George Zimmerman to be charged in Trayvon Martin shooting, official says

reply to post by GmoS719


I understand your fury...a poor boy was killed. But lets face the reality here people...the only reason this was so widely broadcasted was to slander a good man whom might I add has already had enough of a case to actually use the "stand your ground" defense...its redicilous how stupid the tv makes us all. I still have people in my college level English class explaining why they think Trayvon was innocent, the same people who watch fox news and msnbc, and still believe he was walking down the street with a pack of skittles in his hand. I mean really? The boy was up to no good, we all know it, and there now is now way people can believe for a second what the news is saying after being caught like 3 times blatantly lying to their viewers, and you still sit there and try to plead for this boy. I dont know, this country is redicilous. The things we are so caught up in its just pure stupidity. Follow the motto of the site please and deny the ignorance you so greatly possess.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75your argument that EMT's treated those type of injuries at the scene is laughable.

Not laughable at all. Again, you are speculating (or in this case, outright making up) and calling it facts. That is what EMTs are trained to do. They treat injuries and asses if further treatment is necessary. They can check for concussions, can tell if the skull has been fractured or if his wounds needed stitches.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Not to mention the police report says he was given 'first aid' by the SFD in the back of a squad car. his injuries weren't even bad enough for anyone to break out a box of band aids.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
If you GF is an ER nurse than she can explain to you why EMT's would have rushed zimmerman to a hospital if his injuries were true.

Probably because, though he was injured, the EMTs (or police, who have EMT training) determined he did not need further treatment.

Beside, it is not speculation that Zimmerman was injured. We have video evidence of it. You have moved from calling speculation facts to outright ignoring and lying about the evidence. Which is really funny. You are say people who refuse to accept your speculation as "facts" are ignoring the evidence, when you have been caught red-handed ignoring it yourself.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Im glad you Girlfriend was able to assess you so quickly, however you didn't just claim to have been beaten so badly you had to kill an unarmed teenager. Surly you can see the difference between you wedding boo boo and Zimmermans skull splitting injuries and the need for proper medical attention beyond the back seat of squad car.

Who ever said it was a skull-splitting injury? All you have is Zimmerman's brother on a cable-talk show saying Zimmerman thought he was sustaining serious injury.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
6. Are you saying you can't get a scratch on the back of your head from a scuffle on the ground?

No, you are saying that.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
And im not ignoring anything.

You are ignoring video evidence of the wound. Funny, the one hard piece of definitive evidence we have in this case, you ignore in favor of speculation.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
If he had a 'wound' on the back of his head he would at the very least have a band aid. And I don't see any wound on his head, I see at most a scratch,

You are just lying now.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
8. No the hole are not my speculation.

That is what is so great about speculation. You can make up whatever you want.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75Certain things Zimmerman has said, or his family or his lawyers have said don't add up to my speculation

There, fixed it for you.

1. No im not confusing anything. His own brother, father, and lawyers said the same thing. Are they all confused too?

2. Keep telling youself that he was 'treated' at the scene for his 'injuries'. We can revisit this conversation when the EMT and SFD reports come out and see what they have to say about his injuries. its been reported by the zimmerman camp his head was beaten on concrete....if he told an EMT that...they would tell him he needed xrays. But im sure you will say that they wouldn't tell him that they would feel his scalp and tell him 'all clear'.

3. So who is lying Zimmermans brother, father, first lawyers, neighbor? I mean they all said his head was beat on the concrete. I have seen no evidence of that and neither have you. The CCV video at best shows a scratch which could be explained by the 'scuffle'.....regardless, you can't have it both ways. Either Zimmerman was being beat to an inch of his life or he wasn't. If he was EMT's would have taken him to the ER to see you GF, if he wasn't being beat and didn't need further attention then all those people in his camp have lied about his injuries. Which is it?

4. All of Zimmermans people said his head was being beat against the concrete...listen to his old lawyers, his father, his brother. All they all lying?

