George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #12 Wed July 10

[Just K]

So you think GZ says 'you got me' after screaming for help for 40 seconds, as if the screaming for 40 seconds for help wouldn't have gotten TM off GZ already? What logic is that?

Because of the "tapping out" knowledge that GZ learned at his gym while learning to "Grapple." IMO

Also, everyone that this guy spoke to or read info about was all hearsay to this witness. IMO...he wasn't there. IMO.

 

[sorrell skye]

Mr. Guy can try to go at Mr. Root all day, but I don't think he has a hope in Hades of turning this witness.

MOO

 

[sacrablue]

"to continue" is your opinion and not based on evidence.

and it twists the facts to fit your argument, imo.

Oh I am sorry, GZ said he was just going the same direction, not following TM. IMO

 

[Mollyandme]

Did anyone force GZ to follow TM in his truck and get out and follow him? IMO

IMO, did anyone force TM to punch GZ in the face and bang his head into the concrete as the EVIDENCE presented in court shows.

following is not illegal as has been mentioned previous times by at least a dozen posters.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Mr. Guy can try to go at Mr. Root all day, but I don't think he has a hope in Hades of turning this witness.

MOO

And Wait til the defense gets redirect.

 

[Peliman]

Following a person around in a truck and getting out on foot to continue is not confronting?? You got to think the big picture and try to stop twisting the facts to fit. IMO

Sure he followed him to the back of the unit but not with the intent to harm TM, he followed him to see where he went. Nothing illegal about it.

TM had no injuries indicating GZ started the fight. It appears TM started the fight which is an assault and illegal. Tragic as the chain of events are, if someone fears for their life hey can use deadly force as self defense.

JMO

To be fair I'm waiting to see if the prosecution has more evidence but I couldn't convict GZ for 2nd degree murder and don't think the jury will either.

JMO IMO

 

[missmazzy]

You guys are either hearing something ahead of WFTV because I haven't heard anything about Dummies or crotches...or did I nod off?

I'm watching wftv online. Prosecutor brought in a dummy and straddled it, witness couldn't see over the jury box, which led to his comment.you must have missed it!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Oh I am sorry, GZ said he was just going the same direction, not following TM. IMO

Not against the law. That is all that matters. The LAW and only the LAW.

 

[Love Never Fails]

They cannot legally show that TV sent those texts regardless of what he says technically he cannot prove that TV sent them

But the theory doesn't make sense. Of course TM sent them. It was HIS phone. You can bet if texts said something different in favor of TM, the state would enter it!

 

[Isabelle]

Yes, she did say that. She also said things like "I thought it was just a fight", and she also didn't attempt to contact him after that.

Who knows.

IMHO

So it was TM who RJ heard say "get off" or very similar to that.

Who was it that heard GZ say to TM "get off me" or similar?

 

[Zuri]

I appreciate this witnesses testimony, I think he's saying a lot of things straight up regarding time perception etc. However, the State is hammering in the point that the witness didn't seem to look at all the evidence, there seems to be some important information that the witness has overlooked or didn't take into account. IMO

I learned a lot from this witness. However, the State is really getting points in that were not covered by either side. The dummy demonstration was pretty powerful. IMO

 

[defense101]

You're making a big assumption thinking TM would have stopped beating GZ if he simply "cried uncle". IMO.

You are assuming that TM would have stopped fighting when GZ pulled the gun. IMO

 

[DIBSY]

Hero perception? I haven't read anything, anywhere, that anyone thinks GZ is a hero. I don't have handy access to links but most articles that I have read or interviews I have seen think while GZ may have been defending himself- this certainly wasn't a hero scenario. Nothing but lose-lose all the way around. Where have you read people think he's a hero? I've not seen any type of such perception, not in the slightest, in all my following of this very sad case.

I've seen it everywhere, in the news, on forums, all over the internet, some sites promoted by his friends...the books his family and friends have written about it and of course in this instance I have provided in my Sig...people don't want to train Like and Where a loser trained...he's used to promote the training he took because he's the Neighborhood Watch hero et al.

