New Picture of George Zimmerman Released

[goalpost]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

You can't claim self defense (or the right to stand your ground) if you are the instigator of the confrontation. The aggressor is not entitled to the defense of "self defense" or "stand your ground".

Haven't witness's stated that Zimmerman was a victim of an assault?

[Sher Khan]

Well this is how stupid the Florida law is. So the kid doesn't have a right to defend himself against some shadowy figure stalking him with a gun. If someone is stalking me brandishing a gun, I'm going to defend myself. How was the kid to know who this crackpot was? Zimmerman has zero credibility, so who's to say if he wasn't waving the gun around playing cop wannabe. He's displayed that tendency all his life. He disobeyed the police order to stay put. It be difficult at this point to believe him.

[The Noob Avenger]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

You can't claim self defense (or the right to stand your ground) if you are the instigator of the confrontation. The aggressor is not entitled to the defense of "self defense" or "stand your ground".

In this case all of the evidence (except Zimmerman's testimony) points to Zimmerman being the aggressor. The problem that Zimmerman faces is that he is a proven liar and has zero credibility. Since the only evidence that will save him is his own testimony he doesn't have a chance.

Yes he does, because there isn't enough evidence either way, at least not nearly enough for a murder charge.

Remember when Casey Anthony got off because they couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt? This one has even less evidence.

[RhythmicGeek]

Originally Posted by The Noob Avenger

Yes he does, because there isn't enough evidence either way, at least not nearly enough for a murder charge.

Remember when Casey Anthony got off because they couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt? This one has even less evidence.

The Anthony case had a lot of circumstantial evidence, but in this case we have someone who acknowledges they killed the person. I understand what you are saying, but there is a big difference between those two.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by goalpost

Haven't witness's stated that Zimmerman was a victim of an assault?

No. Absolutely no one saw who started it. No one paid attention until it had already started and Zimmerman was yelling.

[BengaliJack]

Originally Posted by Sher Khan

Well this is how stupid the Florida law is. So the kid doesn't have a right to defend himself against some shadowy figure stalking him with a gun. If someone is stalking me brandishing a gun, I'm going to defend myself. How was the kid to know who this crackpot was? Zimmerman has zero credibility, so who's to say if he wasn't waving the gun around playing cop wannabe. He's displayed that tendency all his life. He disobeyed the police order to stay put. It be difficult at this point to believe him.

Cut and dry case to me. Zimmerman should not have pursued Treyvon....the cops CLEARLY told him not to....how and why he and Treyvon ever came to blows is the real mystery, but it never should have happened in the first place. His duty as neighborhood watch was done after he reported a suspicious person to the police.

[The Noob Avenger]

Originally Posted by RhythmicGeek

The Anthony case had a lot of circumstantial evidence, but in this case we have someone who acknowledges they killed the person. I understand what you are saying, but there is a big difference between those two.

There isn't a criteria difference in proving murder, though. He says he killed him in self defense. Who's to say he didn't? That's reasonable doubt.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by The Noob Avenger

Yes he does, because there isn't enough evidence either way, at least not nearly enough for a murder charge.

Evidence that Zimmerman was aggressor.
....Treyvon tried to run way instead of instigate a confrontation.
....Zimmerman stalked Treyvon even though the dispatcher told him not to and it was contrary to his Neighborhood Watch training.
....Zimmerman was angry with Treyvon and cursed at him.
....Zimmerman has a prior criminal history of violent behavior.

Evidence that Treyvon was aggressor
....The story of a man who had his bond revoked for lying in court and who tried to claim Treyvon attacked him at a spot forty feet from where the killing took place. It is pretty much physically impossible for his story to be true.

Zimmerman's lawyers know he doesn't have a chance at trial. That is why they are pulling stunts like posting this piece of evidence on a websight and trying to discredit the prosecution.