5. No im not and I didn't. That is the only injury that is remotely seen on CCV is a scratch. If he felt his life was in danger over a scratch he is for sure going to prison. Was you trying to make a point?

6. 'Wound'...since when do EMT's leave 'wounds' unbandaged? Scratches unbandaged yes. wounds ... no.

7. How am I lying? Because I don't agree with you?

8. Again are you making a point about something? Or just ignoring the points of this case?

9. Oh, aren't you cute. That changes nothing. People do little things like that when they know they can't argue their ridiculous points. Could you keep on topic?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
You see this is the problem that you just don't seem to want to understand. We already know that Zimmerman was persuing Martin as stated to the dispatcher on audio by Zimmerman himself.

Show me the evidence he continued pursuing Martin after the phone-call. And please, read the entire transcript.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
1. Zimmerman confirmed he was persuing Trayvon on audio to the dispatcher

Go back and read your own transcript. Zimmerman says "OK" to do dispatcher after being told he does not need to pursue. Then he states he cannot see Martin. That is no someone chasing someone else.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
2. you theorize that Trayvon may have possibly persued Zimmerman and confronted him as well.

The latter isn't confirmed through any evidence, it's just a scenario you see as likely.

You are putting words in my mouth. I stated it as a possibility. I gave other scenarios as well. I do not know. Neither do you. We have no evidence for any of them.

But to be honest, I think Zimmerman continued to look for Martin. And I think Martin may have been lost, but when finding Zimmerman (accidentally), he confronted him, full of 17-year-old bravado and immortality. Then one of them felt threatened, then one of them attacked the other. But that is complete speculation on my part. I'm not claiming it as fact. Fact is, I do not know.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Fact, Zimmerman clearly stated he was persuing Trayvon Martin.

Produce the evidence demonstrating this after he said "OK" to the 911 dispatcher.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
So they both met each other according to you, yet you're not claiming that Trayvon approached Zimmerman at all? How does this work?

Because I am offering it as a possibility. This could have happened. It may not have happened. I do not know. However, I am not making speculations masquerading as absolute statements of fact, as you are.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
If Zimmerman approaches Trayvon, does this mean that both Trayvon and Zimmerman met up with each other

Could be Zimmerman was looking for Martin, but did not know where Martin was. Martin is looking to get away from Zimmerman, but did not know where Zimmerman was (combine this with Martin being on unfamiliar terrain. In fact, I doubt that Martin did actually double-back). They happen to come across each other, one or the other fells threatened, a fight starts. Tragic end.

Could be. But I don't know. Neither do you. You were not there.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Regardless, EMT's do not treat those type of injuries, they transport to a hospital. His first lawyer tried to use the 'shaken baby' saying his brain was being rattled in his skull, you don't think he would want a few xrays. your argument that EMT's treated those type of injuries at the scene is laughable.

This is a very good point right here. As I stated before, if they had taken pictures and if the injuries were so bad, they would have circulated it through the media I assure you.

The theory that they have held back the EMT report or pictures until his defense in court just doesn't stick because there was never a confirmation that he was going to be charged until recently. This coupled with the footage from the police station, his mannerisms on that video, indicates to me that he didn't suffer anything significant, putting aside whether he suffered anything at all from that incident.

Regardless of any "theory", when EMTs use supplies to treat someone, they *have* to make a report of the items used, and the time spent on the call, and person, if identifiable for restocking and billing purposes. When they go the hospital to restock, they have to turn in a receipt, and if the person has insurance, the insurance is billed, or, it is written off. Those supplies are not free, and incident calls are the rule, not the exception.

Zimmerman refused to be transported by ambulance to the hospital that night. Ever heard of liquid stitches? EMTs use those a lot.

What he suffered or not is not up to you or anyone else to judge by his mannerisms in that video. Unless you know him, or know he acts at any other time on video, then I suggest you may not have a clue as to what you are talking about.

