George Zimmerman's bloody head

[tinydancer]

Do you think in all honesty, people can rise above it?Serve.

IMHO, yes.

You (royal you here) have to believe in the fundamental goodness of people, that they can rise to greatness when duty calls. Sometimes greatness is a firefighter runing into a burning building. Sometimes it's soldier who gives his live to save a little girl from being run over in a street in a foreign land. Sometimes it being called to sit in judgement of our fellow men. That they can put away the anger, listen with their brains and their hearts, that when called they apply the law and make the just decision.

You have to believe in that, because frankly I can't think of a better system.


>>>>

I do beleive as well sir. And I pray with all my heart we can pass it on.

There is one movie that moved my soul as a child. Formed me as it were. Zulu.

It made me who I am. Bless their souls.

 

[tinydancer]

Let's do this correctly. When one gets punched in your face,,,,,,when a fist really hits you one must appropriately defer to the riders.

Could you try that again in English.


>>>>

lololol

when you get smacked you have to hit back or you are dead these days. And you better fight for your life. Because it appears you have to.

It's so sad we've come to this. I know our dimensions are way better than yours. But cripes, it's like you really want a race war down there.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Do you think in all honesty, people can rise above it?Serve.

IMHO, yes.

You (royal you here) have to believe in the fundamental goodness of people, that they can rise to greatness when duty calls. Sometimes greatness is a firefighter runing into a burning building. Sometimes it's soldier who gives his live to save a little girl from being run over in a street in a foreign land. Sometimes it being called to sit in judgement of our fellow men. That they can put away the anger, listen with their brains and their hearts, that when called they apply the law and make the just decision.

You have to believe in that, because frankly I can't think of a better system.


>>>>

I do beleive as well sir. And I pray with all my heart we can pass it on.

There is one movie that moved my soul as a child. Formed me as it were. Zulu.

It made me who I am. Bless their souls.

Watch the 1957 version of "12 Angry Men" on Netflix or Amazon Prime if you have it.

My daughter was home just a short time ago and had to watch it as part of an Air Force ROTC assignment on decision making and leadership. We all watched it together as a family movie. The discussions about guilt/innocence based on bias are truly - chilling.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Let's do this correctly. When one gets punched in your face,,,,,,when a fist really hits you one must appropriately defer to the riders.

Could you try that again in English.


>>>>

lololol

when you get smacked you have to hit back or you are dead these days. And you better fight for your life. Because it appears you have to.

It's so sad we've come to this. I know our dimensions are way better than yours. But cripes, it's like you really want a race war down there.

And the other side of that coin might be that if a stranger comes up and grabs you, you better be willing to fight because if they don't identify themselves as law enforcement (as officers are trained to do) you have no idea who they are and what their intentions are.


>>>>

 

[tinydancer]

Do you think in all honesty, people can rise above it?Serve.

IMHO, yes.

You (royal you here) have to believe in the fundamental goodness of people, that they can rise to greatness when duty calls. Sometimes greatness is a firefighter runing into a burning building. Sometimes it's soldier who gives his live to save a little girl from being run over in a street in a foreign land. Sometimes it being called to sit in judgement of our fellow men. That they can put away the anger, listen with their brains and their hearts, that when called they apply the law and make the just decision.

You have to believe in that, because frankly I can't think of a better system.


>>>>

I can't dream of better men and women that serve on a day to day. I admire them beyond belief.

My guys last heart issue learned you have to throw a stick for a dog called Duke before you could cart me off the emergency ward.

I'm stroking out in the back of the ambulance and trying to tell the EMT's we aren't getting out of here unless we throw "stick" for Duke,.

It was hysterical. I'm glad I didn't die. Throw sticks at Duke for crying out loud or I'm going to die.

Too funny.

ETA: I'm his pack. He didn't want to let me go.

 

[tinydancer]

Could you try that again in English.


>>>>

lololol

when you get smacked you have to hit back or you are dead these days. And you better fight for your life. Because it appears you have to.

It's so sad we've come to this. I know our dimensions are way better than yours. But cripes, it's like you really want a race war down there.

And the other side of that coin might be that if a stranger comes up and grabs you, you better be willing to fight because if they don't identify themselves as law enforcement (as officers are trained to do) you have no idea who they are and what their intentions are.


>>>>

How do we make this calm down? I don't like where we are headed. I don't like this at all.

