Weed, fights and guns: Trayvon Martin’s text messages released

[mikegideon]

Two sound/voice experts (now not allowed to testify) says it was TM that was screaming. I beleive it was due to not having voice comparrisons of either person to test, was the reason they will not be allowed to testify. A victory for the defense! But, the jury will get to hear it on the 911 tape and in opening arguements.  

 

Dave S

 

They weren't allowed to testify because their methods were BS. You're not an "expert" if nobody agrees with your conclusions.

[TripleDigitRide]

Two sound/voice experts (now not allowed to testify) says it was TM that was screaming. I beleive it was due to not having voice comparrisons of either person to test, was the reason they will not be allowed to testify. A victory for the defense! But, the jury will get to hear it on the 911 tape and in opening arguements.

Dave S

They weren't allowed to testify because their methods were BS. You're not an "expert" if nobody agrees with your conclusions.

Wrong! The judge obviously racist.

[DaveS]

Wrong! The judge obviously racist.

How can the "white dudette" judge be a racist when she ruled in favor of the "white dude" by not allowing evidence? 

 

Dave S

[DaveS]

Ok, I'll bite...  First lets watch the RAW video from the police interview of George Zimmerman with the Police Department at the site of the shooting:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55l2Dj6AeFY

 

At 3:00 minutes into this video, Zimmerman references a person, coming out of their home and him yelling help me help me to that person.

 

That person is witness #6 "John", and this is from his sworn statement to the police shortly after the shooting:

 

 

So you have a statement from an eyewitness who Zimmerman didn't know, nor did Zimmerman know about the contents of witness #6's statement, yet his video statements to the police match the eye witness's statement almost exactly. 

 

Combine that will the "help 911 call" which we've all heard...  Witness #6 and Zimmerman both separately claim that it was Zimmerman yelling for help... and in my opinion those screams are of somebody who is clearly in fear...  they seem desperate to me... and just the possibility that those screams come from Zimmerman gives me reasonable doubt as to the murder charges.

Zimmerman's video statement doesn't match his written statement concerning his encounter with the "onlooker" either. 

 

Dave S

[JayC]

Yes, because two sound experts listening to a recording that was made through a handset from a significant distance are better witnesses than the man (witness #6) who walked outside and saw TM and GZ on the ground...  With TM on top of GZ swinging punches, and GZ yelling help, help.

 

Dave, lets me honest you just want to pick and choose the facts you want to believe...  And no amount of evidence is going to change your mind...

 

An eyewitness places TM on top of GZ throwing punches...  Now why exactly would TM be screaming help at that exact point in time?  That 'theory' doesn't match the witness statements, or basic logic that the guy getting on the bottom receiving the punches would most likely be the one screaming for help.

 

But since these witness statements (and GZ's own video statement to the police) doesn't fit the narrative in your head, you just ignore it?

 

Two sound/voice experts (now not allowed to testify) says it was TM that was screaming. I beleive it was due to not having voice comparrisons of either person to test, was the reason they will not be allowed to testify. A victory for the defense! But, the jury will get to hear it on the 911 tape and in opening arguements.  

 

Dave S

Edited June 24, 2013 by JayC

[TripleDigitRide]

Wrong! The judge obviously racist.

How can the "white dudette" judge be a racist when she ruled in favor of the "white dude" by not allowing evidence?

Dave S

Which means she ruled against the black side.

[DaveS]

Which means she ruled against the black side.

I'm tracking with ya....I didn't look at it that way. 

 

Dave S

[DaveS]

Yes, because two sound experts listening to a recording that was made through a handset from a significant distance are better witnesses than the man (witness #6) who walked outside and saw TM and GZ on the ground...  With TM on top of GZ swinging punches, and GZ yelling help, help.

 

Dave, lets me honest you just want to pick and choose the facts you want to believe...  And no amount of evidence is going to change your mind...

 

An eyewitness places TM on top of GZ throwing punches...  Now why exactly would TM be screaming help at that exact point in time?  That 'theory' doesn't match the witness statements, or basic logic that the guy getting on the bottom receiving the punches would most likely be the one screaming for help.

 

But since these witness statements (and GZ's own video statement to the police) doesn't fit the narrative in your head, you just ignore it?

