One on One; Granite and fool on the Zimmerman Case

Status
Not open for further replies.

fool

New member
Hall of Fame
Sweet!
Here we are with our own thread to figure this all out.

The Zimmerman case will go down in history as a study of how the media can spread misinformation like wildfire until the public is ready to lynch someone, but once you start to gather the facts you find out that half of what you thought you knew was wrong.

When this case first broke the news I was one of those ready to lynch Zimmerman. Once more facts came out I realized I had been trolled by the media (me and everyone else).

I am now of the opinion that Zimmerman did nothing wrong.

What say you Granite?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Zimmerman acted foolishly, recklessly, and made this situation happen. If he'd acted with any kind of sense, prudence, or responsibility as a gun owner a teenager would still be alive and Zimmerman's life wouldn't be ruined. To say he did nothing wrong that night is simply inaccurate.
 

fool

New member
Hall of Fame
Zimmerman acted foolishly, recklessly, and made this situation happen. If he'd acted with any kind of sense, prudence, or responsibility as a gun owner a teenager would still be alive and Zimmerman's life wouldn't be ruined. To say he did nothing wrong that night is simply inaccurate.

OK, that's what I thought you'd say and that's why we're here.
First I guess we have to agree on the facts of the case, did Martin jump Zimmerman?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
OK, that's what I thought you'd say and that's why we're here.
First I guess we have to agree on the facts of the case, did Martin jump Zimmerman?

There is no way to know for sure. Being dogmatic about this detail's impossible if you're being objective.
 

fool

New member
Hall of Fame
There is no way to know for sure. Being dogmatic about this detail's impossible if you're being objective.

Right, I'm not dogmatic about anything in this case, but we have to at least try to establish what went down in order to get to the part where;
Zimmerman acted foolishly, recklessly, and made this situation happen. If he'd acted with any kind of sense, prudence, or responsibility..........

How did Zimmerman make this situation happen?
This is where it's important we come to some working conclusion as to who did what.
If Zimmerman found and tried to detain Martin then that would be criminal on Zimmerman's part.
But we have no evidence of that being the case.
Going with the Zimmerman version for now, at what point did he take an action that was reckless?
Or rather, what did he do that he should have expected to get attacked for?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
How did Zimmerman make this situation happen?

He had the gun. He gave pursuit. He assumed Martin had no business or right to be in the neighborhood. He immediately assumed Martin was a criminal. He was still, when being interviewed after the shooting, with clarifying facts provided to him by Serino, muttering "punks" under his breath. (Serino finally called him out on it.)

One guy was armed and one guy got out of his car. One guy didn't identify himself as neighborhood watch. It's hard for me to see Zimmerman as anything less than an instigator.

If Zimmerman found and tried to detain Martin then that would be criminal on Zimmerman's part.

I don't think he ever claimed that's what he had in mind, but I believe you're correct.

Going with the Zimmerman version for now, at what point did he take an action that was reckless?

Well, let's see: He claimed he saw an individual he deemed "suspicious." He then claimed he forgot he was carrying his sidearm. And he claimed to be in fear of this individual--a "punk," in Zimmerman's words, who was presumably a criminal--even before giving pursuit on foot.

Assuming Zimmerman's telling the entire truth, what about his account, taking his story at face value, strikes you as prudent, smart, or responsible? Put another way: Would you consider a guy so daft he doesn't remember he's got a gun, who pursues a fishy character on a dark and rainy night, and tells the cops he was scared the whole time,to be someone who wasn't reckless? At best, Zimmerman acted like a complete dope, and that's assuming he didn't lie, or embellish his story. Even his own account doesn't paint him in a very favorable light. I'm surprised a detective didn't just flat-out ask him at some point: "George, what the hell did you think you were doing?"

Or rather, what did he do that he should have expected to get attacked for?

