Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (4 Viewers)

[SeveredHorseHeads]

What if Zimmerman was deathly allergic to skittles and felt his life was at risk as soon as he saw them in Martin's possession? This must be considered before we jump to conclusions.

 

[Chaos Commish]

I assume they did an autopsy. The autopsy would note if Martin had bruises or had been in a fight.

What if he punches someone once and then slammed that person's head into the ground. Will an autopsy show that? I don't see how it could.

that theory is not consistent with Zimmerman's injuries.

That's not a theory. That's Zimmerman's defense claim. It proved supportable enough to keep him from being arrested.

There are a lot of reason why Zimmerman wasn't arrested. His lack of injuries to back up his defense claim is one of the many reasons he will be convicted.

Do you know reasons why he wasn't arrested? I haven't heard anything specific.

The DA didnt think there was enough evidence for a case.

He didn't think there was enough evidence when the son of a Police lieutenant beat the crap out of homeless black man, either. Until video of it came out and he had to charge him.

Well video of this altercation would probably change things in this case too. I don't see that the same way you do. Everything isn't conspiracy and corruption, really.

 

[timschochet]

Time out guys. Will you please vote in the Led Zeppelin thread? We have a tie vote between two songs with 30 minutes left.

 

[TexanFan02]

I assume they did an autopsy. The autopsy would note if Martin had bruises or had been in a fight.

What if he punches someone once and then slammed that person's head into the ground. Will an autopsy show that? I don't see how it could.

that theory is not consistent with Zimmerman's injuries.

That's not a theory. That's Zimmerman's defense claim. It proved supportable enough to keep him from being arrested.

There are a lot of reason why Zimmerman wasn't arrested. His lack of injuries to back up his defense claim is one of the many reasons he will be convicted.

Do you know reasons why he wasn't arrested? I haven't heard anything specific.

The DA didnt think there was enough evidence for a case.

He didn't think there was enough evidence when the son of a Police lieutenant beat the crap out of homeless black man, either. Until video of it came out and he had to charge him.

Well video of this altercation would probably change things in this case too. I don't see that the same way you do. Everything isn't conspiracy and corruption, really.

People lie all the time. Especially when it's in their best interests to do so. I think Zimmerman lied, the lead investigator thought he was lying, told the DA, and the DA didn't take action on it.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Legally, if Zimmerman is actually rather fragile (for whatever reason) such that next to no actual contact equates to a pummeling in his psyche, does that impact the reasonableness of his escalation to pull a gun? This is a question for our legal guys, not a comment.

When I heard he cried for three days I was thinking he will definitely bawl his eyes out on the witness stand. Anyway, good question.

 

[TexanFan02]

Time out guys. Will you please vote in the Led Zeppelin thread? We have a tie vote between two songs with 30 minutes left.

Which bracket?

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

His head and nose didn't look bloody to me.

There's no grass stains on his clothes either.

Which goes against the police report. Not saying it's wrong. Just waiting to see if there are offical photos. It could be possible his clothes were taken from him at the scene and he put new clothes on. A stretch? Seems like someone was trying to say that before they were stopped for time on Nancy.

No, it doesn't. The report says the officer said that Zimmerman's "back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass." No stain is mentioned.

Maybe the design on his shirt was designed to appear wet and grassy. I dont think we can draw any conclusions here.

 

[timschochet]

Time out guys. Will you please vote in the Led Zeppelin thread? We have a tie vote between two songs with 30 minutes left.

Which bracket?

Division 3, thx.

 

[wildbill]

Let's make this simple: 1. Those of you who are inclined to think that Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter: if photos from the crime scene show up that show that Zimmerman is bloody as he has claimed, or if there is another means to prove this, would you agree that there is no way to convict Zimmerman of a crime, and therefore this issue should be laid to rest?2. Those of who are inclined to think that either Zimmerman is innocent of wrongdoing, or that there's no way to prove what happened one way or the other: if the funeral director's statement that Martin's body showed no sign of a physical struggle turns out to be provably true, would you agree that Zimmerman must therefore be lying about what happened and that he is, in fact, guilty of murder or manslaughter?It seems to me that these two points are decisive, and if you are not willing to change your mind as a result of one of them, then you're looking at this issue without reason or justice as your main concern.

I've never heard of a funeral director weighing in on a case like this, isn't that usually the coroner's job?

 

[TexanFan02]

Time out guys. Will you please vote in the Led Zeppelin thread? We have a tie vote between two songs with 30 minutes left.

Which bracket?

