Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case - Page 2

Unabogie · 22nd June 2012, 07:51 PM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Brought over from old thread:

Aside from (arguably) things like thinking, imagining, etc - everything is a 'physical activity'.

You are making arbitrary distinctions to suit your scenario.

Everyone at the track is physically involved in the activity of going to the racetrack for the race

I think a reasonable person could interpret physically involved as, for example, getting involved in a confrontation. Like the witness 'John' - who stepped outside to get 'physically involved' with GZ and TM by yelling at them but didn't run over and try to break up the fight, but ran inside to call the police. By your definition, he was physically involved. I think if you asked someone not involved in this discussion if John was 'physically involved' - they would clearly say no.

But everyone knows that watching a game from the stands is different from running out on the field. Once you run onto the field, you will suffer consequences. George ran onto the field and then lied about it.

TheL8Elvis · 22nd June 2012, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Yes, and let's add in a few more from the bond hearing.

He said on the stand that he didn't know Trayvon was a teenager, while on the NEN tape he says "late teens".
He says he told the detectives he was remorseful. Anyone watching the interviews can tell that's a lie.
He says he didn't give multiple accounts. Well, ok, maybe he doesn't realize how all over the place he is, but we certainly can notice it.

I think just his timeline is enough to convict him. Just when he says he is at the clubhouse vs when he says he's at the crime scene. When he claims he wasn't following, yet he's clearly following. When he says he was going back to the truck but then changes that to say he stayed on Retreat View because he didn't want to walk back to his truck. Yet he does just that, which is why he's at the T in the first place. Where he says he was hit from the south and went down to the north, yet ended up 50' south of the T. How he can't explain key details. How he claims he moved the body with the arms out yet that's not how the body was found. How he says he was smothered but you don't hear that on the tape. How he claims that he was hit 30 times in the face. How Trayvon talked like a movie gang banger.

His story...is...not credible.

I'll bite. In order, and I am too lazy too cut and paste:

He didn't know how old he was. As for remorse, GZ seems generally monotone. I am not sure what you would expect him to be doing ...crying and wringing his hands ? I thought all his accounts were mostly consistent.

The timeline, I am not sure about. it may or may not be OK.

As for being hit at the T, that's where his keys were, and everything moves southward from there. That I don't have a problem with, as the witnesses described them as moving around as well. I think the actual distance the moved is more like 20 -25 feet than 50 feet.

I am surprised he does not have better explanations for what happened, but i can sort of understand things happened rather quickly and perhaps unexpectedly.

I think the LEO is mistaken on the body position. I'll have to keep looking on that one.

Unabogie · 22nd June 2012, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

I'll bite. In order, and I am too lazy too cut and paste:

He didn't know how old he was. As for remorse, GZ seems generally monotone. I am not sure what you would expect him to be doing ...crying and wringing his hands ? I thought all his accounts were mostly consistent.

The timeline, I am not sure about. it may or may not be OK.

As for being hit at the T, that's where his keys were, and everything moves southward from there. That I don't have a problem with, as the witnesses described them as moving around as well. I think the actual distance the moved is more like 20 -25 feet than 50 feet.

I am surprised he does not have better explanations for what happened, but i can sort of understand things happened rather quickly and perhaps unexpectedly.

I think the LEO is mistaken on the body position. I'll have to keep looking on that one.

On the stand he says he thought he was his age or a few years younger. On the NEN he says late teens. A perfect example of a self serving lie.

TheL8Elvis · 22nd June 2012, 08:23 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

On the stand he says he thought he was his age or a few years younger. On the NEN he says late teens. A perfect example of a self serving lie.

Perhaps. Is it conceivable that he saw him, and initially estimated late teens, and after the <whatever happened> and he had been in close contact with TM, he revised his age estimate to early twenties ?

He clearly wanted to address TM mother, when she said on TV that she would ask GZ did he know how old TM was, that he was not armed, etc. How was this lie 'self-serving' ?

LTC8K6 · 22nd June 2012, 08:34 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x34vS...tailpage#t=34s

"I don't know the exact path he took, but he did come in that back gate. I knew he was going to the back of the house, he was sittin' out there"

This is also part of where that "sitting on the porch" idea comes from.

marplots · 22nd June 2012, 09:10 PM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

But everyone knows that watching a game from the stands is different from running out on the field. Once you run onto the field, you will suffer consequences. George ran onto the field and then lied about it.

Let us suppose he ran out onto the field. Let us also suppose he's a flagrant liar. How will these get him convicted of murder? Unless he somehow enticed TM to attack him so he could then shoot Trayvon, it's hard to get past the "reasonable doubt" standard.

I see this coming down to a battle of forensics and the prosecution proving something about the danger to life not existing. Without that, it seems like a steep hill to climb. It would be a much easier case if GZ hadn't been injured, or if TM had some injuries showing he had been punched as well.

The whole business about GM trying to play cop sounds like it could be used in a civil trial for negligence and wrongful death, but I don't see how it proves much in a criminal trial.

TheL8Elvis · 22nd June 2012, 09:18 PM

Originally Posted by LTC8K6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x34vS...tailpage#t=34s

"I don't know the exact path he took, but he did come in that back gate. I knew he was going to the back of the house, he was sittin' out there"

This is also part of where that "sitting on the porch" idea comes from.

It's interesting, for GZ, the back gate is the east gate of the subdivision. For Mr. Martin, the back gate is a cut through where there is no fence. Just an observation how two people talking about the same subdivision can use the exact same words two mean two completely different things.

Also, I agree, that helps explain the 'sitting on the porch' comment.

OnlyTellsTruths · 22nd June 2012, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Everyone at the track is physically involved in the activity of going to the racetrack for the race

Note that you say "going to the racetrack" is the activity instead of running in the race! That's not gonna just squeak through without people noticing!

I'll make this simple.

The specific activity is a track&field sprint race between 10 runners.

Those 10 runners are "physically involved" in that specific activity during the race.

Everyone else, including the people in the stands, everyone else, is not physically involved in that specific activity.

Do you agree with that or not?

If not, please elaborate.

marplots · 22nd June 2012, 10:10 PM

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

The specific activity is a track&field sprint race between 10 runners.

Those 10 runners are "physically involved" in that specific activity during the race.

Everyone else, including the people in the stands, everyone else, is not physically involved in that specific activity.

Do you agree with that or not?

If not, please elaborate.

That sounds good. And people in the stands who move about to get a better view of the activity are still not participating.

Now, it seems straightforward to map this onto the activity of "acting suspiciously" (allegedly) and moving around, even following, to better view that activity. On the other hand, if the activity in question is just "walking around" then you have a point.

