Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman

[GeronL]

lol. The MSM is now referring to Zimmerman as a "Hispanic" and reporting his family mentioning past activities mentoring african-american youth and standing up for a black homeless man.

They know they demogogued the wrong case.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I was once again amused, Trayvon's family, upon being asked about the new more graphic pictures of Zimmerman's injuries states that, (paraphrased) If the evidence showed that Zimmerman had not murdered Trayvon, the prosecution would nat have charged him! They also stated, after refusing to meet with Zimmerman, that his apology for the unfortunate death of their son during today's hearing, was not soon enough!

Such is the shortcomings of our legal system. Asked why he didn't offer such apology before, Zimmerman said he was instructed not to. Even now he is ordered by the court, to not speak to Martin's family.



I think his taking the stand was a potentially slick move. I suspect his attorney was behind it. He was able to testify without intensive cross examination. But the risk is apparent.

Prosecutor: After you committed this crime and spoke to the police, did you ever make that statement to the police, sir? That you were sorry for what you have done?

Zimmerman: No, sir.

Prosecutor: You never stated that, did you.

Zimmerman: I don't remember what I said, I believe I did say that.

I think Zimmerman's lawyer should have objected to the question. That a crime was committed has not been established. Zimmerman should not have answered the question as phrased. But now that it is on the record, he effectively acknowledged that a crime had been committed.

I didn't like much of what I saw. Zimmerman was "chained". Why? I could understand if he were a serial killer taken into custody by force. But he turned himself in after being free for a month. And after making bail he will be free again. So I felt that was unfair show.

After the ruling Martin's parents were allegedly unhappy that he would be released. I don't believe Zimmerman intended to kill Trayvon. I believe it was an accident. I lose respect for them when I hear this kind of statement. I understand their emotions.



Also in Zimmerman's testimony:

I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am and I did not know if he was armed or not.

This also will come back to haunt him. I think he referred to Martin as a kid on the 911 recording. And how would the fact that Martin was armed have changed what Zimmerman did? This is the risk of taking the stand.

[schaabdl]

No assumption, the state said those very words today during the bail hearing. Unless the state can show Zimmerman started the attack, the FL law of standing ground becomes very much Zimmerman's defense.

[schaabdl]

Originally Posted by jtdc

Such is the shortcomings of our legal system. Asked why he didn't offer such apology before, Zimmerman said he was instructed not to. Even now he is ordered by the court, to not speak to Martin's family.



I think his taking the stand was a potentially slick move. I suspect his attorney was behind it. He was able to testify without intensive cross examination. But the risk is apparent.

Prosecutor: After you committed this crime and spoke to the police, did you ever make that statement to the police, sir? That you were sorry for what you have done?

Zimmerman: No, sir.

Prosecutor: You never stated that, did you.

Zimmerman: I don't remember what I said, I believe I did say that.

I think Zimmerman's lawyer should have objected to the question. That a crime was committed has not been established. Zimmerman should not have answered the question as phrased. But now that it is on the record, he effectively acknowledged that a crime had been committed.

I didn't like much of what I saw. Zimmerman was "chained". Why? I could understand if he were a serial killer taken into custody by force. But he turned himself in after being free for a month. And after making bail he will be free again. So I felt that was unfair show.

After the ruling Martin's parents were allegedly unhappy that he would be released. I don't believe Zimmerman intended to kill Trayvon. I believe it was an accident. I lose respect for them when I hear this kind of statement. I understand their emotions.



Also in Zimmerman's testimony:

I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am and I did not know if he was armed or not.

This also will come back to haunt him. I think he referred to Martin as a kid on the 911 recording. And how would the fact that Martin was armed have changed what Zimmerman did? This is the risk of taking the stand.

I don't believe bail hearing statements are admissible.

[GeronL]

Can someone confirm this...??

The arresting officers son was accused of beating a black homeless guy about a year ago .... the guy leading the charge for justice.... was George Zimmerman.

That sounds like a possible conflict to me...

[GeronL]

pic of Zimmermans head.... 3 minutes after the shooting

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

No assumption, the state said those very words today during the bail hearing. Unless the state can show Zimmerman started the attack, the FL law of standing ground becomes very much Zimmerman's defense.

I and some pundits disagree on that. Even if Martin started the fight, that does not automatically justify lethal defense. And that witness was asked:

Prosecutor: Do you have any evidence that supports who started the fight?

Witness: No.

While many jump to the conclusion that no evidence of who started the fight automatically means Zimmerman is telling the whole truth, that is only one aspect of the events.