Division 3, thx.

Oh. I voted for WIAWSNB. SHUT IT DOWN NOW!

 

[ATC1]

Time out guys. Will you please vote in the Led Zeppelin thread? We have a tie vote between two songs with 30 minutes left.

Which bracket?

In the Evening It was Nobody's fault but Zimmerman's. What is and What Should Never Be is a hoodie wearing skittles eating Fool in the Rain.

 

[TexanFan02]

Time out guys. Will you please vote in the Led Zeppelin thread? We have a tie vote between two songs with 30 minutes left.

Which bracket?

In the Evening It was Nobody's fault but Zimmerman's. What is and What Should Never Be is a hoodie wearing skittles eating Fool in the Rain.

This should be a Gallows Poll.

 

[timschochet]

Let's make it even simpler:

1. If you KNEW that there had been a struggle between the two, would you agree that there's no way to convict Zimmerman, and therefore no point in charging him?

2. If you KNEW that there was no struggle between the two, would you agree that Zimmerman is lying and should be convicted of murder or manslaughter?

 

[TexanFan02]

Let's make it even simpler:1. If you KNEW that there had been a struggle between the two, would you agree that there's no way to convict Zimmerman, and therefore no point in charging him?2. If you KNEW that there was no struggle between the two, would you agree that Zimmerman is lying and should be convicted of murder or manslaughter?

1. No, not enough information. He had to be in fear of great bodily harm, everybody that gets into a fistfight isn't justified in killing the other person. He could be justified under the terrible Florida law, but he might not be.2. Yes.

 

[timschochet]

99 pages! We can do this thing!

 

[identikit]

Quantity over quality.

 

[ATC1]

Let's make it even simpler:1. If you KNEW that there had been a struggle between the two, would you agree that there's no way to convict Zimmerman, and therefore no point in charging him?2. If you KNEW that there was no struggle between the two, would you agree that Zimmerman is lying and should be convicted of murder or manslaughter?

1. No, the struggle have to show Trayvon as the aggressor and be within the state law of self defense.2. If there was no struggle then Zimmerman did not shoot Trayvon in self defense.

 

[Chaos Commish]

I assume they did an autopsy. The autopsy would note if Martin had bruises or had been in a fight.

What if he punches someone once and then slammed that person's head into the ground. Will an autopsy show that? I don't see how it could.

that theory is not consistent with Zimmerman's injuries.

That's not a theory. That's Zimmerman's defense claim. It proved supportable enough to keep him from being arrested.

There are a lot of reason why Zimmerman wasn't arrested. His lack of injuries to back up his defense claim is one of the many reasons he will be convicted.

Do you know reasons why he wasn't arrested? I haven't heard anything specific.

The DA didnt think there was enough evidence for a case.

He didn't think there was enough evidence when the son of a Police lieutenant beat the crap out of homeless black man, either. Until video of it came out and he had to charge him.

Well video of this altercation would probably change things in this case too. I don't see that the same way you do. Everything isn't conspiracy and corruption, really.

People lie all the time. Especially when it's in their best interests to do so. I think Zimmerman lied, the lead investigator thought he was lying, told the DA, and the DA didn't take action on it.

Simey explained the process from her personal work experience. The investigators often bring affidavits calling for charges to the DA who makes the decisions. So this guys opinion, ewas overruled by those who have to prosecute the case. Nothing unusual or incriminating about how this process worked.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

What i find funny is ive been saying since my first post, that zimmerman murdered treyvon martin and he didnt have to. Now that ive seen the arrest video im more convinced than ever that zimmerman has lied at every turn to save his ### from going to prison. If he WAS covered in blood and had a broken nose and the back of his head was as injured as he claimed, i would have said i was wrong . I would have said Treyvon was beating him and he shot trey in self defense. I still would say he inadvertanly caused it by following trey , but he shot trey in self defense. Why cant the defenders of zimmerman watch that video and say maybe zimmerman was lying and is full of crap. Its right there in color. Is it pride?

Maybe Zimmerman is lying and is full of crap. Happy now?Also, remember Zimmerman's story had to check out or they had probable cause. If your take is the conspiracy theory cover up by corrupt cops fine. If your take is totally inept cops, fine. I doubt either of those are the case, so regardless of how unscathed he looked after being cleaned up in the back of the squad car, I still think the story he delivered had to have enough support to keep him from being arrested.

