did the media actually alter footage as you claim? Sorry, but I don't recall these offhand.
According to an eyewitness- within the police reports, he was jumped while standing in the door of his vehicle; Reported is that the same witness (Unnamed) reported seeing Martin punching Zimmerman on the ground,
It could have been avoided just as neatly if the kid, who had gotten out of Zimmermans view, hadn't returned to Zimmerman, Jumped on him from behind and Assaulted the man.
At this time, I'm unclear as to whether Zimmerman had on the jacket with bold SECURITY lettering on the back of it. I've heard both...
IF he did, how could Martin have missed it when he jumped him from behind?
Either way, Zimmerman was assaulted.
He was beaten pretty badly which is a bit unnerving when it's in the process of happening...
It could have been avoided if the Kid had gone ahead on HOME when he evaded Martin, a Watch man investigating a Suspect.
He CHOSE instead to go back and assault the Watch Man.
Not according to the volume of reports that the article admits to being released.
And in all fairness, the only people crying out FOUL about the race issue are those that were not there.
As opposed to what? The loads of people who were there? And at least the people who are saying he's a racist are people who know him, like one of his employees who said he used to call him a terrorist and mock his middle eastern accent.
You have no idea who this guy is.
The Media Misrepresented these facts when altering footage to make it appear as though Zimmerman said, "He looks like he's up to no good. He looks black."
They were motivated to Lie.
When in actuality, the Operator ASKED HIM what race the suspect was and saying, "he LOOKS black" smacks of Uncertainty on Zimmermans part as to whether he actually was black. He trusted the operator and answered the question and that was distorted against him to make him "Seem" racist.
I can't deny the media's (particularly NBC's) unethical handling of this story, but their behavior doesn't mean that by default Zimmerman is innocent and Martin started the fight. It just means that the media has an agenda they want to push.
In the meantime, all his friends and family find that baffling, attesting he is not really some mean old racist.
Oh well that settles it. If his friends and family say he's innocent, then he must be. They'd have no ulterior motives for protecting his character.
Biased Media and a lot of Racial hype that is Unnecesarry.
Possibly. The media's behavior aside, the best we can say is we don't actually know if this was racially motivated or not.
He didn't attack the kid - he saw as uspect, called 911 and the suspect assaulted him.
Again, you've decided that completely irrespective of the evidence. No one says he jumped Zimmerman. The argument has been to who was on top when the fight went to the ground.
Did Zimmerman show poor judgment? YES.
Martin showed MUCH MORE POOR JUDGEMENT.
Says you. As I've said, the only thing we know for sure is that this confrontation could have been avoided if Zimmerman had not confronted Martin. We know that happened. The only question is who started the physical confrontation, and nobody has the answer to that.
According to an eyewitness- within the police reports, he was jumped while standing in the door of his vehicle
That's a lie. You're complaining about the media lying, and yet here you are making things up.
Whether or not the white guy was at fault, this isn't about black racism.
<EDIT- Ok, I got no sleep last night at all... so my ability to be coherent is compromised a bitTrayvon's family and civil rights leaders charged that the shooting was not aggressively investigated because Trayvon was black. They also said Zimmerman, who is Hispanic, targeted Trayvon because of his race.
Studies have examined if ethnic/racially heterogeneous areas, most often neighborhoods in large cities, have higher crime rates than more homogeneous areas. Most studies find that the more ethnically/racially heterogeneous an area is, the higher its crime rates tend to be.[37]
So, is this because Blacks are more violent or have a propensity toward crime?Studies examining the relationship between percentages of different rates in an area and crime rates have generally either found similar relationships as for nationwide crime rates or no significant relationships. Most studied is the correlation between proportion of blacks in an area and crime with most of the studies finding a relationship, especially regarding violent offenses.[37]
Evidence released so far, including initial police reports, witness interviews and photographs, show Zimmerman and Trayvon tussled on a grassy courtyard between townhouses in a Sanford, Fla., development, before Zimmerman shot Trayvon at close range in the chest. At least one witness reports seeing Trayvon atop Zimmerman and punching him. Zimmerman emerged from the fight with a bloodied nose, swollen face and a bleeding cut on the back of his head.
If the case goes to trial, Zimmerman may not need to testify because the evidence, including a bruise on the knuckle of Trayvon's finger and Zimmerman's injuries, tell the story.
"Zimmerman was on the bottom. Trayvon was on top. Zimmerman's head was being banged on the ground," Dershowitz said. "This is one of those rare cases where the forensics tell loudly what happened."
Fraggle Rocker, can you cite this claim? I have googled and searched and searched but turned up nothing.It's not a "clear assault." As a Neighborhood Watch officer Zimmerman was specifically forbidden to: A) Carry a gun and B) Chase a suspect himself rather than simply calling the police.
If he had not violated the rules of his own job, the assault would never have occurred,
regardless of who originally assaulted whom.
Again, aside from the medical reports, eyewitness report, 911 calls which are not very clear... we cannot prove who started it.We have no way of knowing who initiated it.
Yes, it is unreasonable. Establish that he violated rules- he may have.But judging from the fact that Zimmerman was armed in violation of his own rules and got in Martin's face in violation of his own rules, it's hardly unreasonable to assume that he was looking for a fight and got one.
Your statement is true but highly unlikely.For all we know he may have landed the first blow, Martin defended himself, and turned out to be a much better fighter than Zimmerman expected.
