Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"Asshole lawyers" on the prosecution and the defense side are obligated to present their cases...that's why it is called a "trial".....SMGDH.
The following is copied text from the witness statement...NO MENTION of Zimmerman screaming for help.
Fri Jun 28, 2013 | 8:46 PM EDT
Eyewitness describes Trayvon Martin's fatal struggle to Florida jury
Jun 27, 2013 | 01:28
Zimmerman's defense tries to undermine witness
By Barbara Liston | SANFORD, FLORIDA
(Reuters) - A witness in the murder trial of neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman testified on Friday that he saw Trayvon Martin on top of Zimmerman during a struggle that led to the unarmed black teenager's shooting death in a central Florida gated community last year.
But Jonathan Good, a former resident at the townhouse complex, told the jury in Seminole County criminal court that he never saw Martin slam Zimmerman's head into the concrete sidewalk, undermining a key element in Zimmerman's defense.
"I did not see that," Good told the court under questioning by a state prosecutor about the racially charged case that triggered civil rights protests and debates about the treatment of black Americans in the U.S. justice system.
Police did not arrest Zimmerman, who is white and Hispanic, for 44 days. Zimmerman does not deny killing Martin but he says he did so in self-defense after he was attacked and Martin smashed his head repeatedly into the sidewalk.
Good was the fourth former neighbor who partially witnessed the death of Martin on February 26, 2012 to testify in the trial. Each has given a slightly different account, but Good is the first to state that Martin was on top during the struggle.
Zimmerman, 29, was a neighborhood watch volunteer in the Retreat at Twin Lakes community in Sanford at the time of the killing. He has pleaded not guilty to second-degree murder and could face life imprisonment if convicted.
Martin, 17, was a student at a Miami-area high school and a guest of one of the homeowners. He was returning after buying snacks at a convenience store when he was shot in the chest during a confrontation with Zimmerman.
Several former Twin Lakes residents have testified for the prosecution that they heard and caught glimpses of the fight between Zimmerman and Martin, and heard cries for help, on a dark and rainy night near a walkway between units in the community of townhomes.
Good said he was watching TV with his wife when he heard a noise outside and saw two people wrestling on the ground, with "a lighter-skinned man" on the bottom. He identified the other man, Martin, by his race and clothing.
Good initially told police the person on top was pummeling the other in mixed martial arts style, but backed off that account, later saying the person on top was straddling the other man, but his arms might have been holding the other down rather than punching.
I'm not a lefty as you claim....I'm just not agreeing with your misinformed, selective, right wing rhetoric.
The eyewitness was a good witness, very honest. He was asked clear questions about what he did and did not see.
Your article was written to focus on the fact that he did not see part of Zimmerman's story. This is true.
Your article left out the stuff that supported Zimmerman's story, because the press are a bunch of lefty jackals worthy of nothing but contempt.
Here is a partial transcript from the trial that includes the portion I was referring to.
ZIMMERMAN TRIAL BLOCKBUSTER — TRANSCRIPT -- Eyewitness Good: Black guy in black hoodie on top punching down Mixed Martial Arts style
"O’Mara: Just to clarify what was actually talked about with Chris Serino, Investigator Serino, during this, we’re going to call it for the moment the Ground-and-Pound conversation. We have a rule called completeness, so what I want to do is put it in context for you, ask you if this is what you said to Chris Serino. OK?
“Yeah I pretty much heard somebody yelling outside. I wasn’t sure if it was, you know, a fight or something going wrong. So I opened my blinds and I see kind of like a person out there. I didn’t know if it was a dog attack or something. So I open my door. It was a black man with a black hoodie on top of the other, either a white guy or now I found out I think it was a Hispanic guy with a red sweatshirt on the ground yelling out help! And I tried to tell them, get out of here, you know, stop or whatever, and then one guy on top in the black hoodie was pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style.”
Is that the context in which that happened?
Good: Yes.
"
NOte "yelling out for help".
BTW, you never answered my question, "What would happen if you told your friends that you thought Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin"?
The following is in the same link that you sent, so what is your point.
Good: It looked like that position was a Ground-and-Pound type of position, but I couldn’t tell 100% that there were actually fists hitting faces.
O’Mara: But you did see [reading] “the guy in the top in the black hoodie pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style.”
Good: Meaning arm motions going down on the person on the bottom. Correct.
O’Mara: You’re’ not going to tell the jury here today that you saw fists hit flesh or face if you didn’t actually see it, right?
Good: I wouldn’t tell them that anyway, because i didn’t actually see ithe.
1. My point that Zimmerman was witnessed screaming for help stands.
2. The above is the asshole lawyer trying to create reasonable doubt, where there isn't any. The blows were raining down on Zimmerman. He may have been protecting his face with his arms. THe eyewitness could not actually see the blows strike Zimmerman. So what?
Do you really think he was NOT actually striking Zimmerman?
As for your "question", If I told anyone that I know that Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin their response would likely be:
"What was he doing following him when he was told that he didn't need to do that, because the police were on their way"
What's your point?
My point is that you would be ostracized if you broke ranks. That you are emotionally invested in your position, which is why you keep lying.
You CAN'T admit the obvious realities of the case, like the man being sat on screaming for help was actually being hit by the blows being rained down on him.