As I've said before: If I had a right to be somewhere, and was walking home, and a dude in a baseball cap started following me--to the point where he got out of his vehicle to keep up with me--my first thought would not have been, "Oh, it's cool; he must be with the neighborhood watch." Why this never occurred to Zimmerman just shows how confident he was that Trayvon Martin was a prowler, or intruder of some kind. And if Zimmerman also thought Martin was on drugs--on top of being a crook--he should have been smart enough to ask himself just what a criminal who was high might do to someone who was following him around in the rain.

Zimmerman followed a stranger and confronted him. If Zimmerman was so sure Martin was a crook, or at least up to no good, what did Zimmerman expect to have happen?

Put yet another way: If you start following a guy you're sure is a deviant high on drugs, how do you think he'll react?
 

fool

New member
Hall of Fame
He had the gun. He gave pursuit.
Help me out with "giving pursuit".
He assumed Martin had no business or right to be in the neighborhood. He immediately assumed Martin was a criminal. He was still, when being interviewed after the shooting, with clarifying facts provided to him by Serino, muttering "punks" under his breath. (Serino finally called him out on it.)
He called in somthing suspicious.


One guy was armed and one guy got out of his car.
Should getting out of your car be grounds for getting jumped?

One guy didn't identify himself as neighborhood watch.
Good point.
But does he have to?
At what point did Zimmerman go from person walking around to "threat that had to be confronted"?
It's hard for me to see Zimmerman as anything less than an instigator.
Where in the Zimmerman narrative did he instigate anything?








Assuming Zimmerman's telling the entire truth, what about his account, taking his story at face value, strikes you as prudent, smart, or responsible? Put another way: Would you consider a guy so daft he doesn't remember he's got a gun, who pursues a fishy character on a dark and rainy night, and tells the cops he was scared the whole time,to be someone who wasn't reckless? At best, Zimmerman acted like a complete dope, and that's assuming he didn't lie, or embellish his story. Even his own account doesn't paint him in a very favorable light. I'm surprised a detective didn't just flat-out ask him at some point: "George, what the hell did you think you were doing?"
He was keeping eyes on the guy?
I don't see the narrative bearing out a hot pursuit?
A soft pursuit in the dark with no flashlight for sure, and here you score some points, Zimmerman had a flashlight that didn't work.



As I've said before: If I had a right to be somewhere, and was walking home, and a dude in a baseball cap started following me--to the point where he got out of his vehicle to keep up with me--my first thought would not have been, "Oh, it's cool; he must be with the neighborhood watch." Why this never occurred to Zimmerman just shows how confident he was that Trayvon Martin was a prowler, or intruder of some kind. And if Zimmerman also thought Martin was on drugs--on top of being a crook--he should have been smart enough to ask himself just what a criminal who was high might do to someone who was following him around in the rain.
But Martin doubles back and circled Zimmerman?




Zimmerman followed a stranger and confronted him
.
Where? When?

If Zimmerman was so sure Martin was a crook, or at least up to no good, what did Zimmerman expect to have happen?
He expected that the cops he called would show up and interview Martin?
Put yet another way: If you start following a guy you're sure is a deviant high on drugs, how do you think he'll react?
Just like Martin did?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Help me out with "giving pursuit".

"Following someone on foot" pretty much sums it up.

He called in somthing suspicious.

Something he deemed suspicious that proved to be innocuous.

Should getting out of your car be grounds for getting jumped?

That all depends, now doesn't it. I think we can both think of plenty of hypotheticals where a guy emerging from his vehicle deserves to get his butt kicked. But that's really besides the point: Zimmerman did not merely leave his vehicle.

Good point. But does he have to?

I'm not aware of any legal obligation he was under to do so. That said, not even attempting as much strikes me as one more foolhardy mistake out of several.

At what point did Zimmerman go from person walking around to "threat that had to be confronted"?

Well, that's the thing: No one but Zimmerman is sure about what exactly happened that night, so we're all left with speculation.

Where in the Zimmerman narrative did he instigate anything?

When he decided Trayon Martin was a crook and kept the guy in his crosshairs. That's when.

He was keeping eyes on the guy?

Yes, absolutely. In the words of Detective Serino: "That's following."

But Martin doubles back and circled Zimmerman?

