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

reply to post by pizzanazi75


In this very thread someone (I thought it was you) said in reference to me "he probably thinks OJ is innocent."

So I thought it was odd to comment on OJ later. I am very open minded and I pay close attention. The case I find most similar to this (oddly enough, also in Fla) was Casey Anthony who I believed was innocent of murder. Earlier in this thread someone tried to argue my judgement on this case based on my opinion of the Casey Anthony case. These other cases really have nothing to do with it, but they give us insight into how gullible some of the posters on this website are, depending on their positions.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


What witness might that be? That woman that has been shown unreliable and didn't see it, but just heard it in the background?

I'll take the EYEwitness that SAW Martin on top, over the "witness" that "believes" Martin was on the ground.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

I did watch. That is why I agreed that in Fla open carry is illegal apparently, but you still have some misconceptions about what concealed carry means. If someone sees your gun you didn't break the law and it can still be considered concealed.

The point you were trying to make was a point-less one.

No its not a pointless one. If it was a pointless one they wouldn't be talking about it. Zimmerman can't just walk around pursuing unarmed teenagers with his weapon potentially showing. You don't know what was or wasn't visible on Zimmerman that night. If he was walking around on his 'patrol' for Trayvon and had his coat swung open, say, for easy access to his weapon, that is a violation. I am sorry you don't understand, but luckily for Trayvon his lawyers and the experts do understand.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Yeah the same difference. The MSM played on people's emotions, and stirred the pot like they are doing now. Peaople are falling for it hook, line sinker.

With Casey Anthony, I still see morons bringing up that case, and thinking they know better than the jury, or that they were paid off etc. The same things people are saying about this case.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

What witness might that be? That woman that has been shown unreliable and didn't see it, but just heard it in the background?

I'll take the EYEwitness that SAW Martin on top, over the "witness" that "believes" Martin was on the ground.

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

I linked the an interview with witness already. This person has been on AC360 twice and told what she saw and heard. And no, this women did not just hear it from the background. Based on what she says on AC360 you can figure out which 911 caller she is. I don't know of any witness that has been shown fully 'unreliable' as you put it. Id like to know who determined any witnesses unreliable?

reply to post by pizzanazi75


That eyewitness did not actually see the fight start though.
They heard it and saw part of the end (which she started claiming later, I don't think she claimed to see it at first). Also she doesn't sound at all like she knows what she apparently saw. She uses words like think and blah blah. She would be worthless in court.
I didn't think Zimmerman's voice was deep at all from the call.
Either way this person claiming to be an eyewitness did not see the fight start or the struggle they just heard the ordeal and saw the end saying it was very dark and she thought it was the larger man (obviously not sure as the other witness was). They didn't even hear what was being said, they can't confirm anything.

The other witness describes what the person underneath was wearing. That is what I am going to go with.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


I know exactly which witness it is. She has been seen without her face covered as in the link you posted. She didn't see the struggle she didn't know which was on top and which was on bottom.

"I know it was very dark, but I really would have to say that I think it was the larger man that was on the top"

Sounds like she is really sure. The other witness was definite.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


If you have a shoulder holster and you have your jacket open, it is still legally concealed. If you have it tucked into the back of your pants it is still legally concealed.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

That eyewitness did not actually see the fight start though.

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

I think this is the most important part of the case, but alas there is people only "heard an argument" no one actually "saw" it "start". Are you implying "John saw it start"?

reply to post by GhettoRice


I don't know, he saw the fight up close from his door, and more from upstairs. Even if he didn't see it, he definitely saw up close that Zimmerman was on bottom.

Do you dispute that Zimmerman was on bottom? That is the most important aspect. If he saw Zimmerman on bottom then even people against Zimmerman have to concede that Zimmerman was justified.

reply to post by cyb3rR3v0luti0nary


I know what you mean dude. I had people hating my guts for arguing in her defense. I wasn't trolling either. I honestly don't think she committed murder. Sure she improperly disposed of the body, but I think she did it out of fear after she neglected her daughter in some way and her daughter died while she wasn't around. If they wanted to lock her up they should have got her on charges of neglect and improper blah blah of a corpse. Whatever the charges are about bodies I don't remember.

reply to post by GhettoRice


These two only saw the aftermath:

This one didn't see a thing, she just heard some voices, and made some assumptions.


This one however, actually saw trayvon on top of zimmerman, beating him up.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Yeah, I had a bunch of people yelling at me on facebook for "defending a child murderer". It was like we watched two entirely different trials or something. Unreal.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


No I don't dispute Zimmerman was on the bottom when "John" saw them, but I do dispute that that "automatically" makes the use of deadly force justified in my eyes. The more important aspects I feel are who the "aggressor" in the situation was and "if" Zimmerman "clearly" identified himself before interacting with Trayvon, as the outcome could have gone the other way as some have suggested. With a death by bare hands or a gun it is still a death, I feel the point remains that the "instances" that lead to the actions being "necessary" to take a life with deadly force are what can exonerate/blame someone.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by GhettoRice

 

Do you dispute that Zimmerman was on bottom? That is the most important aspect. If he saw Zimmerman on bottom then even people against Zimmerman have to concede that Zimmerman was justified.

I think is where you misunderstand something very basic.
If you dont understand who started a confrontation, you don't understand who is on the defense and who has the right to defense.

The law doesnt state that if you start losing a fight, you have the right to kill someone.

So, no. This is not the most important aspect by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, it is not relevant as to whether someone has the right to kill someone. This is what you misunderstand. Its very simple.

reply to post by spacedog1973


Eye witness account showing trayvon on top doing the beating, VS speculation that zimmerman attacked him first..... If zimmerman did the attacking first, trayvon would have to have gotten really lucky to turn the tables on a bigger guy.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by spacedog1973

 

Eye witness account showing trayvon on top doing the beating, VS speculation that zimmerman attacked him first..... If zimmerman did the attacking first, trayvon would have to have gotten really lucky to turn the tables on a bigger guy.

This is speculation and this thread should try to reduce this when we are having these discussions based on the information which is available.

You have no idea it seems how a scuffle could end up on the floor with whoever on top. Its not indicative of who started a fight and to suggest so is foolish.

reply to post by spacedog1973


Unless it's between people that are actually trained fighters, most of the time its the guy who starts it, AKA suckerpunch, that gets the upper hand and wins. Also, if zimmerman started it, a big guy like that punches you in the face, there would be some physical indication of that.

Dude was in a car at the beginning of it. If he was hard up to kill somebody, it woulda been way easier to run him over and claim it was an accident. Well, was fun chatting, gotta run.

editby]edit on 8-4-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)