EPTShooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 63
| Forum Index > General Forum |
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. | ||
|
Freepianos
United States1 Post
| ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On May 22 2012 05:07 Freepianos wrote: Florida is my home state, and I will be the first to admit that the gun laws here are in need of drastic reformation. Under the "stand your ground" law it is legal to use lethal force when your life is threatened and this now encompasses not only your home but other public locations as well. Ironically if Zimmerman just pulled his gun out to scare Trayvon he would receive a minimum of three years in jail, however because he shot in alleged self-defense he can be defended under the "stand your ground" clause. So what, you think if he did shoot in self defense he should be charged anyways...? | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On May 22 2012 02:58 Silvertine wrote: THC stays in the system for quite a while, there's no evidence that he was actually high at the time. Also, the idea that somebody could tell you were high on cannabis simply by the way you were walking down a street is extremely unlikely. It's not acid, you would have to be extraordinarily high to appear physically impaired on herb. And if you were that high it would put you at an enormous disadvantage in a fight. So the idea that it supports Zimmerman's case is pretty silly. zimmerman said on the police call that he thought the kid was on drugs. a doctor will say that there were traces of drugs in his system. for a jury, this is supporting evidence. if you dont think so, that is fine. but when you add up all the supporting evidence to zimmerman's story, it becomes a compelling defense. this is just a single boulder in what will become an avalanche. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On May 22 2012 05:07 Freepianos wrote: Florida is my home state, and I will be the first to admit that the gun laws here are in need of drastic reformation. Under the "stand your ground" law it is legal to use lethal force when your life is threatened and this now encompasses not only your home but other public locations as well. Ironically if Zimmerman just pulled his gun out to scare Trayvon he would receive a minimum of three years in jail, however because he shot in alleged self-defense he can be defended under the "stand your ground" clause. i would hope that you would try to understand your own laws before you try to explain them to others. self defense allows you to use lethal force anywhere in the United States, not just Florida--assuming the requirements of self defense are met. the only thing SYG changes is whether you have a duty to retreat first. in your home (in all states I believe), you never have a duty to retreat (the so-called castle doctrine). in public, in most states, you have a duty to retreat before you use lethal force, but not under the SYG. regardless, SYG's duty to retreat in this case is likely inapplicable given the "facts known" to date. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
On May 23 2012 03:11 dAPhREAk wrote: zimmerman said on the police call that he thought the kid was on drugs. a doctor will say that there were traces of drugs in his system. for a jury, this is supporting evidence. if you dont think so, that is fine. but when you add up all the supporting evidence to zimmerman's story, it becomes a compelling defense. this is just a single boulder in what will become an avalanche. If a doctor testifies verbatim that "there were traces of drugs in his system" and the prosecution fails to make clear what such a paltry declaration as this entails, then they even stupider than I first thought. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On May 23 2012 03:31 farvacola wrote: If a doctor testifies verbatim that "there were traces of drugs in his system" and the prosecution fails to make clear what such a paltry declaration as this entails, then they even stupider than I first thought. well, there are considerations given to how much time you spend on evidence. the fact that trayvon has drugs in his system is a bad fact for the prosecutor. it makes the victim unlikeable to the average juror. so, as a prosecutor, are you going to dwell on the evidence of his drug use for longer than necessary by going through extended questioning? or are you going to gloss over this "trivial" fact? i am sure the defense attorney is going to want to dwell on this fact because attacking the victim in self defense cases is a brilliant strategy. at the end of the day, if a lot of focus and dispute (i guarantee the defense will have his own experts to counter anything the prosecutor's experts say) is spent on this fact then it is a no-win situation for the prosecutor. people like to focus on "science." thus, the extended discussion over the last few pages of marijuana. you guys need to realize that drug use is not accepted in mainstream society (although this has changed over the last few decades). telling a jury that "yeah he is a drug user, but its not that bad" is not a good trial strategy. average jurors have misconceptions about drugs and the defense will use that to its advantage. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18818 Posts
