Trayvon Martin’s social media posts may come up at trial [W: 980]

[Sheik Yerbuti]

George Zimmerman is a stark reminder that in America you are guilty until proven innocent. The Trayvon Martin issue has been one of the biggest distractions from serious political issues in years. People shoot people all the time. I live in Florida, and one local pastor at a church in the Tampa Bay area said that this incident has sent the civil rights movement back 50 years... I find that to be incredibly insulting to all the progress that has been made. We don't have White and Colored bathrooms, Restaurants, Water fountains, etc. How could you really say that this event has really damaged race relations so much? I was infuriated when I heard that. It is obvious that there is an endeavor to incite racial division amongst people. I am sad that Mr. Martin was killed, but simultaneously I am sorry that this issue is as "important" as the media and liberal and racist groups like the NAACP are making it out to be.

Spare the hyperbole. Also, this has nothing to do with Liberal vs Conservative as both Liberals and Conservatives can be found on both sides of the issue.

The only reason it got to be this big is because even though the police had evidence that Zimmerman's head was not being bashed into the concrete as he claimed, the state attorney's office refused to press charges against Zimmerman. A law-abiding teenage boy, walking back to his residence after buying candy for his kid step brother-to-be, minding his own business, gets shot and killed by a resident who wrongly thought the teen was "up to no good." All the people, who you claim sent the civil rights movement back 50 years, want, is for Zimmerman to explain to a jury why he took Trayvon's life and let them decide if it was indeed self defense or not.

If they didn't make all the noise they did, Zimmerman's word would have been taken at face value by a couple of men with the power not to charge him and he would have walked scott free. That is not justice.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Spare the hyperbole. Also, this has nothing to do with Liberal vs Conservative as both Liberals and Conservatives can be found on both sides of the issue.

The only reason it got to be this big is because even though the police had evidence that Zimmerman's head was not being bashed into the concrete as he claimed, the state attorney's office refused to press charges against Zimmerman. A law-abiding teenage boy, walking back to his residence after buying candy for his kid step brother-to-be, minding his own business, gets shot and killed by a resident who wrongly thought the teen was "up to no good." All the people, who you claim sent the civil rights movement back 50 years, want, is for Zimmerman to explain to a jury why he took Trayvon's life and let them decide if it was indeed self defense or not.

If they didn't make all the noise they did, Zimmerman's word would have been taken at face value by a couple of men with the power not to charge him and he would have walked scott free. That is not justice.

There is so much wrong with this post that I'm not going to address it all. I just want to ask... Where in the world did those two good sized gashes on the back of Zimmermans head come from if his head wasn't being bashed into concrete? The Spaghetti Monster?

Also I would like to note that yeah...this didn't send the civil rights moement back any amount of years...much less 50. However Radical Ron did not say that. He related how a local pastor said it. Radical Ron also stated that he didn't agree with that pastors statement (in fact he was "infuriated" at it). Reading what is wrote in full might help you avoid saying such incorrect statements in the future.

 

[Radical Ron]

Spare the hyperbole. Also, this has nothing to do with Liberal vs Conservative as both Liberals and Conservatives can be found on both sides of the issue.

The only reason it got to be this big is because even though the police had evidence that Zimmerman's head was not being bashed into the concrete as he claimed, the state attorney's office refused to press charges against Zimmerman. A law-abiding teenage boy, walking back to his residence after buying candy for his kid step brother-to-be, minding his own business, gets shot and killed by a resident who wrongly thought the teen was "up to no good." All the people, who you claim sent the civil rights movement back 50 years, want, is for Zimmerman to explain to a jury why he took Trayvon's life and let them decide if it was indeed self defense or not.

If they didn't make all the noise they did, Zimmerman's word would have been taken at face value by a couple of men with the power not to charge him and he would have walked scott free. That is not justice.

I don't remember making this a Liberal v. Conservative issue? Where was that said?

