On June 01 2013 04:08 Quexana wrote: 1.) Martin didn't know Zimmerman had a gun until the fight started. <---According to Zimmerman 2.) How would you respond personally in Martin's situation? As a teenager, your walking home from the convenience store after buying candy. you see a strange guy staring you down from his car. He gets out of his car. You run away. He runs after you and chases you. 3.) Look at your answer to question #2, if your answer is different from the way Martin acted, ask yourself if you deserve to live because you acted the way you acted and someone who acted differently than you would deserves to die.
If Trayvon didnt know Zimmerman had a gun until the fight started then he shouldn't have felt his life was in danger and that he needed to defend himself unless Zimmerman actually confronted him right? At least thats my point of view, I dont see why he didn't just continue to run/walk away if Zimmerman didn't threaten him with a gun.
Which is why Quex said "According to Zimmerman"
Because no, it doesn't make sense why a kid who just ran away and was tired didn't walk away from zimmerman unless there was something to scare him--like a gun.
You and Quexana sound like you've already branded Zimmerman as guilty. Both of you are making speculations without any proof. It's downright ridiculous at times. It's nice to remain objective in cases such as this and have an actual discussion about it. But you two are throwing around accusations with almost every post.
"Because no, it doesn't make sense why a kid who just ran away and was tired didn't walk away from zimmerman unless there was something to scare him--like a gun."
This is just one giant unsubstantiated assumption.
My assumption is that people don't do things randomly for no reason.
Motivation => Action
Cause => Effect
We have Zimmerman calling the police chasing after Martin.
After being told he didn't have to do that, follows martin anyway.
Martin, after having run, tells his girlfriend his legs are too tired to run
Zimmerman catches up with Martin
Martin asks if there is a problem
Zimmerman says there's no problem, phone cuts out and in less than a minute Martin is dead
According to Zimmerman, Martin attacked him. But at what cause? At what Motivation? There is none. We do have motivation for Zimmerman to initiate and instigate things, but we don't have any for Martin.
It makes sense to me a that a guy trying to shoot someone doesn't strike his victim, especially when he's trying to shoot him.
It makes sense to me that a tired kid who ran from danger would be freaked out by a gun and have fight/flight instincts take over.
What doesn't make sense is Travyon randomly attacking someone without cause. Why? Because I believe in cause, and effect.
On June 01 2013 04:08 Quexana wrote: 1.) Martin didn't know Zimmerman had a gun until the fight started. <---According to Zimmerman 2.) How would you respond personally in Martin's situation? As a teenager, your walking home from the convenience store after buying candy. you see a strange guy staring you down from his car. He gets out of his car. You run away. He runs after you and chases you. 3.) Look at your answer to question #2, if your answer is different from the way Martin acted, ask yourself if you deserve to live because you acted the way you acted and someone who acted differently than you would deserves to die.
If Trayvon didnt know Zimmerman had a gun until the fight started then he shouldn't have felt his life was in danger and that he needed to defend himself unless Zimmerman actually confronted him right? At least thats my point of view, I dont see why he didn't just continue to run/walk away if Zimmerman didn't threaten him with a gun.
Which is why Quex said "According to Zimmerman"
Because no, it doesn't make sense why a kid who just ran away and was tired didn't walk away from zimmerman unless there was something to scare him--like a gun.
Ok so let me get this right, Trayvon is a block away from his house, hes tired, he is confronted by someone who was chasing him, he sees a gun that this man has, he manages to successfully knock down Zimmerman without A) getting shot and B) being unable to take the gun away from him
I imagine that if he was ontop of Zimmerman bashing him repeatedly on the face (according to eyewitness accounts) wouldn't he also have been able to take the gun away from him if he had it out OR incapacitate it (since you know Zimmerman is on the ground and Martin is not) enough to make sure he cant take out his gun which you claim he knew he had since he started the fight in the first place?
Point is if he knew he had a gun then he shouldve made sure that he wasnt able to use the gun instead of knocking him to the ground getting ontop of him and then hitting him repeatedly?, and if he didnt know he had a gun then why did he start the fight in the first place?
