What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (2 Viewers)

That's your addition to this thread?
His addition is to keep posting Daily Caller links that imply this kid deserved to be killed because he had acted like a "thug".
You see the cop who got suspended in Mississippi or thereabouts for tweeting that Martin deserved it?
Yeah...an idiot who deserved suspension. This kid was probably a punk...but he didn't deserve to die. A lot of punk thugs his age turn out OK in the long run.
He didn't even deserve to be confronted.
Maybe he confronted Zimmerman. I think the evidence supports that.
What evidence besides Zimmerman's story supports that?
 
That's your addition to this thread?
His addition is to keep posting Daily Caller links that imply this kid deserved to be killed because he had acted like a "thug".
You see the cop who got suspended in Mississippi or thereabouts for tweeting that Martin deserved it?
Yeah...an idiot who deserved suspension. This kid was probably a punk...but he didn't deserve to die. A lot of punk thugs his age turn out OK in the long run.
He didn't even deserve to be confronted.
Maybe he confronted Zimmerman. I think the evidence supports that.
BS.Zimmerman hunted Trayvon down.

This confrontation should have never happened.
Sorry, you're wrong.
 
That's your addition to this thread?
His addition is to keep posting Daily Caller links that imply this kid deserved to be killed because he had acted like a "thug".
You see the cop who got suspended in Mississippi or thereabouts for tweeting that Martin deserved it?
Yeah...an idiot who deserved suspension. This kid was probably a punk...but he didn't deserve to die. A lot of punk thugs his age turn out OK in the long run.
He didn't even deserve to be confronted.
Maybe he confronted Zimmerman. I think the evidence supports that.
BS.Zimmerman hunted Trayvon down.

This confrontation should have never happened.
Sorry, you're wrong.
I am sure that Zimmerman didn't heed any of the best police advice or his own affiliations rules that he was given.
 
That's your addition to this thread?
His addition is to keep posting Daily Caller links that imply this kid deserved to be killed because he had acted like a "thug".
You see the cop who got suspended in Mississippi or thereabouts for tweeting that Martin deserved it?
Yeah...an idiot who deserved suspension. This kid was probably a punk...but he didn't deserve to die. A lot of punk thugs his age turn out OK in the long run.
He didn't even deserve to be confronted.
Maybe he confronted Zimmerman. I think the evidence supports that.
What evidence besides Zimmerman's story supports that?
I've tried to explain this unsuccessfully when I broke down the 4 minute Zimmerman phone call with the lay of the land and the location of the body. I suspect it's the reason they legally cannot arrest George. I have an old friend who is a detective in charge of his entire department and he concluded the same thing before I ever spoke to him. I'm a little busy this morning, but I will try to lay it out again today, when I get the chance.
 
BS.Zimmerman hunted Trayvon down.
Here's a perfect example of a poster who drew his conclusions early, set his assumptions, and won't even remotely consider any alternative explanations, even when reasonable conjecture and evidance exists to support a differant hypothesis.
 
That's your addition to this thread?
His addition is to keep posting Daily Caller links that imply this kid deserved to be killed because he had acted like a "thug".
You see the cop who got suspended in Mississippi or thereabouts for tweeting that Martin deserved it?
Yeah...an idiot who deserved suspension. This kid was probably a punk...but he didn't deserve to die. A lot of punk thugs his age turn out OK in the long run.
He didn't even deserve to be confronted.
Maybe he confronted Zimmerman. I think the evidence supports that.
BS.Zimmerman hunted Trayvon down.

This confrontation should have never happened.
Sorry, you're wrong.
I am sure that Zimmerman didn't heed any of the best police advice or his own affiliations rules that he was given.
True. Based on that your comment is true. But that isn't the legal issue of who confronted who and who initiated violence. Zimmerman acted foolishly, but that isn't illegal.