Plus, it was stated he did pursue medical treatment the next day. Again, medical records of all types are treated via HIPAA laws, in any state they are the most personal of all records. Leaking of that information, which is to include photos of injuries, would lead to serious jail time for anyone involved. No one involved would be stupid enough to do that.

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
People keep bringing up Stand-Your-Ground as justification for George Zimmerman's actions. So riddle me this, batman....

George Zimmerman was the one "stalking" Trayvon Martin.

Zimmerman was not "stalking" Martin. Simply using the term stalk does not make it a fact. He followed, which is lawful. Under law stalking requires a repeated action of the suspect in relation to the victim. In this case, Zimmerman following Martin is not stalking and comes nowhere close to meeting the legal definition.

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
George Zimmerman was the one who was carrying a weapon.

Zimmerman was lawfully in possession of his gun and had the permits required by law in order to carry and conceal it.

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
To any objective person, that would make George Zimmerman the pursuer/aggressor.

No - It makes Zimmerman a citizen who observed suspcious behavior (in his mind) who called police. Zimmerman observed the individual until he ran off (people apparently did bother to listen to ALL the 911 tapes that came out). Zimmerman was in lawful possession of his gun.

Not one action of zimmermans above is in violation of any Florida State Laws / statutes.

People are trying to use the term pursue as if it makes a difference, when in reality it does not. Zimmerman did not "pursue" anyone. Contrary to popular belief by smoe in these forums, the use of the term pursue has absolutely no bearing on what occured.

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
Under Stand-Your-Ground, that would give Trayvon Martin the right to retaliate and even use deadly force if he felt his life were threatened. Not hard to come that conclusion if the other guy is holding a weapon.

Which is why6 the law is flawed. Dloridas stand your ground law has been used as a national model with a few changes. Specifically tghe states that adopted their version left out the part that Florida uses.

Florida stand your ground law as well as their self defense / defense of others law allows a person to use defensive action when confronted. The part other states dropped that florida kept allows the aggressor to actually escalte use of force if the person they engaged responds with force that is at a higher level.

It means both parties, under Florida law, are allowed to defend themselves against the other, and allows both parties to escalate the use of force based on the perception of the individual that his life was in imminent danger.

This is why the law is messed up to no end. Even if the legislature never intended the law to work in that manner, in reality and application it does.

Some states do not allow an individual to defend themselves if they can escape the situation - Duty to retreat.
Some states allow a person to defend themselves even if an avenue of escape is possible - Castle doctrine

Florida allows both parties to use the same law to justify their actions - Stand your ground.

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
So...in all reality....Trayvon Martin had the right to "attack" George Zimmerman, in self-defense, if indeed it ever happened.

Correct and Zimmerman had the right to do the same to Martin. This is why this entire situation is as goofy as it is. The law is so fundamentally flawed that is about useless.

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
George Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter at a minimum.

He has been charged with 2nd degree murder, which in and of itself is weird. The detective wanted him charged with manslaughter, which is a "lesser offense" with comparable prison time than 2nd degree murder.

Bear with me on this part -
I am assuming that Florida Law considers manslaughter a "lesser included offense" of 2nd degree murder. As an example if a person is charged with 2nd degree murder, the jury could request the ability to consider a lesser charge. It allows a jury to take in all the info / evidence and allows them to consider if the charge is supported by the evidence. If not, then they can use the lesser included offense and find the individual guilty.

Its possible to do that since the criteria was present to consider a 2nd degree murder charge.

Originally posted by CIAGypsy
Trayvon Martin's only "offense" was walking down the street, minding his own business and talking on the phone, with his hoodie up against the rain. Not probable cause for ANY offense. Under the pretense of Stand-Your-Ground, Trayvon Martin had every right to react to George Zimmerman's aggressive behavior.

Can't understand why people are missing this basic fact.

Because the stand your ground law actually covers both individuals actions. Simply ignoring it because people dont agree with zimmermans actions does not negate the law.

Since we dont know for sure what occured between contact and the police arriving, there is no way we can be for sure who was in the right, wrong etc. If it comes out in court then we will know.