In Zman's own handwriting, witness #6 showed up "after" he shot TM (go back and read Z's written statements). The "onlooker" seen Zman sitting on top of TM holding his arms down. The on-looker said "I'm calling 911" Zman said "I don't need you to call 911, just help me hold this guy down". How much help did he really need to hold down a 140 lb kid taking his last breath? They should have rendered some kind of aid. It would go better for him now in my OPINION.

 

Light the torches boys!

 

Dave S

Edited June 24, 2013 by DaveS

[RobertNashville]

Yes, because two sound experts listening to a recording that was made through a handset from a significant distance are better witnesses than the man (witness #6) who walked outside and saw TM and GZ on the ground...  With TM on top of GZ swinging punches, and GZ yelling help, help.

 

Dave, lets me honest you just want to pick and choose the facts you want to believe...  And no amount of evidence is going to change your mind...

 

An eyewitness places TM on top of GZ throwing punches...  Now why exactly would TM be screaming help at that exact point in time?  That 'theory' doesn't match the witness statements, or basic logic that the guy getting on the bottom receiving the punches would most likely be the one screaming for help.

 

But since these witness statements (and GZ's own video statement to the police) doesn't fit the narrative in your head, you just ignore it?

BINGO

[Guest nra37922]

Poor GZ, when found innocent his life is still screwed.  He will need to go into a witness protection type environment to stay alive. 

[JayC]

DaveS,

 

Again you're confusing the facts...  The onlooker who saw GZ after the shooting is NOT witness #6, I'm not exactly sure which witness # is assigned to that witness, but it's 2 different people.

 

I quoted you the statement witness #6 John gave to the police on the night of the shooting...  That he came out and saw two men fighting, the one wearing the red sweater was on the ground yelling help, while the other man was on top of him swinging punches.  GZ was wearing a red sweater that night.  Witness #6 then turned and went back into his house to call E911.

 

Then I took the time to find the RAW video of GZ's statement to the police, in which he describes witness #6 coming out of his house, and GZ pleading for help from witness #6.  We go to the E911 'help' call and this confirms both of the statements given by witness #6 and GZ...  that clearly somebody is screaming desperately for help, GZ and witness $6 statements clearly link these screams for help to GZ.

 

So ignoring all of those facts, because they don't fit your narrative, you jump to another witness statement from AFTER the shooting...  Which has ZERO bearing on if the shooting was justified or not...  

 

Did GZ have a legal obligation to provide medical care to TM after shooting him?  No.  So what does that have to do with whether the shooting was justified or not?  Absolutely nothing.

 

DaveS, I honestly don't know if you're just trolling for kicks, or if you just don't believe in logic, reason, and facts as a cornerstone of debate but either way back on ignore you go.

 

In Zman's own handwriting, witness #6 showed up "after" he shot TM (go back and read Z's written statements). The "onlooker" seen Zman sitting on top of TM holding his arms down. The on-looker said "I'm calling 911" Zman said "I don't need you to call 911, just help me hold this guy down". How much help did he really need to hold down a 140 lb kid taking his last breath? They should have rendered some kind of aid. It would go better for him now in my OPINION.

 

Light the torches boys!

 

Dave S

Edited June 24, 2013 by JayC

[DaveS]

DaveS,

 

Again you're confusing the facts...  The onlooker who saw GZ after the shooting is NOT witness #6, I'm not exactly sure which witness # is assigned to that witness, but it's 2 different people.

 

I quoted you the statement witness #6 John gave to the police on the night of the shooting...  That he came out and saw two men fighting, the one wearing the red sweater was on the ground yelling help, while the other man was on top of him swinging punches.  GZ was wearing a red sweater that night.  Witness #6 then turned and went back into his house to call E911.

 

Then I took the time to find the RAW video of GZ's statement to the police, in which he describes witness #6 coming out of his house, and GZ pleading for help from witness #6.  We go to the E911 'help' call and this confirms both of the statements given by witness #6 and GZ...  that clearly somebody is screaming desperately for help, GZ and witness $6 statements clearly link these screams for help to GZ.

 

So ignoring all of those facts, because they don't fit your narrative, you jump to another witness statement from AFTER the shooting...  Which has ZERO bearing on if the shooting was justified or not...  

