Zimmerman / Trayvon: Yeah, I'm sick of it too, but one Video you HAVE to see...

reply to post by IvanAstikov


How does that imply Goode was lying? You are just spouting nonsense and trolling now. John Goode was the one that saw Trayvon on top throwing punches and evidence supports that.

John IS the neighbor i was referring too. So either you are intentionally misleading or dont know wwhat you are talking about.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


You just said you never really believed Zimmerman was punched more than once, but at the same time you are claiming JG saw Zimmerman being punched(which was wrong - after reconsideration of his original statement, he thinks he might have seen him getting punched... not the same thing). If Zimmerman himself didn't describe any punches being thrown in his written statement, why would you believe JG when he says something contradictory? It certainly doesn't back up Zimmerman's version of events, so why support it?

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Nothing I said conflicted what John Goode said. Nothing I said implied I didn't believe him. There is zero reason not to believe John Goode and just because he saw punches thrown does not mean they landed or weren't deflected. I am not saying only one punch was thrown, there were likely more, but there doesn't have to be more for the shooting to be justified.

Facts are against you, you can't win the argument. I am done.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


We're not talking about Goode's testimony conflicting with what YOU said, we are talking about it actually contradicting what Zimmerman wrote at some point before he was released in the early hours of the 27th Feb, 2012. Zimmerman wrote nothing about being punched after the initial sucker punch, but Goode says he saw Trayvon aiming punches "mma ground and pound style," so how come Zimmerman didn't mention that in his written statement?

Go on, tell me he was in some kind of state of shock, and was hardly likely to remember everything.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


The most likely scenario is that the later punches were brief and not very effective do to Zimmerman's struggles and the fact Martin tried to slam his head and cover his mouth took precedence in his mind over a few extra punches. His biggest concern was is head being slammed and he made that very clear.

Originally posted by Baddguy
reply to post by ruderalis1

 

Trayon "Lean Maker" Martin

so can we call him George "The Wife/Cop Beater Vigilante" Zimmerman????

How do you get a "concealed carry permit" with a history of spousal abuse.
I don't have such a history but a friend does, and he's not allowed to carry a stick.
I also can't help but wonder if he had the gun out all along. There was never an answer to "how he got it out while on his back' or how martin saw it at all.

reply to post by teamcommander


Because it wasn't spousal abuse. It was an argument between a married couple. They both dropped the charges against each other and it wasn't physical. As for the cop thing.. everyone knows you can't lay a finger on a cop so that's just absurd.

He obviously didn't have the gun out the whole time. He wouldn't taken a 45 second beating if that were the case and Trayvon would have likely taken the gun out of his hand. How would someone unarmed get the upper hand on someone with a gun? Martin would have seen the gun when Zimmerman was trying to defend himself. Truthfully.. I don't know if I believe Martin ever saw the gun or went for it. I don't think ZImmerman is guilty because I think he was justified, but in his position I could understand being afraid your story wasn't enough and adding to it even if the original truth really was enough. You know?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by JuniorDisco

 

The reasoning being used is beyond ridiculous. They want Trayvon to be this experienced street thug with murderous intentions, who can't finish off what he starts, while Zimmerman is this soft, overweight and in above his head good guy who still manages to overcome his evil foe's intentions, despite being beaten almost to the point of unconsciousness.

That's yanks for you. There's a reason they invented Hollywood.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

We are hust going on the evidence. You are going on.. nothing really.

So you just made up that 'ground and pound stuff'? That was just a useful lie while the trial was going on and now they just... cuddled each other for 45 seconds.

Okay.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by teamcommander

 

He wouldn't taken a 45 second beating if that were the case

So now he did take a 45 second beating?

You literally just make it up depending on what's most expedient at the time, don't you?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

Because it wasn't spousal abuse. It was an argument between a married couple. They both dropped the charges against each other and it wasn't physical. As for the cop thing.. everyone knows you can't lay a finger on a cop so that's just absurd.

dont lie for Zimmerman your not his care taker... a simple google search will show you that he was in fact arrested and charged with “resisting officer with violence” and “battery of law enforcement officer,” which was reduced to “resisting officer without violence” and then waived when he entered an alcohol education program and his wife filed a civil motion for a restraining order for domestic violence...VIOLENCE is not an argument sir......

reply to post by Baddguy


Lol I'm not lying. You are exaggerating. Why did Zimmerman not go to jail for either of those incidences. The fight with his wife was a mutual thing and was dropped 100 PERCENT ( if it wasn't he wouldn't have been able to own a gun). The cop incident was him defending a friend from the cop who was using uneccessary force and was dropped or at the very least reduced. They don't take lightly to any offense against an officer so that alone tells us it was nothing

reply to post by JuniorDisco


I never said he didn't. I include the head bashing and the mouth coverinf in the beating, don't you?