Originally Posted by schaabdl

I don't believe bail hearing statements are admissible.

I don't know Florida laws, but back to the O.J. trial, testimony in the Pre-Trial as well as the Grand Jury was brought in. Remember that once Zimmerman was Mirandized, anything he says can be used against him in a court of law. That is why few defendants speak when represented by an attorney.

Some I heard today said that Zimmerman could have been crucified today if the Prosecutor had been prepared with questions. He was trying to make it up on the fly.

[schaabdl]

Remember - the defense only needs doubt, the state needs unanimity.

[FoundingFather]

If someone breaks my nose, bashes my head, and gets on top of me and starts wailing away, I'm doing whatever I need to because I don't know if this guy will ever stop.

It's a shame that the shot was fatal, but that was a bad break.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

Remember - the defense only needs doubt, the state needs unanimity.

You are right. That's why O.J. went free.

I don't know if Zimmerman told the truth about what happened. I hate to see a person killed and everybody saying "Move on. Nothing to see here." That is what happened in the old days of segregation. I don't want to tie the race issue to this case. The race of neither the person killed nor the person who killed should make a difference. But the truth is important. The appearance in this case was "Zimmerman said he was attacked, so it's alright that he killed Martin." I want evidence that supports that claim.

Today there is in the news a story about the first kid who was featured on the milk cartons. He disappeared some 30 years ago. There is little likelihood that he is alive. Yet there they are dismantling a building searching for his remains after all this time. Do you want a society that looks for the truth or one that accepts what is handed to them?

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

If someone breaks my nose, bashes my head, and gets on top of me and starts wailing away, I'm doing whatever I need to because I don't know if this guy will ever stop.

If you went after the guy because you mistook him for the person who beat your little brother up, and he gets you down, and you pull out a gun and shoot him, just an honest mistake, right?

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

It's a shame that the shot was fatal, but that was a bad break.

Zimmerman was the man with a gun. He initially went after Martin, because he thought Martin might have been one of the thieves who had broken into homes. He had no cause, except this guy didn't look right. Is this the standard you are for? Shoot first, and if you get the wrong guy, "It's a shame" "but that was a bad break."

[schaabdl]

Originally Posted by jtdc

I hate to see a person killed and everybody saying "Move on. Nothing to see here."

Not wanting it to move on - I want, particularly the race baiters, exposed if that is how the case plays out. I also hope, that the first evidence gathered and the prosecution statement that there is nothing there proves to be right. Far too many look at ALL things government with a jaundiced eye and that has the negative consequences being played out. If it turns out that Zimmerman is guilty, so be it.

[FoundingFather]

Originally Posted by jtdc

If you went after the guy because you mistook him for the person who beat your little brother up, and he gets you down, and you pull out a gun and shoot him, just an honest mistake, right?

Zimmerman was the man with a gun. He initially went after Martin, because he thought Martin might have been one of the thieves who had broken into homes. He had no cause, except this guy didn't look right. Is this the standard you are for? Shoot first, and if you get the wrong guy, "It's a shame" "but that was a bad break."

I'm sure that I too can concoct many scenarios that sound similar but aren't, but that wouldn't provide anything more than just a thought experiment like Psych 101 where where you're forced to choose amongst family who to give the last life preserver to.

The first scenario assumes that I go after this person with some ill intent, find them, confront them, and it backfires on me. That was not this case, so I won't even discuss it.

The second one is quite common. You're part of Neighborhood Watch and something doesn't look quite right. The only thing that Zimmerman did wrong was follow him to see where he was going so that he could report his whereabouts to the police, whom HE called. He returned to his vehicle after losing Martin. That's where this story should have ended.

But no, Martin followed Zimmerman and confronted him. Even then, Martin could have just asked "why the *bleep* are you following me?" and a conversation could have occurred. But, that didn't happen. Martin decided that being followed gives you the right to beat someone to a pulp. Perhaps if he had known that Zimmerman was carrying he would have made a different choice, but he didn't. And that's where we are today.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

I want, particularly the race baiters, exposed if that is how the case plays out.

Sadly I think they are exposed. But like the "All In The Family" Show, Those that are racist could see nothing wrong with Archie Bunker. I watched Geraldo Rivera on O'Reilly, saying how great Al Sharpton is. Exposing is no good if nothing is done about it. The New Black Panthers did something I think is clearly illegal, putting a bounty on Zimmerman. There, not long ago, was a story of a woman charged with attempted murder for hiring, a man to kill her husband. The guy went to the police. How is that different from what the NBP did quite publicly? The problem is they are Eric Holder's "people". And while there are plenty who want something done, nothing is being done.

