Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (3 Viewers)

[TexanFan02]

But he could start a fight, and kill someone, and still be acting in self defense.

Did that feel as stupid to type as it did to read?What a horrible set of laws they have going there in the Sunshine State...

You do realize that lots of states have similar laws, right? Even if you do start a fight, that doesn't give the other guy the ability to do with you as he pleases.

No state has as loose a law as Florida.

 

[TexanFan02]

The last two posts before this one are both examples of the extremism which is so pervasive in this thread:

TexasFan02 is so intent on the conviction of George Zimmerman that he completely dismisses even the concept of self-defense. He wrote, "he killed someone, he's a murderer." This is not the first time TexasFan has written this, ignoring the entire history of civilized law.

Carolina Hustler is so intent on the acquittal of George Zimmerman that he argues that even if it were proven that Zimmerman was not in fear of his own life when he shot Trayvon Martin, that wouldn't be enough to convict Zimmerman. The prosecution needs to prove a "depraved mind", whatever that means.

I have chosen not to respond directly to either of these gentlemen at this point because...they've gone insane. There is no reasoning with them. It's useless to argue with people who are this intractable.

The specific wording of the law says "depraved mind".. Need to prove depraved mind in order to get a 2nd degree murder conviction.. Has nothing to do with me.. And if Zimmerman did murder Trayvon, I have no problem with him being convicted. I only argue against the assertions you're making when they are wrong..

I wrote that if it were proven that Zimmerman was not in fear of his life, he would be convicted of murder. You responded that this is not the case, that even BEYOND proving that self-defense wasn't a factor, that the prosecution would also have to prove a "depraved mind" as if the lack of self-defense didn't prove it already to any reasonable person. That puts you over the pale, in the extremist camp. You have yet to contribute a single thoughtful post in this thread and I strongly doubt you ever will. You simply take whatever is the most strident pro-Zimmerman position and repeat it endlessly. Though TexasFan is also extreme IMO, at least he has a sense of humor. You offer nothing.

Oh, and by the way, Timmy, I don't respond to you because:

Tld'r

and mostly

This thread is not all about you.

This thread is not about me at all.Your first response was more than enough anyhow. You wrote, "He killed someone, he's a murderer."

Whatever, put me ignore like Johnmx. Then you can be like Johnmx. I wouldn't want to be like him, but maybe you would.

 

[timschochet]

The last two posts before this one are both examples of the extremism which is so pervasive in this thread:

TexasFan02 is so intent on the conviction of George Zimmerman that he completely dismisses even the concept of self-defense. He wrote, "he killed someone, he's a murderer." This is not the first time TexasFan has written this, ignoring the entire history of civilized law.

Carolina Hustler is so intent on the acquittal of George Zimmerman that he argues that even if it were proven that Zimmerman was not in fear of his own life when he shot Trayvon Martin, that wouldn't be enough to convict Zimmerman. The prosecution needs to prove a "depraved mind", whatever that means.

I have chosen not to respond directly to either of these gentlemen at this point because...they've gone insane. There is no reasoning with them. It's useless to argue with people who are this intractable.

The specific wording of the law says "depraved mind".. Need to prove depraved mind in order to get a 2nd degree murder conviction.. Has nothing to do with me.. And if Zimmerman did murder Trayvon, I have no problem with him being convicted. I only argue against the assertions you're making when they are wrong..

I wrote that if it were proven that Zimmerman was not in fear of his life, he would be convicted of murder. You responded that this is not the case, that even BEYOND proving that self-defense wasn't a factor, that the prosecution would also have to prove a "depraved mind" as if the lack of self-defense didn't prove it already to any reasonable person. That puts you over the pale, in the extremist camp. You have yet to contribute a single thoughtful post in this thread and I strongly doubt you ever will. You simply take whatever is the most strident pro-Zimmerman position and repeat it endlessly. Though TexasFan is also extreme IMO, at least he has a sense of humor. You offer nothing.

Oh, and by the way, Timmy, I don't respond to you because:

Tld'r

and mostly

This thread is not all about you.

This thread is not about me at all.Your first response was more than enough anyhow. You wrote, "He killed someone, he's a murderer."

Whatever, put me ignore like Johnmx. Then you can be like Johnmx. I wouldn't want to be like him, but maybe you would.

I would never ignore you. I enjoy your humor, as I wrote. Also, at times you offer good commentary here (though your overall position is beyond the pale IMO.) Anyhow, I like you.

 

[Chairshot]

But he could start a fight, and kill someone, and still be acting in self defense.

Did that feel as stupid to type as it did to read?What a horrible set of laws they have going there in the Sunshine State...

You do realize that lots of states have similar laws, right? Even if you do start a fight, that doesn't give the other guy the ability to do with you as he pleases.

I do understand that. However, I would think that most reasonable people understand that you are placing yourself at risk if you openly pick a fight, which seems like it's at least possible in this case, perhaps by either party.There should be some level of responsibility on the aggressor. The "I Bit Off More Than I Can Chew, So Now I Get to Kill You" defense doesn't seem like it should get someone off the hook, at least not completely.I would also think that picking a fight, if that's what Zimmerman did here, while carrying a gun should put additional responsibility on the aggressor. Picking a fight while you know you have a gun to fall back on seems immoral and it doesn't seem right to have laws that protect that sort of action.

 

[timschochet]

I would also think that picking a fight, if that's what Zimmerman did here, while carrying a gun should put additional responsibility on the aggressor. Picking a fight while you know you have a gun to fall back on seems immoral and it doesn't seem right to have laws that protect that sort of action.

If the state can prove that it was Zimmerman who picked the fight, then he's probably going to go down for manslaughter, even if they can't prove murder (because self-defense is still possible.)But how will the state prove that Zimmerman picked the fight? His phone call to 911 is not enough. The girlfriend's testimony is not enough (though it may show him out to be a liar.)

 

[Christo]

But he could start a fight, and kill someone, and still be acting in self defense.

Did that feel as stupid to type as it did to read?What a horrible set of laws they have going there in the Sunshine State...

You do realize that lots of states have similar laws, right? Even if you do start a fight, that doesn't give the other guy the ability to do with you as he pleases.

No state has as loose a law as Florida.

Even assuming you're correct (which given your history in this thread is doubtful), so?

 

[Chairshot]

I would also think that picking a fight, if that's what Zimmerman did here, while carrying a gun should put additional responsibility on the aggressor. Picking a fight while you know you have a gun to fall back on seems immoral and it doesn't seem right to have laws that protect that sort of action.

If the state can prove that it was Zimmerman who picked the fight, then he's probably going to go down for manslaughter, even if they can't prove murder (because self-defense is still possible.)But how will the state prove that Zimmerman picked the fight? His phone call to 911 is not enough. The girlfriend's testimony is not enough (though it may show him out to be a liar.)

I don't think there is any way to prove any meaningful detail of the confrontation between these two, not unless there is some top secret evidence that hasn't been seen yet. I think Zimmerman walks, if for no other reason than it's his word against a dead man's.Given that, this case is interesting to me for other reasons. It's shining a spotlight on what's legal vs. what's moral. I personally don't really like what that light is showing us. I personally haven't posted too much in this thread because I don't have anything close to the legal understanding to say anything worth saying, especially considering that the legal side is what's attempting to be discussed. But looking at this case really makes me wonder if these laws are designed to provide justice to victims or not.

 

[TexanFan02]

But he could start a fight, and kill someone, and still be acting in self defense.

Did that feel as stupid to type as it did to read?What a horrible set of laws they have going there in the Sunshine State...

You do realize that lots of states have similar laws, right? Even if you do start a fight, that doesn't give the other guy the ability to do with you as he pleases.

No state has as loose a law as Florida.

Even assuming you're correct (which given your history in this thread is doubtful), so?

So it's a terrible law. Apparently even the braintrust that is the Florida government agrees, they've formed a committee to study it, and the guy who wrote the law and Jeb Bush have both said it wasn't meant to apply to situations like this. Oops.

 

[TexanFan02]

The last two posts before this one are both examples of the extremism which is so pervasive in this thread:

TexasFan02 is so intent on the conviction of George Zimmerman that he completely dismisses even the concept of self-defense. He wrote, "he killed someone, he's a murderer." This is not the first time TexasFan has written this, ignoring the entire history of civilized law.

Carolina Hustler is so intent on the acquittal of George Zimmerman that he argues that even if it were proven that Zimmerman was not in fear of his own life when he shot Trayvon Martin, that wouldn't be enough to convict Zimmerman. The prosecution needs to prove a "depraved mind", whatever that means.

I have chosen not to respond directly to either of these gentlemen at this point because...they've gone insane. There is no reasoning with them. It's useless to argue with people who are this intractable.

The specific wording of the law says "depraved mind".. Need to prove depraved mind in order to get a 2nd degree murder conviction.. Has nothing to do with me.. And if Zimmerman did murder Trayvon, I have no problem with him being convicted. I only argue against the assertions you're making when they are wrong..

I wrote that if it were proven that Zimmerman was not in fear of his life, he would be convicted of murder. You responded that this is not the case, that even BEYOND proving that self-defense wasn't a factor, that the prosecution would also have to prove a "depraved mind" as if the lack of self-defense didn't prove it already to any reasonable person. That puts you over the pale, in the extremist camp. You have yet to contribute a single thoughtful post in this thread and I strongly doubt you ever will. You simply take whatever is the most strident pro-Zimmerman position and repeat it endlessly. Though TexasFan is also extreme IMO, at least he has a sense of humor. You offer nothing.

Oh, and by the way, Timmy, I don't respond to you because:

Tld'r

and mostly

This thread is not all about you.

This thread is not about me at all.Your first response was more than enough anyhow. You wrote, "He killed someone, he's a murderer."

Whatever, put me ignore like Johnmx. Then you can be like Johnmx. I wouldn't want to be like him, but maybe you would.

I would never ignore you. I enjoy your humor, as I wrote. Also, at times you offer good commentary here (though your overall position is beyond the pale IMO.) Anyhow, I like you.

Alright. The reason I wrote "He killed someone, he's a murderer" is because he did kill someone, and I think he's a murderer. Others obviously disagree. We'll see.

 

[Charlie Frown]

Let's talk about witness 12:

But in another interview with investigators six days later, the paper reported, she was sure: It was Zimmerman on top.

"I know after seeing the TV of what's happening, comparing their sizes, I think Zimmerman was definitely on top because of his size," the woman, "Witness 12," said.

Now earlier I wrote that I wanted to know the actual sizes of Zimmerman and Martin, and I was told it doesn't make any difference. Well, it might make a difference. I'd sure like to know. As Christo points out, this woman could be referring to the various news reports which had Zimmerman at 250 lbs- he obviously doesn't weigh that much.

BUT- supposing there IS a significant weight difference and Zimmerman weighs more than Martin, and supposing this woman testifies in court that she is "definitely certain" that Zimmerman was the one on top- and supposing the jury believes her and not Zimmerman- if all this happens then Zimmerman is going to be convicted. Because it really doesn't matter if Zimmerman has injuries or even how the fight started at that point. If Zimmerman was on top that would indicate to most reasonable people that he was in control of the situation, and if he was in control, he would not have feared for his life. Therefore the killing of Martin becomes not self-defense, but murder.

So this woman's testimony is absoututely crucial, IMO.

A half-decent defense attorney will rip this witness to shreds. She seems to have little idea what she saw, and changed her story after the fact? She compared her memory of what she vaguely saw to pictures she saw on TV? The pictures on TV looked nothing like the actual participants? If anything, on a fleeting glance, most people would probably think Martin was larger based simply on height.

Tim. If the prosecution were to hang its hat on this they would be in serious trouble. There's no way her testimony should be given any weight.

We'll see. What you and Rich wrote is conjecture. We won't know for sure until we hear this woman testify. IF she testifies.