BTW despite what you hear in the media the prosecution wil probabaly not even mention race at the trial. There is no proven racial element to this case, and I think they will just avoid that issue altogether. the big issue about race is more about the way the city handled the investigation than whyb treyvon was killed in the first place.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by The Noob Avenger

There isn't a criteria difference in proving murder, though. He says he killed him in self defense. Who's to say he didn't? That's reasonable doubt.

The physical evidence says he didn't. The killing took place forty feet from where Zimmerman said he was attacked. That will prove that he is lying.

The only evidence that Treyvon started the fight is Zimmerman's story and it can be proven false by physical evidence.

[The Noob Avenger]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

The physical evidence says he didn't. The killing took place forty feet from where Zimmerman said he was attacked. That will prove that he is lying.

The only evidence that Treyvon started the fight is Zimmerman's story and it can be proven false by physical evidence.

Except that the location of where zim may or may not have shot trayvon is completely circumstantial. An audio recording of Trayvon yelling "Please, drop the gun! I'll go!" or an eyewitness that said he executed trayvon and then beat himself up would be physical evidence.

Again, I'm not 100% convinced that it wasn't murder, but the current evidence that has been revealed does not come close to getting a murder conviction.

EDIT: Actually, an eyewitness account would also be circumstantial, but would still be just as damning as physical evidence.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by The Noob Avenger

Except that the location of where zim may or may not have shot trayvon is completely circumstantial..

It is not circumstancial at all. We know exactly where he was killed and exactly where Zimmerman claims he was attacked. They are not even close to the same place. It proves that Zimmerman is clearly lying.

The funny thing is that Zimmermans defense team made a video to release to the public to get out Zimmerman's version of the story and it shows him on a sidewalk saying that this is where he was walking back to his car when Treyvon attacked him. Then for no apparent reason it suddenly switches to another place and shows Zimmerman explaining how this is where he struggled with Treyvon and shot him.

I don't expect this case to ever even go to trial. The defense has nothing.

[The Noob Avenger]

Originally Posted by fredtoast

It is not circumstancial at all. We know exactly where he was killed and exactly where Zimmerman claims he was attacked. They are not even close to the same place. It proves that Zimmerman is clearly lying.

The funny thing is that Zimmermans defense team made a video to release to the public to get out Zimmerman's version of the story and it shows him on a sidewalk saying that this is where he was walking back to his car when Treyvon attacked him. Then for no apparent reason it suddenly switches to another place and shows Zimmerman explaining how this is where he struggled with Treyvon and shot him.

I don't expect this case to ever even go to trial. The defense has nothing.

The case is already going to trial, though?

Physical evidence is actual physical things, tangible things, found at the scene. The location of the shooter is circumstantial. Bullet casings showing he was standing there are physical.

[BengalRugby]

Cut and dry case to me. Zimmerman should not have pursued Treyvon....the cops CLEARLY told him not to....how and why he and Treyvon ever came to blows is the real mystery, but it never should have happened in the first place. His duty as neighborhood watch was done after he reported a suspicious person to the police.


Except cops never told him that. This is the second time you have made that false claim.


Agree it never should have happened in the first place. Treyvon's girlfriend told him to run away, but he chose not to. If he would have ran, he would still be alive today.


Treyvon lost Zimmerman, then turned back and stalked stalking him, which if he didn't make the choice to become the aggressor, he'd still be alive today.


Further, Treyvon knocked down Zimmerman, but instead of fleeing, he chose to keep attacking slamming his head into the concrete. If he would have fled instead, or simply backed down after achieving the upper hand, he'd still be alive today.



A lot of bad decisions were made that night, on both sides. I do not know what happened for 100% certain that night, only that a lot of bad decisions were made and a young man ended up dead as a result. One good decision could have changed the whole outcome of the night, but that was not how it played out.


I am not saying Zimmerman is innocent or guilty, only that I do not know and am looking at the situation objectively.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

Cut and dry case to me. Zimmerman should not have pursued Treyvon....the cops CLEARLY told him not to....how and why he and Treyvon ever came to blows is the real mystery, but it never should have happened in the first place. His duty as neighborhood watch was done after he reported a suspicious person to the police.


