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

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

we are talking about someone who supposedly had life threatening injuries

If we are, we don't need to be.

If I pull out a gun and shoot at someone, intending to hit them with the bullet.... but I miss, wouldn't they be justified in defending themselves with their gun if they were so armed? Yet they suffered no injuries.

If someone swipes at a cop with a knife, but isn't able to cut him with the first swipe, I will inform you that the cop will shoot him in most cases. but the cop is not injured.... he was in fear for his life.

Trayvon did not have a gun or a knife. He had skittles and iced tea.
Now why didn't you make that argument using Trayvon since it is so clear to you all how big a threat he was with his candy and pop?

it doesnt matter what evidence there is now, the media owns this story. theyll decide who is guilty

Originally posted by Autumnal

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by conspiracy nut

 

we are talking about someone who supposedly had life threatening injuries

If we are, we don't need to be.

If I pull out a gun and shoot at someone, intending to hit them with the bullet.... but I miss, wouldn't they be justified in defending themselves with their gun if they were so armed? Yet they suffered no injuries.

If someone swipes at a cop with a knife, but isn't able to cut him with the first swipe, I will inform you that the cop will shoot him in most cases. but the cop is not injured.... he was in fear for his life.

Trayvon did not have a gun or a knife. He had skittles and iced tea.

.. and he had fists, and he was stronger and capable of injuring Zimmerman in a fight.

Based on the available evidence, my conclusion is that Zimmerman shot him in self-defense.

Personally, I would never let someone bang my head on the pavement if I had a gun. I would have shot him the moment he laid his hands on me first.

Posters are comparing height and weight of Trayvon vs Zimmerman.

I wonder who had the longer reach? It is a factor.

Originally posted by fbluth
Pg. 40 witness says she saw someone being chased with a flashlight in between them (GZ had 2 flashlight on him), this shows GZ was in pursuit of TM. This witness then reports back later that she couldn't identify who was chasing who from her vantage point. But she did without knowing it, saying she 'observed two men chasing each other with a flashlight in between them.' Who had the flashlights? GZ. For the flashlight to be 'in between them' then that means GZ had to be the chaser of TM. This witness also says the chase was in the direction of the 'T' of the sidewalks headed TOWARD TM's house....

...Pg. 80 when police arrived on scene GZ flashlight keychain was ON....this is also proof that the witness that saw the chase saw GZ chasing TM. She saw a flashlight on, GZ had a flashlight that was on, and police found a flashlight that was.

Originally posted by fbluth
....That witness that seen someone being chased by someone else with a flashlight is gonna be a huge thorn in GZ side. GZ had 2 flashlights. How is he gonna explain chasing TM and then killing him. He can't.

Originally posted by fbluth
They have a witness who seen someone chasing someone else with a flashlight between them. Zimmerman had 2 flashlights on him. The witness seen the flashlight between the 2 people being chased. This shows the person doing the chasing was carrying the flashlight. When police arrived they found GZ keychain with a flashlight in the ON position. This proves GZ had his flashlight ON and was the one chasing TM towards the 'T' in the sidewalks.

What is written in the witness statement ...


From page 40, per your citation...


That you just wrote four paragraphs narrating in some detail a version of events implicating Zimmerman beyond a reasonable doubt based on your having misread a single word, flashlight for fistfight, speaks volumes.

The two words are not even remotely interchangeable, yet you managed to fabricate four paragraphs of complete fiction that if true would be damning to Zimmerman's defence.

You are guilty of exactly that of which you are accusing George Zimmerman of having done yet I am sure you don't understand why. Hopefully you are just very young and have time to learn something about the dangers of rushing to judgement in matters deciding the fate of your fellow man.

For the record it looks like a neighbour or first responder was the owner of the flash-light found on the grass ....

Originally posted by fbluth
And some types of hearsay are admissible. Its been discussed in this thread. You should probably refresh yourself on the topic.

Perhaps you could provide a link to the Florida statute that makes an exception to hearsay inadmissibility as long as the accuser is anonymous and refuses to give any contact information.

Is the condition only valid in cases where the call has only been partially recorded or will they allow complete recordings of anonymous character assassination?

Do you think anyone should refresh the SCOTUS on the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights now being null and void as proven by ATS poster fbluth or will they be able to figure it out for themselves without reading the thread?

The Confrontation Clause relates to the common law rule preventing the admission of hearsay, that is to say, testimony by one witness as to the statements and observations of another person to prove that the statement or observation was accurate.

The rationale was that the defendant had no opportunity to challenge the credibility of and cross-examine the person making the statements.

Certain exceptions to the hearsay rule have been permitted; for instance, admissions by the defendant are admissible, as are dying declarations.Nevertheless, in California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1970), the Supreme Court has held that the hearsay rule is not the same as the Confrontation Clause.

