If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC)   George Zimmerman released from jail on $150,000 bail   (abcnews.go.com) divider line 613
    More: Followup, second mortgages, Seminole County, Jesse Jackson, Jr, Comic Book Legal Defense Fund  
•       •       •

3307 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Apr 2012 at 1:35 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



613 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-23 04:39:35 PM
Is this discussion still insane?

:checks thread:

yep.
 
2012-04-23 04:41:29 PM

Bontesla: Carth: Bontesla: PoochUMD: Bontesla: If their statements made his statements inplausible then yes - it does matter. His story is his defense. If his story is inconsistent then it is significant.

Execute a google search comparing their statements to Zimmerman's. I would provide you with a nice one but I'm @ work. If you'd like to wait for several hours - I could get you one then as well.

You're talking about someone who saw the aftermath right? If I shoot someone in self defense and then a witness comes out to see what is going on and their recollection of what happened after the shooting differs from my recollection of what happened after the shooting, what does that prove?

That witnesses testimony would have nothing to do with whether or not Zimmerman acted in self defense because it happened after the shooting.

If Zimmerman's position directly after the gun shot is inconsistent with his statement then it calls into question the accuracy of his statement. That was my point.

If you were pinned under someone, then shot them. How long would you lay under them before flipping them over and getting up? 2 seconds? 5 seconds? 10 seconds? Would you just lay there until the police arrived? It is completely possible that after shooting martin he rolled him over and ended up on top to stand which would be consistent with both statements.

Does Zimmerman say he rolled onto Martin?

Does John say Zimmerman rolled onto Martin?

Then there are inconsistencies.

That was my entire point. Your summary sounds entirely probable - but wasn't what Zimmerman or John described - hence my argument of inconsistency.

It's entirely possible that Zimmerman forgot to mentio or John didn't see it. It's entirely possible Cutcher didn't actually see it. It's entirely possible something similar happened - but everyone is wrong.

But you cannot argue everyone's testimony validates everyone else's. That was my entire point.


Zimmerman's story to police: Zimmerman told police he didn't realize that Martin was seriously injured, and that he lunged to get on top of him after the teenager fell to the ground. Moments later, a police officer from Sanford arrived, placed him in handcuffs and took his gun.
 
2012-04-23 04:41:34 PM

ElLoco: 9beers: "The cries stopped as soon as the gun went off so I know it was the little boy"

"Cutcher believes that even if Martin got the better of Zimmerman, it's no excuse to kill an unarmed teenager, half his size".

Notice a pattern with her statements?

Sanford police have publicly stated that she's full of shiat. Link

More interesting from that is: "[Morgenstern] "The information she provided are sworn statements regarding the actions of Zimmerman, were consistent with the information Zimmerman provided to us."

No idea what who said, but haven't people been arguing about how her statement is contradictory to what Zimmerman said and that other guy actually saw? Did she change her story for the camera, or what?


According to Slate - she started singing when the police relased that statement. She disagreed with their assessment.
 
2012-04-23 04:45:53 PM

9beers: YouPeopleAreCrazy: powder burns
powder residue


You do realize that the prosecution has come out and confirmed gun shot residue on Martin's clothing, right?


Which can be explained in by a number of theories which are not Zimmerman's story.

It supports Zimmerman's argument but also supports an explanation that Martin was defending himself, too.

It isn't conclusive.
 
2012-04-23 04:53:14 PM

Bontesla: Which can be explained in by a number of theories which are not Zimmerman's story.

It supports Zimmerman's argument but also supports an explanation that Martin was defending himself, too.

It isn't conclusive.


You can have all the theories you want, all that matters in court is that the presence of gunshot residue on Martin's clothing supports Zimmerman's version of events.
 
2012-04-23 04:56:06 PM

9beers: Bontesla: The one true eye witness? I guess the others can go home now.

How many people witnessed the fight and can give details about who was on top of who and who was screaming for help?

Here's a hint, it's the number that comes after 0 and before 2.


Well, there are over nine witness statements the police have taken. None of the statements have been released and only a handful have come forward to talk about what they saw and heard.

The most common sentiment expressed was that it was too dark to see anything. It was a rainy evening and the only source of light was the porch light from a neighbor.

So, the question is, what did John see?

There's the second witness you claim admitted to being too far away to see much. Yet, you haven't addressed how he was distanced from your star witness John. Where was the light? These are important in establishing John's credibility. These are also important in establishing what John had the potential to see.

So, if under similar circumstances, John would be unable to correctly identify what's happening between two struggling people then there's a huge problem in using his testimony.

A boy saw the struggle right before the shot and said he couldn't even make out the color of the guy's clothing. His parents are accusing the police of misconduct in the investigation. Apparently, the two officers that interviewed him tried to convince the boy Zimmerman was on top (his parents allege).

So, if the majority of witnesses claim it was too dark to see anything then John's testimony falls a part unless he can illustrate how his vantage point is better.
 
2012-04-23 04:59:27 PM

9beers: Bontesla: That wasn't my point. I've even stated that none of the witness statements are accurate enough to accept in regards to the call for help.

John says that he saw that it was Zimmerman screaming for help. I'm pretty sure he didn't mistake the identity of the black and Hispanic guys that were right in front of him.


How close were they to John? What light source was he using?

Did he actually see Zimmerman's mouth calling for help or did he get the impression that the voice belonged to Zimmerman?

Because so far - you haven't laid the foundation establishing knowledge John has in identifying the voice.

He could lack the exact credibility you accuse Cutcher of.
 
2012-04-23 05:02:15 PM

9beers: Bontesla: Which can be explained in by a number of theories which are not Zimmerman's story.

It supports Zimmerman's argument but also supports an explanation that Martin was defending himself, too.

It isn't conclusive.