On May 23 2012 03:39 dAPhREAk wrote: well, there are considerations given to how much time you spend on evidence. the fact that trayvon has drugs in his system is a bad fact for the prosecutor. it makes the victim unlikeable to the average juror. so, as a prosecutor, are you going to dwell on the evidence of his drug use for longer than necessary by going through extended questioning? or are you going to gloss over this "trivial" fact? i am sure the defense attorney is going to want to dwell on this fact because attacking the victim in self defense cases is a brilliant strategy. at the end of the day, if a lot of focus and dispute (i guarantee the defense will have his own experts to counter anything the prosecutor's experts say) is spent on this fact then it is a no-win situation for the prosecutor. people like to focus on "science." thus, the extended discussion over the last few pages of marijuana. you guys need to realize that drug use is not accepted in mainstream society (although this has changed over the last few decades). telling a jury that "yeah he is a drug user, but its not that bad" is not a good trial strategy. average jurors have misconceptions about drugs and the defense will use that to its advantage. Don't get me wrong, for the prosecution to dwell on Trayvon's drug use is to indict his character further, all I'm suggesting is that the prosecution can and should implement some short and sweet cross that makes it clear that "traces" are just that, a tiny indicator of a behavior that provides little to no evidence that Trayvon was visibily impaired. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On May 23 2012 03:48 farvacola wrote: Don't get me wrong, for the prosecution to dwell on Trayvon's drug use is to indict his character further, all I'm suggesting is that the prosecution can and should implement some short and sweet cross that makes it clear that "traces" are just that, a tiny indicator of a behavior that provides little to no evidence that Trayvon was visibily impaired. i don't disagree. the prosecution has to deal with it. just wanted to point out some countervailing circumstances for not focusing on it. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
The stack of evidence released Thursday in the second-degree murder case against George Zimmerman is notable, legal experts say, for what’s not in it: firm evidence that Zimmerman acted with malice when he shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. Special prosecutor Angela Corey filed a second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman last month, alleging that Zimmerman, a neighborhood crime-watch volunteer, acted with ill will when he shot Martin, a black teen, following a Feb. 26 scuffle behind some townhouses in a gated community in Sanford, where Martin was staying with his father. But analysts say the evidence released so far contains little information to support the prosecutor’s contention that Zimmerman acted with a “depraved mind” when he shot Trayvon — a standard the prosecution must meet if the murder charge is to stand. “I still don’t see any evidence yet of the elements of second-degree murder,” said Miami defense attorney John Priovolos, a former prosecutor. The special prosecutor “has to prove ill will, hatred or spite. I don’t see any evidence of his state of mind,” he said. The new evidence also includes photos of injuries to Zimmerman that could bolster his self-defense claims, and statements from witnesses that appear to contradict some key conclusions made by investigators in an affidavit supporting Zimmerman’s arrest. ‘SUSPICIOUS GUY’ The new information “tends to support what Zimmerman is saying, that he was being assaulted,” said former Miami-Dade prosecutor David Waksman. “This case was never a second-degree murder case,” said longtime Miami defense lawyer Jeffrey Weiner. “If anything, it was an overreaction in a self-defense situation.” Zimmerman was monitoring his neighborhood on a rainy evening when he first