Victim of Perceived Thug Still Sitting in Jail

[TheMeInTeam]

You can tilt your body to reach something underneath it, even if somebody is on you.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You can tilt your body to reach something underneath it, even if somebody is on you.

Not when the person's knees are in your armpits which keep your arms from being able to reach that far. And it is also certainly clear that Martin didn't see a gun from that position and was trying to grab it.

It makes far more sense that Zimmerman already had the gun out and they were struggling for control of it. It would also explain why Zimmerman felt the need to lie about what actually occurred.

 

[classical_hero]

Yet you cannot find a single example where I am actually doing so, while engaging in your own speculation.

The small flashlight with the keys were found next to the body. Zimmerman may have picked up the other flashlight and carried it to the T when he finally got off Martin, instead of rendering first aid or calling for an ambulance, thinking he grabbed the one that was still working. Or he might have dropped it when he realized the batteries had gone out and got the other one on the key chain.

The bold shows you said he was on top when the evidence points the other way. The bit underlined shows you are making assumption on how acted on the night, without any evidence.

Actually, the "evidence" doesn't "point" that out at all.

Did you completely ignore the prosecution's closing arguments that if Martin was on top at the time that it would have been necessary for Martin to be getting off of Zimmerman for him to even be able to reach his weapon as he claimed he did? That it was literally physically impossible for Martin's version of what occurred to be true because the gun was supposedly underneath him with Martin's knees in his armpits? That it was physically impossible for Martin to spot Zimmerman's gun if it occurred that way? Do you also think they were "ignoring" evidence, and they weren't even called on it by O'Mara during his own closing arguments?

"That is a fact and if you want to ignore that, then you simply are not worth talking to."

Besides, I never claimed that Martin wasn't "on" Zimmerman at the time of the shot. Now did I?

It was quite possible and fits with all the evidence presented at the trial that Zimmerman already had his gun out, which very well would have meant that Martin was doing all he could to keep from being killed when the shot was fired. That Zimmerman finally got a chance to shoot him after possibly even struggling with him for the full 40 seconds to do so. It would certainly explain why they were reported to be wrestling and struggling by the witnesses instead of actually engaged in a "ground and pound" where far more physical damage and bruising of knuckles and fingers would have occurred. Why Zimmerman didn't seem to have inflicted any blows himself because he had the gun in his hand and was trying to use it. Why one of them was crying out for help before he was shot dead. Why the cries for help stopped immediately after the shot.

We simply don't know what occurred based on the actual evidence presented during the trial. To claim we do is preposterous.

You are simply now making things up. I have finished talking to you about this subject. The fact the evidence points to Trayvon starting the fight shows that George was acting in self-defence. Trayvon was on top of George at the time of the fatal shot. There was no evidence you can bring up that points to another conclusion.

 

[Formaldehyde]

The bold shows you said he was on top when the evidence points the other way. The bit underlined shows you are making assumption on how acted on the night, without any evidence.

Do you actually deny that Zimmerman eventually "got off Martin" after he had intentionally shot him though the heart and killed him, despite being so cowardly, callous, and depraved that he didn't render first aid or even call for an ambulance instead?

That Zimmerman was indeed found on top of Martin after he had shot him is a "fact" which was confirmed by all the witnesses who were present under oath. Even Zimmerman claims it is what occurred. It is unquestionably true.

No wonder you seem so confused about this case. You apparently have no idea what the facts actually are.

 

[MobBoss]

I don't think anyone finds cracker offensive.

Again, depends on context. If it were said to me in a derogatory fashion I would absolutely find it offensive.

Racial slurs are still racial slurs. I mean come on, we still in a world where people in blackface creates all kinds of hoopla. So why shouldn't 'cracker'?

Or have we got to the point where racism is absolutely ok if its directed towards whites?

I don't believe white men could ever be a victim of racism (at least not any time soon- maybe in 50 years).

Yeah.....and this comment right here highlights the problem. Of course white men can be victims of racism. ANYONE can be a victim of racism.

 

[timtofly]

The fact the evidence points to Trayvon starting the fight shows that George was acting in self-defence. Trayvon was on top of George at the time of the fatal shot. There was no evidence you can bring up that points to another conclusion.

What evidence? Not what Z claims, but reliable evidence.

