17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #27

[cityslick]

But Frank Taaffe said on Nancy Grace that GZ wanted the public to knoe it was his site...Do not have link so will say IMHO JMHO and all that

Yea I caught that. FT to me also has as much credibility as those two lawyers. It doesn't really matter, whether it's his or not, it's not like he's going to be updating it if he stays in jail. I read there were two pictures and now there is only one (the defacing one). I wonder when that was taken down.

 

[LolaMoon08]

That article also said TM's father said TM said 'you got me'?

That's what police told Trayvon's father.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

"Okay, you got it" is a little better than "You got me." :floorlaugh: It breathes a little more creativity to me. The whole "You got me" was a really weakly written "script."

So... did Trayvon still tell George "You're going to die!!!" like George's father said he did?

I don't think anybody knows.
I guess it depends on who you believe.

We have not heard from GZ about it yet. Who knows.

The people talking "for" GZ don't mean much IMO about what happened. We don't know exactly what GZ told them.

And the media has been useless trying to one up each other and getting reports out with out real sources.

It's a mess.

 

[cityslick]

"Okay, you got it" is a little better than "You got me." :floorlaugh: It breathes a little more creativity to me. The whole "You got me" was a really weakly written "script."

So... did Trayvon still tell George "You're going to die!!!" like George's father said he did?

The only one who can answer that is GZ as he was the only one to hear it.

 

[francie]

I refuse to discuss diapers or depends since GZ did not make that claim.

But, I will go with you on the sake of discussion:

Have you ever watched boxing?
From what I have heard, this was a punch throwing fight. Not really a wrestling match.

One of the biggest advantages is arm reach. Plain and simple.

And 40 pounds less weight and longer legs would make a fellow like Trayvon much quicker in this imaginary or real match.

Witnesses saw them on the ground & described wrestling, iirc. No witnesses to boxing, afaik.

:moo:

 

[Donjeta]

Yea I caught that. FT to me also has as much credibility as those two lawyers. It doesn't really matter, whether it's his or not, it's not like he's going to be updating it if he stays in jail. I read there were two pictures and now there is only one (the defacing one). I wonder when that was taken down.

It was pretty quickly after the website was launched. IIRC we were talking about it and then it wasn't there anymore.

 

[BetteDavisEyes]

I personally think O'Mara needs to stop his interviews. Pretty soon, he is going to rival another defense attorney that we are all very familiar with. Why object to all documents being released and ask for the records to be sealed if you are going to go on every available TV show and try your case in the media before making it to the courtroom?


~jmo~

I spoke too soon :blushing: when I posted that I thought O'Mara seemed like a true professional who wasn't going to try this case in the media. Yeah, right

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Well, I have been reading for weeks here and have not missed many posts, and I have never viewed it as a wrestling match.

I have viewed it as a sucker punch, a fall back, a person on top beating, and a shot.

Not much wrestling.

JMO

Two witnesses described it as wrestling.

 

[Dr.Fessel]

Is this the same gathering when he called the cops because someone showed up thinking they were hired to be a waiter and GZ didn't want to pay?

I bet it is.

 

[m00c0w]

Isn’t it illegal to carry a loaded gun without a permit? Wouldn’t police need to know if he had a permit so as not to charge him for that crime? Wouldn’t police be remiss if they didn’t account for the gun George used to kill an unarmed teen with, so they’d need to verify that it did belong to George & he was carrying legally? And if they verified he was carrying legally, wouldn’t they note that they took the time to do so on the police report? Or did they already know he had a permit to carry because they knew him from all of his previous calls-(false alarms jmo)? :waitasec:

:moo:

The police can ask for it, just like they can ask for a form of identification. I'm not sure why there's this big train of thought that it should have been documented that it was shown. Why didn't they document getting his ID? Or that he pulled out a wallet? Or that he didn't have a license or identification?

These aren't things pertinent to the investigation. If he had a license, he wasn't committing a crime by carrying the weapon. The validity of the license could be verified at any time by any person with access to the Florida Crime Information Center. As I've stated, he either has one or he doesn't. It's not a big mystery to anyone involved in the investigation.

 

[leslie1960]

I believe that the gun was drawn and out before the wrestling ensued (IMO). I am trying to imagine the context under which one might say, "Okay, you got it." What if GZ had gained control of the weapon, TM recognized it, and was perhaps trying to get away at that point? He tells GZ, "Okay, you got it" (you have the gun, you can have it, I'm done, you win).

But there's that pesky little detail of those horrific, blood-curdling screams. TM has surrendered: "Okay, you got it." Perhaps TM realizes, at that point, that GZ is going to shoot him anyway.

Just a possible scenario, MOO, and all that.

 

[HiHater]

I have to straighten this out in my mind.

George Zimmerman was "jumped" from behind by Trayvon.

George Zimmerman was punched hard enough to break his nose and make him fall, but he still was able to reach for his cell phone. When reaching for the phone, Trayvon saw the gun that was located on the inside of his waistband.

Okay, I don't think many people would see a gun, and proceed with an assault anyway. Especially someone who has already ran from a perceived threat or danger. No unarmed person would tell an armed person that they're "going to die tonight."

If all of that is true, I'm still not understanding the need to shoot.

So many things just don't make sense. A person who was shot would say "you got me" or "you got it" and not "HELP"? If the person said anything at all.

I see why that first investigator wanted an arrest. :moo:

 

[LC446]

Okay, why is it of great importance (can you make the distinction between this and necessity, please?), to document a permit that is held by the owner? It's in the state database. He's not breaking any laws by having it. The permit is not an element of the crime that took place, nor is it really materially relevant if the person is in possession of it... Why should it be mentioned in the police report? If there was any question to it at a later date, it's recorded in a statewide database.

