Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

[TerryMathews]

You sir.. .are a fucking retard if you think a guy giving a false statement is still innocent.

Where is the perjury or obstruction charge? They charged the wife, so clearly they aren't shy about it.

 

[TerryMathews]

A first hand witness describing how the 2 exchanged words before the physical altercation...

I know you want to dismiss that at all cost because her word directly contradicts Zimmerman's official statement... But she's one of the only witnesses in the case.

Other witnesses like ' john ' simply tell us shit we already know.

Yeah, like how Treyvon was assaulting Zimmerman when shot.

No one has proven that DeeDee was even on a call when she claims to be. Can you?

Her testimony is only admissible if they can show she was in fact an ear witness.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

All I read in your post is that you don't care if Zimmerman is guilty, because loopholes exist that could free him despite his clearly negligent actions.

Ugh.. you are a disgusting individual.

 

[Geosurface]

Some problems with Deedee's statement about hearing someone say "get off"

1.) She isn't clear about whose voice it was. Her manner of wording things is EXTREMELY bad, her command of English almost non-existant. However, it sounds like she says she can't know if it was Trayvon saying it.

2.) She doesn't mention anything about hearing this until about the 4th time she's asked to remember more, remember more. This is after they had already wrapped up the testimony about what the last thing she heard was. It left a distinct impression of "no no, we need more, make up something" why would she neglect to mention such an important thing she heard to Crump... or to BDLR the first 3 or 4 times she had a chance to say it?

3.) Deedee volunteers to lie in her sworn testimony, and BDLR has to decline this offer and say he just wants the truth. This makes anything she's said highly suspect.

So she heard Trayvon speak first, which matches GZ's account and matches Trayvon being the one to initiate direct contact between the two parties.

She says something about Trayvon saying he isn't going to run, that he's right by his father's house, and that he's going back. The way she says some of this makes it very difficult to be sure wtf she's saying, which is why I personally think she should just be disregarded, even though a lot of what she says actually helps GZ. I think she's just too stupid, heard too little, and is too willing to lie.

But as others have said, even if GZ was way off his rocker, trying to do a citizen's arrest, he still has the right to self-defense at the point where Trayvon is on top of him, holding him down, preventing his retreat, and beating him for an extended period of time as he screams for help and mercy.

Trayvon could perhaps be forgiven a punch to GZ's nose, but not restraining him and beating him in a completely one sided assault while he screamed for help and mercy. And if he really did go for GZ's gun? even more clear.

 

[airdata]

I see your racism shows through w\ your interpretation of dee dee's interview.

You're questioning what she's saying because in your opinion her black youth broken english is hard to understand.

What's not hard to understand is when she hears Trayvon say ' why are you following me ' and zimmerman responds in an agry tone ' what are you doing around here?' which matches up w\ his demeanor when he exited his vehicle to begin chasing after Trayvon.

This alone directly contradicts Zimmerman's official written statement to police. This alone makes him a liar. Why would an innocent person lie? They wouldn't if they had nothing to hide.

He likely had an oh shit moment when he realized he was standing over a dead body and quickly thought up a story to keep his ass out of jail.

 

[Geosurface]

Actually I don't recall Deedee's race ever being officially released so, isn't it rather racist of you to just assume she's black because she talks like that?

I'm being silly of course, just like you are, but at least I know I am.

This crying "racist" shit is fucking stupid. Stop doing it.

I guess it's a shame Deedee isn't white, so that when she speaks like a fucking retard who has half her brain missing and learned English from the family dog, I am allowed to call her out on it and point toward the problems that has for her testimony without being TEH RAYCISS!!!!!!!

GZ has misremembered many things about that night, a lot of it had to do with the exact wording of his exchange with the dispatch. He roughly landed on the outlines of what had been said by both parties though.

See he didn't have the benefit of a recording of his conversation with dispatch like we do. He was forced to remember through the haze of terror, ADHD, adrenaline, and the most intense experience of his life. You try that and see if you get every single word correct.

Maybe Deedee is the one who is wrong about what was said, or maybe GZ is, maybe they're both wrong about it and it was something in between that neither of them remember exactly (that is most likely of all, frankly) but that they have both remembered certain parts of. Or maybe she heard nothing at all, or maybe she's lying to try to make things look better for the person who is not only her friend, but of her same race, over the person who is another race, she doesn't know from Adam, and who killed her friend.