You're full of shit. First of all if ANYONE does not "like" my opinion about something, no matter what it is, I couldnt care less.
Secondly, there are NO "ranks" for me to break, whatever you mean by that.
I showed you in your own link where the so called "witness" could not validate that "punches were making contact"...so who is lying here?
If you are old enough, you may have heard about an incident in New York years ago of a subway where a white guy was being bullied by a group of young black men....he shot ALL of them, and I AGREED with him doing so and had no problem saying that I
So now what?
1. Something is driving a lot of dishonesty from you.
2. You showed me where an asshole lawyer tried and failed to generate reasonable doubt by getting a witness to admit that, while he saw Martin raining down blows on Zimmerman, who was screaming for help, that he could not actually see the punches hitting flesh.
I guess the implication is that Martin was somehow incompetent and unable to hit a man he was sitting on.
Only a Willing DUpe would even think of buying that line of bullshit.
Play cop? You mean report a suspicious person? Attempting to report his position when he ran?The only lack of objectivity here is my unwillingness to agree with a vigilante taking it upon himself to play cop instead of letting trained officers do their duty.....
What is your version of events that night?You buy the fact that a teenager was mercilessly beating the hell out of a grown man when it is quite possible that he was throwing punches that weren't even landing with the severity that you think.
If the witness was under oath and he was actually a credible "eyewitness" he would not have been manipulated by a so called "asshole lawyer".
Only a damn fool would not be objective enough to realize that possibility.
The eyewitness was a good witness, very honest. He was asked clear questions about what he did and did not see.
Your article was written to focus on the fact that he did not see part of Zimmerman's story. This is true.
Your article left out the stuff that supported Zimmerman's story, because the press are a bunch of lefty jackals worthy of nothing but contempt.
Here is a partial transcript from the trial that includes the portion I was referring to.
ZIMMERMAN TRIAL BLOCKBUSTER — TRANSCRIPT -- Eyewitness Good: Black guy in black hoodie on top punching down Mixed Martial Arts style
"O’Mara: Just to clarify what was actually talked about with Chris Serino, Investigator Serino, during this, we’re going to call it for the moment the Ground-and-Pound conversation. We have a rule called completeness, so what I want to do is put it in context for you, ask you if this is what you said to Chris Serino. OK?
“Yeah I pretty much heard somebody yelling outside. I wasn’t sure if it was, you know, a fight or something going wrong. So I opened my blinds and I see kind of like a person out there. I didn’t know if it was a dog attack or something. So I open my door. It was a black man with a black hoodie on top of the other, either a white guy or now I found out I think it was a Hispanic guy with a red sweatshirt on the ground yelling out help! And I tried to tell them, get out of here, you know, stop or whatever, and then one guy on top in the black hoodie was pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style.”
Is that the context in which that happened?
Good: Yes.
"
NOte "yelling out for help".
BTW, you never answered my question, "What would happen if you told your friends that you thought Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin"?
The following is in the same link that you sent, so what is your point.
Good: It looked like that position was a Ground-and-Pound type of position, but I couldn’t tell 100% that there were actually fists hitting faces.
O’Mara: But you did see [reading] “the guy in the top in the black hoodie pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style.”
Good: Meaning arm motions going down on the person on the bottom. Correct.
O’Mara: You’re’ not going to tell the jury here today that you saw fists hit flesh or face if you didn’t actually see it, right?
Good: I wouldn’t tell them that anyway, because i didn’t actually see ithe.
1. My point that Zimmerman was witnessed screaming for help stands.
2. The above is the asshole lawyer trying to create reasonable doubt, where there isn't any. The blows were raining down on Zimmerman. He may have been protecting his face with his arms. THe eyewitness could not actually see the blows strike Zimmerman. So what?
Do you really think he was NOT actually striking Zimmerman?
As for your "question", If I told anyone that I know that Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin their response would likely be:
"What was he doing following him when he was told that he didn't need to do that, because the police were on their way"
What's your point?
My point is that you would be ostracized if you broke ranks. That you are emotionally invested in your position, which is why you keep lying.
You CAN'T admit the obvious realities of the case, like the man being sat on screaming for help was actually being hit by the blows being rained down on him.
You're full of shit. First of all if ANYONE does not "like" my opinion about something, no matter what it is, I couldnt care less.
Secondly, there are NO "ranks" for me to break, whatever you mean by that.
I showed you in your own link where the so called "witness" could not validate that "punches were making contact"...so who is lying here?
If you are old enough, you may have heard about an incident in New York years ago of a subway where a white guy was being bullied by a group of young black men....he shot ALL of them, and I AGREED with him doing so and had no problem saying that I
So now what?
1. Something is driving a lot of dishonesty from you.
2. You showed me where an asshole lawyer tried and failed to generate reasonable doubt by getting a witness to admit that, while he saw Martin raining down blows on Zimmerman, who was screaming for help, that he could not actually see the punches hitting flesh.
I guess the implication is that Martin was somehow incompetent and unable to hit a man he was sitting on.
Only a Willing DUpe would even think of buying that line of bullshit.
You buy the fact that a teenager was mercilessly beating the hell out of a grown man when it is quite possible that he was throwing punches that weren't even landing with the severity that you think.
If the witness was under oath and he was actually a credible "eyewitness" he would not have been manipulated by a so called "asshole lawyer".
