Support NeoGAF

[KHarvey16]

Why would it be an important detail?

Care to answer the question: 'what is your point?' instead of acting snarky?

The way I see it, you are saying one thing, while attempting to do another. 'What this man did was wrong, but this information, is totally relevant.'

How is the information relevant? Motivation on the part of the police plays no part in this specific discussion. The fact that the police did that basically amounts to witness tampering. Several witnesses have come forth to say that police either changed their story or dismissed them. The reasoning behind why they did this DOES NOT MATTER. The only possible explanation for why you are doing this, that I can come up with, is that you are attempting to sort of defend them, all the while claiming that you are not defending them.

Then who gives a flying fuck?

I don't understand what was difficult about the post. IF the reason the officer corrected the woman was because they had taken statements previously that consistently named Zimmerman as the one who was screaming, THAT is an important piece of information. Not because of what it says about the act of making the correction, but what it says about the general picture being painted by witnesses. If they spoke to 10 people, 8 of whom heard someone scream and 7 of whom identify Zimmerman and one who identifies Trayvon but is then corrected, that's important. Again, NOT because it means the correction was right but because it tells us something important about the incident.

The other possibility, of course, is that this officer decided on their own that this is how it went down and wasn't willing to taint that narrative with conflicting witness reports. Of course that motivation is just as telling as the one I went over above.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Can anyone surmise this entire incident in bullet points please? I need a helpful update

 

[Raxus]

Yo KHarv. The 'Stand Your Ground' statute is 776.085 correct?

 

[Devolution]

This guy gave a testimony days after it happened. If this case goes to court, then the defense is going to use him as a Witnesses, which will in fact support Zimmerman's site of the story.

The prosecution will need proof that the cops coerced the Witness, and heresy will not have much support in this matter.

Yeah but I'm still wondering despite all the other evidence to the contrary you're hedging your bets on what one witness said. Really what's your prerogative?

 

[KHarvey16]

Yo KHarv. The 'Stand Your Ground' statute is 776.085 correct?

776.012 talks specifically about defense of a person. All of chapter 776 is relevant though.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

 

[Devolution]

I watched the News Hour today the guy who wrote the law said Zimmerman voided it and it doesn't protect him. Don't even bother with Harvey.

 

[KodMoS]

Yeah but I'm still wondering despite all the other evidence to the contrary you're hedging your bets on what one witness said. Really what's your prerogative?

Some of you guys have a serious reading problem. I clearly stated that this eye-witness testimony supports Zimmerman's statement that he was the one crying for help.


Can you guys get that? lol I mean, come on.. It's really not that difficult to understand.

 

[KHarvey16]

I watched the News Hour today the guy who wrote the law said Zimmerman voided it and it doesn't protect him. Don't even bother with Harvey.

Have you seen this discussed on TV and elsewhere by legal experts and other lawyers? Not many people agree with him. You can read it for yourself, there's not much to it.

 

[Onemic]

already explained

 

[Particle Physicist]

I don't understand what was difficult about the post. IF the reason the officer corrected the woman was because they had taken statements previously that consistently named Zimmerman as the one who was screaming, THAT is an important piece of information. Not because of what it says about the act of making the correction, but what it says about the general picture being painted by witnesses. If they spoke to 10 people, 8 of whom heard someone scream and 7 of whom identify Zimmerman and one who identifies Trayvon but is then corrected, that's important. Again, NOT because it means the correction was right but because it tells us something important about the incident.

The other possibility, of course, is that this officer decided on their own that this is how it went down and wasn't willing to taint that narrative with conflicting witness reports. Of course that motivation is just as telling as the one I went over above.

What does it tell us about the incident? How many witnesses say it was Trayvon screaming vs. witnesses saying it was Zimmerman screaming? How does changing evidence gathered to match other evidence fit in with the scientific method you were touting earlier in the thread? You aren't supposed to change the data in order to fit your hypothesis. Motivation plays no part in this at all. The fact that it happened, is the issue, not WHY. You cannot come to a correct conclusion if you are modifying data. There is absolutely no point in bringing this up, unless you are attempting to imply certain things.