 

Did GZ have a legal obligation to provide medical care to TM after shooting him?  No.  So what does that have to do with whether the shooting was justified or not?  Absolutely nothing.

 

DaveS, I honestly don't know if you're just trolling for kicks, or if you just don't believe in logic, reason, and facts as a cornerstone of debate but either way back on ignore you go.

According to Zman's own words, his statement to police doesn't mention a witness prior to the shooting. I may have missed it....I'll go back and re-read it. 

 

Dave S

[DaveS]

I went back and re-read his written statements twice and again, he mentions no on-looker prior to the shooting as he stated in his video. He does mention an on-looker "after" the shooting in his written statement to police. Which statement is true? Zman made them...not me!

 

Dave S

[TripleDigitRide]

I went back and re-read his written statements twice and again, he mentions no on-looker prior to the shooting as he stated in his video. He does mention an on-looker "after" the shooting in his written statement to police. Which statement is true? Zman made them...not me!

Dave S

That's not surprising. I suspect being forced to defend your life with deadly force could be traumatic for the average person. It could take some time to regain your ability to think clearly.

[RobertNashville]

That's not surprising. I suspect being forced to defend your life with deadly force could be traumatic for the average person. It could take some time to regain your ability to think clearly.

Yuup...and not just the average person.

 

Most police forces, as a matter of policy, won't question an officer who is involved in a shooting until two-three days after the event (Officer-Involved Shooting Guidelines, 2009; IACP Police Psychological Services Section).

 

Studies have shown that after such an event with adrenalin and other chemicals being pumped into your system that the brain simply isn't "working" properly.  That's one of the reasons why an attorney will tell you to NOT give a detailed statement to the police just hours after defending yourself.

Edited June 24, 2013 by RobertNashville

[DaveS]

DaveS,

 

Again you're confusing the facts...  The onlooker who saw GZ after the shooting is NOT witness #6, I'm not exactly sure which witness # is assigned to that witness, but it's 2 different people.

 

I quoted you the statement witness #6 John gave to the police on the night of the shooting...  That he came out and saw two men fighting, the one wearing the red sweater was on the ground yelling help, while the other man was on top of him swinging punches.  GZ was wearing a red sweater that night.  Witness #6 then turned and went back into his house to call E911.

 

Then I took the time to find the RAW video of GZ's statement to the police, in which he describes witness #6 coming out of his house, and GZ pleading for help from witness #6.  We go to the E911 'help' call and this confirms both of the statements given by witness #6 and GZ...  that clearly somebody is screaming desperately for help, GZ and witness $6 statements clearly link these screams for help to GZ.

 

So ignoring all of those facts, because they don't fit your narrative, you jump to another witness statement from AFTER the shooting...  Which has ZERO bearing on if the shooting was justified or not...  

 

Did GZ have a legal obligation to provide medical care to TM after shooting him?  No.  So what does that have to do with whether the shooting was justified or not?  Absolutely nothing.

 

DaveS, I honestly don't know if you're just trolling for kicks, or if you just don't believe in logic, reason, and facts as a cornerstone of debate but either way back on ignore you go.

Ignore me if you want. I'm basically making a statement based on Zman's statements to police. I really don't care if you ignore me or not as that doesn't change he facts in this case. And I'm not "trolling for kicks" as you put it. Just clarify Zman's video and written statements to me. 

 

Dave S

Edited June 24, 2013 by DaveS

[JAB]

One, and only one of them did. Either Martin assaulted Z (crime), like all the evidence suggests, or Z killed him in cold blood (crime), and then beat the hell out of himself.

 

I don't know that this is necessarily true as I do not know Florida law.  However, by TN law (in simplified language) you can't be a party to starting a confrontation and then be legally justified in the use of deadly force when that confrontation is not going your way.  It is my opinion (and I acknowledge that this is all it is) that by following/stalking Martin - even after Martin attempted to evade him - Zimmerman participated in starting the confrontation.  Basically, he was acting like a swinging dick then shot Martin when his (Zimmerman's) ass couldn't back up his mouth, so to speak.

