Obama should have should stayed where he was and let law enforcement handle the situation.
Obama is "Grown-Up Trayvon"?
- Thread starter Formaldehyde
- Start date
Berzerker
Deity
wouldn't have been a trial if politicians and activists didn't stick their noses into it
Or if Z would have stayed in his truck and kept his nose out of it.
Berzerker
Deity
he's neighborhood watch, being nosy was his job
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Because his body was found yards away from the T, than the so-called initial confrontation. A person in trouble would head toward the safest place they could. If the confrontation as referenced had gone in the other direction, it would have been Mr. Z attempting to get back to his vehicle.
Where can it be found that Martin said he did not like it?
There is no proof whatsoever he was hiding. Martin knew that Mr. Z was following him. He watched Mr. Z get out of his car and start chasing him.
Killing someone is not? Where is the relativity when needed? What does your statement even have to do with the topic? There are ways to deal with troublemakers and it is called the law. Taking matters into one's own hand is vigilantism and that is against the law also. So go ahead and go back to the point where Mr. Z was looking for an address and not a so called criminal, to point out that so called criminal did not brake the law first.
And we think we know who did what? By who's testimony? Assumption is a pretty good friend as long as the truth never comes out.
Not really, he was told in so many words to wait at his vehicle with or without a faulty alibi.
Even if he had been in the bushes, the actual meeting where two people are walking toward each other and asking each other questions, makes such hiding irrelevant to what happened after answering each other's questions.
Crezth
i knew you were a real man of the left
*volunteer job
Which ended at the point he did the next step in his job - inform law enforcement.
Berzerker
Deity
The fight began at the T, not yards south of it. That means Martin turned south at the T and hid as Zimmerman walked by twice - and it also means Martin came back to the T to confront Zimmerman because he wasn't standing there when Zimmerman was walking back and forth.
When he came out of hiding to confront the person following him.
Yes there is, Zimmerman walked by the T and couldn't see him any more and he told the dispatcher. That means Martin was hiding near the T.
And how did Zimmerman lose him at the T if Martin was standing there in plain view?
Not in self defense
Sorry, what?
Does the evidence matter?
What were those so many words?
What was that about assumptions?
Yup, thats neighborhood watch and its admirable for people to risk their lives for others.
He did inform law enforcement and he followed their instructions. The "chase" began and ended with requests from the dispatcher.
Symphony D.
Deity
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
You just told me that the items where not found at the T, but just south of it. That does not change my point. My point being the body was found yards from the T, and you have not explained why.
When he walked out of the darkness? That is not what I asked. You still have not provided any evidence that Martin said "I do not like it". Using everyday expletives in the narrative does not convince me that Martin had an attitude problem. It just means he had a colorful vocabulary. Not sure of Mr. Z's mental condition on including them. I suppose Mr. Z himself uses them also and felt free to write them down. Or we could conclude that Mr. Z was thinking that writing them down may paint Martin in a worse light? That is the problem with overusing such terms. They sort of loose any originality in why they are being used in the first place. I may be wrong, but the GF also stated what she heard as the first few questions in the back and forth of Mr. Z and Martin. I do not recall Martin saying "He did not like it" as among them.
According to Mr. Z he stopped near the T, and headed back to his vehicle, if you go by Sympathy D's posted written deposition made by Mr. Z.
It was dark out?
How do we know that Martin did not use his punch as self defense? because Mr. Z failed to include that?
Mr. Z did not run toward his vehicle; instead, he engaged the suspect by returning an answer to an enquiry.
The evidence of someone who was so panicked he un-holstered his gun, shot a guy, re-holstered it and then gave himself up to the police.
We do not need you to follow after the suspect.
Your assumption that Martin was hiding is not relevant to the fact that Mr. Z engaged in conversation, when he was told that was not necessary. You can feel free to point out any assumptions on my part, I do not mind.
Is there a point here? Thanks for the link.
Symphony D.
Deity
The fact that Zimmerman was acquitted of the charges does not mean that his version of events was the gospel truth of what occurred, merely that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof necessary to find him guilty in the jury's eyes. In the defense's version of events, he was accosted on his way back to his truck while following the dispatcher's advice; in the prosecution's, he continued following Martin (e.g., according to SPD Officer Serino). The notion that it is an indisputable fact that Zimmerman was indeed following dispatcher's advice is a falsehood; it isn't clear what Zimmerman did.