What evidence is there that Zimmerman was not attacked? Did he give himself those gashes on the back of his head?

My statement in no way was intended to imply that Trayvon Martin was a criminal. In fact I even said I was sad the he was killed.

As for the civil rights movement statement, I could not disagree with you more. This was about race from the beginning and now there is a trial to determine what indeed happened that fateful night. People are trying to compare this to Emmitt Till (<==== Which was racial motivated).

Umm, I don't know if you've ever heard a gunshot but that's pretty clear and loud. They would have asked questions either way.

 

[Tettsuo]

Spare the hyperbole. Also, this has nothing to do with Liberal vs Conservative as both Liberals and Conservatives can be found on both sides of the issue.

The only reason it got to be this big is because even though the police had evidence that Zimmerman's head was not being bashed into the concrete as he claimed, the state attorney's office refused to press charges against Zimmerman. A law-abiding teenage boy, walking back to his residence after buying candy for his kid step brother-to-be, minding his own business, gets shot and killed by a resident who wrongly thought the teen was "up to no good." All the people, who you claim sent the civil rights movement back 50 years, want, is for Zimmerman to explain to a jury why he took Trayvon's life and let them decide if it was indeed self defense or not.

If they didn't make all the noise they did, Zimmerman's word would have been taken at face value by a couple of men with the power not to charge him and he would have walked scott free. That is not justice.

Well put, thank you.

It's amazing to me how short people's memory is. They've forgotten that initially, Zimmerman was released due to the "stand your ground" law. As the case started to grow legs and more and more people began to raise a ruckus, thanks to the media btw, it became obvious SYG wasn't applicable. So what did Zimmerman do? Claim self-defense instead. What happened to SYG? Wasn't that the initial reason they didn't charge him? Now that it's not applicable, it's Zimmerman was afraid Travyon was going to kill him by "slamming his head into the ground over and over again" and no one came to help him when he was screaming for help. When that became questionable and experts stated that it wasn't Zimmerman that was screaming, the next defense was Travyon went for his gun.

How far does it have to go before Zimmerman defenders start to question Zimmerman and his excuses?

I'm happy it's going to trial. Even if found innocent, I'll feel at the very least, the man has faced a jury and proven his innocence as opposed to simply tossing our collective hands in the air and saying "oh well" as the death of an innocent young man is swept under the rug.

 

[Kreton]

Well put, thank you.

It's amazing to me how short people's memory is. They've forgotten that initially, Zimmerman was released due to the "stand your ground" law. As the case started to grow legs and more and more people began to raise a ruckus, thanks to the media btw, it became obvious SYG wasn't applicable. So what did Zimmerman do? Claim self-defense instead. What happened to SYG? Wasn't that the initial reason they didn't charge him? Now that it's not applicable, it's Zimmerman was afraid Travyon was going to kill him by "slamming his head into the ground over and over again" and no one came to help him when he was screaming for help. When that became questionable and experts stated that it wasn't Zimmerman that was screaming, the next defense was Travyon went for his gun.

How far does it have to go before Zimmerman defenders start to question Zimmerman and his excuses?

I'm happy it's going to trial. Even if found innocent, I'll feel at the very least, the man has faced a jury and proven his innocence as opposed to simply tossing our collective hands in the air and saying "oh well" as the death of an innocent young man is swept under the rug.

You do realize that Zimmerman has given one statement correct? That was to police. During that statement he made all of this information available up front. It is the police and the media who are twisting the information and releasing bits at a time. But keep only getting the info that suits your argument. Let the rest of us look at the complete picture.

 

[MaggieD]

Spare the hyperbole. Also, this has nothing to do with Liberal vs Conservative as both Liberals and Conservatives can be found on both sides of the issue.
If they didn't make all the noise they did, Zimmerman's word would have been taken at face value by a couple of men with the power not to charge him and he would have walked scott free. That is not justice.

