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

reply to post by GhettoRice


You guys are avoiding the fact that there is zero evidence that Zimmerman laid a forceful hand (let alone struck) Martin. That is where that argument falls to pieces. There is no evidence that Zimmerman began the altercation.

Also you guys think very weird. In your opinion if someone being stupid shoved'pr punched someone and the shoved person struck them back and then after knocking them to the ground and having a chance to get away instead got on top and began to beat them potentially to death that even though the struck the initial blow the one that instigated wouldn't be justified in protecting their life because they started it and should therefore sacrifice themselves.

You guys are making arguments because theoretically they can be made. We should all be on the same page on this. You guys should be where I am at. I defended Martin until evidence showed that whole thing was disputable. Martin's reputation and portrayal was manipulated by the media and his family intentionally. In reality he is very likely just the kind of person that would attack someone. He also very well may have been suspicious enough to warrant alerting the police and watching if you are having problems with crime in your neighborhood. He smoked pot (not a big deal, but could lead to acting suspicious/affect judgement at night/paranoia), he committed some crimes, and likely burglarized (the women's jewelry), and there were rumors of assaults backed by comments by his friends/family on twitter and fb. Witnesses, police, and medics backed Zimmerman. I am judging solely on what the evidence showed. If you guys were being impartial you would be at the same place. Subtract all the possible invented scenarios from your ruling and go based on the facts and you will see the possibility/probability he was being attacked and shot Martin to defend himself (after the person he yelled for him from went inside and locked his door, had john came out Martin may be alive). We should not, in a progressive society, treat this man as people have been.

Originally posted by Paschar0

Its the sign of immaturity when you are fixated on semantics

Are you thinking more in terms of the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law?

Its a little like if GZ was claiming to have been insane. He would have to prove it. Whenever you make a claim such as this, you are required to show you meet criteria. There is no way around it.

Whether you come to court innocent until proven guilty is beside the point in a court case. By making a self defense claim, you are stating that you meet specific criteria as I have mentioned in previous posts. If you are claiming insanity you must meet specific criterea. If you don't meet them, your claim will be dismissed by the court.

Its not just a word that can be thrown out. Its a set of predefined standards that it is expected that is met to make this claim. Self defense cases have been thrown out before by Judges on the grounds that the criteria hasn't been met.

Of course the burden of proof is always on the prosecution. In this self defense case, if you fail to meet it when claiming self defense, you have no defense. Or insanity, the same.

I was saying that its essentially semantics given that there will be evidence presented which will have to be disputed otherwise it would not have gotten to court in the first place. In other words, the police will be bringing the case to court with their evidence that they think it is murder, manslaughter whatever. Their evidence will be presented. If you have no defense you might as well forget it. This is a self defense case, he will need to prove that he meets self defense criteria in response or hope that the evidence presented is incredibly weak.

reply to post by spacedog1973


Yeah.. you have to prove it if there are charges against you. You guys are acting like they decided a crime was committed and then he said 'it was self defense" and they judged him and let him go. They have to prove a crime was committed first. There is more than enough reason to believe it was self defense.

Originally posted by cyb3rR3v0luti0nary
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

One guy had a hoodie on, the other guy didn't. The silhouette of a guy wearing a hoodie is way different than someone wearing a jacket. Maybe that is how how could tell?

That doesn't explain his description of the color red. How could he possibly tell it was red? How could he possibly know for SURE it was Zimmermans voice yelling for help?

Thats why I think he heard a yell for help, called 911. Then when cops come to the scene, as everyone probably did, he came out, saw Zimmerman in the red jacket and at that time added that detail, or the cops added it for him. Like they did the 13 year old boy who they gave choices to to pick a color. Who said in his 911 call he didn't see anything. These people had no reason to go to the media and disagree with the cops unless what they are saying is true. They have absolutely no reason to.

Mary Curtcher and Selma (roommate) - said cops didn't listen or haven't even called back - saw zimmerman seconds after shooting standing over treyvong....claim to hear 'a boy' yelling for help
One witness reported that she told cops she heard 'the young boy scream' or something like that, the cop replied 'no, it was zimmerman screaming'....you dont correct a witness statement.
Mother of 13 year old boy - says cops didn't even interview her son til 5 march and then was leading questioning such as suggesting 3 colors to choose from
AC360 witness - says cops didn't seem very interested in what she had to say
Trayvons GF - Last I heard the cops didn't interview her til last Mon.....they should have called her that very night to see what she knew......
Police didn't notify parents of death UNTIL parents went to file a missing person report the next day. Then kept his body classified as a John Doe for 3 days when the body had been identified. Why?

Those are just some reasons to question the police motives in this case .....

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by spacedog1973

 

Yeah.. you have to prove it if there are charges against you. You guys are acting like they decided a crime was committed and then he said 'it was self defense" and they judged him and let him go. They have to prove a crime was committed first. There is more than enough reason to believe it was self defense.

If they take it to court, and this is possible, we can assume they have evidence of one sort or another to pursue a prosecution.