 

I do not believe that Martin was an 'angel' and, yes, he probably could have done more to avoid the confrontation that ended with his death.  That said, I can't help but think what I would do if I were walking around in a neighborhood where I had every right to be (heck, this was apparently the neighborhood where Martin was living at the time) and some dude I didn't know started following me and possibly trying to 'question' me - some dude who is obviously not a cop.  As an adult with, hopefully, a bit better control of my temper than a teenager, I don't think I would stop and get into a fist fight.  Instead, I would call the cops, myself and tell them that some weird dude was following me and that he was starting to make me fear for my life.

 

Bottom line comes down to this:  If Zimmerman had not been following Martin - and I have seen no claims that Martin had actually done anything to justify Zimmerman following him - then the confrontation would never have happened.  Therefore, to my mind, the root cause of the entire fiasco was Zimmerman following Martin without reason and (apparently) attempting to stop and question Martin despite having no authority to do so.  Therefore, it was Zimmerman who is responsible for everything that followed.  Honestly, I believe that he makes responsible gun owners and carriers look bad.

Edited June 24, 2013 by JAB

[Guest nra37922]

Truth is that nobody knows what the TRUTH IS.  The prosecution can put on a good show and try to fill in, manipulate, or fabricate the facts to fit their agenda as can the defense.  In the end only three entities know the TRUTH, the dead guy, GZ and God. 

 

Another truth is it has got to be hard as hell running down the street holding a 60" flat screen and a six pack of beer.

[DaveS]

 

Yuup...and not just the average person.

 

Most police forces, as a matter of policy, won't question an officer who is involved in a shooting until two-three days after the event (Officer-Involved Shooting Guidelines, 2009; IACP Police Psychological Services Section).

 

Studies have shown that after such an event with adrenalin and other chemicals being pumped into your system that the brain simply isn't "working" properly.  That's one of the reasons why an attorney will tell you to NOT give a detailed statement to the police just hours after defending yourself.

 

I agree with you here Robert for the most part. My point being with Zman, is; if you make a statement on video, make absolutely dam sure it's the SAME as you put in writting! I think you leave too many gaps for the jury to fill in. The Pros is gonna beat that to death! 

 

Dave S

[RobertNashville]

I don't know that this is necessarily true as I do not know Florida law.  However, by TN law (in simplified language) you can't be a party to starting a confrontation and then be legally justified in the use of deadly force when that confrontation is not going your way.  It is my opinion (and I acknowledge that this is all it is) that by following/stalking Martin - even after Martin attempted to evade him - Zimmerman participated in starting the confrontation.  Basically, he was acting like a swinging dick then shot Martin when his (Zimmerman's) ass couldn't back up his mouth, so to speak.

 

I do not believe that Martin was an 'angel' and, yes, he probably could have done more to avoid the confrontation that ended with his death.  That said, I can't help but think what I would do if I were walking around in a neighborhood where I had every right to be (heck, this was apparently the neighborhood where Martin was living at the time) and some dude I didn't know started following me and possibly trying to 'question' me - some dude who is obviously not a cop.  As an adult with, hopefully, a bit better control of my temper than a teenager, I don't think I would stop and get into a fist fight.  Instead, I would call the cops, myself and tell them that some weird dude was following me and that he was starting to make me fear for my life.

 

Bottom line comes down to this:  If Zimmerman had not been following Martin - and I have seen no claims that Martin had actually done anything to justify Zimmerman following him - then the confrontation would never have happened.  Therefore, to my mind, the root cause of the entire fiasco was Zimmerman following Martin without reason and (apparently) attempting to stop and question Martin despite having no authority to do so.  Therefore, it was Zimmerman who is responsible for everything that followed.  Honestly, I believe that he makes responsible gun owners and carriers look bad.

I believe if you check that both TN and FL law requires a significant level of aggression from someone (Zimmerman) in this case before he would lose the right to defend his life with deadly force from the other person (Martin).  In other words, Zimmerman would have had to do something specifically illegal or something so overt/threatening that Martin's attack against Zimmerman was justified.

 

There is no evidence known so far that shows that Zimmerman did anything illegal...following someone is not illegal...asking someone that is unfamiliar to you why they are in your neighborhood (if Zimmerman did that) is also not illegal. It may have made Martin nervous..it may have made Martin mad...if might make me or you mad or nervous...but being nervous or mad is not sufficient legal justification to violently attack someone.