I think we have a case of a perfect storm. Things went down a certain way that night and some people dropped the ball. Once the evidence proves that zimmermans story is a fabrication he will be charged and have his day in court. I also believe that certain people involved in the investigation will be held accountable by the dept. of justice. This is my opinion and you are welcome to disagree, which im sure you do. I could say that maybe zimmermans father, the retired florida judge , had something to do with this. All i know is the investigation wasnt done , by all accounts, the way it should have been done. Something smells really bad, and ive said that since day one , before all this other stuff went down.

 

[timschochet]

Let's make it even simpler:1. If you KNEW that there had been a struggle between the two, would you agree that there's no way to convict Zimmerman, and therefore no point in charging him?2. If you KNEW that there was no struggle between the two, would you agree that Zimmerman is lying and should be convicted of murder or manslaughter?

1. No, the struggle have to show Trayvon as the aggressor and be within the state law of self defense.2. If there was no struggle then Zimmerman did not shoot Trayvon in self defense.

With regard to #1, I'm not sure you read my question correctly. I didn't ask if proof of a struggle would cause you to believe in your own mind that Zimmerman was innocent. I asked if proof of a struggle would guarantee Zimmerman an acquital. I say that for any honest juror it would. If there was a struggle between the two, I don't see how anyone could convict without ignoring reasonable doubt.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Proof of a struggle doesn't mean Martin was the aggressor.

 

[TexanFan02]

Simey explained the process from her personal work experience. The investigators often bring affidavits calling for charges to the DA who makes the decisions. So this guys opinion, ewas overruled by those who have to prosecute the case. Nothing unusual or incriminating about how this process worked.

I think it's pretty unusual that a 17 year old get shot and no charges are brought. I think that's what's driving a lot of the outrage. I understand they will probably charge him later, but the lead investigators assessment should get priority in a potential murder case. They basically took Zimmerman's word for what happened.

 

[ATC1]

Let's make it even simpler:

1. If you KNEW that there had been a struggle between the two, would you agree that there's no way to convict Zimmerman, and therefore no point in charging him?

2. If you KNEW that there was no struggle between the two, would you agree that Zimmerman is lying and should be convicted of murder or manslaughter?

1. No, the struggle have to show Trayvon as the aggressor and be within the state law of self defense.2. If there was no struggle then Zimmerman did not shoot Trayvon in self defense.

With regard to #1, I'm not sure you read my question correctly. I didn't ask if proof of a struggle would cause you to believe in your own mind that Zimmerman was innocent. I asked if proof of a struggle would guarantee Zimmerman an acquital. I say that for any honest juror it would. If there was a struggle between the two, I don't see how anyone could convict without ignoring reasonable doubt.

Given any type of bleeding to the nose or back of the head and John the witness' testimony, I couldn't convict.

 

[TexanFan02]

Let's make it even simpler:1. If you KNEW that there had been a struggle between the two, would you agree that there's no way to convict Zimmerman, and therefore no point in charging him?2. If you KNEW that there was no struggle between the two, would you agree that Zimmerman is lying and should be convicted of murder or manslaughter?

1. No, the struggle have to show Trayvon as the aggressor and be within the state law of self defense.2. If there was no struggle then Zimmerman did not shoot Trayvon in self defense.

With regard to #1, I'm not sure you read my question correctly. I didn't ask if proof of a struggle would cause you to believe in your own mind that Zimmerman was innocent. I asked if proof of a struggle would guarantee Zimmerman an acquital. I say that for any honest juror it would. If there was a struggle between the two, I don't see how anyone could convict without ignoring reasonable doubt.

Just because there's a struggle doesn't mean you have to use deadly force. Christo's right, Zimmerman would have to take the stand, and it would come down to whether they believed his story or not.

 

[Christo]

What i find funny is ive been saying since my first post, that zimmerman murdered treyvon martin and he didnt have to. Now that ive seen the arrest video im more convinced than ever that zimmerman has lied at every turn to save his ### from going to prison. If he WAS covered in blood and had a broken nose and the back of his head was as injured as he claimed, i would have said i was wrong . I would have said Treyvon was beating him and he shot trey in self defense. I still would say he inadvertanly caused it by following trey , but he shot trey in self defense. Why cant the defenders of zimmerman watch that video and say maybe zimmerman was lying and is full of crap. Its right there in color. Is it pride?

Maybe Zimmerman is lying and is full of crap.

Happy now?

Also, remember Zimmerman's story had to check out or they had probable cause. If your take is the conspiracy theory cover up by corrupt cops fine. If your take is totally inept cops, fine. I doubt either of those are the case, so regardless of how unscathed he looked after being cleaned up in the back of the squad car, I still think the story he delivered had to have enough support to keep him from being arrested.