Old fuckers who by the way are millionaires had stirred the pot. They are alll filthy rich race baiters.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've not said once that Zimmerman attacked Martin with the back of his head.

No, you keep saying the evidence does not support Zimmerman's statement that Martin hit him from behind and knocked him to the ground. The only way any intelligent person can interpret that, given that Zimmerman actually has injuries to the back of his head, is that Zimmerman actually attacked martin using the back of his head.

In other words, it isn't my fault that your position doesn't actually correspond to reality, do don't blame me if I mock it for ignoring factual evidence.

Try again. I didn't say Zimmerman's explanation didn't make sense. Do you always put words in peoples mouth and then argue against things they didn't say?

All I've said is that there are multiple scenario's that fit the existing facts and that the state has a burden of proof the support it's theory of what happened. If the state fails to meet that burden of proof then Zimmerman would/should be set free because of lack of evidence. Lack of evidence though is not evidence that supports Zimmerman's story.

Funny, you keep saying that there are alternate explanations, yet you never present one that actually corresponds to said facts. Could that be because you can't actually think of any?

No it doesn't mean that if someone is breaking into a NW person house they have to run away. That's what the Stand Your Ground Law means. Which is not the situation in this case. In this case Zimmerman was actively attempting to follow someone in public against advice of the dispatcher and against the training he'd received as a NW representative.

Take that for what you will. The jury will do the same.

So you admit that the Neighborhood Watch handbook is only advisory and not actually binding. Which, again, begs the question, why do you keep mentioning it?

Fits the known facts and is supported by the same evidence that says that the only person that is noted (by Zimmerman himself) as to running away from the situation doubled back and then attacked the person with a criminal record of violence who was following some unknown person into a situation against training he'd received from the police.

I hate to point out the obvious here, but neither person involved in the fight had a criminal record of any type. Martin has a couple of expulsions from school, which hardly rise to the level of a criminal record, even in this day and age, and Zimmerman has no record at all that I know of.

Funny how the guy who claims to have an open mind keeps making up facts to support his untenable position.

Which is what I said. There are multiple scenario's that fit the evidence. In some of those scenario's Zimmerman is at fault, in other Martin is at fault. At the end of the day, once all the information is made public, the prosecution will have presented their case and the defense will have presented their case. Then it will time to decide. If the state lacks evidence to show that Zimmerman acted outside the legal bounds of self defense, then it will have failed to achieve it's burden of proof and Zimmerman should be found "not guilty".

You keep saying that you keep saying things, yet you never actually say them.

No, what it means is that some in these threads want to apply SYG only to Zimmerman and refuse to acknowledge that if Zimmerman were the aggressor, then Martin would have been within his rights to apply SYG in defense of his person.

"Some in these threads?" Unless you can point to me saying anything like that I don't understand why you make vague assertions about other people saying things that are so ridiculous only idiots would say them.

There's no telling that Zimmerman was "out of the fight", that is speculation on your part. Zimmerman may have been been actively engaging Martin. At least one witness reports that it was Zimmerman on top at the time of the shot. If Zimmerman was on top it would be kind of hard for Martin to run.

Of the two, the only one that was ever described as "running away" from the situation was Martin (in Zimmerman's words). The only one described as following the other was Zimmerman (again his own words in response to the dispatchers question).


>>>>

Again, in order for your scenario to make sense you would have to demonstrate that Zimmerman, the guy with a gun, chose to engage Martin by beating him to death with the back of his head. You would then have to prove he was so good at it that he didn't leave a mark on Martin.

Either that, or you would have to prove that the funeral home director who examined Martin's body was lying about its condition.

Feel free to explain how that scenario actually corresponds with the facts that we are aware of, instead of the imaginary facts you keep trying to invent.

 

[tinydancer]

Trayvon. the Nigga. on his tweets. Am I allowed to quote his last tweets?

Oh and he says he's a nigga That's his handle. That really is his handle.

Gold teeth and all. Have you see his real picture people? Not the Hi!!! I'm in grade 8 bullshit.

And Zimmerman's was DatNiggy....do you have a point?

You are really starting to piss me off Ravi. I have nothing against you. I never neg rep anyone.

But if you want to fuck me over daily? Life could get interesting. Because I don't care about rep. I don't care about shit. But if you want to lay down a war, game on. I'll play.

Game on.

 

[tinydancer]

I've not said once that Zimmerman attacked Martin with the back of his head.