Until then its speculation...

Lets wait and see what comes out in court, what evidence is allowed in and whats excluded etc.

reply to post by Libertygal


1. No one said they were required to do anything. If they had that proof they would have released it to at least gain some public support for their client. The client they had never met. Like I said I will believe that pictures exist when I see them. If they took pics they don't show the injuries he claimed. Like ATS likes to say 'pics or it didn't happen'. Im sticking with that.

2. Do you think the EMT's moved his body 180 degrees so his head was facing the houses and his feet were facing the concrete? Or do you think they just rolled him over where he was and did CPR? They would have rolled him over. And the cop noted the position of the body when he arrived, so even if the body was moved, the cop reported where it was. Witnesses reported seeing where it was. So your argument isn't valid.

3. Prove that Trayvon did say that. You can't. I can believe his father is lying, thats my right.

4. You make alot of excuses for a man who just murdered an unarmed teenager. I have reported facts as they are known and asked questions to try and find answers. You have blindly accepted the words of a child killer. Ill stay on my side. Not to mention, audio experts agree Zimmerman was not the one yelling. That is why it didn't continue. He never yelled for help that night. I trust science more than I trust a child killer.

5. How do you know he can trust his new lawyer. Seems you are making alot of assumption about people you don't know. Just wow.

*sigh o hem sigh o hem goodness me sigh

5.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
1. No im not confusing anything. His own brother, father, and lawyers said the same thing.

I'm not taking anything a second-hand source says on a cable-show as proof of anything.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75...if he told an EMT that...they would tell him he needed xrays. But im sure you will say that they wouldn't tell him that they would feel his scalp and tell him 'all clear'.

No, they would not. You are speaking for total and complete ignorance. They could look at the injury to the back of his head, determined if it needed to be (or could be) dressed, check for signs of concussion and fracture.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75I have seen no evidence of that and neither have you.

Then why do you keep claiming you know what happened and didn't happen?

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
The CCV video at best shows a scratch which could be explained by the 'scuffle'.....regardless, you can't have it both ways. Either Zimmerman was being beat to an inch of his life or he wasn't.

Zimmerman, at the time, may have believed he was being beaten within an inch of his life, something that wasn't born out my reality. Of course, I am sure if you or I were having our heads bashed into the ground, whether concrete or bare grass, we would take the time to properly asses the situation and our injures before acting to defend ourselves.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
4. All of Zimmermans people said his head was being beat against the concrete...listen to his old lawyers, his father, his brother. All they all lying?

Didn't say they were. I'm just saying a second-hand source on cable-TV isn't the most reliable.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
5. That is the only injury that is remotely seen on CCV is a scratch.

That is an awfully large scratch, which even the source of the video, ABC news says may be a "gash"

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
6. 'Wound'...since when do EMT's leave 'wounds' unbandaged? Scratches unbandaged yes. wounds ... no.

If it is just a surface wound or abrasion, yes.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
7. How am I lying?

Because you are lying about the evidence. You were claiming there was no injuries to Zimmerman. You have ignored the evidence, completely misrepresenting it. That is a lie.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
9. Oh, aren't you cute. That changes nothing. People do little things like that when they know they can't argue their ridiculous points. Could you keep on topic?

Never changed the topic. Again, you are lying.

Could you please stop lying?

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Xcathdra

 

It was Zimmerman's previous lawyers that said it, Craig Sonner....you know....they guy that quit once he found out it was likely they were going to charge Zimmerman with something

wtvr.com...

A lawyer for the man at the center of the Trayvon Martin death investigation said Florida’s “stand your ground” law doesn’t apply to the shooting that killed the unarmed teen.

“In my legal opinion, that’s not really applicable to this case. The statute on ‘stand your ground’ is primarily when you’re in your house,” said Craig Sonner, attorney for George Zimmerman.

And he would be incorrect....
To know that all he would need to do is read the law in its entirety. Secondly if he was retained as Zimmermans lawyer and made that comment I dont see why he is not being brought before the ethics committee.