At 21 feet you can tackle someone before they can pull out a gun. They were less than 21 feet, they were conversation range.
Travyon didn't have strike marks on him--most likely because the other guy in the fight used all his strength to hold on to his gun instead of striking back--which explains why the kid didn't just disarm zman, because he probably was trying to disarm zimmerman. Zimmerman then shoots martin.
It explains the injury, the randomness of the attack, the timing, and most other things about the case. He was tired from running (according to girlfriend) tries to see if he made a mistake "do we have a problem" and then suddenly shit hits the fan and the phone is knocked out. In 40 seconds a gun fires into the chest of a teenager.
Is it also possible that they had fluid escalation of arguments? It is. But why would Travyon's phone be knocked out and broken? Why would it only be 40 seconds between the hang up and the gun shot? did they argue for 20-30 seconds and then someone zman shot trav? Was there no argument? Or was there a catalyst that forced the issue.
So you are telling me that when you are trying to dissarm a person you decide to bash them in the head instead of trying to wrestle their arm so they arent in a position to shoot you? From your account of things it still doesnt explain how Zimmerman ended up with injuries unless Trayvon was trying to inflict as much bodily harm as possible instead of trying to disarm him.
Um... 1 hand bashing head, other hand wrestling with arm
Martin had two arms wrestling for gun, Trav had 1 arm and body weight, after a struggle Zimmerman wins the gun-wrestle and shoots trav.
So instead of using all your bodily forces to take away a weapon that can potentially end your life a person should instead use one hand to hit someone's face and only dedicate one hand to take away their hand?
I think if anyone was in that situation they would choose to use both of their hands to make 100% sure and put 100% of their remaining strength to making sure that the other person couldnt aim their gun at you and try to take it away.
And I think its a perfect case study on why you shouldn't split your strength to two tasks, because then you get shot.
On June 01 2013 04:08 Quexana wrote: 1.) Martin didn't know Zimmerman had a gun until the fight started. <---According to Zimmerman 2.) How would you respond personally in Martin's situation? As a teenager, your walking home from the convenience store after buying candy. you see a strange guy staring you down from his car. He gets out of his car. You run away. He runs after you and chases you. 3.) Look at your answer to question #2, if your answer is different from the way Martin acted, ask yourself if you deserve to live because you acted the way you acted and someone who acted differently than you would deserves to die.
If Trayvon didnt know Zimmerman had a gun until the fight started then he shouldn't have felt his life was in danger and that he needed to defend himself unless Zimmerman actually confronted him right? At least thats my point of view, I dont see why he didn't just continue to run/walk away if Zimmerman didn't threaten him with a gun.
Which is why Quex said "According to Zimmerman"
Because no, it doesn't make sense why a kid who just ran away and was tired didn't walk away from zimmerman unless there was something to scare him--like a gun.
You and Quexana sound like you've already branded Zimmerman as guilty. Both of you are making speculations without any proof. It's downright ridiculous at times. It's nice to remain objective in cases such as this and have an actual discussion about it. But you two are throwing around accusations with almost every post.
"Because no, it doesn't make sense why a kid who just ran away and was tired didn't walk away from zimmerman unless there was something to scare him--like a gun."
This is just one giant unsubstantiated assumption.
My assumption is that people don't do things randomly for no reason.
Motivation => Action
Cause => Effect
We have Zimmerman calling the police chasing after Martin.
After being told he didn't have to do that, follows martin anyway.
Martin, after having run, tells his girlfriend his legs are too tired to run
Zimmerman catches up with Martin
Martin asks if there is a problem
Zimmerman says there's no problem, phone cuts out and in less than a minute Martin is dead
According to Zimmerman, Martin attacked him. But at what cause? At what Motivation? There is none. We do have motivation for Zimmerman to initiate and instigate things, but we don't have any for Martin.
It makes sense to me a that a guy trying to shoot someone doesn't strike his victim, especially when he's trying to shoot him.
It makes sense to me that a tired kid who ran from danger would be freaked out by a gun and have fight/flight instincts take over.