 
BS.Zimmerman hunted Trayvon down.
Here's a perfect example of a poster who drew his conclusions early, set his assumptions, and won't even remotely consider any alternative explanations, even when reasonable conjecture and evidance exists to support a differant hypothesis.
Yeah when he exited the car, against his own rules set... then chased the other guy, against the police offers advice... all the while carrying a gun, which was against his own affiliations rule set... I consider he was in hunt mode. I also consider any confrontation happening as a result of his causing it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's your addition to this thread?
His addition is to keep posting Daily Caller links that imply this kid deserved to be killed because he had acted like a "thug".
You see the cop who got suspended in Mississippi or thereabouts for tweeting that Martin deserved it?
Yeah...an idiot who deserved suspension. This kid was probably a punk...but he didn't deserve to die. A lot of punk thugs his age turn out OK in the long run.
He didn't even deserve to be confronted.
Maybe he confronted Zimmerman. I think the evidence supports that.
What evidence besides Zimmerman's story supports that?
I've tried to explain this unsuccessfully when I broke down the 4 minute Zimmerman phone call with the lay of the land and the location of the body. I suspect it's the reason they legally cannot arrest George. I have an old friend who is a detective in charge of his entire department and he concluded the same thing before I ever spoke to him. I'm a little busy this morning, but I will try to lay it out again today, when I get the chance.
The latest information that just came out (the police department recommended arrest, but the atty general's office overruled them) certainly seems to contradict your suspicion here.
 
What evidence was there that Martin had a predisposition towards violence?
The twitter accounts of him swinging on a bus driver. Although not proven, it's pretty easy to see this when couple with the other stuff such as the women's jewelry (or do you really buy the story his friend gave him that stuff?)Again...it's my impression...some evidance but not proof. BUt we can say the same on Zimmerman's side. The evidance is stronger, but so is the evidance that his heart was in the right place.

A wash.
A Wash? What the heck does that mean? The kid is dead and the shooter may get off. I hardly call that a wash
 
That's your addition to this thread?
His addition is to keep posting Daily Caller links that imply this kid deserved to be killed because he had acted like a "thug".
You see the cop who got suspended in Mississippi or thereabouts for tweeting that Martin deserved it?
Yeah...an idiot who deserved suspension. This kid was probably a punk...but he didn't deserve to die. A lot of punk thugs his age turn out OK in the long run.
He didn't even deserve to be confronted.
Maybe he confronted Zimmerman. I think the evidence supports that.
What evidence besides Zimmerman's story supports that?
I've tried to explain this unsuccessfully when I broke down the 4 minute Zimmerman phone call with the lay of the land and the location of the body. I suspect it's the reason they legally cannot arrest George. I have an old friend who is a detective in charge of his entire department and he concluded the same thing before I ever spoke to him. I'm a little busy this morning, but I will try to lay it out again today, when I get the chance.
The latest information that just came out (the police department recommended arrest, but the atty general's office overruled them) certainly seems to contradict your suspicion here.
I hope there isn't a relationship between the DA and Zimmerman's father, who was a local judge.
 
BS.Zimmerman hunted Trayvon down.
Here's a perfect example of a poster who drew his conclusions early, set his assumptions, and won't even remotely consider any alternative explanations, even when reasonable conjecture and evidance exists to support a differant hypothesis.
Because it's still the only conclusion that makes logical sense. Zimmerman is the one following Martin. Zimmerman is the one who called in to the authorities, and who complained on the phone that "they always get away." And yet given this, we're supposed to believe that Martin's the one who chased Zimmerman down from behind? Sure it's possible, but it's hardly plausible. And I just don't understand those of you who believe this storyline actually happened. Sorry, but it just seems so absurd to me. BigSteelThrill writes with conviction because his conclusion is the only one which makes reasonable sense based on what we know.
 
That's your addition to this thread?
His addition is to keep posting Daily Caller links that imply this kid deserved to be killed because he had acted like a "thug".
You see the cop who got suspended in Mississippi or thereabouts for tweeting that Martin deserved it?
Yeah...an idiot who deserved suspension. This kid was probably a punk...but he didn't deserve to die. A lot of punk thugs his age turn out OK in the long run.
He didn't even deserve to be confronted.
Maybe he confronted Zimmerman. I think the evidence supports that.
What evidence besides Zimmerman's story supports that?
I've tried to explain this unsuccessfully when I broke down the 4 minute Zimmerman phone call with the lay of the land and the location of the body. I suspect it's the reason they legally cannot arrest George. I have an old friend who is a detective in charge of his entire department and he concluded the same thing before I ever spoke to him. I'm a little busy this morning, but I will try to lay it out again today, when I get the chance.
You could just link to what you posted before. I have no idea where you are getting these precise locations from.
 