 

[squidyj]

This guy gave a testimony days after it happened. If this case goes to court, then the defense is going to use him as a Witnesses, which will in fact support Zimmerman's site of the story.

The prosecution will need proof that the cops coerced the Witness, and heresy will not have much support in this matter.

I'm not convinced that heresy is an issue that a Judge should be looking into anyways.

 

[Raxus]

I don't understand what was difficult about the post. IF the reason the officer corrected the woman was because they had taken statements previously that consistently named Zimmerman as the one who was screaming, THAT is an important piece of information. Not because of what it says about the act of making the correction, but what it says about the general picture being painted by witnesses. If they spoke to 10 people, 8 of whom heard someone scream and 7 of whom identify Zimmerman and one who identifies Trayvon but is then corrected, that's important. Again, NOT because it means the correction was right but because it tells us something important about the incident.

The other possibility, of course, is that this officer decided on their own that this is how it went down and wasn't willing to taint that narrative with conflicting witness reports. Of course that motivation is just as telling as the one I went over above.

I would have to say you are getting side tracked here. The screams mean little when you have him nailed by the time line. The call to the girlfriend and the call to the police. The timeline and conversation in both those calls paint the picture with Zimmerman as the aggressor and Trayvon as the defendant. Things branch off at that point (with race playing a role in arrests and the scream which was certainly Trayvon's) but having hard evidence of Zimmerman as the aggressor destroys any self defense claim. Bringing the police into this would make a mess of the situation and fail to correct the Stand your Ground law.

 

[Devolution]

Some of you guys have a serious reading problem. I clearly stated that this eye-witness testimony supports Zimmerman's statement that he was the one crying for help.


Can you guys get that? lol I mean, come on.. It's really not that difficult to understand.

Can you fucking read. There are witness statements, police witness tampering, and audio that contradicts this one witness. And yet here we are, again, you putting all your eggs in this one witness's basket ignoring everything else. Once again, what's your prerogative here? I mean we've had your type up and down this thread, and more evidence just stacks up against Zimmerman.

 

[coldfoot]

The college is a state entity. And those aren't the "facts." Those are allegations (and not even the State's allegations at this point to boot). The college's actions aren't legal, and frankly they threaten the integrity of any prosecution against Zimmerman.

1. It's a fact, recorded on 911 call, that he ignored the police warning.
2. It's a fact, recorded on 911 call, that he called Travyon a racial slur.
3. It's a fact, recorded on Travyon's phone, that Zimmerman confronted him while he was trying to get away, and it's a fact that Zimmerman shot and killed him by admission to the police.

When you chase after and confront someone who's running away from you, you have no right to self defense, it's that simple.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Some of you guys have a serious reading problem. I clearly stated that this eye-witness testimony supports Zimmerman's statement that he was the one crying for help.


Can you guys get that? lol I mean, come on.. It's really not that difficult to understand.

Do you have a link with direct quotes from the eye witness? I'm having trouble finding anything about this witness anymore.

 

[KHarvey16]

What does it tell us about the incident? How many witnesses say it was Trayvon screaming vs. witnesses saying it was Zimmerman screaming? How does changing evidence gathered to match other evidence fit in with the scientific method you were touting earlier in the thread? You aren't supposed to change the data in order to fit your hypothesis. Motivation plays no part in this at all. The fact that it happened, is the issue, not WHY. You cannot come to a correct conclusion if you are modifying data.

You're clearly not reading what I'm typing. You're missing my entire point very, very badly.

 

[Devolution]

Have you seen this discussed on TV and elsewhere by legal experts and other lawyers? Not many people agree with him. You can read it for yourself, there's not much to it.

Lawyers and random people disagree with the man who wrote the statute, okay.

 

[Onemic]

It was evident in my post that I said the Witness supports Zimmerman's side of the story. You guys can get angry all you want, I'm just reporting what the Witness said to a news reporter. Other than that, I believe Martin was the one acting in self defense and that he was the aggressor in this situation, based on what we know now.

This is false. Zimmerman was stalking him in his car and following him on foot, there is no way Trayvon was the aggressor even if he threw the first punch.