The woman's testimony is more conjecture as I see it. Her initial position was that she couldn't tell and then she changes her position based on some photos she saw days later. Difficult to see most jurors giving her much credence. She's got one little bit of the story and flip-flopping won't play well.

Wasn't it Zimmerman who had grass stains on his back. Wasn't it Zimmerman with the broken nose. Wasn't it Zimmerman with the cuts on the back of his head. Not sure how in the hell anyone still thinks it was Zimmerman on top. Too many people clinging to their preconceived theories.

Different people can be on top during a fight.

Keep on clinging!

Zimmerman still in jail for murder? Yeah, I thought so.

Uh no.

 

[Christo]

But he could start a fight, and kill someone, and still be acting in self defense.

Did that feel as stupid to type as it did to read?What a horrible set of laws they have going there in the Sunshine State...

You do realize that lots of states have similar laws, right? Even if you do start a fight, that doesn't give the other guy the ability to do with you as he pleases.

No state has as loose a law as Florida.

Even assuming you're correct (which given your history in this thread is doubtful), so?

So it's a terrible law. Apparently even the braintrust that is the Florida government agrees, they've formed a committee to study it, and the guy who wrote the law and Jeb Bush have both said it wasn't meant to apply to situations like this. Oops.

Here we are again. You not even understanding the conversation you're in. The "looseness" of Florida's SYG law has nothing to do with whether a person who starts a fight can at some point be in a position to defend himself.

 

[TexanFan02]

Let's talk about witness 12:

But in another interview with investigators six days later, the paper reported, she was sure: It was Zimmerman on top.

"I know after seeing the TV of what's happening, comparing their sizes, I think Zimmerman was definitely on top because of his size," the woman, "Witness 12," said.

Now earlier I wrote that I wanted to know the actual sizes of Zimmerman and Martin, and I was told it doesn't make any difference. Well, it might make a difference. I'd sure like to know. As Christo points out, this woman could be referring to the various news reports which had Zimmerman at 250 lbs- he obviously doesn't weigh that much.

BUT- supposing there IS a significant weight difference and Zimmerman weighs more than Martin, and supposing this woman testifies in court that she is "definitely certain" that Zimmerman was the one on top- and supposing the jury believes her and not Zimmerman- if all this happens then Zimmerman is going to be convicted. Because it really doesn't matter if Zimmerman has injuries or even how the fight started at that point. If Zimmerman was on top that would indicate to most reasonable people that he was in control of the situation, and if he was in control, he would not have feared for his life. Therefore the killing of Martin becomes not self-defense, but murder.

So this woman's testimony is absoututely crucial, IMO.

A half-decent defense attorney will rip this witness to shreds. She seems to have little idea what she saw, and changed her story after the fact? She compared her memory of what she vaguely saw to pictures she saw on TV? The pictures on TV looked nothing like the actual participants? If anything, on a fleeting glance, most people would probably think Martin was larger based simply on height.

Tim. If the prosecution were to hang its hat on this they would be in serious trouble. There's no way her testimony should be given any weight.

We'll see. What you and Rich wrote is conjecture. We won't know for sure until we hear this woman testify. IF she testifies.

The woman's testimony is more conjecture as I see it. Her initial position was that she couldn't tell and then she changes her position based on some photos she saw days later. Difficult to see most jurors giving her much credence. She's got one little bit of the story and flip-flopping won't play well.

Wasn't it Zimmerman who had grass stains on his back. Wasn't it Zimmerman with the broken nose. Wasn't it Zimmerman with the cuts on the back of his head. Not sure how in the hell anyone still thinks it was Zimmerman on top. Too many people clinging to their preconceived theories.

Different people can be on top during a fight.

Keep on clinging!

Zimmerman still in jail for murder? Yeah, I thought so.

Uh no.

True. Still on electrical monitoring and a has a curfew? Check. Still charged with Murder? Check.

 

[TexanFan02]

But he could start a fight, and kill someone, and still be acting in self defense.

Did that feel as stupid to type as it did to read?What a horrible set of laws they have going there in the Sunshine State...

You do realize that lots of states have similar laws, right? Even if you do start a fight, that doesn't give the other guy the ability to do with you as he pleases.

No state has as loose a law as Florida.

Even assuming you're correct (which given your history in this thread is doubtful), so?

So it's a terrible law. Apparently even the braintrust that is the Florida government agrees, they've formed a committee to study it, and the guy who wrote the law and Jeb Bush have both said it wasn't meant to apply to situations like this. Oops.

Here we are again. You not even understanding the conversation you're in. The "looseness" of Florida's SYG law has nothing to do with whether a person who starts a fight can at some point be in a position to defend himself.

Ah yes, the "That's not what this conversation is about" TM Christo response. I was agreeing with the above poster that Florida has a terrible law. I don't really care what your conversation was about.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Tim. If the prosecution were to hang its hat on this they would be in serious trouble. There's no way her testimony should be given any weight.

We'll see. What you and Rich wrote is conjecture. We won't know for sure until we hear this woman testify. IF she testifies.

The woman's testimony is more conjecture as I see it. Her initial position was that she couldn't tell and then she changes her position based on some photos she saw days later. Difficult to see most jurors giving her much credence. She's got one little bit of the story and flip-flopping won't play well.

Wasn't it Zimmerman who had grass stains on his back. Wasn't it Zimmerman with the broken nose. Wasn't it Zimmerman with the cuts on the back of his head. Not sure how in the hell anyone still thinks it was Zimmerman on top. Too many people clinging to their preconceived theories.

Different people can be on top during a fight.

Keep on clinging!

Zimmerman still in jail for murder? Yeah, I thought so.

Uh no.

True. Still on electrical monitoring and a has a curfew? Check. Still charged with Murder? Check.

You were wrong (again) about Zimmerman being in jail? check

 

[Christo]

But he could start a fight, and kill someone, and still be acting in self defense.

Did that feel as stupid to type as it did to read?What a horrible set of laws they have going there in the Sunshine State...

You do realize that lots of states have similar laws, right? Even if you do start a fight, that doesn't give the other guy the ability to do with you as he pleases.

No state has as loose a law as Florida.

Even assuming you're correct (which given your history in this thread is doubtful), so?

So it's a terrible law. Apparently even the braintrust that is the Florida government agrees, they've formed a committee to study it, and the guy who wrote the law and Jeb Bush have both said it wasn't meant to apply to situations like this. Oops.

Here we are again. You not even understanding the conversation you're in. The "looseness" of Florida's SYG law has nothing to do with whether a person who starts a fight can at some point be in a position to defend himself.

Ah yes, the "That's not what this conversation is about" TM Christo response. I was agreeing with the above poster that Florida has a terrible law. I don't really care what your conversation was about.

Of course you do. Otherwise, you wouldn't have stuck your nose right in the middle of it.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I would also think that picking a fight, if that's what Zimmerman did here, while carrying a gun should put additional responsibility on the aggressor. Picking a fight while you know you have a gun to fall back on seems immoral and it doesn't seem right to have laws that protect that sort of action.

If the state can prove that it was Zimmerman who picked the fight, then he's probably going to go down for manslaughter, even if they can't prove murder (because self-defense is still possible.)But how will the state prove that Zimmerman picked the fight? His phone call to 911 is not enough. The girlfriend's testimony is not enough (though it may show him out to be a liar.)

I don't think there is any way to prove any meaningful detail of the confrontation between these two, not unless there is some top secret evidence that hasn't been seen yet. I think Zimmerman walks, if for no other reason than it's his word against a dead man's.Given that, this case is interesting to me for other reasons. It's shining a spotlight on what's legal vs. what's moral. I personally don't really like what that light is showing us. I personally haven't posted too much in this thread because I don't have anything close to the legal understanding to say anything worth saying, especially considering that the legal side is what's attempting to be discussed. But looking at this case really makes me wonder if these laws are designed to provide justice to victims or not.

Im in this camp as far as not really focusing on the legalities but more so how i feel about what happened. When i see a guy with a gun set his sights on some random person and act in such a way that the guy he picked out for his own personal reasons, ends up dead, i have a problem with that. I dont care who can out smart who in a court room, thats not always the road to what was right or wrong.It can be a giant show , like the O.J trial, what a farce.Justice wasnt served in that trial, or casey anthoney for that matter. Those are just 2 examples of the law at its worst.Ill let Christo and his legal team argue with tim and whoever else wants to argue legal statutes and all that crap. In the end i just want answers to what happened and justice for treyvon and his family.

 

[TexanFan02]

But he could start a fight, and kill someone, and still be acting in self defense.

Did that feel as stupid to type as it did to read?What a horrible set of laws they have going there in the Sunshine State...

You do realize that lots of states have similar laws, right? Even if you do start a fight, that doesn't give the other guy the ability to do with you as he pleases.

No state has as loose a law as Florida.

Even assuming you're correct (which given your history in this thread is doubtful), so?

So it's a terrible law. Apparently even the braintrust that is the Florida government agrees, they've formed a committee to study it, and the guy who wrote the law and Jeb Bush have both said it wasn't meant to apply to situations like this. Oops.

Here we are again. You not even understanding the conversation you're in. The "looseness" of Florida's SYG law has nothing to do with whether a person who starts a fight can at some point be in a position to defend himself.

Ah yes, the "That's not what this conversation is about" TM Christo response. I was agreeing with the above poster that Florida has a terrible law. I don't really care what your conversation was about.

Of course you do. Otherwise, you wouldn't have stuck your nose right in the middle of it.

Wrong. Oh, and:Who posted in: Florida boy killed by Neighborhood WatchMember name PostsChristo 1339Good to have you back, counselor.

 

[jon_mx]

I would also think that picking a fight, if that's what Zimmerman did here, while carrying a gun should put additional responsibility on the aggressor. Picking a fight while you know you have a gun to fall back on seems immoral and it doesn't seem right to have laws that protect that sort of action.

If the state can prove that it was Zimmerman who picked the fight, then he's probably going to go down for manslaughter, even if they can't prove murder (because self-defense is still possible.)But how will the state prove that Zimmerman picked the fight? His phone call to 911 is not enough. The girlfriend's testimony is not enough (though it may show him out to be a liar.)

I don't think there is any way to prove any meaningful detail of the confrontation between these two, not unless there is some top secret evidence that hasn't been seen yet. I think Zimmerman walks, if for no other reason than it's his word against a dead man's.Given that, this case is interesting to me for other reasons. It's shining a spotlight on what's legal vs. what's moral. I personally don't really like what that light is showing us. I personally haven't posted too much in this thread because I don't have anything close to the legal understanding to say anything worth saying, especially considering that the legal side is what's attempting to be discussed. But looking at this case really makes me wonder if these laws are designed to provide justice to victims or not.

Im in this camp as far as not really focusing on the legalities but more so how i feel about what happened. When i see a guy with a gun set his sights on some random person and act in such a way that the guy he picked out for his own personal reasons, ends up dead, i have a problem with that. I dont care who can out smart who in a court room, thats not always the road to what was right or wrong.It can be a giant show , like the O.J trial, what a farce.Justice wasnt served in that trial, or casey anthoney for that matter. Those are just 2 examples of the law at its worst.Ill let Christo and his legal team argue with tim and whoever else wants to argue legal statutes and all that crap. In the end i just want answers to what happened and justice for treyvon and his family.

You have no friggin clue how things went down, and yet you want to make a judgement.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I would also think that picking a fight, if that's what Zimmerman did here, while carrying a gun should put additional responsibility on the aggressor. Picking a fight while you know you have a gun to fall back on seems immoral and it doesn't seem right to have laws that protect that sort of action.

If the state can prove that it was Zimmerman who picked the fight, then he's probably going to go down for manslaughter, even if they can't prove murder (because self-defense is still possible.)But how will the state prove that Zimmerman picked the fight? His phone call to 911 is not enough. The girlfriend's testimony is not enough (though it may show him out to be a liar.)