I think nomoresorrow is simply saying that in his/her opinion that it would be greatly important to document that the person who used a gun to shoot and kill another person was legally carrying the gun. I would agree, in the sense that it would identify that the person had a legal right to carry and that it was verified by the officer. I know that in Texas, if you are stopped and have a concealed handgun permit, you are required to provide it at the same time as you provide your driver's license to a police officer. It's also pretty common place to include in the report the means by how the officer identified the person they were dealing with...for example: George Zimmerman, identified by FL DL #12345678, etc, etc.

It's ok for nomoresorrow to think it's important. It's ok for you to think it's not, I think that if your a police officer and you have some pride in your job and you want to write a good report, especially such an important one, you would include the information simply to show that you did your due diligence and verified that GZ had a concealed handgun permit.

 

[annalia]

I believe that the gun was drawn and out before the wrestling ensued (IMO). I am trying to imagine the context under which one might say, "Okay, you got it." What if GZ had gained control of the weapon, TM recognized it, and was perhaps trying to get away at that point? He tells GZ, "Okay, you got it" (you have the gun, you can have it, I'm done, you win).

But there's that pesky little detail of those horrific, blood-curdling screams. TM has surrendered: "Okay, you got it." Perhaps TM realizes, at that point, that GZ is going to shoot him anyway.

Just a possible scenario, MOO, and all that.

I also think it's very possible he already had his gun out, or at least visible by flashing it. Using it as a way to scare Trayvon so he could hold him.

And if this new report is true, this would be what GZ told police not knowing that the shot and the screams were captured in the 911 call.

I still keep going back to GZ not having too many options that night as far as what to tell police, what else could he have possibly said other than it was self defense?

JMHO

 

[LolaMoon08]

Cue Twilight Zone Music: as I believe we have once again entered into that zone! :crazy:

 

[csziggy]

I am not trying to be argumentatitive about this but I am not clear on the meaning of the digital enhancement and whether the technique distorts in some way. If enhancement and coloration is done to reveal a pattern then okay, we are seeing a pattern. I am seeing perpendicular dark marks on the top of his head and red marks to the right. But does that mean that this is now an accurate coloration of what we would have seen in person had we been standing there that night?

This is hard for me to articulate but let me try. Let's say that you have a blurry photo which includes a sign with some gray colored words on a white background and you can't make them out but need to know what they say for some reason. If there's a digital enhancement and they come out stark black on white and you can read them, then that's all you need. But if the actual color of those words has some meaning as well, then you have a distortion because the words were gray in real life.

Here is a CNN video of the processing of the still image from the enhanced video: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/04/03/ac-feyerick-george-zimmerman-video.cnn

The enhanced video is at: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2012/04/02/erin-mattingly-zimmerman-head-injury.cnn

The problem I have is that digital video will always have artifacts. It's fairly easy to select a frame (which is really a misnomer, digital video does not have 'frames' the way that analog film does) with artifacts. Then 'enhancing' any still image can introduce or accentuate artifacts.

The CNN video shows that the person doing the enhancement took a selected still out of an 'enhanced' video, then processed it even more with several steps (increases the contrast, over saturates the image, increases the reds, then increases the white/contrast) . In my opinion, this takes the image too far from the original to be reliable. Even without a bias the image that results has been over processed and will not reliably show what might have been there originally.

I took a screen from the enhanced video of the same angle, though not the same exact shot of Zimmerman's head, and there are no signs of any marks at all in that shot. I posted a link to that shot several threads ago.

IMO, JMO, etc.

 

[octobermoon]

Not too far off, that's what SHE told him the morning after.....

Papa! :blushing: :what: :floorlaugh:

 

[m00c0w]

I think nomoresorrow is simply saying that in his/her opinion that it would be greatly important to document that the person who used a gun to shoot and kill another person was legally carrying the gun. I would agree, in the sense that it would identify that the person had a legal right to carry and that it was verified by the officer. I know that in Texas, if you are stopped and have a concealed handgun permit, you are required to provide it at the same time as you provide your driver's license to a police officer. It's also pretty common place to include in the report the means by how the officer identified the person they were dealing with...for example: George Zimmerman, identified by FL DL #12345678, etc, etc.

It's ok for nomoresorrow to think it's important. It's ok for you to think it's not, I think that if your a police officer and you have some pride in your job and you want to write a good report, especially such an important one, you would include the information simply to show that you did your due diligence and verified that GZ had a concealed handgun permit.

It's also very possible that because he was already being detained and the weapon was confiscated that the police didn't really do much of anything other than take him into custody. Positive identification would have happened at the station, and he would have been able to provide his CHP then. None of this would be present in the scene report.

It's not like a MWAG call where if he provided his permit, he'd have been let go.

 

[csziggy]

What's wrong with the police officer's ear and nose, and why does it look like a big bruise under his eye. Does it look like that in the video?

And if this is supposed to be clearer and less distorted, why does the lettering on the back of the police car seem distorted?

ETA: I don't know, I guess time will tell exactly what it is, but to me it almost looks like it's just his hair. I can also make out two faint lines on the left side of his head.

The redness to me looks similar to what we see on the police officer. Don't know the technical terms, but whatever they did to enhance it that caused redness can be seen on the officer, as well as on GZ's neck.

ETA2: Look at the police officer's head and face, he has what looks like a white line that goes all the way from the back of his head down to the bottom of his face.

JMHO

Those are all artifacts of over processing digital images.

IMO, JMO, etc.

 

[LolaMoon08]

Maybe George thought if he shot a black kid... it would get him a job with the SPD?

Okay... I don't believe that, but I am just stunned right now?

MOO