It requires some very high levels of maturity, perspective, and morality to value the truth and justice above all else, even if that truth leads to the person who shot your friend getting off and spending no time in jail, especially if there's a shady lawyer possibly offering you the chance to get in on a civil suit payday if you play along and lie in the right way (just a possibility, just a hunch that)

I've seen nothing to indicate that Deedee has this sort of character, morality, etc which would make her brave enough to end up on the wrong side of her entire community, other shared friends and acquaintances with Trayvon, etc in favor of the truth. I've seen indications consistent with someone who is quite far down the other side of the spectrum.

White people in this country have been strongly conditioned for some time to never, ever think of themselves as part of a racial group, unless it's for the purposes of guilt and bashing that group for past or current wrongs, real or otherwise.

As a result, most whites don't appreciate just how strong the racial side-taking and solidarity is, in some ways, in other groups. Blacks being a strong example.

But you need look no further than the OJ verdict celebrations, or the absolutely reliable and consistent reaction of the vast majority of the black community to any news story involving blacks conflicting with any non-black. Immediate and rock solid is the support for the black party or parties, typically.

Facts have little or no impact on this support, the law has little or no impact on this support.

Racism is far FAR FAR more pervasive, rampant, virulent, and encouraged in the black community than it is in the white community these days. By an ENORMOUS margin in fact. Lying to ensure a more positive outcome for a black party or a more negative outcome for a non-black party is the default, expected behavior in the absence of strong evidence of unusual moral character.

 

[airdata]

Dee Dee's satement makes a liar out of zimmerman which is why you guys are all anti dee dee now.

Go back a couple hundred pages and you guys thought DeeDees testimony was in zimmerman's favor.

 

[Geosurface]

You're misunderstanding.

"Our" position on Deedee has always been that her testimony appears to be extremely unreliable for multiple reasons, but that testimony SUCH AS IT IS, seems to largely support Zimmerman's account anyway.

That is still peoples' outlook on it, for the most part.

 

[airdata]

You're misunderstanding.

"Our" position on Deedee has always been that her testimony appears to be extremely unreliable for multiple reasons, but that testimony SUCH AS IT IS, seems to largely support Zimmerman's account anyway.

That is still peoples' outlook on it, for the most part.

Not true at all.

You guys were hailing DeeDee back when you were suggesting she said Trayvon was near his destination but chose to go back and fight zimmerman.

Then when you realized Zimmerman's official statement to police claims he was going to his car when " the suspect emerged from the darkness" You realize they aren't both telling the truth.

 

[spidey07]

Not true at all.

You guys were hailing DeeDee back when you were suggesting she said Trayvon was near his destination but chose to go back and fight zimmerman.

Then when you realized Zimmerman's official statement to police claims he was going to his car when " the suspect emerged from the darkness" You realize they aren't both telling the truth.

Of course they can be both telling the truth, how can you not see that? That area was dark, martin could easily return to begin his brutal and vicious attack when zimmerman was walking back to his car without being seen. He was in deep burglar hoodie cover.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

This is all going to come down to the actual altercation and whether GZ could reasonably fear he was in imminent danger. If the defense can show that GZ felt he was in imminent danger when he shot TM then this case will never go to a jury.

 

[Tom]

I think you all miss the significance of the phone and Dee Dee.

It isn't what she said or heard. Its that Martin was a kid walking home from the store talking to a girl on the phone.

The evidence supports that. The 711 tape, the phone call, the snacks.

The evidence concerning Zimmerman is he misidentified Martin as a burglar, overreacted to seeing a black kid in a hoodie by calling the police, rashly followed or pursued a person he thought was dangerous.

Putting those two outlines of their activities, Zimmerman's story seems unlikely.

 

[TerryMathews]

I think you all miss the significance of the phone and Dee Dee.

It isn't what she said or heard. Its that Martin was a kid walking home from the store talking to a girl on the phone.

The evidence supports that. The 711 tape, the phone call, the snacks.

The evidence concerning Zimmerman is he misidentified Martin as a burglar, overeacted to just seeing a black kid in a hoodie by calling the police, rashly followed or pursued a person he thought was dangerous.

Putting those two outlines of their activities, Zimmerman's story seems unlikely.