No, you keep saying the evidence does not support Zimmerman's statement that Martin hit him from behind and knocked him to the ground. The only way any intelligent person can interpret that, given that Zimmerman actually has injuries to the back of his head, is that Zimmerman actually attacked martin using the back of his head.

In other words, it isn't my fault that your position doesn't actually correspond to reality, do don't blame me if I mock it for ignoring factual evidence.

Try again. I didn't say Zimmerman's explanation didn't make sense. Do you always put words in peoples mouth and then argue against things they didn't say?

All I've said is that there are multiple scenario's that fit the existing facts and that the state has a burden of proof the support it's theory of what happened. If the state fails to meet that burden of proof then Zimmerman would/should be set free because of lack of evidence. Lack of evidence though is not evidence that supports Zimmerman's story.

Funny, you keep saying that there are alternate explanations, yet you never present one that actually corresponds to said facts. Could that be because you can't actually think of any?



So you admit that the Neighborhood Watch handbook is only advisory and not actually binding. Which, again, begs the question, why do you keep mentioning it?



I hate to point out the obvious here, but neither person involved in the fight had a criminal record of any type. Martin has a couple of expulsions from school, which hardly rise to the level of a criminal record, even in this day and age, and Zimmerman has no record at all that I know of.

Funny how the guy who claims to have an open mind keeps making up facts to support his untenable position.



You keep saying that you keep saying things, yet you never actually say them.

No, what it means is that some in these threads want to apply SYG only to Zimmerman and refuse to acknowledge that if Zimmerman were the aggressor, then Martin would have been within his rights to apply SYG in defense of his person.

"Some in these threads?" Unless you can point to me saying anything like that I don't understand why you make vague assertions about other people saying things that are so ridiculous only idiots would say them.

There's no telling that Zimmerman was "out of the fight", that is speculation on your part. Zimmerman may have been been actively engaging Martin. At least one witness reports that it was Zimmerman on top at the time of the shot. If Zimmerman was on top it would be kind of hard for Martin to run.

Of the two, the only one that was ever described as "running away" from the situation was Martin (in Zimmerman's words). The only one described as following the other was Zimmerman (again his own words in response to the dispatchers question).


>>>>

Again, in order for your scenario to make sense you would have to demonstrate that Zimmerman, the guy with a gun, chose to engage Martin by beating him to death with the back of his head. You would then have to prove he was so good at it that he didn't leave a mark on Martin.

Either that, or you would have to prove that the funeral home director who examined Martin's body was lying about its condition.

Feel free to explain how that scenario actually corresponds with the facts that we are aware of, instead of the imaginary facts you keep trying to invent.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Interesting how the right tends to be going with the CLAIM that Trayvon doubled-back and attacked Zimmerman.

When there is no evidence of that happening as a matter of fact.

Yet, these people are and have been going with this claim as if it were fact. Basing everything on that claim...as if if were fact.

Interesting.

There is evidence that Zimmerman had stopped following Martin before the confrontation took place. During the 911 call, when the dispatcher says, "You don't have to do that [follow Martin]" Zimmerman replies, "Ok," indicating he stopped following him. That being the case, Martin would have had to have turned back to confront Zimmerman.

That occurred 18 seconds after he existed the truck. Yet he had 2:30-3:30 second before the shot and he didn't reach his truck? As a matter of fact he ended up FARTHER away from the truck then he would have traveled in 18 seconds.

Do you think that Martin knocked Zimmerman unconscious, dragged him to the event location, and then woke him up so that Zimmerman could make the shot?

Time distance don't bear that out.


>>>>

Interesting. I assume you got the 18 seconds from the tape of the 911 call, but how far was Zimmerman from his truck when the confrontation occurred and how far do you imagine he could have been in 18 seconds?

 

[toomuchtime_]

The gf has given no testimony we know of, but from Zimmerman's 911 call, we know he had stopped following Martin before the confrontation took place so Martin must have turned back and come after Zimmerman and forced the confrontation. We don't know if Martin had a criminal history for violence because he was a minor and his records would be sealed, but by his violent response to Zimmerman following him for a while, it seems likely he did.

1. If the gf has given no "testimony" (which of course is true), then no witness have given "testimony". Correct?

No, Zimmerman made statements to the police, but the gf made her statements to Crump, the Martins' lawyer for the sake of the press when they were still trying to force an arrest.