You can have all the theories you want, all that matters in court is that the presence of gunshot residue on Martin's clothing supports Zimmerman's version of events.


So you're telling me there is gunpowder residue on Martin's clothing? I had no idea that Martin was executed at close range. Zimmerman is one cold dude.
 
2012-04-23 05:04:49 PM

Bontesla: So, the question is, what did John see?


What? We know what John saw because he gave an interview to a local news station telling what he saw.
 
2012-04-23 05:05:00 PM

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: I don't understand what makes people stray from fact so much. What is it that makes people blind to text and make their own facts. I was taught to read early. Others not so much.


That's funny, considering you posted t his just before it.

All facts point to trayvon as a not so nice kinda guy if you know what I mean. I'm not saying he deserved to die, but if someone attacked me unprovoked (like evidence says he did to zim). I'd shoot to.

The only evidence that Martin started the fight in any way is the shooter making that claim, a clearly biased figure since if he says that he started it, he's almost certainly going to jail. You call it an unprovoked attack and treat it as truth when we don't know if it happened Plus we know for sure that he was being provoked. Zimmerman could have called the cops and stayed in the car, but he wanted a confrontation, so he went looking for Martin.

MarkEC: For those that feel Zimmerman is guilty, please explain what Martin was doing during the 1.5 minutes that Zimmerman had lost sight of him while he was on the line with 911. He was well within range of getting home within that 1.5 minutes.


According to Zimmerman's phone call Martin ran and Zimmerman chased him. According to Zimmerman's phone call, he didn't want to agree to a place to meet the police, saying to have them call him when they were there. It looks to me like Martin ran a short distance, then hid. Zimmerman didn't immediately walk back to his car after getting off the phone, he continued searching. Then he found Martin and things went downhill from there. That's certainly conjecture, but that's how it looks to me.

I can easily imagine that if someone I didn't know was following me, I wouldn't want to lead them straight to my house.

OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: 911 tapes corroborate this. You here zim say what are you doing here, and then a scuffle. You can't make things up buddy.


You just *did* make that stuff up. You're claiming that the fight started while Zimmerman was on the phone with 911. You're a liar, and everyone who has listened to the 911 call knows it.

meintx2001: So we really don't know who started it, but my money is on Trayvon going tough thug when Zimmerman was returning to his vehicle after being told he didn't need to follow him.


If Zimmerman had gone back to his car as soon as the dispatcher told him he didn't need to follow, this wouldn't have happened.

And it seems unlikely to me that Martin had ran away and hid until Zimmerman started walking the other direction and then suddenly decided that he wanted to confront the guy he had previously been trying to avoid. You're expecting me to believe he was thinking "Hey, some guy is following me, get away from him" one minute, and that the next minute he's switched to "Hey, the guy that was chasing me is leaving, I better stop him from leaving, I'll go beat his ass". Plausibility level close to 0%.

s2s2s2: Evidence Zimmerman followed after agreeing not to: Dead Trayvon.
Evidence Martin attacked first: Broken nose(confirmed)/Bashed in head(confirmed).


You're claiming that it's impossible to do any damage in a fight unless you're the one that started it? That's pretty stupid. It's evidence that there was a physical fight, but it says nothing about who first initiated physical contact. Maybe Martin (as you claim) sprung out of hiding and immediately started on a beatdown. It's just as likely (more likely, IMO) that Zimmerman found Martin hiding and when Martin tried to run away again, Zimmerman grabbed him to keep him from running off. If Zimmerman showed his gun or grabbed Martin in any way, Martin damn sure had a right to defend himself from the apparent maniac who was chasing him at night.
 
2012-04-23 05:05:32 PM

gimmegimme: So you're telling me there is gunpowder residue on Martin's clothing? I had no idea that Martin was executed at close range. Zimmerman is one cold dude.


Again, what?
 
2012-04-23 05:08:16 PM

9beers: gimmegimme: So you're telling me there is gunpowder residue on Martin's clothing? I had no idea that Martin was executed at close range. Zimmerman is one cold dude.

Again, what?


You said: "You can have all the theories you want, all that matters in court is that the presence of gunshot [sic] residue on Martin's clothing supports Zimmerman's version of events."

Doesn't the presence of gunpowder residue indicate that Martin was shot at close range?
 
2012-04-23 05:10:12 PM

gimmegimme: 9beers: gimmegimme: So you're telling me there is gunpowder residue on Martin's clothing? I had no idea that Martin was executed at close range. Zimmerman is one cold dude.

Again, what?

You said: "You can have all the theories you want, all that matters in court is that the presence of gunshot [sic] residue on Martin's clothing supports Zimmerman's version of events."

Doesn't the presence of gunpowder residue indicate that Martin was shot at close range?


that is exactly what Zimmerman claims. He claims Martin was on top of him when he shot.
 
2012-04-23 05:20:21 PM

Carth: gimmegimme: 9beers: gimmegimme: So you're telling me there is gunpowder residue on Martin's clothing? I had no idea that Martin was executed at close range. Zimmerman is one cold dude.

Again, what?

You said: "You can have all the theories you want, all that matters in court is that the presence of gunshot [sic] residue on Martin's clothing supports Zimmerman's version of events."

Doesn't the presence of gunpowder residue indicate that Martin was shot at close range?

that is exactly what Zimmerman claims. He claims Martin was on top of him when he shot.


You know who else likely had gunpowder residue on him after being shot at close range?

img2-1.timeinc.net

www.gravedigger.ch

3.bp.blogspot.com

images.wikia.com

wicu.images.worldnow.com

//The Romulan was just standing his ground.
 
2012-04-23 05:21:11 PM

Bontesla: Does Zimmerman say he rolled onto Martin?

Does John say Zimmerman rolled onto Martin?

Then there are inconsistencies.



Zimmerman said he didn't know he was severly injured and got on top of him.