His addition is to keep posting Daily Caller links that imply this kid deserved to be killed because he had acted like a "thug".
You see the cop who got suspended in Mississippi or thereabouts for tweeting that Martin deserved it?
Yeah...an idiot who deserved suspension. This kid was probably a punk...but he didn't deserve to die. A lot of punk thugs his age turn out OK in the long run.
He didn't even deserve to be confronted.
Maybe he confronted Zimmerman. I think the evidence supports that.
What evidence besides Zimmerman's story supports that?
I've tried to explain this unsuccessfully when I broke down the 4 minute Zimmerman phone call with the lay of the land and the location of the body. I suspect it's the reason they legally cannot arrest George. I have an old friend who is a detective in charge of his entire department and he concluded the same thing before I ever spoke to him. I'm a little busy this morning, but I will try to lay it out again today, when I get the chance.
The latest information that just came out (the police department recommended arrest, but the atty general's office overruled them) certainly seems to contradict your suspicion here.
I hope there isn't a relationship between the DA and Zimmerman's father, who was a local judge.
I'd imagine it was more a determination that making an arrest that ends up not sticking would be a worse outcome than not making an arrest at all. If Zimmerman is arrested and released without charges, this will be a mess. If Zimmerman is arrested, goes to trial and is acquitted, this will be an even bigger mess. I'd hope that whoever made that call was taking those things into consideration and decided to make sure that the arrest could stick and result in a conviction before they made it.

 
What evidence was there that Martin had a predisposition towards violence?
The twitter accounts of him swinging on a bus driver. Although not proven, it's pretty easy to see this when couple with the other stuff such as the women's jewelry (or do you really buy the story his friend gave him that stuff?)Again...it's my impression...some evidance but not proof. BUt we can say the same on Zimmerman's side. The evidance is stronger, but so is the evidance that his heart was in the right place.

A wash.
A Wash? What the heck does that mean? The kid is dead and the shooter may get off. I hardly call that a wash
Well, the shooter's life is already effectively over. The male version of Casey Anthony.
 
His addition is to keep posting Daily Caller links that imply this kid deserved to be killed because he had acted like a "thug".
You see the cop who got suspended in Mississippi or thereabouts for tweeting that Martin deserved it?
Yeah...an idiot who deserved suspension. This kid was probably a punk...but he didn't deserve to die. A lot of punk thugs his age turn out OK in the long run.
He didn't even deserve to be confronted.
Maybe he confronted Zimmerman. I think the evidence supports that.
What evidence besides Zimmerman's story supports that?
I've tried to explain this unsuccessfully when I broke down the 4 minute Zimmerman phone call with the lay of the land and the location of the body. I suspect it's the reason they legally cannot arrest George. I have an old friend who is a detective in charge of his entire department and he concluded the same thing before I ever spoke to him. I'm a little busy this morning, but I will try to lay it out again today, when I get the chance.
The latest information that just came out (the police department recommended arrest, but the atty general's office overruled them) certainly seems to contradict your suspicion here.
I hope there isn't a relationship between the DA and Zimmerman's father, who was a local judge.
I'd imagine it was more a determination that making an arrest that ends up not sticking would be a worse outcome than not making an arrest at all. If Zimmerman is arrested and released without charges, this will be a mess. If Zimmerman is arrested, goes to trial and is acquitted, this will be an even bigger mess. I'd hope that whoever made that call was taking those things into consideration and decided to make sure that the arrest could stick and result in a conviction before they made it.

 
That's your addition to this thread?
His addition is to keep posting Daily Caller links that imply this kid deserved to be killed because he had acted like a "thug".
You see the cop who got suspended in Mississippi or thereabouts for tweeting that Martin deserved it?
Yeah...an idiot who deserved suspension. This kid was probably a punk...but he didn't deserve to die. A lot of punk thugs his age turn out OK in the long run.
He didn't even deserve to be confronted.
Maybe he confronted Zimmerman. I think the evidence supports that.
What evidence besides Zimmerman's story supports that?
I've tried to explain this unsuccessfully when I broke down the 4 minute Zimmerman phone call with the lay of the land and the location of the body. I suspect it's the reason they legally cannot arrest George. I have an old friend who is a detective in charge of his entire department and he concluded the same thing before I ever spoke to him. I'm a little busy this morning, but I will try to lay it out again today, when I get the chance.
You could just link to what you posted before. I have no idea where you are getting these precise locations from.
I'll do a better job later. A lot better support for what I wrote on page 60 or so has come out this week, so rather than read that old post, wait for the new one to avoid unnecessary debate.
 
True. Based on that your comment is true. But that isn't the legal issue of who confronted who and who initiated violence. Zimmerman acted foolishly, but that isn't illegal.
Goes to his history of bad judgment.
I'll stipulate all of that and still defend Zimmerman if Trayvon tracked him back towards his truck and kicked his ###.
Other than the killer's statement, there is no proof of that.
 
