- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 10,033
- Reaction score
- 3,905
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
He says "OK" at 1:59 and this sound you claim is "wind noise" doesn't stop for another 12 seconds.Actually it isn't full of wind.
Martin was running away.
Zimmerman then began to follow.
The mic noise cued the operator's question, and then suggested that they didn't need him to do that.
Zimmerman replied with an "ok", and the mic noise went away.
I alleged at that point Zimmerman stopped following him as the operator suggested.
[*deleted - no evidence to support]
The mic noise going away [*] is consistent with his following the operators advice at that point in time, is it not?
You repeated many times that Zimmerman was getting kicked in the head. When challenged to back that up, you fled every single time.It's late and I know it can be difficult for some people to follow a thread for even 2 pages. I was responding to someone who said I have a "hard on" against the Criminal Justice System because of my opinion that most defendants should be imprisoned upon conviction, not as pre-trial punishment and pressure to plea guilty to get out.
As opposed to what your experience and knowledge is about the Criminal Justice System, which I suspect you get from watching detective and cop fictions on TV.
Do you ever stop lying?Accordingly to the 13 year old eye witness, the only one, Zimmerman was on the ground. The nature of the shot to the chest putting Martin over him.
As already stated.He says "OK" at 1:59 and this sound you claim is "wind noise" doesn't stop for another 12 seconds.
If you want that information for more accuracy then yes it should be part of the investigation. It is not needed to determine if the statements are consistent with known evidence.Regardless of that, the simple facts of physics remain. If a microphone is outdoors you can't use "wind noise" alone to determine the speed of the microphone unless you also have local wind speed and direction as well as mic orientation. We have none of that data.
Stop lying -- most on this thread are claiming Zimmerman getting out of his car and going after Martin is what made him the aggressor, not merely watching Martin.Most on this thread claim merely watching Martin was made Zimmerman the aggressor and all neighorhood watch people according are aggressors.
What crime did Zimmerman see Martin commit ?
Great, actual evidence for a change.Do you ever stop lying?
There was another eye witness ...
Dispatcher: "So, when you heard screaming, it was a male screaming?"
Caller: "Yes. And the guy on top had a white t-shirt."
Do you know what a "Right" is? Because what you said above is hyperbole.Zimmerman had no right to confront Martin at all and he had no right to escalate the situation. There is a very good possibility that Martin (even if he was a scumbag) would be alive today if Zimmerman had only discreetly waited for the police to arrive and not confronted Martin at all.
There is no difference in relative wind speed between a man walking 3 MPH with a wind speed of 0 MPH and a man standing still at 0 MPH with a wind speed of 3 MPH. In both cases the wind is moving past the man at 3 MPH. That is basic science that everyone should have learned in high school. :roll:If you want that information for more accuracy then yes it should be part of the investigation. It is not needed to determine if the statements are consistent with known evidence.
And so far as everybody can see, Zimmerman's statements are consistent with the known evidence.
I've been on this thread most of the day -- I haven't seen people claiming that neighborhood watch avtions are illegal aggression. I've seen people claim that Zimmerman going out of his way to accost this individual is inappropriate. Someone earlier posted up the internet site for neighborhood watch organizations -- says quite clearly that those involoved should be calling the police -- NOT intervening on their own.
Many of the posters who are up in arms about Zimmerman's actions are gun enthusiasts and vigorously defend gun ownership and right-to-carry. Just shows gun supporters aren't as partisan as Dems and Reps.
Seems to me a prime example of a situation that required a call to police and wait for their response. I've said it before; you risk EVERYTHING when you intervene in a situation like this.
Zimmerman had no right to confront Martin at all and he had no right to escalate the situation. There is a very good possibility that Martin (even if he was a scumbag) would be alive today if Zimmerman had only discreetly waited for the police to arrive and not confronted Martin at all.
I haven't seen any evidence in all this noise that Zimmerman every accosted Martin. Apparently Zimmerman followed him in his car. The only face to face - according to the girlfriend, was Martin's first words asking why Zimmerman was following him? Following is not accosting. Zimmerman, at the scene, said Martin rushed him. Maybe not, but no evidence Zimmerman accosted Martin.
The comment of anti-gun-rights, is you have no gun rights, at least not in public - if you can not use it UNLESS the person first has drawn a gun on you - and then it's irrelevant because you're dead, no? This also begins with MSNBC raging this case - that the assert facts mostly out of air or even just wrong - proves that the "stand your ground" laws and concealed laws are all evil and wrong. And people just march right along with it.
The ONLY "proof" Zimmerman is who approached (let alone "accosted") Martin on foot is talking heads on TV saying so. The raging and noise of declarations for political agendas had all but drown out both actual facts, actual unknowns, and what is actually relevant. Since this is openly part of an anti-gun-rights commentary orgy, they found a way to get maybe 80%+ percent of the public agreeing that anyone who shoots and unarmed person is automatically a murderer and anyone carrying a gun in public is a wacko.