noticed Trayvon walking behind a row of homes on his way to his father’s apartment. Zimmerman called the police to report a “suspicious guy” — the kind of complaint Zimmerman made routinely in his role as neighborhood watchman. A dispatcher advised Zimmerman not to follow Trayvon. Prosecutors believe Zimmerman did follow anyway. At some point, the pair struggled, and Zimmerman shot the unarmed teen from close range. Several witnesses in the community said they heard sounds of a struggle and cries for help. But no witnesses could provide evidence showing whether it was Zimmerman or Martin who started the altercation. Prosecutors have described Zimmerman as a frustrated and overzealous watchman who “falsely assumed” that Martin was a criminal prowling his neighborhood. “These a—holes, they always get away,” Zimmerman complained to the police dispatcher. An unnamed girl, described by Trayvon’s family as his girlfriend, told investigators she was on the phone with Trayvon in the moments before the shooting, when Trayvon told her he was being followed by a man while on his way home. Her statement suggested that Trayvon was first attacked by Zimmerman. “He said the guy was getting real close to him. Next thing I hear, ‘Why are you following me for?’ And I hear this man: ‘What are you doing around here?’” the girl told prosecutors. The girl said she could then hear somebody “bump” Trayvon before hearing Trayvon say: “Get off, get off.” Then the phone went dead. A witness in the neighborhood told police she saw one man running after another before the fight ensued, but the witness “couldn’t tell who was in front or who was behind,” the new records show. Prosecutors have suggested it was Zimmerman chasing Trayvon. BLOODY SCRAPES Zimmerman, however, has said it was Trayvon who first attacked him — and that he shot Trayvon in self-defense after Trayvon smacked his head repeatedly on the pavement. During a bail hearing last month, Dale Gilbreath, an investigator for the prosecution, said he had no evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s description of the fight. Prosecutors on Thursday released photographs of bloody scrapes on Zimmerman’s head, and police reports mentioning medical records that showed he had a fractured nose following the altercation.“If there were no injuries, Zimmerman would have a very different case,” Weiner said. The evidence of injuries could be pivotal if Zimmerman seeks to have the charges dismissed under Florida’s controversial “Stand Your Ground” law. Under the law, a person may not be prosecuted for using deadly force if the person “reasonably believes” they are in life-threatening danger. A judge must review a Stand Your Ground defense before trial, and the case must be dismissed if the evidence shows it is more likely than not that the person was acting in self-defense — a lower standard of evidence than the one prosecutors must meet to get a conviction. Even if Zimmerman’s conduct sparked the confrontation, he could still be protected under Stand Your Ground if he did not strike the first blow, experts say. “Whether he started it or Trayvon started it, we don’t know,” Weiner said. “There’s a real chance the case will be tossed out.” Even if the case is not dismissed, at trial Zimmerman can invoke Stand Your Ground along with a traditional self-defense claim. Other evidence released Thursday appeared to cast doubt on assertions in the arrest affidavit prepared by investigators and prosecutors. The arrest report notes that Martin’s mother identified her son as the voice heard crying for help in the background of 911 calls. But Martin’s father reviewed the recordings with police and said the voice was not his son’s, the new records show. An FBI analysis of the recordings could not identify who was crying for help. Weiner said the special prosecutor “clearly overcharged” by pursuing a murder charge against Zimmerman instead of a lesser charge of manslaughter. The lead detective in the case originally thought that Zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter, the records show. “That’s going to be, in some ways, the defense’s best witness,” Priovolos said. http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/19/2806555/evidence-against-zimmerman-lacking.html | ||
|
mooseman1710
United States153 Posts
| ||
