George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General discussion #5

[cityslick]

I know. I find it odd that officers didn't take pics of the back of his head. This photo has always looked "off" to me. Now, it makes sense, it wasn't from LE.

So is the EMT lying? I'm confused by the point, are you questioning the validity of the photo simply because it was a witness who took it, despite the fact that an EMT testified under oath that it looked exactly like that?

 

[lil_buddy]

Hello everyone, posting for the first time here. Thanks for sharing such a trove of information. I'm more interested in the logical deduction in this case, so here's my two cents.

IMO, I will assume that GZ will definitely offer a version of events most advantageous to his defense, and TM is dead, so if I were a member of the jury, unless substantiated by facts, GZ's account will be disregarded to place both sides on an equal footing.

So one male is not only 40+ lbs heavier but 12 years older than the other. He was lethally armed with a loaded pistol while the younger man was unarmed. He had been watching and following the latter, in full command of his senses, packed, comfortable about his "turf" and knowing what he was doing when he targeted TM. TM was being followed, and most likely afraid as GZ's identity, intentions, hostility, armed readiness, etc. were completely unknown, and he was a guest in this neighborhood, a stranger.

Clearly one party was far more dominant and in control of the situation, ready to act against someone he already believed to be a "punk" who might get away, trained in MMA, ready to use lethal force if necessary. The other ran away from an uncertain and possibly dangerous situation, unarmed and fearful. One predator, the other prey, it makes sense.

Following a 2-minute altercation, the weaker male died of a fatal gunshot wound at the hands of the dominant male. Based on Occam's Razor, GZ being the aggressor makes the most sense. The test of the pudding is in the tasting, etc...

The Defense is asking us to suspend logic and reason for the 2 minutes to consider an opposite scenario, that despite all of the above conditions, being younger, lighter, thinner, unarmed, more fearful, less experienced in fighting, etc., TM was suddenly able to turn the tables round and potentially deliver lethal injury to GZ. This sudden ability for all of 2 minutes is only supported by GZ's account, as none of GZ's injuries would qualify as life-threatening, and no available medical documentation supports this version of great bodily harm done to GZ.

At the end of these 2 minutes, the events once again follow the earlier logical trajectory - the prey, the younger, weaker, unarmed male is stone-cold dead.

Believing GZ's account for those 2 minutes therefore takes jumping through several hoops. Again, we must remind ourselves that GZ's account is the basis for his defense, therefore should not be given carte blanche.

IMHO, Occam's razor applies, until strong, credible, admissible evidence shows otherwise.

THANK YOU!!!!!!
Yes, defendants lie in a manner to help their case. LOL
Seems obvious, right?!?!?!?!?

 

[Justice4MyPeople]

I don't want to hear that GZ's head wounds were little boo boos and probably self inflicted when he slipped in the grass, or, by a stretch of the imagination, when he bashed his own head repeatedly on the concrete.

I hope we both get what we want so the discussion can move along. :seeya:

Amazing isn't it!!! We can see GZ today, and his nose is not spread across his face like it was that night. I don't really know how GZ had time to confront TM with all the running into trees, and rolling around in bushes and mulch that he "supposedly" did during that 40 seconds of screaming. I wish some of the people that don't think getting your head slammed into the sidewalk is enough reason to use deadly force would try this...... Go lay down on a sidewalk, and let your head fall back on it without any force. How many times can they do it without deciding enough is enough. Would love to see this re-enactment on youtube if somebody is willing to try it! It's just little bumps, right?

What about Trayvon's right to defend himself? If you see someone following you and you run and they're still there and you see a weapon you have reason to fear your life. Fight or flight. He tried flight (we know this because Zimmerman said Trayvon ran on the 911 tape) so fighting would be the next step. Are you implying Trayvon should have let Zimmerman just shoot him?

You can't shoot someone just because they got the best of you, if that's the case a lot more people would be dead. You don't bring a gun to a fist fight. Especially with a child. Secondly if Zimmerman wasn't looking for trouble why was his safety not on? He's going to Target right?? Was he planning on shooting someone in the supermarket?

 

[AngelWings444]

JD testified that GZ was on the bottom. If we're going to throw out witness testimony because it doesn't fit the theory, can I throw out the entirety of RJ's testimony? We do that and where are we then?