I don't think there is any way to prove any meaningful detail of the confrontation between these two, not unless there is some top secret evidence that hasn't been seen yet. I think Zimmerman walks, if for no other reason than it's his word against a dead man's.Given that, this case is interesting to me for other reasons. It's shining a spotlight on what's legal vs. what's moral. I personally don't really like what that light is showing us. I personally haven't posted too much in this thread because I don't have anything close to the legal understanding to say anything worth saying, especially considering that the legal side is what's attempting to be discussed. But looking at this case really makes me wonder if these laws are designed to provide justice to victims or not.

Im in this camp as far as not really focusing on the legalities but more so how i feel about what happened. When i see a guy with a gun set his sights on some random person and act in such a way that the guy he picked out for his own personal reasons, ends up dead, i have a problem with that. I dont care who can out smart who in a court room, thats not always the road to what was right or wrong.It can be a giant show , like the O.J trial, what a farce.Justice wasnt served in that trial, or casey anthoney for that matter. Those are just 2 examples of the law at its worst.Ill let Christo and his legal team argue with tim and whoever else wants to argue legal statutes and all that crap. In the end i just want answers to what happened and justice for treyvon and his family.

You have no friggin clue how things went down, and yet you want to make a judgement.

beat it junior, i got a right to my opinion

 

[TexanFan02]

I would also think that picking a fight, if that's what Zimmerman did here, while carrying a gun should put additional responsibility on the aggressor. Picking a fight while you know you have a gun to fall back on seems immoral and it doesn't seem right to have laws that protect that sort of action.

If the state can prove that it was Zimmerman who picked the fight, then he's probably going to go down for manslaughter, even if they can't prove murder (because self-defense is still possible.)But how will the state prove that Zimmerman picked the fight? His phone call to 911 is not enough. The girlfriend's testimony is not enough (though it may show him out to be a liar.)

I don't think there is any way to prove any meaningful detail of the confrontation between these two, not unless there is some top secret evidence that hasn't been seen yet. I think Zimmerman walks, if for no other reason than it's his word against a dead man's.Given that, this case is interesting to me for other reasons. It's shining a spotlight on what's legal vs. what's moral. I personally don't really like what that light is showing us. I personally haven't posted too much in this thread because I don't have anything close to the legal understanding to say anything worth saying, especially considering that the legal side is what's attempting to be discussed. But looking at this case really makes me wonder if these laws are designed to provide justice to victims or not.

Im in this camp as far as not really focusing on the legalities but more so how i feel about what happened. When i see a guy with a gun set his sights on some random person and act in such a way that the guy he picked out for his own personal reasons, ends up dead, i have a problem with that. I dont care who can out smart who in a court room, thats not always the road to what was right or wrong.It can be a giant show , like the O.J trial, what a farce.Justice wasnt served in that trial, or casey anthoney for that matter. Those are just 2 examples of the law at its worst.Ill let Christo and his legal team argue with tim and whoever else wants to argue legal statutes and all that crap. In the end i just want answers to what happened and justice for treyvon and his family.

You have no friggin clue how things went down, and yet you want to make a judgement.

beat it junior, i got a right to my opinion

I like how Johnmx, one of the worst posters on this forum, has ME on ignore. I think it means I win the internet.

 

[jon_mx]

I would also think that picking a fight, if that's what Zimmerman did here, while carrying a gun should put additional responsibility on the aggressor. Picking a fight while you know you have a gun to fall back on seems immoral and it doesn't seem right to have laws that protect that sort of action.

If the state can prove that it was Zimmerman who picked the fight, then he's probably going to go down for manslaughter, even if they can't prove murder (because self-defense is still possible.)But how will the state prove that Zimmerman picked the fight? His phone call to 911 is not enough. The girlfriend's testimony is not enough (though it may show him out to be a liar.)

I don't think there is any way to prove any meaningful detail of the confrontation between these two, not unless there is some top secret evidence that hasn't been seen yet. I think Zimmerman walks, if for no other reason than it's his word against a dead man's.Given that, this case is interesting to me for other reasons. It's shining a spotlight on what's legal vs. what's moral. I personally don't really like what that light is showing us. I personally haven't posted too much in this thread because I don't have anything close to the legal understanding to say anything worth saying, especially considering that the legal side is what's attempting to be discussed. But looking at this case really makes me wonder if these laws are designed to provide justice to victims or not.

Im in this camp as far as not really focusing on the legalities but more so how i feel about what happened. When i see a guy with a gun set his sights on some random person and act in such a way that the guy he picked out for his own personal reasons, ends up dead, i have a problem with that. I dont care who can out smart who in a court room, thats not always the road to what was right or wrong.It can be a giant show , like the O.J trial, what a farce.Justice wasnt served in that trial, or casey anthoney for that matter. Those are just 2 examples of the law at its worst.Ill let Christo and his legal team argue with tim and whoever else wants to argue legal statutes and all that crap. In the end i just want answers to what happened and justice for treyvon and his family.

You have no friggin clue how things went down, and yet you want to make a judgement.

beat it junior

You my friend are the biggest adolescent on this thread, kiddo.

 

[timschochet]

You my friend are the biggest adolescent on this thread, kiddo.

Lots of competition for THAT prize.

 

[Chairshot]

I would also think that picking a fight, if that's what Zimmerman did here, while carrying a gun should put additional responsibility on the aggressor. Picking a fight while you know you have a gun to fall back on seems immoral and it doesn't seem right to have laws that protect that sort of action.

If the state can prove that it was Zimmerman who picked the fight, then he's probably going to go down for manslaughter, even if they can't prove murder (because self-defense is still possible.)But how will the state prove that Zimmerman picked the fight? His phone call to 911 is not enough. The girlfriend's testimony is not enough (though it may show him out to be a liar.)

I don't think there is any way to prove any meaningful detail of the confrontation between these two, not unless there is some top secret evidence that hasn't been seen yet. I think Zimmerman walks, if for no other reason than it's his word against a dead man's.Given that, this case is interesting to me for other reasons. It's shining a spotlight on what's legal vs. what's moral. I personally don't really like what that light is showing us. I personally haven't posted too much in this thread because I don't have anything close to the legal understanding to say anything worth saying, especially considering that the legal side is what's attempting to be discussed. But looking at this case really makes me wonder if these laws are designed to provide justice to victims or not.

Im in this camp as far as not really focusing on the legalities but more so how i feel about what happened. When i see a guy with a gun set his sights on some random person and act in such a way that the guy he picked out for his own personal reasons, ends up dead, i have a problem with that. I dont care who can out smart who in a court room, thats not always the road to what was right or wrong.It can be a giant show , like the O.J trial, what a farce.Justice wasnt served in that trial, or casey anthoney for that matter. Those are just 2 examples of the law at its worst.Ill let Christo and his legal team argue with tim and whoever else wants to argue legal statutes and all that crap. In the end i just want answers to what happened and justice for treyvon and his family.

You have no friggin clue how things went down, and yet you want to make a judgement.

beat it junior, i got a right to my opinion

You should have left your post the way you had it. "beat it junior" was funny - I LOL'ed out loud. "i got a right to my opinion" just makes you seem angry.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

I would also think that picking a fight, if that's what Zimmerman did here, while carrying a gun should put additional responsibility on the aggressor. Picking a fight while you know you have a gun to fall back on seems immoral and it doesn't seem right to have laws that protect that sort of action.

If the state can prove that it was Zimmerman who picked the fight, then he's probably going to go down for manslaughter, even if they can't prove murder (because self-defense is still possible.)But how will the state prove that Zimmerman picked the fight? His phone call to 911 is not enough. The girlfriend's testimony is not enough (though it may show him out to be a liar.)

I don't think there is any way to prove any meaningful detail of the confrontation between these two, not unless there is some top secret evidence that hasn't been seen yet. I think Zimmerman walks, if for no other reason than it's his word against a dead man's.Given that, this case is interesting to me for other reasons. It's shining a spotlight on what's legal vs. what's moral. I personally don't really like what that light is showing us. I personally haven't posted too much in this thread because I don't have anything close to the legal understanding to say anything worth saying, especially considering that the legal side is what's attempting to be discussed. But looking at this case really makes me wonder if these laws are designed to provide justice to victims or not.

Im in this camp as far as not really focusing on the legalities but more so how i feel about what happened. When i see a guy with a gun set his sights on some random person and act in such a way that the guy he picked out for his own personal reasons, ends up dead, i have a problem with that. I dont care who can out smart who in a court room, thats not always the road to what was right or wrong.It can be a giant show , like the O.J trial, what a farce.Justice wasnt served in that trial, or casey anthoney for that matter. Those are just 2 examples of the law at its worst.Ill let Christo and his legal team argue with tim and whoever else wants to argue legal statutes and all that crap. In the end i just want answers to what happened and justice for treyvon and his family.

You have no friggin clue how things went down, and yet you want to make a judgement.

beat it junior, i got a right to my opinion

You should have left your post the way you had it. "beat it junior" was funny - I LOL'ed out loud. "i got a right to my opinion" just makes you seem angry.

ya you`re right, but he annoyed me lol.

 

[TexanFan02]

I would also think that picking a fight, if that's what Zimmerman did here, while carrying a gun should put additional responsibility on the aggressor. Picking a fight while you know you have a gun to fall back on seems immoral and it doesn't seem right to have laws that protect that sort of action.

If the state can prove that it was Zimmerman who picked the fight, then he's probably going to go down for manslaughter, even if they can't prove murder (because self-defense is still possible.)But how will the state prove that Zimmerman picked the fight? His phone call to 911 is not enough. The girlfriend's testimony is not enough (though it may show him out to be a liar.)

I don't think there is any way to prove any meaningful detail of the confrontation between these two, not unless there is some top secret evidence that hasn't been seen yet. I think Zimmerman walks, if for no other reason than it's his word against a dead man's.Given that, this case is interesting to me for other reasons. It's shining a spotlight on what's legal vs. what's moral. I personally don't really like what that light is showing us. I personally haven't posted too much in this thread because I don't have anything close to the legal understanding to say anything worth saying, especially considering that the legal side is what's attempting to be discussed. But looking at this case really makes me wonder if these laws are designed to provide justice to victims or not.

Im in this camp as far as not really focusing on the legalities but more so how i feel about what happened. When i see a guy with a gun set his sights on some random person and act in such a way that the guy he picked out for his own personal reasons, ends up dead, i have a problem with that. I dont care who can out smart who in a court room, thats not always the road to what was right or wrong.It can be a giant show , like the O.J trial, what a farce.Justice wasnt served in that trial, or casey anthoney for that matter. Those are just 2 examples of the law at its worst.Ill let Christo and his legal team argue with tim and whoever else wants to argue legal statutes and all that crap. In the end i just want answers to what happened and justice for treyvon and his family.

You have no friggin clue how things went down, and yet you want to make a judgement.

beat it junior, i got a right to my opinion

You should have left your post the way you had it. "beat it junior" was funny - I LOL'ed out loud. "i got a right to my opinion" just makes you seem angry.

ya you`re right, but he annoyed me lol.

He's not worth it. Just taunt him, like I do. It's what he deserves.

 

[kentric]

I would also think that picking a fight, if that's what Zimmerman did here, while carrying a gun should put additional responsibility on the aggressor. Picking a fight while you know you have a gun to fall back on seems immoral and it doesn't seem right to have laws that protect that sort of action.

If the state can prove that it was Zimmerman who picked the fight, then he's probably going to go down for manslaughter, even if they can't prove murder (because self-defense is still possible.)But how will the state prove that Zimmerman picked the fight? His phone call to 911 is not enough. The girlfriend's testimony is not enough (though it may show him out to be a liar.)