Only a damn fool would not be objective enough to realize that possibility.
The following is in the same link that you sent, so what is your point.
Good: It looked like that position was a Ground-and-Pound type of position, but I couldn’t tell 100% that there were actually fists hitting faces.
O’Mara: But you did see [reading] “the guy in the top in the black hoodie pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style.”
Good: Meaning arm motions going down on the person on the bottom. Correct.
O’Mara: You’re’ not going to tell the jury here today that you saw fists hit flesh or face if you didn’t actually see it, right?
Good: I wouldn’t tell them that anyway, because i didn’t actually see ithe.
1. My point that Zimmerman was witnessed screaming for help stands.
2. The above is the asshole lawyer trying to create reasonable doubt, where there isn't any. The blows were raining down on Zimmerman. He may have been protecting his face with his arms. THe eyewitness could not actually see the blows strike Zimmerman. So what?
Do you really think he was NOT actually striking Zimmerman?
As for your "question", If I told anyone that I know that Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin their response would likely be:
"What was he doing following him when he was told that he didn't need to do that, because the police were on their way"
What's your point?
My point is that you would be ostracized if you broke ranks. That you are emotionally invested in your position, which is why you keep lying.
You CAN'T admit the obvious realities of the case, like the man being sat on screaming for help was actually being hit by the blows being rained down on him.
You're full of shit. First of all if ANYONE does not "like" my opinion about something, no matter what it is, I couldnt care less.
Secondly, there are NO "ranks" for me to break, whatever you mean by that.
I showed you in your own link where the so called "witness" could not validate that "punches were making contact"...so who is lying here?
If you are old enough, you may have heard about an incident in New York years ago of a subway where a white guy was being bullied by a group of young black men....he shot ALL of them, and I AGREED with him doing so and had no problem saying that I
So now what?
1. Something is driving a lot of dishonesty from you.
2. You showed me where an asshole lawyer tried and failed to generate reasonable doubt by getting a witness to admit that, while he saw Martin raining down blows on Zimmerman, who was screaming for help, that he could not actually see the punches hitting flesh.
I guess the implication is that Martin was somehow incompetent and unable to hit a man he was sitting on.
Only a Willing DUpe would even think of buying that line of bullshit.
You buy the fact that a teenager was mercilessly beating the hell out of a grown man when it is quite possible that he was throwing punches that weren't even landing with the severity that you think.
Yes, I find it completely believable that a 17 year old was mercilessly beating the hell out of a grown man.
This young man was not landing love taps.
If the witness was under oath and he was actually a credible "eyewitness" he would not have been manipulated by a so called "asshole lawyer".
That statement is nonsense. A good asshole lawyer is trained to manipulate witness testimony, including true and credible testimony.
Only a damn fool would not be objective enough to realize that possibility.
Possible? Sure. But unlikely. If he was that ineffective, why wan't Zimmerman on top? If he was that ineffective, why was Zimmerman screaming for help instead of standing there while Martin was knocked down? Hell, if he knew that he was not much of a fighter, then why did he double back?
1. My point that Zimmerman was witnessed screaming for help stands.
2. The above is the asshole lawyer trying to create reasonable doubt, where there isn't any. The blows were raining down on Zimmerman. He may have been protecting his face with his arms. THe eyewitness could not actually see the blows strike Zimmerman. So what?
Do you really think he was NOT actually striking Zimmerman?
My point is that you would be ostracized if you broke ranks. That you are emotionally invested in your position, which is why you keep lying.
You CAN'T admit the obvious realities of the case, like the man being sat on screaming for help was actually being hit by the blows being rained down on him.
You're full of shit. First of all if ANYONE does not "like" my opinion about something, no matter what it is, I couldnt care less.
Secondly, there are NO "ranks" for me to break, whatever you mean by that.
I showed you in your own link where the so called "witness" could not validate that "punches were making contact"...so who is lying here?
If you are old enough, you may have heard about an incident in New York years ago of a subway where a white guy was being bullied by a group of young black men....he shot ALL of them, and I AGREED with him doing so and had no problem saying that I
So now what?
1. Something is driving a lot of dishonesty from you.
2. You showed me where an asshole lawyer tried and failed to generate reasonable doubt by getting a witness to admit that, while he saw Martin raining down blows on Zimmerman, who was screaming for help, that he could not actually see the punches hitting flesh.
I guess the implication is that Martin was somehow incompetent and unable to hit a man he was sitting on.
Only a Willing DUpe would even think of buying that line of bullshit.
You buy the fact that a teenager was mercilessly beating the hell out of a grown man when it is quite possible that he was throwing punches that weren't even landing with the severity that you think.
Yes, I find it completely believable that a 17 year old was mercilessly beating the hell out of a grown man.
This young man was not landing love taps.
If the witness was under oath and he was actually a credible "eyewitness" he would not have been manipulated by a so called "asshole lawyer".
That statement is nonsense. A good asshole lawyer is trained to manipulate witness testimony, including true and credible testimony.
Only a damn fool would not be objective enough to realize that possibility.
Possible? Sure. But unlikely. If he was that ineffective, why wan't Zimmerman on top? If he was that ineffective, why was Zimmerman screaming for help instead of standing there while Martin was knocked down? Hell, if he knew that he was not much of a fighter, then why did he double back?