I think we have a case of a perfect storm. Things went down a certain way that night and some people dropped the ball. Once the evidence proves that zimmermans story is a fabrication he will be charged and have his day in court. I also believe that certain people involved in the investigation will be held accountable by the dept. of justice. This is my opinion and you are welcome to disagree, which im sure you do. I could say that maybe zimmermans father, the retired florida judge , had something to do with this. All i know is the investigation wasnt done , by all accounts, the way it should have been done. Something smells really bad, and ive said that since day one , before all this other stuff went down.

For what?

 

[timschochet]

Christo's right, Zimmerman would have to take the stand, and it would come down to whether they believed his story or not.

,Why? I still don't get this. Again, I'm no atty like Christo is, but if you're defending Zimmerman why not place the police report into evidence, which claims that Zimmerman was bleeding, call an officer as a witness that would testify as to what Zimmerman told him, and then cross examine the hell out of anyone who attempts to make a different claim? Then in closing, state that the prosecution failed to make their case. Why wouldn't that be enough to acquit?

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

Proof of a struggle doesn't mean Martin was the aggressor.

What struggle? Did you see Zimmerman break his nose? He could have broken it a few minutes before seeing Martin.Anything is possible so we must weigh all options equally.

 

[Chaos Commish]

What i find funny is ive been saying since my first post, that zimmerman murdered treyvon martin and he didnt have to. Now that ive seen the arrest video im more convinced than ever that zimmerman has lied at every turn to save his ### from going to prison. If he WAS covered in blood and had a broken nose and the back of his head was as injured as he claimed, i would have said i was wrong . I would have said Treyvon was beating him and he shot trey in self defense. I still would say he inadvertanly caused it by following trey , but he shot trey in self defense. Why cant the defenders of zimmerman watch that video and say maybe zimmerman was lying and is full of crap. Its right there in color. Is it pride?

Maybe Zimmerman is lying and is full of crap.

Happy now?

Also, remember Zimmerman's story had to check out or they had probable cause. If your take is the conspiracy theory cover up by corrupt cops fine. If your take is totally inept cops, fine. I doubt either of those are the case, so regardless of how unscathed he looked after being cleaned up in the back of the squad car, I still think the story he delivered had to have enough support to keep him from being arrested.

I think we have a case of a perfect storm. Things went down a certain way that night and some people dropped the ball. Once the evidence proves that zimmermans story is a fabrication he will be charged and have his day in court. I also believe that certain people involved in the investigation will be held accountable by the dept. of justice. This is my opinion and you are welcome to disagree, which im sure you do. I could say that maybe zimmermans father, the retired florida judge , had something to do with this. All i know is the investigation wasnt done , by all accounts, the way it should have been done. Something smells really bad, and ive said that since day one , before all this other stuff went down.

I don't disagree with anything you said here. I would just say if instead of once to begin the second sentence. I confess that I am sympathetic to this Zimmerman character because of the media coverage. And I'll confess I hope justice is done preferably leading to his acquittal. If justice leads to his conviction, fine, but that would be the uglier story. I'd prefer the dead guy at least legally put himself in a position to be killed rather than the living guy be a moron guilty of some level homicide. Justice not being done is the worst case and my biggest concern.

 

[timschochet]

Proof of a struggle doesn't mean Martin was the aggressor.

What struggle? Did you see Zimmerman break his nose? He could have broken it a few minutes before seeing Martin.Anything is possible so we must weigh all options equally.

He was responding to my hypothetical.

 

[TexanFan02]

Christo's right, Zimmerman would have to take the stand, and it would come down to whether they believed his story or not.

,Why? I still don't get this. Again, I'm no atty like Christo is, but if you're defending Zimmerman why not place the police report into evidence, which claims that Zimmerman was bleeding, call an officer as a witness that would testify as to what Zimmerman told him, and then cross examine the hell out of anyone who attempts to make a different claim? Then in closing, state that the prosecution failed to make their case. Why wouldn't that be enough to acquit?

You shouldn't have cut off the first part of my post, it was relevant to your question.

 

[Christo]

Christo's right, Zimmerman would have to take the stand, and it would come down to whether they believed his story or not.

,Why? I still don't get this. Again, I'm no atty like Christo is, but if you're defending Zimmerman why not place the police report into evidence, which claims that Zimmerman was bleeding, call an officer as a witness that would testify as to what Zimmerman told him, and then cross examine the hell out of anyone who attempts to make a different claim? Then in closing, state that the prosecution failed to make their case. Why wouldn't that be enough to acquit?

