:1orglaugh:1orglaugh:1orglaugh

you do right? stand up comedy :1orglaugh

Ahh... so thats where your sunny disposition comes from :)

Yoga is really great. I had contemplated it for a long time and never did. But definitely the single best way to get flexible and maintain it.

You should listen to the entire thing, but start at 2:55 if you don't have 7 minutes

At age 17 I was in the US Marines.... But my point is at the very least after six months of training at a boxing gym or whatever it was he should have been able to defend himself to some degree. To say he was had been training at the gym long enough to loose fifty lbs but yet was "unable to throw a punch" doesn't make sense to me.

http://i.imgur.com/lCxWF6x.jpg

or if you want to cut directly to the chase.

It's funny the vested interest people have in this case as opposed to what the actual evidence is. I'm as Liberal as they get AND I'm not pro-guns. (I also believed and was thankful Obama was elected both times btw). But I also have no doubt Zimmerman was defending himself and an intelligent jury will see it that way.

Yet just by reading this thread, you can see how it's divided down political lines. Most Liberals think Zimmerman's a murderer. Most conservatives think he was defending himself.

The audio I am talking about that was just used in the trial was AUDIO, and NOT video. This was an audio only interview taken at the police station the night of the shooting, not the video you just posted that was shot the following the day.

Did not see this in the trial a few hours ago? The attorney even pointed out how Zimmerman contradicted himself - on the audio tape in the police station he says he "walked up to Zimmerman while reaching for my cell phone" yet during the video the following day he spins a different story.

This was also just brought up a few hours ago... Does Zimmerman really expect us to believe that Martin was reaching behind him for a firearm that he never saw?

How did Zimmerman pull out his firearm if he was getting the shit beat out of him?

Or did Zimmerman have the gun out when he walked towards Martin and confronted him?

yeah, no yoga unicorns in my world. :)

how did zimmerman have so much blood on him, and martin have absolutely none of zimmermans blood on him?

how did martins hand have only: 'small abrasions to Martin's left hand', when zimmerman somehow managed to break his own nose?

btw, i'm still chuckling over this. :mad:


:1orglaugh

Also gz had worked as a bouncer in the past and was fired for being too aggressive. He knew how to use his hands.

Interesting that the only mentions of that are of an unnamed person, talking about an under the table job, as security for "illegal house parties" who told it to a journalist.

Was this brought to the trial as evidence? No? Hmm...

But its just a person fighting for his life. Why should verifiable facts matter.

1:45

There was also a great deal of testimony as to how and why peoples stories change slightly after stressful and traumatic events, how memory works under stress, how memories are recovered or come back over time etc etc etc.
:2 cents:

I didn't watch the trial, however I saw the above video, and I am genuinely curious about why Zimmerman tries to indicate that the fight took place at the intersection of two sidewalks, when in fact it appears that the altercation took place maybe 50' feet or so away, well down the path towards where Trayvon Martin was staying.

Also, from what I recall reading about the trial, I was under the impression that Zimmerman's head was being slammed into the sidewalk pavement immediately proceeding the gunshot which took Trayvon Martin's life, yet Martin's body (which supposedly fell where he was shot) is several feet from the pavement:

http://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2...itness-map.jpg

http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-...17618_free.jpg

Did anybody from the Prosecution question these issues at trial, and if so, what was the Defense's response?

:stoned

ADG

That is not really how it works.

the Bao witness did. He specified that the only thing Martin was doing after being shot was falling down and spending the last 10 minutes of his life in extreme pain

and unable to move.

Defense objected, asking how it was relevant, and the witness himself specified that it was VERY relevant..

That is incorrect.

According to the prosecution, the little thug died almost instantly from a gunshot wound to the heart, had he been moving or talking, etc, that would have cause more blood to 'spurt' out of his fatal wound.

If you had actually listened to the closing arguments of the case by the prosecution instead of the imaginary closing arguments inside your own head, you would have noted this fact.

Did Zimmerman kill the little black wannabe thug? Absolutely, was he provoked, only 2 people know and one of them cant tell their side of the story.

This is basically going to come down to who the jury members believe, a respected community member who setup a neighborhood watch program to protect the many varying cultures and ethnically diverse individuals living in his gated community or;

A kid who was suspended from school, used racial slurs as part of everyday life, was too much for his own mother to handle behavior wise and considered himself a 'thug' who knew how to sucker punch someone.

I definitely do not envy the jurors decision when it comes to this case, or the judge, or the attorneys or even family members of both parties.

The media circus following this case will continue and be bought up for many years to come, if Zimmerman walks, he will live in fear for the rest of his life until someone kills him for the reward money put out by the Black Panthers. If he gets sentenced, he will undoubtedly die in prison at the hands of other black felons.

