New photo released from night of shooting

[Excon]

You conveniently ignored the link I gave previously where this topic was debated at nauseam where I presented Zimmerman's own voice exemplar to show you that his voice was completely different from that heard in the 911 tape.

And it was shown that your machinations were just that. machinations.

The examinations of the audio were discredited by the what the very reviewers said was needed to properly examine such.


And we can hear with our own ears that it sounds far more like Zimmerman than Trayvon. Trayvon having a deep voice and all.


Besides, we all know it is the guy who is on the bottom who screams for help. Not the guy on top hitting him.

 

[ric27]

Just who do you think make the determination what is reasonable? Zimmerman? Not a chance. Zimmerman might well have thought his perception of fear and threat is reasonable but ultimately it is the jury who decide based on the evidence and what reasonable person would react under same circumstances.

1 That's *if* it goes to trial

2 Any reasonable person in that condition (physically assaulted/broken nose/head being banged against, the concrete/trying to get up but cannot/screaming for help...... would fear imminent serious bodily injury thus deadly force was, the only option left to stop the threat....

 

[buck]

Not with regards to the continuous long drawn out screaming. Your claim about other residents vouching for Zimmerman's voice is simply unsupported.

If you mean the screams for help, yes the witness (john) did state it was Zimm. Additionally, you may want to read the most recent drop, it is supported that at least 2 people in the neighborhood are (110%) positive, as they know his voice, that it was Zimm screaming for help. At least if you want to believe what the investigator wrote in his report.

 

[Power Centrism]

Wait sec...An affirmative defense that legally excuses someone from an act that would otherwise be a crime and your so called *theory* is riddled with holes

:neutral: Do you even understand what an affirmative defense is?

Z's testimony is backed up by proof of his injuries and witnesses observing the struggle

No.

One witness even maintains that Z was struggling to get up and out from under M, right before Z's gun went off.

No.

That alone is fulfills, the requirement.

Even if the above statement were true, it would not fulfill the requirement.

Z attempted reasonable means to free himself before using deadly force.

Bottom line....you have one witness plus Z's testimony and no one to refute it

You're not paying attention. In order to attempt to make a case for self defense Zimmerman willl have to testify. THAT is the problem he's going to have. But Zimmerman will have no credibility. He's changed his story too many times, and the injuries he incurred are insignificant to that which one would expect a person to incur upon taking such a beating as Zimmerman claims to have taken. The burdern of proof will shift to Zimmerman, and all the prosecution will needs is for the jury to have a simple vague feeling that he's holding something back in order to convict him.

 

[Power Centrism]

He said he got struck in the face and knocked to the ground. His swollen and bloodied nose is consistent with getting struck in the face.

So we can all agree that he got struck in the face. Why do you insist that that fact alone proves that Martin started the altercation?

 

[Power Centrism]

WTF? You can't convict someone as guilty beyond a reasonable doubt because it may be SUGGESTED that someone didn't act in self defense.

Unless they can PROVE he didn't act in self defense, then the case shall go nowhere. And Proving he didn't act in self defense means they have to have EVIDENCE other than just suggestion.

Incorrect. Self defense is an affirmative defense in a criminal action such as this. That means that the defendant must provide positive proof of his assertion of self defense. The prosecution is not required to disprove self defense simply because a defendant claims his actions as such.

 

[Power Centrism]

He has to be proven guilty, not the other way around.

Okay.....

1) Did Zimmerman shoot Trayvon Martin? Yes, that is not in dispute.
2) Did Trayvon Martin die from those wounds? Yes, that is not in dispute.

The fact that Zimmerman killed Martin is definitively proven already. An affirmative defense now shifts the burden of proof to positively establish that Zimmerman's actions were in self defense.

 

[Power Centrism]

So, you got nothing.

Thanks for the admission.

Actually, I said I would present as much as you did. You're the one who is saying you've got nothing. Thanks for playing. :2wave:

 

[Excon]

So we can all agree that he got struck in the face. Why do you insist that that fact alone proves that Martin started the altercation?

Never said that alone proves it, did I?

 

[JackFrost]

Yes, that is all you have. The absence of three keystrokes. Could instead of Couldn't. :doh
iLOL





:naughty
What you were talking about? ??? No, what matters is what I was talking about in what you quoted of me.
What you are talking about? iLOL What a lame ass way to try and save face.