Hearsay is admissible under certain circumstances. For example, in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that while a defendant's out of court statements were admissible in proving the defendant's guilt, they were inadmissible hearsay against another defendant.

Hearsay may, in some circumstances, be admitted though it is not covered by one of the long-recognized exceptions. For example, prior testimony may sometimes be admitted if the witness is unavailable.

However, in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), the Supreme Court increased the scope of the Confrontation Clause by ruling that "testimonial" out-of-court statements are inadmissible if the accused did not have the opportunity to cross-examine that accuser and that accuser is unavailable at trial.
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Nonetheless, in Crawford, the Supreme Court explicitly declined to provide a "comprehensive" definition of "testimonial" evidence (and, thus evidence subject to the requirements of the Confrontation Clause). In Davis v. Washington and its companion case, Hammon v. Indiana....The Court explained what constitutes testimonial hearsay:
Statements are nontestimonial when made in the course of police interrogation under circumstances objectively indicating that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. They are testimonial when the circumstances indicate that there is no ongoing emergency, and that the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.

The Davis Court noted several factors that, objectively considered, help determine whether a statement is testimonial: 1) whether the statement describes past events or events as they are happening, 2) whether the purpose of the statement is to assist in investigation of a crime or, on the other hand, provide information relevant to some other purpose, 3) the level of formality of the exchange in which the statement is made.
Confrontation Clause

The Court implicitly noted the shift, "Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because the defendant is obviously guilty."

What an uncannily appropriate quote.

Do they offer remedial civics classes for summer school in your district or are you stuck with no understanding of your constitutionally unalienable rights untill next semester?

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
flyers fan u are a lady, zimmerman had enough strength to throw a lady around but he couldnt push tray off?

Martin was much taller and apparently much stronger than Zimmerman. He wasn't the little 12 year old kid in those pictures that the MSM uses. And if Martin surprised Zimmernan and was beating the hell out of him, Martin had every right to defend himself to stop the blows.

Side note - the person screaming for 'help' in the tapes was ZIMMERMAN.
Martins own father admits it.

News Report

But Serino wrote in a report that he played a 911 call for Martin's father, Tracy, in which the screams are heard multiple times.

"I asked Mr. Martin if the voice calling for help was that of his son," the officer wrote. "Mr. Martin, clearly emotionally impacted by the recording, quietly responded `no."'

Zimmerman's father also told investigators that it was his son yelling for help on March 19.

Side note - I tried to stay neutral because you cant trust anything in the media. There was obvious hype and spin and agenda. With the release of the actual police documents I'm forming an opinion. IMHO - Zimmerman is not guilty of murder. He is guilty of bad judgement in following Martin. IF there was a chase and Zimmerman was actually chasing Martin, then Zimmerman is guilty of involuntary Manslaughter because he instigated the situation that caused the death. A neighborhood 'watch' means just that ... 'watch' ... don't engage the potential perp.

Another side note - Zimmerman should sue the hell out of the media and the New Black Panthers.

BREAKING NEWS

More info www.myfoxorlando.com...

Prosecutors have released evidence in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin and one photograph shows George Zimmerman with a bloody nose.

The evidence was released Thursday. One photo shows Zimmerman with blood under his nose. A paramedic report says Zimmerman also had a 1-inch laceration on his head and forehead abrasion.

Trayvon Martin's autopsy shows evidence of marijuana in his urine and blood

A police report says Martin had $40.15, Skittles candy, a RED LIGHTER, headphones and a photo pin in his pocket. He had been shot once in the chest and was pronounced dead at the scene.

I bet his father found his marijuana stash on his things, and the red lighter was for that, I know some of you naive people will say the lighter was for turning on the candles while he prays BS, BS , BS..........All the evidence coming out is not helping Trayvon AT ALL.

Read more: www.myfoxorlando.com...

reply to post by Autumnal


Easy.. Eyewitness describes Martin on top of Zimmerman, only Martin's hands had damage to the knuckles, Zimmerman was the only one that sustained damage from the physical altercation (besides the shooting).

That IS evidence. Again do you NOT understand what evidence is?
With that evidence you can make many assertions. Why would an armed man get close enough to fight someone he likely considers dangerous when he could hold them at bay with a gun? He wouldn't an armed person doesn't get into a fist fight that is the reason they are armed, he wouldn't risk having his gun taken.

Why, if Zimmerman started the fight, would Trayvon be the one with the damaged knuckles and have no other injuries indicating he was hit or attacked? Why was there no damage to Zimmerman's knuckles? Because Trayvon struck first.

I have given you evidence and I have given you some conclusions that would be drawn from it. Please don't address me again until you have some idea of what you are talking about. I wont answer until you have something sensible and unbiased to say.

reply to post by cdesigns


Smoking pot obviously doesn't make you a bad person or dangerous, but it could explain why he was acting suspicious. He most likely was out to smoke if his parents didn't allow it or didn't know about it.

