3rdnlng Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 I have not read through this entire beastly thread but what evidence backs up that he didn't get out of the car to pursue Trayvon and what evidence supports that Trayvon came out of nowhere and started violently attacking George who at that point was not trying to engage Trayvon? I understand George's story...but you are saying the evidence supports it...these are two of the more important points imo.....the 911 call he says he was following him and -while I could be missing something- I have heard of nothing other than Zimmerman's own words that suggest Trayvon ran, then came back and started fighting... Maybe if you'd read through the whole thread (and its linked articles) you'd know that yes, GZ got out of his vehicle and was following TM but called 911, the dispatcher (not a cop) advised him to not follow him but asked for an address. Since TM was walking through back yards, GZ had to walk around front to get an address. He did that and returned to his vehicle. Near his vehicle, TM appeared and according to GZ he was belligerent and attacked him, slamming GZ's head into the cement. Then TM got a surprise. I hope, for your own sake that neither you or Juror practice law in courtrooms. I'm a layman and I'd kick your butt--every time.
dayman Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 no, the 911 call says he said "ok" when told "you don't need to do that". He stopped following. That's what the 911 call says. I read the 911 call and that exchange happened after he replied "yes" when asked if he was following him. 3rd at one point said .... he got out of the car to find an address to tell the police and was never following him...I do not see how the fact swork w/ this at all Maybe if you'd read through the whole thread (and its linked articles) you'd know that yes, GZ got out of his vehicle and was following TM but called 911, the dispatcher (not a cop) advised him to not follow him but asked for an address. Since TM was walking through back yards, GZ had to walk around front to get an address. He did that and returned to his vehicle. Near his vehicle, TM appeared and according to GZ he was belligerent and attacked him, slamming GZ's head into the cement. Then TM got a surprise. I hope, for your own sake that neither you or Juror practice law in courtrooms. I'm a layman and I'd kick your butt--every time. Exactly so the three basic pillars of what we know happen was that George was more or less hounding him including pursuing him on foot, was making comments live on the phone while doing so projecting anger of break ins at Trayvon, and Trayvon wasn't doing anything criminal and was temporarily living there...then there holes in these facts are filled in with the story of a man on trial for murder who says Trayvon ran away, then came back and started attacking him...then he shoots a minor who was doing nothing but then appeared suddenly and attacked after having run
Oxrock Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 I read the 911 call and that exchange happened after he replied "yes" when asked if he was following him. 3rd at one point said .... he got out of the car to find an address to tell the police and was never following him...I do not see how the fact swork w/ this at http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/326700-full-transcript-zimmerman.html page 2
dayman Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 http://www.documentc...-zimmerman.html page 2 Which basically shows that the three basic things I said above are shown on this call. Nothing else is...everything else comes from George's story.
Gene Frenkle Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 Which basically shows that the three basic things I said above are shown on this call. Nothing else is...everything else comes from George's story. In full procrastination mode, I just did some reading and have to agree that the whole thing hinges on George's testimony. Either way, it seem the captain of the neighborhood watch was definitely doing more than watching that night.
3rdnlng Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 I read the 911 call and that exchange happened after he replied "yes" when asked if he was following him. 3rd at one point said .... he got out of the car to find an address to tell the police and was never following him...I do not see how the fact swork w/ this at all Exactly so the three basic pillars of what we know happen was that George was more or less hounding him including pursuing him on foot, was making comments live on the phone while doing so projecting anger of break ins at Trayvon, and Trayvon wasn't doing anything criminal and was temporarily living there...then there holes in these facts are filled in with the story of a man on trial for murder who says Trayvon ran away, then came back and started attacking him...then he shoots a minor who was doing nothing but then appeared suddenly and attacked after having run Are you really this ignorant? I said he was following him and the dispatcher said that you don't need to do that but asked for an address. Be honest.
dayman Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 Are you really this ignorant? I said he was following him and the dispatcher said that you don't need to do that but asked for an address. Be honest. What facts support the blanks in the story filled in by his George's story? There is evidence on the 911 call that supports a bad narrative (from his point of view) ... what stones at this point can be put on the other side of the scale? Granted all stones aren't on the table but you said there are credible facts that lead you to believe the George's story (the only story...given now when on trial for murder). Basically I'm just asking...what are they? I mean I get George's story...but that is all it is and it involves Trayvon running away and then coming back with full intent to deal a "fear for your life" type beating. And apologies you never said he was never following him you just skipped it and talked about looking for an address instead (address was mentioned on the call...but no talk of him looking for one or giving one). I thought after the chastising I was receiving for my "loaded" representation of things that seem apparent on the 911 call that your response would not be so loaded. It was effectively loaded...left me with the false impression you were denying that he was following him in first place... In any event..I still fail to see how this is completely damning for George. And I also fail to see how this is good in anyway going into trial for George. Which was my first comment in this little excursion back into this thread.