2. We know from the dispatcher call that Zimmerman says he lost sight of Martin, we don't know if he stopped. In fact, we know that Zimmerman was following Martin (he said so). We also know that 18 seconds after exiting the truck he acknowledged the dispatchers instructions that he need no follow the unknown individual. Yet the Zimmerman did not return to his truck, which he'd been traveling away from for 18 second up to 2:30-3:30 later (in other words he had 10 times more time to return to the truck then he'd been moving away from the truck).

When Zimmerman was following Martin after leaving his truck, he was running, but when he stopped following Martin, it is unlikely he ran back to his truck so it would take him much longer to get back to his truck.

3. There is no evidence that Martin turned back anywhere, although he may have. It is also possible that Zimmerman continued to look for Martin. It's also possible that they took different routes and ran into each other.

What evidence there is suggests Zimmerman turned back towards his truck. First, we have the 911 tape in which he agrees not to continue following Martin. Second, we have Zimmerman's statement that he had turned back to his truck. Third, it would be out of character for him to disregard the dispatcher's statement that he didn't have to follow Martin. This is a guy who is studying criminal justice, who takes his responsibilities as a town watch captain very seriously, who immediately called the police when he thought he saw something suspicious instead of approaching Martin and asking him what he was doing.

4. There is no evidence that Martin initiated any violent response. He could have or it may have been Zimmerman that initiated hostilities. If it was, then Martin would be justified under Stand Your Ground to defend himself.

Since there is no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's statement to the dispatcher that he would stop following Martin, the only way the confrontation could have taken place would have been if Martin had turned back to confront Zimmerman, and if Martin had run away because he had been afraid, it is likely that he turned back to confront Zimmerman because that fear had turned to anger. So unless there is physical evidence or credible eye witness testimony to the contrary the most plausible scenario is that Zimmerman stopped following Martin after the dispatcher suggested he do so and that Martin's fear had turned to anger and led him to turn back to confront Zimmerman. Given that Zimmerman had been calmed down by talking to the dispatcher and that Martin's anger had been rising, it makes more sense that Martin initiated the violence that led to his death.

At this point we don't know how it actually went down in those critical seconds between the end of the gf's call and when the shot was fired. We do know that the state will have a heavy burden to provide evidence to support it's claims, without such evidence then Zimmerman cannot be found guilty of a crime. Lack of evidence is not evidence for either scenario.

The evidence is not conclusive but what there is of it supports Zimmerman's account of events. It is easy to see why the first prosecutor decided against an arrest because there was no incriminating evidence. A terrible thing happened and the only thing that is driving this case is the need some people have to find explanations, true or not, and actions, just or not, that are commensurate to their emotional responses to this young man's death.


>>>>


>>>>[/QUOTE]

 

[Ravi]

Trayvon. the Nigga. on his tweets. Am I allowed to quote his last tweets?

Oh and he says he's a nigga That's his handle. That really is his handle.

Gold teeth and all. Have you see his real picture people? Not the Hi!!! I'm in grade 8 bullshit.

And Zimmerman's was DatNiggy....do you have a point?

Why does everyone only post his grade 8 picture. Not his current? You tell me. Because it's the media manipulating this game.

Why did you avoid my question with a deflection?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I've not said once that Zimmerman attacked Martin with the back of his head.

No, you keep saying the evidence does not support Zimmerman's statement that Martin hit him from behind and knocked him to the ground. The only way any intelligent person can interpret that, given that Zimmerman actually has injuries to the back of his head, is that Zimmerman actually attacked martin using the back of his head.

In other words, it isn't my fault that your position doesn't actually correspond to reality, do don't blame me if I mock it for ignoring factual evidence.

Again, you change what I said, and then argue against the change. I've said the evidence supports both scenerio's and we will have to wait for full disclosure. At this time we don't have access to Zimmerman's statements, those are sealed. All that has been in the press are third party declarations from family members.

If the gf testifies that Martin and Zimmerman spoke before the hostilities and Zimmerman's statement does say that Martin hit him from behind, then that would be conflicting evidence. Then it would be up to the jury to weigh credibility.

Try again. I didn't say Zimmerman's explanation didn't make sense. Do you always put words in peoples mouth and then argue against things they didn't say?

All I've said is that there are multiple scenario's that fit the existing facts and that the state has a burden of proof the support it's theory of what happened. If the state fails to meet that burden of proof then Zimmerman would/should be set free because of lack of evidence. Lack of evidence though is not evidence that supports Zimmerman's story.