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On May 23 2012 04:03 mooseman1710 wrote: Do any of you know how much the 2 parties have to pay in legal fees? prosecutor is paid by government so just their normal salary. investigation is done by police, so also their normal salary. expert witnesses will be paid by government. taxpayer money! defense attorney said he is doing it for free--pro bono. this may have changed recently because of the donations. we will likely never know how much he receives. also, litigation costs will probably be borne by zimmerman. in a murder case, this could reach six figures easily (private investigator, witness interviews, court costs, expert costs, etc.). | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
Zimmerman, however, has said it was Trayvon who first attacked him — and that he shot Trayvon in self-defense after Trayvon smacked his head repeatedly on the pavement. During a bail hearing last month, Dale Gilbreath, an investigator for the prosecution, said he had no evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s description of the fight. A judge must review a Stand Your Ground defense before trial, and the case must be dismissed if the evidence shows it is more likely than not that the person was acting in self-defense — a lower standard of evidence than the one prosecutors must meet to get a conviction. Even if Zimmerman’s conduct sparked the confrontation, he could still be protected under Stand Your Ground if he did not strike the first blow, experts say. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Also, I'm not very well-versed in the entire "smacking one's head into a curb" and "going for my gun thing", but uhh, if Martin were that strong and bashing Zimmerman's head into the ground repeatedly (key word is repeatedly), wouldn't it be a little hard to go for his gun? He'd be pretty disoriented by then I think. I used to do some martial arts, and I know getting flipped and slammed onto the ground (even if its a foam mat and your sparring partner is NOT trying to really hurt you), can get you (me) pretty disoriented. Some pronoun confusion there, but you get my point. I'm not tough or buff, but that's my relevant getting head slammed into the ground experience. Also, if I understand correctly, Martin was shot at mid-range, not point blank. Furthermore, there was no gun powder on his hands (or his body? I'm not so sure about the latter) which supports that. If this is true, then basically Martin must have been at least a couple feet away from Zimmerman at the time, meaning he was going to leave the scene (and that Zimmerman was probably no longer in danger), Zimmerman somehow got him off, or was going for some ridiculous wrestling KO move. | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
On May 23 2012 03:39 dAPhREAk wrote: well, there are considerations given to how much time you spend on evidence. the fact that trayvon has drugs in his system is a bad fact for the prosecutor. it makes the victim unlikeable to the average juror. so, as a prosecutor, are you going to dwell on the evidence of his drug use for longer than necessary by going through extended questioning? or are you going to gloss over this "trivial" fact? i am sure the defense attorney is going to want to dwell on this fact because attacking the victim in self defense cases is a brilliant strategy. at the end of the day, if a lot of focus and dispute (i guarantee the defense will have his own experts to counter anything the prosecutor's experts say) is spent on this fact then it is a no-win situation for the prosecutor. people like to focus on "science." thus, the extended discussion over the last few pages of marijuana. you guys need to realize that drug use is not accepted in mainstream society (although this has changed over the last few decades). telling a jury that "yeah he is a drug user, but its not that bad" is not a good trial strategy. average jurors have misconceptions about drugs and the defense will use that to its advantage. I don't know, I think the argument can be disputed rather quickly without too much focus being put on it. http://articles.boston.com/2012-05-18/nation/31749771_1_autopsy-report-fatal-shot-paramedic Martin’s autopsy indicated that medical examiners found THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, when they tested Martin’s blood and urine. The amount described in the autopsy report is such a low level that it would have played no role in Martin’s behavior, said Larry Kobilinsky, a professor of forensic science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. ‘‘This kind of level can be seen days after somebody smokes,’’ Kobilinsky said. ‘‘If it comes up in the case, I would be surprised. It wouldn’t benefit the defense, it wouldn’t benefit the prosecution, and if the defense tried to bring it up, the judge would keep it out.’’ | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
| ||
|
JitnikoVi
Russian Federation396 Posts