I certainly hope my neighbors have enough sense to keep an eye on suspicious characters in my area. I'd do the same for them. And if their suspicions are misplaced, I hope it gets cleared up quickly and without anyone getting hit or shot.

OnlyTellsTruths · 22nd June 2012, 10:18 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

I certainly hope my neighbors have enough sense to keep an eye on suspicious characters in my area. I'd do the same for them. And if their suspicions are misplaced, I hope it gets cleared up quickly and without anyone getting hit or shot.

I believe we all hope that our neighbors keep an eye on suspicious people in the neighborhood.

I also believe we all hope that our neighbors don't leave their house or vehicle and start following the suspicious people around.

Keep in mind though, the argument was about what Z's Neighborhood Watch guide meant by:

Quote:

"What you will not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehension of any suspicious persons."

Not about whether or not it will have any specific legal bearing in Z's trial.

Originally Posted by marplots

On the other hand, if the activity in question is just "walking around" then you have a point.

Exactly.

I'm not even convinced it would count 100%, but I am surely convinced that it is not a definite "no" like WildCat seems to think.

Unabogie · 22nd June 2012, 10:35 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

Let us suppose he ran out onto the field. Let us also suppose he's a flagrant liar. How will these get him convicted of murder? Unless he somehow enticed TM to attack him so he could then shoot Trayvon, it's hard to get past the "reasonable doubt" standard.

I see this coming down to a battle of forensics and the prosecution proving something about the danger to life not existing. Without that, it seems like a steep hill to climb. It would be a much easier case if GZ hadn't been injured, or if TM had some injuries showing he had been punched as well.

The whole business about GM trying to play cop sounds like it could be used in a civil trial for negligence and wrongful death, but I don't see how it proves much in a criminal trial.

I do not think forensics wil play a large part. I think it will be all about George and his story. He killed someone, and all you have to support his version of who started the fight is the word of a liar. Common sense tells us the guy who followed and was angry started it. Unless you believe George over common sense, I think he'll be convicted.

marplots · 22nd June 2012, 10:37 PM

Where do we place our bets?

Unabogie · 22nd June 2012, 10:49 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

Where do we place our bets?

Right here!

crimresearch · 22nd June 2012, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by KatieG

Watching the reenactment, I nearly died laughing at the knuckle bandages on GZs head. Those are NOT butterfly bandages. Perhaps the wife/nurse in training put those on for him. I guarantee you no medical professional did that business. Same with the bandage on his nose. That isn't a piece that goes across the nose, again it's a knuckle bandage.

What a couple of knuckle heads.

And your point?

crimresearch · 22nd June 2012, 11:02 PM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Because you listened to Serinos interview (the detective who said everything supports GZ) and you liked his interview, suddenly the entire SPD didn't do a bad job ?

Apparently the closer to the movies, and the less like boring old real life things are, the better some folks like it.

marplots · 22nd June 2012, 11:08 PM

I'll bet he gets off for murder, but if manslaughter is a lesser included charge, I'm not sure how that will go.

It might depend on getting a jury that can be convinced that, in similar circumstances, they would have acted the same as Georgie. For example, if I had called the cops on someone, I'd try to keep them in sight -- maybe even follow them -- so that when the cops showed up, I would know where the guy was. On the other hand, I doubt I'd call the cops in the first place, just because I saw someone I didn't recognize walking through the complex.

And for darn sure, I'd do everything possible not to get on that jury.

crimresearch · 22nd June 2012, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by marplots

I'll bet he gets off for murder, but if manslaughter is a lesser included charge, I'm not sure how that will go.

It might depend on getting a jury that can be convinced that, in similar circumstances, they would have acted the same as Georgie. For example, if I had called the cops on someone, I'd try to keep them in sight -- maybe even follow them -- so that when the cops showed up, I would know where the guy was. On the other hand, I doubt I'd call the cops in the first place, just because I saw someone I didn't recognize walking through the complex.

And for darn sure, I'd do everything possible not to get on that jury.

Quote:

Let us also suppose he's a flagrant liar. How will these get him convicted of murder?

Exactly. The prosectuion can try to insinuate that his being unclear, or dishonest about other things detracts from credibility, but they will still need proof beyond a resonable doubt that GZ was 'not' in fear for his life when he said he was.

And proving a negative while staying within the rules, isn't so easy. That is going to take some concrete evidence that is drastic... like a clubhouse video of him tackling Trayvon from behind and shooting him.

What they won't be able to do is argue: "Zimmerman is a lying gangbanger', or 'He said he owned a red truck, and this title clearly proves it was actually a burgundy SUV, therefore his lie proves that you must vote guilty of murder'.

They can't prevail merely on an alternative theory of events.

The defense on the other hand, *is* going to be able to impugn the prosecution's every misstep and tell the jury, 'Why should you believe anything they say, now?'

And every little thing that the prosecution brings up about George's past, the defense is going to able to claim as proof of his innocence.

'...Yes ladies and gentlemen of the jury... my client got into fights... and never before felt the need to defend himself with deadly force'.

'Yes, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Zimmerman did run around pretending to be a Neighbrohood Watch Captain, and called the police mutiple times on young black men... and never shot at a single one of them'.

Mumbles · 23rd June 2012, 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

I believe we all hope that our neighbors keep an eye on suspicious people in the neighborhood.

I also believe we all hope that our neighbors don't leave their house or vehicle and start following the suspicious people around.

And I think that this has been covered before, but the basic idea is very obvious.

If you decide to chase around some person who turns out to be innocent, then you are the criminal, since you're menacing a person for no reason. And if the person you're chasing turns out to be a criminal, then you're actively trying to confront a criminal. There's no way you can win here. If they attack, well, you're under attack. If the cops show up, well, it's you against them, and you were chasing. You just can't come out ahead here.

Obviously,there are some exceptions - I'm not mad at that guy who saw a someone molesting his daughter and punched him dad. And I wn't be angry at a woman that reacts to street harassment. But the rule is, don't get physically nvolved, and running after someone violates that rule.

And that's the big problem here. Zimmerman's entire account reads like he's Sanford's Batman, but when you hear the actual case, he's just an idiot.

Rare Truth · 23rd June 2012, 05:18 AM

The screams.

Something came to mind: The screaming stopped the instant the shot went into Trayvon's heart.

Now, that was something brought up before, and something some of the witnesses noted, making that part clear to them - it was TM, and not GZ screaming.

Zimmerman defenders have returned with: well, sure it stopped. Z was no longer in fear...(or some such) --

BUT! But...noooooooooooow we know, now, since GZ's statements have been made public: this isn't the case.

GZ did not think he killed TM. He believed the "suspect" still placed him in danger - to the point he mounted TM's body and spread his arms apart, and then after told flashlight man: help me subdue this dude.

