Justice and Security: Neighborhood Watch Captain Attacks, Kills Unarmed Teenager

[Neverfly]

Again, my apologies are warranted.

First, for double posting.

But this is a bit of a biggie, after two days of sifting and sorting through my Firefox History folder, clicking the links and skimming articles...; I found the previously mentioned link between myself and JDawg on the topic of an eyewitness seeing Martin jump Zimmerman at his car.

I will post it and the excerpt from it in a moment.

The problem is the humiliation that comes with it. I read many articles that day and I kinda... <cough> wasn't paying attention...

It was Fox News.

Damnit.

It was an accident, I swear.

The link: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hanni...yvon-martin-beating-george-zimmerman-shooting

HANNITY: What can you tell us, and he was saying that in fact, it was George Zimmerman on the bottom and Zimmerman was being beaten up, does that not corroborate in spite all of the media coverage and all those that have been speaking out politically about this, does not that contradict the narrative that's been heard in the media up to this point?

BUTLER: Well, we hadn't heard George Zimmerman side really of the story except for a few of those witnesses like John. But today, the Sanford police did make it clear that what George Zimmerman told them was that he was actually getting back into his SUV when he said Trayvon Martin came around the left-hand side of him and he says that Trayvon Martin said, do you have a problem? And he said no, and then Trayvon said something like well, you do now. Then George Zimmerman told the cops that he got punched in the nose. He hit the ground, and that's when Trayvon Martin jumped on top of him and slammed his head into the sidewalk and that's when he began to yell for help. I mean, that's what Sanford police tell us that George Zimmerman told them.

Here's the damn fool thing I think I did.

I read the title that said, "Witness reportedly saw Trayvon Martin beating George Zimmerman before shooting" and moving through the article, read about a Witness (named) and the events of the altercation at the car. It doesn't quite read the same now as it did then, but at the time, it seemed to imply that Zimmermans account of the events was corroborated by (named) witness.

So, I f'ed up.

So, I allowed that initial post in this thread I had made to be based on a faulty assumption.
As JDawg said, "Maybe it was sloppy research." And this may explain why I could not find any other references to it...

How embarrassing:wallbang:. Moving on...

 

[Balerion]

Sorry to double post But I want a stand alone post- this time addressing me.

Hey, at least it'll be on topic without all the accusations and squabbling of semantics...

In the link I just posted in response to PJDude, I found this:


...overly zealous in his duties...

It does weigh heavily on Zimmerman being angry. Zimmerman being the aggressor.

This is what everyone has been trying to get across to you. He pursued Martin. He ignored the 911 operator's insistence that they didn't need him to follow Martin. He must have initiated the confrontation. Maybe he didn't initiate the fight, but the fact is that the kid was just trying to get home when somebody--who was obviously angry or agitated--accosted him in the middle of the night. We can't say whether or not Martin swung first, or if he took it too far once the fight started, but we do know that he wasn't doing anything wrong before Zimmerman approached him, so your theory that Martin is most to blame is a baseless assumption.

You talk about character assassination, but what are people supposed to think when you write things like that?

 

[Neverfly]

We can't say whether or not Martin swung first, or if he took it too far once the fight started, but we do know that he wasn't doing anything wrong before Zimmerman approached him, so your theory that Martin is most to blame is a baseless assumption.

Given the evidence, this does look likely.
I'd prefer it not to be and not only for the sake of ego. I mean really, what a waste of life. IF that kid died for NOTHING? Not even a stupid mistake of his own, but just someone who thought he was a burglar and Wanted to do some GOOD and the kid reacted in a manner not unreasonably??
What a ********* waste.

You talk about character assassination, but what are people supposed to think when you write things like that?

What I think, JDawg, is you're just as accountable for your behavior as the rest of us- even if at the time you think you're right.
Or if I think I am.
You handled the debate between us just as badly as I had. And as you speak of Zimmermans bad choices of handling things, you may take a moment to think of your own, your own angry reactions as well as his or mine.

 

[Balerion]

Given the evidence, this does look likely.
I'd prefer it not to be and not only for the sake of ego. I mean really, what a waste of life. IF that kid died for NOTHING? Not even a stupid mistake of his own, but just someone who thought he was a burglar and Wanted to do some GOOD and the kid reacted in a manner not unreasonably??
What a ********* waste.

Kids like Trayvon die every day. The only reason we know about this one is because it wasn't a black-on-black crime. It's unfortunate that the media only cares when the crime is potentially racially-motivated, but that's the reality of it.