It may have. This must be established.Depending on the legal status of the Neighborhood Watch organization, it might have been actually illegal for him to carry a gun on duty and to attempt to arrest a suspect on his own.
I'm not certain this is true.My point of view is based on the evidence but also on the law.
He is not a professional law officer so he cannot be expected to know how to handle those situations. This egregious lapse of judgment resulted in an unnecessary death and he must be held accountable for it, even if it's only a few years in prison for manslaughter.
Here is your BIAS.Unfortunately there's no law against being a slobbering Neanderthal who goes out packing heat and looking for a fight. More's the pity.
Exactly and this is the crucial point.Of course Martin deserves his share of the blame. The old schoolyard whine is 100% true: "It all started when he hit me back." If Martin had the willpower to not respond with physical violence he'd still be alive.
Your bias against firearms speaks heavily for you here. This bias is apparent and it is a strong enough bias that you should know better than to opine while carrying it.But Martin was not the jerk with the gun. Jerks with guns belong in prison.
In reality, it may not be. But it's been turned into it.
From the news:
<EDIT- Ok, I got no sleep last night at all... so my ability to be coherent is compromised a bit
I had to edit this whole bit in quite a while after I posted. But I think it's relevant enough to warrant such a heavy edit.
There may be some validity to the claim, too.
In poor neighborhoods, where many minorities who have had less opportunities must also live where they can afford, you also have more criminals, people are are desperate, must steal or sell drugs... Crime does not pay and criminals tend to end up poor too.
So, is this because Blacks are more violent or have a propensity toward crime?
Not necessarily. POOR people do have a higher propensity toward stress and crime. The spanish word is "Desperado."
And ethnic minorities populate poor areas, not because of their ethnicity making them prefer being poor, but because of the opportunities for higher education and better paying jobs.
Recognizing scientifically valid concerns in a poor neighborhood and a statistical equivalence is not necessarily racism.
It's just touchy, but sadly, the way it is...
But check out the crime rates in predominantly white trailer parks. Studies show: Just as high.
Race is not a factor- desperation, stress and employment opportunities are, though.
Again, sadly, an average mind can easily turn to a racially motivated point of view.
Zimmerman may not have been a member of the KKK. In ordinary life, he may not have thought that blacks were different than white. He was a minority himself and of mixed heritage.
But when on patrol, he may have been racially motivated by statistics even if he was not aware of the statistics.
Some see this as racial profiling and therefore: Wrong.
I agree, it is wrong from a racial standpoint. Not for any clear cut reason, looking at statistics. But simply because being aware that it's not race that makes a person compelled toward crime, but living conditions, it seems very wrong to assume that because someone is POOR, lives in a Poor Hood or is a certain race, that they must want to commit crime.
I've been profiled this way when I lived in a bad hood. More so because I was not the predominant race living there and people figured something must be up for me to be out there.
Whether Zimmerman profiled, that is not a crime. It's irrelevant to a murder charge. End EDIT>
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation...an-Trayvon-Martin-police-documents/55061830/1
From other thread:
Fraggle Rocker, can you cite this claim? I have googled and searched and searched but turned up nothing.
This does not mean that your claim is wrong, just unsupported.
I have no idea, currently, since he has a concealed weapon permit, whether he was still forbidden to be armed.
I had read some articles about a week ago that made the 'assault' more clear.
Now, when I need them, I cannot find them. The news hits are so overwhelmed with hits on the case...
I will need to drop the claim it's clear assault and no longer use that claim until there is stronger evidence to support it than just the medical reports that show that Martin had only bruised knuckles while Zimmerman had severe bruising and cuts throughout his head.
The medical reports cannot verify who started the fight.
So as it is now, only ONE eyewitness and the account of Zimmerman himself, along with those reports can substantiate that Martin Returned to Zimmerman and assaulted him.
Apparently that much is not enough to cause reasonable doubt- and override your Guilty unless proven innocent meme.
I CAN say that everything I've read said he was advised to not pursue suspects. But that's not the same as forbidden...
He was on the phone with 911 during his pursuit.
This is true. Zimmerman was a zealot, overly enthusiastic about stopping crime in his neighborhood.
This is not true. Who assaulted who is not just relevant, it's a determining factor. You do not get to just dismiss that simply because it undermines your argument.
Again, aside from the medical reports, eyewitness report, 911 calls which are not very clear... we cannot prove who started it.
But the evidence does lean in support of Zimemrmans personal account.
Yes, it is unreasonable. Establish that he violated rules- he may have.
Establish that he did not take precautions to assure his safety and defense- but rather was armed because he wanted to Shoot Somebody.
What IS established is that he was looking to prevent crime in his neighborhood.
You assume a great deal, Fraggle... and it is not reasonable.
Your statement is true but highly unlikely.
Martins report showed no bruising except for his knuckles. This is very indicative that Martin was, indeed, the first to strike. Add to this that he overwhelmed Zimmerman enough to continue doing damage to his head, slamming it into the ground.
At this point it is unclear who was screaming for help.
The audio tape is garbled.
However, zimmermans parents heard the tape and say it's their son. Martins father says its not his son. Martins mother says its her son.
Eyewitness reports seeing Martin standing over Zimmerman, Zimmerman on the ground being beaten.
Likliest conclusion is that Zimmerman was calling for help, in fear of his life.
IF so- Zimmerman was calling for help- in fear of his life- PRIOR TO DISCHARGING A WEAPON.
It may have. This must be established.
I'm not certain this is true.