It is a brilliant anti-gun campaign tactic, bring charges of racism as a future reason to anti-gun laws - claiming the Latino who wasn't even sure Martin's race when he phoned in had "racially profiled" Martin. No gun even came into play until Zimmerman was on the ground with a bloody nose and bloody head, Martin over him, and MAYBE it was Zimmerman screaming for help and Martin trying to get the gun away from him. CLEARLY, Zimmerman had not hunted Martin down to shoot him or he would have shot him before knocked to the ground.
BUT, it is not even considered allowed that Zimmerman - if that is what happened - had a right to shoot even though he was down, under assault (if so) and the assailant who (possibly) had rushed him was trying to get his gun. THUS, no one has gun rights in any real way - meaning anti-gun. If you use it, you are automatically a murderer.
That is why I say on THIS thread most here are anti-gun rights. I just don't think they realize that is what they are agreeing with.
Actually it isn't full of wind.
Martin was running away.
Zimmerman then began to follow.
The mic noise cued the operator's question, and then suggested that they didn't need him to do that.
Zimmerman replied with an "ok", and the mic noise went away.
I alleged at that point Zimmerman stopped following him as the operator suggested.
We then later learn that Zimmerman had lost the individual.
The mic noise going away and losing his observation of Martin is consistent with his following the operators advice at that point in time, is it not?
We then later learn, that as Zimmerman was on his way back to his truck, Martin attacked him from behind.
All of this happened in a short period of time and I would like to see a timeline of those events.
As it is, it is all consistent with the evidence of his statements and that of the girlfriends.
I don't think you realize it, but you just admitted that you have a preconceived way of looking at things.
Sometimes that can be good, at others times - not so much.
Look, I am not trying to be an ass towards you, but I know this is going to come across that way.
What skills you think you have, even if you do, even if you are a professional profiler, so what?
And so far I haven't seen you read the evidence correctly. So what does that say about your supposed skills?
Other people with those skills have an opposite opinion of yours. So What!
This isn't about you or them.
This is about the evidence, and so far I have seen things said that are not true, and speculation that is based on that untrue information, all coming from those who want to see Zimmerman found guilty no matter what.
The majority of these people are looking at this case through biased glasses.
I have watched as joko104 has tried over and over again to set the record straight with accurate information, but no one bothered to listen and they kept on giving the false information over and over again. All because they got it in their head that Zimmerman was wrong from the get.
Stick with the evidence, and what the evidence says. Everything else will fall into place.
Even the behavior of the two involved.
Please cite the law that says so.
If you can't, then please stop making statements about things you don't know.
He got out of his SUV when Martin began running. It's in the audio, you can hear it. Zimmerman is not breathing heavy and there's no wind noise. As Zimmerman says, "****, he's running," you can hear his SUV door open, you can hear the chime from his SUV, suddenly there's wind noise, and Zimmerman's breathing gets much heavier.He was in his car. Trayvon was running away from him. The only way there was contact, which occurred away from Zimmerman's car, is if Zimmerman got out of his car and went after him.
You might want to check the evidence again.
From what I have heard, he was out of his truck when he reported Trayvon running.
The moment Zimmerman got out of his truck to follow Martin on foot when he saw him running away, he was "chasing" him.There is no evidence that he "chased" him.
Evidence that he tried to keep him under observation ? Yes. But not chase him.
No, just as you don't know. What we do know, is that Martin was wearing a hoodie. I don't know what Zimmerman was wearing. Anything else is conjecture. But a witness said the person on top was wearing a white shirt.Great, actual evidence for a change.
It doesn't say who was screaming does it?
Do you know if Martin had removed his hoodie before attacking Zimmerman?
Do you know if the hoodie had gotten pulled up or even off during Martin's attack?
Do you know what Zimmerman was wearing?
Do you know? Do you?
That was suspicious activity on Treyvon's part.By Zimmerman's own account, Martin was running away from him. That is a non-threatening action on unarmed Martin's part. On the other hand, Zimmerman, who was armed, went after him, looking for Martin after he lost sight of him. That is a threatening action on Zimmerman's part.
In reply, the emboldened part:Then he claims he was attacked by Martin, but a witness who was talking to Trayvon at the time the confrontation began described it as Treyvon asking Zimmerman why he was following him; not that Treyvon was attacking him.
This is consistent with his statement and the girlfriend's.The statement made was that he was attacked from behind, not jumped from behind.
Read the girlfriends statement again.
Martin's confronting him with a question and his replying and then a scuffle ensuing could have came from behind and happened quickly enough to be interpreted and relayed as an attack from behind.
No. Trying to keep him under observation is not chasing him.The moment Zimmerman got out of his truck to follow Martin on foot when he saw him running away, he was "chasing" him.
Exactly.No, just as you don't know. What we do know, is that Martin was wearing a hoodie. I don't know what Zimmerman was wearing. Anything else is conjecture.
Great. It will go towards establishing the truth, but since we don't know who it was, and can't assume it was either, it shouldn't have been brought up, should it?But a witness said the person on top was wearing a white shirt.