On May 23 2012 09:21 ticklishmusic wrote: Also, if I understand correctly, Martin was shot at mid-range, not point blank.. you understood incorrectly, it was stated in several reports and im pretty sure in this thread as well that he was shot right near point blank range at around 6-18inches away from martin ( might be slightly off, but its definitely around there) | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
On May 23 2012 23:41 JitnikoVi wrote: you understood incorrectly, it was stated in several reports and im pretty sure in this thread as well that he was shot right near point blank range at around 6-18inches away from martin ( might be slightly off, but its definitely around there) From what I've read he was shot at a 8 inches to 3.5 feet range, which is defined as "intermediate" but not inconsistent with Zimmerman's story. | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
The timeline of events: + Show Spoiler + 7:09:34 PM – Zimmerman's call to Sanford police begins 7:12:00 - 7:12:59 PM – Trayvon's girlfriend calls him 7:11:33 PM George Zimmerman states that Trayon Martin is running 7:11:59 PM George Zimmerman states that he (left his car and) is following Trayvon Martin 7:12:00 PM Sanford Police Dispatcher states you do not need to do that 7:12:02 PM George Zimmerman says OK (stops following Trayvon Martin) 7:13:10 PM George Zimmerman states he cannot see, does not know where Trayvon Martin is located 7:13:41 PM Zimmerman's call to Sanford police ends [The missing minutes] 7:16:00 - 7:16:59 PM Trayvon call to girlfriend goes dead 7:16:00 PM First calls from witness about a fight [at location of body] 7:16:55 PM Shot Fired [at location of body] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Timeline_of_events Trayvon's girlfriend describes the events: + Show Spoiler + PROSECUTOR: I want to focus on that day, February 26, when you know obviously he was unfortunately killed, and I’m sorry to ask you about this. But did you have conversations with him that day? GIRLFRIEND: Yes. PROSECUTOR: At some point did you find out that Trayvon was going to the store? GIRLFRIEND: Around 6 something. PROSECUTOR: OK, and did he tell you what store he was going to? GIRLFRIEND: No. He just said [inaudible] store. PROSECUTOR: OK, did he say why he was going to the store? GIRLFRIEND: Yes. PROSECUTOR: What did he say he was going to the store for? GIRLFRIEND: Yeah, his little brother. Some food and some drink. PROSECUTOR: OK, yeah, tell me what happened as he’s talking to you when he’s leaving the store on his way back home. GIRLFRIEND: It started raining. PROSECUTOR: It started raining, and did he go somewhere? GIRLFRIEND: Yeah, he ran to the, um, mail thing. PROSECUTOR: I’m sorry what? GIRLFRIEND: Like a mail, like a shed. PROSECUTOR: Like a mail area, like a covered area, because it was raining? So did he tell you he was already inside, like, the gated place? GIRLFRIEND: Yeah. He ran. That’s when the phone hung up. PROSECUTOR: I’m sorry? GIRLFRIEND: The phone hung up and I called him back again. PROSECUTOR: And what else did Trayvon tell you? GIRLFRIEND: And like—- PROSECUTOR: And I know this is difficult for you but just take your time and tell us what you remember happened. GIRLFRIEND: A couple minutes later, like, he come and tell me this man is watching him. PROSECUTOR: OK, did he describe the man that was watching him? GIRLFRIEND: Yeah, he said white. PROSECUTOR: OK, did he say whether the man was standing, sitting…? GIRLFRIEND: He was in a car. PROSECUTOR: He was in a car? And what did he say about the man who was watching—- GIRLFRIEND: He was on the phone. PROSECUTOR: He was on the phone? OK, and what did Trayvon say after that? GIRLFRIEND: He was telling me that this man was watching him, so he, like, started walking. PROSECUTOR: He, Trayvon, started walking? GIRLFRIEND: He gonna start walking. And then the phone hung up and then I called him back again. And then, I said, 'What are you doing?' He said he’s walking, and he said this man is still following him, behind the car. He put his hoodie on. PROSECUTOR: He, Trayvon, put his hoodie on? GIRLFRIEND: Yeah, 'cause, he said, it was still a little bit dripping water so he put his hoodie on. So I said, ’What's going on?’ He said, this man is still watching from a car. So he about to run from the back. I told him, go to his dad’s house. Run to his dad’s house. PROSECUTOR: Go to what? GIRLFRIEND: Run to his dad’s house. PROSECUTOR: To his dad’s house? GIRLFRIEND: Yeah. So he said he was about to run from the back, so the next that I hear, he just run. I can hear that the wind blowing. PROSECUTOR: So you could tell he was running at that time? OK. And then what happened? GIRLFRIEND: Then he said, he lost him. PROSECUTOR: He lost what, the man? GIRLFRIEND: Yeah. PROSECUTOR: So was Trayvon, at that time, you could tell he was, like, out of breath, like excited? GIRLFRIEND: Yeah. PROSECUTOR: OK. Take your time, I know this is difficult for you. GIRLFRIEND: So he lost him. He was breathing hard. And by the sound of his voice, his voice kind of changed. PROSECUTOR: Who, Trayvon’s? GIRLFRIEND: Yeah. PROSECUTOR: OK. What do you mean by that? His voice changed? GIRLFRIEND: [inaudible] PROSECUTOR: I’m sorry? GIRLFRIEND: I know he was scared. PROSECUTOR: I know what you are trying to tell me but if you could describe to me how you could tell he was scared. GIRLFRIEND: His voice was getting kind of low. PROSECUTOR: So you could tell he was emotional, like somebody who was in fear? GIRLFRIEND: Yeah. PROSECUTOR: He was breathing hard? GIRLFRIEND: He said he had lost him and he was breathing hard and I told him 'Keep running.' PROSECUTOR: So Trayvon said he started walking because he thought he had lost the guy? GIRLFRIEND: Yeah. PROSECUTOR: OK. GIRLFRIEND: I said, 'Keep running.' He said he ain’t gonna run. 'Cause he said he is right by his father's house. [The missing minutes] And then in a couple minutes he said the man is following him again. He’s behind him. I said, 'Run!' He said he was not going to run. I knew he was not going to run because he was out of breath. And then he was getting excited, the guy’s getting close to him. I told him, 'Run!' And I told him, 'Keep running!' He not going to run. I tell him, 'Why are you not running?' He said ’I’m not gonna.’ He was tired. I know he was tired. PROSECUTOR: I am sorry, Trayvon said he was not running because—-he’s not going to run he said because you could tell he was tired? How could you tell he was tired? GIRLFRIEND: He was breathing hard. PROSECUTOR: Real hard? GIRLFRIEND: Real hard. And then he told me this guy was getting close! He told me the guy was getting real close to him. And the next I hear is, 'Why are you following me for?' PROSECUTOR: OK. Let me make sure I understand this so, Trayvon tells you the guy is getting closer to him and then you hear Trayvon saying something. GIRLFRIEND: Yeah. PROSECUTOR: And what do you hear Trayvon saying? GIRLFRIEND: 'Why are you following me for?' PROSECUTOR: 'Why are you following me for?' GIRLFRIEND: Yeah. PROSECUTOR: And then what happened? GIRLFRIEND: I heard this man, like an old man say, 'What are you doing around here?' PROSECUTOR: OK, so you definitely could tell another voice that was not Trayvon and you heard this other voice say what? GIRLFRIEND: 'What are you doing around here?' PROSECUTOR: 'What are you doing around here?' OK. GIRLFRIEND: And I call Trayvon, 'Trayon, what's going on? What’s going on?’ PROSECUTOR: This is you saying that? GIRLFRIEND: Yeah. Then, I am calling him and he didn’t answer. PROSECUTOR: No answer from Trayvon? GIRLFRIEND: Yeah. I hear some like 'bump.' You could hear someone had bumped Trayvon. I could hear the grass. PROSECUTOR: OK. So you could hear there was something going on, like something hitting something? GIRLFRIEND: Yeah. I could hear the grass thing. PROSECUTOR: Out of the…? GIRLFRIEND: Yeah. PROSECUTOR: OK, and then what happened? GIRLFRIEND: And then, I was still screaming, I was saying, 'Trayvon! Trayvon!' PROSECUTOR: And there was no response? GIRLFRIEND: Yeah and then the next thing the phone just shut off. PROSECUTOR: The phone shut off? GIRLFRIEND: It just shut off. http://www.democracynow.org/2012/5/18/i_know_he_was_scared_trayvon#transcript The theory: This theory is based on Trayvon's father's (Tracy) description of events, based on Zimmerman's account and explained to him by lead investigator Chris Serino. Before you accuse him of being biased, consider that 1) it does not in any way unilaterally support Trayvon, 2) Tracy is the same man saying he's convinced it was NOT his son screaming at the night of the shooting and 3) it's the only account available making sense with the timeline. The bolded part of the text bellow is what Tracy claims happened during the missing minutes. That is, this is what happens AFTER the end Zimmerman's well known 911 call. It implies Zimmerman followed/chased two times. Tracy's description of events: + Show Spoiler + Sanford police have stopped talking to reporters about the case, and Serino has never spoken publicly about his role in it, but here is how Martin recalls what Serino said: "He told me Zimmerman's story was that Zimmerman was of course following him and that Trayvon approached his vehicle, walked up to the car and asked Zimmerman, ‘Why are your