Admit it Fraggle, I have put forth stronger evidence than you have (Until you post a reply with more) and yet I am still biased by some degree.
So are you.
There is no shame in admitting you are biased and I think I know why...
I am biased because I do not believe that criminalizing people is good for justice.
In spite of this, I am trying very hard to use the evidence to support "Innocent unless proven guilty."
In all honesty, I cannot disagree with this statement. I do not like it...
But he did make a terrible mistake- a mistake that cost a grieving family a KID.
A kid who will never be allowed to grow into a man.
A Kid that will never attend college or get married or experience being a father himself.
It is a shame of epic proportions that a KID was killed.
My only issue is that Zimmermans enthusiasm is not murder.
The KID also made a terrible lapse in judgment.
A KID can also play with an electrical wire and get himself killed and it will still be just as tragic a loss without a person that can be blamed (Although in todays society- people are liable to prosecute the parents if they think they can get away with it...)
Here is your BIAS.
You do not like guns, I can assume from this post. You think anyone who owns are supports guns and gun rights are slavering neanderthals.
Exactly and this is the crucial point.
It was MARTINS behavior, not Zimmerman, that led to Martins death.
Zimmerman would most likely never have pulled that weapon out if he was not being beaten and screaming for help.
If Zimmerman pursued a suspect and the suspect allowed himself to be questioned or explained himself, instead of beating the other man senseless, NONE of this would have happened.
So while we can say that Zimmerman may have been wrong to pursue- Zimmermans pursuit should NOT have led to Martins Death.
Martins attacking and threatening the health, safety and maybe life of Zimmerman CAN have led to Martins Death,
Martin is the one who shoulders the burden of blame in his own death.
Fraggle your assumptions and character assassinations are the failing of your argument. You have painted a very bleak and sinister picture of a man. A man that "packs Heat" so that he can use it to run around killing people. Because he's a slobbering Neanderthal.
Your bias against firearms speaks heavily for you here. This bias is apparent and it is a strong enough bias that you should know better than to opine while carrying it.
The comments that you made in this post and the one about "being left in prison, decades in the future when the flood hits" which I had replied to in the other thread - Smacks of Hate.
Hatred and Profiling people that own guns as Jerks, Slobbering Neanderthals and Out to Make Fights.
You may not be hating racially, but hating nonetheless. It is just as illogical, profiles just as heavily and I wonder what you think of Cops and Soldiers who also must be armed. (U.S. Army service, here)
After-all, What would Inspire US to have gone into the field knowing that not only would we be ARMED, we would be armed against other people- not hunting deer or boar.
We must really be JERKS and Slobbering Neanderthals to choose that, huh?
JDawg
While I had not quoted or addressed your post- This post should cover anything you brought up.
If I failed to account for anything in which evidence can be a determining factor, please ask me and I'll respond to you. Most of your post struck me as Guilty unless proven innocent and anyone speaking supportive of Zimmerman is motivated to lie.
It just wasn't impressive enough of a case presented to bother trying to refute. The glaring errors in it speak for themselves.
you don't know anything about race relations in the country do you. most black people won't react well to white people stopping them and interagating them for no reason because during jim crow when a white person asked them questions they needed to make answer or be punished by society. there is nothing logical about it. MArtin was terrified and had been cut of by zimmerman.Logically, a black kid walking along with some snacks would have simply answered the questions and gone about his way.
lets see flight or fight instinct kicked in he ran when cornered( his conversation with friend is the evidence for this) he fought. than zimmerman shot him.He would not have gone to great effort to evade getting caught. He would not have run (Established in 911 call). He would not have gotten violent.
I'm seeing a LOT of speculation about Zimmerman. I've seen none about Martin. Very well, I'll do the dirty work.
By the simple fact that he had gone out for snacks, was found unarmed and with said snacks while walking home...What was Treyvon Martin doing that night?
/Facepalm..Was he really out for snacks? The evidence is a call to his girl and the presence of snacks. The evidence is in his favor in those regards.
The facts for Zimmerman, which are known and which he has admitted to.However, Zimmermans account can be called "lies" in order to promote guilty until proven innocent.
You mean by questioning what he was doing on the street that night? By asking if he was really out for snacks?What happens if we treat Martin the way we are treating Zimmerman?
Walking home and talking on the phone while carrying some iced tea and skittles is now "behaviour"?What happens if we speculate about Martins behavior?
So why bring it up?Traces of THC were found in Martins system. Literally traces, nothing that could have affected behavior or judgement. That's a non-issue, there.
He was walking home, talking to his girlfriend on the phone.If Martin had gone out for snacks and was even bringing snacks back, that does not mean that is all he was doing out there. It may have been pre-meditated or opportunistic, but we do not KNOW if he actually was instigating or taking part in a crime.
Tell me something. If your kids are walking home and this stranger starts to stalk them in his car. Would you advise your children to approach the stranger and answer his questions? Or would you advise your children to run?Logically, a black kid walking along with some snacks would have simply answered the questions and gone about his way. He would not have gone to great effort to evade getting caught. He would not have run (Established in 911 call). He would not have gotten violent.
It never would have been in the news- He would have arrived home to his family, complained about some jerk guard questioning him and gone about his business.
By walking on the street?Martin acted suspiciously, though...
Because Zimmerman never advised him that he was a Neighbourhood watch person. At all. He also never asked him what he was doing there. The police have stated that had Zimmerman behaved differently, Martin would not be dead. In other words, had Zimmerman listened to the advice of the 911 operator, if he had identified himself to Martin, Martin would not be dead. Get it yet?Why would Martin have felt compelled to beat up the Watchman instead of showing him "Snacks" and telling him what he was doing out there?
