1. I"d like to know where you got your new weight. Way back on about Page 70 of this thread, TM's height-weight were provided in a news feed. I though "That sounds like a lot of NBA point guards..." so I went looking and happened upon Brandon Jennings who had almost exactly the same dimensions. In other words, I didn't just pull it out of the air. It was formally reported by the press. In fact, TM was probably BIGGER than Brandon Jennings since those measures are usually exaggerated in the NBA. 2. He was avoiding detection by the person who was following him until, apparently, he confronted GZ. 3. If GZ's injuries were not that severe it is because he stopped the assault by TM! How many more times would you have let TM slam your head into the ground or punch your broken nose. I'm pretty sure Trayvon didn't say "I'm done; your turn..." 4. What do the witnesses say about who started the confrontation?
You're being obtuse -- GZ's nose was smashed flat and he had bleeding scratches/ cuts on the back of his head. Let's assume for a moment that the injuries on the back of his head were superficial and just focus on his nose. I've broken my nose 3 times -never as severely as GZ -- each time it was intensely painful. GZ's nose was smashed almost flat against his face -- that is a severe injury -- to say that it wasn't is ridiculous.
Are you high? He was "avoiding detection?" No he wasn't. He knew that somebody (un identified as neighborhood watch) was following him for an unknown reason. If that would not put fear into you as to what your follower's intentions are, then there is something very wrong with you. Zimmerman is no stranger to taking matters into his own hands. He beat up his girlfriend (netting him a restraining order) and assaulted a cop. The only evidence we have that this hothead didn't start it is what he is saying after the fact. It is easily as likely that Martin confronted him to find out why he was following and that Zimmerman escalated it. The bottom line here is whether, in Florida, you can follow somebody, get into a fight and waste the guy.
Not high. Why are you so determined to judge? If Trayvon was willing to be "detected" by Zimmerman, all he has to do is just stop walking/running. He didn't do that, thus he is BY DEFINITION avoiding detection by Zimmerman. I'm quite sure Trayvon was very concerned about the man following him. So get help. Ring a doorbell. Put yourself in the company of others. How many doorbells did he scoot by in his effort to confound the man following him? How did GZ escalate it? You think he started the fight and pulled the gun when he started losing? Your bottomline is overly simplified. Why are people wanting to make a ruling on THIS CASE based on avoiding a precedent that might be set? I thought we were supposed to rule on the evidence as available?
If TM was running, then, by definition, he had been detected and knew it. He knew he was being pursued by a stranger although did not know his intentions. GZ could have escalated it by yelling, insults, epithets, threats, you name it. You don't necessarily have to throw a punch to instigate a fight. I am very suspicious of GZ because of his violent history, his changing story to the authorities and disregard for the instructions of the dispatcher. Given all of that, the better question is why aren't you suspicious of him?
Wha? I can't even figure out the point you are making in the first paragraph... but put yourself in Martin's place. In a neighborhood you are not from, and as a teen African American, you would start knocking on people's doors if someone was following you? Seriously? He escalated it by ignoring the 911 dispatcher that said he didn't need to continue to follow Martin, that police were dispatched. This whole thing would have had a completely different ending had he done so.
Yes but detected then lost sight of and then.... BAM. There is no witness to come forward regarding any kind of shouting match that you describe... and this was a residential neighborhood. Nothing in GZ's conversation with the dispatcher indicates any kind of evasiveness or devious intent. He wants to be in touch with the police when they arrive. He freely gives his name, phone number and location. None of this is indicative of a watchman gone wild.
Refman made the claim that TM "wasn't avoiding detection." I'm not talking about robbery, I'm talking about Zimmerman. He was clearly trying to evade Zimmerman and get away. GZ may have been overzealous in his "duty" and that may have ended in tragedy but I can't see where his actions deserve conviction for murder in the second degree. Both guys could have made decisions and taken action to de-escalate this situation it would seem. If indeed Trayvon jumped him as Zimmerman claims, GZ was rightfully defending himself-- especially if Trayvon was attempting to wrest the gun away. Anyone would fight for possession of a firearm in that circumstance. We have GZ's testimony and ballistics to sort it out. Seems like there was some feeble eyewitness account which seems to have receded. Maybe it will come back in the trial.