BST is easily winning the battle for the most ridiculously over the top postings. :thumbup:
Christo took that award long ago. 'Police would not necessarily have taken photos of Zimmerman's injuries' and the classic, 'Trayvon also has a history of violence due to the fact that he plays in a violent sport - football.' Paraphrased of course.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BST is easily winning the battle for the most ridiculously over the top postings. :thumbup:
I know you love me and all jon...but what is over the top?
Yeah when he exited the car, against his own rules set... then chased the other guy, against the police offers advice... all the while carrying a gun, which was against his own affiliations rule set...
Those are all undeniable.is it because given all those undeniable facts I consider...
I consider he was in hunt mode. I also consider any confrontation happening as a result of his causing it.
One of those is "over the top"? :mellow:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
True. Based on that your comment is true. But that isn't the legal issue of who confronted who and who initiated violence. Zimmerman acted foolishly, but that isn't illegal.
Goes to his history of bad judgment.
I'll stipulate all of that and still defend Zimmerman if Trayvon tracked him back towards his truck and kicked his ###.
Other than the killer's statement, there is no proof of that.
I disagree, but I'm too busy to explain atm. Play nice, everyone. :bye:
 
True. Based on that your comment is true. But that isn't the legal issue of who confronted who and who initiated violence. Zimmerman acted foolishly, but that isn't illegal.
Sure he can, he can be criminally negligent. And that's before any violence ever occurs.
FWIW, I think Zimmerman is criminaly negligent...but I'm able to consider all the possibilites. It is very plausible that he never intended to "confront" Martin, had really "lost him" as has been reported, and was really heading back to his truck when Martin confronted him. Zimmerman would still be negligent, and possibly still be guilty of manslaughter (not sure about this), but he would NOT be guilty of Murder. What if Martin did start the physical altercation, did see the gun, and did tell Zimmerman "you're gonna die", and did attempt to take it from Zimmerman...leading Zimmerman to then fear for his life, fight for the gun, and shoot Trayvon. This scenario I've laid out doesn't seem likely to me...but it's certainly very plausible. It's every bit as plausible as your scenario where Zimm "hunts the kid down and shoots him in cold blood".You don't seem to be willing to consider alternate theories and ideas, even when those ideas are backed by real evidance (not necessarily proof, but evidance) and concrete reason. Your theories and conjectures have no more proof than the one I laid out above. Throw out the presumption of guilt and review all the facts carefully. At this point, I don't think there's definitive proof of innocence or guilt. (Although the police may have some).
 
I'll do a better job later. A lot better support for what I wrote on page 60 or so has come out this week, so rather than read that old post, wait for the new one to avoid unnecessary debate.
Hopefully I'll catch that one because I don't know how you can establish anything but the location of death.
 
True. Based on that your comment is true. But that isn't the legal issue of who confronted who and who initiated violence. Zimmerman acted foolishly, but that isn't illegal.
Goes to his history of bad judgment.
I'll stipulate all of that and still defend Zimmerman if Trayvon tracked him back towards his truck and kicked his ###.
Other than the killer's statement, there is no proof of that.
and the pyhsical proof (video) doesnt back up that ### beating he supposably took.
 
True. Based on that your comment is true. But that isn't the legal issue of who confronted who and who initiated violence. Zimmerman acted foolishly, but that isn't illegal.
Goes to his history of bad judgment.
I'll stipulate all of that and still defend Zimmerman if Trayvon tracked him back towards his truck and kicked his ###.
Other than the killer's statement, there is no proof of that.
and the pyhsical proof (video) doesnt back up that ### beating he supposably took.
There's nothing in that video. If that officer had seen something on the back of his head, he would have photographed it as evidence. He saw nothing cause there was nothing.
 
BS.Zimmerman hunted Trayvon down.
Here's a perfect example of a poster who drew his conclusions early, set his assumptions, and won't even remotely consider any alternative explanations, even when reasonable conjecture and evidance exists to support a differant hypothesis.
Because it's still the only conclusion that makes logical sense. Zimmerman is the one following Martin. Zimmerman is the one who called in to the authorities, and who complained on the phone that "they always get away." And yet given this, we're supposed to believe that Martin's the one who chased Zimmerman down from behind? Sure it's possible, but it's hardly plausible. And I just don't understand those of you who believe this storyline actually happened. Sorry, but it just seems so absurd to me. BigSteelThrill writes with conviction because his conclusion is the only one which makes reasonable sense based on what we know.
If someone is hunting someone down with the intent to kill them then they certainly aren't going to talk to the police while they do it (or at least they'd do it in a smarter way). My belief is that Zimmerman thought he could talk to Trayvon without it becoming a fight but when it did it either got so out of control that he freaked or he was so angry about being attacked that he shot Trayvon. We haven't seen any evidence that proves what happened in the key final moments.
 