That sure changes the twist on that little story line...

bookworm · 23rd June 2012, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

......
As for being hit at the T, that's where his keys were, and everything moves southward from there. That I don't have a problem with, as the witnesses described them as moving around as well. I think the actual distance the moved is more like 20 -25 feet than 50 feet.

I am surprised he does not have better explanations for what happened, but i can sort of understand things happened rather quickly and perhaps unexpectedly.

...

Ok, this is something I'm having a problem with right now. Zimmerman appears to be saying that he was hit and he went down and we all know the rest.

Haven't witnesses or at least one witness said they saw 2 people chasing each other or one chasing the other?

Also, the movement away from the T supports at least a minimal scuffle and moving around and maybe slight chase because someone is trying to move away before Zimmerman ends up on the ground.

I'm not sure how to reconcile this.

TheL8Elvis · 23rd June 2012, 05:45 AM

Originally Posted by bookworm

Ok, this is something I'm having a problem with right now. Zimmerman appears to be saying that he was hit and he went down and we all know the rest.

Haven't witnesses or at least one witness said they saw 2 people chasing each other or one chasing the other?

Also, the movement away from the T supports at least a minimal scuffle and moving around and maybe slight chase because someone is trying to move away before Zimmerman ends up on the ground.

I'm not sure how to reconcile this.

Quote:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...50#post8391650

She told authorities that she had taken out her contact lenses just before the incident. In her first recorded interview with Sanford police four days after the shooting, she told lead Investigator Chris Serino, "I saw two guys running. Couldn't tell you who was in front, who was behind."

She stepped away from her window, and when she looked again, she "saw a fistfight. Just fists. I don't know who was hitting who."

A week later, she added a detail when talking again to Serino: During the chase, the two figures had been 10 feet apart.

That all changed when she was re-interviewed March 20 by a state agent. That time, she recalled catching a glimpse of just one running figure, she told investigator John Batchelor, and she heard the person more than saw him.

"I couldn't tell you if it was a man, a woman, a kid, black or white. I couldn't tell you because it was dark and because I didn't have my contacts on or glasses.... I just know I saw a person out there."

Just one ... that matches up more with GZ story of TM disappearing between the houses then coming back ?

Bikewer · 23rd June 2012, 05:52 AM

I said much earlier that it wouldn't surprise me to see Zimmerman accept a plea-bargain manslaughter charge and do minimal time.
It also wouldn't amaze me to see him successfully sued for wrongful death, though I don't know how much of his donated funds he'll have left after he pays his lawyers...

bookworm · 23rd June 2012, 06:31 AM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Just one ... that matches up more with GZ story of TM disappearing between the houses then coming back ?

Yes, it does. Why would she have initially said she saw a person chasing another person? Normally I'm more inclined to believe initial stories. Her first interview was 4 days later....I suppose that was enough time for her to hear rumors about what happened and maybe adjust what she thought she saw accordingly.

Unabogie · 23rd June 2012, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

That's the clubhouse. That's where he said he initiated the call from ... why is this a problem ?

By the way, I listened to the tape again. It's right at the beginning of part 3 of the 29th interview. And I keep hearing it as 111, not 1111.

Meaning he says "one eleven". Not "one one one one" or "eleven eleven" or "eleven hundred eleven".

Listen for yourself. It's a weird anomaly, I'm not saying it means anything, but it could.

Dan O. · 23rd June 2012, 08:01 AM

Originally Posted by bookworm

Ok, this is something I'm having a problem with right now. Zimmerman appears to be saying that he was hit and he went down and we all know the rest.

Haven't witnesses or at least one witness said they saw 2 people chasing each other or one chasing the other?

Also, the movement away from the T supports at least a minimal scuffle and moving around and maybe slight chase because someone is trying to move away before Zimmerman ends up on the ground.

I'm not sure how to reconcile this.

George doesn't say anything about a scuffle so there is no scuffle that supports his innocence. An explanation that does work though is after the initial verbal encounter Trayvon proceeds towards his residence down the path to the south and George chases after him again and attempts to detain him. George's illegal use of force would give Trayvon the right to respond with force, a punch to the nose resulting in dropping George to the ground where Trayvon would immediately mount him and check his pickets for weapons, tossing the found objects aside.

For those of you who are about to claim that there is no evidence that George attempted to restrain Trayvon, you are in a pickle there because there is no evidence that he didn't. So it cannot be claimed that Trayvon's use of force was not justified.

There is no evidence of a continued beating and the evidence strongly suggests that no such beating took place except in George's mind. After falling over backwards and hitting his head on the concrete, his head would be pounding. And lying on his back with a broken nose, he could very well feel that he was being suffocated. In his semi-conscious state, George is immagining what is hapening to him and screaming like a baby.

The last yelp might not be George. A neighbor has just come out and interrupts saying he is calling the police. Trayvon's back would be towards this neighbor so Trayvon would not have seen him but would have heard him. The presence of a witness would tell trayvon that it was safe to let George get up. As Trayvon starts to get up, this gives George access to his gun which he could not have reached before.

sgtbaker · 23rd June 2012, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by bookworm

Yes, it does. Why would she have initially said she saw a person chasing another person? Normally I'm more inclined to believe initial stories. Her first interview was 4 days later....I suppose that was enough time for her to hear rumors about what happened and maybe adjust what she thought she saw accordingly.

I am more inclined to believe her first interview, as well. It is perplexing but it would help to know where she lived, relative to the fight and at what point she saw the shadowy figure[s]. If she lived up by the T, intersection, she could have seen George stumbling after Trayvon hit him. However, if she lived somewhere else, it would be some pretty damning evidence against George's claim that he stopped following Trayvon after the call ended.

OnlyTellsTruths · 23rd June 2012, 08:57 AM

Originally Posted by Rare Truth

The screams.

Something came to mind: The screaming stopped the instant the shot went into Trayvon's heart.

Now, that was something brought up before, and something some of the witnesses noted, making that part clear to them - it was TM, and not GZ screaming.

Zimmerman defenders have returned with: well, sure it stopped. Z was no longer in fear...(or some such) --

BUT! But...noooooooooooow we know, now, since GZ's statements have been made public: this isn't the case.

GZ did not think he killed TM. He believed the "suspect" still placed him in danger - to the point he mounted TM's body and spread his arms apart, and then after told flashlight man: help me subdue this dude.

That sure changes the twist on that little story line...

Here's the last 8 seconds with volume normalized that was posted last week so everyone can hear for themselves:

http://s000.tinyupload.com/download....82972710386417

What I hear is a loud scream (at :02) then 2 seconds later (at :04) either a scream or a yell of "help" (that one is hard to tell because the dispatcher is talking) then 2 seconds later (at :06) a very clear yell of "help", then 1 second later (at :07) is the gunshot.

