George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General discussion #4

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
One does not perceive the sound of "wet grass" with just one's ears (unless one is sensory disabled and has only auditory ability). It is practically impossible for someone to accurately recognize the sound of "wet grass" over the phone.

Agree to disagree. :)
 
I'm saying the PA opinion was based in part on what George reported to him. The PA saw no defects.
George Zimmerman never got an x-ray

The PA was a female. Have you even taken a look at the evidence?
 
There are cameras that can show bruising long before it becomes visible to the human eye.
http://www.crime-scene-investigator.net/uvchildphoto.html
I wonder if the SPD had access to one or could have had access. In a fight for your life, there should have been significant corroborating evidence of GZ being roughed up.

Did you see the photos of the big bumps on his head -- left, right and back, that the female crime scene investigator testified to earlier this week? That, plus the bloody nose and head is more than enough, imo, since no actual injury is even required.
 
He also wants to be a cop. No matter what happens, at least that dream is dead and he won't be able to profile professionally.

After his assault on a police officer that was never going to happen. I'm surprised he was able to acquire a handgun and concealed weapon permit.
 
I need to dig out some of my ghost hunting equipment, and record the sound of wet grass. Even the wind, which cannot be seen, has a sound. :)

Yes. They do. But you are not just using your ears (through a cell phone) to recognize it. If you have done soundtrack work, then you know that often times they use the sound of something else because it sounds more "realistic" than the real thing.
 
That's what I mean, then how do we know that GZ had a broken nose? The photo I saw recently (couple of posts back) looks normal without blood. The one I saw in the media later where there was blood does look swollen. It's confusing to us.

If no x-rays were taken then how could one say I have a broken nose except to just claim that. I also wondered about all the band-aids when he didn't have any sutures. What was the purpose except for show?

It's in the report that it was a closed fracture. I'm sure the defense is going to introduce it because they referenced it in opening. Are we going to say that is forged?
 
I'm not the one with issues as to how it's defined. I believe it's defined appropriately.

The definition you provided was this:

Pursue in order to catch or catch up with​

You have some examples of this definition. You have the synonyms of the word listed. These are not definitions. The only definition of the word in the predicate form that you have used is "Pursue in order to catch or catch up with".

If you cannot prove, with factual evidence, that he was attempting to catch or catch up with Martin, the entire premise is flawed. I can break this down into logical notation for you, but I believe that is entirely unnecessary as someone who is objective to this should be able to plainly see how using the definition you provided is a faulty premise.

Further, I have already proven GZ's pursuit of TM with his own words. It is a fact. Period.
 
Because thankfully, our justice system understands that our populace is severely under educated these days- and we cannot exclude that large percentage of human beings from participating or receiving justice merely because our country's education system has also failed them. Just how much do you suggest we marginalize the poorly educated? Honestly, she seems more credible and intelligent than Frank Taffe.

She doesn't even want to be there so I wouldn't call it marginalization in this case. I would think that putting someone on the stand who can't read a statement she wrote, and is making absurd claims about what people would have done, hearing wet grass over a phone, etc. should not be allowed, simply because we want to include undereducated people in the system. How is it a good thing to include illogical and non-critical thinking in a murder trial? I say the same thing about the juries which seem to be a whole other mess. imo
 
With respect, unless I am misunderstanding your question, if you will listen to GZ on the 911 call, he tells the dispatcher how he is tracking/hunting/ the suspicious %&* and even during the course of hunting for him, he exclaims that he has " lost him "... how can a person "lose" someone they aren't tracking/hunting/stalking et al? Just wondering, particularly when TM gave GZ no reason whatsoever to go after him, not to mention the Dispatcher told GZ " We don't need you to do that." ( as in follow or pursue TM. ) GZ had just admitted to him that he was doing exactly that.:seeya:

He does not specifically say he is hunting him though.

Because at that point, Trayvon had taken off and George lost him

He was following Trayvon for 11 seconds and after the dispatcher says "we don't need you to do that" he says "ok" and proceeds to return to his vehicle.

Here is the timeline:

http://gzdocs.com/documents/opening_graphics/timeline.jpg
 
No, the main crime I'm hearing from some is him getting out the car. The end, everything after that is his fault, regardless of the circumstances.

So GZ deserved a beatdown to whatever degree TM deemed appropriate, because he did not sit in his vehicle?
 
Ok, Racial profiling is using someone's skin color as evidence of grounds for suspicion.

You might not like the word. But that is what he was doing.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The only racial profiling was done by TM. jmo
 
it doesn't matter if his nose was broken or not. legally all that matters is that he felt his life was in imminent danger.

Sorry to be a broken record on this, but he didn't have to fear for his life. He could also have been in fear of "great bodily harm" under Florida law.
 
George was told by 911 to lay off, stop approaching, get back and let the police handle this.

I believe what was said during the testimony- We don't need you to do that.

They really prefer you to watch at a distance. From what I understood this meaning was all to protect the the person doing the watching. Correct me if I'm wrong here.
 
It's in the report that it was a closed fracture. I'm sure the defense is going to introduce it because they referenced it in opening. Are we going to say that is forged?

Without an x-ray... He could claim it was knocked completely off his face. Means nothing without x-ray
 
UUMMM...that would mean in my example that GZ would be dead.

George put himself into the situation. Someone else is now dead. George needs to pay the price for that.

NOTHING LIKE BLAMING THE VICTIM!

Of course, we have seen victim blaming of Trayvon. It has been repeatedly stated here that if he wasn't up to anything bad, he would have been home already.

If he thought he was being followed, he should have gone home.

Except common sense and recommendations of Law Enforcement tell you...if someone is following you, going home where there is no adult and only a smaller child is NOT A GOOD IDEA!!!

I totally agree with the whole blaming the victim stuff. Here is my concern... if, according to RJ, TM was right by the back of dad's gf's townhouse how is it this confrontation took place 700ft away back towards where GZ's truck was?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
58
Guests online
2,207
Total visitors
2,265

Forum statistics

Threads
602,342
Messages
18,139,372
Members
231,354
Latest member
Akwy
Back
Top