The good that can come from this is if the state government decides to repeal or amend the Stand Your Ground law. Other than that, this is just another senseless death.

What I think, JDawg, is you're just as accountable for your behavior as the rest of us- even if at the time you think you're right.
Or if I think I am.
You handled the debate between us just as badly as I had. And as you speak of Zimmermans bad choices of handling things, you may take a moment to think of your own, your own angry reactions as well as his or mine.

I'm glad you're finally admitting to how immature you've behaved in this thread, but that doesn't mean I'm obligated to act like I was your equal. I didn't do anything wrong.

 

[Neverfly]

I didn't do anything wrong.

Ok.

Side note: read the post a little above yours... made before you claimed you did nothing wrong. Before I even knew you were online and reading this thread. Number 461.

And feel free to have a seat next to me and eat some crow. I'm glad to share. You can think about how you declared I could not find the article, that I made it up, called me a liar, then you denied having done any such thing.

JDawg, you're in a much better position than that man is- But you are not any better than he is. I'm sure he said, "I haven't done anything wrong," too. Have a nice day.

 

[Buddha12]

The good that can come from this is if the state government decides to repeal or amend the Stand Your Ground law.

But this case isn't about repealing the law, it is about what happened between these two people that night and if Mr. Zimmerman is culpable in any way for Trayvons death. Was Mr. Zimmerman the person who started this or was it Trayvon who did so that we can find out just who was the instigator of this situation. Sometimes we forget that if we provoke a confrontation we sometimes start problems that we cannot foresee.

Now was Mr. Zimmerman trying to do more than an ordinary citizen would do or was he defending himself from being attacked, that is what we need to find out and during the trial we should learn more about Mr. Zimmermans frame of mind when he left his car to follow Trayvon.

 

[Bells]

Oh brother... You keep asking this over and over again... Amazing how you can attribute my posts to trolling but not yours, Bells.
Yes, Bells, I am SURE.

Well next time, don't keep changing your mind.

Already demonstrated is that YOU are the only person confused and switching back and forth.

Actually no I am not.

You have gone from 'it's a hypothetical to its Zimmerman's statement to a hypothetical again'.

Stop changing your mind.

Not at all, I'm annoyed you can't keep it straight. Anyone else confused may scroll up to post 433 and read downward and it all should be clear.

Ah yes, post 433.

You mean the post where you first discuss what Buddha brought up in his actual hypothetical and then you went on to say that if it was your son who had done this and that or who Zimmerman had done so and so to him..

You rambled. You made things up as you went.

That much is clear.

Already covered in four posts now: It was a direct response to you in post 433 which you quoted afterward in post 434. Keep it straight, Bells.

Your main issue with me is that I picked up on a blatant lie of yours and disregarded the other one because firstly it had already been made clear to you from another poster that it was just a hypothetical. I also said, when you made the comment about Zimmerman grabbing Martin, that that had not been what I had asked you.

All this because you fail and are unable to answer a simple question and that is 'would you apply the same standard to your son that you applied to Martin in this thread?'.. In other words, would you expect your son to approach a stranger who was following him on the street in the evening and tell him why he was there? Would you expect your son to approach a stranger following him in a car? And you are still to answer it.

You have explained that you are confused? Yes, I can believe that.

You see, I am not confused.

Unlike you, who just admitted he was confused by a huge mistake he made because he can't even sit down and read an article properly without making a "mistake".

You are inherently dishonest Neverfly.

You have attempted to portray the victim as the criminal in this thread and you get angry when your lies and "mistakes" are pointed out to you.

Yes, I linked to his account- Quite Clearly Because You ASKED ME TO.
Talk about intellectual dishonesty! Really Bells?

How can you link it if it was a hypothetical?

Do you understand yet?

You claimed it was a hypothetical, ie, something you had made up. But it clearly was not.

Yet, you demanded proof of the previous hypothetical while not demanding proof of the second hypothetical. You are confused on the issue as clearly established. Your claim here is nothing less than absurd.

Because it was not a hypothetical.

For god's sake, how many times does this have to be pointed out to you?

It was not something you made up. It was not a hypothetical. Which is why I asked you to provide proof of it and which I then countered by showing you further proof that Zimmerman's claim that Martin had reached for his gun was unfounded.

Do you understand now?