 

[Berzerker]

The small flashlight with the keys were found next to the body. Zimmerman may have picked up the other flashlight and carried it to the T when he finally got off Martin

Did somebody see Z pick up a flashlight and carry it to the T? And why does it matter? Your 2 minute gap exonerates Zimmerman, he wasn't following Martin if there is a 2 minute gap between Martin running south at the T and the fight at or near the T. You cant accuse Zimmerman of following Martin, much less in disobedience of a dispatcher's instructions, if Zimmerman didn't run south at the T.

Or he might have dropped it when he realized the batteries had gone out and got the other one on the key chain.

let us know before you hang him

"You guys understand" that this is all speculation? That we simply don't know what actually happened that night? But "you guys" are using the statements of a known serial liar to claim that must have been what occurred?

The burden of proof is on you

At least you are no longer claiming that "M" was lurking at the T hiding behind knee-high shrubbery or inch-thick saplings waiting to pounce on flashlight-wielding "Z" as soon as his back was turned. Baby steps.

I haven't stopped claiming that, what are you talking about? Thats exactly what Martin was doing, he turned the corner heading south at the T and hid - he didn't loiter on the sidewalk. Zimmerman walked by heading east and when he returned M said the cracker was back and he walked up behind Z and started the fight.

 

[timtofly]

I haven't stopped claiming that, what are you talking about? Thats exactly what Martin was doing, he turned the corner heading south at the T and hid - he didn't loiter on the sidewalk. Zimmerman walked by heading east and when he returned M said the cracker was back and he walked up behind Z and started the fight.

So you are saying that if Z did not walk east past the T, his story would fall apart?

 

[Berzerker]

that was his version, so yes... but it wouldn't matter if Z went east, back to his truck, or stood there at the T - if he didn't head south he wasn't following M

 

[Formaldehyde]

If "Z" was heading west to east and "M" was heading north to south, and "Z" saw "M" approaching from that direction before he got there, as he clearly claimed during his lie festooned walk-through, how could "M" have possibly "walked up behind" him? Why didn't "Z" hear "M" still talking on the phone?

Furthermore, why did the witness who lived north of the T claim she heard them arguing but they seemed to be further away than when she heard the screams for help?

And why did the witness who lived 3 condos down on the right south of the T see them struggling upright right where the body of "M" was found, when "Z" claims that "M" sucker punched him at the T and he fell immediately to the ground? Did he then get up and walk 40 yards to the south while "M" was supposedly beating him to death? Why would he even do that? Wouldn't the natural reaction be to head towards the road instead so the cops could see him?

Your version of what must have occurred is even more bogus than "Z"s.

 

[timtofly]

that was his version, so yes... but it wouldn't matter if Z went east, back to his truck, or stood there at the T - if he didn't head south he wasn't following M

It would matter if his story fell apart. That was the only "proof" Z had that M attacked him.

 

[Berzerker]

If "Z" was heading west to east and "M" was heading north to south, and "Z" saw "M" approaching from that direction before he got there, as he clearly claimed during his lie festooned walk-through, how could "M" have possibly "walked up behind" him?

Before he got there? Z lost sight of M when the latter headed south of the T. Z was back at his truck when he lost sight of him and he didn't regain sight of him until after he was returning from the east side of the T and M came out of hiding - from behind Z.

Why didn't "Z" hear "M" still talking on the phone?

It was raining, you think M was hiding from Z's sight but babbling away on the phone?

Furthermore, why did the witness who lived north of the T claim she heard them arguing but they seemed to be further away than when she heard the screams for help?

You got her actual statement? Screams are louder?

And why did the witness who lived 3 condos down on the right south of the T see them struggling upright right where the body of "M" was found, when "Z" claims that "M" sucker punched him at the T and he fell immediately to the ground?

Z didn't say he fell to the ground, in his walk through he says the punch stunned him and he began stumbling forward trying to push M off him.

Did he then get up and walk 40 yards to the south while "M" was supposedly beating him to death?

It was ~10 yds

It would matter if his story fell apart. That was the only "proof" Z had that M attacked him.

The accusation is Z followed M, if he never left the T to follow M who was last seen running south of the T, then Z didn't follow him.