I really don't want to make any judgments about it....

Though I will say that it seems weird that Z would yell the word "help" again almost at the very instant he is pulling the trigger.

Unabogie · 23rd June 2012, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by bookworm

Yes, it does. Why would she have initially said she saw a person chasing another person? Normally I'm more inclined to believe initial stories. Her first interview was 4 days later....I suppose that was enough time for her to hear rumors about what happened and maybe adjust what she thought she saw accordingly.

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

I am more inclined to believe her first interview, as well. It is perplexing but it would help to know where she lived, relative to the fight and at what point she saw the shadowy figure[s]. If she lived up by the T, intersection, she could have seen George stumbling after Trayvon hit him. However, if she lived somewhere else, it would be some pretty damning evidence against George's claim that he stopped following Trayvon after the call ended.

This is why I said that I didn't think forensics or SYG would decide the case. If jurors think that George is lying about what happened that night, they will convict him.

It's a fact that he killed Trayvon, but his defense is that it was justified because he was attacked for no reason. If you disbelieve that, then what's left?

TheL8Elvis · 23rd June 2012, 10:01 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

By the way, I listened to the tape again. It's right at the beginning of part 3 of the 29th interview. And I keep hearing it as 111, not 1111.

Meaning he says "one eleven". Not "one one one one" or "eleven eleven" or "eleven hundred eleven".

Listen for yourself. It's a weird anomaly, I'm not saying it means anything, but it could.

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...zimmerman.html

IDK. I agree he says 111.
Then the dispatcher says:
OK--you said it's 1111 Retreat View? Or 111? Zimmerman: That's the clubhouse...

And GZ agrees that is the clubhouse. He says 111, and means 1111. It just sounds to me like GZ is bad with addresses and street names.

TheL8Elvis · 23rd June 2012, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

I am more inclined to believe her first interview, as well. It is perplexing but it would help to know where she lived, relative to the fight and at what point she saw the shadowy figure[s]. If she lived up by the T, intersection, she could have seen George stumbling after Trayvon hit him. However, if she lived somewhere else, it would be some pretty damning evidence against George's claim that he stopped following Trayvon after the call ended.

Here are the addresses.

http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/witmap470.jpg

TheL8Elvis · 23rd June 2012, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

This is why I said that I didn't think forensics or SYG would decide the case. If jurors think that George is lying about what happened that night, they will convict him.

It's a fact that he killed Trayvon, but his defense is that it was justified because he was attacked for no reason. If you disbelieve that, then what's left?

That's incorrect. His defense self defense: TM was on top of him, he could not retreat, TM said words to the effect of "you are going to die tonight" and GZ felt him reach for his weapon.

That is what the state has to disprove. Everything else is window dressing.

Unabogie · 23rd June 2012, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Here are the addresses.

http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/witmap470.jpg

Which one is she?

TheL8Elvis · 23rd June 2012, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Here's the last 8 seconds with volume normalized that was posted last week so everyone can hear for themselves:

http://s000.tinyupload.com/download....82972710386417

What I hear is a loud scream (at :02) then 2 seconds later (at :04) either a scream or a yell of "help" (that one is hard to tell because the dispatcher is talking) then 2 seconds later (at :06) a very clear yell of "help", then 1 second later (at :07) is the gunshot.

I really don't want to make any judgments about it....

Though I will say that it seems weird that Z would yell the word "help" again almost at the very instant he is pulling the trigger.

I find it all "weird" because shooting and killing someone isn't normal. Getting in a fight with a stranger outside in the rain isn't exactly normal either.

I would find it more strange that TM was screaming help the entire time, even when he was on top of GZ, and didn't stop when the witness told them he was going to call 911.

GZ clearly states he was telling the "John" to help, and that matches exactly with "Johns" initial witness statement. Someone care to explain that away ?

Unabogie · 23rd June 2012, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

That's incorrect. His defense self defense: TM was on top of him, he could not retreat, TM said words to the effect of "you are going to die tonight" and GZ felt him reach for his weapon.

That is what the state has to disprove. Everything else is window dressing.

No. If he gets up on the stand to give that story, and he must, then if the jury thinks he's making it all up, he'll be convicted. The state can disprove it by showing what a conniving liar George is. Would you acquit a man who claimed he shot someone in self defense, if you found him to be utterly dishonest about key details in his story?

TheL8Elvis · 23rd June 2012, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Which one is she?

Witness 2.

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/new...-to-the-public

TheL8Elvis · 23rd June 2012, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Unabogie

No. If he gets up on the stand to give that story, and he must, then if the jury thinks he's making it all up, he'll be convicted. The state can disprove it by showing what a conniving liar George is. Would you acquit a man who claimed he shot someone in self defense, if you found him to be utterly dishonest about key details in his story?

Actually, legally, yes.

You might be right and a jury would convict him simply on the basis of his perceived credibility. But that is not proving even manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt, is it ?

Unabogie · 23rd June 2012, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...zimmerman.html

IDK. I agree he says 111.
Then the dispatcher says:
OK--you said it's 1111 Retreat View? Or 111? Zimmerman: That's the clubhouse...

And GZ agrees that is the clubhouse. He says 111, and means 1111. It just sounds to me like GZ is bad with addresses and street names.

By the way, I'm glad you linked to this, because it demonstrates a glaring inconsistency in George's story.

Quote:

Zimmerman: Now he's just staring at me.
Dispatcher: OK--you said it's 1111 Retreat View? Or 111?
Zimmerman: That's the clubhouse...
Dispatcher: That's the clubhouse, do you know what the--he's near the clubhouse right now?
Zimmerman: Yeah, now he's coming towards me.
Dispatcher: OK.
Zimmerman: He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male.
Zimmerman: Somethings wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out, he's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.
Dispatcher: Just let me know if he does anything ok

Ok, so here he is, saying he's at the clubhouse and this is the point at which Trayvon circled his car. But in the re-enactment (and Serino nails him on this) he says this all took place right outside the T near that sign. There's no way to reconcile this. He's at the clubhouse, then he's three blocks away from the clubhouse.

Care to explain how he can't remember where this crucial, bizarre, intimidating action from Trayvon took place and why his story the next day so clearly contradicts the NEN call?

Unabogie · 23rd June 2012, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Actually, legally, yes.

You might be right and a jury would convict him simply on the basis of his perceived credibility. But that is not proving even manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt, is it ?

Yes it is. The act of shooting the kid is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not Trayvon Martin attacked him for no reason at all, in a fit of homicidal rage, as George claims. If George is lying (and at this point are you claiming his story holds up?) then what's left?