Furthermore, Berzerker's phrasing very much implies that the dispatcher suggested Zimmerman in fact go after Martin, when precisely the opposite is what occurred.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
It does not make sense that Martin would approach Mr. Z after having ran away just a few minutes prior, unless one paints this hostile environment which occurs yards away from where any evidence is actually found.
I am pretty sure Mr. Z would have been just fine walking back to his vehicle as soon as he got off the phone with dispatch. Yet about 3 minutes went by before he "chose" to do so?
I am pretty sure Mr. Z would have been just fine walking back to his vehicle as soon as he got off the phone with dispatch. Yet about 3 minutes went by before he "chose" to do so?
Berzerker
Deity
I didn't tell you the items were south of the T, and I explained that already - the fight started at the T and ended up south of it. Thats what the evidence shows, and that means Martin was hiding near the T because he had to be close enough to confront Zimmerman without being seen as he walked by.
Martin hid, Martin ambushed Zimmerman, and Martin sucker punched him. I'd say its fairly evident Martin didn't like being followed by the cracka. Arguing Martin wasn't the aggressor ignores the evidence, all of it...
Zimmerman said he walked to the end of the T to the street and returned to the T on the way back to his truck when Martin came at him from behind.
That is supported by the evidence, Martin lost sight of Zimmerman when he walked to that street. Martin was hiding south of the T so he couldn't see Zimmerman as he kept heading east, but he did see him return - and thats when he told his friend the cracka was back and thats when he confronted him.
So you think Martin ran to the T and headed south and stood there just a few feet south of the T in plain sight? If it was that dark how'd Martin see Zimmerman? He was hiding, its illogical to run away just to stop running and stand in plain sight.
You need evidence to support your theories, the evidence we do have supports Zimmerman's story. The logic is on his side too, Martin ambushed him and Martin was demanding answers - its clear who the aggressor was.
And whats wrong with that?
There were witnesses who saw them struggling on the ground, Martin attacked him before the gun was pulled.
That was said after the dispatcher asked him where the suspect was running. Zimmerman went to find out and the dispatcher heard him breathing heavy and told him not to follow. By then Zimmerman had already lost sight of Martin who headed south at the T.
You're assuming Martin ran to the T and stopped in plain sight, that assumption is not based on the evidence.
When the dispatcher told him not to follow, what happened? He stopped running and they talked at length about where to meet. During that conversation Zimmerman said the suspect was gone. During Martin's conversation he said Zimmerman was gone too.
They both lost sight of each other but there's missing time. If Zimmerman went south at the T they would have met sooner and Martin would not have lost sight of him. The only way they lost sight of each other with Martin hiding just south of the T is if Zimmerman went east at the T and came back after a minute or so - just like he said in his walk through.
That aint true, the dispatcher asked him where the suspect was running and thats when Zimmerman followed. When the dispatcher realized he was following he told him not to and thats when you can hear Zimmerman stop running and they start talking about a meeting place. Zimmerman had already lost sight of Martin by then.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
These a-holes. They always get away.
At least one of them does.
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
I was giving Mr. Z an out. He said he was walking away from the T to his vehicle in his deposition. Later he said that he passed the T and was heading back to his vehicle. Why did he not put that in his deposition? Does it really matter what he was doing for 2 to 3 minutes? He was standing at the T at the end of the call. He could have easily walked back to his truck since that is the only address needed for the police to meet him. That is the fact. If you say that Martin punched Mr. Z to that ground at the T, then he was able to get several yards away before Mr. Z could fight back. Was Mr. Z obligated to defend his honor?
If Martin saw Mr. Z standing at the T, where was he hiding? The closest hiding spot was further from the T than even where the body was found from the T. If Mr. Z dropped his items at the T, then he would of had to of walked back to the T the third time in order for Martin's "attack" to surprise him. How can someone be walking away from a spot and then drop items at that spot without coming back to it first?