As I am sure others have posted, there is no way that he would ever receive a fair trail. After the metaphorical tar and feathering he has gotten, how in the world can you ever hope to find an impartial jury? Not only that though, this news has spread all over the world and given everyone else one more reason to look down on us. This has been a disaster since the word "go".

Originally posted by WingedBull
Show me the evidence he continued pursuing Martin after the phone-call.

I don't need to. We already know that Zimmerman was in persuit of Trayvon, whether he claimed he lost Trayvon in persuit is irrelevant, he initially took it upon himself to chase Trayvon. He was obviously prepared to confront him if he caught up to him.

So again, did Zimmerman persue Trayvon, yes he did.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I stated it as a possibility.

possibility isn't fact.

I gave other scenarios as well. I do not know.

No you don't.

Neither do you.

I know he initially persued Martin, which was my initial point.

Produce the evidence demonstrating this after he said "OK" to the 911 dispatcher.

I don't have to. We already know that Zimmerman persued Martin, it's irrelevant what happened after a certain point in the audio tape.

But I don't know.

No, no you don't.

Originally posted by IratePotatoes
As I am sure others have posted, there is no way that he would ever receive a fair trail.

Just look at this thread. Rejection of facts based on the speculation that favors a particular outcome. People "knowing" without question in the absence of all the evidence.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Thank you your honor, may I step down from the stand now?

It would probably be a good idea.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
I don't check anything at the door. They steal from your pockets. You check yours at the door. This is the court of public opinion, like it or not. Its a freaking discussion board, Miss Wanna Be Lawyer.

Well if you are going to use speculation and ignorance of the system then by all means, continue your opinion.
Secondly I am male, not female.. So once again your assumptions were incorrect.
Third I am not a lawyer nor am I a wannabe lawyer. I understand how the system and laws work though and I guess I assumed you would be open to learning.

apparently not.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
If we were in a court of law I would have addressed issue differently.....in case your delusions have put you in a courtroom, let me remind you, we are on the internet discussing a case that was just charged today....its all opinion and what ifs.....but I guess you don't understand that.

Thats been my argument from the begining. You just got done stating you would rather argue this in the court of public opinion and not law. Apparently you are not understanding the difference between the 2.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
I don't know who you think you are, but I don't need your lecture. I can express my opinion about this case just as you can. Just because you can use big words and look things up on the internet doesn't make you an expert and this isn't an expert forum. So check you snotty attitude at the door its not needed here.

Sure thing.. If you could check your ignorance at the door and act like an adult it would be appreciated.

Since you have demonstrated you know nothing about me I am assuming you are going to just make accusations left and right with nothing to support them?

If so let me know now so I dont waste my time responding to your posts.

reply to post by atlguy


I haven't kept up with this lately but in regards to the gun laws, such as deadly force, stand your ground, etc, has it been determined whether or not stand your ground applies here? Or, will the trial serve to figure this out? To me I would support a case of deadly force, but not stand your ground. How do you see this going for him?

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
1. No im not confusing anything. His own brother, father, and lawyers said the same thing.

I'm not taking anything a second-hand source says on a cable-show as proof of anything.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75...if he told an EMT that...they would tell him he needed xrays. But im sure you will say that they wouldn't tell him that they would feel his scalp and tell him 'all clear'.

No, they would not. You are speaking for total and complete ignorance. They could look at the injury to the back of his head, determined if it needed to be (or could be) dressed, check for signs of concussion and fracture.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75I seen no evidence of that and neither have you.

Then why do you keep claiming you know what happened and didn't happen

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
The CCV video at best shows a scratch which could be explained by the 'scuffle'.....regardless, you can't have it both ways. Either Zimmerman was being beat to an inch of his life or he wasn't.