The police report is hearsay. A party cannot call a witness to testify about what the party said in an effort to prove the truth of the matter asserted--that is also hearsay.And no jury is going to acquit a defendant who's claiming self-defense if he's not willing to tell his version of the events.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

Proof of a struggle doesn't mean Martin was the aggressor.

What struggle? Did you see Zimmerman break his nose? He could have broken it a few minutes before seeing Martin.Anything is possible so we must weigh all options equally.

He was responding to my hypothetical.

Was he? How do you know that? Did he tell you that he was responding to your hypothetical?

 

[timschochet]

Proof of a struggle doesn't mean Martin was the aggressor.

What struggle? Did you see Zimmerman break his nose? He could have broken it a few minutes before seeing Martin.Anything is possible so we must weigh all options equally.

He was responding to my hypothetical.

Was he? How do you know that? Did he tell you that he was responding to your hypothetical?

I have a witness, "John" who is willing to testify that he did.

 

[timschochet]

Christo's right, Zimmerman would have to take the stand, and it would come down to whether they believed his story or not.

,Why? I still don't get this. Again, I'm no atty like Christo is, but if you're defending Zimmerman why not place the police report into evidence, which claims that Zimmerman was bleeding, call an officer as a witness that would testify as to what Zimmerman told him, and then cross examine the hell out of anyone who attempts to make a different claim? Then in closing, state that the prosecution failed to make their case. Why wouldn't that be enough to acquit?

The police report is hearsay. A party cannot call a witness to testify about what the party said in an effort to prove the truth of the matter asserted--that is also hearsay.And no jury is going to acquit a defendant who's claiming self-defense if he's not willing to tell his version of the events.

Well I did not know this. Just goes to show you why I am not an attorney.If this is true, then maybe there is a chance Zimmerman will be convicted after all. If the prosecution is allowed to cross examine and could blow holes in his story, the jurors might be willing to overlook reasonable doubt- especially if he's made out to be a liar.It also makes for great theater. One of the biggest letdowns in all of these high profile court cases (OJ for one) is that the accused almost never testifies. There's no "gotcha!" moments because the main actor is always missing.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

What i find funny is ive been saying since my first post, that zimmerman murdered treyvon martin and he didnt have to. Now that ive seen the arrest video im more convinced than ever that zimmerman has lied at every turn to save his ### from going to prison. If he WAS covered in blood and had a broken nose and the back of his head was as injured as he claimed, i would have said i was wrong . I would have said Treyvon was beating him and he shot trey in self defense. I still would say he inadvertanly caused it by following trey , but he shot trey in self defense. Why cant the defenders of zimmerman watch that video and say maybe zimmerman was lying and is full of crap. Its right there in color. Is it pride?

Maybe Zimmerman is lying and is full of crap.

Happy now?

Also, remember Zimmerman's story had to check out or they had probable cause. If your take is the conspiracy theory cover up by corrupt cops fine. If your take is totally inept cops, fine. I doubt either of those are the case, so regardless of how unscathed he looked after being cleaned up in the back of the squad car, I still think the story he delivered had to have enough support to keep him from being arrested.

I think we have a case of a perfect storm. Things went down a certain way that night and some people dropped the ball. Once the evidence proves that zimmermans story is a fabrication he will be charged and have his day in court. I also believe that certain people involved in the investigation will be held accountable by the dept. of justice. This is my opinion and you are welcome to disagree, which im sure you do. I could say that maybe zimmermans father, the retired florida judge , had something to do with this. All i know is the investigation wasnt done , by all accounts, the way it should have been done. Something smells really bad, and ive said that since day one , before all this other stuff went down.

For what?

you`ll find out soon enough.

 

[SeveredHorseHeads]

Proof of a struggle doesn't mean Martin was the aggressor.

What struggle? Did you see Zimmerman break his nose? He could have broken it a few minutes before seeing Martin.Anything is possible so we must weigh all options equally.

He was responding to my hypothetical.

Was he? How do you know that? Did he tell you that he was responding to your hypothetical?

I have a witness, "John" who is willing to testify that he did.

Oh, so you know he was "willing"? How do you know his testimony wasn't coerced under torture? Are you a psychologist now?

 

[timschochet]

Proof of a struggle doesn't mean Martin was the aggressor.