I'm not sure how the gf's testimony would show Zimmerman to be a liar. The gf said that when the phone went dead that it indicated that Trayvon was attacked. I think you're an intelligent (although sometimes too passionate) poster so figure you aren't arguing that this is a valid argument for the prosecution, rather, you are stating that the two lines of dialogue she heard b/w Z and Trayvon would show that Z is a liar. I don't agree with this. At the most, it can raise some doubt as to what was actually said (if Z's statement as to the dialogue was different from the gf's), but it is a he said-she said sort of thing as I doubt there is any other witness to what was said at the start of the fight and her communication with Trayvon wasn't recorded.

 

[kentric]

The last two posts before this one are both examples of the extremism which is so pervasive in this thread:

TexasFan02 is so intent on the conviction of George Zimmerman that he completely dismisses even the concept of self-defense. He wrote, "he killed someone, he's a murderer." This is not the first time TexasFan has written this, ignoring the entire history of civilized law.

Carolina Hustler is so intent on the acquittal of George Zimmerman that he argues that even if it were proven that Zimmerman was not in fear of his own life when he shot Trayvon Martin, that wouldn't be enough to convict Zimmerman. The prosecution needs to prove a "depraved mind", whatever that means.

I have chosen not to respond directly to either of these gentlemen at this point because...they've gone insane. There is no reasoning with them. It's useless to argue with people who are this intractable.

The specific wording of the law says "depraved mind".. Need to prove depraved mind in order to get a 2nd degree murder conviction.. Has nothing to do with me.. And if Zimmerman did murder Trayvon, I have no problem with him being convicted. I only argue against the assertions you're making when they are wrong..

I wrote that if it were proven that Zimmerman was not in fear of his life, he would be convicted of murder. You responded that this is not the case, that even BEYOND proving that self-defense wasn't a factor, that the prosecution would also have to prove a "depraved mind" as if the lack of self-defense didn't prove it already to any reasonable person. That puts you over the pale, in the extremist camp. You have yet to contribute a single thoughtful post in this thread and I strongly doubt you ever will. You simply take whatever is the most strident pro-Zimmerman position and repeat it endlessly. Though TexasFan is also extreme IMO, at least he has a sense of humor. You offer nothing.

Tim. How are you going to prove that Zimmerman was not in fear of his life?

 

[timschochet]

The last two posts before this one are both examples of the extremism which is so pervasive in this thread:

TexasFan02 is so intent on the conviction of George Zimmerman that he completely dismisses even the concept of self-defense. He wrote, "he killed someone, he's a murderer." This is not the first time TexasFan has written this, ignoring the entire history of civilized law.

Carolina Hustler is so intent on the acquittal of George Zimmerman that he argues that even if it were proven that Zimmerman was not in fear of his own life when he shot Trayvon Martin, that wouldn't be enough to convict Zimmerman. The prosecution needs to prove a "depraved mind", whatever that means.

I have chosen not to respond directly to either of these gentlemen at this point because...they've gone insane. There is no reasoning with them. It's useless to argue with people who are this intractable.

The specific wording of the law says "depraved mind".. Need to prove depraved mind in order to get a 2nd degree murder conviction.. Has nothing to do with me.. And if Zimmerman did murder Trayvon, I have no problem with him being convicted. I only argue against the assertions you're making when they are wrong..

I wrote that if it were proven that Zimmerman was not in fear of his life, he would be convicted of murder. You responded that this is not the case, that even BEYOND proving that self-defense wasn't a factor, that the prosecution would also have to prove a "depraved mind" as if the lack of self-defense didn't prove it already to any reasonable person. That puts you over the pale, in the extremist camp. You have yet to contribute a single thoughtful post in this thread and I strongly doubt you ever will. You simply take whatever is the most strident pro-Zimmerman position and repeat it endlessly. Though TexasFan is also extreme IMO, at least he has a sense of humor. You offer nothing.

Tim. How are you going to prove that Zimmerman was not in fear of his life?

Very very difficult. If you can somehow prove, via #12s testimony, that Z was on top at the time of the shooting, I think that would be enough. Otherwise I would always have reasonable doubt,

 

[Bogeys]

The last two posts before this one are both examples of the extremism which is so pervasive in this thread:

TexasFan02 is so intent on the conviction of George Zimmerman that he completely dismisses even the concept of self-defense. He wrote, "he killed someone, he's a murderer." This is not the first time TexasFan has written this, ignoring the entire history of civilized law.

Carolina Hustler is so intent on the acquittal of George Zimmerman that he argues that even if it were proven that Zimmerman was not in fear of his own life when he shot Trayvon Martin, that wouldn't be enough to convict Zimmerman. The prosecution needs to prove a "depraved mind", whatever that means.

I have chosen not to respond directly to either of these gentlemen at this point because...they've gone insane. There is no reasoning with them. It's useless to argue with people who are this intractable.

The specific wording of the law says "depraved mind".. Need to prove depraved mind in order to get a 2nd degree murder conviction.. Has nothing to do with me.. And if Zimmerman did murder Trayvon, I have no problem with him being convicted. I only argue against the assertions you're making when they are wrong..

I wrote that if it were proven that Zimmerman was not in fear of his life, he would be convicted of murder. You responded that this is not the case, that even BEYOND proving that self-defense wasn't a factor, that the prosecution would also have to prove a "depraved mind" as if the lack of self-defense didn't prove it already to any reasonable person. That puts you over the pale, in the extremist camp. You have yet to contribute a single thoughtful post in this thread and I strongly doubt you ever will. You simply take whatever is the most strident pro-Zimmerman position and repeat it endlessly. Though TexasFan is also extreme IMO, at least he has a sense of humor. You offer nothing.

Tim. How are you going to prove that Zimmerman was not in fear of his life?

Very very difficult. If you can somehow prove, via #12s testimony, that Z was on top at the time of the shooting, I think that would be enough. Otherwise I would always have reasonable doubt,

Tim, remember when some people in this thread were saying that it was unfair and prejudicial of the news media to run the old picture of Z and T and you said it was no big deal and that is just how the media operates? Witness #12 changed her story (according to news reports) because of the pictures seen on the news. Wouldn't this pretty much make anything she has to say worthless since the pictures she based her changed testimony on had no basis in actual current sizes of the 2 people she saw and she based her change on the sizes?

 

[TexanFan02]

The last two posts before this one are both examples of the extremism which is so pervasive in this thread:

TexasFan02 is so intent on the conviction of George Zimmerman that he completely dismisses even the concept of self-defense. He wrote, "he killed someone, he's a murderer." This is not the first time TexasFan has written this, ignoring the entire history of civilized law.

Carolina Hustler is so intent on the acquittal of George Zimmerman that he argues that even if it were proven that Zimmerman was not in fear of his own life when he shot Trayvon Martin, that wouldn't be enough to convict Zimmerman. The prosecution needs to prove a "depraved mind", whatever that means.

I have chosen not to respond directly to either of these gentlemen at this point because...they've gone insane. There is no reasoning with them. It's useless to argue with people who are this intractable.

The specific wording of the law says "depraved mind".. Need to prove depraved mind in order to get a 2nd degree murder conviction.. Has nothing to do with me.. And if Zimmerman did murder Trayvon, I have no problem with him being convicted. I only argue against the assertions you're making when they are wrong..

I wrote that if it were proven that Zimmerman was not in fear of his life, he would be convicted of murder. You responded that this is not the case, that even BEYOND proving that self-defense wasn't a factor, that the prosecution would also have to prove a "depraved mind" as if the lack of self-defense didn't prove it already to any reasonable person. That puts you over the pale, in the extremist camp. You have yet to contribute a single thoughtful post in this thread and I strongly doubt you ever will. You simply take whatever is the most strident pro-Zimmerman position and repeat it endlessly. Though TexasFan is also extreme IMO, at least he has a sense of humor. You offer nothing.

Tim. How are you going to prove that Zimmerman was not in fear of his life?

Very very difficult. If you can somehow prove, via #12s testimony, that Z was on top at the time of the shooting, I think that would be enough. Otherwise I would always have reasonable doubt,

Tim, remember when some people in this thread were saying that it was unfair and prejudicial of the news media to run the old picture of Z and T and you said it was no big deal and that is just how the media operates? Witness #12 changed her story (according to news reports) because of the pictures seen on the news. Wouldn't this pretty much make anything she has to say worthless since the pictures she based her changed testimony on had no basis in actual current sizes of the 2 people she saw and she based her change on the sizes?

Not if she's basing on the live pictures of Zimmerman that were on the news.

 

[Bogeys]

The last two posts before this one are both examples of the extremism which is so pervasive in this thread:

TexasFan02 is so intent on the conviction of George Zimmerman that he completely dismisses even the concept of self-defense. He wrote, "he killed someone, he's a murderer." This is not the first time TexasFan has written this, ignoring the entire history of civilized law.

Carolina Hustler is so intent on the acquittal of George Zimmerman that he argues that even if it were proven that Zimmerman was not in fear of his own life when he shot Trayvon Martin, that wouldn't be enough to convict Zimmerman. The prosecution needs to prove a "depraved mind", whatever that means.

I have chosen not to respond directly to either of these gentlemen at this point because...they've gone insane. There is no reasoning with them. It's useless to argue with people who are this intractable.

The specific wording of the law says "depraved mind".. Need to prove depraved mind in order to get a 2nd degree murder conviction.. Has nothing to do with me.. And if Zimmerman did murder Trayvon, I have no problem with him being convicted. I only argue against the assertions you're making when they are wrong..

I wrote that if it were proven that Zimmerman was not in fear of his life, he would be convicted of murder. You responded that this is not the case, that even BEYOND proving that self-defense wasn't a factor, that the prosecution would also have to prove a "depraved mind" as if the lack of self-defense didn't prove it already to any reasonable person. That puts you over the pale, in the extremist camp. You have yet to contribute a single thoughtful post in this thread and I strongly doubt you ever will. You simply take whatever is the most strident pro-Zimmerman position and repeat it endlessly. Though TexasFan is also extreme IMO, at least he has a sense of humor. You offer nothing.

Tim. How are you going to prove that Zimmerman was not in fear of his life?

Very very difficult. If you can somehow prove, via #12s testimony, that Z was on top at the time of the shooting, I think that would be enough. Otherwise I would always have reasonable doubt,

Tim, remember when some people in this thread were saying that it was unfair and prejudicial of the news media to run the old picture of Z and T and you said it was no big deal and that is just how the media operates? Witness #12 changed her story (according to news reports) because of the pictures seen on the news. Wouldn't this pretty much make anything she has to say worthless since the pictures she based her changed testimony on had no basis in actual current sizes of the 2 people she saw and she based her change on the sizes?

Not if she's basing on the live pictures of Zimmerman that were on the news.

I will need to go look it up I guess, but from what I remember reading she said it was because the bigger person was on top. At night, from a distance, with loose clothes the taller person would look bigger as long as the weight was anywhere close and this is why I believe she changed her story on the old pictures. This is also why I don't really understand why anyone would think #12 has any credibility as a witness...and also why I agreed with the people saying using the pictures that the news media showed time after time was very unfair (and if Tim is correct on the reason) and lazy of the news media to run old pictures that made it seem like there was a huge size difference between the 2 involved.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, remember when some people in this thread were saying that it was unfair and prejudicial of the news media to run the old picture of Z and T and you said it was no big deal and that is just how the media operates? Witness #12 changed her story (according to news reports) because of the pictures seen on the news. Wouldn't this pretty much make anything she has to say worthless since the pictures she based her changed testimony on had no basis in actual current sizes of the 2 people she saw and she based her change on the sizes?

