Vercingetorix VII
Kasumi of Vientown
Vercingetorix VII
No, you didn't. You asserted this based on the fact that the altercation took place in the middle of the grounds. But this can only be true if Zimmerman was pursuing Trayvon on foot. Since we know based on all the evidence that he did this, we can either believe that, without reason, he had a sudden change of heart and was then randomly attacked, again without reason, by Trayvon Martin; or we can assume that he did what he told the 9/11 operator he was going to do and went after this kid and began the fight.
I stated facts, I demonstrated
Hold the ******** on.
No.
You stated some facts and then built conjecture on that. Stop acting as if we should take your theories as fact. It's quite evident that people find them unconvincing. You'd do well to address that instead of acting like all you need do is repeat yourself enough times.
I analyzed all the evidence without bias and came to the most logical conclusion
Vercingetorix VII
Quote:
that Zimmerman stopped chasing Trayvon Martin for at least 90 seconds which is factually recorded on the 911 call, giving Trayvon adequate time to get home, but instead he called his girlfriend and he turned around to go back to George Zimmerman.
Even if he had adequate time to get home- and I'm not taking that as a given- that he would stop to talk to someone on his phone is no evidence that he attacked Zimmerman. It is still far more likely that the man who said he was going to go after the other began the altercation, than someone who was merely walking home and talking on the phone.
It might not be evidence that he through the first punch or whatnot, but it is clear that Trayvon turned around and went back to Zimmerman rather then going home. It does give Zimmerman's version of events credibility and raises plenty of reasonable doubt.
Vercingetorix VII
Quote:
I demonstrated that the only logical way that Trayvon could have been where he was shot at the time he was shot is if he turned around and came back, otherwise he would have made it home safely and we never would have heard of any of this.
No, you claimed this. It was stupid then and it's stupid now. If he stopped to talk on his phone he could have been anywhere when Zimmerman came up to him and began the altercation.
Again, Trayvon didn't call his girlfriend until after he got away from Zimmerman, so he would have been closer to his house then to where he died. He probably stopped right outside his door or pretty close to it, meaning he had to backtrack to get to where he was shot.
Vercingetorix VII
Quote:
Vercingetorix VII
First of all this isn't a named witness, and there was testimony of cops manipulating witness testimony at the scene of the crime. We've already gone over the problems with the voice analysis.
Second of all, if Zimmerman went after Trayvon and Trayvon knocked him to the ground and hit him, it wouldn't be assault; it would be, you know, self-defense. Of the actual case, where you are defending yourself against attack. Not the false case where you begin a fight, lose, and then pull out a gun and shoot the other guy.
The evidence shows that Trayvon had to turn around and go back because there was 90 seconds where Zimmerman was not following Trayvon at all.
Gone over why this is dumb conjecture on your part.
Since we know Trayvon got away and we know he came back, there is no way to prove that Trayvon wasn't the aggressor, that's just conjecture on your part
Vercingetorix VII
Quote:
Self-defense cannot be claimed if a normal , rational person had no reason to believe she/he was in danger of death or great bodily harm in the 60 seconds prior to an incident.
The sixty seconds thing is something you have completely made up.
You're trying to draw a lot of evidence from fairly small differences in time that are built on hearsay and conjecture. You have no idea what people were doing and how they were using that time, so this is baseless speculation meant to deflect the most obvious and logical conclusion, which is that Zimmerman began the altercation he said he was going to begin, and not that Martin randomly attacked a stranger for no reason.
You think you know the law better then Alan Dershowitz, a Professor of Law at Harvard University? It is he that mentioned the 60 second rule on CNN, so that 90 seconds Zimmerman was on the phone clearly means he was not the aggressor when Trayvon came back and assaulted him.
Vercingetorix VII
Quote:
The law is written that way so that a person whose beat up can't get up after the beating, go get a weapon, and kill the attacker who is no longer a threat.
Given how utterly ******** removing the duty to retreat is, and how it utterly ******** self-defense as a concept under the common law, I'm not sure of this. And since it didn't happen anyway, at least on Martin's part, it's irrelevant anyway. He beat up (allegedly) the guy who stalked him and started an altercation. That's clear cut self-defense.
Also, who's.
Again, Zimmerman followed Trayvon at one point, but he stopped following for longer then 60 seconds before Trayvon came back and apparently began assaulting Zimmerman.
Vercingetorix VII
Quote:
In the eyes of the law, Zimmerman ceased to be a threat after 60 seconds past.
Again, this is you making things up. There isn't a time limit to these things; it's based on a reasonableness of the immediacy of the threat. The very fact that you think that things are closely timed like this in a tense altercation reveals how little you really understand.
I didn't make up the 60 second rule, Alan Dershowitz mentioned, a Professor of Law at Harvard, mentioned it on CNN.
