Skip to comments.Witnesses Back Up Zimmerman's Account Of Attack In Trayvon Martin Shooting, Police Say
Posted on 03/27/2012 5:32:25 AM PDT by Clint N. Suhks
With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the neighborhood watch volunteer who eventually shot to death the unarmed 17-year-old, then climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk several times, leaving him bloody and battered, authorities told The Orlando Sentinel.
That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities said.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.orlandosentinel.com ...
The big boss man got arrested..
I have seen nothing so far that indicates that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. The police have come to the same conclusion so far.
I've got a close friend who's conservative on most things, but is adamantly opposed to capital punishment. He's also strongly pro-life, and he won't budge on the issue of guilt or innocence. I've talked to him about it many times. He won't change his position and that's that. But I still like him very much.
I have, and I don't hear what you do. “The a holes always get away”, yes the trespassers or f ing punks always do get away. “Coon”??? No way is that what he said. It is unintelligible, I don't hear “coon”.
In ANY case, you do not know what is in someones mind. My hearing of the tape does not lead me where your hearing does.
Even IF you were correct (you are not) IT DOESN'T MATTER. Following, chasing, confronting, all legal. The assault by the punk Trayvon, is what was illegal and lead to his death.
Wow! You should write Geico commercials. That was good!
wtc911 is persisently confused, even after being shown that the rules of evidence regarding “self serving statements” apply to admissible hearsay evidence; and have no application whatsoever to direct evidence.
I agree with your perspective, Tom.
All of my friends are more left-wing or progressive or socialist, whatever, than me. I’ve gotten used to it.
I am represented in Parliament by a lefty NDPer who worked as a Russian translator in the civil service; my neighbours mostly think he is barely lefty enough, so I am familiar with the left-liberal species.
Luckily, we Canadians mostly hold ourselves to public politeness, and an affable spirit results in settlements like my little crosshatch in the Empty Quarter. On a website such as this, however, I do enjoy the opportunity to be as snarkily cruel as I please occasionally.
The best video and best evidence is at the link above or below. Better than any 911 call recording because you can't be sure what you are hearing on those.
Video at upper left corner has the reporter standing on the spot where Trayvon was shot. Shows you from there just how close the windows that eye witness John saw and heard the event. They interview John on air and he tells what he saw and heard.
This is by far, is the best evidence in defense of Zimmerman. He saw and heard it up close. You can see for yourself just how close he was to the event. No other witness has this perspective.
Please provide links to the "eyewitness testimony" that you say supports Zimmerman's claim that he was attacked by Martin. I bet you can't.
Since there is no known corroborating neutral witness, Zimmerman's statement is, by legal definition, self-serving. There are dozens of easily found cases wherein such statements have been deemed inadmissable.
Here's one at the Appellate level...
"In retrial of interstate kidnapping resulting in death case, trial court did not err under FRE 106 Rule of Completeness in excluding self-serving exculpatory statements of the defendant or hearsay statements by his attorney in a recorded jailhouse phone call, parts of which had been offered by the prosecution regarding the defendants plan to kill certain witnesses, because FRE 106 does not render otherwise inadmissible evidence admissible, in United States v. Lentz, 524 F.3d 501 (4th Cir. May 12, 2008) (No. 06-4691)"
You can research if you like...or not. It won't change things.
Scriptura pro scribente nihil probat.
Let's just assume for the sake of argument that Zimmerman was following Marting "for several minutes" -- which, btw, transcripts indicate he didn't -- is Martin allowed to turn and assault Zimmerman?
If Martin continues to beat Zimmerman while he is on the ground calling for help would that not be the illegitimate use of force in just about any circumstance? Is banging someone's head on the ground potentially life threatening? Is not Zimmerman allowed to defend himself?
If the latest info turns out to be accurate -- which is not a certainty, I'll grant -- then Zimmerman acted in self-defense and Martin's death can only be blamed on Martin.
btw...you might want to read post 189....then argue that self-serving statements are not considered to be inadmissable...but you should direct your argument to the US 4th Circuit Court of Appeals...it is their ruling.
What ever the truth is has become irrelevant as the far left and some black leaders have taken up this “cause celeb-re” to advance their own agenda. Ironically when it is no longer politically advantageous to the left, there will be two victims, Travon and Zimmerman both.
I think you are miss characterizing what the majority of people here are saying. Being followed or watched is not grounds for punching someone. He may not have liked being followed or watched but he had no right to attack. If he was so frightened by Zimmerman’s behavior why approach him. You can be somewhere you have a right to be, doing nothing wrong, and still be suspicious. Many times I have been places working late at night to finish some aspect of a construction project I was working on only to have the police show up because someone thought it was suspicious that a truck was pulled up to a job site late at night and a guy was loading tools. The correct response was to always explain politely that I was working late and give the name and number of the builder. Whether Zimmerman was a member of the neighborhood watch or just a concerned citizen makes no difference. He had a right to call in a suspicious person to the police. It also could be that this Zimmerman had a hair trigger when it came to calling things in. That still would not justify an attack, which the evidence seems to indicate happened. There’s no indication from what I have read that Zimmerman was breaking any laws so the comment that some freepers think that Martin was not protected by the law is not correct.
IF, the report you linked is true, I would be wrong about police returning the gun, BUT it says “The gun is now in the possession of authorities, officially part of the evidence in the case.”
There is no reference to how they know this. A link to the official who supposedly said this would be helpful.
The horses mouth so to speak. We know the media lies. Trust but verify.
I am. You were wrong before, and you are now. I was trying to save kabar some time.
Doesn't matter how old the thug was...Doesn't matter what color he was...Doesn't even matter what the gender was...He needed to be stopped...By the first effective means available...Would have been great had there been some people there to pull the thug off the victim...That wasn't to be...
Likely the thug had experience with this type of activity in the past...It was his misfortune that this time he attacked a victim who was carrying a weapon...
I like to think of the people who now will not have to go thru a brutal beating, or murder by this thug in the future..I have much sympathy for his family however...
Or, how about you support your position with provable facts based on actual case law. I'll wait.
It did...It saved his life...
Thanks for the link.
John does not say he saw the start of the fight. He saw it in progress, with Martin on top.
He locked his patio door and ran up his interior stairs, called 911, heard a shot, went to the window, and saw Martin lying on the grass.
So he did not see the actual shooting and the point at which the battle turned, or see who was doing the yelling and screaming at that time.
I’m GUESSING that Zimmerman took a number of punches without drawing his gun, knowing that the police were on the way, but at some point he thought he was going to be seriously injured or killed before the police got there (head bashed into the sidewalk?)
But the legal question is still - who started the fight?