First off, I never said it was no big deal. What I wrote was that it wasn't sinister, it was nothing done on purpose. Now, we don't know what Witness #12 saw that changed her story; we don't even know for sure if she DID change her story, we don't even know if she will testify in the first place. We'll find out soon enough. I absolutely agree that if her testimony is as weak as you claim it to be, then it won't mean much. But right now we don't know that.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Tim, remember when some people in this thread were saying that it was unfair and prejudicial of the news media to run the old picture of Z and T and you said it was no big deal and that is just how the media operates? Witness #12 changed her story (according to news reports) because of the pictures seen on the news. Wouldn't this pretty much make anything she has to say worthless since the pictures she based her changed testimony on had no basis in actual current sizes of the 2 people she saw and she based her change on the sizes?

First off, I never said it was no big deal. What I wrote was that it wasn't sinister, it was nothing done on purpose. Now, we don't know what Witness #12 saw that changed her story; we don't even know for sure if she DID change her story, we don't even know if she will testify in the first place. We'll find out soon enough. I absolutely agree that if her testimony is as weak as you claim it to be, then it won't mean much. But right now we don't know that.

Witnesses contradict each other, change stories in Trayvon Martin case

By FRANCES ROBLESMcClatchy Newspapers

last updated: May 27, 2012 01:52:16 PM

M -- ]

MIAMI - The fight between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin began with two people huffing and puffing in the dark, and then a brief exchange of bitter words.

It wasn't long before the two were wrestling on the ground, and one of them let out such gut-wrenching howls that several people in the neighborhood thought they might have come from dogs. Witnesses said the tussle grew louder as it made its way up a dark pathway, past several patios, from the concrete back on to grass.

From there, witness accounts diverge.

"The one guy was throwing blows MMA style," a man called Witness No. 6 told Sanford Police, later explaining his reference to mixed martial arts. "The one getting beat up, I'm guessing he was yelling out help, because he didn't want it to come to that point, and then it came to that point where he was on the concrete. I don't know if you ever got hit on concrete, it hurts."

His recorded interview with Sanford Police was just two minutes long.

But like several of the nearly two dozen witnesses interviewed by four different law enforcement agencies, Witness No. 6 was hampered by darkness and, the evidence suggests, influenced by news. A review of the testimony of witnesses to the Feb. 26 killing shows several of them modified their accounts or grew skeptical of their own recollections after weeks of news coverage. Several said they reshaped their stories because of what they learned on TV.

In addition, some people heard a second shot that was never fired and saw shirts nobody wore. Together, the testimony they offer is contradictory, possibly of little evidentiary value, and underscores the unreliability of eyewitness testimony in criminal cases.

"Memory does not function like a videotape that records everything and can be replayed at will," said Karen Newirth, an eyewitness identification litigation fellow at the Innocence Project, a national organization that works to exonerate innocent people. "People remember pieces of events, and then fill in the blanks with what makes sense."

Based on the descriptions he offered, witness No. 6 - most of the witnesses in the case are identified only by number on prosecution records made public last week - saw Trayvon Martin on top of Zimmerman, punching him. But when he was interviewed three weeks later by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and a local prosecutor, No. 6 said maybe the man on top wasn't throwing any punches, and perhaps was just pinning the guy down until the police came. Maybe it wasn't the guy on the bottom calling for help after all.

"That's just an assumption," he said. "I can't tell who was yelling."

One witness, No. 2, told Sanford Police she saw two people running, and later, when prompted, she clarified that the space between them was about 10 feet. She saw a "fistfight" "fists" she stressed. A week later, she told the same detective that she "more heard it than saw it," and did not have her contact lenses on.

"It was a glance, running," she told Sanford Police Detective. Chris Serino. "I kinda more heard it than saw it. I heard it."

When she met with Department of Law Enforcement investigators, she said she "saw something out there," perhaps just one person whose feet she heard running.

One witness, a 13-year-old boy, told investigators he saw a man in a red shirt crying for help, but told reporters he could not tell what clothes the injured person wore. Zimmerman wore a reddish-orange jacket.

Another witness, No. 12, said she wasn't sure who was on top of whom. But when she had time to think about it, she decided it was definitely Zimmerman on top, because she had seen him on TV and he was larger.

Prosecutor Bernardo de la Rionda asked her if by larger, she meant "broader." "Yes," she said.

Zimmerman was much shorter than Martin, but wore a size 38 pants and was consistently described by most of the witnesses as the larger of the two.Newirth, of the Innocence Project, said memories are affected by stress, the presence of a weapon, and can be influenced by everything from the question an investigator asks, to media reports and statements of other witnesses. The phenomenon is known as "memory contamination."

"I think in a case like this, there is likely contamination coming from all over the place," she said. The Innocence Project is not involved in this case and has not reviewed the evidence.

Studies show that people who witnessed the same simulated event reported different memories depending on the language used by the questioner. People who were given false information about the simulated event often incorporated the made-up details into their own accounts.

Newirth said studies also show people's memories change as they learn more information about the incident they saw, making it critical to get their full accounts early and in their own words.

The recordings submitted as evidence by the Sanford Police conducted the night of Martin's killing showed investigators only taped about two minutes with each person.

"Memories do not improve over time," she said. "In fact, they worsen over time and the worsening, which is demonstrated by something called the memory curve, begins very soon after the memory is created."

"Ear witnesses," who heard something but did not see it, she said, are even less reliable then eyewitnesses.

There were no follow up interviews for the teenage witness or the two ear-witnesses who vehemently believed Trayvon Martin called for help and that Zimmerman shot Martin from some distance from where the fight occurred. Department of Law Enforcement tests on Martin's shirt show he was shot at very close range.

In an interview, Zimmerman's defense attorney, Mark O'Mara, said the witness testimony seemed to change, and sometimes appeared to be swayed by the prosecutor's probing. At least one witness said she was basing her testimony on a 2005 picture of Zimmerman, when he weighed significantly more than he did at the time of the shooting.

"It's a good thing they have to prove this case," he said of the state attorney. He declined to comment further on the witness statements, saying he is prohibited by attorney rules of conduct.

"If I were to say, 'Hey, the evidence looks great for my guy,' it would be commenting on the evidence," he said. "I'm the one who has been complaining that everyone has been making up their mind with less than half the evidence. I am trying to undo the horrible prejudice done to my client."

O'Mara said other evidence has yet to be turned over to him, including forensics and FBI reports. Other evidence has been seen by him - but not by the media - because both sides are trying to have some materials sealed by the court.

Reporters were able to read autopsy reports showing Martin died of a contact wound to the chest, which pierced his heart. There was nothing under his fingernails and each person had the other's blood on his shirt.

Reporters have not been given access to any of Zimmerman's statements to police. The prosecution said some "are contradictory, and are inconsistent with the physical evidence and statements of witnesses."

A hearing has been scheduled for June 1 in which the judge will decide whether to seal the confessions and other materials such as the witness names, cellphone records and crime scene photos. The lawyers also want to keep under seal the taped interviews of a woman who made an unrelated allegation against Zimmerman.

"I know things he's done to me that I would never talk to him, ever again," the woman said in a brief portion of her interview that was made public.

O'Mara said it will be at least six months before he will have reviewed all the evidence and done all the work necessary to file a motion asking for the case to be dismissed under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.

Orlando attorney Derek B. Brett, who represented one of the witnesses, said it would not surprise him if witnesses were infuenced by heavy media coverage. Ultimately, inconsistencies in witness statements can only benefit one person: Zimmerman.

"I don't see how they are going to convict," Brett said. "It has nothing to do with whether I believe my client's testimony: she saw shadowy figures struggling in the dark. That doesn't mean much, nor should it. At a minimum, there's reasonable doubt."

 

[timschochet]

"I don't see how they are going to convict," Brett said. "It has nothing to do with whether I believe my client's testimony: she saw shadowy figures struggling in the dark. That doesn't mean much, nor should it. At a minimum, there's reasonable doubt."

I have to agree with this attorney. Personally, I could never vote to convict unless I were firmly convinced that Zimmerman was not in fear of his life. To convince me of that, not only would Witness #12 have to be very convincing, but any other witnesses that contradicted her testimony would have to be discredited. While this is not an impossible result, it seems unlikely. HOWEVER- I suspect that my own threshold for conviction will not be the threshold for the jury. I think all the jury needs to do to convict is to decide that Zimmerman is lying. I think that if they become convinced of this, they will convict him at the very least of manslaughter. Therefore, his statement to the police, and his testimony in court, become key factors in this case. And that is also why I don't know how anyone can possibly know what the outcome is going to be at this point- whether it's the guy in here who claims that Zimmerman is "toast", or jon_mx who is quite sure this won't even be going to trial- the outcome is entirely unpredictable.

 

[Bogeys]

Tim, remember when some people in this thread were saying that it was unfair and prejudicial of the news media to run the old picture of Z and T and you said it was no big deal and that is just how the media operates? Witness #12 changed her story (according to news reports) because of the pictures seen on the news. Wouldn't this pretty much make anything she has to say worthless since the pictures she based her changed testimony on had no basis in actual current sizes of the 2 people she saw and she based her change on the sizes?

First off, I never said it was no big deal. What I wrote was that it wasn't sinister, it was nothing done on purpose. Now, we don't know what Witness #12 saw that changed her story; we don't even know for sure if she DID change her story, we don't even know if she will testify in the first place. We'll find out soon enough. I absolutely agree that if her testimony is as weak as you claim it to be, then it won't mean much. But right now we don't know that.

Witnesses contradict each other, change stories in Trayvon Martin case

By FRANCES ROBLESMcClatchy Newspapers

last updated: May 27, 2012 01:52:16 PM

M -- ]

MIAMI - The fight between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin began with two people huffing and puffing in the dark, and then a brief exchange of bitter words.

It wasn't long before the two were wrestling on the ground, and one of them let out such gut-wrenching howls that several people in the neighborhood thought they might have come from dogs. Witnesses said the tussle grew louder as it made its way up a dark pathway, past several patios, from the concrete back on to grass.

From there, witness accounts diverge.

"The one guy was throwing blows MMA style," a man called Witness No. 6 told Sanford Police, later explaining his reference to mixed martial arts. "The one getting beat up, I'm guessing he was yelling out help, because he didn't want it to come to that point, and then it came to that point where he was on the concrete. I don't know if you ever got hit on concrete, it hurts."

His recorded interview with Sanford Police was just two minutes long.

But like several of the nearly two dozen witnesses interviewed by four different law enforcement agencies, Witness No. 6 was hampered by darkness and, the evidence suggests, influenced by news. A review of the testimony of witnesses to the Feb. 26 killing shows several of them modified their accounts or grew skeptical of their own recollections after weeks of news coverage. Several said they reshaped their stories because of what they learned on TV.

In addition, some people heard a second shot that was never fired and saw shirts nobody wore. Together, the testimony they offer is contradictory, possibly of little evidentiary value, and underscores the unreliability of eyewitness testimony in criminal cases.

"Memory does not function like a videotape that records everything and can be replayed at will," said Karen Newirth, an eyewitness identification litigation fellow at the Innocence Project, a national organization that works to exonerate innocent people. "People remember pieces of events, and then fill in the blanks with what makes sense."

Based on the descriptions he offered, witness No. 6 - most of the witnesses in the case are identified only by number on prosecution records made public last week - saw Trayvon Martin on top of Zimmerman, punching him. But when he was interviewed three weeks later by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and a local prosecutor, No. 6 said maybe the man on top wasn't throwing any punches, and perhaps was just pinning the guy down until the police came. Maybe it wasn't the guy on the bottom calling for help after all.

"That's just an assumption," he said. "I can't tell who was yelling."

One witness, No. 2, told Sanford Police she saw two people running, and later, when prompted, she clarified that the space between them was about 10 feet. She saw a "fistfight" "fists" she stressed. A week later, she told the same detective that she "more heard it than saw it," and did not have her contact lenses on.