True. Based on that your comment is true. But that isn't the legal issue of who confronted who and who initiated violence. Zimmerman acted foolishly, but that isn't illegal.
Goes to his history of bad judgment.
I'll stipulate all of that and still defend Zimmerman if Trayvon tracked him back towards his truck and kicked his ###.
Other than the killer's statement, there is no proof of that.
and the pyhsical proof (video) doesnt back up that ### beating he supposably took.
There's nothing in that video. If that officer had seen something on the back of his head, he would have photographed it as evidence. He saw nothing cause there was nothing.
exactly...im in your camp Favreco
 
If we can just put aside the legalese for a moment here and the "you can't prove that."- of course we can't prove it. But I think we can make some reasonable assumptions anyhow. And my reasonable assumption is that Zimmerman's story, in which he was viciously attacked from behind, punched in the face, slammed into the sidewalk, and threatened with death, is utter garbage. What stuns me is that anyone could take this story with more than a grain of salt. What do we have that would corroborate it?

1. There is a police report (which may actually be a second police report) which says that Zimmerman was bleeding and received treatment from an EMT. Yet there are no photos of this. Zimmerman showed no signs of bleeding or blood or grass stains in the video. And he did not request hospital treatment for his injuries (supposedly a broken nose.) If this truly happened , then at some point a doctor will have treated Zimmerman for that nose and that doctor will testify (even that won't be conclusive for some, but it would go a long way toward convincing me.)

2. There is a mysterious witness "John" whose testimony MAY corroborate Zimmerman on this. But even if John really exists, and his testimony is accurate, it's still not very clear what exactly happened.

3. There is the 13 year old kid who MAY have seen red on the ground. But if it's too dark for him to distinguish between an African-American and a Latino, how could he possibly distinguish the colors of clothing? Doesn't pass the smell test.

4. There is Chaos Commish's assertion that, based on Zimmerman's father's ttestimony and the location of the body, we can make the reasonable assumption that it was Zimmerman who was attacked. I'm still a little confused by this, but the lead investigator (and according to new reports, most or all of the police department) seems to contradict this idea.

So there you have it. That is all of the "evidence" which supposedly corroborates Zimmerman's version of events. At best, very very shaky. And yet some of you want to accept it like gospel, and for the life of me I just don't get it.

 
BS.Zimmerman hunted Trayvon down.
Here's a perfect example of a poster who drew his conclusions early, set his assumptions, and won't even remotely consider any alternative explanations, even when reasonable conjecture and evidance exists to support a differant hypothesis.
Because it's still the only conclusion that makes logical sense. Zimmerman is the one following Martin. Zimmerman is the one who called in to the authorities, and who complained on the phone that "they always get away." And yet given this, we're supposed to believe that Martin's the one who chased Zimmerman down from behind? Sure it's possible, but it's hardly plausible. And I just don't understand those of you who believe this storyline actually happened. Sorry, but it just seems so absurd to me. BigSteelThrill writes with conviction because his conclusion is the only one which makes reasonable sense based on what we know.
If someone is hunting someone down with the intent to kill them then they certainly aren't going to talk to the police while they do it (or at least they'd do it in a smarter way). My belief is that Zimmerman thought he could talk to Trayvon without it becoming a fight but when it did it either got so out of control that he freaked or he was so angry about being attacked that he shot Trayvon. We haven't seen any evidence that proves what happened in the key final moments.
I never said that Zimmerman was hunting down Martin with the intent to kill. I said that he was the chaser, and Martin was the chasee. That remains, IMO, the only reasonable conclusion.
 
True. Based on that your comment is true. But that isn't the legal issue of who confronted who and who initiated violence. Zimmerman acted foolishly, but that isn't illegal.
Goes to his history of bad judgment.
I'll stipulate all of that and still defend Zimmerman if Trayvon tracked him back towards his truck and kicked his ###.
Other than the killer's statement, there is no proof of that.
and the pyhsical proof (video) doesnt back up that ### beating he supposably took.
There's nothing in that video. If that officer had seen something on the back of his head, he would have photographed it as evidence. He saw nothing cause there was nothing.
exactly...im in your camp Favreco
I know. I was just pointing out to the crowd that their ain't jack #### in that video to back a punch let alone an ### beating.
 