What doesn't make sense is Travyon randomly attacking someone without cause. Why? Because I believe in cause, and effect.
Cause and motivation? How about being followed for no good reason? That would make many confrontational. Then we don't know what if any words were exchanged before the fight, maybe Zimmerman told Martin exactly what he thought of him (a criminal up to no good in so many words) and Martin responded by getting angry. People have fought for much less than that. But even regardless off that, it doesn't mean everything regarding Zimmerman's guilt. It's possible that Martin started the fight and Zimmerman can still be guilty of manslaughter or something of that nature. It all depends on how it played out, which is the problem right? Other than conflicting witness reports we only have Zimmerman's story. It will be up to the prosecutor to show through other means that his story doesn't check out (like the statement from the prosecutors that the evidence didn't match up with his story regarding having his head bashed against the sidewalk). A lot of these things relevant to the case won't come forth until the trial.
On June 01 2013 04:08 Quexana wrote: 1.) Martin didn't know Zimmerman had a gun until the fight started. <---According to Zimmerman 2.) How would you respond personally in Martin's situation? As a teenager, your walking home from the convenience store after buying candy. you see a strange guy staring you down from his car. He gets out of his car. You run away. He runs after you and chases you. 3.) Look at your answer to question #2, if your answer is different from the way Martin acted, ask yourself if you deserve to live because you acted the way you acted and someone who acted differently than you would deserves to die.
If Trayvon didnt know Zimmerman had a gun until the fight started then he shouldn't have felt his life was in danger and that he needed to defend himself unless Zimmerman actually confronted him right? At least thats my point of view, I dont see why he didn't just continue to run/walk away if Zimmerman didn't threaten him with a gun.
Which is why Quex said "According to Zimmerman"
Because no, it doesn't make sense why a kid who just ran away and was tired didn't walk away from zimmerman unless there was something to scare him--like a gun.
You and Quexana sound like you've already branded Zimmerman as guilty. Both of you are making speculations without any proof. It's downright ridiculous at times. It's nice to remain objective in cases such as this and have an actual discussion about it. But you two are throwing around accusations with almost every post.
"Because no, it doesn't make sense why a kid who just ran away and was tired didn't walk away from zimmerman unless there was something to scare him--like a gun."
This is just one giant unsubstantiated assumption.
My assumption is that people don't do things randomly for no reason.
Motivation => Action
Cause => Effect
We have Zimmerman calling the police chasing after Martin.
After being told he didn't have to do that, follows martin anyway.
Martin, after having run, tells his girlfriend his legs are too tired to run
Zimmerman catches up with Martin
Martin asks if there is a problem
Zimmerman says there's no problem, phone cuts out and in less than a minute Martin is dead
According to Zimmerman, Martin attacked him. But at what cause? At what Motivation? There is none. We do have motivation for Zimmerman to initiate and instigate things, but we don't have any for Martin.
It makes sense to me a that a guy trying to shoot someone doesn't strike his victim, especially when he's trying to shoot him.
It makes sense to me that a tired kid who ran from danger would be freaked out by a gun and have fight/flight instincts take over.
What doesn't make sense is Travyon randomly attacking someone without cause. Why? Because I believe in cause, and effect.
Cause and motivation? How about being followed for no good reason? That would make many confrontational. Then we don't know what if any words were exchanged before the fight, maybe Zimmerman told Martin exactly what he thought of him (a criminal up to no good in so many words) and Martin responded by getting angry. People have fought for much less than that. But even regardless off that, it doesn't mean everything regarding Zimmerman's guilt. It's possible that Martin started the fight and Zimmerman can still be guilty of manslaughter or something of that nature. It all depends on how it played out, which is the problem right? Other than conflicting witness reports we only have Zimmerman's story. It will be up to the prosecutor to show through other means that his story doesn't check out (like the statement from the prosecutors that the evidence didn't match up with his story regarding having his head bashed against the sidewalk). A lot of these things relevant to the case won't come forth until the trial.
Those are all possibilities as well.
