Exclusive! First hand Witness: Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman Zimmerman Innocent Smoking Gun

Originally posted by SM2
articles.orlandosentinel.com... er-zimmerman


if this is true, then it ends the debate. That is if he was indeed walking back to his vehicle when Mr. Martin approached him and attacked him. Now, if Mr Zimmerman instigated the physical altercation, then the self defense claim is null and void, but to make it null and void he would have had to be the one to instigate. That means he would have had to begin the physical act of the fight. There is nothing illegal about following a suspicious person and asking them a question or two (if that is indeed what Mr.Zimmerman did) If he did after that move to return to his vehicle and Mr.Martin then took off after him and then assaulted him by punching him in the nose, then slamming his head into the ground, well then Mr.Martin is the aggressor from a legal perspective. Which would mean that Mr.Zimmerman had every right to defend himself against his attacker. If there truly is evidence showing wounds or marks on Mr.Zimmerman's head, well then the self defense claim would stand up.

Remember, the prosecution has the burden of proof. They have to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that Mr.Zimmerman acted maliciously and not in self defense. If there is any reasonable doubt, then Mr.Zimmerman is acquitted.

Very true, ABC has spun this on purpose
now think about all the people who saw
the first reports and never saw them retract
and make good on there BS.
Think about how many people they hood winked
SHAME ON YOU ABC SHAME ON YOU
i MADE this one right after ABC *leaked* the video.
You can see his nose is crooked possible broke
and bruising under his to left eye.

then the the BS abc video you can clearly
see how they cut, and edited this part out
you can see the back of zimmermans head
CLEARLY *kind of grainy* but is injured.

reply to post by popsmayhem


Nobody is talking to you since you don't know how to have a conversation. Your thoughts are useless until you go back through about 20 pages of replies and start answering some of the questions posed to you.

You won't because you can't.

reply to post by pizzanazi75

Again, I never said video couldn't be used a evidence in the Supreme Court

but in a previous post you stated this

Example. Video tape is reliable but it is not allowed to used in the Supreme Court.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

Nobody is talking to you since you don't know how to have a conversation. Your thoughts are useless until you go back through about 20 pages of replies and start answering some of the questions posed to you.

You won't because you can't.

I am one man with a computer
give me a break! I am not zimmermans defense
attorney. I have nothing to prove as does not zimmerman.
I will get to them just hold your damn horses.
If they are repeat questions and people have not
done their research then it might be skipped .

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

well video evidence has been used in the supreme court. www.newser.com...

i dont know how the audio tech can be 100% reliable from phone recordings in this situation. I think it would be quite easy for any defense to cloud the issue. You dont even get the full frequency range over a telephone.

edit on 2-4-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)

I DIDN'T SAY IT COULDN'T BE USED AS EVIDENCE!!!!!!!

I was making a point that im sorry you didn't comprehend.

reply to post by popsmayhem



bull. you've been called out several times for not addressing issues posed to you about this case. you are a blind apologist for Zimmerman....thats why you are ok with making yourself look like a fool with that stupid pic of him on you profile......

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

Originally posted by popsmayhem

Originally posted by Deranged74
Anyways let me ask you this question..

IF it is indeed found out it was Trayvons voice calling out for help will your opinion change?

People already have changed there opinion.
The ones that did change were not the zimmerman folks
it was the treyvon folks who leaned one way
then when more evidence came out and learnt
what we know now weighed the evidence and
came to the only rational explantion
that we have right now, as it stands
there is not enough evidence to charge zimmerman
with murder.. that was the point of this thread,
zimmerman did not commit murder he is innocent of murder.
IF it came out that it was not zimmermans voice
and he was lying i think it will for sure hurt his credibility
with me and other posters, but it is going to take more
then a 50.50 chance with voice analyze. hell we got
a 50.50 guess and with the eye witnesses it
is a possible 100% zimmerman.... i am sticking
with the witnesses for now.
now can you accept that zimmerman is innocent of murder?

edit on 1-4-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)

You really should quit talking about the voice analysis. You lack of understand of how it works is amazing. You look really foolish when you keep bringing up this 50/50 argument.

NO SAMPLE OF TREYVON IS NEEDED TO RULE OUT ZIMMERMAN !!!!!!!!

Ok, we can forget about the voice samples for right now
just found it odd they seemed to forget to test it against
treyvons sample, and give us only one result.
Can you accept that zimmerman is innocent of murder
since zimmerman is the only one injured with bruises?

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

Again, I never said video couldn't be used a evidence in the Supreme Court

but in a previous post you stated this

Example. Video tape is reliable but it is not allowed to used in the Supreme Court.

edit on 2-4-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)

Where in that statement did I say it was not allowed to be used as EVIDENCE in the SC?