We don't know for sure that he did. (Do we?) And maybe he did because he wanted to see where Zimmerman was or what the guy was up to. Maybe he got disoriented. Maybe he was scared and confused and panicking.

Remember: Martin had no more reason (and showed no indication) to trust Zimmerman anymore than Zimmerman trusted him. There seems to be an implicit understanding from many of Zimmerman's defenders that Martin should've just let Zimmerman trail him without once assuming the worst about Zimmerman and his intentions.

Where? When?

https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=1079

Zimmerman: And I wasn’t following him. I was just going in the same direction he was. Once he said…
Serino: That’s following (laughs).

Singleton: The other day you told me you got out of the car because dispatch was asking your location and you wanted to orient yourself. You did not tell me that you said, “Oh, ****, he’s running” and then got out of the car and went in that same direction at the same time. Do you see what the problem is?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: And I asked you did, would you, did you, you know, look for him and you told me no.
Zimmerman: I don’t remember, ma’am. I’m sorry.
Singleton: You told me the only, the reason you got out of your car was to get an address.
Zimmerman: Yes, right.
Singleton: But you decided to get the address…fresh in the second after you say, “Oh, ****, he’s running.” And then it sounds like you’re running too.

Just like Martin did?

Again: We don't know how exactly Martin reacted, who threw the first blow, etc. But if Zimmerman thought he was chasing a drugged-up crook while unarmed he's a complete fool and a reckless dope with a death wish.

Either that or he knew full well he was armed and figured he was tougher than he actually was.

Words were exchanged, his blood was up, and instead of "Neighborhood Watch, can I help you?" he confronted a teenager and wound up killing him.

He followed. He instigated.
 

fool

New member
Hall of Fame
"Following someone on foot" pretty much sums it up.
Zimmerman had just as much right to walk down that sidewalk as Martin did, as did anybody else for that matter.



Something he deemed suspicious that proved to be innocuous.
But it didn't prove to be innocuous did it? Apparently Martin attacks people that use the sidewalk within a certain time frame after he used it?



That all depends, now doesn't it. I think we can both think of plenty of hypotheticals where a guy emerging from his vehicle deserves to get his butt kicked. But that's really besides the point: Zimmerman did not merely leave his vehicle.
Zimmerman had just as much right to walk down that side walk as Martin did.



I'm not aware of any legal obligation he was under to do so. That said, not even attempting as much strikes me as one more foolhardy mistake out of several.
It doesn't seem like he got much of a chance for small talk. He was on his way to the store so if he did have some kind of uniform for his watch thing he didn't have it on.



Well, that's the thing: No one but Zimmerman is sure about what exactly happened that night, so we're all left with speculation.
And the speculation runs rampant. as well as the character assination on both sides.
The the main reason I wanted the One on One was so we can examine the facts of those two individuals actions that night with out the rabbit trails of what's on whose cell phone and who shoved a cop once upon a time.



When he decided Trayon Martin was a crook and kept the guy in his crosshairs. That's when.



Yes, absolutely. In the words of Detective Serino: "That's following."



We don't know for sure that he did. (Do we?) And maybe he did because he wanted to see where Zimmerman was or what the guy was up to. Maybe he got disoriented. Maybe he was scared and confused and panicking.

Remember: Martin had no more reason (and showed no indication) to trust Zimmerman anymore than Zimmerman trusted him. There seems to be an implicit understanding from many of Zimmerman's defenders that Martin should've just let Zimmerman trail him without once assuming the worst about Zimmerman and his intentions.



https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=1079

Zimmerman: And I wasn’t following him. I was just going in the same direction he was. Once he said…
Serino: That’s following (laughs).

Singleton: The other day you told me you got out of the car because dispatch was asking your location and you wanted to orient yourself. You did not tell me that you said, “Oh, ****, he’s running” and then got out of the car and went in that same direction at the same time. Do you see what the problem is?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: And I asked you did, would you, did you, you know, look for him and you told me no.
Zimmerman: I don’t remember, ma’am. I’m sorry.
Singleton: You told me the only, the reason you got out of your car was to get an address.
Zimmerman: Yes, right.
Singleton: But you decided to get the address…fresh in the second after you say, “Oh, ****, he’s running.” And then it sounds like you’re running too.