Apart from Zimmerman's story, the facts in this case that can be corroborated by the evidence and by the witness 'John' is that Zimmerman stopped following Trayyvon and talked to the dipatcher, and then approximately 2 minites later the fist 911 call came in, and the witness saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, beating on him, and Zimmerman was yelling for help,
In order to convict Zimmerman of anything, they'd have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman resumed chasing Trayvon after he hung up the phone, but how can they prove that when Trayvon went back?
Vercingetorix VII
Quote:
Vercingetorix VII
You clearly do want to, so cut the pretense and trot out your character evidence, since we already have plenty on Zimmerman's unstable state of mind.
Fine, Trayvon's brother posted on his twitter page about Trayvon punching a bus driver, on Trayvon's youtube page he has videos of fighting going on at his school, and most damning of all his facebook page had credible evidence which indicated that Trayvon Martin was a drug dealer.
So Trayvon was no saint.
Citation, please.
Trayvon's Twitter Accounts are T33ZY TAUGHT M3 and NO_LIMIT_NIGGA. I haven't read all the treets, but one of the last tweets he got from his brother on his NO_LIMIT_NIGGA account was asking about why Trayvon hadn't told him about how Trayvon had apparently punched a bus driver. The account NO_LIMIT_NIGGA has since been removed, but not before people copied the tweets, so they are available for download if you want to look.
Similar to the Twitter account, Trayvon's youtube account has subsequently been deleted too, but not before some of his stuff was downloaded and reuploaded, including this:
Anyway, his character is certainly questionable.
Vercingetorix VII
Relevance, please.
Because without relevance this looks like race-baiting.
Not race-baiting. I posted this video to make people think. Everything that is happening in this case is eerily almost exactly like what happened in the Duke Lacrosse case, with the rush to judgment and everything. A lot of people are thinking Trayvon's like some sort of saint or something, so Zimmerman must be guilty and who cares about the evidence?
I don't know how old you are or if you were paying attention at the time of that case, but lotts of whackjobs were making the evidence sound a lot more conclusive then it was and they were so sure of those boys' guilt, and they were so sure that anyone that disagreed with them was a racist. How is that any different then what is happening now? The answer is it's not.
Omnileech
I find it interesting that you make a point of arguing that the kid should have ran away instead of talking on the phone.You concede that Zimmerman was indeed a very dangerous man in doing so.
So since you're so hung up about so-called self-defense law, why not ask the obvious question: who laid hands on who first? I'd say the guy with the concealed gun chasing down the kid after 911 dispatch told him not to is most likely the guy.
But what do I know? The police didn't do their job at all.
By almost any standard, Zimmerman’s legal defense in the Trayvon Martin shooting case has been a sort of ongoing cautionary tale for exactly what not to do if you’re facing potentially serious criminal charges.
Almost immediately, within around thirty-seven minutes after the shooting, Zimmerman was already waiving his right to an attorney. He then proceeded to interview with the police for five hours without any legal representation present.
Then the next day, still without any attorney present or legal advice, Zimmerman took the police back to the scene of the shooting at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, and reenacted what happened on the evening of February 26th with them, step-by-step on video.
Had Zimmerman’s narrative and recounting of the details of that evening been any less than 100% consistent, that’s the moment when everything would have fallen apart for him — sometime right around February 27th. The police had every reason and opportunity to document and doggedly pursue any differences they saw between Zimmerman’s initial interview and his video re-enactment the following day.
Rather than finding anything they could follow up with, what happened instead? The Sanford Police Department was unable to obtain any evidence that would allow them to press even involuntary manslaughter charges against Zimmerman. And no new evidence changed that, even as days and weeks passed.
And just to show that skin color was not a factor, watch this vireo:
A mentally handicapped white/Hispanic man was murdered by a black man at a Taco Bell restaurant. Police have refused to arrest the killer because he claimed that the shooting was self-defense. However, no weapons were found on the victim.
Police said a 22-year-old man and a female passenger had ordered food in the drive-thru lane of a Taco Bell restaurant and as they were pulling up to the window, a man walking his dog stepped around a blind corner into the lane. The driver quickly stopped and exchanged words with the man, later identified as Daniel Adkins. They got into an altercation and the driver shot Adkins one time, according to Phoenix police Sgt. Tommy Thompson. Adkins was pronounced dead at the scene.
The driver remained at the scene. He and his passenger said Adkins had a bat or some other type of weapon that he swung at them. The driver told police he felt threatened. Detectives were unable to locate a bat or similar item. However, a witness told investigators that Adkins did swing his fist in the direction of the driver several times.
In this case the shooter had no serious injuries and he lied and said that the mentally handicapped victim was armed when there was no weapon recovered. I don't think that any reasonable person would feel threatened enough to necessitate shooting a guy who hasn't laid a hand on them, but due to the statement of self-defense they let him go pending an investigation.
300
200
250