And actually, I think he did claim self defense. Thats the point. Initially, the police decided that he had met the criteria. Now this is being disputed.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.

Florida self defense law

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by GhettoRice

 

You guys are avoiding the fact that there is zero evidence that Zimmerman laid a forceful hand (let alone struck) Martin. That is where that argument falls to pieces. There is no evidence that Zimmerman began the altercation.

Also you guys think very weird. In your opinion if someone being stupid shoved'pr punched someone and the shoved person struck them back and then after knocking them to the ground and having a chance to get away instead got on top and began to beat them potentially to death that even though the struck the initial blow the one that instigated wouldn't be justified in protecting their life because they started it and should therefore sacrifice themselves.

You guys are making arguments because theoretically they can be made. We should all be on the same page on this. You guys should be where I am at. I defended Martin until evidence showed that whole thing was disputable. Martin's reputation and portrayal was manipulated by the media and his family intentionally. In reality he is very likely just the kind of person that would attack someone. He also very well may have been suspicious enough to warrant alerting the police and watching if you are having problems with crime in your neighborhood. He smoked pot (not a big deal, but could lead to acting suspicious/affect judgement at night/paranoia), he committed some crimes, and likely burglarized (the women's jewelry), and there were rumors of assaults backed by comments by his friends/family on twitter and fb. Witnesses, police, and medics backed Zimmerman. I am judging solely on what the evidence showed. If you guys were being impartial you would be at the same place. Subtract all the possible invented scenarios from your ruling and go based on the facts and you will see the possibility/probability he was being attacked and shot Martin to defend himself (after the person he yelled for him from went inside and locked his door, had john came out Martin may be alive). We should not, in a progressive society, treat this man as people have been.

You said....'Martin's reputation and portrayal was manipulated by the media and his family intentionally. In reality he is very likely just the kind of person that would attack someone'.....you base that on nothing but internet rumor and speculation....

Yet what we know to be TRUE about Zimmerman is he does have criminal record of resisting arrest with violence and a domestic violence charge. He was sentenced to anger management for the resisting arrest.....In reality HE is the type of person who would attack someone.

Then you say .... 'If you guys were being impartial you would be at the same place.' .....

It seems to me, if you were being impartial you would be on our side. No one has convicted zimmerman, all anyone has ever asked for is for him to be charged with a crime because there is Probable Cause a crime was committed. If he wants to claim self defense then fine, defend that claim in court. That is how people viewing this impartially see it. We don't discount the killer's background while smearing the victim to some how deem that he deserved what he got.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by LErickson

 

It's just an irrelevant point.

I am sorry you did not get it. I can tell that you are having a hard time keeping up with certain concepts here. Your posts history in this thread alone shows someone who only half pays attention and changes their mind on a whim, not a new fact.

Martin wasn't a white girl, what if Zimmerman was a white girl?

What if he was? What does that mean? What does that do? What is your point? I had one, you are just being contrarian.

What does it matter?

Well I could explain it a second time but I learned long ago to stop repeating simple concepts to people that plain refuse to understand them to begin with.

Martin had a right to defend himself if someone was threatening his life. It doesn't appear that was happening. So your point is moot.

How does it not appear that was happening? In what world do you live in? Pop's world? Please tell me what you KNOW for a fact that tells you that does not appear what was happening. You have 200 pages of crap telling you otherwise so please enlighten me.

Your closing is just your own biased imagination. That is what happened only in your head. I would rather let a guilty man walk than lock an innocent man up. That is the risk we should all be willing to take in name of real justice. Get over yourself. We get it, your progressive beyond all prejudice (except in people you condemn based on a news story.) We (those of us giving this man a chance) are free of prejudice too, we just don't care if people think otherwise if it means sacrificing our ethics.

edit on 8-4-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

I would rather let a pot smoking 17 year old walk home then shoot him to death but we all make different choices. George made his.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by GhettoRice

 

Doesn't matter in your eyes though.
It's the guys life. If he thinks for a second that his life might be about to end and all that implies. If he has a second of fear of the extinguishing of his existence than he is justified to do whatever it takes to prevent that from happening.

I do not believe that Trayvon was afraid. I would even suggest that he knew why the guy was watching him, but that is just my own speculation. He did in fact have time to make it to his home 70 yards away. He never had to come into contact with Zimmerman. The moment he lost Zimmerman he shouldn't have been found again and I find it impossible to believe that Zimmerman could catch up with this lean, football playing high schooler.

After saying if one is afraid that they can kill without question, then claim that you "believe" Trayvon was not afraid is just the type of circular logic I can do without until a fair trail.

Last post in this thread until then.
Sorry for feeding

Originally posted by popsmayhem
Trayvon Martin call was "mistake, not deliberate": NBC
How do you accidently edit a tape and then
accidently air it for millions??

The edit in question, which aired on the network's flagship "Today" morning show last week, made it appear that Zimmerman told police that Martin was black without being prompted, when, in fact, the full tape reveals that the neighborhood watch captain only did so when responding to a question posed by a dispatcher.

www.reuters.com...

need to fire a few more maybe they will get it
this guy probably just got promoted.