John said that after the shot he saw Zimmerman over Martin.

So you are wrong, but even if you were right and one didn't say that, doesn't mean there is an inconsistency.

An inconsistency would be if John claimed he saw something and Zimmerman claimed it didn't happen. One very well may come out in cross examination, but with the accounts we have now there is no inconsistency.

JuggleGeek: You're claiming that it's impossible to do any damage in a fight unless you're the one that started it? That's pretty stupid. It's evidence that there was a physical fight, but it says nothing about who first initiated physical contact. Maybe Martin (as you claim) sprung out of hiding and immediately started on a beatdown. It's just as likely (more likely, IMO) that Zimmerman found Martin hiding and when Martin tried to run away again, Zimmerman grabbed him to keep him from running off. If Zimmerman showed his gun or grabbed Martin in any way, Martin damn sure had a right to defend himself from the apparent maniac who was chasing him at night


Two points, I agree that if Zimmerman grabbed Martin, then he had a right to fight back (and is proof how dumb this law is, because Zimmerman would still be "innocent").

I find it next to impossible that Zimmerman would have showed his gun, because there is no way he would sit there with a loaded gun while being beat (as described by Zimmerman and confirmed by "John").
 
2012-04-23 05:29:33 PM

MegaUngawa: wademh:
Back in the middle ages, after the fall of the Roman Empire, parts of Europe were invaded from the South. Spain, in particular, was occupied and held as "Moorish" territory. As often happens, men among the invaders take up with the local women. In this case, as the invaders were dark skinned, the children of these couplings tended to have darker skin than the Caucasian natives of Spain. The occupation of Spain lasted a long time. There was much mingling. Because of this, many Spaniards are darker than typical Caucasians

This man agrees.
[2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x212]


uber
great
scene

well done sir.
 
2012-04-23 05:31:32 PM

gimmegimme: Carth: gimmegimme: 9beers: gimmegimme: So you're telling me there is gunpowder residue on Martin's clothing? I had no idea that Martin was executed at close range. Zimmerman is one cold dude.

Again, what?

You said: "You can have all the theories you want, all that matters in court is that the presence of gunshot [sic] residue on Martin's clothing supports Zimmerman's version of events."

Doesn't the presence of gunpowder residue indicate that Martin was shot at close range?

that is exactly what Zimmerman claims. He claims Martin was on top of him when he shot.

You know who else likely had gunpowder residue on him after being shot at close range?

[img2-1.timeinc.net image 400x300]

[www.gravedigger.ch image 250x187]

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 320x222]

[images.wikia.com image 500x393]

[wicu.images.worldnow.com image 640x432]

//The Romulan was just standing his ground.


False phasers don't have gunpowder residue.
 
2012-04-23 05:36:13 PM

liam76: Bontesla: liam76: Bontesla: They did hear evidence of a struggle.

From the same link as above.

Mary Cutcher and her roommate, Selma Mora Lamilla, appeared on AC 360 and Cutcher stated that she believes "there was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling" just prior to the shooting, and admitted that she neither saw the shooting nor the preceding altercation. Cutcher and her roommate heard the pair in their backyard and a "very young voice" whining, with no sounds of a fight. They heard a gunshot; the crying stopped immediately, and they saw Zimmerman on his knees straddling Martin on the ground

Keep up the lies.

Hearing evidence of a struggle does not necessarily = punching and hitting.

Where did I state it did?


What evidence of a struggle did the hear if they heard no punching, no hitting, no wrestling, and no sounds of a fight? You claiming they heard evidence of a struggle after hearing that description is a lie.


They heard evidence of a whine at least three times. It was a desperate sounding cry - they stated. That is evidence of a struggle.
 
2012-04-23 05:36:46 PM

Bontesla: These things do matter. You cannot dismiss everything contrary to your conclusion just because they don't fit . . . Especially when they show potential flaws in another's statement. If nothing else - a good lawyer understands the weaknesses and knows how to either discredit their opponent or turn the weakness into a strength.

So, for example, is Cutcher sees something John does not then either John turned away or Cutcher is mistaken. This is especially important if Zimmerman doesn't mention rolling onto Martin (even if Zimmerman innocently forgot to mention it).

Ultimately, it comes down to what's likely, given all of the evidence. And you don't want the answer to be that it's likely Zimmerman committed murder in the second degree.

I guarantee you that every witness testimony will have a weakness. This is the general rule lawyers abide by. Even if your witness has a perfectly accurate story, an attorney can focus on descriptive inconsistencies that undermine the credibility of your witness.

So, when I say John's testimony is inconsistent then if John testifies then they'll have to square that circle.

By the way - who was the second witness you mention?


I'm not dismissing her story because it doesn't fit, I'm dismissing it as proof that Zimmerman was on top of Martin when he shot him. John and the other witness who watched from the window saw Martin on top of Zimmerman during the fight and when the shot went off. At that point Zimmerman claims he rolled over and straddled Martin because he didn't think he was dead.

That is when Mary came outside and saw Zimmerman on top of Martin. She comes off as a bit of an attention whore and has mixed in a lot of her opinions with what she actually witnessed which has helped turned this into the circus it is now.

None of the stories are inconsistent, they just tell different parts of the overall story (and none of them conflict with the story Zimmerman gave police that night). John saw them up close and fighting, the man in the window saw the scuffle when the shot went off, and Mary saw what happened immediately after the shot and John saw what happened shortly after that.

And while I agree that traditionally witness testimony is flawed, they aren't asking these witnesses to pick faces out of a lineup. We know both parties involved and it should be very easy for a witness to be standing next to them and know who is on top of the pile and who was on the bottom.
 
2012-04-23 05:37:07 PM

Carth: gimmegimme: Carth: gimmegimme: 9beers: gimmegimme: So you're telling me there is gunpowder residue on Martin's clothing? I had no idea that Martin was executed at close range. Zimmerman is one cold dude.