"It was a glance, running," she told Sanford Police Detective. Chris Serino. "I kinda more heard it than saw it. I heard it."

When she met with Department of Law Enforcement investigators, she said she "saw something out there," perhaps just one person whose feet she heard running.

One witness, a 13-year-old boy, told investigators he saw a man in a red shirt crying for help, but told reporters he could not tell what clothes the injured person wore. Zimmerman wore a reddish-orange jacket.

Another witness, No. 12, said she wasn't sure who was on top of whom. But when she had time to think about it, she decided it was definitely Zimmerman on top, because she had seen him on TV and he was larger.

Prosecutor Bernardo de la Rionda asked her if by larger, she meant "broader." "Yes," she said.

Zimmerman was much shorter than Martin, but wore a size 38 pants and was consistently described by most of the witnesses as the larger of the two.Newirth, of the Innocence Project, said memories are affected by stress, the presence of a weapon, and can be influenced by everything from the question an investigator asks, to media reports and statements of other witnesses. The phenomenon is known as "memory contamination."

"I think in a case like this, there is likely contamination coming from all over the place," she said. The Innocence Project is not involved in this case and has not reviewed the evidence.

Studies show that people who witnessed the same simulated event reported different memories depending on the language used by the questioner. People who were given false information about the simulated event often incorporated the made-up details into their own accounts.

Newirth said studies also show people's memories change as they learn more information about the incident they saw, making it critical to get their full accounts early and in their own words.

The recordings submitted as evidence by the Sanford Police conducted the night of Martin's killing showed investigators only taped about two minutes with each person.

"Memories do not improve over time," she said. "In fact, they worsen over time and the worsening, which is demonstrated by something called the memory curve, begins very soon after the memory is created."

"Ear witnesses," who heard something but did not see it, she said, are even less reliable then eyewitnesses.

There were no follow up interviews for the teenage witness or the two ear-witnesses who vehemently believed Trayvon Martin called for help and that Zimmerman shot Martin from some distance from where the fight occurred. Department of Law Enforcement tests on Martin's shirt show he was shot at very close range.

In an interview, Zimmerman's defense attorney, Mark O'Mara, said the witness testimony seemed to change, and sometimes appeared to be swayed by the prosecutor's probing. At least one witness said she was basing her testimony on a 2005 picture of Zimmerman, when he weighed significantly more than he did at the time of the shooting.

"It's a good thing they have to prove this case," he said of the state attorney. He declined to comment further on the witness statements, saying he is prohibited by attorney rules of conduct.

"If I were to say, 'Hey, the evidence looks great for my guy,' it would be commenting on the evidence," he said. "I'm the one who has been complaining that everyone has been making up their mind with less than half the evidence. I am trying to undo the horrible prejudice done to my client."

O'Mara said other evidence has yet to be turned over to him, including forensics and FBI reports. Other evidence has been seen by him - but not by the media - because both sides are trying to have some materials sealed by the court.

Reporters were able to read autopsy reports showing Martin died of a contact wound to the chest, which pierced his heart. There was nothing under his fingernails and each person had the other's blood on his shirt.

Reporters have not been given access to any of Zimmerman's statements to police. The prosecution said some "are contradictory, and are inconsistent with the physical evidence and statements of witnesses."

A hearing has been scheduled for June 1 in which the judge will decide whether to seal the confessions and other materials such as the witness names, cellphone records and crime scene photos. The lawyers also want to keep under seal the taped interviews of a woman who made an unrelated allegation against Zimmerman.

"I know things he's done to me that I would never talk to him, ever again," the woman said in a brief portion of her interview that was made public.

O'Mara said it will be at least six months before he will have reviewed all the evidence and done all the work necessary to file a motion asking for the case to be dismissed under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.

Orlando attorney Derek B. Brett, who represented one of the witnesses, said it would not surprise him if witnesses were infuenced by heavy media coverage. Ultimately, inconsistencies in witness statements can only benefit one person: Zimmerman.

"I don't see how they are going to convict," Brett said. "It has nothing to do with whether I believe my client's testimony: she saw shadowy figures struggling in the dark. That doesn't mean much, nor should it. At a minimum, there's reasonable doubt."

Now I will have to go look again, but isn't the current Z about 5'8" and 160 lbs? Is that really a 38 waist? I honestly don't know as I am around 6'4" and when I graduated highschool I was about 170 :beanpole: and was wearing a 30 waist. It just seems to me from the current pictures Z just isn't very big at all.

 

[Bogeys]

Tim, remember when some people in this thread were saying that it was unfair and prejudicial of the news media to run the old picture of Z and T and you said it was no big deal and that is just how the media operates? Witness #12 changed her story (according to news reports) because of the pictures seen on the news. Wouldn't this pretty much make anything she has to say worthless since the pictures she based her changed testimony on had no basis in actual current sizes of the 2 people she saw and she based her change on the sizes?

First off, I never said it was no big deal. What I wrote was that it wasn't sinister, it was nothing done on purpose. Now, we don't know what Witness #12 saw that changed her story; we don't even know for sure if she DID change her story, we don't even know if she will testify in the first place. We'll find out soon enough. I absolutely agree that if her testimony is as weak as you claim it to be, then it won't mean much. But right now we don't know that.

Ok, I misremembered and I didn't go back and look it up...sorry. I just know you were talking about your wife's aunt (I think) that worked for a network and her explanation was what you were talking about. I hope it wasn't sinister and tend to think it was reporters just being lazy and hyping the story for ratings...but the narrative that started this whole media storm was an innocent black kid walking back from the store with ice tea and skittles for his brother being shot by a white vigilante. The difference in sizes in the pictures used does play into that narrative nicely.I will go back to lurking and reading now.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

"I don't see how they are going to convict," Brett said. "It has nothing to do with whether I believe my client's testimony: she saw shadowy figures struggling in the dark. That doesn't mean much, nor should it. At a minimum, there's reasonable doubt."

I have to agree with this attorney. Personally, I could never vote to convict unless I were firmly convinced that Zimmerman was not in fear of his life. To convince me of that, not only would Witness #12 have to be very convincing, but any other witnesses that contradicted her testimony would have to be discredited. While this is not an impossible result, it seems unlikely. HOWEVER- I suspect that my own threshold for conviction will not be the threshold for the jury. I think all the jury needs to do to convict is to decide that Zimmerman is lying. I think that if they become convinced of this, they will convict him at the very least of manslaughter. Therefore, his statement to the police, and his testimony in court, become key factors in this case. And that is also why I don't know how anyone can possibly know what the outcome is going to be at this point- whether it's the guy in here who claims that Zimmerman is "toast", or jon_mx who is quite sure this won't even be going to trial- the outcome is entirely unpredictable.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Tim, remember when some people in this thread were saying that it was unfair and prejudicial of the news media to run the old picture of Z and T and you said it was no big deal and that is just how the media operates? Witness #12 changed her story (according to news reports) because of the pictures seen on the news. Wouldn't this pretty much make anything she has to say worthless since the pictures she based her changed testimony on had no basis in actual current sizes of the 2 people she saw and she based her change on the sizes?

First off, I never said it was no big deal. What I wrote was that it wasn't sinister, it was nothing done on purpose. Now, we don't know what Witness #12 saw that changed her story; we don't even know for sure if she DID change her story, we don't even know if she will testify in the first place. We'll find out soon enough. I absolutely agree that if her testimony is as weak as you claim it to be, then it won't mean much. But right now we don't know that.

Witnesses contradict each other, change stories in Trayvon Martin case

By FRANCES ROBLESMcClatchy Newspapers

last updated: May 27, 2012 01:52:16 PM

M -- ]

MIAMI - The fight between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin began with two people huffing and puffing in the dark, and then a brief exchange of bitter words.

It wasn't long before the two were wrestling on the ground, and one of them let out such gut-wrenching howls that several people in the neighborhood thought they might have come from dogs. Witnesses said the tussle grew louder as it made its way up a dark pathway, past several patios, from the concrete back on to grass.

From there, witness accounts diverge.

"The one guy was throwing blows MMA style," a man called Witness No. 6 told Sanford Police, later explaining his reference to mixed martial arts. "The one getting beat up, I'm guessing he was yelling out help, because he didn't want it to come to that point, and then it came to that point where he was on the concrete. I don't know if you ever got hit on concrete, it hurts."

His recorded interview with Sanford Police was just two minutes long.

But like several of the nearly two dozen witnesses interviewed by four different law enforcement agencies, Witness No. 6 was hampered by darkness and, the evidence suggests, influenced by news. A review of the testimony of witnesses to the Feb. 26 killing shows several of them modified their accounts or grew skeptical of their own recollections after weeks of news coverage. Several said they reshaped their stories because of what they learned on TV.

In addition, some people heard a second shot that was never fired and saw shirts nobody wore. Together, the testimony they offer is contradictory, possibly of little evidentiary value, and underscores the unreliability of eyewitness testimony in criminal cases.

"Memory does not function like a videotape that records everything and can be replayed at will," said Karen Newirth, an eyewitness identification litigation fellow at the Innocence Project, a national organization that works to exonerate innocent people. "People remember pieces of events, and then fill in the blanks with what makes sense."

Based on the descriptions he offered, witness No. 6 - most of the witnesses in the case are identified only by number on prosecution records made public last week - saw Trayvon Martin on top of Zimmerman, punching him. But when he was interviewed three weeks later by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and a local prosecutor, No. 6 said maybe the man on top wasn't throwing any punches, and perhaps was just pinning the guy down until the police came. Maybe it wasn't the guy on the bottom calling for help after all.

"That's just an assumption," he said. "I can't tell who was yelling."

One witness, No. 2, told Sanford Police she saw two people running, and later, when prompted, she clarified that the space between them was about 10 feet. She saw a "fistfight" "fists" she stressed. A week later, she told the same detective that she "more heard it than saw it," and did not have her contact lenses on.

"It was a glance, running," she told Sanford Police Detective. Chris Serino. "I kinda more heard it than saw it. I heard it."

When she met with Department of Law Enforcement investigators, she said she "saw something out there," perhaps just one person whose feet she heard running.

One witness, a 13-year-old boy, told investigators he saw a man in a red shirt crying for help, but told reporters he could not tell what clothes the injured person wore. Zimmerman wore a reddish-orange jacket.

Another witness, No. 12, said she wasn't sure who was on top of whom. But when she had time to think about it, she decided it was definitely Zimmerman on top, because she had seen him on TV and he was larger.

Prosecutor Bernardo de la Rionda asked her if by larger, she meant "broader." "Yes," she said.

Zimmerman was much shorter than Martin, but wore a size 38 pants and was consistently described by most of the witnesses as the larger of the two.Newirth, of the Innocence Project, said memories are affected by stress, the presence of a weapon, and can be influenced by everything from the question an investigator asks, to media reports and statements of other witnesses. The phenomenon is known as "memory contamination."

"I think in a case like this, there is likely contamination coming from all over the place," she said. The Innocence Project is not involved in this case and has not reviewed the evidence.

Studies show that people who witnessed the same simulated event reported different memories depending on the language used by the questioner. People who were given false information about the simulated event often incorporated the made-up details into their own accounts.

Newirth said studies also show people's memories change as they learn more information about the incident they saw, making it critical to get their full accounts early and in their own words.

The recordings submitted as evidence by the Sanford Police conducted the night of Martin's killing showed investigators only taped about two minutes with each person.

"Memories do not improve over time," she said. "In fact, they worsen over time and the worsening, which is demonstrated by something called the memory curve, begins very soon after the memory is created."

"Ear witnesses," who heard something but did not see it, she said, are even less reliable then eyewitnesses.

There were no follow up interviews for the teenage witness or the two ear-witnesses who vehemently believed Trayvon Martin called for help and that Zimmerman shot Martin from some distance from where the fight occurred. Department of Law Enforcement tests on Martin's shirt show he was shot at very close range.