Anyone with a brain cell working knows it's going to be very difficult for Zimmerman to get a fair trial. Professionals made a professional decision not to charge him with a crime. That's where it should have stopped. (If, indeed, the investigation was even over and that decision was made. To say "he would have walked scot free" is to say, "He's guilty." And with the attention this case has gotten, he's going to be found guilty of something whether he is or not.

 

[Tucker Case]

As the case started to grow legs and more and more people began to raise a ruckus, thanks to the media btw, it became obvious SYG wasn't applicable. So what did Zimmerman do? Claim self-defense instead. What happened to SYG?

SYG is a claim of self-defense. The trial won't be trying to determine whether or not he killed Martin, it will be trying to determine if his SYG defense is valid.

 

[sangha]

I don't remember making this a Liberal v. Conservative issue? Where was that said?

Here (emphasis mine in the hopes it jogs your memory of your own words

George Zimmerman is a stark reminder that in America you are guilty until proven innocent. The Trayvon Martin issue has been one of the biggest distractions from serious political issues in years. People shoot people all the time. I live in Florida, and one local pastor at a church in the Tampa Bay area said that this incident has sent the civil rights movement back 50 years... I find that to be incredibly insulting to all the progress that has been made. We don't have White and Colored bathrooms, Restaurants, Water fountains, etc. How could you really say that this event has really damaged race relations so much? I was infuriated when I heard that. It is obvious that there is an endeavor to incite racial division amongst people. I am sad that Mr. Martin was killed, but simultaneously I am sorry that this issue is as "important" as the media and liberal and racist groups like the NAACP are making it out to be.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

There is so much wrong with this post that I'm not going to address it all. I just want to ask... Where in the world did those two good sized gashes on the back of Zimmermans head come from if his head wasn't being bashed into concrete? The Spaghetti Monster?

Seems to me like he hit his head on something. Who knows? What I said was, the police have stated that they have evidence that Zimmerman's claim of Trayvon bashing his head on the concrete is not true.

Also I would like to note that yeah...this didn't send the civil rights moement back any amount of years...much less 50. However Radical Ron did not say that. He related how a local pastor said it. Radical Ron also stated that he didn't agree with that pastors statement (in fact he was "infuriated" at it). Reading what is wrote in full might help you avoid saying such incorrect statements in the future.

You're right, I read it as ron's position.

I live in Florida, and one local pastor at a church in the Tampa Bay area said that this incident has sent the civil rights movement back 50 years... I find that to be incredibly insulting to all the progress that has been made.

My apologies, Ron.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

I don't remember making this a Liberal v. Conservative issue? Where was that said?

When you said, "I am sad that Mr. Martin was killed, but simultaneously I am sorry that this issue is as "important" as the media and liberal and racist groups like the NAACP are making it out to be."

The attention it's getting has nothing to do with Liberals or Conservatives.

What evidence is there that Zimmerman was not attacked? Did he give himself those gashes on the back of his head?

I did not say he was not attacked, I said the police have stated they have evidence that Zimmerman's claim of Trayvon bashing his head on the concrete is not true.

My statement in no way was intended to imply that Trayvon Martin was a criminal. In fact I even said I was sad the he was killed. As for the civil rights movement statement, I could not disagree with you more. This was about race from the beginning and now there is a trial to determine what indeed happened that fateful night. People are trying to compare this to Emmitt Till (<==== Which was racial motivated).

I didn't say you implied that. I said your post was hyperbole, which it is. My mistake was in thinking the hyperbole was yours when it was actually that of the pastor you spoke of.

Umm, I don't know if you've ever heard a gunshot but that's pretty clear and loud. They would have asked questions either way.

The noise I spoke of was of the "arrest Zimmerman" crowd and not the gun. The case would never have gone to trial had they not been as vocal as they were.