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

We are hust going on the evidence. You are going on.. nothing really.

So you just made up that 'ground and pound stuff'? That was just a useful lie while the trial was going on and now they just... cuddled each other for 45 seconds.

Okay.

I don't know what you are talking about. Those are the words the witness used. I don't deny it or guarantee it, I wasn't the witness, but we have absolutely zero reason to doubt the witness (do you have a reason to doubt the witness?).

I'm going to tell you that I didn't know anything about this case except for the fact that what I heard was that an older white man killed a young black boy. Now I believe for the most part that people come to take sides on cases such as these without gathering the facts because they want to believe whatever they think happened. Not what actually did. Now I live in a suburban apartment, and as a deep, non-racial, understanding, white woman with a push over attitude (until attempted to be pushed over) and love for nearly almost anybody I meet (because I have one of those naive souls) I was somewhat on the side of the young boy that was killed. One because it was his life that was lost, and two I come from the southern side of the states where such hate crimes are more typical.

However, I started to become kinda disbelieving when the majority of my coworkers were sticking up for this man without knowing what had really happened. Why do we people believe in things so blindly, without evidence? I don't know why.

But this video definitely puts things into perspective.

I wish at this point in our biological history that we would have the wisdom to know that skin tones and colors should not affect our decisions and that the people "we" put in control could see how arrogant, self-centered and irresponsible bribery and corrupting mass media is.

Blacks and whites have came a long ways since the 1960's. The problem is though, people aren't being raised to learn about our culture now - their learning about how the culture was. And how can we ever change anything, or create something new, if were living in preconceived notions of how everything is supposed to be.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow


I don't know what you are talking about. Those are the words the witness used. I don't deny it or guarantee it, I wasn't the witness, but we have absolutely zero reason to doubt the witness (do you have a reason to doubt the witness?).

Actually the story is a conflation of what the witness saw ("ground and pound") and other accounts (45 seconds). I don't have reason to doubt the witness - although he certainly isn't as certain as you guys make out - but I have serious reasons to doubt the story.

A 45 second beating from a hardened street thug with a history of violence? Who was smashing your head against concrete? That doesn't end in a few cuts and a bloody nose - it results in death or coma at about the 20 second mark.

reply to post by SquirrelNutz


A story always has 3 sides, What you think happened, what I think happened and what happened. I think the details of every expression of teen angst were uncovered after that brunt of the story was already out there. The media also ignored stories (more in depth character study of Zimmerman) at first.

If the Police illegally shoot an unarmed teen, that is always going to be the truth. They will not always say the teen had just brought some drugs and he was an addict and acting crazy or anything like that. They are going to tell you what happened - and then expand the story as the facts develop.

Originally posted by EPH612
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

Ah. Yeah, I've seen that picture, though I was under the impression that it was taken by the police? But, maybe not, I don't know. What threw me off was the description of it, because I wouldn't think anyone is daft enough to describe it as having only "a couple of blood trails" that didn't show signs that he had been in a struggle. Apparently, some people can.

I know a facial shot, showing his VERY swollen nose, and blood on his face (that the prosecution only released to the defense in black&white first...) was taken by the police at the scene, to show to a witness who didn't want to approach, in case this was some criminal (smart). I had assumed the "back of his head" shot was also by them, but it's possible it was the one neighbor. Either way, it's clear he WAS injured, and I can't fathom either how anyone could claim otherwise.

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes


Nobody's paying any attention to anybody claiming Zimmerman had no injuries at all. The non-developmentally challenged kids are discussing whether the injuries he had matched up to the beating he described himself getting, and the smartest kids are thinking "This story stinks," while the less smart ones, the one's who've never been in a street fight, and the one's with a vested interest in believing Zimmerman, are thinking "Yeah, that makes complete sense."

Originally posted by JuniorDisco

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow


I don't know what you are talking about. Those are the words the witness used. I don't deny it or guarantee it, I wasn't the witness, but we have absolutely zero reason to doubt the witness (do you have a reason to doubt the witness?).

Actually the story is a conflation of what the witness saw ("ground and pound") and other accounts (45 seconds). I don't have reason to doubt the witness - although he certainly isn't as certain as you guys make out - but I have serious reasons to doubt the story.

A 45 second beating from a hardened street thug with a history of violence? Who was smashing your head against concrete? That doesn't end in a few cuts and a bloody nose - it results in death or coma at about the 20 second mark.

It might if you are struggling to sustain less damage. Do you agree with that?