Funny, you keep saying that there are alternate explanations, yet you never present one that actually corresponds to said facts. Could that be because you can't actually think of any?

Actually I've presented 3 that meet the known facts of the situation. Statements are not necessarily "facts". For example you claim that Zimmerman's statement says he was hit from behind, yet the girlfriend's statement was that Zimmerman and Martin spoke to each other - that conflicts with Zimmerman's statement. Another example is that a witness reports watching at the time of the firearm discharge and that Zimmerman was on top while supposedly Zimmerman's statement is that he was on the bottom. Another inconsistency in statements.

So you admit that the Neighborhood Watch handbook is only advisory and not actually binding. Which, again, begs the question, why do you keep mentioning it?

His training by police was not to physically inject himself into a situation. It will be up to the jury to apply what weight they wish to that if it is presented at trial.

I hate to point out the obvious here, but neither person involved in the fight had a criminal record of any type. Martin has a couple of expulsions from school, which hardly rise to the level of a criminal record, even in this day and age, and Zimmerman has no record at all that I know of.

I believe of the two, only Zimmerman was ever arrested for a violent crime. Being arrested is a criminal record. The charges may have been dropped, but it is still a criminal record. I run background checks for employment purposes and we get back state and FBI criminal records all the time that show arrests and dispositions.

Funny how the guy who claims to have an open mind keeps making up facts to support his untenable position.

I haven't made up any facts.

You keep saying that you keep saying things, yet you never actually say them.

I've repeatedly identified that I've provided that there are at least 3 scenerio's that fit the facts. Martin assaults Zimmerman. Zimmerman assaults Martin. Zimmerman assaults Martin and attempts unlawful detention. In the first two Zimmerman retains his self defense immunity and should be found not quilty. In the third Zimmerman is committing a forcible felony under Florida Statute 776.041 and his self defense immunity could be negated.

That's what I've said consistently. Seems pretty clear that I've actually said things that I've actually said.

No, what it means is that some in these threads want to apply SYG only to Zimmerman and refuse to acknowledge that if Zimmerman were the aggressor, then Martin would have been within his rights to apply SYG in defense of his person.

"Some in these threads?" Unless you can point to me saying anything like that I don't understand why you make vague assertions about other people saying things that are so ridiculous only idiots would say them.

If it doesn't apply to you. Then don't get worked up about it. This is an open message board, not a discussion conducted by PM. I post for the audience at large. If you don't like my posting style, then just bypass my posts.

There's no telling that Zimmerman was "out of the fight", that is speculation on your part. Zimmerman may have been been actively engaging Martin. At least one witness reports that it was Zimmerman on top at the time of the shot. If Zimmerman was on top it would be kind of hard for Martin to run.

Of the two, the only one that was ever described as "running away" from the situation was Martin (in Zimmerman's words). The only one described as following the other was Zimmerman (again his own words in response to the dispatchers question).


>>>>

Again, in order for your scenario to make sense you would have to demonstrate that Zimmerman, the guy with a gun, chose to engage Martin by beating him to death with the back of his head. You would then have to prove he was so good at it that he didn't leave a mark on Martin.

I have no obligation to present any evidence that Zimmerman attempted to beat Martin to death with the back of his head. That seems to be something that occurred in your mind not mine.

Either that, or you would have to prove that the funeral home director who examined Martin's body was lying about its condition.

1. We will have to wait for the autopsy report.

2. In 20-years I stood Shore Patrol many times and saw the results of fights. The injuries incurred during a fight are not necessary indicators of who started a fight. All they show is that someone was losing after it stated. We responded to incidents more than once where the person that started the fight had injuries, the one defending himself had no injuries at all.

Feel free to explain how that scenario actually corresponds with the facts that we are aware of, instead of the imaginary facts you keep trying to invent.

The flight of imagination about Zimmerman attacking Martin with the back of his head is yours, not mine.


>>>>

 

[Liability]

Trayvon. the Nigga. on his tweets. Am I allowed to quote his last tweets?

Oh and he says he's a nigga That's his handle. That really is his handle.

Gold teeth and all. Have you see his real picture people? Not the Hi!!! I'm in grade 8 bullshit.

And Zimmerman's was DatNiggy....do you have a point?

You are really starting to piss me off Ravi. I have nothing against you. I never neg rep anyone.