 

[KodMoS]

It's allowed when it's warranted, and he really earned it.

You're just upset with the eye-witness testimony, and they're taking your anger out on me. That's pretty childish on your part.

 

[Kettch]

I actually disagree with this, and I think the college could face some repercussions for it. Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty and I don't think the college can defend its decision to oust him because of the controversy. If Zimmerman is not safe there, then Zimmerman can decide not to go. The idea that this was done for the safety of others violates his presumption of innocence.

He admitted killing an unarmed child, there are no assumptions being made there. The school should definitely take steps to protect themselves if the police won't do their job and arrest him.

 

[Devolution]

This is false. Zimmerman was stalking him in his car and following him on foot, there is no way Trayvon was the aggressor even if he threw the first punch.

How many times does this even need to be said? I feel like it's more than 50% of the thread.

 

[KodMoS]

This is false. Zimmerman was stalking him in his car and following him on foot, there is no way Trayvon was the aggressor even if he threw the first punch.

Excuse me.. Zimmerman was the aggressor.

 

[KHarvey16]

I would have to say you are getting side tracked here. The screams mean little when you have him nailed by the time line. The call to the girlfriend and the call to the police. The timeline and conversation in both those calls paint the picture with Zimmerman as the aggressor and Trayvon as the defendant. Things branch off at that point (with race playing a role in arrests and the scream which was certainly Trayvon's) but having hard evidence of Zimmerman as the aggressor destroys any self defense claim. Bringing the police into this would make a mess of the situation and fail to correct the Stand your Ground law.

This is not the case under Florida law.

 

[Raxus]

1. It's a fact, recorded on 911 call, that he ignored the police warning.
2. It's a fact, recorded on 911 call, that he called Travyon a racial slur.
3. It's a fact, recorded on Travyon's phone, that Zimmerman confronted him while he was trying to get away, and it's a fact that Zimmerman shot and killed him by admission to the police.

When you chase after and confront someone who's running away from you, you have no right to self defense, it's that simple.

1. True.
2. Debatable. Hard to prove to a jury and nearly inaudible. If it were true you could nail him on a hate crime.
3. True.

 

[entremet]

The outcry caused by this case makes me glad we have the Internet, with all the protests and organizing caused by it.

 

[Particle Physicist]

You're clearly not reading what I'm typing. You're missing my entire point very, very badly.

I am completely understanding your 'point.' I think you don't understanding mine.

My point is that your point is irrelevant.

You are saying that the fact that the police corrected a witness was likely due to the picture painted by other witnesses. That in itself is a leap in logic. You have no idea what the motivation behind the correction was, and can only make assumptions here. Even so, this point is IRRELEVANT. It doesn't matter what the other witnesses said, the fact that any correcting and dismissing of any witnesses occurred is the issue.

 

[Aaronology]

Can anyone surmise this entire incident in bullet points please? I need a helpful update

ThinkProgress has a list of sorts. It's grown quite a bit since it was originally posted. Every day something else comes to light. Source has the actual links.

1. Zimmerman called the police to report Martin’s “suspicious” behavior, which he described as “just walking around looking about.” Zimmerman was in his car when he saw Martin walking on the street. He called the police and said: “There’s a real suspicious guy. This guy looks like he’s up to no good, on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about… These a**holes always get away” [Orlando Sentinel]

2. Zimmerman pursued Martin against the explicit instructions of the police dispatcher:
Dispatcher: “Are you following him?”
Zimmerman: “Yeah”
Dispatcher: “OK, we don’t need you to do that.”
[Orlando Sentinel]

3. Prior to the release of the 911 tapes, Zimmerman’s father released a statement claiming “[a]t no time did George follow or confront Mr. Martin.” [Sun Sentinel]

4. Zimmerman was carrying a a 9 millimeter handgun. Martin was carrying a bag of Skittles and a can of iced tea. [ABC News]