It does not support the evidence. The evidence was laying on the ground near the T. According to Mr. Z he was confronted between the T and his vehicle. Martin was not behind him, because the evidence shows he never made it past the T toward his vehicle. If Martin was hiding then he saw him come back twice. Does the evidence show that Martin acknowledged that he came back two times? I am not talking about the common sense point that if a person walks near an alleged hiding place. I am talking about the fact that if Martin was hiding he would have indicated it was the third time the guy was back. Martin lost Mr. Z when the dispatch told him to stop running way before Mr. Z stopped running, because Mr. Z made mention of the fact that he could no longer see him before he arrived at the T the first time. Mr. Z even said that he knew Martin had turned south at the T. If Martin was hiding he would have mentioned that Mr. Z was back when Mr. Z made it to the T. Then when Mr. Z headed east and returned to the T, Martin would have said back again, not just back.
No, I think that he kept walking and upon getting close to the apartment he turned around and headed north. The evidence for this is that he had been on a 45 minute phone call on a walk that would only take 15 minutes. It seemed that he was in no hurry to end the call, until he dropped the phone, after the conversation began with Mr. Z. Is there a reason to not bring this fact into evidence?
Only if you throw out the evidence that Martin was on a long phone call that he never ended.
What is wrong with being a vigilante? Mr. Z shot Martin because Martin was a vigilante or so it seems. What other reason would Martin have to punch a person who was acting weird and following him? He was taking matters into his own hands, if one actually wants to believe Martin punched first. If Martin wanted to do some real damage, why did he even talk to Mr. Z? Allegedly he had the upper hand to do some damage if that was his intent. The GF never indicated that Martin was hiding, that was all Mr. Z's imagination. Are we calling Martin hiding a fact based on twisted logic, or actual evidence? One can still be considered a vigilante against a cop or neighborhood watch, if one has nothing to hide, and yet following you for no good reason. In fact one does not even need to hide, and still say the fellow is back who was checking me out earlier. They lost sight of each other, and they both were back in each others sight.
The struggle took place yards from the confrontation, and you keep avoiding that evidence. I was being sarcastic, that someone so close to death, could un-holster a gun, shoot, and re-holster it and get on top of the body and pin it down. That seems like an action only a trained cop would pull off, and yet Mr. Z said that is what happened.
No it was not. It was while Mr. Z was running to the T. He stopped running and then he said he needed to keep going past the T to the next street. He did not want to return to his vehicle. He wanted to keep looking until he found the guy who was hiding from him, who he wanted to catch and turn over to the police. That is evident from all of his actions and conversation with the dispatch. The dispatcher did not ask where any one was running. He asked Mr. Z where his vehicle was when he heard the heavy breathing and told him that they did not need him to run after the guy. Not even to look for an address. Just because Mr. Z asked nicely if he could look for an address did not give him the authority to look for Martin nor Martin's address, if Mr. Z so happened to see which door Martin entered.
I already explained what I assumed happened and that is not it.
Martin was walking south near his apartment about to head back north. You have not explained where he was hiding. If they could not see each other when Mr. Z was at the T, how could either one do so when Mr. Z came back to the T. Any hiding spot was too far away from the T.
Like I said, this is a contradiction of the last section. It does not matter where Mr. Z went after the T. Martin did not see him there when he arrived nor when he came back. Mr. Z seemed to not want to go back to his vehicle, what is to stop him from heading south after failing to find Martin on the next street?
Show me the source that shows the dispatcher asking where Martin went that corresponds to Mr. Z loosing sight of him. He started to ask that, but stopped when he realized Mr. Z was running. In fact Mr. Z said he was heading for the back gate. It makes sense that the dispatch wanted to know which direction Martin was heading, but it had nothing to do with Mr. Z needing to chase him down. Martin did not start running until Mr. Z got out of the vehicle and started walking. Mr. Z was never authorized to do that. When the dispatch asked where his vehicle was at that point, it was to refocus Mr. Z's attention back to waiting for the police. It was then that Mr. Z kindly asked for permission to "check out the next street over" . Nope wrong move. He was supposed to meet at the vehicle. The dispatch seemed confused, and should not have agreed to that.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
It's kind of hard to hold other people accountable for white-collar crime while committing it. That particular guilt hits a little too close to home for our government officials to be pointing fingers
.
Berzerker
Deity
Whats the difference between the two? In his walk thru he had just passed the T by maybe a couple yards heading west to his truck when Martin came up from behind. He thought Martin came out of bushes or something used for hiding because Zimmerman walked by the T twice and didn't see him.