What struggle? Did you see Zimmerman break his nose? He could have broken it a few minutes before seeing Martin.Anything is possible so we must weigh all options equally.

He was responding to my hypothetical.

Was he? How do you know that? Did he tell you that he was responding to your hypothetical?

I have a witness, "John" who is willing to testify that he did.

Oh, so you know he was "willing"? How do you know his testimony wasn't coerced under torture? Are you a psychologist now?

What if he WAS coerced under torture? Does that mean he was lying? Can you prove that?

 

[cstu]

Zimmerman claimed he was punched one time then had his head slammed to the sidewalk several times. One punch doesn't necessarily damage a hand, nor does slamming someone's head into the ground. The funeral director said nothing important but he too is getting his 15 minutes.

I really disagree with this. At the very least Martin would have bruises on his hands.

No he wouldn't. Zimmerman's story is one punch then his head slammed to the ground. You're making stuff up. Lots of people punch someone in the nose without bruising their hand, Tim. Slamming someone's head on the ground doesn't bruise anything. You just shove the face down with your open hand. The funeral director has nothing.

Not to mention the funeral director is being paid by the victim's family and would stand to lose a lot of money in the community if he helped Zimmerman get off.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Proof of a struggle doesn't mean Martin was the aggressor.

What struggle? Did you see Zimmerman break his nose? He could have broken it a few minutes before seeing Martin.Anything is possible so we must weigh all options equally.

He was responding to my hypothetical.

Was he? How do you know that? Did he tell you that he was responding to your hypothetical?

I have a witness, "John" who is willing to testify that he did.

Oh, so you know he was "willing"? How do you know his testimony wasn't coerced under torture? Are you a psychologist now?

What if he WAS coerced under torture? Does that mean he was lying? Can you prove that?

Hey...this is a cheap way to get to a hundred pages man.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Zimmerman claimed he was punched one time then had his head slammed to the sidewalk several times. One punch doesn't necessarily damage a hand, nor does slamming someone's head into the ground. The funeral director said nothing important but he too is getting his 15 minutes.

I really disagree with this. At the very least Martin would have bruises on his hands.

No he wouldn't. Zimmerman's story is one punch then his head slammed to the ground. You're making stuff up. Lots of people punch someone in the nose without bruising their hand, Tim. Slamming someone's head on the ground doesn't bruise anything. You just shove the face down with your open hand. The funeral director has nothing.

Not to mention the funeral director is being paid by the victim's family and would stand to lose a lot of money in the community if he helped Zimmerman get off.

[christo]Link?[christo]

 

[Chaos Commish]

The 13 year old has videotaped a statement of what he witnessed without all the stuff his mom claimed. Just what he experienced. There's nothing new. Like the funeral director, he's got nothing.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Zimmerman's dad did an interview (will seek link) and provided some information. He claims his son's nose was in fact broken. He doesn't believe the girl friend's phone call ever happened and he thinks that will be proven. He said George walked all the way to the end of the side walk between the buildings to get out from behind the units and get an exact address for the police. At that point he turned back down the same sidewalk to go back to his truck. The altercation happened back down that sidewalk near the other end of the buildings.

This helps me with the time frame I've been struggling to understand, and it again suggests Trayvon didn't head straight home but also turned back or backtracked and met up with George on a route back to George's car. If this is true, it's pretty strong evidence that for some reason Martin forced the confrontation by actually following George. I expect that will get a reaction from some of you, but I'm confident this portion of the story will be verified. I feel that way because it was the only way I could account for the time given the phone call I listened to. It isn't the hardest thing to map out. If that's the case then the police know that Trayvon wasn't walking home and in fact was going back towards Zimmerman's car. I'm suggesting this is obvious enough to consider it one of the facts in the case preventing George from being arrested.

The father describes a very brief conversation different than the one the girlfriend claimed and Trayvon then attacked. Broke his nose. Mounted him. Slammed his head against the sidewalk. George struggled to get on the grass. Cried for help. It lasted over a minute, and George pulled his gun.

An article with direct quotes:

"After nearly a minute of being beaten, George was trying to get his head off the concrete, trying to move with Trayvon on him, in the grass. In doing so, his firearm was shown. Trayvon Martin said something to the effect of, 'You're going to die now,' or 'You're going to die tonight' or something to that effect," Robert Zimmerman said.

Robert Zimmerman said Martin continued to beat his son, and George Zimmerman at some point pulled out his gun and "did what he did."