Again: We don't know how exactly Martin reacted, who threw the first blow, etc. But if Zimmerman thought he was chasing a drugged-up crook while unarmed he's a complete fool and a reckless dope with a death wish.

Either that or he knew full well he was armed and figured he was tougher than he actually was.

Words were exchanged, his blood was up, and instead of "Neighborhood Watch, can I help you?" he confronted a teenager and wound up killing him.

He followed. He instigated.[/QUOTE]
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Zimmerman had just as much right to walk down that sidewalk as Martin did, as did anybody else for that matter.

Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.

But it didn't prove to be innocuous did it? Apparently Martin attacks people that use the sidewalk within a certain time frame after he used it?

...or he fights back after being attacked. Again: Saying Martin attacked Zimmerman is being dogmatic without having the full facts at our disposal.

It doesn't seem like he got much of a chance for small talk.

Yet he found time to speak to Martin and didn't even bother identifying himself or his role in the neighborhood. Zimmerman was confrontational in the brief exchange and didn't need to be. He chose to be.

The the main reason I wanted the One on One was so we can examine the facts of those two individuals actions that night with out the rabbit trails of what's on whose cell phone and who shoved a cop once upon a time.

Agreed. And I haven't brought up those rabbit holes or suggested we plunge down them yet again. Not sure why you brought this up, especially since if anyone's speculating so far, it's you. I don't know who struck first that night. Nobody does except Zimmerman. To say otherwise is unfounded and purely speculative.
 

fool

New member
Hall of Fame
"Following someone on foot" pretty much sums it up.
Zimmerman had just as much right to walk down that sidewalk as Martin did, as did anybody else for that matter.



Something he deemed suspicious that proved to be innocuous.
But it didn't prove to be innocuous did it? Apparently Martin attacks people that use the sidewalk within a certain time frame after he used it?



That all depends, now doesn't it. I think we can both think of plenty of hypotheticals where a guy emerging from his vehicle deserves to get his butt kicked. But that's really besides the point: Zimmerman did not merely leave his vehicle.
Zimmerman had just as much right to walk down that side walk as Martin did.



I'm not aware of any legal obligation he was under to do so. That said, not even attempting as much strikes me as one more foolhardy mistake out of several.
It doesn't seem like he got much of a chance for small talk. He was on his way to the store so if he did have some kind of uniform for his watch thing he didn't have it on.



Well, that's the thing: No one but Zimmerman is sure about what exactly happened that night, so we're all left with speculation.
And the speculation runs rampant. as well as the character assination on both sides.
The the main reason I wanted the One on One was so we can examine the facts of those two individuals actions that night with out the rabbit trails of what's on whose cell phone and who shoved a cop once upon a time.



When he decided Trayon Martin was a crook and kept the guy in his crosshairs. That's when.
That's not instigating. Zimmerman saw Martin, drove past him and parked at the clubhouse, called the cops, and observed. Martin made went past him, down the side walk, then turned around and walked all the way back to Zimmerman and walked in a circle around his truck eyeballing him. That is instigating. Unless Martin was conducting some kind of exercise routine that required back tracking and making a circle. If Zimmerman was looking for a confrontation he would have had it then, but he was on the phone to the cops and observed and reported the behavior. Did not get out of his truck.



Yes, absolutely. In the words of Detective Serino: "That's following."
Zimmerman had as much right to walk down that side walk as anybody.



We don't know for sure that he did. (Do we?) And maybe he did because he wanted to see where Zimmerman was or what the guy was up to. Maybe he got disoriented. Maybe he was scared and confused and panicking.
He was away from Zimmerman, who did nothing beyond drive past him and park.
He chose to come back and circle.
That's not scared, confused or panicking.
He backtracked to eyeball the guy that was eyeballing him.