It is my belief that Zimmerman profiled Martin, followed him, against the advice of police dispatch and confronted him not knowing that he was actually there visiting someone, and started a fight that he soon realized that he might not win, and shot Martin.
He went on trial and became a folk hero to people like you for "standing up to and shooting" a black teenager who the media portrayed as a "thug" when he was likely just a kid in the wrong place at the wrong time and came face to face with a real life thug who happened to have a gun and was anxious to use it.....and that same thug will likely meet another one just like him one day. I'm done talking about this.
Your belief is wrong. Specifically your understanding of the timeline of events.It is my belief that Zimmerman profiled Martin, followed him, against the advice of police dispatch and confronted him not knowing that he was actually there visiting someone, and started a fight that he soon realized that he might not win, and shot Martin.
He went on trial and became a folk hero to people like you for "standing up to and shooting" a black teenager who the media portrayed as a "thug" when he was likely just a kid in the wrong place at the wrong time and came face to face with a real life thug who happened to have a gun and was anxious to use it.....and that same thug will likely meet another one just like him one day. I'm done talking about this.
You're full of shit. First of all if ANYONE does not "like" my opinion about something, no matter what it is, I couldnt care less.
Secondly, there are NO "ranks" for me to break, whatever you mean by that.
I showed you in your own link where the so called "witness" could not validate that "punches were making contact"...so who is lying here?
If you are old enough, you may have heard about an incident in New York years ago of a subway where a white guy was being bullied by a group of young black men....he shot ALL of them, and I AGREED with him doing so and had no problem saying that I
So now what?
1. Something is driving a lot of dishonesty from you.
2. You showed me where an asshole lawyer tried and failed to generate reasonable doubt by getting a witness to admit that, while he saw Martin raining down blows on Zimmerman, who was screaming for help, that he could not actually see the punches hitting flesh.
I guess the implication is that Martin was somehow incompetent and unable to hit a man he was sitting on.
Only a Willing DUpe would even think of buying that line of bullshit.
You buy the fact that a teenager was mercilessly beating the hell out of a grown man when it is quite possible that he was throwing punches that weren't even landing with the severity that you think.
Yes, I find it completely believable that a 17 year old was mercilessly beating the hell out of a grown man.
This young man was not landing love taps.
If the witness was under oath and he was actually a credible "eyewitness" he would not have been manipulated by a so called "asshole lawyer".
That statement is nonsense. A good asshole lawyer is trained to manipulate witness testimony, including true and credible testimony.
Only a damn fool would not be objective enough to realize that possibility.
Possible? Sure. But unlikely. If he was that ineffective, why wan't Zimmerman on top? If he was that ineffective, why was Zimmerman screaming for help instead of standing there while Martin was knocked down? Hell, if he knew that he was not much of a fighter, then why did he double back?
It is my belief that Zimmerman profiled Martin, followed him, against the advice of police dispatch and confronted him not knowing that he was actually there visiting someone, and started a fight that he soon realized that he might not win, and shot Martin.
He went on trial and became a folk hero to people like you for "standing up to and shooting" a black teenager who the media portrayed as a "thug" when he was likely just a kid in the wrong place at the wrong time and came face to face with a real life thug who happened to have a gun and was anxious to use it.....and that same thug will likely meet another one just like him one day. I'm done talking about this.
I seriously and honestly addressed each of your points.
YOu are unwilling or unable to defend your points.
So you restate your position and declare the debate over.
That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
My points stand as the final word.
1. Something is driving a lot of dishonesty from you.
2. You showed me where an asshole lawyer tried and failed to generate reasonable doubt by getting a witness to admit that, while he saw Martin raining down blows on Zimmerman, who was screaming for help, that he could not actually see the punches hitting flesh.
I guess the implication is that Martin was somehow incompetent and unable to hit a man he was sitting on.
Only a Willing DUpe would even think of buying that line of bullshit.
You buy the fact that a teenager was mercilessly beating the hell out of a grown man when it is quite possible that he was throwing punches that weren't even landing with the severity that you think.
Yes, I find it completely believable that a 17 year old was mercilessly beating the hell out of a grown man.
This young man was not landing love taps.
If the witness was under oath and he was actually a credible "eyewitness" he would not have been manipulated by a so called "asshole lawyer".
That statement is nonsense. A good asshole lawyer is trained to manipulate witness testimony, including true and credible testimony.
Only a damn fool would not be objective enough to realize that possibility.
Possible? Sure. But unlikely. If he was that ineffective, why wan't Zimmerman on top? If he was that ineffective, why was Zimmerman screaming for help instead of standing there while Martin was knocked down? Hell, if he knew that he was not much of a fighter, then why did he double back?
It is my belief that Zimmerman profiled Martin, followed him, against the advice of police dispatch and confronted him not knowing that he was actually there visiting someone, and started a fight that he soon realized that he might not win, and shot Martin.
He went on trial and became a folk hero to people like you for "standing up to and shooting" a black teenager who the media portrayed as a "thug" when he was likely just a kid in the wrong place at the wrong time and came face to face with a real life thug who happened to have a gun and was anxious to use it.....and that same thug will likely meet another one just like him one day. I'm done talking about this.