No, you said he never said he was following him when he did say it. Additionally; I am the one who pointed out the different time frames.


But lets walk folks through this so they can see just how dishonest you are being.


You quoted my reply to Catawba and replied saying that I was saying Zimmerman was lying. (which of course wasn't)

I then responded to your idiotic comment with the following.

"Did Zimmerman initially try to keep an eye on Trayvon by following? Yes he did."​

I am more than sure that you read the word "initially", as you later quoted it and replied with the following.

"But Zimmerman denied following TM...denied....was looking for an address...going in the same direction...so he was lying eh?"​

Showing that you have no idea what you are talking about.

But if you knew the evidence you would know what was meant by "initially".
If you knew the evidence you would know that is the only possible thing to which I could be referring.


But you didn't know the evidence and continued on with your silliness.

To which I replied;

"You really have a problem in confusing time frames.
Listen to the 911 call."​

Showing again you had no idea of what you were talking about and caused you to clam-up and run off with out replying.
Because you know you were wrong.

Oh gawd man you are so trying to save face any way you can:lamo

I caught you so bad you are shook:lamo

What matters here is you were pulled into a situation where you unintentionally accused Zimmerman of lying. Obviously you did not mean to, but man you dug yourself in too deep this time:lamo

 

[Excon]

Oh gawd man you are so trying to save face any way you can:lamo

I caught you so bad you are shook:lamo

What matters here is you were pulled into a situation where you unintentionally accused Zimmerman of lying. Obviously you did not mean to, but man you dug yourself in too deep this time:lamo

Oh, boy. :doh
We have another one who lives in La La Land, or is purposely being dishonest.
I am betting on both.


Dude. No one is buying your crap. You were and are the one ineffectually trying to save face.
It is there for all to see. You had no idea of what the evidence said.
That is clear from you not understanding what "initially " meant.


And no I wasn't pulled into any situation unintentionally calling Zimmerman a liar.
That resides all in your head. All in your head.
As everything I presented is factual, where what you said was not.

Like I said, it is there for all to see. You were the one who was wrong and trying to save face.
Your current dishonesty is that of being pathetically desperate.

 

[ecofarm]

The fact that Zimmerman killed Martin is definitively proven already. An affirmative defense now shifts the burden of proof to positively establish that Zimmerman's actions were in self defense.

Nonsense. Florida SYG law permits the use of deadly force to prevent a forcible felony. It's obvious that Zim was hit. The only question that remains is "did he hit first", and (barring a confession) that can never be answered.

1) A forcible felony was committed? Yes, that is not in dispute.
2) Did the forcible felony occur prior to the use of deadly force? Yes, that is not in dispute.

In Florida, "assault" is verbal and "battery" is physical. Assault is not a forcible felony, but battery is.


The fact that Martin commited a forcible felony is definately proven already. The burden of proof is to establish that Martin striking Zim was a legal self defense action, and that's not gonna happen.

 

[JackFrost]

Oh, boy. :doh
We have another one who lives in La La Land, or is purposely being dishonest.
I am betting on both.


Dude. No one is buying your crap. You were and are the one ineffectually trying to save face.
It is there for all to see. You had no idea of what the evidence said.
That is clear from you not understanding what "initially " meant.


And no I wasn't pulled into any situation unintentionally calling Zimmerman a liar.
That resides all in your head. All in your head.
As everything I presented is factual, where what you said was not.

Like I said, it is there for all to see. You were the one who was wrong and trying to save face.
Your current dishonesty is that of being pathetically desperate.

It's okay we all make mistakes. The next step is admitting to it. Might take you a day, week, month or a year, but you will get there:lol:

 

[Excon]

It's okay we all make mistakes. The next step is admitting to it. Might take you a day, week, month or a year, but you will get there

The person being dishonest speaks again. It's like he thinks his words mean something when they clearly don't.

Knock off the bs.

You are the one who needs to admit they were mistaken and then deliberately being dishonest.
But I am sure we all know you never will, even though we have your recorded words here to prove it.

 

[ric27]

:neutral: Do you even understand what an affirmative defense is?



No.



No.



Even if the above statement were true, it would not fulfill the requirement.