A shooting of an unarmed kid, by a guy who pegged him wrongly for a criminal and then followed him and ignored all common sense. And then lied his ass off about the events that night. And you think a jury will have trouble convicting under those circumstances?

sgtbaker · 23rd June 2012, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...zimmerman.html

IDK. I agree he says 111.
Then the dispatcher says:
OK--you said it's 1111 Retreat View? Or 111? Zimmerman: That's the clubhouse...

And GZ agrees that is the clubhouse. He says 111, and means 1111. It just sounds to me like GZ is bad with addresses and street names.

Which kind of supports his defense that he really sucks with streets and addresses, unless he was pretending to give the wrong address or have difficulty giving directions to where he was, as a preemptive set up to get away with murder.

Unabogie · 23rd June 2012, 10:41 AM

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

Which kind of supports his defense that he really sucks with streets and addresses, unless he was pretending to give the wrong address or have difficulty giving directions to where he was, as a preemptive set up to get away with murder.

Maybe. But care to address the point above about how he was at the clubhouse for the "circling" but then in the re-enactment that whole scene moved to the "T"?

22nd June 2012, 08:09 PM	#42
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,513	Originally Posted by Unabogie Yes, and let's add in a few more from the bond hearing. He said on the stand that he didn't know Trayvon was a teenager, while on the NEN tape he says "late teens". He says he told the detectives he was remorseful. Anyone watching the interviews can tell that's a lie. He says he didn't give multiple accounts. Well, ok, maybe he doesn't realize how all over the place he is, but we certainly can notice it. I think just his timeline is enough to convict him. Just when he says he is at the clubhouse vs when he says he's at the crime scene. When he claims he wasn't following, yet he's clearly following. When he says he was going back to the truck but then changes that to say he stayed on Retreat View because he didn't want to walk back to his truck. Yet he does just that, which is why he's at the T in the first place. Where he says he was hit from the south and went down to the north, yet ended up 50' south of the T. How he can't explain key details. How he claims he moved the body with the arms out yet that's not how the body was found. How he says he was smothered but you don't hear that on the tape. How he claims that he was hit 30 times in the face. How Trayvon talked like a movie gang banger. His story...is...not credible. I'll bite. In order, and I am too lazy too cut and paste: He didn't know how old he was. As for remorse, GZ seems generally monotone. I am not sure what you would expect him to be doing ...crying and wringing his hands ? I thought all his accounts were mostly consistent. The timeline, I am not sure about. it may or may not be OK. As for being hit at the T, that's where his keys were, and everything moves southward from there. That I don't have a problem with, as the witnesses described them as moving around as well. I think the actual distance the moved is more like 20 -25 feet than 50 feet. I am surprised he does not have better explanations for what happened, but i can sort of understand things happened rather quickly and perhaps unexpectedly. I think the LEO is mistaken on the body position. I'll have to keep looking on that one.
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,513

22nd June 2012, 08:23 PM	#44
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,513	Originally Posted by Unabogie On the stand he says he thought he was his age or a few years younger. On the NEN he says late teens. A perfect example of a self serving lie. Perhaps. Is it conceivable that he saw him, and initially estimated late teens, and after the <whatever happened> and he had been in close contact with TM, he revised his age estimate to early twenties ? He clearly wanted to address TM mother, when she said on TV that she would ask GZ did he know how old TM was, that he was not armed, etc. How was this lie 'self-serving' ?
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,513

22nd June 2012, 08:34 PM	#45
LTC8K6 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Directly under a deadly chemtrail Posts: 12,617	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x34vS...tailpage#t=34s "I don't know the exact path he took, but he did come in that back gate. I knew he was going to the back of the house, he was sittin' out there" This is also part of where that "sitting on the porch" idea comes from.
	__________________ What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away. What seems to be, is always better than nothing. 2 prints, same midtarsal crock..., I mean break? Last edited by LTC8K6; 22nd June 2012 at 08:37 PM.

22nd June 2012, 09:10 PM	#46
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,378	Originally Posted by Unabogie But everyone knows that watching a game from the stands is different from running out on the field. Once you run onto the field, you will suffer consequences. George ran onto the field and then lied about it. Let us suppose he ran out onto the field. Let us also suppose he's a flagrant liar. How will these get him convicted of murder? Unless he somehow enticed TM to attack him so he could then shoot Trayvon, it's hard to get past the "reasonable doubt" standard. I see this coming down to a battle of forensics and the prosecution proving something about the danger to life not existing. Without that, it seems like a steep hill to climb. It would be a much easier case if GZ hadn't been injured, or if TM had some injuries showing he had been punched as well. The whole business about GM trying to play cop sounds like it could be used in a civil trial for negligence and wrongful death, but I don't see how it proves much in a criminal trial.
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,378	Last edited by marplots; 22nd June 2012 at 09:13 PM.

22nd June 2012, 09:18 PM	#47
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,513	Originally Posted by LTC8K6 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x34vS...tailpage#t=34s "I don't know the exact path he took, but he did come in that back gate. I knew he was going to the back of the house, he was sittin' out there" This is also part of where that "sitting on the porch" idea comes from. It's interesting, for GZ, the back gate is the east gate of the subdivision. For Mr. Martin, the back gate is a cut through where there is no fence. Just an observation how two people talking about the same subdivision can use the exact same words two mean two completely different things. Also, I agree, that helps explain the 'sitting on the porch' comment.
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,513

22nd June 2012, 07:51 PM	#41
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,845	Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis Brought over from old thread: Aside from (arguably) things like thinking, imagining, etc - everything is a 'physical activity'. You are making arbitrary distinctions to suit your scenario. Everyone at the track is physically involved in the activity of going to the racetrack for the race I think a reasonable person could interpret physically involved as, for example, getting involved in a confrontation. Like the witness 'John' - who stepped outside to get 'physically involved' with GZ and TM by yelling at them but didn't run over and try to break up the fight, but ran inside to call the police. By your definition, he was physically involved. I think if you asked someone not involved in this discussion if John was 'physically involved' - they would clearly say no. But everyone knows that watching a game from the stands is different from running out on the field. Once you run onto the field, you will suffer consequences. George ran onto the field and then lied about it.

22nd June 2012, 08:11 PM	#43
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,845	Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis I'll bite. In order, and I am too lazy too cut and paste: He didn't know how old he was. As for remorse, GZ seems generally monotone. I am not sure what you would expect him to be doing ...crying and wringing his hands ? I thought all his accounts were mostly consistent. The timeline, I am not sure about. it may or may not be OK. As for being hit at the T, that's where his keys were, and everything moves southward from there. That I don't have a problem with, as the witnesses described them as moving around as well. I think the actual distance the moved is more like 20 -25 feet than 50 feet. I am surprised he does not have better explanations for what happened, but i can sort of understand things happened rather quickly and perhaps unexpectedly. I think the LEO is mistaken on the body position. I'll have to keep looking on that one. On the stand he says he thought he was his age or a few years younger. On the NEN he says late teens. A perfect example of a self serving lie.