Yesterday, two witnesses testified that Zimmerman was the one on top. It's a fluster cluck. :scared:

 

[m00c0w]

I have a feeling this will be a not guilty or a hung jury. It will bother me if it is because I can't get out of my head, and heart, that GZ is the one who started all this. TM would not have died had GZ not been there. Self defense or not, this all happened because of GZ putting himself in this position because some young man is standing in the rain instead of trying to get out of it. I will feel really bad for TM's family, well, I feel for them anyways. Ugh!

The law and morality don't always align. This is a court of law, so all that is really relevant was if Zimmerman was within the law. If he was, then Martin was not.

 

[JudyBolton]

Only if TM was straight up while straddling GZ. GZ would have had to have some extension of his arms to place the bullet parallel to his own body, which would be into TM's chest. If TM were chest down on GZ, bullet travel would have been more perpendicular to GZ's body and he would not require any extension of his arms, but the gun would have been much closer to his face, so recoil could have played a part in the nose injury.

Sorry, I keep posting the same thing but there is a DT expert witness would will meticulously describe the gun,the bullet, the angle, the sweatshirt hole, the cartridge location, etc.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

I know. I find it odd that officers didn't take pics of the back of his head. This photo has always looked "off" to me. Now, it makes sense, it wasn't from LE.

Are you saying you think it's photoshopped? tia

 

[TexMex]

it would have been better if Martin was somewhere else and not in Sanford that night

it would have been better if GZ would have gone to Target

it would have been better if Trayvon would have though to himself what the risks were if he decided to go back and fight George.

JMO

That's how I see it. Lots of things could/should have been different...but the fact is: two people were on a public sidewalk, a fight began, the one lawfully carrying a firearm was forced to defend himself after sustaining cuts to his head and a fracture to his nose.

 

[polleypockets]

I heard it all. His testimony plus pics of injuries tell me who got the beating and felt they needed to defend themselves. No beating received by Trayvon..he was straddling Zimmerman

but why isn''t his story being discounted because he has changed it a lot and ppl still believe tm was straddling him, and other witnesses are boing discredited for the same thing?? - and yesterday the spanish speaking witness ran outside w/ in like 10 sec of the gun shot and she saw gz on top of tm, how could he switch t up so fast

 

[AngelWings444]

Hello everyone, posting for the first time here. Thanks for sharing such a trove of information. I'm more interested in the logical deduction in this case, so here's my two cents.

IMO, I will assume that GZ will definitely offer a version of events most advantageous to his defense, and TM is dead, so if I were a member of the jury, unless substantiated by facts, GZ's account will be disregarded to place both sides on an equal footing.

So one male is not only 40+ lbs heavier but 12 years older than the other. He was lethally armed with a loaded pistol while the younger man was unarmed. He had been watching and following the latter, in full command of his senses, packed, comfortable about his "turf" and knowing what he was doing when he targeted TM. TM was being followed, and most likely afraid as GZ's identity, intentions, hostility, armed readiness, etc. were completely unknown, and he was a guest in this neighborhood, a stranger.

Clearly one party was far more dominant and in control of the situation, ready to act against someone he already believed to be a "punk" who might get away, trained in MMA, ready to use lethal force if necessary. The other ran away from an uncertain and possibly dangerous situation, unarmed and fearful. One predator, the other prey, it makes sense.

Following a 2-minute altercation, the weaker male died of a fatal gunshot wound at the hands of the dominant male. Based on Occam's Razor, GZ being the aggressor makes the most sense. The test of the pudding is in the tasting, etc...

The Defense is asking us to suspend logic and reason for the 2 minutes to consider an opposite scenario, that despite all of the above conditions, being younger, lighter, thinner, unarmed, more fearful, less experienced in fighting, etc., TM was suddenly able to turn the tables round and potentially deliver lethal injury to GZ. This sudden ability for all of 2 minutes is only supported by GZ's account, as none of GZ's injuries would qualify as life-threatening, and no available medical documentation supports this version of great bodily harm done to GZ.

At the end of these 2 minutes, the events once again follow the earlier logical trajectory - the prey, the younger, weaker, unarmed male is stone-cold dead.

Believing GZ's account for those 2 minutes therefore takes jumping through several hoops. Again, we must remind ourselves that GZ's account is the basis for his defense, therefore should not be given carte blanche.

IMHO, Occam's razor applies, until strong, credible, admissible evidence shows otherwise.

Great first post!! WELCOME!! Keep posting!