But if you want to fuck me over daily? Life could get interesting. Because I don't care about rep. I don't care about shit. But if you want to lay down a war, game on. I'll play.

Game on.

Actually it was "datniggytb" which evidently alluded to what OTHERS used to call Zimmerman. He didn't object to the nickname and apparently chose to use it as his "My Space" account username/handle. The TB evidently stood for "tug boat" a reference to his then heavy weight.

George Zimmerman MySpace Nickname | Datniggy | Family Explanation | The Daily Caller

 

[WorldWatcher]

The gf has given no testimony we know of, but from Zimmerman's 911 call, we know he had stopped following Martin before the confrontation took place so Martin must have turned back and come after Zimmerman and forced the confrontation. We don't know if Martin had a criminal history for violence because he was a minor and his records would be sealed, but by his violent response to Zimmerman following him for a while, it seems likely he did.

1. If the gf has given no "testimony" (which of course is true), then no witness have given "testimony". Correct?

No, Zimmerman made statements to the police, but the gf made her statements to Crump, the Martins' lawyer for the sake of the press when they were still trying to force an arrest.

I believe the gf has provided statements to the state investigators. Otherwise they would not have included her in the Probable Cause Affidavit.

When Zimmerman was following Martin after leaving his truck, he was running, but when he stopped following Martin, it is unlikely he ran back to his truck so it would take him much longer to get back to his truck.

"Running" is an assumption on your part. The fact is that he continued the conversation with the dispatcher and there were wind noises that could be heard. Speed is unknown.

The fact is that even if running, he ended up father from the truck then he was likely to have traveled in 18 seconds. Placement of the truck was just past the left turn on Twin Trees Lane, the site of the shooting was (IIRC) 150-200 yards away. It would have been impossible for him to travel that distance unless he was at an all out sprint and the continued conversation with the dispatcher does not support that.

What evidence there is suggests Zimmerman turned back towards his truck. First, we have the 911 tape in which he agrees not to continue following Martin. Second, we have Zimmerman's statement that he had turned back to his truck. Third, it would be out of character for him to disregard the dispatcher's statement that he didn't have to follow Martin. This is a guy who is studying criminal justice, who takes his responsibilities as a town watch captain very seriously, who immediately called the police when he thought he saw something suspicious instead of approaching Martin and asking him what he was doing.

1. Martin never agreed to not continue following Martin, his response to the dispatcher was "OK". He acknowledged the statement, he didn't agree to hit. If he had agreed to hit and begun returning to his truck, which he'd only been traveling away from for 18 seconds he would have been closer to the truck then the event site. As it was he was farther away.

2. Martin had already disregarded police training on not injecting themselves physically into a situation they called into the police. It's very possible he disregarded the dispatcher also.

4. There is no evidence that Martin initiated any violent response. He could have or it may have been Zimmerman that initiated hostilities. If it was, then Martin would be justified under Stand Your Ground to defend himself.

Since there is no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's statement to the dispatcher that he would stop following Martin, the only way the confrontation could have taken place would have been if Martin had turned back to confront Zimmerman, and if Martin had run away because he had been afraid, it is likely that he turned back to confront Zimmerman because that fear had turned to anger. So unless there is physical evidence or credible eye witness testimony to the contrary the most plausible scenario is that Zimmerman stopped following Martin after the dispatcher suggested he do so and that Martin's fear had turned to anger and led him to turn back to confront Zimmerman. Given that Zimmerman had been calmed down by talking to the dispatcher and that Martin's anger had been rising, it makes more sense that Martin initiated the violence that led to his death.

Zimmerman didn't indicate to the dispatcher he would stop following. The evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin is based on the physical locations within the scene. Zimmerman was farther away from the truck then he could have gotten in 18-seconds.

There is no evidence to support Martin turned back. (He could have, but there is no evidence to support it at this time.)

At this point we don't know how it actually went down in those critical seconds between the end of the gf's call and when the shot was fired. We do know that the state will have a heavy burden to provide evidence to support it's claims, without such evidence then Zimmerman cannot be found guilty of a crime. Lack of evidence is not evidence for either scenario.

The evidence is not conclusive but what there is of it supports Zimmerman's account of events. It is easy to see why the first prosecutor decided against an arrest because there was no incriminating evidence. A terrible thing happened and the only thing that is driving this case is the need some people have to find explanations, true or not, and actions, just or not, that are commensurate to their emotional responses to this young man's death.