Which in turn makes TM The worst Kind of ^&%$, similar to what GZ called him.

 

[cityslick]

Here is the logic.


If for 40 seconds calling for help does not work. GZ in a position where TM has full mount he has no other choice but to submit. GZ brought up the comment that TM said "you got me".

No one can figure out why Tm would say that after being shot with a 9mm close range.

It makes sense that GZ said it to have TM "get off". remember the get off comment?

Then if GZ shot TM as he was getting up that would answer the off angel of the bullet.

I don't know how many fights you've seen in your life or even been in, but there isn't a whole lot where you tell someone that is hitting you to 'get off', especially if they have been at it for a bit, to just oblige and get off you.

 

[Donnareit]

Hello lisasalinger, thank you for your reply, I do appreciate the long, cordial, thoughtful rebuttal in yesterday's thread which I unfortunately missed. So kindly allow me to return the honor.

When I offered in the older post that "there is *no proof* to support the versions of events as stated by GZ, no GZ DNA on TM, indicating at least *some* physical contact, no lethal weapon on TM, no signs of 25 blows on the concrete sidewalk, no eye witness accounts, etc.", I meant that strictly with regard to the case for self-defense. What I referred to specifically is the “imminent death/great bodily harm” scenario necessary, which IMO remains unproven by existing evidence or testimony.

IMO, the several paragraphs of descriptions in your post could match *some* of GZ’s account in general, however, the crux of the case rests not on supporting *some* of GZ’s account, but on providing definitive evidence that GZ *was* confronted with a situation of “imminent death/great bodily harm” to justify killing TM. Therefore every scenario described has to pass the criteria/test of demonstrating a situation of “imminent death/great bodily harm” to enter as evidence on GZ’s side. The question needs to be asked each time, “Is this a life or death situation for GZ?”, for every eye witness testimony or physical evidence, eg. JG's testimony or GZ’s injuries.

How TM was shot was not in question. However, even if TM was straddling GZ, this is still not an imminent death threat to GZ. That TM did grab, slam, punch GZ are all conjecture because there’s really no DNA of GZ on TM to indicate any of these actions at all. It is as if someone claims to have used a glass for drinking several rounds of beer yet there’s *no fingerprints* on the glass, and those who try to uphold this claim try to explain the absence of fingerprints through various incongruous hypotheses. The clearest and most reasonable explanation is that the glass has not been used at all, unless there’s tampering with evidence. Unlike fingerprints, DNA cannot be wiped away, *some* blood and flesh will remain even in minute quantities, especially when no one tampered with the sidewalk, TM’s corpse or clothes. So lack of any, even the slightest, traces of contact between TM and GZ is damning evidence that they were not engaged in any significant physical struggle.

IMO, no situation of “imminent death/great bodily harm” has been described.

John Good's testimony does not constitute evidence that TM was delivering potentially lethal force that justifies his own killing/death. If JG had seen exactly what GZ was describing, his head being “slammed onto concrete many times”, then that could be entered as evidence of imminent death or great bodily harm. What JG described was a *potential* fight scenario, the blows or punches aren’t even clear to JG. Notice JG could not even claim it was a fight, only that one was on top of the other and there were up and down arm motions. Since GZ injuries were in the face and head, ie unprotected by clothing, flesh and blood DNA would have been left on TM’s hands if TM was indeed punching and pummeling his face and head many times without gloves. IMO

Males in general are not alien to fighting, especially for an MMA trainer. The whole altercation lasted at most 2 minutes, it would be reasonable to expect that GZ could fight back for at least 2 minutes, yet his gun was drawn almost immediately after the encounter happened. IMO


Witnesses did not describe a potentially life-threatening scenario. When two men are scuffling for a minute or two, there is no reason to believe that one is going to die or suffer great bodily harm, unless a lethal weapon is present.


If being near a concrete sidewalk can be accepted as the equivalent of carrying a lethal weapon, then *all* of us are carrying a lethal weapon anywhere where there’re sticks, stones, bricks and concrete, so I am not ready to accept that being near a concrete sidewalk = wielding a loaded gun or a large sharp knife.