You're not paying attention. In order to attempt to make a case for self defense Zimmerman willl have to testify. THAT is the problem he's going to have. But Zimmerman will have no credibility. He's changed his story too many times, and the injuries he incurred are insignificant to that which one would expect a person to incur upon taking such a beating as Zimmerman claims to have taken. The burdern of proof will shift to Zimmerman, and all the prosecution will needs is for the jury to have a simple vague feeling that he's holding something back in order to convict him.

You are confuse with SYG and self defense claim

At trial (if it goes to trial) Z only has to establish some evidence of his theory...aka like his own testimony.

The burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and also must disprove self-defense relies on the state.

It only takes one juror to have doubt

 

[JackFrost]

The person being dishonest speaks again. -You

Knock off the bs

You are the one who needs to admit they were mistaken and then deliberately being dishonest.
But I am sure we all know you never will, even though we have your recorded words here to prove it.

Anyone can see you were caught:lol:

Go back and read it again. Catwaba was talking about Zimmerman stalking Martin with a gun. You then replied with he initially followed and there is nothing wrong with that. I pointed out at no time during questioning did Zimmerman admit to following him after exiting his vehicle, and asked does this mean you are accusing Zimmerman of lying. You then get all worked up someone caught you posting something negative about Zimmerman.

I understand why you so mad:lamo

 

[dolphinocean]

1 That's *if* it goes to trial

2 Any reasonable person in that condition (physically assaulted/broken nose/head being banged against, the concrete/trying to get up but cannot/screaming for help...... would fear imminent serious bodily injury thus deadly force was, the only option left to stop the threat....

1. Doesn't matter, Zimmerman still has to face the court and the legal standard is not based on what a killer reasonable belief. If that's so nobody would be charged with murder. All they have to do is simply claim they reasonably belive they fear imminent danger to his life.
　

2. Didn't you say in previous post, "The so called brutal beating does not need to happen...". So now when push come to shove the physical condition does matter now? What kind of game are you trying to pull now? A game of making me chasing your fox tail in circle?
　


The we go back to square one. Zimmerman's head injuries are so mild compared to the followings:

　

　

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/731792-ufc-131-results-shane-carwins-face-after-junior-dos-santos-bloodied-it

　
The 10 Worst MMA Post-Fight Faces of 2011 | Bleacher Report
　
'The Artist' KJ Noons has no qualms painting another masterpiece on Nick Diaz's face - MMAmania.com
　


Zimmerman still had all his arms and legs and body completely intact and unharmed. He should be able to fight back fist with fist given his build and prior experience as a bouncer. Heck, a little girl could even try to defend herself by biting and scratching her assailant. Zimmerman didn't even put a bite or a scratch on Trayvom's body but just laid there before pulling the trigger if that's to be believed.

　
Your take: "physically assaulted/broken nose/head being banged against, the concrete/trying to get up but cannot/screaming for help......" <<---No evidence for that ---except zimmerman's claim.

 

[dolphinocean]

If you mean the screams for help, yes the witness (john) did state it was Zimm. Additionally, you may want to read the most recent drop, it is supported that at least 2 people in the neighborhood are (110%) positive, as they know his voice, that it was Zimm screaming for help. At least if you want to believe what the investigator wrote in his report.

Then please provide links to substantiate your so-called "at least 2 people in the neighborhood are (110%) positive" from your so-called "the most recent drop".

So, if you're willing to accept ""the most recent drop" as irrefutable proof, then I take it that you would also now embrace Deedee's statements of proof regarding the event she described? After all she heard the whole thing going down. Were your "the most recent drop" witnesses-come-lately actually lived near the townhouse building where the commotion occurred and heard the screaming?

Most likely you don't have anything except this witness John who simply called it as "yelling" and never once included the term "screaming", "mourning', "whining", etc.

Here's what he said in his 911 call:

Witness "John": "The guy’s yelling help and I’m not going outside." ... “Ah a guy yelling “help”. Oh my God…"

Hear that? The guy was yelling help and he wasn't going outside. If he wasn't going outside how was he able to witness anything let alone telling them to stop and he was going to call 911?

This guy was so panicky he frequently let out "OMG!!!" a few times on the 911 tape without good reason. You'd have thought he was ****ting in his panty. I don't think he would have the guts to go out let alone shouting to stop the fight as he claimed.