Remember: Martin had no more reason (and showed no indication) to trust Zimmerman anymore than Zimmerman trusted him. There seems to be an implicit understanding from many of Zimmerman's defenders that Martin should've just let Zimmerman trail him without once assuming the worst about Zimmerman and his intentions.
But that falls apart because Zimmerman parked and Martin came back to him and circled.
Zimmerman had just as much right to walk down that side walk as Martin had to backtrack.



https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=1079

Zimmerman: And I wasn’t following him. I was just going in the same direction he was. Once he said…
Serino: That’s following (laughs).

Singleton: The other day you told me you got out of the car because dispatch was asking your location and you wanted to orient yourself. You did not tell me that you said, “Oh, ****, he’s running” and then got out of the car and went in that same direction at the same time. Do you see what the problem is?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: And I asked you did, would you, did you, you know, look for him and you told me no.
Zimmerman: I don’t remember, ma’am. I’m sorry.
Singleton: You told me the only, the reason you got out of your car was to get an address.
Zimmerman: Yes, right.
Singleton: But you decided to get the address…fresh in the second after you say, “Oh, ****, he’s running.” And then it sounds like you’re running too.
Zimmerman had as much right to walk down that side walk as Martin, or anybody, or run, or skip, or hopscotch.



Again: We don't know how exactly Martin reacted, who threw the first blow, etc. But if Zimmerman thought he was chasing a drugged-up crook while unarmed he's a complete fool and a reckless dope with a death wish.
He followed at a distance, observing, like I said he as just as much right to walk down that side walk as anybody.

Either that or he knew full well he was armed and figured he was tougher than he actually was.
If he wanted a confrontation he would have challenged hi when he circled the car.

Words were exchanged, his blood was up, and instead of "Neighborhood Watch, can I help you?" he confronted a teenager and wound up killing him.
That's not shown.
He followed. He instigated.
Again, Zimmerman had as much right to walk down that side walk as anybody.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
All right, looks like you edited your response, so I'll address the new material.

That's not instigating. Zimmerman saw Martin, drove past him and parked at the clubhouse, called the cops, and observed.

Did you read the transcript or the excerpt I posted? Right before the encounter he saw Martin, then broke into a run and followed him. He also tried to weasel out of this and ommitted it from his account with one of the detectives until called on it.

If Zimmerman was looking for a confrontation he would have had it then, but he was on the phone to the cops and observed and reported the behavior. Did not get out of his truck.

Again, that's at odds with the transcript.

That's not scared, confused or panicking.

Zimmerman told 911 Martin was running away. He followed the kid.

If he'd stayed back, or not pursued Martin, or stayed in his vehicle--in short, if Zimmerman had done anything other than what he chose to do that night--none of this would've happened.
 

fool

New member
Hall of Fame
Having the right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.
He could have ignored Martin, that's what I would have done but I would have ignored him because I wouldn't have noticed him due to my self absorption.
Zimmerman was apparently less self absorbed.



...or he fights back after being attacked. Again: Saying Martin attacked Zimmerman is being dogmatic without having the full facts at our disposal.
But what happened is important. We have Zimmerman signing off with the dispatcher having lost sight of Martin. So did Martin attack Zimmerman like Zimmerman said?
Or did Zimmerman start beating the bushes after he signed off and flush Martin out?
This would make a huge difference

Can we put together a plausible scenario that has Zimmerman finding Martin and attacking him?


Yet he found time to speak to Martin and didn't even bother identifying himself or his role in the neighborhood.
According to Zimmerman he had time to say "no" to the guy that appeared out of nowhere.
Zimmerman was confrontational in the brief exchange and didn't need to be.
How can "no" be confrontational?
He chose to be.
He said "no"?
Did he say somthing else?



I don't know who struck first that night. Nobody does except Zimmerman. To say otherwise is unfounded and purely speculative.
One guy had a bullet hole and one guy had a smashed nose and a bloody head?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
He could have ignored Martin, that's what I would have done but I would have ignored him because I wouldn't have noticed him due to my self absorption.
Zimmerman was apparently less self absorbed.