In an interview, Zimmerman's defense attorney, Mark O'Mara, said the witness testimony seemed to change, and sometimes appeared to be swayed by the prosecutor's probing. At least one witness said she was basing her testimony on a 2005 picture of Zimmerman, when he weighed significantly more than he did at the time of the shooting.

"It's a good thing they have to prove this case," he said of the state attorney. He declined to comment further on the witness statements, saying he is prohibited by attorney rules of conduct.

"If I were to say, 'Hey, the evidence looks great for my guy,' it would be commenting on the evidence," he said. "I'm the one who has been complaining that everyone has been making up their mind with less than half the evidence. I am trying to undo the horrible prejudice done to my client."

O'Mara said other evidence has yet to be turned over to him, including forensics and FBI reports. Other evidence has been seen by him - but not by the media - because both sides are trying to have some materials sealed by the court.

Reporters were able to read autopsy reports showing Martin died of a contact wound to the chest, which pierced his heart. There was nothing under his fingernails and each person had the other's blood on his shirt.

Reporters have not been given access to any of Zimmerman's statements to police. The prosecution said some "are contradictory, and are inconsistent with the physical evidence and statements of witnesses."

A hearing has been scheduled for June 1 in which the judge will decide whether to seal the confessions and other materials such as the witness names, cellphone records and crime scene photos. The lawyers also want to keep under seal the taped interviews of a woman who made an unrelated allegation against Zimmerman.

"I know things he's done to me that I would never talk to him, ever again," the woman said in a brief portion of her interview that was made public.

O'Mara said it will be at least six months before he will have reviewed all the evidence and done all the work necessary to file a motion asking for the case to be dismissed under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.

Orlando attorney Derek B. Brett, who represented one of the witnesses, said it would not surprise him if witnesses were infuenced by heavy media coverage. Ultimately, inconsistencies in witness statements can only benefit one person: Zimmerman.

"I don't see how they are going to convict," Brett said. "It has nothing to do with whether I believe my client's testimony: she saw shadowy figures struggling in the dark. That doesn't mean much, nor should it. At a minimum, there's reasonable doubt."

Now I will have to go look again, but isn't the current Z about 5'8" and 160 lbs? Is that really a 38 waist? I honestly don't know as I am around 6'4" and when I graduated highschool I was about 170 :beanpole: and was wearing a 30 waist. It just seems to me from the current pictures Z just isn't very big at all.

5'8" 160 is not likely to be wearing size 38 waist. More like a 32-34..

 

[Chaos Commish]

Zimmerman is 5-9 or 5-8. We do not know his exact weight. It has been estimated (post 240 lb bs) to be anywhere from 170 to 200.

The medical examiner listed Martin at 5-11 158. I have a feeling just from pics that the 5-11 is a mistake.

 

[jon_mx]

"I don't see how they are going to convict," Brett said. "It has nothing to do with whether I believe my client's testimony: she saw shadowy figures struggling in the dark. That doesn't mean much, nor should it. At a minimum, there's reasonable doubt."

I have to agree with this attorney. Personally, I could never vote to convict unless I were firmly convinced that Zimmerman was not in fear of his life. To convince me of that, not only would Witness #12 have to be very convincing, but any other witnesses that contradicted her testimony would have to be discredited. While this is not an impossible result, it seems unlikely. HOWEVER- I suspect that my own threshold for conviction will not be the threshold for the jury. I think all the jury needs to do to convict is to decide that Zimmerman is lying. I think that if they become convinced of this, they will convict him at the very least of manslaughter. Therefore, his statement to the police, and his testimony in court, become key factors in this case. And that is also why I don't know how anyone can possibly know what the outcome is going to be at this point- whether it's the guy in here who claims that Zimmerman is "toast", or jon_mx who is quite sure this won't even be going to trial- the outcome is entirely unpredictable.

I am quite sure that under normal situations there would have never been charges given the facts in this case. It really shouldn't go to trial, but I am not sure it won't go to trial. You can never predict what a judge would do. But every indication so far, this is a good judge who views things fairly and might reach that same conclusion as I, but I am still far from certain how he will rule. I don't see how my position is anywhere near that of Busted or Texas who twists and ignore facts to support their cause, and tops it with outrageous rhetoric. Those who are rabidly supporting Martin's side do so mainly out of emotions. The narrative being spun against Zimmerman has proven false time and time again, but they continue to push it. I have not been one pushing the idea that Martin is a thug who deserves it. If I was, it might be fair to lump my with those two. But as is, it is grossly unfair to lump my position with the obscene rhetoric those two consistently spew.

 

[Charlie Frown]

If Martin had started eating Zimmerman's face would he be justified in shooting him?

 

[TexanFan02]

If Martin had started eating Zimmerman's face would he be justified in shooting him?

Only if Martin was naked at the time.

 

[tdoss]

In a March 13 request for the issuance of a capias to authorize Zimmerman's arrest, police noted that "on August 3, August 4 and October 6, 2011, and February 2, 2012, George Zimmerman reported suspicious persons, all young Black males, in the Retreat neighborhood to the Sanford Police Department. According to records checks, all of Zimmerman's suspicious persons calls while residing in the Retreat neighborhood have identified Black males as the subjects."

Why am I not surprised by this? As I said, I had no proof, but if it walks like a duck...

If the surrounding neighborhoods are largely black, it is just a silly assertion. But you are quick to label Zimmerman a racist. Four events is statistically insignificant.

It's just a feel I get, jon. Sometimes you can sense it. The events are only somewhat of a confirmation of what I already feel. But even if he is a racist, that doesn't make him guilty of a crime.

I sense there's an idiot among us...an overly apologetic fool who's paralyzed his mind with white guilt. But that's just my "sense" telling me this...

 

[identikit]

In a March 13 request for the issuance of a capias to authorize Zimmerman's arrest, police noted that "on August 3, August 4 and October 6, 2011, and February 2, 2012, George Zimmerman reported suspicious persons, all young Black males, in the Retreat neighborhood to the Sanford Police Department. According to records checks, all of Zimmerman's suspicious persons calls while residing in the Retreat neighborhood have identified Black males as the subjects."

Why am I not surprised by this? As I said, I had no proof, but if it walks like a duck...

If the surrounding neighborhoods are largely black, it is just a silly assertion. But you are quick to label Zimmerman a racist. Four events is statistically insignificant.

It's just a feel I get, jon. Sometimes you can sense it. The events are only somewhat of a confirmation of what I already feel. But even if he is a racist, that doesn't make him guilty of a crime.

I sense there's an idiot among us...an overly apologetic fool who's paralyzed his mind with white guilt. But that's just my "sense" telling me this...

 

[Neofight]

Tim, remember when some people in this thread were saying that it was unfair and prejudicial of the news media to run the old picture of Z and T and you said it was no big deal and that is just how the media operates? Witness #12 changed her story (according to news reports) because of the pictures seen on the news. Wouldn't this pretty much make anything she has to say worthless since the pictures she based her changed testimony on had no basis in actual current sizes of the 2 people she saw and she based her change on the sizes?

First off, I never said it was no big deal. What I wrote was that it wasn't sinister, it was nothing done on purpose. Now, we don't know what Witness #12 saw that changed her story; we don't even know for sure if she DID change her story, we don't even know if she will testify in the first place. We'll find out soon enough. I absolutely agree that if her testimony is as weak as you claim it to be, then it won't mean much. But right now we don't know that.

Witnesses contradict each other, change stories in Trayvon Martin case

By FRANCES ROBLESMcClatchy Newspapers

last updated: May 27, 2012 01:52:16 PM

M -- ]

MIAMI - The fight between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin began with two people huffing and puffing in the dark, and then a brief exchange of bitter words.

It wasn't long before the two were wrestling on the ground, and one of them let out such gut-wrenching howls that several people in the neighborhood thought they might have come from dogs. Witnesses said the tussle grew louder as it made its way up a dark pathway, past several patios, from the concrete back on to grass.

From there, witness accounts diverge.

"The one guy was throwing blows MMA style," a man called Witness No. 6 told Sanford Police, later explaining his reference to mixed martial arts. "The one getting beat up, I'm guessing he was yelling out help, because he didn't want it to come to that point, and then it came to that point where he was on the concrete. I don't know if you ever got hit on concrete, it hurts."

His recorded interview with Sanford Police was just two minutes long.

But like several of the nearly two dozen witnesses interviewed by four different law enforcement agencies, Witness No. 6 was hampered by darkness and, the evidence suggests, influenced by news. A review of the testimony of witnesses to the Feb. 26 killing shows several of them modified their accounts or grew skeptical of their own recollections after weeks of news coverage. Several said they reshaped their stories because of what they learned on TV.

In addition, some people heard a second shot that was never fired and saw shirts nobody wore. Together, the testimony they offer is contradictory, possibly of little evidentiary value, and underscores the unreliability of eyewitness testimony in criminal cases.

"Memory does not function like a videotape that records everything and can be replayed at will," said Karen Newirth, an eyewitness identification litigation fellow at the Innocence Project, a national organization that works to exonerate innocent people. "People remember pieces of events, and then fill in the blanks with what makes sense."

Based on the descriptions he offered, witness No. 6 - most of the witnesses in the case are identified only by number on prosecution records made public last week - saw Trayvon Martin on top of Zimmerman, punching him. But when he was interviewed three weeks later by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and a local prosecutor, No. 6 said maybe the man on top wasn't throwing any punches, and perhaps was just pinning the guy down until the police came. Maybe it wasn't the guy on the bottom calling for help after all.

"That's just an assumption," he said. "I can't tell who was yelling."

One witness, No. 2, told Sanford Police she saw two people running, and later, when prompted, she clarified that the space between them was about 10 feet. She saw a "fistfight" "fists" she stressed. A week later, she told the same detective that she "more heard it than saw it," and did not have her contact lenses on.

"It was a glance, running," she told Sanford Police Detective. Chris Serino. "I kinda more heard it than saw it. I heard it."

When she met with Department of Law Enforcement investigators, she said she "saw something out there," perhaps just one person whose feet she heard running.

One witness, a 13-year-old boy, told investigators he saw a man in a red shirt crying for help, but told reporters he could not tell what clothes the injured person wore. Zimmerman wore a reddish-orange jacket.

Another witness, No. 12, said she wasn't sure who was on top of whom. But when she had time to think about it, she decided it was definitely Zimmerman on top, because she had seen him on TV and he was larger.

Prosecutor Bernardo de la Rionda asked her if by larger, she meant "broader." "Yes," she said.

Zimmerman was much shorter than Martin, but wore a size 38 pants and was consistently described by most of the witnesses as the larger of the two.Newirth, of the Innocence Project, said memories are affected by stress, the presence of a weapon, and can be influenced by everything from the question an investigator asks, to media reports and statements of other witnesses. The phenomenon is known as "memory contamination."

"I think in a case like this, there is likely contamination coming from all over the place," she said. The Innocence Project is not involved in this case and has not reviewed the evidence.

Studies show that people who witnessed the same simulated event reported different memories depending on the language used by the questioner. People who were given false information about the simulated event often incorporated the made-up details into their own accounts.

Newirth said studies also show people's memories change as they learn more information about the incident they saw, making it critical to get their full accounts early and in their own words.

The recordings submitted as evidence by the Sanford Police conducted the night of Martin's killing showed investigators only taped about two minutes with each person.

"Memories do not improve over time," she said. "In fact, they worsen over time and the worsening, which is demonstrated by something called the memory curve, begins very soon after the memory is created."

"Ear witnesses," who heard something but did not see it, she said, are even less reliable then eyewitnesses.

There were no follow up interviews for the teenage witness or the two ear-witnesses who vehemently believed Trayvon Martin called for help and that Zimmerman shot Martin from some distance from where the fight occurred. Department of Law Enforcement tests on Martin's shirt show he was shot at very close range.