I'm just showing that my reading of the case is not unsubstantiated opinions but a step by step analysis of the evidence presented. My reading could be different from yours. But my reading doesn't depend on evidence that doesn't exist yet (Of Martin being the aggressor) but of only what is available.
You and Quexana sound like you've already branded Zimmerman as guilty. Both of you are making speculations without any proof. It's downright ridiculous at times. It's nice to remain objective in cases such as this and have an actual discussion about it. But you two are throwing around accusations with almost every post.
He is guilty. He did kill Martin, didn't he?
Zimmerman stalked a teenager, then chased him through a neighborhood after he ran away and when confronted by said teenager refused to either identify himself or offer an explanation as to why he was chasing this kid in the dark.
I think that whatever happened after this point, Zimmerman bears some of the responsibility. He deserves this responsibility because he was way out of line by stalking and running after this kid who had done nothing wrong and because he chased this kid without even explaining why he was doing so. If Martin did indeed start the fight, than Martin deserves some of the blame, also but 1.) Martin doesn't deserve all of the blame when he tried running from the scene, and 2.) Martin has already been punished. Zimmerman hasn't been punished for his role. So yes, i'm judging Zimmerman guilty, not of what he's being charged with, but with the lesser crime of manslaughter, but still, I'm judging him guilty. You're free to judge every action he took as justified. Your free to assume that any teenager walking through a neighborhood is a criminal and that Zimmerman, as a good citizen, had every right to disregard the advice of law enforcement and take matters into his own hands. And you're free to judge that Zimmerman shouldn't be held responsible whether disregarding the advice of law enforcement and taking the law into his own hands leads to the arrest of a thief, or in this case, the death of a kid walking home.
On June 01 2013 04:44 Zaqwe wrote: It's important to note that Trayvon had gotten away but decided to double back and ambush Zimmerman.
Well there is everyone. Zaqwe has proven Zimmerman was attacked. Trayvon deserved to die.
Just to humor Zaqwe, I wonder what pieces of direct evidence out there prove definitively that Martin actually had calculated a plan to ambush and assault Zimmerman?
This whole time I was under the impression that this case was sort of unclear due to there being a lack of witnesses and other direct pieces of evidence. Maybe he is suggesting that whatever the sole witness to the initial confrontation (Zimmerman) suggests happened must be true. Unfortunately, however, because he is the one being charged here I don't think his claim that he was "ambushed" is sufficient proof.
You and Quexana sound like you've already branded Zimmerman as guilty. Both of you are making speculations without any proof. It's downright ridiculous at times. It's nice to remain objective in cases such as this and have an actual discussion about it. But you two are throwing around accusations with almost every post.
He is guilty. He did kill Martin, didn't he?
Zimmerman stalked a teenager, then chased him through a neighborhood after he ran away and when confronted by said teenager refused to either identify himself or offer an explanation as to why he was chasing this kid in the dark.
I think that whatever happened after this point, Zimmerman bears some of the responsibility. He deserves this responsibility because he was way out of line by stalking and running after this kid who had done nothing wrong and because he chased this kid without even explaining why he was doing so. If Martin did indeed start the fight, than Martin deserves some of the blame, also but 1.) Martin doesn't deserve all of the blame when he tried running from the scene, and 2.) Martin has already been punished. Zimmerman hasn't been punished for his role. So yes, i'm judging Zimmerman guilty, not of what he's being charged with, but with the lesser crime of manslaughter, but still, I'm judging him guilty. You're free to judge every action he took as justified. Your free to assume that any teenager walking through a neighborhood is a criminal and that Zimmerman, as a good citizen, had every right to disregard the advice of law enforcement and take matters into his own hands. And you're free to judge that Zimmerman shouldn't be held responsible whether disregarding the advice of law enforcement and taking the law into his own hands leads to the arrest of a thief, or in this case, the death of a kid walking home.
Your second paragraph is another baseless assumption. We don't know what words were exchanged between them. No one knows it Zimmerman identified himself; completely baseless. According to Zimmerman this happened:
Zimmerman said that Martin asked, "You got a fucking problem, homie?" Zimmerman replied no, and then Martin said that he did now, and punched him.