Video cameras are not allowed in the SC when it is in session....why do you think all we are getting from the healthcare debate is audio?

If you had read, and comprehended all the conversation up until that point you would realize I was making the point that video is reliable but is not allowed to be used in the SC ... i never said anything about being used as evidence in a case in front of the SC....it went to show just because something is not used in courts does not mean it isn't reliable.

Would you like to try again?

reply to post by popsmayhem


That "wound" on the back of his head...funny how you only see it in the one shot you posted, and not on any of the other shots of the back of his head in the surveillance video.

And his nose doesn't look "crooked", in fact, if someone broke his nose like the lawyer claims, his shirt and jacket would be bloody...it isn't.

Add to that the FACT that Trayvon's body shows no signes of violence...and you realize that the entire thing stinks to hell.

We also know that the alleged screams from Zimmerman weren't really his. Just too many things don't line up...so pretending as if it seems Zimmerman is innocent here is foolish.

The biggest indication that Zimmerman's FOS is that they recalled his ambulance. There's no way they wouldn't treat a head wound and examine it before taking someone in.

Originally posted by popsmayhem

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

Originally posted by popsmayhem

Originally posted by Deranged74
Anyways let me ask you this question..

IF it is indeed found out it was Trayvons voice calling out for help will your opinion change?

People already have changed there opinion.
The ones that did change were not the zimmerman folks
it was the treyvon folks who leaned one way
then when more evidence came out and learnt
what we know now weighed the evidence and
came to the only rational explantion
that we have right now, as it stands
there is not enough evidence to charge zimmerman
with murder.. that was the point of this thread,
zimmerman did not commit murder he is innocent of murder.
IF it came out that it was not zimmermans voice
and he was lying i think it will for sure hurt his credibility
with me and other posters, but it is going to take more
then a 50.50 chance with voice analyze. hell we got
a 50.50 guess and with the eye witnesses it
is a possible 100% zimmerman.... i am sticking
with the witnesses for now.
now can you accept that zimmerman is innocent of murder?

edit on 1-4-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)

You really should quit talking about the voice analysis. You lack of understand of how it works is amazing. You look really foolish when you keep bringing up this 50/50 argument.

NO SAMPLE OF TREYVON IS NEEDED TO RULE OUT ZIMMERMAN !!!!!!!!

Ok, we can forget about the voice samples for right now
just found it odd they seemed to forget to test it against
treyvons sample, and give us only one result.
Can you accept that zimmerman is innocent of murder
since zimmerman is the only one injured with bruises?

You still dont understand the voice analysis .... they didn't need Treyvons voice to rule out Zimmerman. I don't know why you can't understand that, but that is the way it is, like it or not.

And no I cannot accept Zimmerman is innocent of murder if he has bruises. So if Zimmerman punches me in the arm ... starting the altercation and I punch him in the face...leaving marks and a broken nose...and then he shoots me.....is he excused of murder. He struck me first....he just didn't leave a mark. You logic fails.

Can you accept Zimmerman is guilty of at least manslaughter since Treyvon is the only one with a bullet in him?

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

Your saying cops routinely touch people with blood on them without gloves on? You must not live in 2012.

that video shows no spots of anything on him and if you think you can shoot someone that is on top of you in the chest and not get significant amounts of that person blood on you are just flat out ignorant.
As it stands now it was minimum manslaughter.

How do you know the cops did not have gloves on?
explain this

Gutman said the video had been "clarified" by Forensic Protection Inc. Former FBI Special Agent Brad Garrett told ABC that the clearer video shows "marks on the back of Mr. Zimmerman's head."

Zimmerman had injuries treyvon had one gun shot no marks or bruises and the witnesses
walking the dog saw no blood on zimmernan when he got up off the ground. It was raining and wet
the bleeding treyvon might not of been much not all gun shot wounds are the same
some bleed very little on the outside. ABC already came out and said they edited the 911 tapes
and that the vidoe they showed is misleading because zimmerman IS injured, he did not have time
to do it to himself with all the people there who came running out of there houses, and the witnesses
who check out with zimmermans story..

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

That "wound" on the back of his head...funny how you only see it in the one shot you posted, and not on any of the other shots of the back of his head in the surveillance video.

And his nose doesn't look "crooked", in fact, if someone broke his nose like the lawyer claims, his shirt and jacket would be bloody...it isn't.

Add to that the FACT that Trayvon's body shows no signes of violence...and you realize that the entire thing stinks to hell.

We also know that the alleged screams from Zimmerman weren't really his. Just too many things don't line up...so pretending as if it seems Zimmerman is innocent here is foolish.

edit on 2-4-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

I agree. I wish someone would freeze other frames of those videos showing absolutely nothing on Zimmermans head.
Even if his nose didn't bleed from being broken....at the very least he would appear to be in great amounts of pain, especially with your hands cuffed behind you. He seems perfectly fine and pain free to me.

reply to post by pizzanazi75

Even if his nose didn't bleed from being broken.