:Welcome1:

 

[Horace Finklestein]

if you listen to the tape. gz claims tm has his hand over his mouth and is "BANGING" his head into the pavement while saying he was going to kill him. imo that would result in more that just 3 superficial cuts that did not require stitches, per the medical report i have posted many times - and how could gz be screaming like he said if tm had his hand over his mouth??

Maybe his hand wasn't over his mouth the entire time?

And then how did the injuries get there?

 

[iluvmua]

I have a feeling this will be a not guilty or a hung jury. It will bother me if it is because I can't get out of my head, and heart, that GZ is the one who started all this. TM would not have died had GZ not been there. Self defense or not, this all happened because of GZ putting himself in this position because some young man is standing in the rain instead of trying to get out of it. I will feel really bad for TM's family, well, I feel for them anyways. Ugh!

So he should be punished regardless?

Would you like to be George Zimmerman right now and have people want you and your family dead because of what You (George) thought was right?

I certainly would not want to be George right now and and to be truthful, It could be any one of us in that chair right now.

JMO

 

[PaperDoll]

if you listen to the tape. gz claims tm has his hand over his mouth and is "BANGING" his head into the pavement while saying he was going to kill him. imo that would result in more that just 3 superficial cuts that did not require stitches, per the medical report i have posted many times - and how could gz be screaming like he said if tm had his hand over his mouth??

He also said that right before he shot TM, TM slammed his head on the pavement, but he also said TM was reaching for his gun as he slammed his head on the pavement, so GM magically was able to pull his gun out and shoot. I don't believe GZ is telling all, I believe he is telling truth in some areas but over exaggerated his story :twocents:

 

[ShadyLady]

I just want to thank mods for letting us discuss this case without letting people get personal and nasty and keeping threads clean.

People will view the evidence from their own worldview, some will try to be objective some not.

We will just not always agree, but this gives us a venue to at least discuss it.

 

[m00c0w]

What about Trayvon's right to defend himself? If you see someone following you and you run and they're still there and you see a weapon you have reason to fear your life.

Why do you feel he saw a weapon?

Fight or flight. He tried flight (we know this because Zimmerman said Trayvon ran on the 911 tape) so fighting would be the next step. Are you implying Trayvon should have let Zimmerman just shoot him?

If he earnestly tried flight, why was he still in the area over two minutes later? That was enough time for him to get home twice by then, much less out of the area altogether.

You can't shoot someone just because they got the best of you, if that's the case a lot more people would be dead.

You can if there exists the peril of death or fear of great bodily harm.

You don't bring a gun to a fist fight.

Or perhaps you don't bring fists to a gun fight?

Especially with a child.

Appeal to emotion. This "child" was capable of killing someone just the same as any adult.

Secondly if Zimmerman wasn't looking for trouble why was his safety not on? He's going to Target right?? Was he planning on shooting someone in the supermarket?

False premise. The weapon in question does not have a manual safety to be engaged.

 

[Tenaciousdae]

Hello everyone, posting for the first time here. Thanks for sharing such a trove of information. I'm more interested in the logical deduction in this case, so here's my two cents.

IMO, I will assume that GZ will definitely offer a version of events most advantageous to his defense, and TM is dead, so if I were a member of the jury, unless substantiated by facts, GZ's account will be disregarded to place both sides on an equal footing.

So one male is not only 40+ lbs heavier but 12 years older than the other. He was lethally armed with a loaded pistol while the younger man was unarmed. He had been watching and following the latter, in full command of his senses, packed, comfortable about his "turf" and knowing what he was doing when he targeted TM. TM was being followed, and most likely afraid as GZ's identity, intentions, hostility, armed readiness, etc. were completely unknown, and he was a guest in this neighborhood, a stranger.

Clearly one party was far more dominant and in control of the situation, ready to act against someone he already believed to be a "punk" who might get away, trained in MMA, ready to use lethal force if necessary. The other ran away from an uncertain and possibly dangerous situation, unarmed and fearful. One predator, the other prey, it makes sense.

Following a 2-minute altercation, the weaker male died of a fatal gunshot wound at the hands of the dominant male. Based on Occam's Razor, GZ being the aggressor makes the most sense. The test of the pudding is in the tasting, etc...