Ultimately, whatever verdict this case results in, Zimmerman is a dead man and all he wanted to do was protect his family and his neighbors but one bad decision has pretty much guaranteed the rest of his life will be a worthless one. At the same time, for all we know Treyvon was a thug, who acted like a thug who got what a thug ultimately deserved, we will never know the truth in this case, just what the media, Zimmerman and the attorneys are telling us...

hard taking you seriously

Zimmerman didn't have a lot of blood on him. He had a fat lip and a swollen nose. Two cuts on his head.

in relation to what martin had..

This is what not I saw on TV today. What I saw was the prosecution speaking, playing a fifteen or twenty second clip, and then ripping it apart.

Zimmerman had a fat lip. He got punched and then fell. They might have wrestled a bit. But at no time was Zimmerman in "grave danger" nor did he have "great bodily harm".

You mean a "respected community member" who was charged with assaulting a police officer, had a restraining order against him, who was forced to take anger management classes, who trained at a martial arts gym, and who was turned down when he applied to be a police officer...

point is.. zimmerman was covered in blood

blood that couldn't be found, anywhere, on martin.

Of course it is, in your world the sky is purple and skittles grow on branches so that anyone can merrily go about their life picking and eating the little fruit tasting explosions of deliciousness whilst it rains ice tea.

If you had actually paid attention to any of the FACTS in the case instead of trolling you'd realize that 99.99% of the responses by people other than you in this entire thread are giving opinions based on fact, not delusional episodes conjured up in the mind of some nutjob (I mean you, in case you couldn't tell).

There is a lot of truth to this really. Even with the best intentions stories will change from time to time, and even more so under traumatic events. But this is why the police question people directly after the event, and not days or weeks.

This is why a murder suspect doesn't take the stand - he will be tripped up by his story, no matter how honest he is about it.

But now if we admit the basic truth that stories can change over even short periods of time, this can all into question all testimony ever given. Should we accept the first account as the only account that matters?

Oh my god, you just broke the case...

He beat his own head on the pavement, quick, call the press, we need a retrial ASAP, the press, prosecutors, judge, and even Zimmerman himself got it all wrong... BRILLIANT detective work, you should get a medal for this!

No.

We should only accept Richards version of events, case closed, period.

Do you understand why I raised the specific questions that I did? Look at where Zimmerman says the fight took place and ended, and then look at where Trayvon Martin was killed at, and in particular the proximity to the cement he was supposedly bashing Zimmerman's head on. Pretty glaring errors in Zimmerman's taped testimony, right?

Zimmerman's video statement appears in contradiction to the facts, and it seems to go directly to Zimmerman's credibility, as the only surviving eyewitness (and one with a heavy vested interest to lie in order to keep himself from a life sentence if convicted). Zimmerman was either wrong or lying. It truly was a good thing for Zimmerman that he didn't try to testify (I doubt that he was ever going to).

BTW, I thought it was pretty odd that Zimmerman says Trayvon Martin called him "Homie" (I thought that term was generally reserved for friends), and then Zimmerman is the only person that heard Trayvon Martin supposedly scream "You're gonna die tonight!", right before Zimmerman shot Martin.

Did anyone hear that "scream" before the gunshot on the 911 audios (or at anytime)?

What a convenient thing for a person to say that has just lethally shot someone in the chest.

Or maybe Zimmerman is the one that said "You're gonna die tonight" to Martin, and therefore included it in his statement, in case anyone else overheard him, so he could claim it was Martin rather than himself that yelled. And when Martin punched Zimmerman in self-defense, Zimmerman fatally shot Martin.

More likely though, Zimmerman knew that such a statement (even if false) would bolster his claim of self-defense for killing the unarmed Trayvon Martin, whom Zimmerman had been aggressively pursuing for several minutes (and remember Zimmerman was not on Neighborhood Watch duty that night).

As for Zimmerman's injuries, I can see where he clearly took a fist in the nose, and I'm guessing that he smacked his head on the pavement when he hit the ground, causing the two small cuts to the back of GZ's head (which required no stitches).

I'm not seeing a repeated violent smashing of a skull on pavement, and where Trayvon Martin's body lay dead, there is no pavement for several feet. :2 cents:

http://static01.mediaite.com/med/wp-...17618_free.jpg

From my minimal review of the case, I would say a 2nd Degree conviction is unlikely, however Manslaughter in this case seems a very real possibility, then again, it could go either way.

If Zimmerman walks, he walks, although I imagine that a Civil lawsuit is coming up no matter what the Jury decides in the current Criminal case. I doubt that Zimmerman will fair well in a civil trial.

It's also pretty likely that the losing side will appeal, whomever that is. :2 cents:

Either way, to me it was an avoidable situation turned fatal, and Trayvon Martin is still dead.

http://image2.findagrave.com/photos/...3261719049.jpg

I don't believe that the Jurors will be swayed much by pubic opinion in making their decision. I presume you know that they have been sequestered since the trial began.