following me?' Zimmerman then rolls his car windows down, tells Trayvon ‘I'm not following you.' He rolls his car windows up. "Trayvon walks off. Zimmerman said he started running between the buildings. Zimmerman gets out of his car. He comes around the building. Trayvon is hiding behind the building, waiting on him. Trayvon approaches him and says, ‘What's your problem, homes?' Zimmerman says ‘I don't have a problem.' "Zimmerman starts to reach into his pocket to get his cellphone, and at that point Trayvon attacked him. He says Trayvon hits him. He falls on the ground. Trayvon jumps on top of him, takes his left hand and covers Zimmerman's mouth and tells him to shut the F up and continues to pound on him. "At that point Zimmerman is able to unholster his weapon and fire a shot, striking Trayvon in the chest. Trayvon falls on his back and says, 'You got me.'" The Martin family has been telling their story as part of a campaign to have Zimmerman arrested. He himself has kept quiet. Sanford police have declined numerous requests for comment on any aspect of the story, even before a special prosecutor overseeing the case invoked a state law that restricts otherwise public information in the course of an active criminal investigation. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-usa-florida-shooting-trayvon-idUSBRE8320UK20120403 So this would mean that after Zimmerman's 911 call, at the end of which he lost Trayvon, he returned to his car likely to wait for the police to arrive. Trayvon doubled back to approach Zimmerman while he's in his car and ask him if he had a problem, Zimmerman says no. When Trayvon leaves, Zimmerman starts following him again. What went down afterwards the theory doesn't attempt to explain. Implications: 1. After having lost Zimmerman, Trayvon doubled back to confront him at his car asking if he had a problem. This would imply it's unlikely Trayvon was really that scared, at least up until moments before their final confrontation. 2. On the other hand, this gave Zimmerman a great opportunity to present himself as the community watch and ask Trayvon where he was heading. Zimmerman didn't take this opportunity but instead choose to follow Trayvon for a second time. A more detailed explanation and analysis of the theory: Wagist - The Missing 2:30 & DeeDee’s Testimony | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
Four witnesses in the Trayvon Martin case have changed their stories, some "in ways that may damage" George Zimmerman, the Orlando Sentinel reports. According to records released last week in the second-degree murder case, the witnesses—all of them neighbors—were interviewed multiple times by police and special prosecutors about what they saw on Feb. 26, the night Zimmerman fatally shot Martin in Sanford, Fla. Four days after the shooting, one woman told police she "saw two guys running" and then "a fistfight. Just fists. I don't know who was hitting who." But on March 20, she told investigators she saw just one person. "I couldn't tell you if it was a man, a woman, a kid, black or white," the woman, "Witness 2," said. "I couldn't tell you because it was dark and because I didn't have my contacts on or glasses. I just know I saw a person out there." Another witness, who was initially interviewed on March 20, said she saw two people on the ground immediately after the shooting but was not sure who was on top. But in another interview with investigators six days later, the paper reported, she was sure: It was Zimmerman on top. "I know after seeing the TV of what's happening, comparing their sizes, I think Zimmerman was definitely on top because of his size," the woman, "Witness 12," said. A third witness, "Witness 6," told police on the night of the shooting that he saw a black man on top of a lighter-skinned man "just throwing down blows on the guy, MMA-style." He said the lighter-skinned man was calling for help. Interviewed later by investigators, he said he was not sure who was calling for help, and was not sure any punches were thrown. A fourth witness also interviewed on the night of the shooting said he heard the shooting, ran outside, and saw Zimmerman standing with "blood on the back of his head." According to "Witness 13," Zimmerman told him that Martin "was beating up on me, so I had to shoot him." A month later, the same witness described Zimmerman's demeanor: "[It was] not like 'I can't believe I just shot someone!' It was more like, 'Just tell my wife I shot somebody,' like it was nothing." http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/trayvon-martin-shooting-witnesses-change-stories-ahead-zimmerman-133743219.html | ||
| ||