 

[buck]

Here (emphasis mine in the hopes it jogs your memory of your own words

Correct me if I am wrong, since I really haven't paid too much attention to the polls on the issue, but don't the polls show that it does rather break down by party identification? Meaning republicans are more likely to believe Zimm's claim of SD while democrats tend not to.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

You do realize that Zimmerman has given one statement correct? That was to police. During that statement he made all of this information available up front. It is the police and the media who are twisting the information and releasing bits at a time. But keep only getting the info that suits your argument. Let the rest of us look at the complete picture.

Whoaaa ... just so ya know ... Zimmerma gave at least 3 statements to police ...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. Would it be fair to say you were questioned about four or five times?

ZIMMERMAN: I remember giving three statements, yes sir.

CNN.com - Transcripts​

 

[Kal'Stang]

Seems to me like he hit his head on something. Who knows? What I said was, the police have stated that they have evidence that Zimmerman's claim of Trayvon bashing his head on the concrete is not true.

Got a link for that police statement?

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Anyone with a brain cell working knows it's going to be very difficult for Zimmerman to get a fair trial. Professionals made a professional decision not to charge him with a crime. That's where it should have stopped. (If, indeed, the investigation was even over and that decision was made.

That is not where it should have stopped. I agree in cases of self defense which are blatantly obvious self defense was used, the state attorney's office should make such decisions. But this case is not so blatantly obvious. It screams for more scrutiny than that of Wolfinger and Lee.

To say "he would have walked scot free" is to say, "He's guilty." And with the attention this case has gotten, he's going to be found guilty of something whether he is or not.

That is not to say he's guilty, though I do believe he is. That is to say he wouldn't have even faced a jury for killing Trayvon. Although I believe he's guilty, I'm aware a jury may not.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Correct me if I am wrong, since I really haven't paid too much attention to the polls on the issue, but don't the polls show that it does rather break down by party identification? Meaning republicans are more likely to believe Zimm's claim of SD while democrats tend not to.

Have any links to any of those polls?

Also, "Liberal" and "Conservative" are not political parties.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Got a link for that police statement?

But of course ...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And he gave -- he the defendant gave numerous interviews to the police did he not.

GILBREATH: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that a lot of statements that he made do not make sense in terms of the injuries that he described. Did he not describe to the police that Mr. Martin had him on the ground and kept bashing his head on the concrete over and over and just physically beating him with his hands?

GILBREATH: He has said that, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that there is evidence that indicates that's not true?

GILBREATH: Yes.

CNN.com - Transcripts​

 

[Kreton]

But of course ...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And he gave -- he the defendant gave numerous interviews to the police did he not.

GILBREATH: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that a lot of statements that he made do not make sense in terms of the injuries that he described. Did he not describe to the police that Mr. Martin had him on the ground and kept bashing his head on the concrete over and over and just physically beating him with his hands?

GILBREATH: He has said that, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that there is evidence that indicates that's not true?

GILBREATH: Yes.

CNN.com - Transcripts​

Funny how last time you brought this up and I brought up the entirety of that conversation you didnt want to talk about it.

 

[Kreton]

Holy crap. Reading through this gives a great idea how weak the states case is. O'Mara worked Gilbreath over on this in my opinion. Gilbreath wont even admit to statements that he signed. That is rich. I especially like this part

O'MARA: Which means they met. I'm just curious with the word confronted and what evidence you have to support an affidavit you want in this judge to rely on that these facts with true and you use the word confronted. And I want to know your evidence to support the word confronted if you have any.

GILBREATH: Well, it's not that I have one.
Is it just me or did Gilbreath just admit to falsifying information in the affidavit?

DE LA RIONDA: And isn't it true that the dispatcher or operator tells Mr. Zimmerman, hold on — that's my word — but said something to the effect of you don't need to be following him, and he still continues to follow him?

GILBREATH: Yes.

Giving opinion on the stand as well. Interesting.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So do you know who started the fight?

GILBREATH: Do I know?

O'MARA: Right.

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?

GILBREATH: No.