 

We can say all day long that Zimmerman "shouldn't have" followed Martin but there is a long way from "shouldn't have" to being "illegal to do" and unless someone can definitively show that what Zimmerman did was illegal or was sufficiently threatening to Martin that Martin's attack was justified then Zimmerman is guilty of neither murder or manslaughter.

[JayC]

Ok, well staying with TN law to keep things simple...  following somebody in public is NEVER a crime...  The crime of stalking requires multiple separate examples of following a person.  So, again no criminal activity.  And that lack of criminal activity on the part of GZ is what matters in the 'stand your ground law'.

 

But, lets pretend that GZ somehow caused the fist fight without ever doing anything aggressive or violent but somehow he "provoked" the fist fight...  (I don't concede this point at all, but lets play along)...  There is no evidence or claim that GZ ever presented a threat of serious injury or death to TM...  once TM went from a fist fight to pounding GZ's head into concrete, TM presented a reasonable threat to serious injury or death, and even if GZ had started a fight, the instant the fight escalated to that point, the self defense statute would have kicked in.

 

But lets not let the facts of the case or the law get in the way of sending a man to prison because he did something legal but probably not the smartest thing.

 

 

I don't know that this is necessarily true as I do not know Florida law.  However, by TN law (in simplified language) you can't be a party to starting a confrontation and then be legally justified in the use of deadly force when that confrontation is not going your way.  It is my opinion (and I acknowledge that this is all it is) that by following/stalking Martin - even after Martin attempted to evade him - Zimmerman participated in starting the confrontation.  Basically, he was acting like a swinging dick then shot Martin when his (Zimmerman's) ass couldn't back up his mouth, so to speak.

 

I do not believe that Martin was an 'angel' and, yes, he probably could have done more to avoid the confrontation that ended with his death.  That said, I can't help but think what I would do if I were walking around in a neighborhood where I had every right to be (heck, this was apparently the neighborhood where Martin was living at the time) and some dude I didn't know started following me and possibly trying to 'question' me - some dude who is obviously not a cop.  As an adult with, hopefully, a bit better control of my temper than a teenager, I don't think I would stop and get into a fist fight.  Instead, I would call the cops, myself and tell them that some weird dude was following me and that he was starting to make me fear for my life.

 

Bottom line comes down to this:  If Zimmerman had not been following Martin - and I have seen no claims that Martin had actually done anything to justify Zimmerman following him - then the confrontation would never have happened.  Therefore, to my mind, the root cause of the entire fiasco was Zimmerman following Martin without reason and (apparently) attempting to stop and question Martin despite having no authority to do so.  Therefore, it was Zimmerman who is responsible for everything that followed.  Honestly, I believe that he makes responsible gun owners and carriers look bad.

 

[Guest nra37922]

MS(BS)NBC News Flash

 

Chris TingleMyLeg is reporting that George Zimmerman is connected to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and to be tried on espionage charges. TM actually an undercover NSA agent.

 

More MS(BS)NBC updates to follow.....

[TMF]

once TM went from a fist fight to pounding GZ's head into concrete, TM presented a reasonable threat to serious injury or death, and even if GZ had started a fight, the instant the fight escalated to that point, the self defense statute would have kicked in.

Negative. If you start a fight and end it with your pistol you will go to jail. Self defense goes out the window if you caused the events. There is so much precedent on this I refuse to believe that you don't know that.

[TripleDigitRide]

once TM went from a fist fight to pounding GZ's head into concrete, TM presented a reasonable threat to serious injury or death, and even if GZ had started a fight, the instant the fight escalated to that point, the self defense statute would have kicked in.

Negative. If you start a fight and end it with your pistol you will go to jail. Self defense goes out the window if you caused the events. There is so much precedent on this I refuse to believe that you don't know that.

True, but Zimmerman didn't start a fight, so such a law shouldnhabe no bearing on this case.

[RobertNashville]

MS(BS)NBC News Flash

 

Chris TingleMyLeg is reporting that George Zimmerman is connected to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden and to be tried on espionage charges. TM actually an undercover NSA agent.

 

More MS(BS)NBC updates to follow.....

Who didn't know this would all tie together...I'd be once it gets looked into Zimmerman is responsible for the Benghazi attack. ;)