A motive for taking the man down, perhaps rendering him unconscious by beating his head into the ground- Would be to prevent him from detaining Martin for a crime.
Actually, it kind of has.It has not been established either way.
Midnight snacker?But those are not that actions of a midnight snacker.
Is that what you call this?Since it's not established, I've been giving Martin the same benefit of the doubt I've been giving Zimmerman-- Innocent unless demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty.
This benefit allows that Zimmerman was profiling a potential person or was overly zealous about his duties.
Which I have stated.
Again, there is no evidence that Martin was involved in any crime. None at all.Should news come out detailing that Martin HAD been involved in a crime... Perhaps buying weed and did not want to get caught, or perhaps casing a house...
It would make Zimmerman look a lot less overly-zealous.
What suspicious behaviour?I'd like to believe that the kid was not buying weed or casing a house... rather, he was just a kid that was in a bad spot at a bad time. But I cannot dismiss his Violence and suspicious behavior.
Say what? That didn't even make sense.i find it funny that your condemning everyone else as ignoring the facts when your hung on the minority witness who agrees with zimmerman ignore the fact of witnesses trying to correct witnesses to agree with zimmerman.
I have done no such thing.not to mention you have decided inexplicablely that zimmerman is a beacon of truth in this when he has the most incentive to lie.
Again- not all all. You assume too much yourself to accuse me of assumptions.also your assuming martin assulted zimmerman when simply because he was doing a better job at defending him self. basicly you decided martin was evil and deserved his fate rather than base anything off the facts.
White? Zimmerman is Hispanic. But you prefer to refer to him as white, in psite of not just his heritage and appearance- but to justify racial motives.you don't know anything about race relations in the country do you. most black people won't react well to white people stopping them
No reason? Inventing the facts again? You do not know if there was probably cause or not.and interagating them for no reason
Talk about ridiculous facts and assumptions!because during jim crow when a white person asked them questions they needed to make answer or be punished by society.
Irrelevant.By the simple fact that he had gone out for snacks, was found unarmed and with said snacks while walking home...
Using improper wording- Stalks. He was not stalking as the definition for the word does not apply.The facts for Zimmerman, which are known and which he has admitted to.
He stalks a kid in his car, who is walking home from the local store.
Yes, technically accurate- again your wording is misleading.He then gets out of his car, with his gun and starts to follow said kid on foot.
True.He calls the police who tells him that there is a car on the way, then he was told he was not required to follow the kid.
True- and this is where I call Zimmerman "Overly zealous in his duties."He takes after the kid on foot. Kid at this time was reporting to his girlfriend on the phone that he was being followed and that he was walking away fast.
True, I think.Zimmerman is then heard on the 911 tape to be out of breath or seemed to be running.
Wrong. He was heard asking Martin, "What are you doing out here?"Girlfriend on Martin's other line hears someone say something to Martin and then the line goes dead.
Inaccurate to the point of questioning your motives. Highly misleading.People in the surrounding area hear Martin screaming for help before he is shot dead by the armed Zimmerman
Agreed that Martin has every right to stand his ground. He has every right to walk down the street. He has every right to be annoyed about being questioned about it.Martin had as much right to stand his ground against a person who is chasing him and he may very much have done so.
The facts may be marginally clear- but your version of them is heavily distorted.These facts are not in dispute and are clear and reported by Zimmerman, the police, supported by 911 tapes and by eyewitnesses at the scene.
I am challenging others to provide proof of Zimmermans guilt. By the claims Ive read on here.If you wish to cast doubt on Martin's innocence, because he is apparently guilty for walking home on a public street with a can of iced-tea and a packet of lollies, then so be it. But you will be challenged and you will be expected to provide proof of Martin's supposed guilt.
Acting violently is now behavior.Walking home and talking on the phone while carrying some iced tea and skittles is now "behaviour"?
Nor did I claim to. What I claimed to be doing in that post was demonstrating how the Lynch Mob mentality of Speculating about Zimmerman would appear if it was reversed to Treyvon.You have absolutely no proof that he was there for anything else.
That's one quote, yet the girlfriend on the phone with Martin that night said that Martin told her that the man had asked him, "What are you doing around here?"Firstly, Zimmerman did not ask him any questions. Read the quote above, Zimmerman did not identify himself or try to "establish any form of dialogue".
WRONG.He also never asked him what he was doing there.
An officer stated that. "The Police" have not.The police have stated that had Zimmerman behaved differently, Martin would not be dead. In other words, had Zimmerman listened to the advice of the 911 operator, if he had identified himself to Martin, Martin would not be dead. Get it yet?
Totally irrelevant.Actually, it kind of has.
Bad use of an expression on my part. Who cares.It was in the early evening.
Neverfly said:While I had not quoted or addressed your post- This post should cover anything you brought up.
If I failed to account for anything in which evidence can be a determining factor, please ask me and I'll respond to you. Most of your post struck me as Guilty unless proven innocent and anyone speaking supportive of Zimmerman is motivated to lie.
It just wasn't impressive enough of a case presented to bother trying to refute. The glaring errors in it speak for themselves.
No. In other words, I addressed the case- if you have anything I missed, let me know... How can you say I was defeated and had no answer? I was able to answer Fraggle and Bells and Geoffp with the same answers...In other words, I defeated your points, you have no answer, and you're too embarrassed to admit your mistakes.