 

[timtofly]

The accusation is Z followed M, if he never left the T to follow M who was last seen running south of the T, then Z didn't follow him.

No one is accusing Z of following M. That is what he was doing when he started to run after he saw M start to run. If two people are running in the same direction, the default logic is that unless they know each other, the one in the rear, is the one following.

You totally sidestepped the issue:

The logical conclusion when listening to the 911 call, is that Z stopped near the T.

He claims he kept walking east.

I claim he just stood there, trying to decide what to do next. He was told not to follow, yet he asked if he could, by asking if the police would call when they arrived. If he was going back to his truck to meet the police, why even ask them to call him?

So once again, if Z is lying about walking back to the truck, how would M "ambush" him? Going south on the T would not necessarily be following, but it would be going in the last known direction. There is nothing really wrong with two people walking down a dark sidewalk toward each other.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You got her actual statement? Screams are louder?

Yes, that is what she stated.

You really should have watched almost all of the trial like I did, or at least read about it, before trying to claim you known what must have occurred.

The accusation is Z followed M, if he never left the T to follow M who was last seen running south of the T, then Z didn't follow him.

That is another assumption you and he both made with no factual basis. Zimmerman saw Martin run into the darkness on the sidewalk leading to the T. That is when the operator asked him where he was heading. Zimmerman assumed that Martin was heading for the south entrance because that is what they all do who "always get away". You have no idea what Zimmerman did after that. It is all sheer speculation on your part based on the statements of a known serial liar.

 

[Berzerker]

No one is accusing Z of following M. That is what he was doing when he started to run after he saw M start to run. If two people are running in the same direction, the default logic is that unless they know each other, the one in the rear, is the one following.

That was before the dispatcher told him not to follow, and of course people are accusing Z of disobeying that instruction and following Martin. Damn near the entire case against Z is based on the BS he kept following Martin.

The logical conclusion when listening to the 911 call, is that Z stopped near the T.

He claims he kept walking east.

Martin was hiding near the T, how did he lose sight of Z if he stood at the T?

I claim he just stood there, trying to decide what to do next. He was told not to follow, yet he asked if he could, by asking if the police would call when they arrived. If he was going back to his truck to meet the police, why even ask them to call him?

He asked if he could follow after being told not to follow? He waited at the east street for the cops to call, they didn't so he walked back to his truck figuring M was long gone. Thats why there's a 2 minute gap between the chase and the fight.

Yes, that is what she stated.

Quote her, and explain why screams shouldn't sound closer than talking

Zimmerman saw Martin run into the darkness on the sidewalk leading to the T. He assumed that Martin was heading for the south entrance because that is what they all do who "always get away". You have no idea what Zimmerman did after that. It is all sheer speculation on your part based on the statements of a known serial liar.

I know that Martin saw Zimmerman twice at the T while he was hiding there. That means Z walked thru the T heading east and came back a couple minutes later or he stopped at the T and turned around and went back to his truck and came back to the T again. Either way he wasn't following Martin by that time.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Quote her, and explain why screams shouldn't sound closer than talking.

Why don't you read what actually was stated during the testimony before making so many wacky assertions based on the statements of a known serial liar, as well as your own sheer speculation? If you don't believe it, take it up with her and the defense attorneys who didn't try to even question it.

I know that Martin saw Zimmerman twice at the T while he was hiding there.

You obviously "know" nothing of the sort. And again, based on Zimmerman's own statements, Martin wasn't anywhere near the T at the time. He claims Martin approached him from the south as he was standing at the T, which we also know is a lie based on the testimony of the other witness who saw them struggling on their feet right where Martin's body, the cell phone, and the small flashlight were found.

 

[timtofly]

That was before the dispatcher told him not to follow, and of course people are accusing Z of disobeying that instruction and following Martin. Damn near the entire case against Z is based on the BS he kept following Martin.

Prove that Z walked to the next street.

Martin was hiding near the T, how did he lose sight of Z if he stood at the T?

Prove that M was hiding. M lost sight of Z because after he stopped running, he kept walking towards the place he was staying at. He even would have had enough time to turn around and head back north, because he was still on the phone with his friend. It seems that he did not want to talk to her at the condo. He had been talking to her for 22 minutes. He had been walking for 45 minutes down a route that only takes 15. There is no crime in walking slowly.