Again, what?

You said: "You can have all the theories you want, all that matters in court is that the presence of gunshot [sic] residue on Martin's clothing supports Zimmerman's version of events."

Doesn't the presence of gunpowder residue indicate that Martin was shot at close range?

that is exactly what Zimmerman claims. He claims Martin was on top of him when he shot.

You know who else likely had gunpowder residue on him after being shot at close range?

[img2-1.timeinc.net image 400x300]

[www.gravedigger.ch image 250x187]

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 320x222]

[images.wikia.com image 500x393]

[wicu.images.worldnow.com image 640x432]

//The Romulan was just standing his ground.

False phasers don't have gunpowder residue.


Wow. Don't I feel like an asshole.
 
2012-04-23 05:37:47 PM

Carth: gimmegimme: Carth: gimmegimme: 9beers: gimmegimme: So you're telling me there is gunpowder residue on Martin's clothing? I had no idea that Martin was executed at close range. Zimmerman is one cold dude.

Again, what?

You said: "You can have all the theories you want, all that matters in court is that the presence of gunshot [sic] residue on Martin's clothing supports Zimmerman's version of events."

Doesn't the presence of gunpowder residue indicate that Martin was shot at close range?

that is exactly what Zimmerman claims. He claims Martin was on top of him when he shot.

You know who else likely had gunpowder residue on him after being shot at close range?

[img2-1.timeinc.net image 400x300]

[www.gravedigger.ch image 250x187]

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 320x222]

[images.wikia.com image 500x393]

[wicu.images.worldnow.com image 640x432]

//The Romulan was just standing his ground.

False phasers don't have gunpowder residue.


They do leave nadion signatures, but that's not a phaser that's a disruptor, it would leave behind residual antiprotons.
 
2012-04-23 05:39:27 PM

Raharu: Carth: gimmegimme: Carth: gimmegimme: 9beers: gimmegimme: So you're telling me there is gunpowder residue on Martin's clothing? I had no idea that Martin was executed at close range. Zimmerman is one cold dude.

Again, what?

You said: "You can have all the theories you want, all that matters in court is that the presence of gunshot [sic] residue on Martin's clothing supports Zimmerman's version of events."

Doesn't the presence of gunpowder residue indicate that Martin was shot at close range?

that is exactly what Zimmerman claims. He claims Martin was on top of him when he shot.

You know who else likely had gunpowder residue on him after being shot at close range?

[img2-1.timeinc.net image 400x300]

[www.gravedigger.ch image 250x187]

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 320x222]

[images.wikia.com image 500x393]

[wicu.images.worldnow.com image 640x432]

//The Romulan was just standing his ground.

False phasers don't have gunpowder residue.

They do leave nadion signatures, but that's not a phaser that's a disruptor, it would leave behind residual antiprotons.


Good job. Now I feel like a jerk for laughing in a thread about an unarmed high school student being shot. I hope you're happy with yourself.
 
2012-04-23 05:52:11 PM

9beers: Bontesla: There's a Slate article in which Cutcher says Zimmerman said that.

No, she says that he was pacing back and forth near the body, like he was thinking "Oh God, what have I done". It's a statement from her interview with Anderson Cooper.


Have you read the Slate article?

You may be right. I'm operating from memory. I'll link you and clarify later tonight once I hace access to the Slate article.
 
2012-04-23 05:55:31 PM

9beers: Bontesla: How close was John? Where was the light positioned?

John was close enough that he was able to identify who was who, what clothes they were wearing and that it was Zimmerman screaming for help. I haven't seen any information stating how far away he was but since we know the altercation took place just outside of his home, it couldn't have been more than 20 feet.


Believe it or not, "close enough" isn't an answer that can establish credibility.

Cutcher's porch was about 19 feet away and that was too far.
 
2012-04-23 06:09:06 PM

Bontesla: Believe it or not, "close enough" isn't an answer that can establish credibility.

Cutcher's porch was about 19 feet away and that was too far.


Changing your story sure as hell does. She is threatening to sue the police "because they are trying to make me look bad".
 
2012-04-23 06:18:55 PM

Bontesla: Have you read the Slate article?

You may be right. I'm operating from memory. I'll link you and clarify later tonight once I hace access to the Slate article.



No, I re-watched her interview with Cooper.
 
2012-04-23 06:22:53 PM

Bontesla: Believe it or not, "close enough" isn't an answer that can establish credibility.


The fight and shooting took place right in front of his patio and close enough that he could give the statement that he did. Either he's telling the truth about what he saw or decided to lie to the police for absolutely no reason.
 
2012-04-23 06:24:13 PM

gimmegimme: Carth: gimmegimme: 9beers: gimmegimme: So you're telling me there is gunpowder residue on Martin's clothing? I had no idea that Martin was executed at close range. Zimmerman is one cold dude.

Again, what?

You said: "You can have all the theories you want, all that matters in court is that the presence of gunshot [sic] residue on Martin's clothing supports Zimmerman's version of events."

Doesn't the presence of gunpowder residue indicate that Martin was shot at close range?

that is exactly what Zimmerman claims. He claims Martin was on top of him when he shot.

You know who else likely had gunpowder residue on him after being shot at close range?

[img2-1.timeinc.net image 400x300]

[www.gravedigger.ch image 250x187]

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 320x222]

[images.wikia.com image 500x393]

[wicu.images.worldnow.com image 640x432]

//The Romulan was just standing his ground.


Point of nerd fact. The episode explains that the Romulan was taking aim at an alien that had suddenly appeared in between him and the doctor. The alien disappeared before the shot connected and the doctor was hit. The image is misleading because time was frozen on the ship at that exact moment.