I seriously and honestly addressed each of your points.
YOu are unwilling or unable to defend your points.
So you restate your position and declare the debate over.
That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
My points stand as the final word.
I am not "restating" anything. I never said that there was not a fight between the two.
I have said from the beginning that I believe that Zimmerman should have stopped following as he was told to. Period.
It is you have tried to turn this into a so called debate for reasons of your own.
Your "points" are your opinion, and are subject to be disagreed with. I don't need to "defend" anything with a complete stranger.
Your belief is wrong. Specifically your understanding of the timeline of events.It is my belief that Zimmerman profiled Martin, followed him, against the advice of police dispatch and confronted him not knowing that he was actually there visiting someone, and started a fight that he soon realized that he might not win, and shot Martin.
He went on trial and became a folk hero to people like you for "standing up to and shooting" a black teenager who the media portrayed as a "thug" when he was likely just a kid in the wrong place at the wrong time and came face to face with a real life thug who happened to have a gun and was anxious to use it.....and that same thug will likely meet another one just like him one day. I'm done talking about this.
Zimmerman may have profiled Martin, but the fact remains there were several break-ins at the apartment complex by.....wait for it.....young black men.
If you read the transcript, the dispatcher's advice came after asking Martin's location and after Zimmerman had already pursued him, mistakenly, to the rear exit of the apartment complex. When the dispatcher said " Okay, we don't need you to do that.", Zimmerman replied "Okay" and began returning to his truck. It was after all of those events that Martin confronted Zimmerman.
Zimmerman’s Twin Lakes Community Was on Edge Before Trayvon Shooting
Conversations with several residents, however, suggest that Zimmerman’s calls reflect a wider feeling of concern and distrust in the community. For years, Twin Lakes residents had been on edge—demonstrated by their decision last September to start a neighborhood-watch organization, which was initiated by Zimmerman himself. The burglary of Olivia Bertalan’s home was just one of at least eight reported over the previous 14 months—several of which, neighbors said, involved young black men. On Feb. 26, the odds were stacked against Martin: he was a young black man in a neighborhood that was feeling besieged by crime and blaming it—fairly or not—on people who looked like him.
Three weeks before Martin’s death another Twin Lakes resident arrived home to discover a kitchen window open and a laptop and gold necklaces missing. Two witnesses said they saw a young black man standing nearby, but they did not see the man break into the home, according to a police report. One witness said he believed it was the same man who had stolen his bike. The next day officers responding to a call confronted three black men and one white man on bikes near the neighborhood. The same witnesses identified one of the men as the same man they saw near the burglarized home. The officers found the laptop in the man's backpack.
Timeline
Your belief is wrong. Specifically your understanding of the timeline of events.It is my belief that Zimmerman profiled Martin, followed him, against the advice of police dispatch and confronted him not knowing that he was actually there visiting someone, and started a fight that he soon realized that he might not win, and shot Martin.
He went on trial and became a folk hero to people like you for "standing up to and shooting" a black teenager who the media portrayed as a "thug" when he was likely just a kid in the wrong place at the wrong time and came face to face with a real life thug who happened to have a gun and was anxious to use it.....and that same thug will likely meet another one just like him one day. I'm done talking about this.
Zimmerman may have profiled Martin, but the fact remains there were several break-ins at the apartment complex by.....wait for it.....young black men.
If you read the transcript, the dispatcher's advice came after asking Martin's location and after Zimmerman had already pursued him, mistakenly, to the rear exit of the apartment complex. When the dispatcher said " Okay, we don't need you to do that.", Zimmerman replied "Okay" and began returning to his truck. It was after all of those events that Martin confronted Zimmerman.
Zimmerman’s Twin Lakes Community Was on Edge Before Trayvon Shooting
Conversations with several residents, however, suggest that Zimmerman’s calls reflect a wider feeling of concern and distrust in the community. For years, Twin Lakes residents had been on edge—demonstrated by their decision last September to start a neighborhood-watch organization, which was initiated by Zimmerman himself. The burglary of Olivia Bertalan’s home was just one of at least eight reported over the previous 14 months—several of which, neighbors said, involved young black men. On Feb. 26, the odds were stacked against Martin: he was a young black man in a neighborhood that was feeling besieged by crime and blaming it—fairly or not—on people who looked like him.
Three weeks before Martin’s death another Twin Lakes resident arrived home to discover a kitchen window open and a laptop and gold necklaces missing. Two witnesses said they saw a young black man standing nearby, but they did not see the man break into the home, according to a police report. One witness said he believed it was the same man who had stolen his bike. The next day officers responding to a call confronted three black men and one white man on bikes near the neighborhood. The same witnesses identified one of the men as the same man they saw near the burglarized home. The officers found the laptop in the man's backpack.
Timeline of events in Trayvon Martin case - CNN.com
Timeline of the shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia
Transcripts of Calls in the George Zimmerman Case
Zimmerman: No, you go in, straight through the entrance, and then you make a left-- you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. Shit, he's running.
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?
Zimmerman: Down towards the other entrance to the neighborhood.
Dispatcher: Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?
Zimmerman: The back entrance... Fucking punks. These assholes, they always get away...
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Okay, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Okay.