Could have made a fortune selling "Jump to Conclusions" mats in this thread..

My gut feeling? Guilty of involuntary* manslaughter, but since none of us were there or know what the police are holding as evidence, it is all :hophead:

* I am willing to change that to voluntary if the evidence shows it.. (you know, that innocent until proven guilty thing)

see you at page 120 :thumbup:

 
BST, The over the top part is when you boldly state that Zimmerman hunted Treyvan down. You are making a lot of assumptions such as all Treyvan did was walk home. You completely dismiss every part of Zimmerman's story. This is not even close to as one-sided as you wish to spin it to match your ridiculously slanted world view.

 
True. Based on that your comment is true. But that isn't the legal issue of who confronted who and who initiated violence. Zimmerman acted foolishly, but that isn't illegal.
Sure he can, he can be criminally negligent. And that's before any violence ever occurs.
FWIW, I think Zimmerman is criminaly negligent...but I'm able to consider all the possibilites.
Cool.I am also (in regards to the arrest video) willing to consider that the video and clothes argument (against Zimm) is very incomplete.

On the interview with NBC/Lauer it is stated that the video is 4 hours after the altercation.

You can also seethe police officer inspecting the back of Zimmermans head, as if he notices something.

And finally Lauer states that the officer inspects tehback of his head again as they the exit the door.

 
'Carolina Hustler said:
'timschochet said:
Sorry Christo, I hadn't realized you saw it yourself.

OK, so with regard to the red shirt, we have two possibilities:

1. The kid saw a red shirt, told the police and reporters he saw a red shirt, and has now been pressured by his mom and others to change his story.

2. The kid wasn't sure what he saw because it was too dark, but was convinced by the police that he saw a red shirt, and, once having agreed to this, told the reporters the same. But now he realizes that the police manipulated him and he's back to his original stance, that he couldn't tell one way or another.

Who the heck knows? But I'm skeptical of #1, only for the reason that it was too dark to see.
Not sure how you could know this..It's not hard to see the distinction between red and grey, and we don't know what the street lights are like around there, and it was only 7:15ish..
It was before daylight savings time so it would be past dusk. As for light, even with sodium vapor lights (the crappy orange type) it'd be near impossible to distinguish between red and gray because there's very little red in the light given by sodiums. If the lights were LED, mercury vapor or moonlight, there's zero red in it and red clothing would appear colorless, like grey.
 
BS.Zimmerman hunted Trayvon down.
Here's a perfect example of a poster who drew his conclusions early, set his assumptions, and won't even remotely consider any alternative explanations, even when reasonable conjecture and evidance exists to support a differant hypothesis.
Because it's still the only conclusion that makes logical sense. Zimmerman is the one following Martin. Zimmerman is the one who called in to the authorities, and who complained on the phone that "they always get away." And yet given this, we're supposed to believe that Martin's the one who chased Zimmerman down from behind? Sure it's possible, but it's hardly plausible. And I just don't understand those of you who believe this storyline actually happened. Sorry, but it just seems so absurd to me. BigSteelThrill writes with conviction because his conclusion is the only one which makes reasonable sense based on what we know.
If someone is hunting someone down with the intent to kill them then they certainly aren't going to talk to the police while they do it (or at least they'd do it in a smarter way). My belief is that Zimmerman thought he could talk to Trayvon without it becoming a fight but when it did it either got so out of control that he freaked or he was so angry about being attacked that he shot Trayvon. We haven't seen any evidence that proves what happened in the key final moments.
I never said that Zimmerman was hunting down Martin with the intent to kill. I said that he was the chaser, and Martin was the chasee. That remains, IMO, the only reasonable conclusion.
Zimmerman-Bono is not getting off scott free. His life is now a living hell. Worst case, he will be sued in civil court and lose. There is no best case for this guy. Cop wannabe ####ed up bad & life now sucks for him.
 
'Carolina Hustler said:
'timschochet said:
Sorry Christo, I hadn't realized you saw it yourself.

OK, so with regard to the red shirt, we have two possibilities:

1. The kid saw a red shirt, told the police and reporters he saw a red shirt, and has now been pressured by his mom and others to change his story.