If you are not confused, it means that you are the one whom is "trolling." You continue to repeat confusions to avoid answering my simple and direct question- that has been established in all posts following 434.

You don't even understand the very concept of a hypothetical. Do you?

Everything you say after that is repeated Ad Hom attacks and more confusion over what was said to who about what.

Oh, "ad hom"? You mean like the part where you bring up my colour and then try to claim that I am somehow "touchy and sensitive about this" because I am "black" in your opinion? Really, you want to go there?

The solution to the "Trolling problem" is quite simple. We must Both Drop that issue as we cannot resolve it between ourselves.

How about you drop the issue because you can't even understand what a "hypothetical" is?

Further discussion is to remain on the case and it's developments, not the separate issue of the hypothetical scenarios in 433 that was a direct response to you.

How about you just stop lying and making things up as you go?

Failure by you to do so will demonstrate that you are the one trolling on that particular issue; failure by me to do so will demonstrate that I am the one trolling on that particular issue. If you continue to challenge me on those particular issues and claim I won't meet the challenge (After you threatened to 'zap me for trolling'), we can request a third party- composed of Two Moderators- to volunteer to read over the posts from 430 onward, discuss it between themselves privately and reach a decision on the matter for us both to abide by.

I'd suggest you request a third party now. Not because I am going to give you a warning for trolling, but because you are trolling and you might want to head off any issues you could possibly face for not only lying and your intellectual dishonesty, but also for your blatant racism and pathetic behaviour that you have displayed in this thread.

It begins now- I drop that issue as unresolvable. And good riddance on it.

You might want to look up the meaning for hypothetical as you leave.

 

[Neverfly]

I'd suggest you request a third party now. Not because I am going to give you a warning for trolling, but because you are trolling and you might want to head off any issues you could possibly face for not only lying and your intellectual dishonesty, but also for your blatant racism and pathetic behaviour that you have displayed in this thread.

Then consider it requested.

Thanks for clarifying your biased position and complete lack of understanding as to what was actually said.

Figures you would accuse someone who isn't kissing your opinion of racism.

 

[Balerion]

Ok.

Side note: read the post a little above yours... made before you claimed you did nothing wrong. Before I even knew you were online and reading this thread. Number 461.

And feel free to have a seat next to me and eat some crow. I'm glad to share. You can think about how you declared I could not find the article, that I made it up, called me a liar, then you denied having done any such thing.

JDawg, you're in a much better position than that man is- But you are not any better than he is. I'm sure he said, "I haven't done anything wrong," too. Have a nice day.

Are you simple?

The witness identified as John does not say he saw Trayvon attack Zimmerman. Understand? No witnesses have claimed to see how the altercation began.

"John" simply says that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. He doesn't claim to have seen Zimmerman attacked. The only way he's corroborated Zimmerman's story is by saying it was Martin on top and Zimmerman calling for help, because other witnesses have said it was Zimmerman who was on top and Martin calling for help. That's what the cop means when he says they haven't heard anyone giving Zimmerman's side of the story.

But even then, this "John" character has changed his story, and says he isn't at all sure it was Zimmerman calling for help:

"At first, I thought it was the person on the ground, just because, you know, me thinking rationally, if someone was on top, the person on the bottom would be yelling," he said.

Now, though, he said, "I truly can't tell who, after thinking about it, was yelling for help just because it was so dark out on that sidewalk. You can't see a mouth …"

Want to try again, Mr. Dishonesty?

 

[Neverfly]

Are you simple?

The witness identified as John does not say he saw Trayvon attack Zimmerman. Understand? No witnesses have claimed to see how the altercation began.

"John" simply says that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. He doesn't claim to have seen Zimmerman attacked. The only way he's corroborated Zimmerman's story is by saying it was Martin on top and Zimmerman calling for help, because other witnesses have said it was Zimmerman who was on top and Martin calling for help. That's what the cop means when he says they haven't heard anyone giving Zimmerman's side of the story.

But even then, this "John" character has changed his story, and says he isn't at all sure it was Zimmerman calling for help:




Want to try again, Mr. Dishonesty?

I have a better idea, JDawg. Why don't you try reading the post again and seeing what it clearly says instead of letting your knee jerk angry reaction guide the result.

A bit like another guy who is a topic in this thread...
And you asked if I'm simple.. Wow, man. Really... just - Wow. :bugeye:

I wonder if you have the honesty, decency and courage to admit that you just messed up. Hmm...