You buy the fact that a teenager was mercilessly beating the hell out of a grown man when it is quite possible that he was throwing punches that weren't even landing with the severity that you think.
Yes, I find it completely believable that a 17 year old was mercilessly beating the hell out of a grown man.
This young man was not landing love taps.
If the witness was under oath and he was actually a credible "eyewitness" he would not have been manipulated by a so called "asshole lawyer".
That statement is nonsense. A good asshole lawyer is trained to manipulate witness testimony, including true and credible testimony.
Only a damn fool would not be objective enough to realize that possibility.
Possible? Sure. But unlikely. If he was that ineffective, why wan't Zimmerman on top? If he was that ineffective, why was Zimmerman screaming for help instead of standing there while Martin was knocked down? Hell, if he knew that he was not much of a fighter, then why did he double back?
It is my belief that Zimmerman profiled Martin, followed him, against the advice of police dispatch and confronted him not knowing that he was actually there visiting someone, and started a fight that he soon realized that he might not win, and shot Martin.
He went on trial and became a folk hero to people like you for "standing up to and shooting" a black teenager who the media portrayed as a "thug" when he was likely just a kid in the wrong place at the wrong time and came face to face with a real life thug who happened to have a gun and was anxious to use it.....and that same thug will likely meet another one just like him one day. I'm done talking about this.
I seriously and honestly addressed each of your points.
YOu are unwilling or unable to defend your points.
So you restate your position and declare the debate over.
That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
My points stand as the final word.
I am not "restating" anything. I never said that there was not a fight between the two.
I have said from the beginning that I believe that Zimmerman should have stopped following as he was told to. Period.
It is you have tried to turn this into a so called debate for reasons of your own.
Your "points" are your opinion, and are subject to be disagreed with. I don't need to "defend" anything with a complete stranger.
You are on a political discussion site, in a thread, refusing or unable to support your position on a political issue.
You were doing so. Until I challenged your arguments.
My points are well reasoned and well argued and supported by eyewitness testimony and evidence.
Such as that photo of a very well muscled young man who you tried to claim might not have been able to land a punch on a man he was SITTING ON.
lol!!
Yes, I find it completely believable that a 17 year old was mercilessly beating the hell out of a grown man.
This young man was not landing love taps.
That statement is nonsense. A good asshole lawyer is trained to manipulate witness testimony, including true and credible testimony.
Possible? Sure. But unlikely. If he was that ineffective, why wan't Zimmerman on top? If he was that ineffective, why was Zimmerman screaming for help instead of standing there while Martin was knocked down? Hell, if he knew that he was not much of a fighter, then why did he double back?
It is my belief that Zimmerman profiled Martin, followed him, against the advice of police dispatch and confronted him not knowing that he was actually there visiting someone, and started a fight that he soon realized that he might not win, and shot Martin.
He went on trial and became a folk hero to people like you for "standing up to and shooting" a black teenager who the media portrayed as a "thug" when he was likely just a kid in the wrong place at the wrong time and came face to face with a real life thug who happened to have a gun and was anxious to use it.....and that same thug will likely meet another one just like him one day. I'm done talking about this.
I seriously and honestly addressed each of your points.
YOu are unwilling or unable to defend your points.
So you restate your position and declare the debate over.
That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
My points stand as the final word.
I am not "restating" anything. I never said that there was not a fight between the two.
I have said from the beginning that I believe that Zimmerman should have stopped following as he was told to. Period.
It is you have tried to turn this into a so called debate for reasons of your own.
Your "points" are your opinion, and are subject to be disagreed with. I don't need to "defend" anything with a complete stranger.
You are on a political discussion site, in a thread, refusing or unable to support your position on a political issue.
You were doing so. Until I challenged your arguments.
My points are well reasoned and well argued and supported by eyewitness testimony and evidence.
Such as that photo of a very well muscled young man who you tried to claim might not have been able to land a punch on a man he was SITTING ON.
lol!!
No.....such as the "witness" who stated that he could not say that punches were actually being landed.
You have an opinion. Subject to be disagreed with.
It is my belief that Zimmerman profiled Martin, followed him, against the advice of police dispatch and confronted him not knowing that he was actually there visiting someone, and started a fight that he soon realized that he might not win, and shot Martin.
He went on trial and became a folk hero to people like you for "standing up to and shooting" a black teenager who the media portrayed as a "thug" when he was likely just a kid in the wrong place at the wrong time and came face to face with a real life thug who happened to have a gun and was anxious to use it.....and that same thug will likely meet another one just like him one day. I'm done talking about this.
I seriously and honestly addressed each of your points.
YOu are unwilling or unable to defend your points.
So you restate your position and declare the debate over.
That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
My points stand as the final word.
I am not "restating" anything. I never said that there was not a fight between the two.
I have said from the beginning that I believe that Zimmerman should have stopped following as he was told to. Period.
It is you have tried to turn this into a so called debate for reasons of your own.
Your "points" are your opinion, and are subject to be disagreed with. I don't need to "defend" anything with a complete stranger.
You are on a political discussion site, in a thread, refusing or unable to support your position on a political issue.
You were doing so. Until I challenged your arguments.
My points are well reasoned and well argued and supported by eyewitness testimony and evidence.
Such as that photo of a very well muscled young man who you tried to claim might not have been able to land a punch on a man he was SITTING ON.
lol!!