SEE?!simply repeat the lies I called you out on in your previous posts.
Odd... I've posted the excerpts, the links to the articles and what have you...A lot of claims of evidence with no such evidence presented, and what few things you do cite (such as "eyewitness reports") are completely fabricated.
The reports also note that two witness accounts appear to back up Zimmerman's version of what happened when they describe a man on his back with another person wearing a hoodie straddling him and throwing punches.
Zimmerman, 28, is a multi-racial Hispanic man who volunteered for the neighborhood watch committee who claimed that he shot Martin in self-defense after the 6-foot tall, 160 pound teenager knocked him to the ground, banged his head against the ground and went for Zimmerman's gun.
The documents start with a criticism of Zimmerman's decision to follow the teenager, who Zimmerman said was looking suspicious.
"The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement," an investigating officer wrote.
Zimmerman claims he got out of his vehicle to find a house number to let police know where he saw the allegedly suspicious person, and while returning to his car was knocked down by a punch in the nose and attacked by Martin.
The police report states that Trayvon Martin's father told an investigator after listening to 911 tapes that captured a man's voice frantically calling for help that it was not his son calling for help.
Another officer wrote, "I saw that Zimmerman's face was bloodied and it appeared to me that his nose was broken."
Witnesses, whose names were redacted from the report, also lent support to Zimmerman's version of what happened.
"He witnesses a black male, wearing a dark colored 'hoodie' on top of a white or Hispanic male and throwing punches 'MMA (mixed martial arts) style,'" the police report of the witness said. "He then heard a pop. He stated that after hearing the pop, he observed the person he had previously observed on top of the other person (the male wearing the hoodie) laid out on the grass."
The case against George Zimmerman, the Florida man charged with murder for shooting and killing unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin, is fraught with uncertainly as newly released police documents show evidence of Zimmerman's bloodied head and early assumptions by police that Zimmerman, not Trayvon, had screamed frantically for help.
"Every time they release a photo of this guy's head, his parents saying that's not Trayvon's voice on the audio, — every time that comes out, the case gets weaker and weaker," says Michael Grieco, a former prosecutor in Miami-Dade County. "If there's any evidence (Zimmerman) acted in self-defense or that he was standing his ground, the state is going to be in a tough position."
Screams for help can be heard on 911 tapes. In an interview with investigators, George Zimmerman's father, Robert, said the person crying for help is his son. A Sanford police report says that Trayvon's father, Tracy Martin, said the voice was not Trayvon's. An FBI analysis of audio recordings could not determine who screamed for help.
To counter the evidence that Trayvon at some point injured Zimmerman, prosecutors must show that Zimmerman provoked the confrontation. To do that, they will rely "very heavily on the fact that the guy was angry when he got out of the car, that he'd made previous calls, that the anger and frustration had built up and he'd decided to go after this person," Grieco said.
"His frustration and anger with the crime rate in the neighborhood and his getting out of the car and pursuing him all go into his state of mind for getting out of the car," Grieco said.
Outsize publicity and threats against Zimmerman may make it challenging to seat an impartial jury within the Florida county, defense attorney Alan Dershowitz said. Jurors may fear an acquittal would incite rioting or other repercussions, he said.
Zimmerman "will almost certainly prevail," Dershowitz said. "The charge should be dropped."
If the case goes to trial, Zimmerman may not need to testify because the evidence, including a bruise on the knuckle of Trayvon's finger and Zimmerman's injuries, tell the story.
"Zimmerman was on the bottom. Trayvon was on top. Zimmerman's head was being banged on the ground," Dershowitz said. "This is one of those rare cases where the forensics tell loudly what happened."
No it's a failure on my part. For this one, in spite of extensive searching- I cannot find that article I read that in.Again, as an example: You claim that witnesses have Martin jumping Zimmerman in the door of his car with his back turned.
At this time, it's best to consider this accurate.The only one claiming Martin attacked first was Zimmerman himself.
All true.The lack of bruising on the knuckles is your next "knock-down" evidentiary claim, but again you reach a non-sequitur. A lack of bruising on his knuckles does nothing to imply who attacked who. It could mean Zimmerman doesn't hit very hard, or that he hit Martin in a soft, fleshy part of the body, or that missed. It's entirely possible that Martin attacked first, but only after Zimmerman reached for his gun.
What's with the misuse of the word stalked, lately?You're assuming Martin is primarily to blame based on your own fabricated story, which is that Martin stalked Zimmerman and attacked him from behind.
You are yet to establish or provide proof that Martin was a criminal or was committing a criminal act by walking down the street.Irrelevant.
Many "criminals" are unarmed while committing crimes.
No. It is actually established fact that was the reason he went out and this is evidenced by the fact he had a drink and a packet of lollies in his hands as he was walking home. That is not a crime, nor is that in dispute. So it begs to question, why you are trying to make it seem as if he was doing something suspicious by doing something that was completely legal and that he was well within his rights to do.It's benefit of the doubt that he was out ONLY to get snacks and had no other purpose. For now, it's reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt that was his only purpose. I have repeatedly pointed this out and it is apparent in my posts on topic.
What behaviour?Which is why his behavior later is suspicious.
And what made Martin suspicious to Zimmerman?Using improper wording- Stalks. He was not stalking as the definition for the word does not apply.
Stalkers have chosen already known subjects. Zimmerman and Martin were complete strangers. He has not admitted to stalking.