 

[Bells]

Want to try again, Mr. Dishonesty?

Best be careful. Otherwise he's going to claim that you too are "touchy and sensitive about this" because you may or may not be black.

 

[Neverfly]

Best be careful. Otherwise he's going to claim that you too are "touchy and sensitive about this" because you may or may not be black.

Bells, I will address this only ONE time. Because this is very tiring.
Yes, I pointed it out. Yes, it's relevant. Your appalling behavior in this thread and unwarranted accusations of racism before I pointed it out have clearly demonstrated that you are using the charge of racism wantonly and in an unjustified manner.
I believe that you are doing this to ad hom attack anyone who disagrees with you. To call their credibility into question. And to discourage posters from voicing an opinion which you may disagree with out of fear of being "racists."

When - long ago, there was that thread about the Lakota trying to secede from the Union, I stayed out of it. Because I knew that I could never be impartial.

Had you not repeatedly charged me as a Racist (Undeserved, mind you)- I would never have pointed it out.

Further charges of racism and related tangents will be ignored.

 

[Balerion]

Best be careful. Otherwise he's going to claim that you too are "touchy and sensitive about this" because you may or may not be black.

Because, as we all know, black people are incapable of being impartial when it comes to other black people. Just as gay people are incapable of being impartial when it comes to gay marriage rights, and likewise for women when it comes to abortion.

Neverfly really is carving out a Baron Max-ian niche here at Sciforums.

 

[Bells]

Bells, I will address this only ONE time. Because this is very tiring.
Yes, I pointed it out. Yes, it's relevant.

How exactly is my colour relevant to this thread, Neverfly?

If you could please explain it.

Thank you.

Your appalling behavior in this thread and unwarranted accusations of racism before I pointed it out have clearly demonstrated that you are using the charge of racism wantonly and in an unjustified manner.

I'm sorry, but claiming that it would be "logical for the black kid" to approach a stranger following him at night.. as though it would be solely logical for a black kid.. Your arguments in this thread are racist. And you made it worse by making a claim about my colour and bringing what you think my colour is up in this thread.

Don't you understand, Neverfly?

It is never logical for a kid to approach a stranger following him in car at night, even a black kid. Would you advise your child to do such a thing? No, you would not. Yet you think it's 'logical for the black kid' to do so.

My colour and/or ancestry has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

That you seem to believe it is somehow relevant shows the level of your racism.

I believe that you are doing this to ad hom attack anyone who disagrees with you. To call their credibility into question. And to discourage posters from voicing an opinion which you may disagree with out of fear of being "racists."

Your credibility is in question because you keep making things up and lying.

It is also in question because you are acting like a racist individual in this thread.

When - long ago, there was that thread about the Lakota trying to secede from the Union, I stayed out of it. Because I knew that I could never be impartial.

Which has what to do with this thread?

How is it relevant? Are you saying that because I am coloured, I cannot be impartial, in your opinion? And this is you not being racist again?

Had you not repeatedly charged me as a Racist (Undeserved, mind you)- I would never have pointed it out.

You were charged as being racist because you were being racist. And you still are.

 

[Neverfly]

How exactly is my colour relevant to this thread, Neverfly?

If you could please explain it.

Thank you.

I did and the tangent/topic is now closed. Future questions may be referred to post number 472. I will not discuss it with you anymore nor can you force me to do so. IF the issue is too large that you must force the issue, you may ask a third party moderator to PM me, where I can discuss it in private and he may then relay the conclusions he reaches to you.

Neverfly really is carving out a Baron Max-ian niche here at Sciforums.

And I see you answered my question. You were unable to face, confront nor admit to the large error you just made in post number 469.
Keep on carving out your own niche there, JDawg.

 

[steampunk]

I found this manuscript here:
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/18/i_know_he_was_scared_trayvon

PROSECUTOR: I want to focus on that day, February 26, when you know obviously he was unfortunately killed, and I’m sorry to ask you about
this. But did you have conversations with him that day?

GIRLFRIEND: Yes.

PROSECUTOR: At some point did you find out that Trayvon was going to the store?

GIRLFRIEND: Around 6 something.

PROSECUTOR: OK, and did he tell you what store he was going to?

GIRLFRIEND: No. He just said [inaudible] store.

PROSECUTOR: OK, did he say why he was going to the store?

GIRLFRIEND: Yes.

PROSECUTOR: What did he say he was going to the store for?

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah, his little brother. Some food and some drink.