The Defense is asking us to suspend logic and reason for the 2 minutes to consider an opposite scenario, that despite all of the above conditions, being younger, lighter, thinner, unarmed, more fearful, less experienced in fighting, etc., TM was suddenly able to turn the tables round and potentially deliver lethal injury to GZ. This sudden ability for all of 2 minutes is only supported by GZ's account, as none of GZ's injuries would qualify as life-threatening, and no available medical documentation supports this version of great bodily harm done to GZ.

At the end of these 2 minutes, the events once again follow the earlier logical trajectory - the prey, the younger, weaker, unarmed male is stone-cold dead.

Believing GZ's account for those 2 minutes therefore takes jumping through several hoops. Again, we must remind ourselves that GZ's account is the basis for his defense, therefore should not be given carte blanche.

IMHO, Occam's razor applies, until strong, credible, admissible evidence shows otherwise.

Awesome first post!
Welcome to the Group!!
:wagon:

:welcome4:

 

[missmazzy]

Yesterday, two witnesses testified that Zimmerman was the one on top. It's a fluster cluck. :scared:

I thought that was after the shooting or am I mistaken?

 

[polleypockets]

Yesterday, two witnesses testified that Zimmerman was the one on top. It's a fluster cluck. :scared:

yep, but at least we know that spanish speaking lady was telling the truth because, then the man got up and walked around and tm couldn't

 

[twall]

What about Trayvon's right to defend himself? If you see someone following you and you run and they're still there and you see a weapon you have reason to fear your life. Fight or flight. He tried flight (we know this because Zimmerman said Trayvon ran on the 911 tape) so fighting would be the next step. Are you implying Trayvon should have let Zimmerman just shoot him?

You can't shoot someone just because they got the best of you, if that's the case a lot more people would be dead. You don't bring a gun to a fist fight. Especially with a child. Secondly if Zimmerman wasn't looking for trouble why was his safety not on? He's going to Target right?? Was he planning on shooting someone in the supermarket?

FYI about the gun safety

The Kel Tec 9 does not have an external button safety. It has an internal safety...which really only keeps the gun from going off if it's dropped. It's called a hammer lock safety. If you have a live round in the chamber and pull the trigger, the gun will fire. That's what it's supposed to do. It's a personal safety weapon...it's marketed as such.

 

[Horace Finklestein]

Hello everyone, posting for the first time here. Thanks for sharing such a trove of information. I'm more interested in the logical deduction in this case, so here's my two cents.

IMO, I will assume that GZ will definitely offer a version of events most advantageous to his defense, and TM is dead, so if I were a member of the jury, unless substantiated by facts, GZ's account will be disregarded to place both sides on an equal footing.

So one male is not only 40+ lbs heavier but 12 years older than the other. He was lethally armed with a loaded pistol while the younger man was unarmed. He had been watching and following the latter, in full command of his senses, packed, comfortable about his "turf" and knowing what he was doing when he targeted TM. TM was being followed, and most likely afraid as GZ's identity, intentions, hostility, armed readiness, etc. were completely unknown, and he was a guest in this neighborhood, a stranger.

Clearly one party was far more dominant and in control of the situation, ready to act against someone he already believed to be a "punk" who might get away, trained in MMA, ready to use lethal force if necessary. The other ran away from an uncertain and possibly dangerous situation, unarmed and fearful. One predator, the other prey, it makes sense.

Following a 2-minute altercation, the weaker male died of a fatal gunshot wound at the hands of the dominant male. Based on Occam's Razor, GZ being the aggressor makes the most sense. The test of the pudding is in the tasting, etc...

The Defense is asking us to suspend logic and reason for the 2 minutes to consider an opposite scenario, that despite all of the above conditions, being younger, lighter, thinner, unarmed, more fearful, less experienced in fighting, etc., TM was suddenly able to turn the tables round and potentially deliver lethal injury to GZ. This sudden ability for all of 2 minutes is only supported by GZ's account, as none of GZ's injuries would qualify as life-threatening, and no available medical documentation supports this version of great bodily harm done to GZ.

At the end of these 2 minutes, the events once again follow the earlier logical trajectory - the prey, the younger, weaker, unarmed male is stone-cold dead.

Believing GZ's account for those 2 minutes therefore takes jumping through several hoops. Again, we must remind ourselves that GZ's account is the basis for his defense, therefore should not be given carte blanche.

IMHO, Occam's razor applies, until strong, credible, admissible evidence shows otherwise.

You don't think TM could have escaped? He obviously came back to confront GZ, and how did GZ get those injuries?