/watched the episode on netflix the other night
//Romulan didn't stand his ground, he was acting in defense of others and accidently shot the person he was trying to protect.
///guess no one teaches Romulans not to circle up and shoot toward the center
 
2012-04-23 09:13:03 PM

liam76: Bontesla: You being lazy doesn't make me a liar. I explained how to find the sources and why I'm unable to. You could search for it but don't want to.

Actually no you didn't.

You didn't until the last few posts say "slate" and givent here are about a million articles I had no way to know what you were referencing. After you said slate ti was pretty easy to track down what article you were talking abotu and prove you lied (about hearing a struggle).


I didn't say Slate. I previously acknowledged this and apologized for this. But you're not genuinely after the truth so you've disregarded my apology. As soon as I caught the error, I started citing it.

And now that I'm home - I'll link you.

FYI - I googled "cutcher witness" and it was the 7th link down. Link
 
2012-04-23 09:17:49 PM

PoochUMD: Bontesla: Carth: Bontesla: PoochUMD: Bontesla: If their statements made his statements inplausible then yes - it does matter. His story is his defense. If his story is inconsistent then it is significant.

Execute a google search comparing their statements to Zimmerman's. I would provide you with a nice one but I'm @ work. If you'd like to wait for several hours - I could get you one then as well.

You're talking about someone who saw the aftermath right? If I shoot someone in self defense and then a witness comes out to see what is going on and their recollection of what happened after the shooting differs from my recollection of what happened after the shooting, what does that prove?

That witnesses testimony would have nothing to do with whether or not Zimmerman acted in self defense because it happened after the shooting.

If Zimmerman's position directly after the gun shot is inconsistent with his statement then it calls into question the accuracy of his statement. That was my point.

If you were pinned under someone, then shot them. How long would you lay under them before flipping them over and getting up? 2 seconds? 5 seconds? 10 seconds? Would you just lay there until the police arrived? It is completely possible that after shooting martin he rolled him over and ended up on top to stand which would be consistent with both statements.

Does Zimmerman say he rolled onto Martin?

Does John say Zimmerman rolled onto Martin?

Then there are inconsistencies.


Zimmerman says he rolled onto Martin after the shooting. I've provided the link twice already.

John says that when he got upstairs, he heard the shot, looked outside and saw the man in red (who he said was on the bottom previously) on top of the other man,

So "yes" to both,


Yeah, I couldn't click links from my phone (I think I was telling someone this earlier upthread) because my phone doesn't handle links very well. It's really a terrible phone. I'll go back and check.

Sorry :)
 
2012-04-23 09:38:27 PM

Carth: Bontesla: Carth: Bontesla: PoochUMD: Bontesla: If their statements made his statements inplausible then yes - it does matter. His story is his defense. If his story is inconsistent then it is significant.

Execute a google search comparing their statements to Zimmerman's. I would provide you with a nice one but I'm @ work. If you'd like to wait for several hours - I could get you one then as well.

You're talking about someone who saw the aftermath right? If I shoot someone in self defense and then a witness comes out to see what is going on and their recollection of what happened after the shooting differs from my recollection of what happened after the shooting, what does that prove?

That witnesses testimony would have nothing to do with whether or not Zimmerman acted in self defense because it happened after the shooting.

If Zimmerman's position directly after the gun shot is inconsistent with his statement then it calls into question the accuracy of his statement. That was my point.

If you were pinned under someone, then shot them. How long would you lay under them before flipping them over and getting up? 2 seconds? 5 seconds? 10 seconds? Would you just lay there until the police arrived? It is completely possible that after shooting martin he rolled him over and ended up on top to stand which would be consistent with both statements.

Does Zimmerman say he rolled onto Martin?

Does John say Zimmerman rolled onto Martin?

Then there are inconsistencies.

That was my entire point. Your summary sounds entirely probable - but wasn't what Zimmerman or John described - hence my argument of inconsistency.

It's entirely possible that Zimmerman forgot to mentio or John didn't see it. It's entirely possible Cutcher didn't actually see it. It's entirely possible something similar happened - but everyone is wrong.

But you cannot argue everyone's testimony validates everyone else's. That was my entire point.

Zimmerman's story to police: Zimmerman told police he didn' ...


Really? Your citation is an anonymous source that offers absolutely nothing yet verifiable? Given the amount of disinformation provided by the media -I'll wait until we see the evidence exhibits.
 
2012-04-23 09:39:44 PM

9beers: Bontesla: Which can be explained in by a number of theories which are not Zimmerman's story.

It supports Zimmerman's argument but also supports an explanation that Martin was defending himself, too.

It isn't conclusive.

You can have all the theories you want, all that matters in court is that the presence of gunshot residue on Martin's clothing supports Zimmerman's version of events.


You've basically said:
1). You can have all the theories you want [that are consistent with the facts]
2). But all that matters is Zimmerman's version of events.

Your bias is showing.
 
2012-04-23 09:41:12 PM

9beers: Bontesla: So, the question is, what did John see?

What? We know what John saw because he gave an interview to a local news station telling what he saw.


What a ridiculous statement. You have no idea what eye witness testimony entails, do you?
 
2012-04-23 09:45:12 PM

liam76: Bontesla: Does Zimmerman say he rolled onto Martin?

Does John say Zimmerman rolled onto Martin?

Then there are inconsistencies.


Zimmerman said he didn't know he was severly injured and got on top of him.

John said that after the shot he saw Zimmerman over Martin.

So you are wrong, but even if you were right and one didn't say that, doesn't mean there is an inconsistency.

An inconsistency would be if John claimed he saw something and Zimmerman claimed it didn't happen. One very well may come out in cross examination, but with the accounts we have now there is no inconsistency.