The push pin, which I think is what they are calling a "photo pin," though I don't think I have ever heard it called that, was probably for use in place of roach clips.

reply to post by Autumnal


You are so full of it man.
You ironically are lying in a post where you are calling out someone for "lying" about the very same subject.

Trayvon:

According to the Sanford police incident report of Trayvon Martin's death, he was 6'0" tall and weighed 160 pounds;

George:

Zimmerman's height is shown as 5'8" and his weight as 185 pounds on his Seminole County Sheriff's Office Inmate Booking Information dated 4/11/2012.

So 25 lbs 4" height difference. Also considering TM height and thinness his weight was likely muscle mass from football/weightlifting. The 140/138 weight was reported in the media, but it was b.s. why don't you try to get to the real facts rather than accepting the media biased ones even though I know they fit your forced opinion well.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Can't you just accept the fact that this little punk got what he deserved, Zimmerman saved the tax payers thousands of dollars in cut short this pillar of society's criminal life and possibly the pain of future innocent victims. Had this young man had 1 bit of respect he coulkd have avoided this whole situation. Zimmerman is no hero, but he is not a villain either.

Originally posted by DOLCOTT
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

Can't you just accept the fact that this little punk got what he deserved, Zimmerman saved the tax payers thousands of dollars in cut short this pillar of society's criminal life and possibly the pain of future innocent victims. Had this young man had 1 bit of respect he coulkd have avoided this whole situation. Zimmerman is no hero, but he is not a villain either.

Not my business but a friendly heads up,

GogoVicMorrow has made no secret that he initially supported Zimmerman's arrest and prosecution however he has come to believe that the initial story was heavily edited by the media as such he has also made no secret that available facts now heavily support Zimmermans account.

There is nothing wrong with learning you may have been misled or wrong and owning up to it, GogoVicMorrow has my respect.

Besides its all subjective at this point, guilt or innocence will be decided by a jury of Zimmermans peers.

Although I believe strongly that the available evidence shows Zimmerman to have acted in self defence under the definition of Florida law, I will accept and support the Jury's decision.

Separately, I find your comment regarding Trayvon Martin unnecessary and in poor form.

While my belief is that while Martin most probably exercised extremely poor judgement and Zimmerman acted within his rights and was legitimately in fear for his wellbeing, the entire ordeal is a bona fide tragedy.

The two of them could have just as easily missed one another that evening, met the next day and been friendly and decent to one another.

Trayvon Martin doesn't seem to have done anything in his life to earn a comment like "he got what he deserved" or that his death was a service to the taxpayers.

He was in all probability deserving of the punk or thug moniker which he seemed to project and ancillary evidence supports, anyone thinking differently has never had to intimately deal with the thug mentality that has been prevalent among inner city black male youth culture for the last few decades or they are making excuse's and lying.

By the same token people grow and change and not every jackass teen grows up to rob liquor stores as a career choice on their way to a three strikes life sentence.

The whole ordeal is a tragedy that I am sure all parties would approach differently if given the chance.

Lets hope your kids grow up to stay out of trouble, I promise your thoughtless words will come back to haunt you some day.

reply to post by FlyersFan


But come on man! Some "expert", who didn't even follow his own criteria for voice matching, said it's a match!

I don't get it. Physical damage to george's head and face, but hot fists. Physical damage to tray's fists, but none on his face. That shows me there was a one way assault, not a fight. It's sad that a young man's parents didn't teach him not to be a barbarian and attack people in the streets. A fight on the schoolyard, between two willing people is one thing.... Suckerpunching a man in the face, then fullmounting and raining down punches is not acceptable behavior. He paid for it with his life. If zimmerman didn't have a gun, and was put in a coma or killed, he would be paying with his life another way......

reply to post by Maslo


What if Zim touched Tray first?

Just wondering what you would say to that.

Would you still find Zim justified?

reply to post by TKDRL


Where is your proof Tray sucker punched Zim? Lol

Barbarian huh? What else is he? Im sorry WAS he?

reply to post by PLASIFISK


Yeah, he would be. Let's say george pushed him, or grabbed his arm. Had tray punched him the one time, that would be fine. He cold cocked him, and knocked him to the ground, no longer a threat at that point.

Tray was not in control, and fullmounted goerge and kept right on going, after the threat was over.

It's obvious that george didn't punch tray, physical evidence tells us that.

reply to post by PLASIFISK


How about the damage to tray's knuckles, and the damage to george's nose? That matches the story of a suckerpunch to the nose. The lack of damage to george's knuckles, and trays face, also support it.

reply to post by DOLCOTT


And if it comes out that Zim touched Tray first?