He admitted to checking out when he perceived to be a suspicious character.
This is, by no means, UNUSUAL.
Stalking is unusual.
Now tell me why Martin was suspicious looking.Checking out suspicious characters happens in malls, streets, neighborhoods, shops and establishments all around the world, regularly.
Again, he got out of the car, with a weapon on his person, against the direct words of the 911 dispatcher who told him not to follow Martin as the police were on their way, and he first started to follow him on foot, and then gave chase when Martin correctly ran away from the stranger following him.Yes, technically accurate- again your wording is misleading.
He was carrying a concealed weapon- Tucked into the waistband of his pants.
He did not get out, gun in hand- as your misleading words could imply.
No, really?True- and this is where I call Zimmerman "Overly zealous in his duties."
Zimmerman is at fault for showing poor judgment.
Wrong. He was heard asking Martin, "What are you doing out here?"
As is yours by trying to cast doubt that Martin may have been committing a crime or considering a criminal act when you have absolutely no proof that he was.Inaccurate to the point of questioning your motives. Highly misleading.
Eyewitnesses at the scene placed the voice as Martin's. As did his mother and at least two voice experts who advised it was not George Zimmerman's voice in the 911 recording.Witnesses reported hearing screaming for help.
According to recordings that caught the screams and at least one eyewitness and one investigator- Zimmerman matches the screaming. Upon hearing the tape, most identified the screams as Zimmermans voice.
Martins Father identified the voice as NOT Treyvons.
Martins mother identified the screaming as Treyvon.
This leaves ONE person saying Treyvon was screaming for help and at least 5 others- if not more- saying it's Zimmermans voice.
There is effective uncertainty due to the garbling of the recording forensically.
The most probable conclusion based on the evidence including identification of whose voice was screaming and Martin was seen standing over Zimmerman, beating him- Zimmerman was screaming for help.
Zimmerman appears to be the one screaming, on the ground- for help- with eyewitness support.
Medical support is supportive.
All of this was before any shot was fired.
Who died?Agreed that Martin has every right to stand his ground. He has every right to walk down the street. He has every right to be annoyed about being questioned about it.
Your statement would be valid ONLY if you can demonstrate that Zimmerman had ATTACKED Martin.
Coming from you at this point in time, that's hilarious.The facts may be marginally clear- but your version of them is heavily distorted.
Well sorry to burst your bubble, but you have failed. Miserably.I am challenging others to provide proof of Zimmermans guilt. By the claims Ive read on here.
In addition, I've repeatedly pointed out that I give the benefit of the doubt to Martin- But made a demonstration of showing what happens when you reverse the process of accusation from Zimmerman onto Martin.
No?Since I have not claimed that Martin was committing a crime, I have no burden of proof.
I have, however, pointed out the fallacy in speculating.
I would suggest you read what I was responding to and you might just get why I think you are inherently dishonest.Acting violently is now behavior.
Really?Nor did I claim to. What I claimed to be doing in that post was demonstrating how the Lynch Mob mentality of Speculating about Zimmerman would appear if it was reversed to Treyvon.
Not a call to violence?That's one quote, yet the girlfriend on the phone with Martin that night said that Martin told her that the man had asked him, "What are you doing around here?"
Martin was being questioned by a strange man asking him what he was up to.
This probably bothered Martin. But was NOT A CALL TO VIOLENCE.
Nor would it strike anyone who has walked down the street at night and been asked the same question by people living there as odd.
I've done plenty of walking at night and been confronted by many people who asked what I was doing and why I was there. None identified themselves as police or watch men. At no time did I feel stalked, or threatened- I felt like someone was concerned about my presence- I felt defensive about my motives and character- not about my physical safety.
This is anecdotal.
However, your responses are as speculative as my response was anecdotal. Martin had no reason to react as he had, once confronted.
After having chased him.WRONG.
Martin, on phone call with GF and GF confirmed that Zimmerman DID ask him that exact question.
The officer in question is the officer who investigated the case, therefore, he was "the police".An officer stated that. "The Police" have not.
If Martin had behaved differently, he would also still not be dead.
It is far more likely that Martins behavior escalated to the result than Zimmermans behavior had.
It's needless to say that it all would not have happened had Zimmerman not observed and pursued. It's also needless to say it would not have happened if Martin stayed home that night.
What has greater relevance is what actually led to the shooting.
To examine that - we must look at what violence took place. The medical reports and eyewitness accounts that I have repeatedly outlined demonstrate that Martin, as it appears so far, took a greater part in his fate.
Pursuing someone is a violent act.Totally irrelevant.
None of that deals with who struck the first blow- who acted violently.
For that we look to the medical records and they show that Martin received NO BLOWS and Zimmerman received them extensively.
It shows that Martin had abraded and bruised knuckles and Zimmerman did not. Zimmermans injuries were to the blows he received.
Eyewitness reports that Martin was standing over Zimmerman beating him on the ground.
You ignore all of this while citing something irrelevant to that point.
Well it seems you do since you seem to have such a bug up your backside about Martin being out of his house and walking down the street at that time.Bad use of an expression on my part. Who cares.
You don't deserve any better.The rest is your usual sarcasm and wild accusations that have more to do with character attacks with someone who doesn't agree with you than the case. You cherry pick whatever you think you can use against someone, while ignoring other things they say that might undermine your character attacks against the person whom you oppose in the debate.