No. Zimmerman was not the aggressor. Keeping someone under observation until police arrive is not aggressive behavior. No matter how many times you say it, it just isn't.Not that it matters though, as Zimmerman was the aggressor who went after Trayvon.
I am glad you checked again, because so did I and would have corrected myself.
I was reviewing from the part where he exits the truck and later says he ran.
But as it is, I stand corrected.
You are right, Treyvon was running before Zimmerman got out of his truck.
That was suspicious activity on Treyvon's part.
Treyvon was slowly walking around in the rain looking at homes. This raised Zimmerman's suspicions enough for him to call 911.
Then when Treyvon notices Zimmerman watching him, he puts his hoodie on. More suspicious activity on his part.
And then running after seeing Zimmerman on the phone, even though it is non-threatening, it is even more suspicious, isn't it? Of course it is.Even though Treyvon may have thought it was threatening behavior on Zimmerman's part, trying to keep him under observation until police arrived is actually not threatening behavior.
In reply, the emboldened part:
This is consistent with his statement and the girlfriend's.
No. Trying to keep him under observation is not chasing him.
Exactly.
Which is why I was say what was consistent with the evidence. Which Zimmerman's statements are.
Great. It will go towards establishing the truth, but since we don't know who it was, and can't assume it was either, it shouldn't have been brought up, should it?
No. Zimmerman was not the aggressor. Keeping someone under observation until police arrive is not aggressive behavior. No matter how many times you say it, it just isn't.
But confronting someone from behind as Treyvor did, is.
No, just as you don't know. What we do know, is that Martin was wearing a hoodie. I don't know what Zimmerman was wearing. Anything else is conjecture. But a witness said the person on top was wearing a white shirt.
Not that it matters though, as Zimmerman was the aggressor who went after Trayvon.
Stop lying -- most on this thread are claiming Zimmerman getting out of his car and going after Martin is what made him the aggressor, not merely watching Martin.
Dayam, you're absolutely pathological.
If you believe this ^ then you're missing the point.No, what has happened is some public figures for their own agenda have stirred up lynch mob mentality who rage that anyone who even suggesting waiting at least until all the evidence is gathered be declaring someone a murder is defending the obvious murderer. This really is quite disgusting and demonstrates that ffew people actually believe in rule of law and is why so many innocent people are sent to prison and even put on death row.
By all means, decide guilt before all evidence is in. Nothing is more pro-murder than the forensic evidence in your opinion.
So we're back to your theory that the Sanford PD just haven't gotten around to interviewing Zimmerman and gathering evidence in the past few weeks?Who is trying to help the defense of Zimmerman are all of you wanting police and DA action against him before, not after, the forensic evidence - to make it appear that the police and DA seem as prejudiced against Zimmerman for the Defense team as possible.
The kid was fleeing and Zimmerman was pursuing him with a weapon.What is your evidence that Zimmerman was the physical violence aggressor?
Whether or not this is true, it's irrelevant.I am writing about proper police and DA actions and tactics. Summarily arresting him would have been grotesquely incompetent police work and greatly helpful to his defense team.
Yes, a cop and an attorney have weighed in.Casey Anthony owes her freedom to people such as you. But unlike you, I was on little Calee's side.
Is there ANYONE else who is on this thread who is or was in law enforcement or the criminal justice system?
Yes, it is.All of you demanding he be immediately arrested and charged are - in fact - demanding he be given a lawyer, a professional defense team and access to essentially all witnesses, investigation information and case file information.
So to interprete Hauery, Jamesrage and all the rest of you are really raging is "GIVE ZIMMERMAN A LAWYER! GIVE ZIMMERMAN A LAWYER!"
Because that is what must happen if he is arrested/charged. So, you are convinced his court appointed defense lawyer will instruct him to tell the police everything they want to hear and to sign a confession?
PLEASE EXPLAIN, EXACTLY, WHY YOU ARE DEMANDING ZIMMERMAN HAVE A DEFENSE LAWYER AT ANY INTERVIEW, WHY YOU DEMAND A DEFENSE LAWYER'S INVESTIGATOR BE INTERVIEWING AND SEARCH OUT WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE AND TO CROSS-INTERROGATE WITNESSES HOPING FOR CONFUSED OR CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS BY THEM, AND TO BE ABLE TO LEARN JUST ABOUT ANYTHING THE POLICE, FBI AND PROSECUTOR IS DOING ON THE CASE - INCLUDING SEEING THE ENTIRE CASE FILE AND THE CONTACT INFORMATION FOR EVERY WITNESS?
Why are you so intensely determined to give Zimmerman a Defense lawyer team and all that comes with that?/ That is what happens as soon as he is charged.
the SPD concluded their investigation already.I SAY don't arrest him until all the Forensic evidence is in, all witnesses statements locked down, Zimmerman has given as long and as many recorded statements as possible. THEN, if it merits arresting him, do so and THEN give him a lawyer.
Calling for Zimmerman to face trial is a mob mentality?Your's is just a mob mentality at someone who is calling for rule of law and proper procedure.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?