2. The kid wasn't sure what he saw because it was too dark, but was convinced by the police that he saw a red shirt, and, once having agreed to this, told the reporters the same. But now he realizes that the police manipulated him and he's back to his original stance, that he couldn't tell one way or another.

Who the heck knows? But I'm skeptical of #1, only for the reason that it was too dark to see.
Not sure how you could know this..It's not hard to see the distinction between red and grey, and we don't know what the street lights are like around there, and it was only 7:15ish..
It was before daylight savings time so it would be past dusk. As for light, even with sodium vapor lights (the crappy orange type) it'd be near impossible to distinguish between red and gray because there's very little red in the light given by sodiums. If the lights were LED, mercury vapor or moonlight, there's zero red in it and red clothing would appear colorless, like grey.
If it was light enough to see, he would have been able to tell if it was a black dude or a Latino dude on the ground. If he can't tell that, how the hell can he tell what color jacket the guy was wearing?
 
True. Based on that your comment is true. But that isn't the legal issue of who confronted who and who initiated violence. Zimmerman acted foolishly, but that isn't illegal.
Sure he can, he can be criminally negligent. And that's before any violence ever occurs.
FWIW, I think Zimmerman is criminaly negligent...but I'm able to consider all the possibilites.
Cool.I am also (in regards to the arrest video) willing to consider that the video and clothes argument (against Zimm) is very incomplete.

On the interview with NBC/Lauer it is stated that the video is 4 hours after the altercation.

You can also seethe police officer inspecting the back of Zimmermans head, as if he notices something.

And finally Lauer states that the officer inspects tehback of his head again as they the exit the door.
Is there audio with this? Maybe Zimmerman said, 'he slammed my back of my head into the concrete'. Officer looks, sees nothing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BST, The over the top part is when you boldly state that Zimmerman hunted Treyvan down. You are making a lot of assumptions such as all Treyvan did was walk home. You completely dismiss every part of Zimmerman's story. This is not even close to as one-sided as you wish to spin it to match your ridiculously slanted world view.
But Zimm had already gone against every bit of police officer advice and the rule-sets by this point.He is making woefully bad decision after bad decision. And he is INTENT on tracking this guy ... which is why I say hunting/stalking.As I stated earlier in the thread -- If Im Trayvon, I am in fear for my life at the point the altercation occurred. One person is being reasonable and one is not.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If we can just put aside the legalese for a moment here and the "you can't prove that."- of course we can't prove it. But I think we can make some reasonable assumptions anyhow. And my reasonable assumption is that Zimmerman's story, in which he was viciously attacked from behind, punched in the face, slammed into the sidewalk, and threatened with death, is utter garbage. What stuns me is that anyone could take this story with more than a grain of salt. What do we have that would corroborate it?1. There is a police report (which may actually be a second police report) which says that Zimmerman was bleeding and received treatment from an EMT. Yet there are no photos of this. Zimmerman showed no signs of bleeding or blood or grass stains in the video. And he did not request hospital treatment for his injuries (supposedly a broken nose.) If this truly happened , then at some point a doctor will have treated Zimmerman for that nose and that doctor will testify (even that won't be conclusive for some, but it would go a long way toward convincing me.)2. There is a mysterious witness "John" whose testimony MAY corroborate Zimmerman on this. But even if John really exists, and his testimony is accurate, it's still not very clear what exactly happened. 3. There is the 13 year old kid who MAY have seen red on the ground. But if it's too dark for him to distinguish between an African-American and a Latino, how could he possibly distinguish the colors of clothing? Doesn't pass the smell test. 4. There is Chaos Commish's assertion that, based on Zimmerman's father's ttestimony and the location of the body, we can make the reasonable assumption that it was Zimmerman who was attacked. I'm still a little confused by this, but the lead investigator (and according to new reports, most or all of the police department) seems to contradict this idea.So there you have it. That is all of the "evidence" which supposedly corroborates Zimmerman's version of events. At best, very very shaky. And yet some of you want to accept it like gospel, and for the life of me I just don't get it.
Nobody is taking it for gospel. It's shaky, but the burder of proof is generally on the prosecution. Right now, the prosecutions "proof" is every bit as shaky.Again, our system of justice asks us to presume innocence, and prove guilt. We can all agree Zimmerman's an idiot who shuld have never been trailing anybody on foot with a loaded gun. In my mind, that seems enough for some sort of criminal negligence charge, but it's hardly murder, and probably not manslaughter either. How the physical altercation started is key to those charges...and there's simply no good proof one way or the other on that.
 