He asked if he could follow after being told not to follow? He waited at the east street for the cops to call, they didn't so he walked back to his truck figuring M was long gone. Thats why there's a 2 minute gap between the chase and the fight.

If Z had waited one more minute, the police would have called.

I know that Martin saw Zimmerman twice at the T while he was hiding there. That means Z walked thru the T heading east and came back a couple minutes later or he stopped at the T and turned around and went back to his truck and came back to the T again. Either way he wasn't following Martin by that time.

How can you say that M saw Z twice? That is what Z assumes happened. There is no proof that M was hiding. Saying that M was hiding because he saw Z twice is the same thing as saying Z walked by M twice, because M was hiding and saw him twice. Somewhat circular?

Z was even afraid that M was hiding when he was on the phone with the dispatch. He was afraid M was hiding and listening to him. He even had a flashlight so he could "look into the darkness." Just because Z was suspicious of M hiding "in wait" does not prove that M was.

Like I said, you would have thought that if M was hiding, he and his friend would have been making fun of the guy. That never came out in the trial. Yes they did make comments about Z sitting in his truck checking M out. We have the facts and one cannot dismiss the facts on one side, just because they do not fit the facts on the other. That is what reasonable doubt is. One can clearly see though that Z's claims do not even match up with the call to 911 that we can listen to, and get a pretty good idea of what happened. Of course even that is subject to who is listening, and how they can agree on what they hear.

 

[Berzerker]

Why don't you read what actually was stated during the testimony before making so many wacky assertions based on the statements of a known serial liar, as well as your own sheer speculation? If you don't believe it, take it up with her and the defense attorneys who didn't try to even question it.

I'm taking it up with you, quote her and explain why I should care

You obviously "know" nothing of the sort. And again, based on Zimmerman's own statements, Martin wasn't anywhere near the T at the time.

Thats because he thought Martin kept running south. That aint what happened, Martin hid near the T and Z didn't see him when he got there. Thats why there's a 2 minute gap before the fight.

Z went off to the east to get an address on the street running parallel south to the back entrance and he waited there (did you watch his walk through?) for the cops to call and until he figured M was long gone and he started back for his truck. Thats when M says the creepy ass cracker is back and he ambushes him just west of the T where they found Z's stuff.

He claims Martin approached him from the south as he was standing at the T, which we also know is a lie based on the testimony of the other witness who saw them struggling on their feet right where Martin's body, the cell phone, and the small flashlight were found.

The fight started at the T and went south

Prove that Z walked to the next street.

I dont have to, I'm not accusing him of a crime.

Prove that M was hiding. M lost sight of Z because after he stopped running, he kept walking towards the place he was staying at.

The fight took place within yards of the T, Martin didn't head south that far - he rounded the turn and hid.

He even would have had enough time to turn around and head back north, because he was still on the phone with his friend.

You want us to believe Z followed him south of the T when you've got M heading north?

How can you say that M saw Z twice?

Because M lost sight of him and Z came back

That is what Z assumes happened.

Z lost sight of M when the latter turned south at the T and hid.

There is no proof that M was hiding.

Yes there is, Z entered the T and didn't see him. Thats where the 2 minute gap enters the picture

Saying that M was hiding because he saw Z twice is the same thing as saying Z walked by M twice, because M was hiding and saw him twice. Somewhat circular?

Z walked by the T twice, M saw him walk by once and then return. Z never saw him, M saw him twice.

Z was even afraid that M was hiding when he was on the phone with the dispatch. He was afraid M was hiding and listening to him. He even had a flashlight so he could "look into the darkness." Just because Z was suspicious of M hiding "in wait" does not prove that M was.

But M was hiding, he was near that T because thats where the fight started.

Like I said, you would have thought that if M was hiding, he and his friend would have been making fun of the guy.

He was making fun of him... He said the creepy ass cracker was back. Do you think Martin shouted that?

 

[caketastydelish]

I don't mean to troll, but why can't we merge all of these George Zimmerman/Trevyon Martin threads into one? The tavern has at least 3.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm taking it up with you, quote her and explain why I should care

I see no need to do basic research for you regarding matters you should already be familiar if you wish to discuss this topic in an informed manner, especially when you will just ignore it as you have already done numerous times including in this very post.