5. Martin weighed 140 pounds. Zimmerman weighs 250 pounds. [Orlando Sentinel; WDBO]

6. Martin’s English teacher described him as “as an A and B student who majored in cheerfulness.” [Orlando Sentinel]

7. Martin had no criminal record. [New York Times]

8. Zimmerman “was charged in July 2005 with resisting arrest with violence and battery on an officer. The charges appear to have been dropped.” [Huffington Post]

9. Zimmerman called the police 46 times since Jan. 1, 2011. [Miami Herald]

10. According to neighbors, Zimmerman was “fixated on crime and focused on young, black males.” [Miami Herald]

11. Zimmerman “had been the subject of complaints by neighbors in his gated community for aggressive tactics” [Huffington Post]

12. A police officer “corrected” a key witness. “The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help.” [ABC News]

13. Three witnesses say they heard a boy cry for help before a shot was fired. “Three witnesses contacted by The Miami Herald say they saw or heard the moments before and after the Miami Gardens teenager’s killing. All three said they heard the last howl for help from a despondent boy.” [Miami Herald]

14. The officer in charge of the crime scene also received criticism in 2010 when he initially failed to arrest a lieutenant’s son who was videotaped attacking a homeless black man. [New York Times]

15. The police did not test Zimmerman for drugs or alcohol. A law enforcement expert told ABC that Zimmerman sounds intoxicated on the 911 tapes. Drug and alcohol testing is “standard procedure in most homicide investigations.” [ABC News]

16. In a cell phone call moments before his death, Martin told a teenage girl that he was “hounded by a strange man on a cellphone who ran after him, cornered him and confronted him.” “‘He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man,’ Martin’s friend said. ‘I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.’ Eventually he would run, said the girl, thinking that he’d managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin. ‘Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for,’ and the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’” [ABC News]

17. Police have Trayvon Martin’s cell phone but never contact his girlfriend.[Miami Herald]
18. Zimmerman told the police “he had stepped out of his truck to check the name of the street he was on when Trayvon attacked him from behind as he walked back to his truck.” “He said he feared for his life and fired the semiautomatic handgun he was licensed to carry because he feared for his life.” [Miami Herald]

19. The incident occurred in a tiny gated community Zimmerman patrolled regularly. [Miami Herald]

20. Zimmerman was not a member of a registered Neighborhood Watch group. Zimmerman also violated basic Neighborhood Watch guidelines by carrying a weapon. [ABC News]

21. The police reports were amended to bolster Zimmerman’s claim of self defense. “Initial police reports never mentioned that Zimmerman had a bloody nose or a wet shirt that showed evidence of a struggle.” [Miami Herald]

22. Police ignored witness whose account was different from Zimmerman’s.“One of the witnesses who heard the crying said she called a detective repeatedly, but said he was not interested because her account differed from Zimmerman’s.” [Miami Herald]

23. Zimmerman still has a permit to carry a concealed weapon in the State of Florida. [ThinkProgress]

 

[Raxus]

This is not the case under Florida law.

Hence why I asked about SYG. I thought 776.041 exempted anyone who was proven the aggressor from claiming self defense. Then again I hear the way it is written if two people got in a duel the winner would get off scott free so I cannot begin to fathom how retarded Florida law gets.

 

[empty vessel]

No it's not--the school's statement is not based on a presumption of guilt, it's based on the reality of controversy. They do not feel they have the ability to keep students--and Mr. Zimmerman--safe in light of that's happened.

That's clearly bullshit as to students. Whether Mr. Zimmerman feels safe is up to him. This constitutes punishment without due process, and Zimmerman would have a legal claim against the State should he choose to pursue it. It also, as I said, imperils the integrity of any conviction eventually secured against Zimmerman, because it is State action that undermines his presumption of innocence.

I'm assuming the college reserves the right to boot you for any number of reasons, of which this would be one. That guy shows up at school, it will get violent (he won't be the aggressor this time), and they're acting to prevent that.

So Zimmerman, alone, is deprived of liberty to prevent it?

I don't understand what was difficult about the post. IF the reason the officer corrected the woman was because they had taken statements previously that consistently named Zimmerman as the one who was screaming, THAT is an important piece of information. Not because of what it says about the act of making the correction, but what it says about the general picture being painted by witnesses. If they spoke to 10 people, 8 of whom heard someone scream and 7 of whom identify Zimmerman and one who identifies Trayvon but is then corrected, that's important. Again, NOT because it means the correction was right but because it tells us something important about the incident.