JuggleGeek: You're claiming that it's impossible to do any damage in a fight unless you're the one that started it? That's pretty stupid. It's evidence that there was a physical fight, but it says nothing about who first initiated physical contact. Maybe Martin (as you claim) sprung out of hiding and immediately started on a beatdown. It's just as likely (more likely, IMO) that Zimmerman found Martin hiding and when Martin tried to run away again, Zimmerman grabbed him to keep him from running off. If Zimmerman showed his gun or grabbed Martin in any way, Martin damn sure had a right to defend himself from the apparent maniac who was chasing him at night

Two points, I agree that if Zimmerman grabbed Martin, then he had a right to fight back (and is proof how dumb this law is, because Zimmerman would still be "innocent").

I find it next to impossible that Zimmerman would have showed his gun, because there is no way he would sit there with a loaded gun while being beat (as described by Zimmerman and confirmed by "John").


Citation for the statement from the PD where Zimmerman said he rolled onto Martin. I'll even settle for citation where Zimmerman directly admits to cameras that he rolled onto Martin.

I'm not saying this didn't happen - merely that you're a disingenuous troll - and would like a credible and verifiable source.
 
2012-04-23 09:48:53 PM

liam76: Bontesla: Does Zimmerman say he rolled onto Martin?

Does John say Zimmerman rolled onto Martin?

Then there are inconsistencies.


Zimmerman said he didn't know he was severly injured and got on top of him.

John said that after the shot he saw Zimmerman over Martin.

So you are wrong, but even if you were right and one didn't say that, doesn't mean there is an inconsistency.

An inconsistency would be if John claimed he saw something and Zimmerman claimed it didn't happen. One very well may come out in cross examination, but with the accounts we have now there is no inconsistency.

JuggleGeek: You're claiming that it's impossible to do any damage in a fight unless you're the one that started it? That's pretty stupid. It's evidence that there was a physical fight, but it says nothing about who first initiated physical contact. Maybe Martin (as you claim) sprung out of hiding and immediately started on a beatdown. It's just as likely (more likely, IMO) that Zimmerman found Martin hiding and when Martin tried to run away again, Zimmerman grabbed him to keep him from running off. If Zimmerman showed his gun or grabbed Martin in any way, Martin damn sure had a right to defend himself from the apparent maniac who was chasing him at night

Two points, I agree that if Zimmerman grabbed Martin, then he had a right to fight back (and is proof how dumb this law is, because Zimmerman would still be "innocent").

I find it next to impossible that Zimmerman would have showed his gun, because there is no way he would sit there with a loaded gun while being beat (as described by Zimmerman and confirmed by "John").


I've already asked for valid citation for the Zimmerman claim.

What specifically are you asserting that John said?

And yes - if Martin says he did x and John didn't acknowledge seeing x then yes - John's story is inconsistent with Zimmerman's. This is how inconsistency works.
 
2012-04-23 09:49:03 PM

Bontesla: Carth: Bontesla: Carth: Bontesla: PoochUMD: Bontesla: If their statements made his statements inplausible then yes - it does matter. His story is his defense. If his story is inconsistent then it is significant.

Execute a google search comparing their statements to Zimmerman's. I would provide you with a nice one but I'm @ work. If you'd like to wait for several hours - I could get you one then as well.

You're talking about someone who saw the aftermath right? If I shoot someone in self defense and then a witness comes out to see what is going on and their recollection of what happened after the shooting differs from my recollection of what happened after the shooting, what does that prove?

That witnesses testimony would have nothing to do with whether or not Zimmerman acted in self defense because it happened after the shooting.

If Zimmerman's position directly after the gun shot is inconsistent with his statement then it calls into question the accuracy of his statement. That was my point.

If you were pinned under someone, then shot them. How long would you lay under them before flipping them over and getting up? 2 seconds? 5 seconds? 10 seconds? Would you just lay there until the police arrived? It is completely possible that after shooting martin he rolled him over and ended up on top to stand which would be consistent with both statements.

Does Zimmerman say he rolled onto Martin?

Does John say Zimmerman rolled onto Martin?

Then there are inconsistencies.

That was my entire point. Your summary sounds entirely probable - but wasn't what Zimmerman or John described - hence my argument of inconsistency.

It's entirely possible that Zimmerman forgot to mentio or John didn't see it. It's entirely possible Cutcher didn't actually see it. It's entirely possible something similar happened - but everyone is wrong.

But you cannot argue everyone's testimony validates everyone else's. That was my entire point.

Zimmerman's story to police: Zimmerman told police h ...


It is from the Daily Beast.. the guy who edited the new yorker and Vanity Fair newest project I'm not sure you're going to get a much better secondary source unless you get your hands on the police report.
 
2012-04-23 10:02:19 PM

PoochUMD: Bontesla: These things do matter. You cannot dismiss everything contrary to your conclusion just because they don't fit . . . Especially when they show potential flaws in another's statement. If nothing else - a good lawyer understands the weaknesses and knows how to either discredit their opponent or turn the weakness into a strength.

So, for example, is Cutcher sees something John does not then either John turned away or Cutcher is mistaken. This is especially important if Zimmerman doesn't mention rolling onto Martin (even if Zimmerman innocently forgot to mention it).

Ultimately, it comes down to what's likely, given all of the evidence. And you don't want the answer to be that it's likely Zimmerman committed murder in the second degree.

I guarantee you that every witness testimony will have a weakness. This is the general rule lawyers abide by. Even if your witness has a perfectly accurate story, an attorney can focus on descriptive inconsistencies that undermine the credibility of your witness.

So, when I say John's testimony is inconsistent then if John testifies then they'll have to square that circle.

By the way - who was the second witness you mention?

I'm not dismissing her story because it doesn't fit, I'm dismissing it as proof that Zimmerman was on top of Martin when he shot him. John and the other witness who watched from the window saw Martin on top of Zimmerman during the fight and when the shot went off. At that point Zimmerman claims he rolled over and straddled Martin because he didn't think he was dead.