22nd June 2012, 09:57 PM	#48
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,784	Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis Everyone at the track is physically involved in the activity of going to the racetrack for the race Note that you say "going to the racetrack" is the activity instead of running in the race! That's not gonna just squeak through without people noticing! I'll make this simple. The specific activity is a track&field sprint race between 10 runners. Those 10 runners are "physically involved" in that specific activity during the race. Everyone else, including the people in the stands, everyone else, is not physically involved in that specific activity. Do you agree with that or not? If not, please elaborate.
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,784	__________________ ________________________

22nd June 2012, 10:10 PM	#49
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,378	Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths The specific activity is a track&field sprint race between 10 runners. Those 10 runners are "physically involved" in that specific activity during the race. Everyone else, including the people in the stands, everyone else, is not physically involved in that specific activity. Do you agree with that or not? If not, please elaborate. That sounds good. And people in the stands who move about to get a better view of the activity are still not participating. Now, it seems straightforward to map this onto the activity of "acting suspiciously" (allegedly) and moving around, even following, to better view that activity. On the other hand, if the activity in question is just "walking around" then you have a point. I certainly hope my neighbors have enough sense to keep an eye on suspicious characters in my area. I'd do the same for them. And if their suspicions are misplaced, I hope it gets cleared up quickly and without anyone getting hit or shot.
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,378

22nd June 2012, 10:18 PM	#50
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,784	Originally Posted by marplots I certainly hope my neighbors have enough sense to keep an eye on suspicious characters in my area. I'd do the same for them. And if their suspicions are misplaced, I hope it gets cleared up quickly and without anyone getting hit or shot. I believe we all hope that our neighbors keep an eye on suspicious people in the neighborhood. I also believe we all hope that our neighbors don't leave their house or vehicle and start following the suspicious people around. Keep in mind though, the argument was about what Z's Neighborhood Watch guide meant by: Quote: "What you will not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or apprehension of any suspicious persons." Not about whether or not it will have any specific legal bearing in Z's trial. Originally Posted by marplots On the other hand, if the activity in question is just "walking around" then you have a point. Exactly. I'm not even convinced it would count 100%, but I am surely convinced that it is not a definite "no" like WildCat seems to think.
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,784	__________________ ________________________ Last edited by OnlyTellsTruths; 22nd June 2012 at 10:24 PM.

22nd June 2012, 10:35 PM	#51
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,845	Originally Posted by marplots Let us suppose he ran out onto the field. Let us also suppose he's a flagrant liar. How will these get him convicted of murder? Unless he somehow enticed TM to attack him so he could then shoot Trayvon, it's hard to get past the "reasonable doubt" standard. I see this coming down to a battle of forensics and the prosecution proving something about the danger to life not existing. Without that, it seems like a steep hill to climb. It would be a much easier case if GZ hadn't been injured, or if TM had some injuries showing he had been punched as well. The whole business about GM trying to play cop sounds like it could be used in a civil trial for negligence and wrongful death, but I don't see how it proves much in a criminal trial. I do not think forensics wil play a large part. I think it will be all about George and his story. He killed someone, and all you have to support his version of who started the fight is the word of a liar. Common sense tells us the guy who followed and was angry started it. Unless you believe George over common sense, I think he'll be convicted.

22nd June 2012, 10:37 PM	#52
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,378	Where do we place our bets?
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,378

22nd June 2012, 10:49 PM	#53
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,845	Originally Posted by marplots Where do we place our bets? Right here!

22nd June 2012, 10:50 PM	#54
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by KatieG Watching the reenactment, I nearly died laughing at the knuckle bandages on GZs head. Those are NOT butterfly bandages. Perhaps the wife/nurse in training put those on for him. I guarantee you no medical professional did that business. Same with the bandage on his nose. That isn't a piece that goes across the nose, again it's a knuckle bandage. What a couple of knuckle heads. And your point?
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

22nd June 2012, 11:02 PM	#55
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis Because you listened to Serinos interview (the detective who said everything supports GZ) and you liked his interview, suddenly the entire SPD didn't do a bad job ? Apparently the closer to the movies, and the less like boring old real life things are, the better some folks like it.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

22nd June 2012, 11:08 PM	#56
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,378	I'll bet he gets off for murder, but if manslaughter is a lesser included charge, I'm not sure how that will go. It might depend on getting a jury that can be convinced that, in similar circumstances, they would have acted the same as Georgie. For example, if I had called the cops on someone, I'd try to keep them in sight -- maybe even follow them -- so that when the cops showed up, I would know where the guy was. On the other hand, I doubt I'd call the cops in the first place, just because I saw someone I didn't recognize walking through the complex. And for darn sure, I'd do everything possible not to get on that jury.
marplots Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 5,378

22nd June 2012, 11:36 PM	#57
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by marplots I'll bet he gets off for murder, but if manslaughter is a lesser included charge, I'm not sure how that will go. It might depend on getting a jury that can be convinced that, in similar circumstances, they would have acted the same as Georgie. For example, if I had called the cops on someone, I'd try to keep them in sight -- maybe even follow them -- so that when the cops showed up, I would know where the guy was. On the other hand, I doubt I'd call the cops in the first place, just because I saw someone I didn't recognize walking through the complex. And for darn sure, I'd do everything possible not to get on that jury. Quote: Let us also suppose he's a flagrant liar. How will these get him convicted of murder? Exactly. The prosectuion can try to insinuate that his being unclear, or dishonest about other things detracts from credibility, but they will still need proof beyond a resonable doubt that GZ was 'not' in fear for his life when he said he was. And proving a negative while staying within the rules, isn't so easy. That is going to take some concrete evidence that is drastic... like a clubhouse video of him tackling Trayvon from behind and shooting him. What they won't be able to do is argue: "Zimmerman is a lying gangbanger', or 'He said he owned a red truck, and this title clearly proves it was actually a burgundy SUV, therefore his lie proves that you must vote guilty of murder'. They can't prevail merely on an alternative theory of events. The defense on the other hand, is going to be able to impugn the prosecution's every misstep and tell the jury, 'Why should you believe anything they say, now?' And every little thing that the prosecution brings up about George's past, the defense is going to able to claim as proof of his innocence. '...Yes ladies and gentlemen of the jury... my client got into fights... and never before felt the need to defend himself with deadly force'. 'Yes, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Zimmerman did run around pretending to be a Neighbrohood Watch Captain, and called the police mutiple times on young black men... and never shot at a single one of them'.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Last edited by crimresearch; 22nd June 2012 at 11:38 PM.