Then through the media interview, this witness said this (if you can believe him but he recanted anyway):

Witness reportedly saw Trayvon Martin beating George Zimmerman before shooting | Interviews | Hannity

"The guy on the bottom who I believe had a red sweater on was yelling to me help, help, and I told him to stop and I was calling 911."


Do you hear that? The phrase "yelling to me"?

When you're yelling to somebody who is standing a few feet away you yell out loud in quick short bursts in succession in that direction. Thus, it would be two or three or four short bursts of yells that goes like this as zimmerman himself described: "Help me! ... "help me!"... "Help me, please!!!" Not a long drawn out mourning scream of pain as if your arm was twisted in a forced lock and/or in great fear of imminent death with a gun pointing at you in execution style. But then again, such short bursts of yelling for help was nowhere heard in the background of the 911 tape. Neither was witness "John"'s voice or his shouting.

So, yelling to somebody for help would be like this:

Black Guy Yelling HELP ME JESUS!!! - YouTube

Yelling at somebody would be like this:

Marine Drill Sergeants yelling at recruit - YouTube

Yelling for your life or in severe pain would be like this:

CAUTION 911 call Trayvon Martin yelling for help gunshot heard in background - YouTube

But then we have other witnesses who heard the screamings that night, such as Mary Cutcher and her roommate, all describing the screaming as mourning and whining of a child. We also have a witness who heard the scream and told the investigation it was the dead victim's screaming for help but the investigator corrected her.

Then you have two audio experts said the screaming voice did not belong to zimmerman:

Trayvon Martin shooting: It's not George Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording, 2 experts say - YouTube


And your own buddy hannity in his interview with witness "John" said this:

HANNITY: "But other people have said that they thought it was Trayvon yelling for help."


So, if you have any intellectual integrity you should not insist that it is definitely Zimmerman's screaming. Noboody can state for an absolute certainty that it is Zimmerman's or it is Trayvon's screaming. You can state your personal belief but you cannot insist your belief is the absolute fact.

 

[Excon]

The we go back to square one. Zimmerman's head injuries are so mild compared to the following

For the majority of those photos ~ WRONG!
The majority of those have an injury that bleeds profusely like the first one you provided.
That does not mean their injuries were more or less severe.


And look at the following image from your link.
A broken nose with no swelling. Go figure. :doh

 

[Excon]

Anyone can see you were caught:lol:

Go back and read it again. Catwaba was talking about Zimmerman stalking Martin with a gun. You then replied with he initially followed and there is nothing wrong with that. I pointed out at no time during questioning did Zimmerman admit to following him after exiting his vehicle, and asked does this mean you are accusing Zimmerman of lying. You then get all worked up someone caught you posting something negative about Zimmerman.

I understand why you so mad:lamo

More dishonesty. How sad.
Yes, the one being dishonest was, and is, You. You were caught and are idiotically trying to save face.

And everybody can see that.

So lets again show everybody that initial exchage to show how pathetic your attempty at dishonesty is.

No, but stalking someone with a gun, when ordered not to follow, may be considered instigating. Enjoy your speculation of what happened and what the verdict will be.

Your narrative is way off and baseless.

He did not stalk Trayvon.
And he was not "ordered not to follow".

Keeping an eye on a suspicious person until the police you called arrive, is not stalking in any way shape or form.

Secondly, in the City Managers Official release it was pointed out that the Communication Call-Taker's statement of; "We don't need you to do that.", was only a suggestion. A suggestion that Zimmerman was under no obligation to follow. Even though he apparently did follow the suggestion.

Nor does a Communication Call-Taker have any authority over the situation. Even if they were a Police Officer they have no authority to tell/order anything. They are not on site and have no operational control. To give the Communication Call-Takers any authority would open up the Police and City to unneeded liability.

By my reply it can be seen that I am referring to the time period in which he was talking to the Call-taker. Not some later period you idiotically wish to say.
But not only does the above exchange show you are being dishonest, but so does that fact that I clarified it for you by using the word "initially".
All of which you chose to ignore.


But since you chose not only to not understand or comprehend what you read, you wanted to substitute what you believe someone else is saying for what they actually said.
And in this case, what is idiotic about that, besides you ignoring or not comprehending what was said, was the fact the what you were supposedly talking about (Zimmerman just happening to be going the same direction), which is not something anybody would ever call stalking to begin with. Showing how absurd your argument to save face was.
And the fact remains that you said he never said he followed him. You were proven wrong, as he did say he was following at the specific time period I pointed out to you.