I Thai box, and I challenge anyone to break someone's nose without making it bleed

Originally posted by popsmayhem

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

Your saying cops routinely touch people with blood on them without gloves on? You must not live in 2012.

that video shows no spots of anything on him and if you think you can shoot someone that is on top of you in the chest and not get significant amounts of that person blood on you are just flat out ignorant.
As it stands now it was minimum manslaughter.

How do you know the cops did not have gloves on?
explain this

Gutman said the video had been "clarified" by Forensic Protection Inc. Former FBI Special Agent Brad Garrett told ABC that the clearer video shows "marks on the back of Mr. Zimmerman's head."

Zimmerman had injuries treyvon had one gun shot no marks or bruises and the witnesses
walking the dog saw no blood on zimmernan when he got up off the ground. It was raining and wet
the bleeding treyvon might not of been much not all gun shot wounds are the same
some bleed very little on the outside. ABC already came out and said they edited the 911 tapes
and that the vidoe they showed is misleading because zimmerman IS injured, he did not have time
to do it to himself with all the people there who came running out of there houses, and the witnesses
who check out with zimmermans story..

How do I know they didn't have gloves on?...you can see in the video they don't have gloves on.

So a gunshot wound to the chest bleeds a little. LOL......

How can he have a bloody nose, a bloody head, and shoot someone in the chest on top of him and not have any visible blood on his clothes. Blood darkens any color of fabirc. He can not come in contact with that much blood in a short amount of time and not get it on his clothes. You can say the cops cleaned him up, did they do his laundry too?
zimmerman called 911 at 711, treyvon called his girlfreind at 712. Cops arrived at 717p. Second ambulance is canceled so their is only one ambulance on scene. Trevon pronounced dead at 730...it is a 13 to 15 min car ride to the SPD from the scene.....he arrives at the station 36 mins after police arrive on scene...so 752/53....subtract the15 mins from 753 -15 is 738....that means the max amount of time Zimmerman could have been 'attended' to by rescue crew is max 8 mins. ..... if he was beaten to an inch of his life and forced to use deadly force...like he claims....how do you explain only 8 mins to work on him?

Why would he not request medical attention if he had been beaten so savagely. At the very least he should have been checked for a concussion that very night.....he himself doesn't seem to worried about his 'life threatening' injuries....agreed? If I was worried about my condition I would demand medical attention. He didn't. Why do you think that is?

reply to post by MrXYZ


It's happened. I used to watch boxing religiously and I've seen boxers get their noses busted without blood. Granted most nose breaks do bleed but that's most, not all.

Was George Zimmerman the Aggressor?

Jacob Sullum | March 22, 2012

Yesterday I noted that George Zimmerman, the Florida neighborhood watch volunteer who fatally shot Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black teenager, on February 26, needlessly created the situation in which he claims to have feared for his life. By following Martin for no good reason, against the advice of the police dispatcher, he set up the fight that ended with Martin dead. Now the co-authors of Florida's "stand your ground" self-defense statute, which critics blame for the failure to arrest Zimmerman, are saying (as Lucy Steigerwald noted yesterday evening) that Zimmerman's decision to pursue and confront Martin makes him ineligible for the law's protection. Durell Peaden, who sponsored the 2005 law as a Republican state senator, told The Miami Herald Zimmerman should be charged: "They got the goods on him. They need to prosecute whoever shot the kid. He has no protection under my law." reason.com...

reply to post by pizzanazi75


One punch is capable of killing someone and it has happened so, even getting punched once could justify lethal force.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

Even if his nose didn't bleed from being broken.

I Thai box, and I challenge anyone to break someone's nose without making it bleed

I agree. Im just saying of all the blood he says he came into contact he would have some visible on his clothes.....most people when there nose bleeds or something and they don't have kleenex they use their shirt. A bloody nose is messy. Zimmerman seems to be invincible. .... well at least when he has a gun.

I know broken noses bleed, I was just trying to appease the trolls and point out that even if it didn't bleed he came into contact with all sorts of blood but has none on him.....

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

Originally posted by rebellender
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

Have you ever sat on a jury or ever gone through jury selection and been released?

I have!!! and GogoVicMorrow has a good grasp and does not have his head Up or Under anything on the issue.

Get Real!
Have a great day

Neither one of you have a good grasp on this issue. And if you in fact have sat on jury, I sure feel sorry for all those involved.

This issue it will never go to a jury, I have a clean grasp of that

reply to post by Annee


Your post stated that Zimmerman went against advice from the police dispatcher. He called 911 so it was a 911 dispatcher, not the police. That kind of throws the article you posted in the trash bin IMO.