But we know from Martin's call he said the cracka was back. That means Martin not only saw Zimmerman but saw him both times he went thru the T. Means he was hiding, he turned south and hid. His GF told him to keep going but he refused.
Thats where our missing time comes in, Zimmerman went by the T and disappeared for 1-2 minutes and Martin kept hiding. His reason aint relevant, what matters is he saw Zimmerman again and came out of hiding with an aggressive attitude.
Of course, it shows Zimmerman did stop following Martin long before the fight and he didn't disobey the dispatcher. It explains how Martin could hide south of the T and lose sight of Zimmerman as he walked thru it heading east and how Martin could see him return a minute or so later. Just like Zimmerman said.
He wanted an address on the street to the east because that was the street leading to the back entrance to the south, he wanted the cops to be close to where he thought Martin was going.
And his call to dispatch did not end at the T, he got to the T and told dispatch Martin was gone because he couldn't see him south of the T. They kept talking after that, arranging a place to meet etc.
I didn't say he was punched to the ground, in his walk through he said he got sucker punched and stumbled south of the T and Martin kept attacking and got on top and was bashing his head into the concrete sidewalk.
Sorry, these posts are way too long and most of it is repetitive
if you have what you consider a valid argument, post it and I'll respond.
Here's mine:
How did the fight begin within 5 yards of the T if Zimmerman spent 1-2 minutes "chasing" Martin to the south of it?
timtofly
One Day
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 9,445
Who said Mr. Z was south of the T? He was either at the T, or east of the T. He did not head south (that was the only direction besides gong back to his vehicle) very far. That is where he dropped the evidence showing where the alleged altercation began. My theory was he was facing south and Martin came into view from the South. Martin saw Mr. Z first, since Martin asked the first question.
It may be easier to set aside what Mr. Z thought happened in the walk through. Until there can be a suitable hiding place for Martin, the ambush story falls flat. Not to mention that it is hearsay, because Mr. Z has no clue what was going through Martins mind. Those words that Mr. Z wrote down could have been made up. That Martin said them is assuming a lot of the whole other part of the story that Mr. Z made up to paint Martin in a certain light. That is all hearsay. The actual conversation that is on record, does not lead one to conclude Martin had an aggressive attitude.
Was Martin capable of getting into a fist fight? I do not doubt that, but are you saying that he should have just given himself up to Mr. Z who he did not know and who was only thinking that he was a criminal? Mr. Z admitted that he thought Martin was a criminal. He clearly stated that in the dispatch call. At the most Martin seemed to recognize that Mr. Z was checking him out, and that he may have been an authority figure. That was the first question, "Why are you following me?" That is a neutral way to figure out if there was an issue with him walking through the neighborhood. That does not seem to be painting Martin in any other way, either good or bad. They both seemed to be checking each other out and that could lead to many paths of thought.
If Mr. Z thought that Martin was hiding from him, that seems to indicate paranoia, especially since he already viewed Martin as a criminal. Martin already had run ins with the law, and since this was not an actual police officer, (an actual officer would have identified himself as one), Martin was not in the wrong for punching the guy and getting the upper hand. I am not even denying that Martin could have snapped and took his anger out on Mr. Z. I do not agree that was his intent, when he asked why he was being followed.
My theory is that Martin was grabbed or did hit first when Mr. Z tried to detain him, when Mr. Z dropped those items a few feet south of the T. Martin got the upper hand, and left Mr. Z on the ground and headed south. Mr. Z caught up a few yards later and was then on top, was able to get his gun, shoot Martin, and then holster his gun and stayed in that position until the police arrived. That is the only view that makes sense where the body was actually found. Being able to put one's gun back in the holster is evidence that one was in control. Mr. Z did claim that the officer retrieved the gun from the holster. It was not dropped or even flung, which would normally happen in a struggle.
Berzerker
Deity
Your theory was Martin went south to the apartment and then decided to go back to the T and saw Zimmerman approaching him.
Martin went south of the T, not east. If Zimmerman was still looking for him he would have went south at the T.
Martin went south of the T, not east. If Zimmerman was still looking for him he would have went south at the T.