But if the solution is to not investigate, and if enough evidence exist to create a question, charge them, just because their might be or is unrest, justice is gone. We've lost 50 years of progress.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

The first scenario assumes that I go after this person with some ill intent, find them, confront them, and it backfires on me. That was not this case, so I won't even discuss it.

Bull! Why did Zimmerman call 911? He said this guy looked suspicious, was acting strange, and although he was Neighborhood Watch, got out of his car to follow the guy. Did he want to thank the guy for not robbing any houses?

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

The only thing that Zimmerman did wrong was follow him to see where he was going so that he could report his whereabouts to the police, whom HE called.

So you admit Zimmerman was wrong to follow a guy who he had no evidence of anything illegal. So if he followed Martin to the house that Martin was staying at, what then? Do police go to the door and ask to talk to the guy who was out walking while wearing a hoody....about what? There was no crime reported. He was not following a suspicious person from the scene of a crime.

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

He returned to his vehicle after losing Martin. That's where this story should have ended.

But when was that point? When the 911 officer told his "We don't need you to do that"? Or after he whispered "I don't want to say that out loud"? That is one of the questions to be answered. And that can make all the difference in this case. If he stopped when the 911 officer said to and returned to his car, you are right, that is where the story should have ended. When police arrived, maybe they would have walked in the direction Zimmerman last saw Martin going to see if there was any evidence of a break-in. But that would be their jurisdiction. Zimmerman would have had no need to use his gun.

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

But no, Martin followed Zimmerman and confronted him.

Now you are using fantasy. That is not, apparently, Zimmerman's story. And only piecing together all the evidence can his story be verified or disputed.

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

Even then, Martin could have just asked "why the *bleep* are you following me?" and a conversation could have occurred.

According to Zimmerman, that did essentially occur.

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

But, that didn't happen. Martin decided that being followed gives you the right to beat someone to a pulp.

According to Zimmerman, only. Did Zimmerman throw the first punch and end up on the bottom? Only he knows.

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

Perhaps if he had known that Zimmerman was carrying he would have made a different choice, but he didn't. And that's where we are today.

But who made the bad decision? Martin who thought he was being followed and decided not to lead whoever back to his home, or Zimmerman, who felt empowered by having a gun, who followed even after being instructed not to?

[GeronL]

80% of everything that Bejamin Crump said at the press conferences were lies. Why do you think the "affidavit of probable cause" did not include anything this man was spouting to the media? (all lies)

Remember the "girlfriend"??
...

DeeDee and Trayvon did not talk for 400 minutes on 2/26 the day he was shot.

DeeDee did not go to the hospital on 3/2 and 3/3 and that was NOT the reason for not attending the viewing or memorial.

DeeDee and Trayvon were not Boyfriend/Girlfriend. They were close, platonic best friends.

DeeDee was not devastated, destroyed, or an emotional wreck. She was sad that her best friend was shot. She notified others, including her cousin who is also a prolific tweeter, but did not know immediately who Trayvon was.

DeeDee did not miss school.

DeeDee did not contact anyone because there was no reason to.

Did DeeDee actually hear anything that night? Who knows. However, the mere fact that Benjamin Crump can be proven to have falsely constructed more than 80% of his press conference in order to plant false misleading misinformation in the media sure brings the entire narrative into question.

...

This was trial by media and trial by mob.
....

PAYDAY (civil trial) does require conviction. It requires an arrest. To get the arrest they lied and demogogued and slanted the story so much it bore no resemblance to the truth.


...

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...hs/#more-37932

[FoundingFather]

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoundingFather
The first scenario assumes that I go after this person with some ill intent, find them, confront them, and it backfires on me. That was not this case, so I won't even discuss it.

Bull! Why did Zimmerman call 911? He said this guy looked suspicious, was acting strange, and although he was Neighborhood Watch, got out of his car to follow the guy. Did he want to thank the guy for not robbing any houses?

You answered your own question. He followed him to see where he was going. Following is not confronting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoundingFather
The only thing that Zimmerman did wrong was follow him to see where he was going so that he could report his whereabouts to the police, whom HE called.

So you admit Zimmerman was wrong to follow a guy who he had no evidence of anything illegal. So if he followed Martin to the house that Martin was staying at, what then? Do police go to the door and ask to talk to the guy who was out walking while wearing a hoody....about what? There was no crime reported. He was not following a suspicious person from the scene of a crime.

Once again, you almost answer your own questions. The police would ask Martin what his business is here in this gated community. Martin would answer that he was there legit and that would have been that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoundingFather
He returned to his vehicle after losing Martin. That's where this story should have ended.