That is when Mary came outside and saw Zimmerman on top of Martin. She comes off as a bit of an attention whore and has mixed in a lot of her opinions with what she actually witnessed which has helped turned this into the circus it is now.

None of the stories are inconsistent, they just tell different parts of the overall story (and none of them conflict with the story Zimmerman gave police that night). John saw them up close and fighting ...


If you're arguing with me as to whether or not Zimmerman was on top of Martin at the time of the shooting then we really have no reason to continue this conversation. I never asserted or suggested that Zimmerman was on top during the shooting.

The stories are inconsistent. Witnesses disagree as to who was calling for help.Witnesses disagree as to who was on top. Witnesses even disagree as to how visible the altercation is.

"John" doesn't seem any more credible than Cutcher. He doesn't seem any more credible with the "Anonymous".

I just think we should reserve conclusion, judgement, or ruling of evidence until we see more of the actual evidence. For example, let's see witness statements and the autopsy report.
 
2012-04-23 10:03:55 PM

s2s2s2: Bontesla: Believe it or not, "close enough" isn't an answer that can establish credibility.

Cutcher's porch was about 19 feet away and that was too far.

Changing your story sure as hell does. She is threatening to sue the police "because they are trying to make me look bad".


So, you deflect my question by pointing fingers in another area.

Right. If you don't know if John was closer or further than Cutcher then just say so.
 
2012-04-23 10:06:05 PM

9beers: Bontesla: Have you read the Slate article?

You may be right. I'm operating from memory. I'll link you and clarify later tonight once I hace access to the Slate article.


No, I re-watched her interview with Cooper.


I re-read the Slate interview and stand corrected. You were right. She said the following:

Cutcher called 911. Zimmerman "gets off the body and is kind of pacing," she remembers. "I see him take a couple of steps, and then he's just sitting there, as if he's thinking, 'Oh my God, what have I done?' "

Source: Link
 
2012-04-23 10:17:24 PM

9beers: Bontesla: Believe it or not, "close enough" isn't an answer that can establish credibility.

The fight and shooting took place right in front of his patio and close enough that he could give the statement that he did. Either he's telling the truth about what he saw or decided to lie to the police for absolutely no reason.


Again - what's the distance?

The problem with every other witness was they were claiming it was too dark to see anything. The porch light wasn't helpful. It was dark. Simply too dark to see.

I'm not accusing "John" of lying. I'm simply saying that eye witness testimony, in the dark, is amazingly unreliable. I'd like more information before granting supremacy to this account. This is a reasonable approach.

Legal scholar, Edwin M. Bochard, studied sixty-five cases of "erroneous criminal convictions of innocent people." 45% of the time - eye witness identification was responsible for the conviction. Source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/dna/photos/eye/text_06.h tml

A 1983 study argued that eye witness identification leads to an est. 8,500 wrongful convictions in a single year (see previous source). Rattner, author of the studied, also examined 200 cases in which eyewitness identification was responsible for 52.3% the wrongful convictions.

Those two studies, alone, show approximately have of the eye witness testimonies lead to wrongful convictions.

It's quite reasonable to really examine the testimony of each witness. This is what attorneys do.
 
2012-04-23 10:19:30 PM

Carth: Bontesla: Carth: Bontesla: Carth: Bontesla: PoochUMD: Bontesla: If their statements made his statements inplausible then yes - it does matter. His story is his defense. If his story is inconsistent then it is significant.

Execute a google search comparing their statements to Zimmerman's. I would provide you with a nice one but I'm @ work. If you'd like to wait for several hours - I could get you one then as well.

You're talking about someone who saw the aftermath right? If I shoot someone in self defense and then a witness comes out to see what is going on and their recollection of what happened after the shooting differs from my recollection of what happened after the shooting, what does that prove?

That witnesses testimony would have nothing to do with whether or not Zimmerman acted in self defense because it happened after the shooting.

If Zimmerman's position directly after the gun shot is inconsistent with his statement then it calls into question the accuracy of his statement. That was my point.

If you were pinned under someone, then shot them. How long would you lay under them before flipping them over and getting up? 2 seconds? 5 seconds? 10 seconds? Would you just lay there until the police arrived? It is completely possible that after shooting martin he rolled him over and ended up on top to stand which would be consistent with both statements.

Does Zimmerman say he rolled onto Martin?

Does John say Zimmerman rolled onto Martin?

Then there are inconsistencies.

That was my entire point. Your summary sounds entirely probable - but wasn't what Zimmerman or John described - hence my argument of inconsistency.

It's entirely possible that Zimmerman forgot to mentio or John didn't see it. It's entirely possible Cutcher didn't actually see it. It's entirely possible something similar happened - but everyone is wrong.

But you cannot argue everyone's testimony validates everyone else's. That was my entire point.

Zimmerman's story to police: Zimmerman tol ...


Well, that's exactly my point.

We cannot accuse the media of providing inaccurate information and then insist we accept each story that comes out. I'm not saying the article is factually wrong - only that it cannot be verified at this point.
 
2012-04-23 10:20:31 PM

Bontesla: s2s2s2: Bontesla: Believe it or not, "close enough" isn't an answer that can establish credibility.

Cutcher's porch was about 19 feet away and that was too far.

Changing your story sure as hell does. She is threatening to sue the police "because they are trying to make me look bad".

So, you deflect my question by pointing fingers in another area.

Right. If you don't know if John was closer or further than Cutcher then just say so.


It is my understanding that the altercation happened immediately in front of John's back door.

You seem capable of finding the truth of the matter.
 
2012-04-23 10:58:43 PM

s2s2s2: Bontesla: s2s2s2: Bontesla: Believe it or not, "close enough" isn't an answer that can establish credibility.

Cutcher's porch was about 19 feet away and that was too far.