Except cops never told him that. This is the second time you have made that false claim.


Agree it never should have happened in the first place. Treyvon's girlfriend told him to run away, but he chose not to. If he would have ran, he would still be alive today.


Treyvon lost Zimmerman, then turned back and stalked stalking him, which if he didn't make the choice to become the aggressor, he'd still be alive today.


Further, Treyvon knocked down Zimmerman, but instead of fleeing, he chose to keep attacking slamming his head into the concrete. If he would have fled instead, or simply backed down after achieving the upper hand, he'd still be alive today.



A lot of bad decisions were made that night, on both sides. I do not know what happened for 100% certain that night, only that a lot of bad decisions were made and a young man ended up dead as a result. One good decision could have changed the whole outcome of the night, but that was not how it played out.


I am not saying Zimmerman is innocent or guilty, only that I do not know and am looking at the situation objectively.

There is an audio of the police telling Zimmerman not to pursue the kid. I heard it myself early on in this. No one knows who knocked who down, there is only Zimmerman's word for that. He could very well have caused his only injuries to throw the police off after he shot the kid. It's been done before. He wouldn't be the first to bash his own head on the cement or with his own gun. Nor are there any witnesses I have heard of that saw the beginning of the fight to ascertain who struck who first.

No one knows what actually happened is the problem. Only Zimmerman knows. But he was armed, and the kid was not. The issue to me is more about the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law than anything else. Doesn't take much imagination to conjure up pictures of shootouts between two armed individuals who both are "standing their ground" under this ridiculas law. Florida is lucky so far they have not had a shootout on every corner. I can just imagine the results of this law in Philadelphia, New York, or DC. It'd be like Khe Sanh all over again.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by The Noob Avenger

The case is already going to trial, though?

Physical evidence is actual physical things, tangible things, found at the scene. The location of the shooter is circumstantial. Bullet casings showing he was standing there are physical.

Wrong. Circumstantial evidence is indirect evidence of a crime. Any kind of evidence (even physical evidence) can be circumstantial evidence. For example if you get caught with stolen property it is circumstantial evidence that you stole it. A recording of a threat to someone who was killed is circumstantial evidence that you killed them. On the other hand an eyewitness saying you committed a crime is direct evidence or your semen in a rape victim.

The proof that Treyvon was killed in a different place from where Zimmerman claimed he was attacked is direct evidence that Zimmerman is lying.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

Further, Treyvon knocked down Zimmerman, but instead of fleeing, he chose to keep attacking slamming his head into the concrete. If he would have fled instead, or simply backed down after achieving the upper hand, he'd still be alive today.

No he wouldn't.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

Treyvon lost Zimmerman, then turned back and stalked stalking him, which if he didn't make the choice to become the aggressor, he'd still be alive today.

No he didn't lose Zimmerman for very long. Treyvon's phone conversation to his girlfriend is proof that Zimmerman was still following him. The fact that Zimmerman was 40 feet from the sidewalk where he claimed he was walking back to his car proves that he was still following Treyvon instead of going back to his car.

I suppose Treyvon did not want to lead this stalker back to where he lived, and I don't blame him for that. He was probably just thinking of the safety of the rest of his family.

[BengalRugby]

There is an audio of the police telling Zimmerman not to pursue the kid. I heard it myself early on in this. No one knows who knocked who down, there is only Zimmerman's word for that. He could very well have caused his only injuries to throw the police off after he shot the kid. It's been done before. He wouldn't be the first to bash his own head on the cement or with his own gun. Nor are there any witnesses I have heard of that saw the beginning of the fight to ascertain who struck who first.

No one knows what actually happened is the problem. Only Zimmerman knows. But he was armed, and the kid was not. The issue to me is more about the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law than anything else. Doesn't take much imagination to conjure up pictures of shootouts between two armed individuals who both are "standing their ground" under this ridiculas law. Florida is lucky so far they have not had a shootout on every corner. I can just imagine the results of this law in Philadelphia, New York, or DC. It'd be like Khe Sanh all over again.