PROSECUTOR: OK, yeah, tell me what happened as he’s talking to you when he’s leaving the store on his way back home.

GIRLFRIEND: It started raining.

PROSECUTOR: It started raining, and did he go somewhere?

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah, he ran to the, um, mail thing.

PROSECUTOR: I’m sorry what?

GIRLFRIEND: Like a mail, like a shed.

PROSECUTOR: Like a mail area, like a covered area, because it was raining? So did he tell you he was already inside, like, the gated place?

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah. He ran. That’s when the phone hung up.

PROSECUTOR: I’m sorry?

GIRLFRIEND: The phone hung up and I called him back again.

PROSECUTOR: And what else did Trayvon tell you?

GIRLFRIEND: And like—-

PROSECUTOR: And I know this is difficult for you but just take your time and tell us what you remember happened.

GIRLFRIEND: A couple minutes later, like, he come and tell me this man is watching him.

PROSECUTOR: OK, did he describe the man that was watching him?

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah, he said white.

PROSECUTOR: OK, did he say whether the man was standing, sitting…?

GIRLFRIEND: He was in a car.

PROSECUTOR: He was in a car? And what did he say about the man who was watching—-

GIRLFRIEND: He was on the phone.

PROSECUTOR: He was on the phone? OK, and what did Trayvon say after that?

GIRLFRIEND: He was telling me that this man was watching him, so he, like, started walking.

PROSECUTOR: He, Trayvon, started walking?

GIRLFRIEND: He gonna start walking. And then the phone hung up and then I called him back again. And then, I said, 'What are you doing?' He said he’s walking, and he said this man is still following him, behind the car. He put his hoodie on.

PROSECUTOR: He, Trayvon, put his hoodie on?

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah, 'cause, he said, it was still a little bit dripping water so he put his hoodie on. So I said, ’What's going on?’ He said,
this man is still watching from a car. So he about to run from the back. I told him, go to his dad’s house. Run to his dad’s house.

PROSECUTOR: Go to what?

GIRLFRIEND: Run to his dad’s house.

PROSECUTOR: To his dad’s house?

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah. So he said he was about to run from the back, so the next that I hear, he just run. I can hear that the wind blowing.

PROSECUTOR: So you could tell he was running at that time? OK. And then
what happened?

GIRLFRIEND: Then he said, he lost him.

PROSECUTOR: He lost what, the man?

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah.

PROSECUTOR: So was Trayvon, at that time, you could tell he was, like, out of breath, like excited?

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah.

PROSECUTOR: OK. Take your time, I know this is difficult for you.

GIRLFRIEND: So he lost him. He was breathing hard. And by the sound of his voice, his voice kind of changed.

PROSECUTOR: Who, Trayvon’s?

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah.

PROSECUTOR: OK. What do you mean by that? His voice changed?

GIRLFRIEND: [inaudible]

PROSECUTOR: I’m sorry?

GIRLFRIEND: I know he was scared.

PROSECUTOR: I know what you are trying to tell me but if you could describe to me how you could tell he was scared.

GIRLFRIEND: His voice was getting kind of low.

PROSECUTOR: So you could tell he was emotional, like somebody who was in fear?

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah.

PROSECUTOR: He was breathing hard?

GIRLFRIEND: He said he had lost him and he was breathing hard and I told him 'Keep running.'

PROSECUTOR: So Trayvon said he started walking because he thought he had lost the guy?

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah.

PROSECUTOR: OK.

GIRLFRIEND: I said, 'Keep running.' He said he ain’t gonna run. 'Cause he said he is right by his father's house. And then in a couple minutes he said the man is following him again. He’s behind him. I said, 'Run!' He said he was not going to run. I knew he was not going to run because he was out of breath. And then he was getting excited,
the guy’s getting close to him. I told him, 'Run!' And I told him, 'Keep running!' He not going to run. I tell him, 'Why are you not running?' He said ’I’m not gonna.’ He was tired. I know he was tired.

PROSECUTOR: I am sorry, Trayvon said he was not running because—-he’s not going to run he said because you could tell he was tired? How could you tell he was tired?

GIRLFRIEND: He was breathing hard.

PROSECUTOR: Real hard?

GIRLFRIEND: Real hard. And then he told me this guy was getting close! He told me the guy was getting real close to him. And the next I hear is, 'Why are you following me for?'