In an interview, Zimmerman's defense attorney, Mark O'Mara, said the witness testimony seemed to change, and sometimes appeared to be swayed by the prosecutor's probing. At least one witness said she was basing her testimony on a 2005 picture of Zimmerman, when he weighed significantly more than he did at the time of the shooting.

"It's a good thing they have to prove this case," he said of the state attorney. He declined to comment further on the witness statements, saying he is prohibited by attorney rules of conduct.

"If I were to say, 'Hey, the evidence looks great for my guy,' it would be commenting on the evidence," he said. "I'm the one who has been complaining that everyone has been making up their mind with less than half the evidence. I am trying to undo the horrible prejudice done to my client."

O'Mara said other evidence has yet to be turned over to him, including forensics and FBI reports. Other evidence has been seen by him - but not by the media - because both sides are trying to have some materials sealed by the court.

Reporters were able to read autopsy reports showing Martin died of a contact wound to the chest, which pierced his heart. There was nothing under his fingernails and each person had the other's blood on his shirt.

Reporters have not been given access to any of Zimmerman's statements to police. The prosecution said some "are contradictory, and are inconsistent with the physical evidence and statements of witnesses."

A hearing has been scheduled for June 1 in which the judge will decide whether to seal the confessions and other materials such as the witness names, cellphone records and crime scene photos. The lawyers also want to keep under seal the taped interviews of a woman who made an unrelated allegation against Zimmerman.

"I know things he's done to me that I would never talk to him, ever again," the woman said in a brief portion of her interview that was made public.

O'Mara said it will be at least six months before he will have reviewed all the evidence and done all the work necessary to file a motion asking for the case to be dismissed under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.

Orlando attorney Derek B. Brett, who represented one of the witnesses, said it would not surprise him if witnesses were infuenced by heavy media coverage. Ultimately, inconsistencies in witness statements can only benefit one person: Zimmerman.

"I don't see how they are going to convict," Brett said. "It has nothing to do with whether I believe my client's testimony: she saw shadowy figures struggling in the dark. That doesn't mean much, nor should it. At a minimum, there's reasonable doubt."

Now I will have to go look again, but isn't the current Z about 5'8" and 160 lbs? Is that really a 38 waist? I honestly don't know as I am around 6'4" and when I graduated highschool I was about 170 :beanpole: and was wearing a 30 waist. It just seems to me from the current pictures Z just isn't very big at all.

5'8" 160 is not likely to be wearing size 38 waist. More like a 32-34..

George has a gut.

 

[timschochet]

In a March 13 request for the issuance of a capias to authorize Zimmerman's arrest, police noted that "on August 3, August 4 and October 6, 2011, and February 2, 2012, George Zimmerman reported suspicious persons, all young Black males, in the Retreat neighborhood to the Sanford Police Department. According to records checks, all of Zimmerman's suspicious persons calls while residing in the Retreat neighborhood have identified Black males as the subjects."

Why am I not surprised by this? As I said, I had no proof, but if it walks like a duck...

If the surrounding neighborhoods are largely black, it is just a silly assertion. But you are quick to label Zimmerman a racist. Four events is statistically insignificant.

It's just a feel I get, jon. Sometimes you can sense it. The events are only somewhat of a confirmation of what I already feel. But even if he is a racist, that doesn't make him guilty of a crime.

I sense there's an idiot among us...an overly apologetic fool who's paralyzed his mind with white guilt. But that's just my "sense" telling me this...

 

[TexanFan02]

Tim, remember when some people in this thread were saying that it was unfair and prejudicial of the news media to run the old picture of Z and T and you said it was no big deal and that is just how the media operates? Witness #12 changed her story (according to news reports) because of the pictures seen on the news. Wouldn't this pretty much make anything she has to say worthless since the pictures she based her changed testimony on had no basis in actual current sizes of the 2 people she saw and she based her change on the sizes?

First off, I never said it was no big deal. What I wrote was that it wasn't sinister, it was nothing done on purpose. Now, we don't know what Witness #12 saw that changed her story; we don't even know for sure if she DID change her story, we don't even know if she will testify in the first place. We'll find out soon enough. I absolutely agree that if her testimony is as weak as you claim it to be, then it won't mean much. But right now we don't know that.

Witnesses contradict each other, change stories in Trayvon Martin case

By FRANCES ROBLESMcClatchy Newspapers

last updated: May 27, 2012 01:52:16 PM

M -- ]

MIAMI - The fight between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin began with two people huffing and puffing in the dark, and then a brief exchange of bitter words.

It wasn't long before the two were wrestling on the ground, and one of them let out such gut-wrenching howls that several people in the neighborhood thought they might have come from dogs. Witnesses said the tussle grew louder as it made its way up a dark pathway, past several patios, from the concrete back on to grass.

From there, witness accounts diverge.

"The one guy was throwing blows MMA style," a man called Witness No. 6 told Sanford Police, later explaining his reference to mixed martial arts. "The one getting beat up, I'm guessing he was yelling out help, because he didn't want it to come to that point, and then it came to that point where he was on the concrete. I don't know if you ever got hit on concrete, it hurts."

His recorded interview with Sanford Police was just two minutes long.

But like several of the nearly two dozen witnesses interviewed by four different law enforcement agencies, Witness No. 6 was hampered by darkness and, the evidence suggests, influenced by news. A review of the testimony of witnesses to the Feb. 26 killing shows several of them modified their accounts or grew skeptical of their own recollections after weeks of news coverage. Several said they reshaped their stories because of what they learned on TV.

In addition, some people heard a second shot that was never fired and saw shirts nobody wore. Together, the testimony they offer is contradictory, possibly of little evidentiary value, and underscores the unreliability of eyewitness testimony in criminal cases.

"Memory does not function like a videotape that records everything and can be replayed at will," said Karen Newirth, an eyewitness identification litigation fellow at the Innocence Project, a national organization that works to exonerate innocent people. "People remember pieces of events, and then fill in the blanks with what makes sense."

Based on the descriptions he offered, witness No. 6 - most of the witnesses in the case are identified only by number on prosecution records made public last week - saw Trayvon Martin on top of Zimmerman, punching him. But when he was interviewed three weeks later by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and a local prosecutor, No. 6 said maybe the man on top wasn't throwing any punches, and perhaps was just pinning the guy down until the police came. Maybe it wasn't the guy on the bottom calling for help after all.

"That's just an assumption," he said. "I can't tell who was yelling."

One witness, No. 2, told Sanford Police she saw two people running, and later, when prompted, she clarified that the space between them was about 10 feet. She saw a "fistfight" "fists" she stressed. A week later, she told the same detective that she "more heard it than saw it," and did not have her contact lenses on.

"It was a glance, running," she told Sanford Police Detective. Chris Serino. "I kinda more heard it than saw it. I heard it."

When she met with Department of Law Enforcement investigators, she said she "saw something out there," perhaps just one person whose feet she heard running.

One witness, a 13-year-old boy, told investigators he saw a man in a red shirt crying for help, but told reporters he could not tell what clothes the injured person wore. Zimmerman wore a reddish-orange jacket.

Another witness, No. 12, said she wasn't sure who was on top of whom. But when she had time to think about it, she decided it was definitely Zimmerman on top, because she had seen him on TV and he was larger.

Prosecutor Bernardo de la Rionda asked her if by larger, she meant "broader." "Yes," she said.

Zimmerman was much shorter than Martin, but wore a size 38 pants and was consistently described by most of the witnesses as the larger of the two.Newirth, of the Innocence Project, said memories are affected by stress, the presence of a weapon, and can be influenced by everything from the question an investigator asks, to media reports and statements of other witnesses. The phenomenon is known as "memory contamination."

"I think in a case like this, there is likely contamination coming from all over the place," she said. The Innocence Project is not involved in this case and has not reviewed the evidence.

Studies show that people who witnessed the same simulated event reported different memories depending on the language used by the questioner. People who were given false information about the simulated event often incorporated the made-up details into their own accounts.

Newirth said studies also show people's memories change as they learn more information about the incident they saw, making it critical to get their full accounts early and in their own words.

The recordings submitted as evidence by the Sanford Police conducted the night of Martin's killing showed investigators only taped about two minutes with each person.

"Memories do not improve over time," she said. "In fact, they worsen over time and the worsening, which is demonstrated by something called the memory curve, begins very soon after the memory is created."

"Ear witnesses," who heard something but did not see it, she said, are even less reliable then eyewitnesses.

There were no follow up interviews for the teenage witness or the two ear-witnesses who vehemently believed Trayvon Martin called for help and that Zimmerman shot Martin from some distance from where the fight occurred. Department of Law Enforcement tests on Martin's shirt show he was shot at very close range.

In an interview, Zimmerman's defense attorney, Mark O'Mara, said the witness testimony seemed to change, and sometimes appeared to be swayed by the prosecutor's probing. At least one witness said she was basing her testimony on a 2005 picture of Zimmerman, when he weighed significantly more than he did at the time of the shooting.

"It's a good thing they have to prove this case," he said of the state attorney. He declined to comment further on the witness statements, saying he is prohibited by attorney rules of conduct.

"If I were to say, 'Hey, the evidence looks great for my guy,' it would be commenting on the evidence," he said. "I'm the one who has been complaining that everyone has been making up their mind with less than half the evidence. I am trying to undo the horrible prejudice done to my client."

O'Mara said other evidence has yet to be turned over to him, including forensics and FBI reports. Other evidence has been seen by him - but not by the media - because both sides are trying to have some materials sealed by the court.

Reporters were able to read autopsy reports showing Martin died of a contact wound to the chest, which pierced his heart. There was nothing under his fingernails and each person had the other's blood on his shirt.

Reporters have not been given access to any of Zimmerman's statements to police. The prosecution said some "are contradictory, and are inconsistent with the physical evidence and statements of witnesses."

A hearing has been scheduled for June 1 in which the judge will decide whether to seal the confessions and other materials such as the witness names, cellphone records and crime scene photos. The lawyers also want to keep under seal the taped interviews of a woman who made an unrelated allegation against Zimmerman.

"I know things he's done to me that I would never talk to him, ever again," the woman said in a brief portion of her interview that was made public.

O'Mara said it will be at least six months before he will have reviewed all the evidence and done all the work necessary to file a motion asking for the case to be dismissed under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law.

Orlando attorney Derek B. Brett, who represented one of the witnesses, said it would not surprise him if witnesses were infuenced by heavy media coverage. Ultimately, inconsistencies in witness statements can only benefit one person: Zimmerman.

"I don't see how they are going to convict," Brett said. "It has nothing to do with whether I believe my client's testimony: she saw shadowy figures struggling in the dark. That doesn't mean much, nor should it. At a minimum, there's reasonable doubt."

Now I will have to go look again, but isn't the current Z about 5'8" and 160 lbs? Is that really a 38 waist? I honestly don't know as I am around 6'4" and when I graduated highschool I was about 170 :beanpole: and was wearing a 30 waist. It just seems to me from the current pictures Z just isn't very big at all.

5'8" 160 is not likely to be wearing size 38 waist. More like a 32-34..

George has a gut.

Zimmerman is a pig. Thus witness confusion. Zimmerman fans will find comfort in witness confusion. But, there is a discrepancy in both witness 12's testimony, and the highly relied on the right testimony of witness number 6. Now he doesn't know who was on top, and thinks Zimmerman was a cool assassin

Toast.

 

[timschochet]

Zimmerman is a pig. Toast.

Add some lettuce, tomato, and you've got a BLT.

 

[Neofight]

Zimmerman is a pig. Toast.

Add some lettuce, tomato, and you've got a BLT.

Quality work here.

 

[TexanFan02]

Oops

Go to jail. Go directly to jail. I guess people with 200k aren't indigent after all.