Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
My god, just reading all these cases makes me sick. How on earth did this moronic law ever passed?
Even if his version was what happened, it still sounds like he started the whole thing by going after the guy in the first place. Most people would react if someone just started following them for no specific reason.
Yeah, someone at work was telling me about this pot thing last night. I have no idea what's going on with that, could someone direct me to a link, if I missed one, or please post one?
I am not saying he should have shot him, I'm just saying that according to the law, Zimmerman felt he was in a position to have to defend his life, and felt it was necessary to use his gun.
MrsSpringsteen said:Zimmerman also allegedly told police that Trayvon tried to get his gun
This story doesn't really seem to add up. So Zimmerman who was ready to play lone ranger some how gave up and nonchalantly retreated? Only to get knocked out with one punch? And then the crying out for help; one it sounded like a much younger voice, and two it didn't sound like someone who was being sat on and being pummeled. Now I would assume with audio forensics this should be fairly simple to "prove". But then after all of this Zimmerman then has the ability to grab his gun and shoot?
Why would a highschool kid who was returning home from a snack run during the halftime of family night watching the NBA game, and who was initially frightened enough (per both Zimmerman's and the girlfriend's accounts) to run away from the strongly-built older man tailing him, respond to that man retreating by going 'OK, well now I'm gonna go back and beat the shit out of him' (without even bothering to hang up with his girlfriend, apparently)? If the claim were instead that Martin, from the very first moment he realized he was being followed, had wheeled around, charged and attacked Zimmerman, that to me would actually seem somewhat more plausible (though I'm guessing 'Stand Your Ground' would've justified Martin in doing that? and what do you do with a situation where both parties had a right to 'stand their ground,' anyway--whoever lives wins?). Or perhaps if Zimmerman had unwittingly retreated to a position where he was blocking Martin's access to his father's financee's house, such that Martin could've reasonably perceived him as lying in wait (wouldn't that also be 'stand your ground' from both ends?); that's the only plausible-seeming explanation I can think of for Zimmerman's story.
Huh, that's interesting. I'm curious to see where everything goes with that information.
Again, regardless of what info comes out, Zimmerman NEVER should have pursued him, and NEVER should have been allowed to shoot him and walk away.
Sounds to me like two people who felt threatened and felt the need to "stand their ground."
I am always annoyed when Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson show up. In general, they don't help.
So many assumptions. Have you heard Zimmerman scream before? Why would he not be able to scream with someone sitting on top of him? What would have stopped him from getting his gun? I'm not taking either side on this. It's fucked up that someone got shot and killed, but there is some pretty brainless assumptions coming from both sides of the fence
But creating ideal scenarios in your head is completely fruitless.
Well a couple of things:
I've studied voice a little and there are certain characteristics in tone and timbre that you find in age, regardless of how deep or high a person's voice is. Many others have heard this as well. It's also doesn't sound consistent with his size, but that's pretty difficult to determine.
If one's head is being slammed up and down on concrete while screaming there would be noticable change in sound. Just make a sound and shake your head up and down. The screams I heard on the tapes all sound pretty consistent. And someone sitting on your chest would hinder and effect the sound you could create as well.
Plausible, not ideal.
How else would you go about explaining the events of such an event?
This is exactly how it's done in the courtroom, you piece together the evidence you have.
Eh? I was describing scenarios under which the broad outlines of Zimmerman's story might make sense to me, not saying "what I think happened." Chasing down a pursuer who's retreated wouldn't be "standing your ground" anyway, according to either the statute or to common sense; it would be provocative aggression, so you'd need to account for the shift to that.But creating ideal scenarios in your head is completely fruitless. What if he initially only saw Zimmerman in the dark and was unable to get a good read on him? What if, after seeing that Zimmerman was really just a portly middle aged man, he wasn't afraid any more? What if he was initially scared, but talked himself into standing up for himself after a few minutes. All of these are completely plausible. It's pointless to say "I think it happened this way and it's the only explanation"
Eh? I was describing scenarios under which the broad outlines of Zimmerman's story might make sense to me, not saying "what I think happened." Chasing down a pursuer who's retreated wouldn't be "standing your ground" anyway, according to either the statute or to common sense; it would be provocative aggression, so you'd need to account for the shift to that.
It's called conjecture and it absolutely does not hold up in a courtroom
What are you talking about?
So in courtrooms do they only allow for videotaped footage of murders to be submitted and everyone else is set free?
You've studied voice a little? Like, you're an expert or you've been on google?
No one is arguing the first scenario.I'll play the guessing game for a second anyway. What makes more sense? A man standing, pointing a gun at someone for 30 seconds while they scream, then shooting them in the stomach or someone getting beat on and screaming for 30 seconds until they pull their gun out and shoot?
No one is arguing the first scenario.