Were you somehow at the scene and this allows you to know that Zimmerman refused to identify himself? Again you have to go by Zimmerman's testimony. It's ridiculous.
Once again I'm going to state that a 911 dispatcher isn't the "law" they have absolutely no authority. They can make recommendations but you are under no legal obligation to listen to them or follow their instructions. They are not police. Why do people keep using this as an excuse to prove that Zimmerman was in the wrong.
Ultimately it doesn't matter if Zimmerman was following him or not. If you follow someone it doesn't allow them to attack you (and in Zimmerman's case he was attacked viciously). What the prosecution has to do is prove that Zimmerman had malicious intent which isn't going to be easy by any means. You also can't forget that by Zimmerman's account Trayvon confronted him.
On June 01 2013 04:44 Zaqwe wrote: It's important to note that Trayvon had gotten away but decided to double back and ambush Zimmerman.
Well there is everyone. Zaqwe has proven Zimmerman was attacked. Trayvon deserved to die.
Just to humor Zaqwe, I wonder what pieces of direct evidence out there prove definitively that Martin actually had calculated a plan to ambush and assault Zimmerman?
This whole time I was under the impression that this case was sort of unclear due to there being a lack of witnesses and other direct pieces of evidence. Maybe he is suggesting that whatever the sole witness to the initial confrontation (Zimmerman) suggests happened must be true. Unfortunately, however, because he is the one being charged here I don't think his claim that he was "ambushed" is sufficient proof.
I think if Trayvon got away then it just muddles up more confusion as to wether or not he willingly decided to confront zimmerman after "getting away"
You and Quexana sound like you've already branded Zimmerman as guilty. Both of you are making speculations without any proof. It's downright ridiculous at times. It's nice to remain objective in cases such as this and have an actual discussion about it. But you two are throwing around accusations with almost every post.
He is guilty. He did kill Martin, didn't he?
Zimmerman stalked a teenager, then chased him through a neighborhood after he ran away and when confronted by said teenager refused to either identify himself or offer an explanation as to why he was chasing this kid in the dark.
I think that whatever happened after this point, Zimmerman bears some of the responsibility. He deserves this responsibility because he was way out of line by stalking and running after this kid who had done nothing wrong and because he chased this kid without even explaining why he was doing so. If Martin did indeed start the fight, than Martin deserves some of the blame, also but 1.) Martin doesn't deserve all of the blame when he tried running from the scene, and 2.) Martin has already been punished. Zimmerman hasn't been punished for his role. So yes, i'm judging Zimmerman guilty, not of what he's being charged with, but with the lesser crime of manslaughter, but still, I'm judging him guilty. You're free to judge every action he took as justified. Your free to assume that any teenager walking through a neighborhood is a criminal and that Zimmerman, as a good citizen, had every right to disregard the advice of law enforcement and take matters into his own hands. And you're free to judge that Zimmerman shouldn't be held responsible whether disregarding the advice of law enforcement and taking the law into his own hands leads to the arrest of a thief, or in this case, the death of a kid walking home.
Your second paragraph is another baseless assumption. We don't know what words were exchanged between them. No one knows it Zimmerman identified himself; completely baseless. According to Zimmerman this happened:
Zimmerman said that Martin asked, "You got a fucking problem, homie?" Zimmerman replied no, and then Martin said that he did now, and punched him.
Were you somehow at the scene and this allows you to know that Zimmerman refused to identify himself? Again you have to go by Zimmerman's testimony. It's ridiculous.
Once again I'm going to state that a 911 dispatcher isn't the "law" they have absolutely no authority. They can make recommendations but you are under no legal obligation to listen to them or follow their instructions. They are not police. Why do people keep using this as an excuse to prove that Zimmerman was in the wrong.
Ultimately it doesn't matter if Zimmerman was following him or not. If you follow someone it doesn't allow them to attack you (and in Zimmerman's case he was attacked viciously). What the prosecution has to do is prove that Zimmerman had malicious intent which isn't going to be easy by any means. You also can't forget that by Zimmerman's account Trayvon confronted him.
