Trayvon hit first ---- Rachel Jeantel

[X Factor]

Last night Rachel did an interview with Marc Lamont Hill on HuffPostLive. She says she thinks Trayvon hit first. Go to 10:00 if you don't want to listen to it all.

HuffPost Live

I'm becoming more and more convinced that there could be a video tape of the entire incident that clearly shows Martin jumping on Zimmerman first while screaming "die, die, die" and it would not make a bit difference to some people.

 

[Bob N]

She said she thinks Martin swung first, but that Zimmerman grabbed him first which caused Martin to swing. The initiator of physical contact stays the same. Way to leave out that detail.

One must also take under consideration that Trayvon was actually scared of his pursuer--especially since George did not identify himself--and in most situations if you are in Trayvon's shoes you are going to swing. And even the FBI report couldn't identify that Trayvon was doing anything illegal.

 

[Josie]

I'm becoming more and more convinced that there could be a video tape of the entire incident that clearly shows Martin jumping on Zimmerman first while screaming "die, die, die" and it would not make a bit difference to some people.

I know. They'd probably say it was edited or something (IIIIIIIrony!).

 

[WCH]

being "all political agenda" is not normal, imho

ymmv


"all political agenda" is different, to me anyway, than "having a political agenda"

Oh I never said I thought their agenda was normal.

 

[trfjr]

I appreciate that you're trying to make a joke.
But I don't follow the logic of how RJ's suspicions about GZ reflect what TM was thinking.
It'd be funnier if it were more consistent, imho.

so what proof do you have that Martin didn't attack Zimmerman because he though he was gay and Jaba the Hutt wasn't calling out Martins manhood for having some gay man following him. It makes perfect since to me first Martin ran then he decided to turn around and confront Zimmerman after Jabba the Hutt started with the gay rape commit

Its known that black males are the most Homophobic
Are blacks more homophobic than whites? - Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I don't buy that for one minute... Based on that trial, the testimony and everything else that I've learned about the man, that's just doesn't fit.

Not asking you to believe her. Just saying what I think she is saying.
:shrug:

Oh I never said I thought their agenda was normal.

I know that. That's what I was saying. You don't think that they're like "real people." "The Left" are Them to you.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

so what proof do you have that Martin didn't attack Zimmerman because he though he was gay and Jaba the Hutt wasn't calling out Martins manhood for having some gay man following him.

LOL you so funny.

I left that proof right next to you proof that RJ saying something means that TM was thinking it. Look there first.

people are strange, imho.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

I know. They'd probably say it was edited or something.

Why did you leave out the part where she says Zimmerman initiated contact by grabbing Martin?

 

[trfjr]

One must also take under consideration that Trayvon was actually scared of his pursuer--especially since George did not identify himself--and in most situations if you are in Trayvon's shoes you are going to swing. And even the FBI report couldn't identify that Trayvon was doing anything illegal.

if your scared you don't turn around and double back to confront who your scared of do you

 

[Zyphlin]

Last night Rachel did an interview with Marc Lamont Hill on HuffPostLive. She says she thinks Trayvon hit first. Go to 10:00 if you don't want to listen to it all.

HuffPost Live

Which is kind of irrelevant because it's rather poor logic to take part of her statements as useful and part of her statements as NOT useful.

She says she thinks Trayvon hit first.

But she also says she thinks Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon first.

That grab constitutes an unwanted touching and justifies a strike on the part of Trayvon, which makes the entire revelation that "Trayvon hit first" moot.

If you believe her story and views on it to be the most plausible and likely scenario, then Trayvon threw the first punch but Zimmerman initated phyiscal contact.

If you don't believe her story and her views on it to be the most plausible and likely scenario then it goes back into question who threw the first punch or initiated the first physical contact.

But it doesn't make sense to care about who she says PUNCHED first if you're not taking into account her other views as well.

Ultimatley, I don't find her any more credible, expert, or impartial of a witness than Zimmerman himself and while I do think her scenario is PLAUSIBLE I don't think there's anywhere near enough evidence to say it's definitely or even "likely" the way it went down.

 

[Josie]

Why did you leave out the part where she says Zimmerman initiated contact by grabbing Martin?

Maybe for the same reason that you leave out the part of Zimmerman's many statements where he says Trayvon confronted him? You don't believe him and I don't believe her. :shrug:

 

[Lutherf]

Why did you leave out the part where she says Zimmerman initiated contact by grabbing Martin?