3rdnlng Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 What facts support the blanks in the story filled in by his George's story? There is evidence on the 911 call that supports a bad narrative (from his point of view) ... what stones at this point can be put on the other side of the scale? Granted all stones aren't on the table but you said there are credible facts that lead you to believe the George's story (the only story...given now when on trial for murder). Basically I'm just asking...what are they? I mean I get George's story...but that is all it is and it involves Trayvon running away and then coming back with full intent to deal a "fear for your life" type beating. And apologies you never said he was never following him you just skipped it and talked about looking for an address instead (address was mentioned on the call...but no talk of him looking for one or giving one). I thought after the chastising I was receiving for my "loaded" representation of things that seem apparent on the 911 call that your response would not be so loaded. It was effectively loaded...left me with the false impression you were denying that he was following him in first place... In any event..I still fail to see how this is completely damning for George. And I also fail to see how this is good in anyway going into trial for George. Which was my first comment in this little excursion back into this thread. I only quote you to make this response a permanent record. Good luck with this bs.
dayman Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 in other words there are no facts supporting it? as you claim? simply asking....
3rdnlng Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 in other words there are no facts supporting it? as you claim? simply asking.... GZ's original narrative is supported by the wounds to the back of his head, his broken nose and the proximity of his vehicle to the altercation. There is also a witness who saw TM on top of GZ as "someone" was yelling for "help". Trying to confuse the issue as much as you can by saying TM was initially "running" away is simply making up schit.
dayman Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 it is confusing the issue to point out that George described Trayvin running away on the phone as it happened?
unbillievable Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 it is confusing the issue to point out that George described Trayvin running away on the phone as it happened? Which begs the question how the altercation could have occured that close to the car if Trayvon had continued to run away? The 911 call transcript shows that George had lost sight of Trayvon, then headed back to his car. For the location of the altercation to make sense, it would mean that either Trayvon hid somewhere when George passed him then was found when Zimmerman walked back to his car, or Trayvon CAME BACK towards George to confront him.
3rdnlng Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 Which begs the question how the altercation could have occured that close to the car if Trayvon had continued to run away? The 911 call transcript shows that George had lost sight of Trayvon, then headed back to his car. For the location of the altercation to make sense, it would mean that either Trayvon hid somewhere when George passed him then was found when Zimmerman walked back to his car, or Trayvon CAME BACK towards George to confront him. Why would you think that a kid that was kicked out of his mother's house, who bragged about smoking pot and posted pictures of an automatic on facebook, who had missed 53 days of school that year, loved street fighting and wanted to bloody people and was in a foul mood that day would start a confrontation? He must have gotten lost in the dark and rain and when GZ shot him for no reason, fell breaking GZ's nose and knocking him to the ground injuring the back of his head.
Telepathic Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 And the truth of the matter is none of this would have happened if Martin had just kept walking instead of turning around and assaulting Zimmerman. Both were idiots and both put themselves into the situation that ended up where it did. If you don't think they were both morons, I don't know what to tell you. As for the humor aspect, I don't recall a national PR campaign by Zimmerman supporters trying to paint him as some doe-eyed 12 year old. Two idiots butting heads until one of them is dead happens every day in this country. What makes this case in particular ripe for amusement and scorn? Because of the laughable absurdity of the characterizations invented by the 'Trayvon' media and repeated by its fan-boy lemmings in this thread. "Hunted down" "If I had a son..." "Skittles" "White-hispanic" and the list goes on and on. If Zimmerman goes to prison, it will only serve to validate the ignorance of the mob mentality and power of the media to lynch a person because it can bring ratings. No one will really give a sh-- about the man himself. But if he walks free, the hysteria from the self-serving hypocrites that jumped on this bandwagon will be a treat to watch. So yeah, that's what I'm rooting for. Do you find this funnier than the opposite reaction which has been to try to paint a 16 year old as a thug and a hood because he smoked weed and had a grill? It's equally as amusing to me, all the more so when people fail to see the strings above their heads.
Chef Jim Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 (edited) Do you find this funnier than the opposite reaction which has been to try to paint a 16 year old as a thug and a hood because he smoked weed and had a grill? It's equally as amusing to me, all the more so when people fail to see the strings above their heads. There is more to Martin that would point to him being a thug other than the grill and weed. Edited May 31, 2013 by Chef Jim
Telepathic Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 There is more to Martin that would point to him being a thug other than the grill and week. Dodge.
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 What am I dodging? Bullets. Which, of course, is how we know that you aren't Trayvon Martin.
dayman Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 (edited) Which begs the question how the altercation could have occured that close to the car if Trayvon had continued to run away? The 911 call transcript shows that George had lost sight of Trayvon, then headed back to his car. For the location of the altercation to make sense, it would mean that either Trayvon hid somewhere when George passed him then was found when Zimmerman walked back to his car, or Trayvon CAME BACK towards George to confront him. So it all comes back to character assassination and a general propensity argument. The wounds are evidence of a struggle....but not the important parts of GZ's story. The location of the struggle is perhaps the only actual evidence that supports anything GZ claims...and even that can be argued either way given the holes in what happened. Edited May 31, 2013 by SameOldBills
unbillievable Posted May 31, 2013 Posted May 31, 2013 So it all comes back to character assassination and a general propensity argument. The wounds are evidence of a struggle....but not the important parts of GZ's story. The location of the struggle is perhaps the only actual evidence that supports anything GZ claims...and even that can be argued either way given the holes in what happened. Which would mean that George should walk and that this should never have gone to trial for Murder 2. You can't send a person to jail for murder if all the prosecution can argue is that "maybe he's lying" and that "it could have happened this other way too," just because a guy has a sketchy past. Only the Defense can play the "Maybe This or that happened" game. Unless the state can produce a witness willing to testify that he saw everything, then we're just wasting tax payer money in a futile attempt to appease the public and media.
Recommended Posts