There is ABSOLUTELY no credible evidence that Martin was there then gone and immediately "BAM." You claim I just want to convict him. Just as badly, you want to exonerate him as a citizen that was just doing his duty. Before you defend him so zealously, remember that he is a guy that beats up women and hits cops. It isn't like he is the trustworthy Eagle Scout down the street. His testimony should be taken with all the salt in a Morton's factory. This is not the first time Mr. Zimmerman has run afoul of the law. If he would assault his girlfriend and a police officer, why would you find it so far fetched to believe that he would act more brazenly to some kid he thought was a punk? In fact, given his history, the argument could be made that this incident is just the logical escalation of his history of violence.
Im just curious, do you know exactly what he did to his girlfriend and the cop? I suspect not. Just a note. Zimmerman was caught up in an undercover operation and claims he did not know they were cops. Ironically enough, Martin didn't know Zimmerman was on watch of the neighborhood. I suppose Zimmerman is lucky the cops weren't as trigger happy as he was, but then again, there is a pretty big difference between a shove and throwing someone on the ground bashing their face in. For some odd reason, you feel Zimmermans past is very relevant to his current case, despite it being over 7 years ago (people can't grow up and change, I suppose. Once a punk, always a punk). Unlike Martin, we have plenty of accounts of Martin (currently) being a punk. If this is a case, should we assume Martin would always be a punk, beating up women, assaulting cops, and murdering (innocent) kids on their way home from buying a pack of skittles and a drink? The only thing relevant is the person who escalated the situation. Not their past. Not if they enjoy watching MMA fighting. Not if they got in a fight the previous week. Not if the were following someone. None of those give you grounds to attack someone.
I'm not saying it wasn't painful. My brother had his nose broken, and I've accidentally broken the nose of a good friend. All I said is they weren't severe. By that I mean none of the injuries were severe enough for the EMT's who treated Zimmerman to rush him to the hospital. They weren't life threatening. Well we don't know that there was an assault by TM. So quit rushing to judgment. We don't know whether or not Zimmerman's head was being slammed into the ground. I don't think anyone is saying that Zimmerman wanted to go after someone and kill them. But Zimmerman could have gone after Martin, and after asking who Martin was, Martin could have tried to leave when Zimmerman tried to grab or restrain him to wait for the police. At that point TM attacked Zimmerman. Zimmerman was losing the fight and pulled out his gun and killed Martin. I have no idea that is what happened, but it does coincide with evidence, and testimony. The only problem is that you've already dismissed that evidence and testimony. And you presume that you know the truth of what happened, who started the fight etc. We don't know which evidence is the most reliable. We don't even know which multiple and conflicting stories of Zimmerman's will be the one the defense goes with during the trial. All I'm saying is that we should wait for a trial and for people not to make up their minds who started the fight without having all the evidence examined. I'm fine with people guessing what happened and for those guesses to be that TM started the physical fight. That's a guess and as long as they recognize it's a guess, there's nothing wrong with it. What I do object to, is people dismissing one side of the evidence without proper examination and believing that the idea that TM started the fight is anything other than their guess.
Errmm the EMT's aren't clairvoyant. There is a good reason why they send people to the ER after they've been in a serious accident, even if they aren't bleeding.
I read all about the charges again Zimmerman regarding the cops. All the charges being reduced conditioned on an alcohol treatment program indicates is that he wisely pled out. Maybe you don't thnk his past history is indicative of his problems of anger and self restraint. It is, however, instructive as to his propensities. It is simply amazing how some here want to just dismiss these factors and assume that Zimmerman was completely justified in his actions. By so doing, these posters are assuming that Martin deserved to be killed. That has not been established. What we do know is that it was Zimmerman, not Martin, who had numerous opportunities to avoid the altercation. Not the least of these opportunities was to need the advice of the dispatcher. Instead, he chose to take matters into his own hands...just as he has an established pattern of doing on more than one occasion.