True. Based on that your comment is true. But that isn't the legal issue of who confronted who and who initiated violence. Zimmerman acted foolishly, but that isn't illegal.
Sure he can, he can be criminally negligent. And that's before any violence ever occurs.
FWIW, I think Zimmerman is criminaly negligent...but I'm able to consider all the possibilites.
Cool.I am also (in regards to the arrest video) willing to consider that the video and clothes argument (against Zimm) is very incomplete.

On the interview with NBC/Lauer it is stated that the video is 4 hours after the altercation.

You can also seethe police officer inspecting the back of Zimmermans head, as if he notices something.

And finally Lauer states that the officer inspects tehback of his head again as they the exit the door.
Is there audio with this? Maybe Zimmerman said, 'he slammed my back of my head into the concrete'. Officer looks, sees nothing.
No there isn't.But it does lend much ambiguity to the arrest video.

 
It was raining that night. I doubt there was any dry grass for him to be laying or rolling on. I didn't see any sign of mud, dirt, even a wet spot, on his jacket or any of his clothes. strange....
Was it? I was not aware of that. Link?
pretty sure I remember reading that Trayvon had his hoody up because it was raining. I also recall from someone that he may have stopped walking home and one point and take refuge under an awning because it was raining so hard. who knows at this point but that is what we were told early on.
 
I never said that Zimmerman was hunting down Martin with the intent to kill. I said that he was the chaser, and Martin was the chasee. That remains, IMO, the only reasonable conclusion.
It's reasonable to conclude it started this way, but there's good reason (the 911 tapes, "I lost him", etc.) to think the roles may have reversed. Much like you can't shoot a robber who's already fleeing....you can't leave the aggressor labbel on Zimmerman if he was no longer chasing.
 
If we can just put aside the legalese for a moment here and the "you can't prove that."- of course we can't prove it. But I think we can make some reasonable assumptions anyhow. And my reasonable assumption is that Zimmerman's story, in which he was viciously attacked from behind, punched in the face, slammed into the sidewalk, and threatened with death, is utter garbage. What stuns me is that anyone could take this story with more than a grain of salt. What do we have that would corroborate it?1. There is a police report (which may actually be a second police report) which says that Zimmerman was bleeding and received treatment from an EMT. Yet there are no photos of this. Zimmerman showed no signs of bleeding or blood or grass stains in the video. And he did not request hospital treatment for his injuries (supposedly a broken nose.) If this truly happened , then at some point a doctor will have treated Zimmerman for that nose and that doctor will testify (even that won't be conclusive for some, but it would go a long way toward convincing me.)2. There is a mysterious witness "John" whose testimony MAY corroborate Zimmerman on this. But even if John really exists, and his testimony is accurate, it's still not very clear what exactly happened. 3. There is the 13 year old kid who MAY have seen red on the ground. But if it's too dark for him to distinguish between an African-American and a Latino, how could he possibly distinguish the colors of clothing? Doesn't pass the smell test. 4. There is Chaos Commish's assertion that, based on Zimmerman's father's ttestimony and the location of the body, we can make the reasonable assumption that it was Zimmerman who was attacked. I'm still a little confused by this, but the lead investigator (and according to new reports, most or all of the police department) seems to contradict this idea.So there you have it. That is all of the "evidence" which supposedly corroborates Zimmerman's version of events. At best, very very shaky. And yet some of you want to accept it like gospel, and for the life of me I just don't get it.
Nobody is taking it for gospel. It's shaky, but the burder of proof is generally on the prosecution. Right now, the prosecutions "proof" is every bit as shaky.Again, our system of justice asks us to presume innocence, and prove guilt. We can all agree Zimmerman's an idiot who shuld have never been trailing anybody on foot with a loaded gun. In my mind, that seems enough for some sort of criminal negligence charge, but it's hardly murder, and probably not manslaughter either. How the physical altercation started is key to those charges...and there's simply no good proof one way or the other on that.
I will repeat for the 100th time: based on what I know, I could not convict. No reasonable person, IMO, could. But we're not in a court of law here. This is an internet discussion forum. We can discuss what we THINK happened. And I simply cannot understand how you or anyone else can think that what Zimmerman says happened, happened. You can argue that it's possible. You can argue that there's no way to prove otherwise. You can argue that there's reasonable doubt. I agree with all of those points. But to take his story and say, "Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's the way it went down-" no ####### way.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top