I do not bear that burden of proof because I have not claimed that he was a criminal.You are yet to establish or provide proof that Martin was a criminal or was committing a criminal act by walking down the street.
Ther eis also video of him at 7-11 making the purchase.No. It is actually established fact that was the reason he went out and this is evidenced by the fact he had a drink and a packet of lollies in his hands as he was walking home. That is not a crime, nor is that in dispute.
Sitting on top of a man slugging him counts.What behaviour?
Evidence released so far, including initial police reports, witness interviews and photographs, show Zimmerman and Trayvon tussled on a grassy courtyard between townhouses in a Sanford, Fla., development, before Zimmerman shot Trayvon at close range in the chest. At least one witness reports seeing Trayvon atop Zimmerman and punching him. Zimmerman emerged from the fight with a bloodied nose, swollen face and a bleeding cut on the back of his head.
Screams for help can be heard on 911 tapes. In an interview with investigators, George Zimmerman's father, Robert, said the person crying for help is his son. A Sanford police report says that Trayvon's father, Tracy Martin, said the voice was not Trayvon's. An FBI analysis of audio recordings could not determine who screamed for help.
I do not know and this is an excellent question. We'd all like that one answered.And what made Martin suspicious to Zimmerman?
An interesting response on your part where pointed out an error you made in your reporting.He did something he was told not to by the 911 dispatcher. He was armed, he had the advantage in that confrontation.
I have absolutely no proof that he was and in the ONE AND ONLY POST in which I discussed that, I was comparing the SPECULATIONS that seem to abound in Zimmermans case to hypothetical ones about Martin. I made that very clear in that post.As is yours by trying to cast doubt that Martin may have been committing a crime or considering a criminal act when you have absolutely no proof that he was.
Irrelevant. This thread is not exactly a reliable source. I have posted what was In The News.This has already been established in this thread.
My memory of you is that you resort to despicable debate tactics and you confirm my memory quite well.Not unusual for you if memory serves me well.
Only one policeman said that. And that may be a misunderstanding.And as the police stated, at no time did he try to speak to Martin, at no time did he identify himself or his role. Get it yet Neverfly?
Absolute agreement.Martin had every single right to be out that night and he had every single right to be walking down the street as he did.
Quote mining and a distortion.To claim that it would not have happened if he'd just stayed home shows your prejudice and frankly, warped mind.
I do not bear that burden of proof because I have not claimed that he was a criminal.
It's impossible that you can quote me as saying he WAS without heavy handed distortion on your part. The only post where I discussed any such thing was based on the SPECULATIONS going on and I made that Very Clear at the time.
Your attempt to obfuscate is clear and any further requests for proof for something I've not claimed will simply be ignored.
And then queried if that was his true intent.Ther eis also video of him at 7-11 making the purchase.
I never disupted that he did, in fact, I said HE HAD SNACKS ON THE WAY BACK.
Neverfly said:What was Treyvon Martin doing that night?
Was he really out for snacks?
Neverfly said:If Martin had gone out for snacks and was even bringing snacks back, that does not mean that is all he was doing out there. It may have been pre-meditated or opportunistic, but we do not KNOW if he actually was instigating or taking part in a crime.
Neverfly said:Logically, a black kid walking along with some snacks would have simply answered the questions and gone about his way. He would not have gone to great effort to evade getting caught. He would not have run (Established in 911 call). He would not have gotten violent.
It never would have been in the news- He would have arrived home to his family, complained about some jerk guard questioning him and gone about his business.
You were discussing the initial episode where one was followed and then approached.Sitting on top of a man slugging him counts.
Would you even care?I do not know and this is an excellent question. We'd all like that one answered.
Still does not disolve the fact, does it?An interesting response on your part where pointed out an error you made in your reporting.
And yet, you keep going with that same argument.I have absolutely no proof that he was and in the ONE AND ONLY POST in which I discussed that, I was comparing the SPECULATIONS that seem to abound in Zimmermans case to hypothetical ones about Martin. I made that very clear in that post.
Your attempt is to obfuscate by putting claims in my mouth.
Looks like we both drew the line in the sand.Irrelevant. This thread is not exactly a reliable source. I have posted what was In The News.
Quote the article and the source that says Two Experts and eyewitnesses said it was Martin.
I posted the articles and quotes in the post above yours to JDawg and those news reports say otherwise.
And you are prone to hysterics and dishonest statements, as is evidenced in this thread.My memory of you is that you resort to despicable debate tactics and you confirm my memory quite well.
And you posted this:You seek to anger your opponent using sarcasm and unnecessary relentless character attacks to keep him off kilter.
You quote mine. You ignore anything the poster says that will undermine the position you have decided to take. You will cherry pick his posts for anything you can use in your favor. This is demonstrated by your repeating accusations and claims when I've addressed them and clarified my position.
In other words, when confronted, you'll just try and bluff your way out of it.I've decided to only respond to your posts by removing the fluff, character attacks and such from then focusing primarily on the case. Anything that I've refuted from you that you then ignore the refutation and continue to re-claim- I will simply delete from the reply and ignore it. Simply because I already refuted it and your tactic of making it appear as though I had not by repeating it is unnecessary. Making unnecessary connections and speculations about motives to imply character flaws in your opponent. These tactics are referred to as "intellectual dishonesty."
And you would not last 1 in court when your claims that aren't claims are ripped to shreds.You would not last five seconds in a Proper Debate Hall.
You mean like this?Only Material Relevant To The Topic will be discussed with you from now on, Bells.