Some people have said that evidence might be coming as to who started the fight. I'd say if the investigator doesn't know, it seems pretty safe to say that it will never be known.

O'MARA: And then he said he went back around and went towards his car, did he not? In his statement.

GILBREATH: In his statement after he was told not to talk by the dispatcher.

O'MARA: Got you.

GILBREATH: He says that he continued on to find a street sign and then went back to his car.

O'MARA: So he said before he knew anyone else saw or did not see what had happened, he gave a statement saying he went back to his car, correct?

GILBREATH: No. Towards his car.

More interesting information. Zimmerman found a street sign to know where he was then was heading back toward his car. He was not actually continuing his pursuit contrary to many peoples beliefs.

O'MARA: Had if been disclosed before he made that statement any information about what other evidence the police had gathered regarding this investigation?

GILBREATH: You mean to him? O'MARA: Yes.

GILBREATH: Not to my knowledge.

O'MARA: Would it be safe to assume then in giving him, and him giving that statement to the police wherein he said one, “I turned around and went back to my car”; and two, that he did not start the fight and that he was assaulted by Mr. Martin. When he gave that statement, did he have any indication that there were or were not half a dozen witnesses who saw the whole thing?

GILBREATH: I have no knowledge of that. I don't know what –

Clearly proving that Zimmerman did not know that no one would be able to contradict his story.

O'MARA: That he turned back to his car. We'll start with that one.

GILBREATH: I have nothing to indicate he did not or did not to that.
OMG That is a HUGE bombshell right there.
GILBREATH: Understanding — are you talking about at that point in time?

O'MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?

GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no.

No evidence to refute that Zimmerman was returning to his car.

O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts any eyewitnesses, anything that conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first?

GILBREATH: That contention that was given to us by him, other than filling in the figures being one following or chasing the other one, as to who threw the first blow, no.

Not only can the investigator not prove that Zimmerman was not returning to his vehicle, he also has no clue who threw the first blow.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he also not state that at some point, he the defendant — did he not state or claim that the victim in this case, Mr. Martin, put both hands one over his mouth and one over his nose so that he couldn't breathe?

GILBREATH: Yes.

So we have the possible attempted murder by slamming head into concrete, and now a possible suffocation. Either of which can be life threatening.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And all of sudden that's when he was able to get free and grab the gun. Or I'm sorry, Martin was grabbing for the gun, did he not claim that too at some point. climb that?

GILBREATH: Yes.

And a 3rd life threatening event of Martin going for the gun.

But is it possible that his head was slammed into concrete?

GILBREATH: Managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk and that is at that point is when the shooting subsequently followed. That is not consistent with the evidence we found.

O'MARA: The injuries seem to be consistent with his story, though, don't they?


Dale; The injuries are consistent with a harder object striking the back of his head than his head was.

O'MARA: Could that be cement?

GILBREATH: Could be.

Indeed. The head smashing cannot be proven false. In fact there is evidence to support it.

O'MARA: Ok. Have you ever had your nose broken?

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: Have you ever had your nose fractured or broken.

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: You know that that was an injury that Mr. Zimmerman sustained, correct?

GILBREATH: I know that that is an injury that is reported to have sustained. I haven't seen any medical records to indicate that.

O'MARA: Have you asked him for them?

GILBREATH: Have I asked him for them? No.

O'MARA: Do you want a copy of them?

GILBREATH: Sure.

O'MARA: I'll give them to the state. It's a more appropriate way to do it. If you haven't had them yet, I don't want to cross you on them.

Imagine that, medical reports do exist. WOOOO

 

[buck]

Have any links to any of those polls?

Also, "Liberal" and "Conservative" are not political parties.

Most conservatives are republican just as most liberals are democrats.

Anyway, I went searching – even though I really didn’t want to – and the polls do indeed show a political divide in a lot of areas of the case.