What is important, then, is that 7 out of 8 witnesses heard Zimmerman, not that one was corrected. That is an entirely different fact that, as far as we know, doesn't exist.

As well, I understand that most people don't have experience with police investigations, but it is important to understand the lay of the land at the time these interviews were occurring. These witnesses would not have known a Zimmerman from a Martin. They likely didn't even know Martin was a child at the time. The police had no reason at all to doubt Zimmerman's story. They did not know, then, that Martin was staying at a house in the neighborhood. They did not know that he was a 17 year old kid. They did not know that he had called his girlfriend and talked about having been followed. They likely did not even know any of the content of Zimmerman's prior call to the police (i.e., that Zimmerman had been following Martin). It is unlikely that any witness identified anybody as being the person screaming. One may have said that the screaming sounded like it was coming from a child, and received correction because the officer at the time had no reason to doubt Zimmerman's story that he had been unsuspectingly jumped by somebody the officer also had no reason to doubt (and probably presumed anyway) was a black person up to no good in the neighborhood. (I'm sure that Zimmerman prefaced his statement to the police with the fact that they had been having several break-ins by black youth in the neighborhood; indeed, Zimmerman probably still believed at that point in time that Martin was a criminal.)

The police investigation at the scene would have been extremely superficial, as almost every single police investigation ever conducted is.

This is not the case under Florida law.

It is indeed quite close to the case under Florida law.

He admitted killing an unarmed child, there are no assumptions being made there.

Which until the State proves otherwise is not a crime for which the State may deprive Zimmerman of liberty.

 

[KHarvey16]

You are saying that the fact that the police corrected a witness was likely due to the picture painted by other witnesses.

I am not. I never said I think that's what happened or that it was likely. I said if it happened that way it's informative.

That in itself is a leap in logic. You have no idea what the motivation behind the correction.

Agreed!

You can only speak in hypotheticals.

Which I've clearly and explicitly been doing this whole time! I even put the IF in all caps hoping you would read it!

Even so, this point is IRRELEVANT. It doesn't matter what the other witnesses said, the fact that any correcting and dismissing of other witnesses occurred is the issue.

It's irrelevant to the issue of the correction, not the case itself! That's the whole damn point I'm making. I'm not sure how many other ways I can say it isn't relevant to the issue of the police correcting that woman, I'm really not.

 

[Allard]

This is not the case under Florida law.

I don't see how it has anything to do with Florida's Law. Under basically every law under the books including Florida's law you give up the right to self defense when you provoke a confrontation. Its one thing to 'stand' your ground against an aggressor or in a violent situation (in which case I still think the law needs to be changed on these grounds) but that doesn't mean you get the right to claim defense after making the initial event that lead to the situation, willingly I might add. He is the instigator, he cannot, I repeat, CANNOT claim self-defense under these circumstances, that is why he lied to the police about getting jumped from behind when his police tapes show otherwise.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

I don't understand what was difficult about the post. IF the reason the officer corrected the woman was because they had taken statements previously that consistently named Zimmerman as the one who was screaming, THAT is an important piece of information. Not because of what it says about the act of making the correction, but what it says about the general picture being painted by witnesses.

If the narcotics officer first arriving is leading Zimmerman with questions instead of simply asking him what happened and then later leading witness statements by correcting what someone is saying happened and telling the witness what they actually saw or heard then that kind of makes whatever other witness accounts they gathered to be pretty irrelevant. So you're wrong, it is still all connected. How on Earth can you in one hand admit that ok, there was witness tampering and it was bad but then in the other hand say that well, that witness tampering shouldn't mean the scene these other witnesses painted is any less accurate.

It instead just tells any logical person that the police fucked this thing up from the start and pretty much anything they say can probably be brushed off as bull shit. The only question is WHY were they so incompetent? Does Zimmerman have some sort of connection? Is there racism involved? Or maybe just good old fashioned police incompetence is at play.