But when was that point? When the 911 officer told his "We don't need you to do that"? Or after he whispered "I don't want to say that out loud"? That is one of the questions to be answered. And that can make all the difference in this case. If he stopped when the 911 officer said to and returned to his car, you are right, that is where the story should have ended. When police arrived, maybe they would have walked in the direction Zimmerman last saw Martin going to see if there was any evidence of a break-in. But that would be their jurisdiction. Zimmerman would have had no need to use his gun.

Huh? If Zimmerman went back to his vehicle, not knowing where Martin was, then he was not confronting/stalking/hunting/your-verb-here Martin any longer. The two were separated. Martin made the choice to go to Zimmerman instead of going wherever his original destination was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoundingFather
But no, Martin followed Zimmerman and confronted him.

Now you are using fantasy. That is not, apparently, Zimmerman's story. And only piecing together all the evidence can his story be verified or disputed.

Did Zimmerman confront Martin, or the other way around?

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoundingFather
Even then, Martin could have just asked "why the *bleep* are you following me?" and a conversation could have occurred.

According to Zimmerman, that did essentially occur.

I'm talking about instead of proceeding to beat him,

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoundingFather
But, that didn't happen. Martin decided that being followed gives you the right to beat someone to a pulp.

According to Zimmerman, only. Did Zimmerman throw the first punch and end up on the bottom? Only he knows.

I guess then that we can make up anything we want to fill in the gaps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by FoundingFather
Perhaps if he had known that Zimmerman was carrying he would have made a different choice, but he didn't. And that's where we are today.

But who made the bad decision? Martin who thought he was being followed and decided not to lead whoever back to his home, or Zimmerman, who felt empowered by having a gun, who followed even after being instructed not to?

Given that following somebody isn't illegal or enough to get beat up about, I'd go with Martin.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by GeronL

80% of everything that Bejamin Crump said at the press conferences were lies.
[snip]
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/...hs/#more-37932

Wow! "True Detective"? Somebody more obsessed than Geron.

According to a Daily Beast’s source, Zimmerman told police that when he was on the ground, Martin straddled him, striking him, and then tried to smother him.

Zimmerman told officers he was so paralyzed by fear that he initially forgot he had a gun, but he said that after Martin noticed his 9mm pistol, Zimmerman pulled it out of his belt holder and fired one round, a hollow-point—the round that killed Martin.

How could he "notice" Martin "noticing" his gun when his head is repeatedly being slammed against the pavement?

Zimmerman told police that Martin’s last words after the shooting were, “Okay, you got it.” He said the phrase twice, then turned and fell face-down on the ground.

So they were standing up at the time of the shooting?

I'm waiting for the movie.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

You answered your own question. He followed him to see where he was going. Following is not confronting.

No, my question was "intent". Was he going to thank the guy or stalk him?

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

Once again, you almost answer your own questions. The police would ask Martin what his business is here in this gated community. Martin would answer that he was there legit and that would have been that.

You really think they would go knock on the door to ask Martin why he was in the neighborhood, when there was no apparent crime having been committed? Or maybe Zimmerman having tracked him to that address, gave them reason to suspect that he broke into that house and was holding the occupants hostage?

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

Huh? If Zimmerman went back to his vehicle, not knowing where Martin was, then he was not confronting/stalking/hunting/your-verb-here Martin any longer.

Was Martin killed next to Zimmerman's vehicle?

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

The two were separated. Martin made the choice to go to Zimmerman instead of going wherever his original destination was.

According to Zimmerman, and uncorroborated by any witness.

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

Did Zimmerman confront Martin, or the other way around?

That is one of the questions to be addressed in court.

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

I'm talking about instead of proceeding to beat him,

But we have no evidence about who attacked who?

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

I guess then that we can make up anything we want to fill in the gaps.

As could Zimmerman.

Originally Posted by FoundingFather

Given that following somebody isn't illegal or enough to get beat up about, I'd go with Martin.

But you have taken his word as gospel from the start. Why would I expect you to desert him now? Following someone can bring about a confrontation. Let's see, if Martin is being stalked, does he have the right to "stand his ground"?

[David]

SANFORD, Florida (AP) – George Zimmerman is getting out of jail. Now his defense team has to worry about keeping the neighborhood watch volunteer accused of gunning down an unarmed black teenager safe on the outside.






Defense attorneys for other high-profile clients who awaited trial on bail had advice for how to protect the man whose shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin sparked nationwide protests: Get him out of Florida, keep him from going out in public and never leave him alone.