 

[carverlee]

Zimmerman's dad did an interview (will seek link) and provided some information. He claims his son's nose was in fact broken. He doesn't believe the girl friend's phone call ever happened and he thinks that will be proven. He said George walked all the way to the end of the side walk between the buildings to get out from behind the units and get an exact address for the police. At that point he turned back down the same sidewalk to go back to his truck. The altercation happened back down that sidewalk near the other end of the buildings.

This helps me with the time frame I've been struggling to understand, and it again suggests Trayvon didn't head straight home but also turned back or backtracked and met up with George on a route back to George's car. If this is true, it's pretty strong evidence that for some reason Martin forced the confrontation by actually following George. I expect that will get a reaction from some of you, but I'm confident this portion of the story will be verified. I feel that way because it was the only way I could account for the time given the phone call I listened to. It isn't the hardest thing to map out. If that's the case then the police know that Trayvon wasn't walking home and in fact was going back towards Zimmerman's car. I'm suggesting this is obvious enough to consider it one of the facts in the case preventing George from being arrested.

The father describes a very brief conversation different than the one the girlfriend claimed and Trayvon then attacked. Broke his nose. Mounted him. Slammed his head against the sidewalk. George struggled to get on the grass. Cried for help. It lasted over a minute, and George pulled his gun.

An article with direct quotes:

"After nearly a minute of being beaten, George was trying to get his head off the concrete, trying to move with Trayvon on him, in the grass. In doing so, his firearm was shown. Trayvon Martin said something to the effect of, 'You're going to die now,' or 'You're going to die tonight' or something to that effect," Robert Zimmerman said.

Robert Zimmerman said Martin continued to beat his son, and George Zimmerman at some point pulled out his gun and "did what he did."

Evidence doesn't even matter in this case. They have no choice but to arrest and convict this guy or risk a reaction from the Black community greater than or equal to the Rodney King verdict. Black folks are on the ready to act a fool over this, regardless of what's proven or not.

 

[proninja]

Zimmerman's dad did an interview (will seek link) and provided some information. He claims his son's nose was in fact broken. He doesn't believe the girl friend's phone call ever happened and he thinks that will be proven. He said George walked all the way to the end of the side walk between the buildings to get out from behind the units and get an exact address for the police. At that point he turned back down the same sidewalk to go back to his truck. The altercation happened back down that sidewalk near the other end of the buildings.

This helps me with the time frame I've been struggling to understand, and it again suggests Trayvon didn't head straight home but also turned back or backtracked and met up with George on a route back to George's car. If this is true, it's pretty strong evidence that for some reason Martin forced the confrontation by actually following George. I expect that will get a reaction from some of you, but I'm confident this portion of the story will be verified. I feel that way because it was the only way I could account for the time given the phone call I listened to. It isn't the hardest thing to map out. If that's the case then the police know that Trayvon wasn't walking home and in fact was going back towards Zimmerman's car. I'm suggesting this is obvious enough to consider it one of the facts in the case preventing George from being arrested.

The father describes a very brief conversation different than the one the girlfriend claimed and Trayvon then attacked. Broke his nose. Mounted him. Slammed his head against the sidewalk. George struggled to get on the grass. Cried for help. It lasted over a minute, and George pulled his gun.

An article with direct quotes:

"After nearly a minute of being beaten, George was trying to get his head off the concrete, trying to move with Trayvon on him, in the grass. In doing so, his firearm was shown. Trayvon Martin said something to the effect of, 'You're going to die now,' or 'You're going to die tonight' or something to that effect," Robert Zimmerman said.

Robert Zimmerman said Martin continued to beat his son, and George Zimmerman at some point pulled out his gun and "did what he did."

I wish this would have happened under the jurisdiction of a competent police force

 

[jon_mx]

Let's make this simple: 1. Those of you who are inclined to think that Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter: if photos from the crime scene show up that show that Zimmerman is bloody as he has claimed, or if there is another means to prove this, would you agree that there is no way to convict Zimmerman of a crime, and therefore this issue should be laid to rest?2. Those of who are inclined to think that either Zimmerman is innocent of wrongdoing, or that there's no way to prove what happened one way or the other: if the funeral director's statement that Martin's body showed no sign of a physical struggle turns out to be provably true, would you agree that Zimmerman must therefore be lying about what happened and that he is, in fact, guilty of murder or manslaughter?It seems to me that these two points are decisive, and if you are not willing to change your mind as a result of one of them, then you're looking at this issue without reason or justice as your main concern.

I don't see why the funeral director's statement matters in any way. Martin was supposedly the one doing the the beating, and I don't that he is qualified to make such determination anyways.