I agree, there is no conclusive evidence that has been made public at this time that supports all of Zimmerman's story and that barring conclusive evidence that Zimmerman initiated hostilities to a degree where he no longer qualified for immunity based on self defense - then a "not guilty" verdict would be appropriate.


>>>>

 

[toomuchtime_]

1. If the gf has given no "testimony" (which of course is true), then no witness have given "testimony". Correct?

No, Zimmerman made statements to the police, but the gf made her statements to Crump, the Martins' lawyer for the sake of the press when they were still trying to force an arrest.

I believe the gf has provided statements to the state investigators. Otherwise they would not have included her in the Probable Cause Affidavit.




"Running" is an assumption on your part. The fact is that he continued the conversation with the dispatcher and there were wind noises that could be heard. Speed is unknown.

The fact is that even if running, he ended up father from the truck then he was likely to have traveled in 18 seconds. Placement of the truck was just past the left turn on Twin Trees Lane, the site of the shooting was (IIRC) 150-200 yards away. It would have been impossible for him to travel that distance unless he was at an all out sprint and the continued conversation with the dispatcher does not support that.



1. Martin never agreed to not continue following Martin, his response to the dispatcher was "OK". He acknowledged the statement, he didn't agree to hit. If he had agreed to hit and begun returning to his truck, which he'd only been traveling away from for 18 seconds he would have been closer to the truck then the event site. As it was he was farther away.

2. Martin had already disregarded police training on not injecting themselves physically into a situation they called into the police. It's very possible he disregarded the dispatcher also.



Zimmerman didn't indicate to the dispatcher he would stop following. The evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin is based on the physical locations within the scene. Zimmerman was farther away from the truck then he could have gotten in 18-seconds.

There is no evidence to support Martin turned back. (He could have, but there is no evidence to support it at this time.)

At this point we don't know how it actually went down in those critical seconds between the end of the gf's call and when the shot was fired. We do know that the state will have a heavy burden to provide evidence to support it's claims, without such evidence then Zimmerman cannot be found guilty of a crime. Lack of evidence is not evidence for either scenario.

The evidence is not conclusive but what there is of it supports Zimmerman's account of events. It is easy to see why the first prosecutor decided against an arrest because there was no incriminating evidence. A terrible thing happened and the only thing that is driving this case is the need some people have to find explanations, true or not, and actions, just or not, that are commensurate to their emotional responses to this young man's death.

I agree, there is no conclusive evidence that has been made public at this time that supports all of Zimmerman's story and that barring conclusive evidence that Zimmerman initiated hostilities to a degree where he no longer qualified for immunity based on self defense - then a "not guilty" verdict would be appropriate.


>>>>

Martin never agreed to not continue following Martin, his response to the dispatcher was "OK". He acknowledged the statement, he didn't agree to hit. If he had agreed to hit and begun returning to his truck, which he'd only been traveling away from for 18 seconds he would have been closer to the truck then the event site. As it was he was farther away.

Again, how did you decide where he was and where he should have been? I haven't seen any information to support your statements.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Again, how did you decide where he was and where he should have been? I haven't seen any information to support your statements.

On another board I’m on there is a Zimmerman/Martin thread with over 21,000 posts and distance discussions were one of the stubs.

1230 Twin Trees Lane Sanford Florida - Google Maps
Google Map Pedometer​

The first link above will take you to a Google Map of the area. The second link will take you to a distance measuring site. On the second site search for “1230 Twin Trees Lane Sanford Florida”. Switch both sites to Satellite view. Zoom in to explode the area.

At first we were using vehicle size as a measuring tool. So for instance a Mazda 3 is 15 feet (3 yards), my Chevy Equinox is 15’8” (just over 3 yards) as was my Subaru Outback. We used the pickup truck at the right turn of Twin Trees Lane (TTL) for scale and then tried to image how many vehicles could be laid end to end between certain points. Once we found the distance measuring site (tips hat to “Who&#8221. We used measurements - duh.

You have the gate in the upper left, across Retreat View Circle. The clubhouse is on the right as well as the mail boxes as you follow TTL to the left turn. TTL continues left to right until you reach the right turn if you were to continue straight, that is the building behind which the shooting (which I refer to as “the event&#8221 occurred.