The implications of this analogy by defense is troubling - BOTH parties are able to "wield" the concrete sidewalk, so to speak. Being "armed" implies being equipped with an overwhelming advantage to wield lethal force. The concrete sidewalk cannot be TM's "lethal weapon", as this is a "lethal weapon" that is available to all, therefore it isn't. It doesn't tip the balance of power at all, unlike a gun.

Besides, there is no evidence of the "head slamming on concrete by TM", no GZ’s DNA on TM, no blood on concrete found, no eye witness account, no medical examiner documentation even, etc. again, only GZ’s version of events.



I agree with you that GZ's perception matters as well. I perceive differently because the police/ME couldn’t detect *any* GZ DNA on TM, thus showing the two might not even have had any close physical contact, let alone the “pounding and slamming on concrete” scenario. It is also possible that GZ’s injuries were created via other avenues than at the hands of TM. So GZ’s perception does not match the reality - the lack of evidence of lethal, bloody, forceful physical fight with TM.

Short of tampering with the DNA evidence by the police or ME, i.e. the equivalent of wiping fingerprints away, the absence of *any* evidence makes me skeptical that I should go on GZ’s account alone.


IMO, nothing described in your post, lasting under 2 minutes, could *reasonably* compel GZ to fear for his life. GZ isn’t a frail elderly person unable to fight back for these couple of minutes. Drawing a gun and shooting to kill (aiming at heart)within a matter of seconds of a close encounter, IMO, shows a reckless attitude and an indifference to the other person's life.

If I were to be attacked by another 40 lbs smaller, 12 years younger person, for 2 minutes, there is simply no way that he or she could kill me with his bare hands within that timeframe.

If being in a fight alone is justification enough for self-defense in the killing of another person, then there is no need for the “imminent death/great bodily harm” clause/condition attached to qualify as self-defense. IMO

If all the evidence points to the contrary, eg. blood DNA of GZ were to be found on TM, eye witnesses seeing slamming of GZ’s head, concrete showing traces of GZ’s blood, fight lasted longer with GZ losing, and GZ sustained greater injuries, eg. concussion, etc., if any of these had surfaced, I would of course take the opposite position, that indeed GZ acted in self-defense.

Unfortunately, the *opposite* had happened, ie. the positive evidence of “imminent death/great bodily harm” scenario do not exist, while the negative does, showing TM had little to no physical contact with GZ.


All respectfully offered and always stated as my own humble opinion.
:cheers:

:bump: IMO this is a reasonable argument. Has anyone seen an explanation of the events with the assumption that GZ was on top? I believe more than one neighbor saw it that way, and such a scenario would help me understand the entry wound and lack of DNA. :moo:

 

[Jetaime]

Towards who? The people who are robbing the neighborhood and getting away.

If he had ill will towards TM he would not have called the police. He would have followed him, shot him and then called the police.

THIS. I am so up & down with this case, I actually haven't formed a solid opinion either way. Great point!

Sent from my LG-VM696 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Kip]

I wonder if TM said "You shot me" rather than "you got me" and it was misheard.

 

[Mollyandme]

if this is the prosecutions last witness, do you guys think closing arguments will start this afternoon or tmw?

 

[ShadyLady]

IMO the most pathetic charge against GZ all along has been "He's a wannabe cop."

It used to be a sign of good character if someone wanted to be a police officer.

The ex-policeman on the stand today is stellar. IMO! :rockon:

 

[cinsbythesea]

No ill will. Black guy with a hoodie walking around looking suspicious on drugs or something. No ill will. IMO

We've had a rash of break-ins in my neighborhood lately and ANYONE walking around with a hood over their head in the pouring rain and "looking suspicious on drugs or something" would definitely raise concern. The color of the person's skin wouldn't factor in at all - the suspicious behavior would. It's not about ill will. It's about being on the alert from further break-ins. Not sure what your point is in your statement?