Poll: Trayvon Martin case divides US - US news - Christian Science Monitor - msnbc.com

 

[Kreton]

Whoaaa ... just so ya know ... Zimmerma gave at least 3 statements to police ...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. Would it be fair to say you were questioned about four or five times?

ZIMMERMAN: I remember giving three statements, yes sir.

CNN.com - Transcripts​

Same statement 3 times does not mean that his statements are changing or evolving as what was posted.

 

[sharon]

Most conservatives are republican just as most liberals are democrats.

Anyway, I went searching – even though I really didn’t want to – and the polls do indeed show a political divide in a lot of areas of the case.

Poll: Trayvon Martin case divides US - US news - Christian Science Monitor - msnbc.com

I can't imagine why it would be political at all.

The issue to me is did GZ recklessly cause the death of Trayvon.

If a stranger was following you, what would a reasonable person do?

Would you run and/or finally turn and address the threat?

I think that Trayvon turned and said something like.. "What the h*ll do yo want?"

And then GZ reached for his gun (or his cell phone) and Trayvon punched him and knocked him down.

I would ask GZ on the stand.. "Who were you planning to call?"

GZ could have targeted ANY black person that night...

And key here is that Trayvon was NOT doing anything unlawful.

 

[Sheik Yerbuti]

Funny how last time you brought this up and I brought up the entirety of that conversation you didnt want to talk about it.

Actually, all you asked me was what was the evidence that detective Gilbreath was alluding to; to which I responded that I could only tell you what was said in the hearing. And what he indicated was that there is evidence that Zimmerman's account of Trayvon bashing his head on the concrete is not true.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rge-zimmerman-custody-176.html#post1060432796

For you to portray that as something I didn't want to talk about it when in fact, I had no further information to talk about beyond what I had already said, is rather dishonest on your part.

 

[Kal'Stang]

But of course ...

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And he gave -- he the defendant gave numerous interviews to the police did he not.

GILBREATH: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that a lot of statements that he made do not make sense in terms of the injuries that he described. Did he not describe to the police that Mr. Martin had him on the ground and kept bashing his head on the concrete over and over and just physically beating him with his hands?

GILBREATH: He has said that, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that there is evidence that indicates that's not true?

GILBREATH: Yes.

CNN.com - Transcripts​

And then a bit further down there is this...

O'MARA: The injuries seem to be consistent with his story, though, don't they?

Dale; The injuries are consistent with a harder object striking the back of his head than his head was.

O'MARA: Could that be cement?

GILBREATH: Could be.

O'MARA: Did you just say it was consistent or did you say it wasn't consistent?

GILBREATH: I said it was.

Seems to me that Gilbreath is a bit confused as to what happened. At one point he says that the evidence contradicts Zimmermans injuries and then he says that the injuries are consistant to being hit with something harder than the head...could be cement.

 

[buck]

And key here is that Trayvon was NOT doing anything unlawful.

He was allegedly acting suspicious (walking in the rain in the night looking into the different houses) in an area that had seen a lot of crime in the past couple of years (400 911 calls from that community in the past year). I don't think it's too unreasonable to makybe want to keep an eye on the guy so that police can find him. I personally don't believe I would have, but I wouldn't fault someone for doing so.

 

[Kreton]

Actually, all you asked me was what was the evidence that detective Gilbreath was alluding to; to which I responded that I could only tell you what was said in the hearing. And what he indicated was that there is evidence that Zimmerman's account of Trayvon bashing his head on the concrete is not true.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...rge-zimmerman-custody-176.html#post1060432796

For you to portray that as something I didn't want to talk about it when in fact, I had no further information to talk about beyond what I had already said, is rather dishonest on your part.

LOL thank you for proving my point. Nice. Last time we were discussing this very thing I posted talking about that and you stopped until we got away from it. The detective sat there and showed the states weak case and all but conceeded that Zimmermans SD claim was not only possible but could not be refuted. Dont play on words here. If you want to bring up that transcript again in here, then discuss it.