Whatever the case, we have enough hard evidence that the police cannot taint to paint a pretty logical and probable picture of what happened.

 

[KHarvey16]

Hence why I asked about SYG. I thought 776.041 exempted anyone who was proven the aggressor from claiming self defense. Then again I hear the way it is written if two people got in a duel the winner would get off scott free so I cannot begin to fathom how retarded Florida law gets.

I don't see how it has anything to do with Florida's Law. Under basically every law under the books including Florida's law you give up the right to self defense when you provoke a confrontation. Its one thing to 'stand' your ground against an aggressor or in a violent situation (in which case I still think the law needs to be changed on these grounds) but that doesn't mean you get the right to claim defense after making the initial event that lead to the situation, willingly I might add. He is the instigator, he cannot, I repeat, CANNOT claim self-defense under these circumstances, that is why he lied to the police about getting jumped from behind when his police tapes show otherwise.

Here is the relevant section(and of course Florida law is important):

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

2a and 2b are exceptions which falsify the statement "the aggressor cannot claim self defense", because in some cases they can. If this goes to trial you can bet the defense will attempt to use those exceptions in some capacity.

 

[Kettch]

23. Zimmerman still has a permit to carry a concealed weapon in the State of Florida. [ThinkProgress]

The most disturbing part of all.

 

[KodMoS]

Can you fucking read. There are witness statements, police witness tampering, and audio that contradicts this one witness. And yet here we are, again, you putting all your eggs in this one witness's basket ignoring everything else. Once again, what's your prerogative here? I mean we've had your type up and down this thread, and more evidence just stacks up against Zimmerman.

smh..

Maybe you need to realize that you're making assumptions. Just because it sounds like a young man's voice crying for help, that doesn't mean it was Trayvon's voice. He may change his statement once he's under oath but for now that's a Witness testimony. The only way they're going to contradict his statement is if another Witness claims he saw Trayvon calling for help.

 

[Devolution]

smh..

Maybe you need to realize that you're making assumptions. Just because it sounds like a young man's voice crying for help, that doesn't mean it was Trayvon's voice. He may change his statement once he's under oath but for now that's a Witness testimony. The only way they're going to contradict his statement is if another Witness claims he saw Trayvon calling for help.

You really are grasping at straws.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Bloody nose brought upon you by teenager half your size = imminent danger of death
As far as (b), he stalked Trayvon and confronted him and never tried to run away.

Just because these 2 exceptions are there doesn't make them relevant when evidence exists that rules them out. It also doesn't matter that the defense might try to use them, of course they'll try to use them. They might also say Zimmerman was possessed by Satan when it happened. Doesn't mean we have to waste time thinking about that possibility.

When the guy who wrote the law said Zimmerman doesn't qualify, I am sure he did not mean the defense lawyers could not argue the case in court. He meant he looked over the evidence and came to the same conclusion any logical person would. That a grown man stalking a teenager who weighed 120-140 (whatever it was) pounds less then he, doesn't qualify for imminent danger of death when he had a bloodied nose nor does he qualify for the other one because he was the one who chased him down and he never tried to disengage with Trayvon.

 

[Particle Physicist]

If the narcotics officer first arriving is leading Zimmerman with questions instead of simply asking him what happened and then later leading witness statements by correcting what someone is saying happened and telling the witness what they actually saw or heard then that kind of makes whatever other witness accounts they gathered to be pretty irrelevant. So you're wrong, it is still all connected. How on Earth can you in one hand admit that ok, there was witness tampering and it was bad but then in the other hand say that well, that witness tampering shouldn't mean the scene these other witnesses painted is any less accurate.

The guy double talks and hides behind his supposed impeccable logic. It's clear that he is attempting to defend the police here. Even when you have something that is clearly wrong on all levels (correcting/leading witnesses), he finds a way to give the police a defense. But hey, he says he is not excusing them, he is just coming up with hypothetical excuses!

I'm done with him. I have some actual science I need to look at right now.

 

[KodMoS]

You really are grasping at straws.

lol - Next time come up an intelligent argument.