Zimmerman said in the dispatch tape that the guy was on Retreat View Circle at the clubhouse (it faces Retreat View Circle) so that places Martin at the intersection just through the security gate (how Zimmerman could claim “He’s just walking around” when Martin was just at the intersection inside the gate is a different topic). When the dispatcher asked if the individual was at the clubhouse right now, Zimmerman replied in the affirmative. Zimmerman than talks about Martin coming toward him, ummm, Zimmerman’s truck was parked between Martin’s current location and the residence he was traveling to, of course he walked towards him. Zimmerman then goes on to describe the location of his truck “If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, that's my truck...”. We can now place Zimmerman’s truck as just after the left hand turn on TTL.


Premise:

• Mile = 5280 feet | 1760 yards
• Event location up the side walk to the curb of TTL = 0.04 mi (221.2 feet | 70.4 yards)
• Event location up the side walk to the center of TTL between the curves = 0.06 mi (316.8 feet | 105.6 yards)
• Event location up the sidewalk to the mailboxes by the clubhouse = 0.09 mi (475.2 feet | 158.4 yards)
• The average person walks about 3 MPH (1 mi = 20 minutes) = 5280 feet / 20 minutes / 60 seconds = 4.4 feet per second.
• From the time Zimmerman exits the truck to acknowledging the dispatchers not to follow comment = 18 seconds.

At walking speed Zimmerman would have covered 79.2 feet | 26.4 yards. We know he did not sprint at full speed because he continued a conversation with the dispatcher and there was some wind noise, but no background noise evidence of heavy breathing or the jerkiness of speech that would result in running. So let’s say he moved at light jog of double normal average speed. That would be 158.4 feet | 52.8 yards.

Taking a measurement from halfway of the length of TTL (which is generous to the Zimmerman side as he says in the directions he was closer to the left turn) we have a distance of 316.8 feet | 105.6 yards. At the time that Zimmerman acknowledged the dispatcher instruction not to follow he traveled between 79.2 feet | 26.4 yards and 158.4 feet | 52.8 yards away from the truck. If he started returning to the truck at the point of acknowledging the dispatcher with “OK”, he would have had 2:30-3:30 (minutes:seconds) to return to the truck. That would be 150-210 seconds of travel time. At a walk (not jog, to again give him the advantage) he could have traveled 660 feet | 220 yards to 924 feet | 308 yards. When you look at the distance outbound at a jog compared to the distances that could be covered in the return walk Zimmerman would have been able to return to the truck long before the event with Martin, if he’d traveled toward the truck.

However, the event occurred at a FARTHER distance from the truck then Zimmerman could have traveled in those 18-seconds. Unless someone proposes a theory that Martin knocked Zimmerman unconscious and tagged him around behind the building, to then wake him up so that the hostilities could continue, then we have to assume that Zimmerman traveled the additional distance under his own power.

Hence the assumption that Zimmerman did not return to the truck at the point where he acknowledged the dispatchers instructions not to follow the unknown individual and continued on a path away from the truck during the 2:30-3:30 period between the end of the dispatcher call and the firearm discharge at the event.


>>>>

 

[paperview]

Hi WW.

Another location, I saw this, using a Google maps program to measure feet.

Can't certify, but I have seen other evidence from the source who made this to consider it relatively reliable.

I wouldn't stake rep on it, but I think its close.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Hi WW.

Another location, I saw this, using a Google maps program to measure feet.

Can't certify, but I have seen other evidence from the source who made this to consider it relatively reliable.

I wouldn't stake rep on it, but I think its close.

1. For purpose of illustration, I attempted to use measurements that were most advantageous to Zimmerman. But still, looks like the numbers are pretty close, my position is closer to the truck then the one in the image and accounting for that they seem to be in the same range. Glad to see some confirmation.


2. Was the program web based or was is client side software, if web based do you have a link - that looks like a real neat one to have.


>>>>

 

[paperview]

Hi WW.

Another location, I saw this, using a Google maps program to measure feet.

Can't certify, but I have seen other evidence from the source who made this to consider it relatively reliable.

I wouldn't stake rep on it, but I think its close.

1. For purpose of illustration, I attempted to use measurements that were most advantageous to Zimmerman. But still, looks like the numbers are pretty close, my position is closer to the truck then the one in the image and accounting for that they seem to be in the same range. Glad to see some confirmation.


2. Was the program web based or was is client side software, if web based do you have a link - that looks like a real neat one to have.


>>>>

I'll email the dude later and find out. Kay?