Given his track record for repeat 911 calls I'd say he was more on the prowl than anything else.

But what happened is important. We have Zimmerman signing off with the dispatcher having lost sight of Martin. So did Martin attack Zimmerman like Zimmerman said?
Or did Zimmerman start beating the bushes after he signed off and flush Martin out?
This would make a huge difference

It would, but we don't know for sure.

Can we put together a plausible scenario that has Zimmerman finding Martin and attacking him?

Yes, but I thought we were trying to stay away from speculation.

According to Zimmerman he had time to say "no" to the guy that appeared out of nowhere.

Ah yes, the old jumped out of the ankle-high bushes story. That dog don't hunt.

How can "no" be confrontational?

Why didn't he identify himself? "Hey, neighborhood watch. Can I help you?" He claims he didn't want to confront Martin but chasing after the guy puts the lie to that claim.

One guy had a bullet hole and one guy had a smashed nose and a bloody head?

That doesn't change what I said. We don't know who swung first.
 

fool

New member
Hall of Fame
All right, looks like you edited your response, so I'll address the new material.
I hit submit instead of preview then hit stop and back thinking I had aborted the submit but it went thru and you responded while I was finishing.



Did you read the transcript or the excerpt I posted? Right before the encounter he saw Martin, then broke into a run and followed him. He also tried to weasel out of this and ommitted it from his account with one of the detectives until called on it.

But he was on the phone to dispatch and lost Martin.
Contact broken.
Phone call ended.

Again, that's at odds with the transcript.
He did not get out of his truck when Martin backtracked and circled him.



Zimmerman told 911 Martin was running away. He followed the kid.
Because the kid took off running where Zimmerman couldn't keep eyes on him from his truck.
If he'd stayed back, or not pursued Martin, or stayed in his vehicle--in short, if Zimmerman had done anything other than what he chose to do that night--none of this would've happened.
None of it would have happened if he just went to the store and didn't call the cops about the suspcious character.
 

fool

New member
Hall of Fame
Given his track record for repeat 911 calls I'd say he was more on the prowl than anything else.
Well he was the neighbor hood watch captain.
We could debate whether calling the cops alot gets you elected watch captain or if geting elected watch captain makes you call the cops alot.
I would opine some kind of synergistic relationship between the two.



It would, but we don't know for sure.
What part is cloudy?
Doesn't the NSA have a recording and GPS on both phones?



Yes, but I thought we were trying to stay away from speculation.
Is there any evidence that pokes holes in Zimmermans narrative?


Ah yes, the old jumped out of the ankle-high bushes story. That dog don't hunt.
OK here we have a huge factual rift.
What video did you watch because the one I saw you could have hid a marching band behind the bushes and privacy screens.
I'll go get the vid.



Why didn't he identify himself? "Hey, neighborhood watch. Can I help you?" He claims he didn't want to confront Martin but chasing after the guy puts the lie to that claim.
He kept eyes on the guy, or rather tried to and failed.
Then the guy was there asking him if he had a problem and he gave a no.
He was asked a question by a person who was suddenly upon him.



That doesn't change what I said. We don't know who swung first.
Are there any marks on Martin?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Well he was the neighbor hood watch captain.
We could debate whether calling the cops alot gets you elected watch captain or if geting elected watch captain makes you call the cops alot.
I would opine some kind of synergistic relationship between the two.

Fair enough, but it's inaccurate to say he wasn't merely "self-absorbed."

What part is cloudy?
Doesn't the NSA have a recording and GPS on both phones?

:chuckle:

You would think.

Is there any evidence that pokes holes in Zimmermans narrative?

Directly, no. I'd say his attempts to weasel out of certain elements of his story and certain bizarre claims of his cast serious doubt on his credibility.

What video did you watch because the one I saw you could have hid a marching band behind the bushes and privacy screens.
I'll go get the vid.

The one I saw of the re-enactment showed shrubs about ankle high. Zimmerman didn't mention the whole jump from the bush bit during the re-enactment, by the way.

He kept eyes on the guy, or rather tried to and failed.