I don't think anyone has suggested Martin deserved to die, even if he did attack Zimmerman. Its just how the dice landed. His first arrested stemmed from pushing an undercover police officer, and again, which he claims he didn't know he was an officer. The resisting arrest with violence was immediately dropped down to w/out violence, long before he pled out. Him and his ex-fiance put restraining orders against each other. There is very little info on what exactly happened. What we do know is that they both moved out w/out further incident. Quite frankly, I do think Zimmerman is a snake. There is nothing about him that suggests irrational behavior. He is one that maneuvers the law to his advantage, which plainly shows in his misinformation and code talk about his finances. Martin on the other hand is irrational and emotional. I wouldn't be surprised if Zimmerman did antagonize Martin a slight bit, but I do think it was Martin who got physical.
On the flip side apparently there's a trayvon martin fight vid floating around...anyone check world star hip hop for it? http://www.sun-sentinel.com/os-trayvon-martin-fight-video-20130602,0,3850620.story EDIT: My bad, he wasn't fighting in the video, only refereeing. Good thing he doesn't condone that type of behavior.
If you don't consider GZ's testimony, there is no evidence-- credible or otherwise-- about pretty much anything that happened. We have GZ's wounds to his face and to the back of his head which are consistent with his story of Trayvon holding him down and beating him. I'm for all guilty persons being convicted of their crime BUT PEOPLE ARE INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. A few of us are defending Zimmerman and pointing up the evidence that supports that. Most of us back here are convicting him on the evidence of an age differential, a zealous approach to his task, a gunshot and Zimmerman's past record. As Space Ghost pointed up, it would seem that GZ's criminal record is more about a drunken spree some years ago than a stinking heart. He is narrating events to the police dispatcher. Is that ever indicative of evil intent?
Again, don't see the point of arguing whether Martin was "trying to get away" or "avoiding detection." Zimmerman was not law enforcement, didn't identify himself as law enforcement (unfortunately, he only acted as if he was law enforcement... an act that escalated the situation and led to the killing of Martin), and so I don't understand why you are continuing to state this, unless it is an effort to make Martin somehow a suspect of some crime and thus deserving of Martin's actions. Instead, Martin was returning a 7-11 after buying an ice tea and Skittles. In an area that he wasn't familiar with, in the dark. And a guy appeared to be following him. The police report clearly stated that there was no indication that Martin was involved in any criminal activity. "Overzealous"? You think? While I suspect you intend this as an effort to diminish the significance of Zimmerman's actions, in effect it seems an acknowledgement that Zimmerman did escalate the situation and acted beyond reason. He "overzealously" was carrying a weapon, even though neighborhood watch duties are recommended to not carry a firearm. He "overzealously" ignored the normal instruction to simply call the police with a detailed description and allow the police to do their duties. He "overzealously" ignored the "we don't need you to do that" (continue to follow Martin). He "overzealously" engaged in the altercation with Martin (whether he or Martin started the altercation... Zimmerman should not have been there in the first place). Since it appears you acknowledge that Zimmerman was "overzealous" but does not deserve to be convicted of murder in the second degree... what crime do you believe Zimmerman should be convicted of?
What does refereeing a fight have to do with what happened the night he was killed? Whether he condones semi organized contests or not has no reflection on anything.
That's right. They usually err on the side of caution. In Zimmerman's case even that wasn't enough for him to warrant being rushed to the ER.
You're doing more than holding him innocent until proven guilty. You've already decided that his side of the story is correct, and are holding Martin guilty of assault (despite not having been proven guilty) and acting like it's fact instead of just your guess and what you choose to believe.