According to Wiki:
She then heard Martin say, "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding, "What are you doing around here?" She said that she heard the sound of pushing before the phone went dead. She immediately attempted to call him back, but was unable to reach him.
During her interview with the prosecutor, Martin's friend recounted her last phone call with Martin and added that Martin had described the man as "crazy and creepy," watching him from a vehicle while the man was talking on the phone.[167] Martin's friend told prosecutors that she heard words like "get off, get off," right before she lost contact with Martin
The girl relayed the conversation in an interview with a lawyer:
He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man...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.
Trayvon said, 'What, are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again and he didn't answer the phone.
Your second paragraph is another baseless assumption. We don't know what words were exchanged between them. No one knows it Zimmerman identified himself; completely baseless. According to Zimmerman this happened:
Zimmerman said that Martin asked, "You got a fucking problem, homie?" Zimmerman replied no, and then Martin said that he did now, and punched him.
Were you somehow at the scene and this allows you to know that Zimmerman refused to identify himself? Again you have to go by Zimmerman's testimony. It's ridiculous.
Once again I'm going to state that a 911 dispatcher isn't the "law" they have absolutely no authority. They can make recommendations but you are under no legal obligation to listen to them or follow their instructions. They are not police. Why do people keep using this as an excuse to prove that Zimmerman was in the wrong.
Ultimately it doesn't matter if Zimmerman was following him or not. If you follow someone it doesn't allow them to attack you (and in Zimmerman's case he was attacked viciously). What the prosecution has to do is prove that Zimmerman had malicious intent which isn't going to be easy by any means. You also can't forget that by Zimmerman's account Trayvon confronted him.
According to Zimmerman's written statement to police, Martin asked Zimmerman "you got a problem?" and Zimmerman said "No", that was not the time for Zimmerman to say "No" It was the time for him to say "Yes, I'm in the community watch" or "Yes, I'm a neighbor concerned with crime" or to ask "Hey buddy, what's the hurry", or "Hi, I'm George, what's your name?" You can find the statement Zimmerman wrote for the police here. In the interview with police he says Martin said "You got a fuckin problem, homie?" It's here, In neither case did he say that he identified himself, so I'm going to assume he didn't. Other parts of his story have been changed between the police interviews and written statements and what he's said to the media, which you can see here, such as whether Martin was looking at houses, or looking into homes, where Martin came from, how long after hanging up with dispatch did the confrontation occur, whether he kept pursuing Martin after he hung up with dispatch or whether he started heading back to the car immediately after hanging up with dispatch, but in no version of Zimmerman's tale, has he once claimed to identify himself or explain why he was following the teen. That's why I say he refused to identify himself. Here's a news article in which the lead investigator on the case is quoted as saying that Zimmerman had at least two opportunities to diffuse the situation by identifying himself, but he didn't do it. So please tell me how my assumption that Zimmerman refused to identify himself is "baseless"
Seriously, at least click on this link here. Watch Zimmerman changing his story as he goes along. Uh I was standing here, no wait, I was over here then I fell 10 feet that way, no wait, I was laying here when he jumped on me. It's Priceless.
On June 01 2013 07:55 Quexana wrote: Seriously, at least click on this link here. Watch Zimmerman changing his story as he goes along. Uh I was standing here, no wait, I was over here then I fell 10 feet that way, no wait, I was laying here when he jumped on me. It's Priceless.
The guy had the back of his head cracked open and his nose busted up. I'm pretty sure that constitutes some reasonable memory loss.
On June 01 2013 07:55 Quexana wrote: Seriously, at least click on this link here. Watch Zimmerman changing his story as he goes along. Uh I was standing here, no wait, I was over here then I fell 10 feet that way, no wait, I was laying here when he jumped on me. It's Priceless.
The guy had the back of his head cracked open and his nose busted up. I'm pretty sure that constitutes some reasonable memory loss.
'Cracked open' so bad that he didn't require stitches.