If she actually said that it would have been in direct opposition to her testimony during the trial but what I got out of this particular interview is that Trayvon was feeling disrespected so he went to do something about it. That's understandable but if he approached Zimmerman and said "What you following me for?" and then Zimmerman said something back to him (which is also part of the testimony) that's where the conflict started. If Trayvon swung first that just escalated things. Frankly, at that point it was, as Jeantel said, a scuffle. As that scuffle continued Zimmerman obviously became concerned that he was going to either get killed or seriously beaten (the screams) and he held out even then for the better part of a minute before he shot......textbook self defense.

 

[WCH]

Which is kind of irrelevant because it's rather poor logic to take part of her statements as useful and part of her statements as NOT useful.

She says she thinks Trayvon hit first.

But she also says she thinks Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon first.

That grab constitutes an unwanted touching and justifies a strike on the part of Trayvon, which makes the entire revelation that "Trayvon hit first" moot.

If you believe her story and views on it to be the most plausible and likely scenario, then Trayvon threw the first punch but Zimmerman initated phyiscal contact.

If you don't believe her story and her views on it to be the most plausible and likely scenario then it goes back into question who threw the first punch or initiated the first physical contact.

But it doesn't make sense to care about who she says PUNCHED first if you're not taking into account her other views as well.

Ultimatley, I don't find her any more credible, expert, or impartial of a witness than Zimmerman himself and while I do think her scenario is PLAUSIBLE I don't think there's anywhere near enough evidence to say it's definitely or even "likely" the way it went down.

Especially if you consider Zimmerman trying to make a citizens arrest or something by grabbing him. Trayvon was no small person and Zim wasn't an idiot.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Maybe for the same reason that you leave out the part of Zimmerman's many statements where he says Trayvon confronted him? You don't believe him and I don't believe her. :shrug:

If I'm quoting Zimmerman, then I don't purposely leave out information in a way that gives a false impression of his words. I quote them accurately and contest them. You quoted Jeantel and left out information in a way that gives a false impression of her words. These are two different actions. You did more than contest her words - you distorted them by omitting part of her comment. Why did you do that?

 

[Josie]

Which is kind of irrelevant because it's rather poor logic to take part of her statements as useful and part of her statements as NOT useful.

She says she thinks Trayvon hit first.

But she also says she thinks Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon first.

That grab constitutes an unwanted touching and justifies a strike on the part of Trayvon, which makes the entire revelation that "Trayvon hit first" moot.

If you believe her story and views on it to be the most plausible and likely scenario, then Trayvon threw the first punch but Zimmerman initated phyiscal contact.

If you don't believe her story and her views on it to be the most plausible and likely scenario then it goes back into question who threw the first punch or initiated the first physical contact.

But it doesn't make sense to care about who she says PUNCHED first if you're not taking into account her other views as well.

Ultimatley, I don't find her any more credible, expert, or impartial of a witness than Zimmerman himself and while I do think her scenario is PLAUSIBLE I don't think there's anywhere near enough evidence to say it's definitely or even "likely" the way it went down.

I don't "care" what she says, really, because I don't find her credible in any way at all. I think it's just interesting that she never said that on the stand. I think the more interviews she does, the more she'll add into the story, I suppose. The girl is a hot mess.

 

[ARealConservative]

Which is kind of irrelevant because it's rather poor logic to take part of her statements as useful and part of her statements as NOT useful.

She says she thinks Trayvon hit first.

But she also says she thinks Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon first.

That grab constitutes an unwanted touching and justifies a strike on the part of Trayvon, which makes the entire revelation that "Trayvon hit first" moot.

If you believe her story and views on it to be the most plausible and likely scenario, then Trayvon threw the first punch but Zimmerman initated phyiscal contact.

If you don't believe her story and her views on it to be the most plausible and likely scenario then it goes back into question who threw the first punch or initiated the first physical contact.

But it doesn't make sense to care about who she says PUNCHED first if you're not taking into account her other views as well.

Ultimatley, I don't find her any more credible, expert, or impartial of a witness than Zimmerman himself and while I do think her scenario is PLAUSIBLE I don't think there's anywhere near enough evidence to say it's definitely or even "likely" the way it went down.

her recounting who said what is useful.

but when she says she can hear wet grass, or she can tell who grabbed who based on things other then conversations, is when I roll my eyes and move on.