 

[Particle Physicist]

smh..

Maybe you need to realize that you're making assumptions. Just because it sounds like a young man's voice crying for help, that doesn't mean it was Trayvon's voice. He may change his statement once he's under oath but for now that's a Witness testimony. The only way they're going to contradict his statement is if another Witness claims he saw Trayvon calling for help.

Do you have a link to the other witness that saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman? I still can't find it.

 

[KodMoS]

Do you have a link to the other witness that saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman? I still can't find it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TQ7C6tnIShQ

 

[Onemic]

lol - Next time come up an intelligent argument.

And this is why no one knows where you stand, even with your previous posts. It looks like you're trolling now.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Here is the relevant section(and of course Florida law is important):



2a and 2b are exceptions which falsify the statement "the aggressor cannot claim self defense", because in some cases they can. If this goes to trial you can bet the defense will attempt to use those exceptions in some capacity.

Yes, you are right. This is the defense his lawyer will attempt. Good job!

 

[BobLoblaw]

smh..

Maybe you need to realize that you're making assumptions. Just because it sounds like a young man's voice crying for help, that doesn't mean it was Trayvon's voice. He may change his statement once he's under oath but for now that's a Witness testimony. The only way they're going to contradict his statement is if another Witness claims he saw Trayvon calling for help.

Well the fact that Trayvon's own mother said it's her son's voice might. How many mother's would mis-dentify their own child's voice? One that they've raised for 17 years by the way.

 

[EvilDick34]

Man,i haven't read through most of this thread but i really hope there are not people defending Zimmerman at all, it is disgusting that zimmerman has not been charged with murder or anything else .

 

[Onemic]

Man,i haven't read through most of this thread but i really hope there are not people defending Zimmerman at all, it is disgusting that zimmerman has not been charged with murder or anything else .

realink

 

[EvilDick34]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TQ7C6tnIShQ

Welp, nevermind...so much for that. Gaf does not surprise me at all.

 

[KHarvey16]

The guy double talks and hides behind his supposed impeccable logic. It's clear that he is attempting to defend the police here. Even when you have something that is clearly wrong on all levels (correcting/leading witnesses), he finds a way to give the police a defense. But hey, he says he is not excusing them, he is just coming up with hypothetical excuses!

I'm done with him. I have some actual science I need to look at right now.

Yeah, what a tricky guy I am! Countering claims of what must be true with scenarios in which it may not be. Such duplicitous, squirmy behavior! I love that this can basically sum up the conversation thus far:

-"That cannot ever be true!"

"Actually, if this, this and this happened it could possibly be true."

-"OMG WHY YOU DEFENDING HIM YOU FUCKING TROLL?!?!?!?! How do you know for a fact that happened?! WHY ARE YOU CLAIMING TO KNOW?"

"Uhhh..."

And then when people get called out on their ridiculous reactions and inability to process language it's my problem, all of a sudden. Oh, it's because I'm hiding behind things and dancing around. That's the only explanation! I can't come up with any reasonable refutation of his position, so it must be some kind of troll game.

 

[KodMoS]

And this is why no one knows where you stand, even with your previous posts. It looks like you're trolling now.

I already said Zimmerman should go to jail, you're just upset because i'm reporting something that you disagree with.

 

[la flama blanca]

Yeah, what a tricky guy I am! Countering claims of what must be true with scenarios in which it may not be. Such duplicitous, squirmy behavior! I love that this can basically sum up the conversation thus far:

-"That cannot ever be true!"

"Actually, if this, this and this happened it could possibly be true."

-"OMG WHY YOU DEFENDING HIM YOU FUCKING TROLL?!?!?!?! How do you know for a fact that happened?! WHY ARE YOU CLAIMING TO KNOW?"

"Uhhh..."

And then when people get called out on their ridiculous reactions and inability to process language it's my problem, all of a sudden. Oh, it's because I'm hiding behind things and dancing around. That's the only explanation! I can't come up with any reasonable refutation of his position, so it must be some kind of troll game.

I warned you all, just look at his goddamn tag, he lives for this kind of stuff!