Zimmerman, at the time, may have believed he was being beaten within an inch of his life, something that wasn't born out my reality. Of course, I am sure if you or I were having our heads bashed into the ground, whether concrete or bare grass, we would take the time to properly asses the situation and our injures before acting to defend ourselves.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
4. All of Zimmermans people said his head was being beat against the concrete...listen to his old lawyers, his father, his brother. All they all lying?

Didn't say they were. I'm just saying a second-hand source on cable-TV isn't the most reliable.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
5. That is the only injury that is remotely seen on CCV is a scratch.

That is an awfully large scratch, which even the source of the video, ABC news says may be a "gash"

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
6. 'Wound'...since when do EMT's leave 'wounds' unbandaged? Scratches unbandaged yes. wounds ... no.

If it is just a surface wound or abrasion, yes.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
7. How am I lying?

Because you are lying about the evidence. You were claiming there was no injuries to Zimmerman. You have ignored the evidence, completely misrepresenting it. That is a lie.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
9. Oh, aren't you cute. That changes nothing. People do little things like that when they know they can't argue their ridiculous points. Could you keep on topic?

Never changed the topic. Again, you are lying.

Could you please stop lying?

1. Why would that be. Do you think his father, brother, and lawyers have misrepresented his injuries?

2. You live in your fantasy world. Ill live in the real one. His whole camp has claimed he was in fear of head injuries, and EMT would suggest going to the hospital. EMT are not doctors and they know it. You can scream all you want that they 'treated' him for head injuries at the 'scene' in the back of a squad car, but that is just you making things up because you want it to be that way.

3. I claim to know what happened based on what Zimmermans own people have said, and what witnesses have said. Just like you claim to know what treatment was given to zimmerman in the back of a squad car without having ever seen an EMT report. But yet you seem very certain of what EMT's did that night, that is you claiming to know what happened that night and you weren't there. Pot call the kettle.......

4. Change the subject much? Was it grass or concrete? You can't defend one position and then change now that you think we have moved on. All of Zimmerman people claimed it was on concrete, not grass. The evidence shows it was on grass...thas probably another reason he was charged today. Because the EVIDENCE says he committed a crime. Imagine that.

5. Again are you saying his own father, the retired judge and his former lawyers are not reliable sources as to what Zimmerman told them happened? You can't be serious?

6. ABC news can say gash.....other sources say scratch to nothing. I see at most a scratch. Produce a picture that shows a 'gash' and ill eat my words on his wounds. That CCV footage is clear enough to me to show he has no visible injuries. Guess he can prove those claims in court.

7. So is it a surface wound, abrasion, or a gash? Make up your mind.

8. I don't see any injuries to Zimmerman that is not a lie. Again, you can call me a liar all you want, that doesn't change anything. I have stated evidence as we have seen it. I have not seen any injuries on Zimmerman. Ive stated before what I see on the CCV footage. Could be a scratch or a shadow. A scratch isn't a 'wound' as you would like to make people believe.

9. Again, you calling me a liar doesn't make it true. Stay on topic.

Originally posted by Libertygal
Zimmerman refused to be transported by ambulance to the hospital that night. Ever heard of liquid stitches? EMTs use those a lot.

LMFAO!! Liquid stitches? Is this the level absurdity that has been reached in the search for plausible reasons why neither GZ's appearance or demeanor matches the the concoction of lies he made up that night?

If the places were reversed and Trayvon had sauntered into a police station with no visible injuries after a "life and death battle" merely 35 minutes prior, the people now defending GZ would be screaming at the top of their lungs that lies were being told.

Its perfectly obvious that GZ's account of what happened is not true. The lead detective on the case didn't believe him, and neither do a lot of rational-thinking persons -- of all races.

Originally posted by IratePotatoes
As I am sure others have posted, there is no way that he would ever receive a fair trail. After the metaphorical tar and feathering he has gotten, how in the world can you ever hope to find an impartial jury? Not only that though, this news has spread all over the world and given everyone else one more reason to look down on us. This has been a disaster since the word "go".