Then the guy was there asking him if he had a problem and he gave a no.
He was asked a question by a person who was suddenly upon him.

This is all perfectly true only if we accept Zimmerman's word. For whatever it's worth, Rachel Jeantel's testimony is at odds with his story.

Are there any marks on Martin?

None that I know of. Doesn't mean he wasn't shoved, or grabbed, or that a punch missed. But then again we can't prove a negative.

We can't say with one hundred percent confidence who swung first. And even if Martin had, Detective Serino told Zimmerman that Martin was within his rights to defend himself.

You know. Stand Your Ground and all that...
 

fool

New member
Hall of Fame
Fair enough, but it's inaccurate to say he wasn't merely "self-absorbed."
We could go with "busy body" or "do gooder".



:chuckle:

You would think.
Seems like either side could have subpenoaed the meta data to reinforce their version.



Directly, no. I'd say his attempts to weasel out of certain elements of his story and certain bizarre claims of his cast serious doubt on his credibility.
Which parts?



The one I saw of the re-enactment showed shrubs about ankle high. Zimmerman didn't mention the whole jump from the bush bit during the re-enactment, by the way.
I understand he reffered to it as "out of the bushes", "out of the dark", "out of nowhere", during the multiple different retellings.
Point is Martin got the drop on him. Watch the walk thru again, there are low cut bushes running parallel to the path that Martin ran down but then it comes to a perpendicular intersection where Martin would have taken a right to go home. That's where Zimmerman lost him, the first path was on the end of the building but path to Martins house was the back of the buildings with chest high bushes and privacy screens seperating each back patio from their nieghbors.

We know Zimmerman lost Martin because he told the dispatcher and hung up. Question is how.





This is all perfectly true only if we accept Zimmerman's word. For whatever it's worth, Rachel Jeantel's testimony is at odds with his story.
I'm all ears.
None that I know of. Doesn't mean he wasn't shoved, or grabbed, or that a punch missed. But then again we can't prove a negative.

We can't say with one hundred percent confidence who swung first. And even if Martin had, Detective Serino told Zimmerman that Martin was within his rights to defend himself.

You know. Stand Your Ground and all that...
What's the lag between the end of Zimmermans phone call and the end of Martins?
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
We could go with "busy body" or "do gooder".

Both could be true enough. "Reckless vigilante" also comes to mind.

Which parts?

Well, again: Jumping out of the bushes? Physically impossible. Not following Martin? No, actually, he did. Spread Martin's arms out and patted him down? No, Martin's arms were found underneath his body. The list goes on. I think it's clear Zimmerman embellished his story and outright lied about aspects of the encounter.

Point is Martin got the drop on him.

Maybe yes, maybe no. Jeantel's testimony indicates otherwise, but then again, it depends on whether you want to believe her or Zimmerman.

We know Zimmerman lost Martin because he told the dispatcher and hung up. Question is how.

Eh, it was dark, it was rainy--I wouldn't be surprised if both of them were disoriented.

What's the lag between the end of Zimmermans phone call and the end of Martins?

I'm actually not sure.
 

fool

New member
Hall of Fame
Both could be true enough. "Reckless vigilante" also comes to mind.
Should he have been afraid to go down that sidewalk?
Should any of us be afraid to go down any side walk?



Well, again: Jumping out of the bushes? Physically impossible. Not following Martin? No, actually, he did. Spread Martin's arms out and patted him down? No, Martin's arms were found underneath his body. The list goes on. I think it's clear Zimmerman embellished his story and outright lied about aspects of the encounter.
But we have Zimmerman on the phone with the cops recording the encounter.
Zimmerman lost him, encounter ended.



Maybe yes, maybe no. Jeantel's testimony indicates otherwise, but then again, it depends on whether you want to believe her or Zimmerman.
She said the last thing she heard was "you got a problem" followed by a "no" and that matches up with what Zimmerman said.



Eh, it was dark, it was rainy--I wouldn't be surprised if both of them were disoriented.
But they were seperated, how did they come together again?


I'm actually not sure.
Help me see what you're seeing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top