On June 01 2013 07:55 Quexana wrote: Seriously, at least click on this link here. Watch Zimmerman changing his story as he goes along. Uh I was standing here, no wait, I was over here then I fell 10 feet that way, no wait, I was laying here when he jumped on me. It's Priceless.
The guy had the back of his head cracked open and his nose busted up. I'm pretty sure that constitutes some reasonable memory loss.
Investigation indicates the injury to the head was not severe at not, not enough for a diagnosis of cognitive or any significant mental disturbance.
On June 01 2013 07:55 Quexana wrote: Seriously, at least click on this link here. Watch Zimmerman changing his story as he goes along. Uh I was standing here, no wait, I was over here then I fell 10 feet that way, no wait, I was laying here when he jumped on me. It's Priceless.
The guy had the back of his head cracked open and his nose busted up. I'm pretty sure that constitutes some reasonable memory loss.
Investigation indicates the injury to the head was not severe at not, not enough for a diagnosis of cognitive or any significant mental disturbance.
This evidence to me says manslaughter. He shouldn't be in fear for his life at any point from what i can tell from the evidence i have seen. Zimmerman got a mild beating for less than a minute and then he shot the kid.
On June 01 2013 07:55 Quexana wrote: Seriously, at least click on this link here. Watch Zimmerman changing his story as he goes along. Uh I was standing here, no wait, I was over here then I fell 10 feet that way, no wait, I was laying here when he jumped on me. It's Priceless.
The guy had the back of his head cracked open and his nose busted up. I'm pretty sure that constitutes some reasonable memory loss.
Investigation indicates the injury to the head was not severe at not, not enough for a diagnosis of cognitive or any significant mental disturbance.
This evidence to me says manslaughter. He shouldn't be in fear for his life at any point from what i can tell from the evidence i have seen. Zimmerman got a mild beating for less than a minute and then he shot the kid.
You wouldn't fear for your life if you are on the ground and there is someone on top of you repeatedly smashing your face in? I dont know about you but I would be pretty freaking scared.
On June 01 2013 07:55 Quexana wrote: Seriously, at least click on this link here. Watch Zimmerman changing his story as he goes along. Uh I was standing here, no wait, I was over here then I fell 10 feet that way, no wait, I was laying here when he jumped on me. It's Priceless.
The guy had the back of his head cracked open and his nose busted up. I'm pretty sure that constitutes some reasonable memory loss.
Investigation indicates the injury to the head was not severe at not, not enough for a diagnosis of cognitive or any significant mental disturbance.
This evidence to me says manslaughter. He shouldn't be in fear for his life at any point from what i can tell from the evidence i have seen. Zimmerman got a mild beating for less than a minute and then he shot the kid.
You wouldn't fear for your life if you are on the ground and there is someone on top of you repeatedly smashing your face in? I dont know about you but I would be pretty freaking scared.
Scared? probably. Fear that I would die? probably not. Maybe if he was a a big guy. But Martin is not that big at all.
On June 01 2013 07:55 Quexana wrote: Seriously, at least click on this link here. Watch Zimmerman changing his story as he goes along. Uh I was standing here, no wait, I was over here then I fell 10 feet that way, no wait, I was laying here when he jumped on me. It's Priceless.
The guy had the back of his head cracked open and his nose busted up. I'm pretty sure that constitutes some reasonable memory loss.
Investigation indicates the injury to the head was not severe at not, not enough for a diagnosis of cognitive or any significant mental disturbance.
This evidence to me says manslaughter. He shouldn't be in fear for his life at any point from what i can tell from the evidence i have seen. Zimmerman got a mild beating for less than a minute and then he shot the kid.
You wouldn't fear for your life if you are on the ground and there is someone on top of you repeatedly smashing your face in? I dont know about you but I would be pretty freaking scared.
Scared? probably. Fear that I would die? probably not. Maybe if he was a a big guy. But Martin is not that big at all.
Well I think you'd change your mind if you were actually in that situation, but thankfully its not left up to us to decide whether or not its reasonable to believe he feared for his life.
EPT