Casey Anthony got a fair shot, and we all know how demonized she was, I mean the general public had already condemned her. However, after the trial she was found innocent, there was more uproar, people still thought she was guilty, end of story. He may still receive a fair trial stop being so melodramatic. If ZImmerman is really innocent, which I do not personally believe is the case, he will probably be found so. The general public is not the jury and sometimes courts do their job.

reply to post by WingedBull


This is a scary road to travel down! Quite frightening really. Trouble is, because the initial investigation by the police was inadequate to uncover all the evidence, this case was thrown in the public arena far too long. It seems there is little evidence and all we have of any significant portion is speculation. Yikes!

Reminds me of the Star Trek: TNG episode The Drumhead, minus the inquisition and MacCarthy-isms.

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by Libertygal
Really? Based on where he stated in the tape Martin was located and was running to, and where the body was located when the police arrived, it is evident that Martin came BACK.

Yes, Zimmerman made claims that Trayvon was running in a certain direction. Whether Trayvon's body was found back from that direction where Zimmerman could account is irrelevant, there is no evidence out there pointing to whether Trayvon confronted Zimmerman himself, aside from Zimmerman's words.

After he says, "Ok", he stops following Martin, as is evident in the further conversation. You can tell he is no longer running, and was looking for his location and street address and even says he does not want to call out his personal address as he does not "know where this kid is at". It is total fallacy that he continued to "pursue" "chase" or "follow" Martin in any way.

How could it be a fallacy? Zimmerman was certainly prepared to confront by persuing Trayvon initially, maybe Zimmerman saw Trayvon and continued to persue him? What made you assume this scenario was out of the question? Considering you claim it was a 'fallacy' for him to persue him any longer?

He discontinued his following Martin when the operator stated, "We don't need you to do that", he states, "Ok", and in fact stated he wanted the police to meet him by the mailboxes, very near where he was parked.

Yes, you're assuming he stopped chasing Trayvon after he was advised not to. The audio tape cannot fully account for the entire event, it does however demonstrate what Zimmerman was prepared to do.

If Martin was truly afraid of Zimmerman, why didn't he just go home?

Why must he go home? Maybe he had a last minute change of plans? Maybe he wanted to go back to his dad's place to get something else? Who knows, Walking in a route through the neighbourhood that doesn't suit your standards doesn't make him guilty of anything, it doesn't add to whether he provoked an incident.

Very good map with outline of how the incident may have unfolded.

Yes I've seen that map, not sure if it will be useful enough to the defense to point to Trayvon going for a confrontation himself.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I don't need to.

I forgot. Speculation is as good as evidence. My mistake.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
We already know that Zimmerman was in persuit of Trayvon

As another member pointed out, in pursuit and following are two different things.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
whether he claimed he lost Trayvon in persuit is irrelevant

Interesting you are accepting some of the 911 tape as fact, and other parts you are rejecting as Zimmerman lying. Do you have any proof of him lying?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
he initially took it upon himself to chase Trayvon.

Chase would indicate he was running after Martin, not merely following him. Do you have any evidence he did this?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
He was obviously prepared to confront him if he caught up to him.

How do you know he planned on confronting Martin?

So again, did Zimmerman persue Trayvon, yes he did.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
possibility isn't fact.

Never said it was. In fact, I have been quite clear I (nor anyone else) has all the facts and was quite clear it was only a possibility. You and Pizzanazi are the only ones who are confusing speculation as facts.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
No you don't.

Oh look. Another liar.

Produce the evidence demonstrating this after he said "OK" to the 911 dispatcher.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
I don't have to.

You are making a claim. Back it up.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
We already know that Zimmerman persued Martin, it's irrelevant what happened after a certain point in the audio tape.

We know that he followed Martin, initially. We do not know what happened after he said "OK" to the dispatcher and said he lost site of Martin. You do not know what happened from that point to the point Zimmerman and Martin fought. You have no evidence to say he continued following or that he chased or pursued Martin. And that is why you are claiming what happened next is irrelevant, because you don't have the facts to back up your claims.