PROSECUTOR: OK. Let me make sure I understand this so, Trayvon tells you the guy is getting closer to him and then you hear Trayvon saying
something.

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah.

PROSECUTOR: And what do you hear Trayvon saying?

GIRLFRIEND: 'Why are you following me for?'

PROSECUTOR: 'Why are you following me for?'

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah.

PROSECUTOR: And then what happened?

GIRLFRIEND: I heard this man, like an old man say, 'What are you doing
around here?'

PROSECUTOR: OK, so you definitely could tell another voice that was not Trayvon and you heard this other voice say what?

GIRLFRIEND: 'What are you doing around here?'

PROSECUTOR: 'What are you doing around here?' OK.

GIRLFRIEND: And I call Trayvon, 'Trayon, what's going on? What’s going on?’

PROSECUTOR: This is you saying that?

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah. Then, I am calling him and he didn’t answer.

PROSECUTOR: No answer from Trayvon?

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah. I hear some like 'bump.' You could hear someone had bumped Trayvon. I could hear the grass.

PROSECUTOR: OK. So you could hear there was something going on, like something hitting something?

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah. I could hear the grass thing.

PROSECUTOR: Out of the…?

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah.

PROSECUTOR: OK, and then what happened?

GIRLFRIEND: And then, I was still screaming, I was saying, 'Trayvon! Trayvon!'

PROSECUTOR: And there was no response?

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah and then the next thing the phone just shut off.

PROSECUTOR: The phone shut off?

GIRLFRIEND: It just shut off.

There seems to be a very obvious contradiction in testimony regarding this case. It seems to imply someone is lying. It is either Zimmerman or Trayvon's girlfriend. Who do you think is lying?


Trayvon's Girlfriend indicates that Zimmerman stalked Trayvon until he was out of breath and finally caught up with him and jumped him. Zimmerman says he was the one stalked and attacked from behind.

These two stories logically contradict each other. Does anyone think there is any room for them to be both true? If so, then what do you think really happened based on the evidence we have? If not both true, then who is lying and why?

The Young Turks mention the same point here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8DemEfSHWA

 

[steampunk]

Here's the recording:
http://axiomamnesia.com/2012/05/18/...ase-witness-interviews-statements-full-audio/

Was running to get out of the rain suspicious?

 

[Neverfly]

I found this manuscript here:
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/18/i_know_he_was_scared_trayvon





There seems to be a very obvious contradiction in testimony regarding this case. It seems to imply someone is lying. It is either Zimmerman or Trayvon's girlfriend. Who do you think is lying?


Trayvon's Girlfriend indicates that Zimmerman stalked Trayvon until he was out of breath and finally caught up with him and jumped him. Zimmerman says he was the one stalked and attacked from behind.

These two stories logically contradict each other. Does anyone think there is any room for them to be both true? If so, then what do you think really happened based on the evidence we have? If not both true, then who is lying and why?

The Young Turks mention the same point here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8DemEfSHWA

An indicator might be Zimmermans car.

According to the information Treyvon relayed to his girlfriend on the phone, he was by Treyvons dads house at the time of the altercation.
He had run, from the mail thing, to his dads house and was out of breath.
According to this testimony, Zimmerman had caught up to Treyvon on foot and answered Treyvons question with a question. They had run far enough to be out of breath.

Questionable testimony would be the "Grass Thing." She was on the phone, how could she tell they were on the grass, in the rain? Not totally unbelievable, but odd.

Where was Zimmermans car in relation to this?

If he had run til Treyvon, a 17 year old, was out of breath, they should be far enough away from the car to discount Zimmermans account that he had been standing in the door of his car when the physical fight began.

If they were right next to the car, it would lend support for Zimmermans account.

Is it possible Zimmerman drove down there and jumped out of the car next to Treyvon?
But if so, why did the girlfriend say that Treyvon told her than man chased him a good distance on foot?

 

[steampunk]

Does anyone feel the prosecutor's leading questions weaken the evidence we can glean from this interview?

 

[Neverfly]

Does anyone feel the prosecutor's leading questions weaken the evidence we can glean from this interview?

That's hard to say.
It weakens the case for the prosecution if the fight occurred near the car, not where testified.
It weakens Bells claim that Zimmerman did not speak to Trayvon at all... Even though one cop says so.
But it also strengthens the case that he was walking home, trying to get out of he rain and was frightened by being watched by some guy.
It strengthens the case that he was running from Zimmerman out of fear.