Was it the police, or a 911 dispatcher? They are very different in levels of training and authority, so the difference is very significant.


The rest of what you said is a presentation that Zimmerman faked everything. Not saying that's impossible, but when you hear hoof beats it's almost always a horse, and rarely a zebra.

I based my statements off what Zimmerman said and what was said by Treyvon's girlfriend, who he was on the phone with at the inception of the event.



I am not arguing either side of stand your ground, just pointing out that a lot of bad decisions were made that night by both sides.

[Sher Khan]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

There is an audio of the police telling Zimmerman not to pursue the kid. I heard it myself early on in this. No one knows who knocked who down, there is only Zimmerman's word for that. He could very well have caused his only injuries to throw the police off after he shot the kid. It's been done before. He wouldn't be the first to bash his own head on the cement or with his own gun. Nor are there any witnesses I have heard of that saw the beginning of the fight to ascertain who struck who first.

No one knows what actually happened is the problem. Only Zimmerman knows. But he was armed, and the kid was not. The issue to me is more about the Florida "Stand Your Ground" law than anything else. Doesn't take much imagination to conjure up pictures of shootouts between two armed individuals who both are "standing their ground" under this ridiculas law. Florida is lucky so far they have not had a shootout on every corner. I can just imagine the results of this law in Philadelphia, New York, or DC. It'd be like Khe Sanh all over again.


Was it the police, or a 911 dispatcher? They are very different in levels of training and authority, so the difference is very significant.


The rest of what you said is a presentation that Zimmerman faked everything. Not saying that's impossible, but when you hear hoof beats it's almost always a horse, and rarely a zebra.

I based my statements off what Zimmerman said and what was said by Treyvon's girlfriend, who he was on the phone with at the inception of the event.



I am not arguing either side of stand your ground, just pointing out that a lot of bad decisions were made that night by both sides.

Good points, and I'm really not sure about the audio. Whether it was a dispatcher or the actual Police I don't remember. I agree there is plenty of room for speculation. Did Zimmerman have the presence of mind to fake injury, or did he or did he not instigate the actual fight? We'll probably never know. I just come down on the side of who was armed and who was not.

That then tends to go to the law that created this mess in the first place. We seem to agree on that or at least not disagree. I'm not opposed to a concealed carry license, but the stand your ground law is just not well thought through in my opinion. Straying off topic, states who have allowed a more flexible concealed carry law have for the most part experienced a lower crime rate to some degree. I don't know if that is offset by a higher incident of injury or death as a result. That would be interesting to know. But I think stand your ground is going too far.

It's a good discussion.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

Was it the police, or a 911 dispatcher? They are very different in levels of training and authority, so the difference is very significant.

Apparently there is much difference to Zimmerman who already had a resisting arrest conviction on his record at the time he killed Treyvon.

[BengalRugby]

No he wouldn't.

Zimmerman stated he lost Treyvon, so yes, Treyvon would have been alive. Or maybe you're implying he couldn't outrun Zimmerman?



Apparently there is much difference to Zimmerman who already had a resisting arrest conviction on his record at the time he killed Treyvon.

Completely off point, as per usual.

Stating the difference between a 911 dispatcher and a police officer. Zimmerman's history has nothing to do with a police officer's training and authority compared to a 911 dispatcher.



No he didn't lose Zimmerman for very long. Treyvon's phone conversation to his girlfriend is proof that Zimmerman was still following him. The fact that Zimmerman was 40 feet from the sidewalk where he claimed he was walking back to his car proves that he was still following Treyvon instead of going back to his car.

I suppose Treyvon did not want to lead this stalker back to where he lived, and I don't blame him for that. He was probably just thinking of the safety of the rest of his family.

He lost him. Your own words. So he could easily have fled.

40 feet is nothing. It is a distance that could easily be covered when fighting, hence why there is a ring in boxing, MMA, etc... Could have been twice that easily and doesn't support what you're claiming.