 

[trfjr]

LOL you so funny.

I left that proof right next to you proof that RJ saying something means that TM was thinking it. Look there first.

people are strange, imho.

like how you left off the rest of the quote that explain why its its plausible and likely he attacked because he thought Zimmerman was gay and the link to prove the the most homophobic race is black here i will do it for you

It makes perfect since to me first Martin ran then he decided to turn around and confront Zimmerman after Jabba the Hutt started with the gay rape commit

and here is the link saying blacks are more homophobic
http://www.theatlantic.com/entertai.../are-blacks-more-homophobic-than-whites/5977/

you have less evidence of Zimmerman being a racist then i have that Martin attacked Zimmerman for being gay and following him, but you believe the racist part don't you

 

[Josie]

If I'm quoting Zimmerman, then I don't purposely leave out information in a way that gives a false impression of his words. I quote them accurately and contest them. You quoted Jeantel and left out information in a way that gives a false impression of her words. These are two different actions. You did more than contest her words - you distorted them by omitting part of her comment. Why did you do that?

Oh, NOW you're upset when people omit words to give a false impression? Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

If she actually said that it would have been in direct opposition to her testimony during the trial but what I got out of this particular interview is that Trayvon was feeling disrespected so he went to do something about it. That's understandable but if he approached Zimmerman and said "What you following me for?" and then Zimmerman said something back to him (which is also part of the testimony) that's where the conflict started. If Trayvon swung first that just escalated things. Frankly, at that point it was, as Jeantel said, a scuffle. As that scuffle continued Zimmerman obviously became concerned that he was going to either get killed or seriously beaten (the screams) and he held out even then for the better part of a minute before he shot......textbook self defense.

I'm not even arguing the case. I'm just talking about what she said in this interview. Josie is giving a false impression of what she said. That is my issue.

 

[Bob N]

if your scared you don't turn around and double back to confront who your scared of do you

Well you know what? It all depends. Seeing that it was night, with visibility low to none in some places, he probably ran for a bit than hid; when George caught up to where he was hiding, he probably thought he was going to have to confront George sooner or later. Remember, Trayvon tried to run from him but George finally caught up to him--and Trayvon didn't know this man's name from nothing; it's almost like George was trying his best to instigate trouble.

Who knows how this thing would have worked out if George would have just stated his name and he was a member of a Neighborhood Watch. And if this thing went down like Rachel believes it did than what about Trayvon's right to stand his ground if he is shoved?

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Oh, NOW you're upset when people omit words to give a false impression?

I'm not upset. I'm just trying to figure out why you would purposely omit something to give a false impression. Why would you do that? Please stop deflecting Josie. This is your thread, you made the post.

 

[Josie]

I'm not even arguing the case. I'm just talking about what she said in this interview. Josie is giving a false impression of what she said. That is my issue.

Tell us how upset you were when NBC and others omitted words, edited tapes and flat out lied about George Zimmerman to make him look racist.

Oh that's right. You weren't.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Tell us how upset you were when NBC and others omitted words, edited tapes and flat out lied about George Zimmerman to make him look racist.

Oh that's right. You weren't.

Josie, you made a mistake. You omitted part of Jeantel's comments and gave a false impression of her words. The best course of action in situations like this is to just admit what you've done and move on - not lash out at someone who questions your error. Come on.

 

[joko104]

The primary tactics of militant GZ haters:

1. Lie, just make up anything.
2. Express total contempt of "innocent unless proven guilty" for which any scenario that can be dreamed up as possible therefore was basis for finding him guilty.

In theory, it MAY have been that the police and EMTs caught TM and held TM while telling GZ to shoot him point blank, and then they used stage makeup and a doctor in on the conspiracy to create FAUX injuries - this all being financed in advance by FOX news and Stormfront.

Therefore, upon that "may have happened," GZ should have been found guilty because it can not be proven beyond any possible senarios that he is innocent.

 

[Josie]

Josie, you made a mistake. You omitted part of Jeantel's comments and gave a false impression of her words. The best course of action in situations like this is to just admit what you've done not lash out at someone who pointed out your error. Come on.

TPD, I posted the video for everyone to see. I didn't omit anything.

Now tell us why you're so angry about this thread, but not about the people who edited, lied and omitted words of a man, demonized and dehumanized him - causing him to be subject to death threats to the point where he couldn't even walk outside without body armor on?