Our legislative system doesn't convict on probability.

 

[Tom]

Our legislative system doesn't convict on probability.

You mean judicial. And people are convicted based on circumstantial evidence, there's not a requirement for absolutes so that is a level of probability.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

It really doesn't matter what Dee Dee heard as it was before the altercation occurred. We know from two witnesses that before the shot was fired TM was on top of GZ restraining and possibly still assaulting him. Even if GZ was the aggressor the fact he couldn't extracate himself from the altercation meets the requirement in Florida statute 776.041 and he could use force to protect himself. This is a case of self defense and nothing more.

 

[Tom]

It really doesn't matter what Dee Dee heard as it was before the altercation occurred. We know from two witnesses that before the shot was fired TM was on top of GZ restraining and possibly still assaulting him. Even if GZ was the aggressor the fact he couldn't extracate himself from the altercation meets the requirement in Florida statute 776.041 and he could use force to protect himself. This is a case of self defense and nothing more.

there is no eyewitness that Martin "assaulted" Zimmerman. So there's no eyewitness that he was "still assaulting" him.

There's no eyewitness that Zimmerman made any attempt to extricate himself. And the law doesn't permit executing someone because they are holding you on the ground. They have to be threatening your life or be capable of inflicting great bodily harm.

There's no evidence Martin was capable of either. For one thing, he was unarmed.

 

[Geosurface]

In all likelihood I think both Deedee and Zimmerman are doing some combination of:

1.) Trying to remember things as best they can
2.) Misremembering things despite this
3.) Deliberately lying or at least fudging certain moments and details to make their side look better

Both of them, doing all three. That's my hunch. That fits best with human nature and a high stress situation also.

Reasons to be skeptical of George Zimmerman:

1.) He ended up shooting someone, and this places him in a defensive, guilt-ridden position mentally. Regardless of any legal questions about it.
2.) His future is on the line.
3.) He's demonstrated an inability to remember things in exact detail.
4.) People frequently lie while in legal peril, the greater the peril, the higher the chance. His peril is very great.
5.) Was deceptive about his finances.

Reasons to be skeptical of Deedee:

1.) Didn't even appear on the radar until weeks into the media frenzy.
2.) Wouldn't speak to police about what she heard.
3.) Didn't contact anyone from any law enforcement or emergency service or Trayvon's family that night or for weeks after. This doesn't fit with what she's now saying she heard.
4.) Testimony changed in key, crucial ways between Crump / Matt Gutman phone interview, and deposition with Bernard De La Rionda (BDLR) from the prosecutors' office.
5.) During deposition, evidenced an extremely low mental ability. Evidenced also an incredibly poor command of the English language, far beyond just normal black teenager or any teenager speak. Way, way beyond that. Enough to question whether she might even have a severe learning disability at the least. Even some on the Trayvon side have suggested this possibility based on that interview.
6.) Offered to lie to BDLR as shown here (even more obvious that's what's going on via audio)

De la Rionda: Did he ever say something else about that, like, whether the guy had gotten out of the car? Did he ever describe, "Yeah, the guy, now, he's out of the car, and he's chasing me"? I know you said the guy, he said, the guy was following, but did he ever say the guy got out of the car?

Dee Dee: You want that too?

De la Rionda: I want to know the truth, whether, did he say that or not. If he didn't say that, that's fine.

and:

BDLR: Did Trayvon ever say the guy's coming at me, he's gonna hit me?

Long pause from Deedee, then in very low, sneaky tone:

"Yeaaaaaa you can say that."

BLDR: No I don't want you to guess. Did he ever say that?

Long ass pause from Deedee, while she tries to figure out what BLDR wants her to say and how far she can and can't go with lying.

PLEASE go listen to 15:45 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k even if you've heard it before.

7.) Mentioning feelings of guilt about what happened to Trayvon but declining to elaborate on why. This could indicate, especially when taken together with her not contacting authorities and dodging police who wanted to interview her, that she may have egged Trayvon on, made him feel like a punk for running, and framed it as a, you either go back and beat that fool's ass, or you're a punk ass bitch type of thing. VERY plausible.

8.) Not issuing any statement about what she heard and who spoke in what order until GZ's account of this, in rough form, had come out. This could indicate wanting to wait and find out what GZ said, so as to not come up with something TOO wildly divergent from it.