Leading back to where he lived has nothing to do with running away. Note I never said to run home, so your guesswork doesn't apply. And in fact, according to the girlfriend's account, Treyvon did exactly that, head to his father's home, so you're wrong again. But that's what happens when you guess and don't know the facts...



Like I said, lots of bad decisions were made, and unlike some, I am not massaging the evidence to paint one picture or another. I am only pointing out that bad decisions were made on both sides.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

No he wouldn't.

Zimmerman stated he lost Treyvon, so yes, Treyvon would have been alive. Or maybe you're implying he couldn't outrun Zimmerman?

1. This comment was regarding your assertion that Treyvon would have been alive if he had just ran away after striking Zimmerman.

2. Zimmerman didn't lose Treyvon for very long. The phonecall with the girlfriend proves he was still following treyvon, and the place where Treyvon was killed shows he was still following him instead of returning to his car.

[BengalRugby]

1. This comment was regarding your assertion that Treyvon would have been alive if he had just ran away after striking Zimmerman.

2. Zimmerman didn't lose Treyvon for very long. The phonecall with the girlfriend proves he was still following treyvon, and the place where Treyvon was killed shows he was still following him instead of returning to his car.


How do you know he would not be? Zimmerman would be on the ground, and Treyvon would have a head start. Why would he not be alive?

He lost Zimmerman, and Zimmerman returned to his vehicle. Just because the fight went to the ground 40 feet from such a path proves nothing, as evidenced in the point about the cage/ring. Others have suggested that Treyvon turned the tables and was stalking Zimmerman, but I do not know if that is true either.

No clue why you assume the only outcome is death and without all the testimony and evidence you can be so certain he is guilty? Not that you are one for objectivity to begin with. Ah well, I'll pass on that discussion and still with my simple points, as I too do not have all the evidence. But simply know for a fact many bad decisions were made on both sides, all it took was one good one, from either party, and Treyvon would still be alive today.

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

No he didn't lose Zimmerman for very long. Treyvon's phone conversation to his girlfriend is proof that Zimmerman was still following him. The fact that Zimmerman was 40 feet from the sidewalk where he claimed he was walking back to his car proves that he was still following Treyvon instead of going back to his car.

I suppose Treyvon did not want to lead this stalker back to where he lived, and I don't blame him for that. He was probably just thinking of the safety of the rest of his family.

He lost him. Your own words. So he could easily have fled.

40 feet is nothing. It is a distance that could easily be covered when fighting, hence why there is a ring in boxing, MMA, etc... Could have been twice that easily and doesn't support what you're claiming.

Leading back to where he lived has nothing to do with running away. Note I never said to run home, so your guesswork doesn't apply. And in fact, according to the girlfriend's account, Treyvon did exactly that, head to his father's home, so you're wrong again. But that's what happens when you guess and don't know the facts...



Like I said, lots of bad decisions were made, and unlike some, I am not massaging the evidence to paint one picture or another. I am only pointing out that bad decisions were made on both sides.

It is impossible for you to massage the evidence because you do not even know what it is. Here is wht the girl said

"He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run."
Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.
"Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn't answer the phone."



http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-mar...7#.UL-Ys2fuuYI


So please explain to me how Treyvon made a bad decision not to run when his girlfriend not only said that he did run, but that Zimmerman caught back up with him and had him cornered?

[fredtoast]

Originally Posted by BengalRugby

He lost Zimmerman, and Zimmerman returned to his vehicle. Just because the fight went to the ground 40 feet from such a path proves nothing, as evidenced in the point about the cage/ring.

Zimmerman NEVER returned to his car. He claimed he was when he was attacked from behind and his head was pounded against the sidewalk and the confrontation only ended when he was able to pull his gun and shoot Treyvon. But Treyvon was killed forty feet from the sidewalk. None of the witnesses place the fight anywhere near the sidewalk.

In order to believe Zimmerman you have to believe that Treyvon attacked him on the sidewalk and that Zimmerman was never able to get up until they somehow moved forty feet away where he was able to draw his gun and kill Martin.

Add in the fact that Zimmerman is a a proven liar, and the story becomes even more unbelievable.