So please keep on. You are only looking more and more foolish in you attempts.

 

[buck]

Then please provide links to substantiate your so-called "at least 2 people in the neighborhood are (110%) positive" from your so-called "the most recent drop".

So, if you're willing to accept ""the most recent drop" as irrefutable proof, then I take it that you would also now embrace Deedee's statements of proof regarding the event she described? After all she heard the whole thing going down. Were your "the most recent drop" witnesses-come-lately actually lived near the townhouse building where the commotion occurred and heard the screaming?...

..."The guy on the bottom who I believe had a red sweater on was yelling to me help, help, and I told him to stop and I was calling 911."

Do you hear that? The phrase "yelling to me"?

The amount of mental gymnastics you have to go through to maintain your conclusion that John never said it was Zimm screaming for help is just outstanding. Obviously gold medal stuff. John clearly stated that the guy on the bottom was screaming for help. You have to add in your own biases to arrive at anything different.

If you want to see the witness statement about who called for help and how certain he was that it was Zimm and how certain that witnesses's neighbor also is (at least according to that witness), check out the latest doc dump - it's on gzlegalcase.com. I don't exactly recall which witness it was, and I don't have any need to see it again. Especially, because no matter what he states, you'll find some silly way to dismiss it.

 

[ric27]

More dishonesty. How sad.
Yes, the one being dishonest was, and is, You. You were caught and are idiotically trying to save face.

And everybody can see that.

So lets again show everybody that initial exchage to show how pathetic your attempty at dishonesty is.



By my reply it can be seen that I am referring to the time period in which he was talking to the Call-taker. Not some later period you idiotically wish to say.
But not only does the above exchange show you are being dishonest, but so does that fact that I clarified it for you by using the word "initially".
All of which you chose to ignore.


But since you chose not only to not understand or comprehend what you read, you wanted to substitute what you believe someone else is saying for what they actually said.
And in this case, what is idiotic about that, besides you ignoring or not comprehending what was said, was the fact the what you were supposedly talking about (Zimmerman just happening to be going the same direction), which is not something anybody would ever call stalking to begin with. Showing how absurd your argument to save face was.
And the fact remains that you said he never said he followed him. You were proven wrong, as he did say he was following at the specific time period I pointed out to you.



So please keep on. You are only looking more and more foolish in you attempts.

That was freaking brilliant, Excon

 

[TaraAnne]

Okay I am kinda new to this madness but is it possible that Mr. Martin hit Mr. Zimmerman with a bottle! I am know doctor but a bottle to the face could cause those injuries I think.

Eitherway Zimmerman acted like an idiot he could have just waited for the cops to get there. Looks to me like he saw one to many Rambo movies and got his ass beat and then shot the kid. Again I could be wrong it happened before like the time I put a poptart in the microwave and it blew up!

 

[JackFrost]

More dishonesty.
And the fact remains that you said he never said he followed him. You were proven wrong, as he did say he was following at the specific time period I pointed out to you.

So mad and dishonest:lol:

You are so hurt you mix things up and don't know how to reply:lol:

YOU are the one confusing time frames, get your facts straight:lol:

But Zimmerman denied following TM...denied....was looking for an address...going in the same direction...so he was lying eh?

Look at that! Obviously I was not referring to any point in the 911 call. He denied following and said looking for an address during questioning. You brought up the 911 call when you entered damage control. Get your facts straight buddy:lol:

I never seen someone squirm so much from acidentally destroying his own hero it's so pathetic:lamo

 

[Excon]

Okay I am kinda new to this madness but is it possible that Mr. Martin hit Mr. Zimmerman with a bottle! I am know doctor but a bottle to the face could cause those injuries I think.

Eitherway Zimmerman acted like an idiot he could have just waited for the cops to get there. Looks to me like he saw one to many Rambo movies and got his ass beat and then shot the kid. Again I could be wrong it happened before like the time I put a poptart in the microwave and it blew up!

Trayvon had a large can of Water Melon Drink. I do not recall that can ever having been dented or containing any other forensic evidence on it to indicate that he used it as a weapon.