23rd June 2012, 04:00 AM	#58
Mumbles Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 621	Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths I believe we all hope that our neighbors keep an eye on suspicious people in the neighborhood. I also believe we all hope that our neighbors don't leave their house or vehicle and start following the suspicious people around. And I think that this has been covered before, but the basic idea is very obvious. If you decide to chase around some person who turns out to be innocent, then you are the criminal, since you're menacing a person for no reason. And if the person you're chasing turns out to be a criminal, then you're actively trying to confront a criminal. There's no way you can win here. If they attack, well, you're under attack. If the cops show up, well, it's you against them, and you were chasing. You just can't come out ahead here. Obviously,there are some exceptions - I'm not mad at that guy who saw a someone molesting his daughter and punched him dad. And I wn't be angry at a woman that reacts to street harassment. But the rule is, don't get physically nvolved, and running after someone violates that rule. And that's the big problem here. Zimmerman's entire account reads like he's Sanford's Batman, but when you hear the actual case, he's just an idiot.
Mumbles Muse Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 621

23rd June 2012, 05:18 AM	#59
Rare Truth Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: The road less travelled Posts: 1,291	The screams. Something came to mind: The screaming stopped the instant the shot went into Trayvon's heart. Now, that was something brought up before, and something some of the witnesses noted, making that part clear to them - it was TM, and not GZ screaming. Zimmerman defenders have returned with: well, sure it stopped. Z was no longer in fear...(or some such) -- BUT! But...noooooooooooow we know, now, since GZ's statements have been made public: this isn't the case. GZ did not think he killed TM. He believed the "suspect" still placed him in danger - to the point he mounted TM's body and spread his arms apart, and then after told flashlight man: help me subdue this dude. That sure changes the twist on that little story line...

23rd June 2012, 05:23 AM	#60
bookworm Muse Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 536	Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis ...... As for being hit at the T, that's where his keys were, and everything moves southward from there. That I don't have a problem with, as the witnesses described them as moving around as well. I think the actual distance the moved is more like 20 -25 feet than 50 feet. I am surprised he does not have better explanations for what happened, but i can sort of understand things happened rather quickly and perhaps unexpectedly. ... Ok, this is something I'm having a problem with right now. Zimmerman appears to be saying that he was hit and he went down and we all know the rest. Haven't witnesses or at least one witness said they saw 2 people chasing each other or one chasing the other? Also, the movement away from the T supports at least a minimal scuffle and moving around and maybe slight chase because someone is trying to move away before Zimmerman ends up on the ground. I'm not sure how to reconcile this.
bookworm Muse Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 536

23rd June 2012, 05:45 AM	#61
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,513	Originally Posted by bookworm Ok, this is something I'm having a problem with right now. Zimmerman appears to be saying that he was hit and he went down and we all know the rest. Haven't witnesses or at least one witness said they saw 2 people chasing each other or one chasing the other? Also, the movement away from the T supports at least a minimal scuffle and moving around and maybe slight chase because someone is trying to move away before Zimmerman ends up on the ground. I'm not sure how to reconcile this. Quote: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...50#post8391650 She told authorities that she had taken out her contact lenses just before the incident. In her first recorded interview with Sanford police four days after the shooting, she told lead Investigator Chris Serino, "I saw two guys running. Couldn't tell you who was in front, who was behind." She stepped away from her window, and when she looked again, she "saw a fistfight. Just fists. I don't know who was hitting who." A week later, she added a detail when talking again to Serino: During the chase, the two figures had been 10 feet apart. That all changed when she was re-interviewed March 20 by a state agent. That time, she recalled catching a glimpse of just one running figure, she told investigator John Batchelor, and she heard the person more than saw him. "I couldn't tell you if it was a man, a woman, a kid, black or white. I couldn't tell you because it was dark and because I didn't have my contacts on or glasses.... I just know I saw a person out there." Just one ... that matches up more with GZ story of TM disappearing between the houses then coming back ?
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,513

23rd June 2012, 05:52 AM	#62
Bikewer Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: St. Louis, Mo. Posts: 9,522	I said much earlier that it wouldn't surprise me to see Zimmerman accept a plea-bargain manslaughter charge and do minimal time. It also wouldn't amaze me to see him successfully sued for wrongful death, though I don't know how much of his donated funds he'll have left after he pays his lawyers...

23rd June 2012, 06:31 AM	#63
bookworm Muse Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 536	Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis Just one ... that matches up more with GZ story of TM disappearing between the houses then coming back ? Yes, it does. Why would she have initially said she saw a person chasing another person? Normally I'm more inclined to believe initial stories. Her first interview was 4 days later....I suppose that was enough time for her to hear rumors about what happened and maybe adjust what she thought she saw accordingly.
bookworm Muse Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 536

23rd June 2012, 07:46 AM	#64
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,845	Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis That's the clubhouse. That's where he said he initiated the call from ... why is this a problem ? By the way, I listened to the tape again. It's right at the beginning of part 3 of the 29th interview. And I keep hearing it as 111, not 1111. Meaning he says "one eleven". Not "one one one one" or "eleven eleven" or "eleven hundred eleven". Listen for yourself. It's a weird anomaly, I'm not saying it means anything, but it could.

23rd June 2012, 08:01 AM	#65
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,731	Originally Posted by bookworm Ok, this is something I'm having a problem with right now. Zimmerman appears to be saying that he was hit and he went down and we all know the rest. Haven't witnesses or at least one witness said they saw 2 people chasing each other or one chasing the other? Also, the movement away from the T supports at least a minimal scuffle and moving around and maybe slight chase because someone is trying to move away before Zimmerman ends up on the ground. I'm not sure how to reconcile this. George doesn't say anything about a scuffle so there is no scuffle that supports his innocence. An explanation that does work though is after the initial verbal encounter Trayvon proceeds towards his residence down the path to the south and George chases after him again and attempts to detain him. George's illegal use of force would give Trayvon the right to respond with force, a punch to the nose resulting in dropping George to the ground where Trayvon would immediately mount him and check his pickets for weapons, tossing the found objects aside. For those of you who are about to claim that there is no evidence that George attempted to restrain Trayvon, you are in a pickle there because there is no evidence that he didn't. So it cannot be claimed that Trayvon's use of force was not justified. There is no evidence of a continued beating and the evidence strongly suggests that no such beating took place except in George's mind. After falling over backwards and hitting his head on the concrete, his head would be pounding. And lying on his back with a broken nose, he could very well feel that he was being suffocated. In his semi-conscious state, George is immagining what is hapening to him and screaming like a baby. The last yelp might not be George. A neighbor has just come out and interrupts saying he is calling the police. Trayvon's back would be towards this neighbor so Trayvon would not have seen him but would have heard him. The presence of a witness would tell trayvon that it was safe to let George get up. As Trayvon starts to get up, this gives George access to his gun which he could not have reached before.
Dan O. Philosopher Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 8,731	__________________ Permanent solution to national fiscal problems: Collect UNDIEs from dead rich people. (link)

