Where should the line be drawn...

TeamZ said:
there are witnesses that heard running from right (further from the t intersection) to left where the T intersection actually is. Zimmermans tiny flashlight was at the intersection which backs up the claims of himself and the witnesses that it is where they heard the fight begin. While on the phone with the police zimmerman talked about how trayvon was gone, and continued to have a conversation while on the sidewalk for another minute or 2. Had zimmerman chased after trayvon down towards trayvons house, people would have heard movement from the T down to the other end. The fight also wouldn't have been able to happen at the T-intersection.

Given that Zimmerman was at the intersection, and Trayvon was NOT seen or heard during that time, even while zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher, it stands to reason that trayvon at some point either walked back to the intersection or came upon zimmerman at the intersection.

Lastly, trayvon had no injuries or bruises or anything on him other than the gunshot. If Zimmerman had initiated the violent conflict, trayvon would have something to indicate he had been hit.
Click to expand...


"It stands to reason..." = baseless speculation on your part.

"If Zimmerman..." = more speculation.

IF?

IF?

You demand others deal in facts and yet post after post from you is nothing but speculation and assumption.
 
Dungheap said:
It's really easy to lie when there are no eye witnesses and you have zero fear of being contradicted.
Click to expand...

he had plenty of fear of being contradicted. The investigator even said in an interview "we may have a cellphone/surveillance recording of the fight."

The lead investigator said that when you confront a guilty person with this type of information, a lot of times they'll hedge their bets, or gradually try to shape their story a bit differently

Zimmerman said "thank god"

The lead detective later testified that when people have this type of reaction, they are either a pathological liar, or they are telling the truth. Defense then asked them, and which do you believe zimmerman to be?

Investigator: "I believe zimmerman was telling the truth"

He never wavered from his story, even when he believed that there might actually be video footage of it.
 
TeamZ said:
the investigators name is very well known so for those to not know it just show me that they didn't follow the trial at all or listen to the States abysmal case. If more people actually watched the trial the outrage would be about 80% less. This was a very basic self defense case.
Click to expand...


And parsecs are a measure of distance, not time. I think it's nice that you found an interest in something, but really . . .

And I'm not necessarily outraged at the result of the trial. It's more outrage at the law and the societal context in which the law is applied. Moreover, I find the unwavering defense of George Zimmerman to be a bit distasteful (editor's note -- that there is an understatement), particularly given the unknowns in the case.
 
Rana said:
Not if he tried to grab him, it didn't have to be a punch and also if Trayvon thought he was going for a weapon, he had the right to defend himself, for all anyone knows Zimmerman could have already had his gun out.
Click to expand...


Now you just stop that...everyone has learned by now that ONLY Grind is allowed to speculate on what might have happened...he expects the rest of us to stick to the truth.
 
Dungheap said:
OK, but like, where's the evidence that Martin initiated the confrontation. I mean, I beleive you are on record saying that walking to an intersection on a public roadway or sidewalk is not illegal, right? So, like, so what if Martin approached Zimmerman?
Click to expand...

the evidence is zimmermans testimony, which was believed and told to be truthful by detectives with decades of experience.

The other evidence is witnesses hearing movement from down the T up to the T section, and after hearing that movement is when the fight broke out.

The only thing you can conclude from the fact that Trayvon had no injuries other than the gunshot wound (which, as an aside, is just a ridiculous thing to type) is that he was a better fighter than Zimmerman. I mean, maybe Zimmerman started the fight and got his ass kicked and so he shot Trayvon? Why is that outside the realm of possibility?
Click to expand...

it's not outside the realm of possibility, but every indicator we have is that trayvon started the fight. There is evidence to back up zimmermans story from his story itself, to the lead detectives with decades of experience that all believe him.
 
Dungheap said:
And parsecs are a measure of distance, not time. I think it's nice that you found an interest in something, but really . . .

And I'm not necessarily outraged at the result of the trial. It's more outrage at the law and the societal context in which the law is applied. Moreover, I find the unwavering defense of George Zimmerman to be a bit distasteful (editor's note -- that there is an understatement), particularly given the unknowns in the case.
Click to expand...

I am sick of people that didn't watch the trial and have very little understanding on the case being outraged at the verdict. I am not necessarily putting you in that category. There have been people calling for the death of the jury, (not on the board) acting like this is the next emit til (sp?) It's a joke. this was a very clear self defense case and the state put on an abysmal case.

They in their opening statement said zimmerman was on top with the gun when they knew that the ballistics were going to come in and say otherwise. They literally changed their narrative two weeks into the trial. Nearly every prosecution witness was turned against them. Anyone that actually watched the trial knew that there was a insanely high chance a not guilty verdict was coming down the pike.
 
TeamZ said:
the evidence is zimmermans testimony, which was believed and told to be truthful by detectives with decades of experience.

The other evidence is witnesses hearing movement from down the T up to the T section, and after hearing that movement is when the fight broke out.



it's not outside the realm of possibility, but every indicator we have is that trayvon started the fight. There is evidence to back up zimmermans story from his story itself, to the lead detectives with decades of experience that all believe him.
Click to expand...



he has been proven to have been lying in several places
 
You guys want to live in this alternate universe where you can just take your feels and turn them into reality. Zimmermans story was found to be truthful by the detectives. The detectives and police called by the state basically supported zimmerman. How many times have you seen cops called by the state say they found the defendants account truthful? Most of the witnesses either backed up zimmermans story, and a few couldn't find it being incompatible with the evidence.

We had witnesses 10 feet away saying trayvon was on top beating zimmerman. A witness telling trayvon to stop the fight but trayvon ignoring them.