You are really obsessed with this tape that it seems just about nobody here heard but you.

Originally posted by SashaHighkick
The eye witness that said trayvon was on top beating zimmerman up clinched it for me. Someone beating on someone while they are down show they lost control, so self defense is applicable.

How does it not show a kid winning a fight that he did not start?

Only a scumbag, or someone who is not in control of themself beat on someone while they are down. Maybe his parents should have taught him some honor, he would still be alive then.

So shooting an unarmed child for no reason is honorable though?

Originally posted by SashaHighkick
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

I am choosing to believe the one that had the best view, yes. It was right in the guys backyard.

The guy with no last name that never went to the cops? That guy is believable over fully named people with filed reports why?

Originally posted by SashaHighkick
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

The victim here seems to be zimmerman. Victim of an assault from trayvon, now a victim of the media onslaught. That is how I see it, call me all the names you like.

Yeah that is way worse than being shot to death for walking home.

Originally posted by SashaHighkick
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

In my book, someone that beats another person while they are on the ground are scumbags.

What do you call a guy that grabs his gun and follows kids around at night for no reason?

That doesn't make me a troll for having an opinion. I guess you are too immature to accept someone might have a different point of view, and have to call names.

I am really curious how Zimmerman became a victim and a hero after shooting a kid that was walking home.

Originally posted by rebellender
Alas you bring up the age long racist statement ,Black boy, White girl.Fictitious and strait out of a book of fiction I read years ago.

Please do elaborate.
"black boy, white girl" is not a statement. It is not even a phrase.

On closing argument Jake Brigance says to the jury "What if she was your daughter , what if she was White."
It's your story. Make it bigger than it already is.

So you have no actual response then?

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

zimmermans injuries match that version of events. Back of head etc..

No they do not. He says he was being beating to death and feared for his life.
Please explain explicitly with sources where any such injuries were officially documented by anyone anywhere.

And what about Martin's injuries? What do they match besides being shot?

I'll come back to this.

Originally posted by Paschar0
Wrong again.

Lie to us, it would sad if you did not at this point.

I've been in more than few fist fights in my life and I can tell you after being sucker punched by someone kneeling on the ground with a full force right hook to my jaw and fighting for several minutes afterwards that visibly I looked perfectly fine the rest of the day.

Wow, perfectly fine? Nothing visible at all? Not even a tiny hint of bruising?

The NEXT day it hurt like hell and swelled some, but still didn't show all that much.

Perfectly fine = swollen.
Sure!

Hey, how could you tell it was swollen? By looking at it?

Other times I've been hit in the eye not very hard at all but it landed just right and blackened it within an hour.

Strikes to the nose often don't show much at all aside from a little blood if that, it depends on how the blow lands.

Ask anyone that has some experience and they'll tell you the same thing.

You wouldn't know this because you are basing yet another opinion on incorrect assumptions and apparently no real life experience in pretty much any of this, either that or you've somehow managed to completely avoid learning anything from it.

edit on 8-4-2012 by Paschar0 because: (no reason given)

I guess you never took the time to look at the other guys knuckles afterward then? Come punch me in my face without bruising your hand, big guy. I am pretty damn sure you are full of it because reality says you are.

Besides, what are you trying to say? Zimmerman had injuries only Zimmerman could identify and diagnose? Yeah, go with that. His lawyers will not touch that but you go with it.

Originally posted by Paschar0
Other times I've been hit in the eye not very hard at all but it landed just right and blackened it within an hour.

Strikes to the nose often don't show much at all aside from a little blood if that, it depends on how the blow lands.

Ask anyone that has some experience and they'll tell you the same thing.

You wouldn't know this because you are basing yet another opinion on incorrect assumptions and apparently no real life experience in pretty much any of this, either that or you've somehow managed to completely avoid learning anything from it.

edit on 8-4-2012 by Paschar0 because: (no reason given)

So you are comparing your fights to Zimmerman's fights?
Sure that seems fair.
How many of these fights were you beaten to death in?
Because if they are comparable and you walked away just fine the next day then does that not mean that Zimmerman was not in mortal danger?

Which is it?

Originally posted by xuenchen
Has this been mentioned yet ?

Zimmerman Passed Lie Detector Test Immediately After Shooting

Or this?

How to pass a lie detector test
Polygraphs, lol! Better save that for court. Oh wait...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
All you have done is call me racist.

All you have done is talk about Margaret Sanger.


I told you I would be happy to hear the same crap I have already heard a thousand times from you in an appropriate thread but that was not good enough for you. You insist that I read and respond in this thread to what you have to tell me that other people told you about Sanger. Well how about now I just ignore you altogether?

All you had to do was move it to the right thread. Sorry if you wanting to tell me how black people are tricked by white people into killing their babies makes me think you must be racist in order to think either race has a position to fool the other. What was a mild interest in engaging you and letting you have your say in a place that maybe had something to do with that is now utter shock that you cannot accept that I do not want to discuss Sanger and PP with you in this thread.