:stoned

ADG

I found the video I watched today... Amazing how quick this shit goes up on Youtube.



start in at 17:20
"And when I walked back towards him I saw him coming at me. "

I thought Zimmerman had said that Martin was hiding in the bushes. So Zimmerman wasn't jumped at all, he saw Martin walking and Zimmerman walked towards him.

I have other questions too now...

Why was Zimmerman's jacket undamaged? If Zimmerman had his head "pounded on the pavement" wouldn't there be some scratches on the jacket?

http://breakingbrown.com/wp-content/...psf6baa9be.jpg

If Martin was holding his hand over Zimmerman's mouth and his other hand over his nose, how did Martin grab his gun?

Why does Zimmerman have no defensive wounds at all?

If Zimmerman's mouth was "full of blood" and he was having his head "pounded on the pavement" how did he pull out his firearm that was behind him?

So do you. Did he or did he not follow him that night? Had he backed away and not tried to be a hero we would not be having this conversation.

Wait, the best one... Is the street address?

Why did Zimmerman need to get out of his car to see the street address? How can there only be three streets, he's on the neighborhood watch, and he can't remember all three streets?

Why did he need the street address in the first place? Zimmerman was waiting for the police - Couldn't he have just pointed?

Why did Zimmerman have to walk through the apartment complex to get the street address, when Martin was behind him?

Exactly! That one made me go hmmm too.

Martin and Zimmerman were practically neighbors:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/201.../w-tMartin.jpg

Seems like he probably thought that he had his prey trapped. :2 cents:

:stoned

ADG

Yep makes you think maybe George is telling a story.

None of Zimmerman's story makes sense at all.

I think Zimmerman stalked the kid for seventeen minutes, Martin ran, Zimmerman confronted him, had his firearm out, Martin popped and Zimmerman fell, Martin jump on top of him, and Zimmerman shot him.

How could Zimmerman pull out his hand gun if it was behind him while he was getting beaten into the pavement with his mouth full of blood?

I dont know really how police investigators do this. What always surprises me is seeing a witnesses account torn apart, particularly in a high stress event.

Here is something I deal with 5 days a week usually. 4 guys in a racquetball court. One guy serves. There is an intense volley for 10-20 seconds. The ball dies. Everyone stops. Everyone then looks at each other.... wondering.... who served, what the score is, who got the point etc. Basically, everyone's short term memory was wiped out completely to the point that 4 grown, professional adults have a hard time reconstructing what happened only 40 seconds before. Basically, your brain is focused on a fight or flight response and "what happened" isn't an important detail. In a neurological sense, its very similar to date rape drugs, I believe.

This is also true of fighting. Anyone that's done any amount of fighting knows very well that you will have almost no meaningful recollection of what happened apart from whatever the initial event is. Then if you start asking people around, you get conflicting stories. In that time, your brain is slowly remembering bits and pieces and filling in the rest with imagined content as your brain does. What is left in the end is a reconstruction of a reconstruction of a reconstruction of a reconstruction of a poorly recalled event.

Ultimately a memory is usually little more than the lie you've been telling yourself and it continues to evolve and change with time.

Anyone in intelligence will tell you right away as well that human intelligence is the most unreliable form of intelligence.

I don't know to what extent investigators rely on the account of the person in the event itself. Zimmerman did 3 interviews and the purpose of that is to keep getting more details as they are recalled before the whole memory is corrupted. A comment was made during the trial that his statement went from 4 pages, to 20, to 50.

I don't really know what the answer is to this in the legal system. I am just often blown away when someone is using the statements of a women that just shot her husband in self defense after being beaten and raped as evidence against her or pointing out inconsistencies when its literally impossible for the brain to recall anything from such an event with any real and accurate detail, and even when trauma induced amnesia directly following the event is very common and normal. It's normal in a fist fight. Its perfectly normal in 30 seconds of racquetball for 4 people in the 800 sq ft room to have no clue what just happened.

My understanding is that investigators try use any and all accounts to build a composite of events when they are trying to solve a crime... as no single account is very reliable. I have no clue why a prosecutor can take a single account by someone who faced extreme stress or trauma, before, during and after the event and tear it apart as if there will be no inconsistencies and then use those inconsistencies as evidence of guilt.

I'm sorry, who in your racquetball 4-some was shot in the chest and killed? :( :upsidedow

I've heard of bloody and broken noses on the racquetball court (usually accidental), but not shootings. Thug life? Details of something like that, I feel like I would recall. :helpme

I used to spar a little when I was younger (my Dad was a serious boxer), and I could recall my rounds blow by blow, even when I got my ass kicked (although the few times I momentarily blacked out were pretty fuzzy from when the lights went out until I woke up on my back with lights in my face). What I didn't remember, my Dad did.

Meanwhile, back at the trial:

http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/gzstmts.jpg

:stoned

ADG

22 pages and we finally agree on something.

It's also true with car accidents. You can have six people see the same exact accident from six different angles, and come out with four or five different versions of what happened.