No.....such as the "witness" who stated that he could not say that punches were actually being landed.
You have an opinion. Subject to be disagreed with.
Sure. Credible eyewitness sees one man on top of the other raining down punches "MMA style" while the man under screams for help, and the asshole lawyer asks if the guy can SEE THE PUNCHES LANDING.
And you think that brings it into question. LOL!!
BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THAT THE BLACK "CHILD" IS THE "VICTIM".
This "child" was landing his punches. Zimmerman was screaming for a reason.
I seriously and honestly addressed each of your points.
YOu are unwilling or unable to defend your points.
So you restate your position and declare the debate over.
That is the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.
My points stand as the final word.
I am not "restating" anything. I never said that there was not a fight between the two.
I have said from the beginning that I believe that Zimmerman should have stopped following as he was told to. Period.
It is you have tried to turn this into a so called debate for reasons of your own.
Your "points" are your opinion, and are subject to be disagreed with. I don't need to "defend" anything with a complete stranger.
You are on a political discussion site, in a thread, refusing or unable to support your position on a political issue.
You were doing so. Until I challenged your arguments.
My points are well reasoned and well argued and supported by eyewitness testimony and evidence.
Such as that photo of a very well muscled young man who you tried to claim might not have been able to land a punch on a man he was SITTING ON.
lol!!
No.....such as the "witness" who stated that he could not say that punches were actually being landed.
You have an opinion. Subject to be disagreed with.
Sure. Credible eyewitness sees one man on top of the other raining down punches "MMA style" while the man under screams for help, and the asshole lawyer asks if the guy can SEE THE PUNCHES LANDING.
And you think that brings it into question. LOL!!
BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THAT THE BLACK "CHILD" IS THE "VICTIM".
This "child" was landing his punches. Zimmerman was screaming for a reason.
How come we don't see more stand your ground in the black community? I'm surprised more murderers don't claim stand their ground. Seems like the best defense.
And what % of legit kills are being done with illegal guns? Or the gun may be legally but the person doesn't have a ccw so defending yourself outside your home is still illegal.I am not "restating" anything. I never said that there was not a fight between the two.
I have said from the beginning that I believe that Zimmerman should have stopped following as he was told to. Period.
It is you have tried to turn this into a so called debate for reasons of your own.
Your "points" are your opinion, and are subject to be disagreed with. I don't need to "defend" anything with a complete stranger.
You are on a political discussion site, in a thread, refusing or unable to support your position on a political issue.
You were doing so. Until I challenged your arguments.
My points are well reasoned and well argued and supported by eyewitness testimony and evidence.
Such as that photo of a very well muscled young man who you tried to claim might not have been able to land a punch on a man he was SITTING ON.
lol!!
No.....such as the "witness" who stated that he could not say that punches were actually being landed.
You have an opinion. Subject to be disagreed with.
Sure. Credible eyewitness sees one man on top of the other raining down punches "MMA style" while the man under screams for help, and the asshole lawyer asks if the guy can SEE THE PUNCHES LANDING.
And you think that brings it into question. LOL!!
BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THAT THE BLACK "CHILD" IS THE "VICTIM".
This "child" was landing his punches. Zimmerman was screaming for a reason.
How come we don't see more stand your ground in the black community? I'm surprised more murderers don't claim stand their ground. Seems like the best defense.
"Murderers"?
Most murderers are career criminals who know how to work the system. I'm sure they are doing what they can.
A better question is, what percentage of black people charged with homicide are really legit self defense cases.
And what % of legit kills are being done with illegal guns? Or the gun may be legally but the person doesn't have a ccw so defending yourself outside your home is still illegal.You are on a political discussion site, in a thread, refusing or unable to support your position on a political issue.
You were doing so. Until I challenged your arguments.
My points are well reasoned and well argued and supported by eyewitness testimony and evidence.
Such as that photo of a very well muscled young man who you tried to claim might not have been able to land a punch on a man he was SITTING ON.
lol!!
No.....such as the "witness" who stated that he could not say that punches were actually being landed.
You have an opinion. Subject to be disagreed with.
Sure. Credible eyewitness sees one man on top of the other raining down punches "MMA style" while the man under screams for help, and the asshole lawyer asks if the guy can SEE THE PUNCHES LANDING.
And you think that brings it into question. LOL!!
BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THAT THE BLACK "CHILD" IS THE "VICTIM".
This "child" was landing his punches. Zimmerman was screaming for a reason.
How come we don't see more stand your ground in the black community? I'm surprised more murderers don't claim stand their ground. Seems like the best defense.
"Murderers"?
Most murderers are career criminals who know how to work the system. I'm sure they are doing what they can.
A better question is, what percentage of black people charged with homicide are really legit self defense cases.
I'm thinking about gang killings. Technically they are all living under kill of be killed. They should all be getting let go free based on stand your ground
but originally I was wondering why we don't see more blacks killing blacks and using stand your ground. Since most crime is black on black how come we don't see George Jefferson vs trevon Martin cases popping up in all of our inner cities? You would think more black men would be using this defense. But it's always a white boy who was getting his ass kicked by an unarmed black guy. Seems like this law was made for small white men tbh
And what % of legit kills are being done with illegal guns? Or the gun may be legally but the person doesn't have a ccw so defending yourself outside your home is still illegal.No.....such as the "witness" who stated that he could not say that punches were actually being landed.