Too many people tried to make this case something it wasn't. They wanted it to stand for something else, but they picked the wrong case to make a political and social point. This was an open and shut self defense case.
 
evince said:
he has been proven to have been lying in several places
Click to expand...

he has been proven inconsistent in a few spots, but the lead detectives that testified the state, detectives with decades of experience and police work, all said that they believe zimmerman to be truthful on the material facts of the case. These detectives also said that such inconsistencies are insignificant, and they would actually be surprised if someone that told their story 5-6 times wouldn't have some changes in it. They said they would be MORE suspicious of someone that had the exact same story every time.
 
TeamZ said:
the evidence is zimmermans testimony, which was believed and told to be truthful by detectives with decades of experience.

The other evidence is witnesses hearing movement from down the T up to the T section, and after hearing that movement is when the fight broke out.



it's not outside the realm of possibility, but every indicator we have is that trayvon started the fight. There is evidence to back up zimmermans story from his story itself, to the lead detectives with decades of experience that all believe him.
Click to expand...


THe only actual evidence is Zimmerman's story. An investigator's opinion of that evidence is not itself evidence. And Zimmerman had every reason to claim that Trayvon started the fight. If Trayvon were around to tell his story, he'd probably have a different view.

Also, too, I don't think the evidence that you say backs up Zimmerman's story is evidence that can only back up Zimmerman's story. I mean, how does that evidence rule out the possibility of Zimmerman throwing the first punch and then getting his ass kicked?
 
and at the VERY LEAST, NO ONE that objectively watched this trial could say there wasn't reasonable doubt. That is the standard of our justice system. There are people saying horrible things about the jury. We need to respect their verdict and their deligence. They were prolific note takers in this trial and paid the utmost attention.

Even if you dont like that zimmerman was acquitted, to pretend that this is a travesty of justice is simply not true. Most legal analysts were saying that the Prosecution had an uphill battle and did poorly.
 
TeamZ said:
You guys want to live in this alternate universe where you can just take your feels and turn them into reality. Zimmermans story was found to be truthful by the detectives. The detectives and police called by the state basically supported zimmerman. How many times have you seen cops called by the state say they found the defendants account truthful? Most of the witnesses either backed up zimmermans story, and a few couldn't find it being incompatible with the evidence.

We had witnesses 10 feet away saying trayvon was on top beating zimmerman. A witness telling trayvon to stop the fight but trayvon ignoring them.

Too many people tried to make this case something it wasn't. They wanted it to stand for something else, but they picked the wrong case to make a political and social point. This was an open and shut self defense case.
Click to expand...


I think it's really weird how much stock you put in the opinions of cops who had only one side to a story.
 
TeamZ said:
it depends if what they are saying is legal or not. You apparently believe you get to beat the shit out of someone that uses words. Not that any of that matters in the context of the zimmerman trial which this OP is obviously alluding to.
Click to expand...

Jarod seemed interested in what the law should be, not in rehashing the case.

I am not saying it gives the victim a right to assault anyone. You are confusing the facts and trying to come to some chidlish conclusion that there must always be one right and one wrong person in a confrontation, when the reality is that both are often wrong.
 
Professor Baxter said:
Jarod seemed interested in what the law should be, not in rehashing the case.

I am not saying it gives the victim a right to assault anyone. You are confusing the facts and trying to come to some chidlish conclusion that there must always be one right and one wrong person in a confrontation, when the reality is that both are often wrong.
Click to expand...

I can agree with you on that baxter.

As a general rule, I don't believe people should violently attack others that are not doing anything illegal. Can you give me a very specific circumstance I might agree with? Possibly. But as a rule of thumb I am going to stick by my original statement.
 
TeamZ said:
and at the VERY LEAST, NO ONE that objectively watched this trial could say there wasn't reasonable doubt. That is the standard of our justice system. There are people saying horrible things about the jury. We need to respect their verdict and their deligence. They were prolific note takers in this trial and paid the utmost attention.

Even if you dont like that zimmerman was acquitted, to pretend that this is a travesty of justice is simply not true. Most legal analysts were saying that the Prosecution had an uphill battle and did poorly.
Click to expand...


That's all well and good, but let's not pretend that it is a Truth (capital t) that "the only one that broke the law that night was trayvon martin when he violently attacked zimmerman." You don't know that to be true. At all. You've acknowledged that it is within the realm of possiblity that Zimmerman started the fight, got khis ass kicked and shot Martin.

So, like, that's why I find your celebratory grave dancing to be a bit distasteful (again, understatement).
 
TeamZ said:
I am sick of people that didn't watch the trial and have very little understanding on the case being outraged at the verdict. I am not necessarily putting you in that category. There have been people calling for the death of the jury, (not on the board) acting like this is the next emit til (sp?) It's a joke. this was a very clear self defense case and the state put on an abysmal case.

They in their opening statement said zimmerman was on top with the gun when they knew that the ballistics were going to come in and say otherwise. They literally changed their narrative two weeks into the trial. Nearly every prosecution witness was turned against them. Anyone that actually watched the trial knew that there was a insanely high chance a not guilty verdict was coming down the pike.
Click to expand...


Another ASSumption on Grind's part that those who don't agree with his OPINION of the trial MUST NOT HAVE WATCHED the trial.

Of course this thread is just a perfect example of how Grind is allowed to hurl all the baseless speculation he likes, but everyone else MUST stick to the known facts.
 
Professor Baxter said:
So someone should be free to provoke another with verbal abuse and threatening language then when they draw a physical response kill their victim?
Click to expand...

Are you trying to defend people who have low self control?
While words may make someone feel bad, they don't leave bruises and I'm not sure what you mean by threatening language.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top