23rd June 2012, 08:26 AM	#66
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,547	Originally Posted by bookworm Yes, it does. Why would she have initially said she saw a person chasing another person? Normally I'm more inclined to believe initial stories. Her first interview was 4 days later....I suppose that was enough time for her to hear rumors about what happened and maybe adjust what she thought she saw accordingly. I am more inclined to believe her first interview, as well. It is perplexing but it would help to know where she lived, relative to the fight and at what point she saw the shadowy figure[s]. If she lived up by the T, intersection, she could have seen George stumbling after Trayvon hit him. However, if she lived somewhere else, it would be some pretty damning evidence against George's claim that he stopped following Trayvon after the call ended.
sgtbaker Philosopher Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 5,547

23rd June 2012, 08:57 AM	#67
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,784	Originally Posted by Rare Truth The screams. Something came to mind: The screaming stopped the instant the shot went into Trayvon's heart. Now, that was something brought up before, and something some of the witnesses noted, making that part clear to them - it was TM, and not GZ screaming. Zimmerman defenders have returned with: well, sure it stopped. Z was no longer in fear...(or some such) -- BUT! But...noooooooooooow we know, now, since GZ's statements have been made public: this isn't the case. GZ did not think he killed TM. He believed the "suspect" still placed him in danger - to the point he mounted TM's body and spread his arms apart, and then after told flashlight man: help me subdue this dude. That sure changes the twist on that little story line... Here's the last 8 seconds with volume normalized that was posted last week so everyone can hear for themselves: http://s000.tinyupload.com/download....82972710386417 What I hear is a loud scream (at :02) then 2 seconds later (at :04) either a scream or a yell of "help" (that one is hard to tell because the dispatcher is talking) then 2 seconds later (at :06) a very clear yell of "help", then 1 second later (at :07) is the gunshot. I really don't want to make any judgments about it.... Though I will say that it seems weird that Z would yell the word "help" again almost at the very instant he is pulling the trigger.
OnlyTellsTruths Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 5,784	__________________ ________________________

23rd June 2012, 09:03 AM	#68
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,845	Originally Posted by bookworm Yes, it does. Why would she have initially said she saw a person chasing another person? Normally I'm more inclined to believe initial stories. Her first interview was 4 days later....I suppose that was enough time for her to hear rumors about what happened and maybe adjust what she thought she saw accordingly. Originally Posted by sgtbaker I am more inclined to believe her first interview, as well. It is perplexing but it would help to know where she lived, relative to the fight and at what point she saw the shadowy figure[s]. If she lived up by the T, intersection, she could have seen George stumbling after Trayvon hit him. However, if she lived somewhere else, it would be some pretty damning evidence against George's claim that he stopped following Trayvon after the call ended. This is why I said that I didn't think forensics or SYG would decide the case. If jurors think that George is lying about what happened that night, they will convict him. It's a fact that he killed Trayvon, but his defense is that it was justified because he was attacked for no reason. If you disbelieve that, then what's left?

23rd June 2012, 10:01 AM	#69
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,513	Originally Posted by Unabogie By the way, I listened to the tape again. It's right at the beginning of part 3 of the 29th interview. And I keep hearing it as 111, not 1111. Meaning he says "one eleven". Not "one one one one" or "eleven eleven" or "eleven hundred eleven". Listen for yourself. It's a weird anomaly, I'm not saying it means anything, but it could. https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...zimmerman.html IDK. I agree he says 111. Then the dispatcher says: OK--you said it's 1111 Retreat View? Or 111? Zimmerman: That's the clubhouse... And GZ agrees that is the clubhouse. He says 111, and means 1111. It just sounds to me like GZ is bad with addresses and street names.
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,513

23rd June 2012, 10:03 AM	#70
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,513	Originally Posted by sgtbaker I am more inclined to believe her first interview, as well. It is perplexing but it would help to know where she lived, relative to the fight and at what point she saw the shadowy figure[s]. If she lived up by the T, intersection, she could have seen George stumbling after Trayvon hit him. However, if she lived somewhere else, it would be some pretty damning evidence against George's claim that he stopped following Trayvon after the call ended. Here are the addresses. http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/witmap470.jpg
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,513

23rd June 2012, 10:06 AM	#71
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,513	Originally Posted by Unabogie This is why I said that I didn't think forensics or SYG would decide the case. If jurors think that George is lying about what happened that night, they will convict him. It's a fact that he killed Trayvon, but his defense is that it was justified because he was attacked for no reason. If you disbelieve that, then what's left? That's incorrect. His defense self defense: TM was on top of him, he could not retreat, TM said words to the effect of "you are going to die tonight" and GZ felt him reach for his weapon. That is what the state has to disprove. Everything else is window dressing.
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,513

23rd June 2012, 10:07 AM	#72
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,845	Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis Here are the addresses. http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/witmap470.jpg Which one is she?

23rd June 2012, 10:11 AM	#73
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,513	Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths Here's the last 8 seconds with volume normalized that was posted last week so everyone can hear for themselves: http://s000.tinyupload.com/download....82972710386417 What I hear is a loud scream (at :02) then 2 seconds later (at :04) either a scream or a yell of "help" (that one is hard to tell because the dispatcher is talking) then 2 seconds later (at :06) a very clear yell of "help", then 1 second later (at :07) is the gunshot. I really don't want to make any judgments about it.... Though I will say that it seems weird that Z would yell the word "help" again almost at the very instant he is pulling the trigger. I find it all "weird" because shooting and killing someone isn't normal. Getting in a fight with a stranger outside in the rain isn't exactly normal either. I would find it more strange that TM was screaming help the entire time, even when he was on top of GZ, and didn't stop when the witness told them he was going to call 911. GZ clearly states he was telling the "John" to help, and that matches exactly with "Johns" initial witness statement. Someone care to explain that away ?
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,513

23rd June 2012, 10:12 AM	#74
Unabogie Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 5,845	Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis That's incorrect. His defense self defense: TM was on top of him, he could not retreat, TM said words to the effect of "you are going to die tonight" and GZ felt him reach for his weapon. That is what the state has to disprove. Everything else is window dressing. No. If he gets up on the stand to give that story, and he must, then if the jury thinks he's making it all up, he'll be convicted. The state can disprove it by showing what a conniving liar George is. Would you acquit a man who claimed he shot someone in self defense, if you found him to be utterly dishonest about key details in his story?

23rd June 2012, 10:19 AM	#75
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,513	Originally Posted by Unabogie Which one is she? Witness 2. http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/new...-to-the-public
TheL8Elvis Illuminator Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 3,513