You have an opinion. Subject to be disagreed with.
Sure. Credible eyewitness sees one man on top of the other raining down punches "MMA style" while the man under screams for help, and the asshole lawyer asks if the guy can SEE THE PUNCHES LANDING.
And you think that brings it into question. LOL!!
BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THAT THE BLACK "CHILD" IS THE "VICTIM".
This "child" was landing his punches. Zimmerman was screaming for a reason.
How come we don't see more stand your ground in the black community? I'm surprised more murderers don't claim stand their ground. Seems like the best defense.
"Murderers"?
Most murderers are career criminals who know how to work the system. I'm sure they are doing what they can.
A better question is, what percentage of black people charged with homicide are really legit self defense cases.
I'm thinking about gang killings. Technically they are all living under kill of be killed. They should all be getting let go free based on stand your ground
but originally I was wondering why we don't see more blacks killing blacks and using stand your ground. Since most crime is black on black how come we don't see George Jefferson vs trevon Martin cases popping up in all of our inner cities? You would think more black men would be using this defense. But it's always a white boy who was getting his ass kicked by an unarmed black guy. Seems like this law was made for small white men tbh
1. I suspect a lot of those minor infractions are swept under the rug by the police when they see that the dead guy is a known bad guy and the self defender has a clean or minor record. But yes, such bs laws do give asshole cops and prosecutors the opportunity to fuck good people for no reason.
And who's fault is that?
2. Gangs? Depends. Some gangbanger who is peacefully minding his own business at that point in time, and another one approaches and draws first? Then yes.
Some gangbanger who just does a drive by because, gang war, not so much.
3. Your point about the criminal class not using the Stand your ground law, as you would expect? When reality does not fit your assumptions, it is time to check your assumptions.
And what % of legit kills are being done with illegal guns? Or the gun may be legally but the person doesn't have a ccw so defending yourself outside your home is still illegal.Sure. Credible eyewitness sees one man on top of the other raining down punches "MMA style" while the man under screams for help, and the asshole lawyer asks if the guy can SEE THE PUNCHES LANDING.
And you think that brings it into question. LOL!!
BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BELIEVE THAT THE BLACK "CHILD" IS THE "VICTIM".
This "child" was landing his punches. Zimmerman was screaming for a reason.
How come we don't see more stand your ground in the black community? I'm surprised more murderers don't claim stand their ground. Seems like the best defense.
"Murderers"?
Most murderers are career criminals who know how to work the system. I'm sure they are doing what they can.
A better question is, what percentage of black people charged with homicide are really legit self defense cases.
I'm thinking about gang killings. Technically they are all living under kill of be killed. They should all be getting let go free based on stand your ground
but originally I was wondering why we don't see more blacks killing blacks and using stand your ground. Since most crime is black on black how come we don't see George Jefferson vs trevon Martin cases popping up in all of our inner cities? You would think more black men would be using this defense. But it's always a white boy who was getting his ass kicked by an unarmed black guy. Seems like this law was made for small white men tbh
1. I suspect a lot of those minor infractions are swept under the rug by the police when they see that the dead guy is a known bad guy and the self defender has a clean or minor record. But yes, such bs laws do give asshole cops and prosecutors the opportunity to fuck good people for no reason.
And who's fault is that?
2. Gangs? Depends. Some gangbanger who is peacefully minding his own business at that point in time, and another one approaches and draws first? Then yes.
Some gangbanger who just does a drive by because, gang war, not so much.
3. Your point about the criminal class not using the Stand your ground law, as you would expect? When reality does not fit your assumptions, it is time to check your assumptions.
Hey black people! If you didn't want Trump you should have showed up and voted for Hillary like you did for Obama. You didn't vote, now don't bother protesting. Just show up and vote in 2018.
370 'Sister Marches' Planned For Day After Trump's Inauguration | The Huffington Post
With less than a week to go, nearly 700,000 people have registered to attend
“If you are not able to make it to D.C., I will say that you’re still creating the same kind of change, and you’re making sure your voice is heard,” said Eyoel. “It’s important to do that within the community where you live.”
What a stupid bitch. Where was she before election day? That's the time do make your voice heard. Next time will be 2018. A little too late huh?
Did you hear Trump wants universal healthcare for all and he wants to be able to negotiate with drug companies? That's something you fucking Republicans have fought us on for years. I'm starting to like the little rino. He's proving that doing what the republicans want to do just isn't realistic unless you want to be a horrible president like GW was.
The latest survey by Gallup suggests that Donald Trump is wildly unpopular for someone who is about to take the oath of office as US president.
Charted here are the pre-inauguration approval ratings for the US president-elect and his three immediate predecessors, based on polls taken the week before each man’s inauguration. Even George W. Bush, who like Trump didn’t win the popular vote, still enjoyed a much higher approval rating in the days before his first swearing-in.
This is what I tell all my friends and anyone else in my community who will listen.
You should be worrying about how small and stupid the white Democrat vote is now.This is what I tell all my friends and anyone else in my community who will listen.
Turns out a lot of black people showed up in Alabama to vote against Roy Moore. Way to go black people!!! I'm proud of you.