So all in all I think there are a lot of reasons to doubt both of them and be skeptical of both of them.

This is why I prefer to just look at the physical and eyewitness evidence.

1.) GZ had injuries, consistent with what he describes. TM did not have injuries apart from one on his finger from inflicting GZ's wounds, and the bullet hole. This indicates a one sided beatdown situation, not a struggle. Just as GZ describes.

2.) The ballistics are consistent with TM being on top of GZ and very near him at the time of the shot, this fits GZ's account.

3.) There is an eyewitness who places TM on top of GZ just prior to the shot, either beating him or holding him down and preventing his escape. This witness believed it to be beating prior to the media frenzy with the 12 year old pics of Trayvon all over the news, and initially said it was GZ screaming. You take his account and COMBINE IT with the physical evidence and you know which thing he saw. It had to be a beating he saw because GZ had those wounds. He has to be right about GZ screaming, because GZ had those wounds and it's GZ's voice in the screams.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

there is no eyewitness that Martin "assaulted" Zimmerman. So there's no eyewitness that he was "still assaulting" him.

There's no eyewitness that Zimmerman made any attempt to extricate himself.

Go listen to the witness interviews. You find that one said that GZ was struggling to free himself and he couldn't be but TM may have been striking him. There's no doubt GZ was assaulted and the only person that was in an altercation with him was TM.

 

[TerryMathews]

You mean judicial. And people are convicted based on circumstantial evidence, there's not a requirement for absolutes so that is a level of probability.

You are correct: damn autocorrect and damn me for not proofreading.

I still stand behind my point: convicting based on what you think likely happened is contrary to the laws of the land.

 

[TerryMathews]

there is no eyewitness that Martin "assaulted" Zimmerman. So there's no eyewitness that he was "still assaulting" him.

There's no eyewitness that Zimmerman made any attempt to extricate himself. And the law doesn't permit executing someone because they are holding you on the ground. They have to be threatening your life or be capable of inflicting great bodily harm.

There's no evidence Martin was capable of either. For one thing, he was unarmed.

Physical evidence shows he assaulted Zimmerman.

Are you saying no one has ever been beaten to death?

 

[SpatiallyAware]

...

 

[Geosurface]

We know what John saw even if he doesn't.

If he's confident he saw TM on top of GZ, and he's unsure whether it was TM holding down GZ with his arms, or beating him with his arms, we know which one it was because of the injury photos.

 

[Tom]

Physical evidence shows he assaulted Zimmerman.

Are you saying no one has ever been beaten to death?

The physical evidence doesn't show Martin assaulted Zimmerman. The physical evidence is consistent with a number of scenarios.

Even if a jury decided Martin did commit assault, that isn't sufficient grounds for killing in self-defense.

As far as "beaten to death", in a trial that would need to be established, that its reasonable based on the evidence.

I don't know how that would come out.
.

 

[spidey07]

The physical evidence doesn't show Martin assaulted Zimmerman. The physical evidence is consistent with a number of scenarios.

Even if a jury decided Martin did commit assault, that isn't sufficient grounds for killing in self-defense.

As far as "beaten to death", in a trial that would need to be established, that its reasonable based on the evidence.

I don't know how that would come out.

And, its possible that a jury would decide that facts leading up to their meeting preclude self-defense as likely.

All that is needed for self defense is exactly what the eye witness describes. When you are on your back and the assailant is on top of you or still beating you legally you are presumed to be automatically in fear for your life and can lawfully shoot.

All evidence actually proves self defense rather than raise any doubt. The evidence removes any doubt it was lawful self defense. There well beyond a preponderance of evidence showing self defense.

He should have never been arrested.

 

[TerryMathews]

The physical evidence doesn't show Martin assaulted Zimmerman. The physical evidence is consistent with a number of scenarios.

Even if a jury decided Martin did commit assault, that isn't sufficient grounds for killing in self-defense.

As far as "beaten to death", in a trial that would need to be established, that its reasonable based on the evidence.

I don't know how that would come out.
.

Nice deflection. Your comment that I was responding to was that Zimmerman couldn't fear for his life because Martin was unarmed. Your premise falls apart if even one person through history has been beaten to death.

It's called a logical fallacy.

To your other point, I submit in Florida an ongoing assault is sufficient as the laws are written.