Well, your response comes as no surprise to me. Anyone else?

It is no surprise because I am correct. In most debates, you rely on qualified experts. In this case, you rely on a funeral director as some kind of medical and forensic expert, and an investigator for legal opinion. Neither does anything for me, and the investigator needs to keep his pie hole closed. Furthermore Tim, you seem to be buying into a conspiracy theory in this case, when in most cases you mock them. You need to stop parrotting the crap on MSNBC and think for yourself.. I haven't watch or listened to any of the coverage. Mostly just read this thread, but your viewpoint seems very colored by the coverage you watch.

 

[squistion]

Let's make this simple:

1. Those of you who are inclined to think that Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter: if photos from the crime scene show up that show that Zimmerman is bloody as he has claimed, or if there is another means to prove this, would you agree that there is no way to convict Zimmerman of a crime, and therefore this issue should be laid to rest?

2. Those of who are inclined to think that either Zimmerman is innocent of wrongdoing, or that there's no way to prove what happened one way or the other: if the funeral director's statement that Martin's body showed no sign of a physical struggle turns out to be provably true, would you agree that Zimmerman must therefore be lying about what happened and that he is, in fact, guilty of murder or manslaughter?

It seems to me that these two points are decisive, and if you are not willing to change your mind as a result of one of them, then you're looking at this issue without reason or justice as your main concern.

I don't see why the funeral director's statement matters in any way. Martin was supposedly the one doing the the beating, and I don't that he is qualified to make such determination anyways.

Well, your response comes as no surprise to me. Anyone else?

It is no surprise because I am correct. In most debates, you rely on qualified experts. In this case, you rely on a funeral director as some kind of medical and forensic expert, and an investigator for legal opinion. Neither does anything for me, and the investigator needs to keep his pie hole closed. Furthermore Tim, you seem to be buying into a conspiracy theory in this case, when in most cases you mock them. You need to stop parrotting the crap on MSNBC and think for yourself.. I haven't watch or listened to any of the coverage. Mostly just read this thread, but your viewpoint seems very colored by the coverage you watch.

Well, that is pretty obvious. And Tim is hardly a liberal who parrots MSNBC - did you miss the thread in the last couple days where he said he would never vote for Obama? Yes, Timmy definitely takes his marching orders from Rachel Maddow .

 

[jon_mx]

Let's make this simple:

1. Those of you who are inclined to think that Zimmerman is guilty of murder or manslaughter: if photos from the crime scene show up that show that Zimmerman is bloody as he has claimed, or if there is another means to prove this, would you agree that there is no way to convict Zimmerman of a crime, and therefore this issue should be laid to rest?

2. Those of who are inclined to think that either Zimmerman is innocent of wrongdoing, or that there's no way to prove what happened one way or the other: if the funeral director's statement that Martin's body showed no sign of a physical struggle turns out to be provably true, would you agree that Zimmerman must therefore be lying about what happened and that he is, in fact, guilty of murder or manslaughter?

It seems to me that these two points are decisive, and if you are not willing to change your mind as a result of one of them, then you're looking at this issue without reason or justice as your main concern.

I don't see why the funeral director's statement matters in any way. Martin was supposedly the one doing the the beating, and I don't that he is qualified to make such determination anyways.

Well, your response comes as no surprise to me. Anyone else?

It is no surprise because I am correct. In most debates, you rely on qualified experts. In this case, you rely on a funeral director as some kind of medical and forensic expert, and an investigator for legal opinion. Neither does anything for me, and the investigator needs to keep his pie hole closed. Furthermore Tim, you seem to be buying into a conspiracy theory in this case, when in most cases you mock them. You need to stop parrotting the crap on MSNBC and think for yourself.. I haven't watch or listened to any of the coverage. Mostly just read this thread, but your viewpoint seems very colored by the coverage you watch.

Well, that is pretty obvious. And Tim is hardly a liberal who parrots MSNBC - did you miss the thread in the last couple days where he said he would never vote for Obama? Yes, Timmy definitely takes his marching orders from Rachel Maddow .

On social issues, Tim is as liberal as they come and he has absolute respect for Maddows.. Tim is moderately conservative on fiscal issues, which is why he has turned against Obama. HTH

 

[Monkeyface Prickleback]

Quantity over quality.

 

[squistion]

Quantity over quality.

Christo over quality.

 

[jon_mx]

You may disagree with Christo's devils advocate defense attorney spin, but he definitely adds to the debate.