Oh is that what that was?I have, however, allowed myself this brief moment to give you a piece of my mind. Nothing near what I'd really like to say about my observation of your character--- but a carefully controlled response. With gritted teeth.
It was actually the policeman who was investigating the case. Are you now discounting him based on what you have read in the media?Only one policeman said that. And that may be a misunderstanding.
The GF and Martin on phone with GF confirmed that Zimmerman addressed him and asked, "What are you doing here?"
"the Police" are never just one person. Ever.
Absolute agreement.
Quote mining and a distortion.
I pointed out that saying that "if so and so had not done such and such, this would not have happened" way before shots were fired is misleading.
'IT NEVER SUGGESTED THAT MARTIN WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO GO OUTSIDE.
IT ONLY SAID IF HE HAD NOT, IT WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED- OBVIOUSLY.
The distinction was that it was AN ACT OF VIOLENCE THAT RESULTED IN A SHOT BEING FIRED.
In this sense, acting violently, Pinning a man to the ground and banging his head on it, this is MORE relevant to the shooting than, "Situations before that that should not have led to a shooting."
What I said is clear- you prefer to distort what I say in order to paint a false image of my character so that you can attack it.
Neverfly said:What was Treyvon Martin doing that night?
Was he really out for snacks?
Neverfly said:If Martin had gone out for snacks and was even bringing snacks back, that does not mean that is all he was doing out there. It may have been pre-meditated or opportunistic, but we do not KNOW if he actually was instigating or taking part in a crime.
Neverfly said:Logically, a black kid walking along with some snacks would have simply answered the questions and gone about his way. He would not have gone to great effort to evade getting caught. He would not have run (Established in 911 call). He would not have gotten violent.
It never would have been in the news- He would have arrived home to his family, complained about some jerk guard questioning him and gone about his business.
There there. If you can't keep up, I'm sure there's a Hello Kitty forum somewhere out there for you.As I said, Despicable debate tactics
No. In other words, I addressed the case- if you have anything I missed, let me know... How can you say I was defeated and had no answer? I was able to answer Fraggle and Bells and Geoffp with the same answers...
In your fairness: I didn't really read your post.I skimmed it-
I did not wish to deal with Bells, either. Which is why anything she posts to me that is character attacks, sarcasm, irrelevant connections and the like will simply be deleted from my reply.
SEE?!
Anything I say will be called lies. So why bother?
Odd... I've posted the excerpts, the links to the articles and what have you...
Now I've personally fabricated it?
Here: Have at it:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/cops-witne...ermans-version/story?id=16371852#.T7dTZsg45JE
Have I posted enough that you'll stop saying I fabricated it all, yet?
Or should I stay up another night, searching through the web to halt your absurd accusations?
Neverfly said:It could have been avoided just as neatly if the kid, who had gotten out of Zimmermans view, hadn't returned to Zimmerman, Jumped on him from behind and Assaulted the man.
Neverfly said:A motive for taking the man down, perhaps rendering him unconscious by beating his head into the ground- Would be to prevent him from detaining Martin for a crime.
Neverfly said:But those are not that actions of a midnight snacker.
JDawg, it's unnecessary to keep accusing like that. It's Possible I've got the wrong end of the stick.
It's possible that Zimmerman is a racist little liar that deliberately sought Martin out.
I just find it UNLIKELY given the evidence I have just posted.
No it's a failure on my part. For this one, in spite of extensive searching- I cannot find that article I read that in.
So, I posted above (Which you ignored) that I have dropped that claim and you're incorrect- I have not made that claim in any of the posts that followed.
At this time, it's best to consider this accurate.
IF I find whatever it was that I read that said there was a witness that said they saw him jumped from behind- I will post the link for that one now too.
What I have stated and I have worded it this way- Is the most probable case.
What you say is perfectly true. But when you add the evidence up- it is VERY suggestive that Martin was the aggressor when it escalated violently.
I cannot state that as fact- only that the evidence supports it MORE than it supports your speculations which are ENTIRELY unsupported. Do you understand?
THAT is what's bothering me- the lynch mob mentality doing all this speculating about Zimmerman, while accepting as absolute fact that Martin did nothing at all wrong.
That is not what I believe happened. I believe they BOTH acted badly. I believe that Zimmerman acted badly by being too confrontational and overzealous in his duties as neighborhood watch.
I Believe that Martin was the likeliest aggressor, reacting with totally Unnecessary violence which resulted in a very tragic loss.
I cannot prove anything and neither can you.
The best we can do is look at the evidence and the LIKELIEST conclusions one can reach from them.
And the medical evidence is compelling even if it is not Proof.
It's just further support for the claim.
That Zimmerman assaulted Martin has zero evidence to support that claim.
What's with the misuse of the word stalked, lately?
What I said was that Martin RETURNED to Zimmerman.
Now- this part's important:
In searching all the articles, I cannot find much reference to that now. I found it last week, but I was not posting here on this thread last week so did not bookmark it. It's also possible that what I was reading was an article covering, primarily, Zimmermans account. Which you dismiss as Lies no matter what- so no sense talking about it.
What I'm finding now is a complete lack of clarity in the news-- I've seen articles suggesting that Zimmerman caught up to Martin and confronted him.
I've seen others that say he was at his vehicle when Martin reappeared.
It's very unclear and I'd like for someone to help out and post some links that clarify it.
If I'm wrong, I will admit to being wrong. It's as simple as that.