Changing your story sure as hell does. She is threatening to sue the police "because they are trying to make me look bad".

So, you deflect my question by pointing fingers in another area.

Right. If you don't know if John was closer or further than Cutcher then just say so.

It is my understanding that the altercation happened immediately in front of John's back door.

You seem capable of finding the truth of the matter.


It's my understanding Zimmerman was upset that "they always get away" and he had a gun and Martin didn't and the unarmed kid is dead and the stalker is not.

I suppose it's all a coincidence.
 
2012-04-23 11:15:43 PM

gimmegimme: s2s2s2: Bontesla: s2s2s2: Bontesla: Believe it or not, "close enough" isn't an answer that can establish credibility.

Cutcher's porch was about 19 feet away and that was too far.

Changing your story sure as hell does. She is threatening to sue the police "because they are trying to make me look bad".

So, you deflect my question by pointing fingers in another area.

Right. If you don't know if John was closer or further than Cutcher then just say so.

It is my understanding that the altercation happened immediately in front of John's back door.

You seem capable of finding the truth of the matter.

It's my understanding Zimmerman was upset that "they always get away" and he had a gun and Martin didn't and the unarmed kid is dead and the stalker is not.

I suppose it's all a coincidence.


Yeah, I heard George was shooting his gun in the air because he thought it was cinco de mayo, and the bullet just fell from the sky while Trayvon was making snow angels.

I mean, if we are being pointless and stupid, why not be more creative with it?
 
2012-04-23 11:19:26 PM

s2s2s2: gimmegimme: s2s2s2: Bontesla: s2s2s2: Bontesla: Believe it or not, "close enough" isn't an answer that can establish credibility.

Cutcher's porch was about 19 feet away and that was too far.

Changing your story sure as hell does. She is threatening to sue the police "because they are trying to make me look bad".

So, you deflect my question by pointing fingers in another area.

Right. If you don't know if John was closer or further than Cutcher then just say so.

It is my understanding that the altercation happened immediately in front of John's back door.

You seem capable of finding the truth of the matter.

It's my understanding Zimmerman was upset that "they always get away" and he had a gun and Martin didn't and the unarmed kid is dead and the stalker is not.

I suppose it's all a coincidence.

Yeah, I heard George was shooting his gun in the air because he thought it was cinco de mayo, and the bullet just fell from the sky while Trayvon was making snow angels.

I mean, if we are being pointless and stupid, why not be more creative with it?


Are you implying that any of what I said is untrue?
 
2012-04-23 11:25:26 PM

gimmegimme: s2s2s2: gimmegimme: s2s2s2: Bontesla: s2s2s2: Bontesla: Believe it or not, "close enough" isn't an answer that can establish credibility.

Cutcher's porch was about 19 feet away and that was too far.

Changing your story sure as hell does. She is threatening to sue the police "because they are trying to make me look bad".

So, you deflect my question by pointing fingers in another area.

Right. If you don't know if John was closer or further than Cutcher then just say so.

It is my understanding that the altercation happened immediately in front of John's back door.

You seem capable of finding the truth of the matter.

It's my understanding Zimmerman was upset that "they always get away" and he had a gun and Martin didn't and the unarmed kid is dead and the stalker is not.

I suppose it's all a coincidence.

Yeah, I heard George was shooting his gun in the air because he thought it was cinco de mayo, and the bullet just fell from the sky while Trayvon was making snow angels.

I mean, if we are being pointless and stupid, why not be more creative with it?

Are you implying that any of what I said is untrue?


Stalk was a bit much, but it is very easy to string a series of facts into a lie.
 
HBK
2012-04-23 11:37:25 PM

browntimmy: HBK: OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: 9beers: JuggleGeek: Posting pics that aren't him and lying about what happened makes you look like you're going for the "9beers troll of the thread" award.

Yep, keep throwing out the T word because you can't make one valid argument to support what you think happened that night.

It's funny how beers is a troll for using fact based logic. It's sad that's the direction our country is headed.

/I'll buy you a six pack dude.

Dumb people on fark resort to calling people who don't agree with them trolls when they realize their own positions are weakly supported or wholly unsupported.

Looks like someone needs to post that screencap of 9beers saying Zimmerman deserving a medal for keeping that thug off the streets. Because clearly that's a rational opinion supported by facts.


Wow, really? Was that in this thread? I wasn't aware he said that.
 
2012-04-23 11:51:15 PM

Bontesla: Again - what's the distance?

The problem with every other witness was they were claiming it was too dark to see anything. The porch light wasn't helpful. It was dark. Simply too dark to see.



You keep arguing a point that's not making a lot of sense to me. The fight and shooting took place close to John's patio. Whatever the distance was, and however bright the light was, it was obviously enough for him to identify who was on top of who, what clothes they were wearing and the fact that Zimmerman was yelling for help.

You keep wanting to imply that he might not have been able to see anything. If that was the case, I'm sure he wouldn't have told the police that he did. How far away was John from the fight? I have no idea. All I know is that he was close enough to see what he saw.
 
2012-04-24 12:00:14 AM

HBK: Wow, really? Was that in this thread? I wasn't aware he said that.


Nah, I said it in another thread in response to a bunch of morons that were making inflammatory comments about Zimmerman. You know, giving them a little of their own medicine. Now every so often when I whip out some facts they don't want to debate, they throw it out there as it it invalidates what I'm saying.

Besides, all the evidence we have so far indicates that Zimmerman is telling the truth and that Martin attacked him. Assuming that, he is a violent thug. A medal probably wouldn't be awarded though.
 
2012-04-24 12:06:56 AM

9beers: Nah, I said it in another thread in response to a bunch of morons that were making inflammatory comments about Zimmerman.


Nope. You just said it unbidden because you're a sack of shiat. Now you're trying to excuse and justify it.
 
Displayed 50 of 613 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report