How Rachel Jeantel went from star witness to 'train wreck' = http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin-case-rachel-jeantel-went-star-witness-143356744.html
That article seems to be written as an excuse for her actions/behavior.How Rachel Jeantel went from star witness to 'train wreck' = http://news.yahoo.com/trayvon-martin...143356744.html
Forty-four days later a Seminole County grand jury indicted Zimmerman on second degree murder charges.
Test 1: ”Old-man jog”: I set my iPhone for two minutes, and set off down my street (nice and straight for these purposes). After 2 minutes I had covered: 1,260 feet.
Well, wait a minute. Surely if I could cover a full quarter-mile in 2 minutes Martin must have been able to cover 400 feet.
Perhaps Martin was not running the whole time, perhaps after a quick dash around the corner he proceeded at a swift walk.
Test 2: ”Swift walk: I reset my iPhone and set off briskly. When the timer went off after 2 minutes I had covered: 750 feet.
Wow, still almost twice as much ground as Martin needed to gain safety from the pursuing Zimmerman. But maybe Martin wasn’t walking swiftly. Maybe the fear instilled by Zimmerman’s pursuit was only sufficient incentive to motivate him to move at the speed of, say, a 48-year-old pushing a 2-year-old in a stroller.
Test 3: ”Stroller walk”: I buckled my two-year-old into her cheap umbrella stroller (not jogging stroller), reset my iPhone to 2 minutes, and set off. When the phone alarmed I had covered: 575 feet.
Five-hundred and seventy-five feet pushing a 2-year-old-laden stroller. Yet somehow Martin was not able to cover 400 feet to safety before Zimmerman fell upon him.
Another thought–even if Martin had for whatever reason not managed to make it all the way to his refuge, surely he would have been many yard down that path. Instead, we know he was barely around the corner in the direction of his destination.
This suggests not someone fleeing danger.
Rather, it is consistent with someone who obtained a position of concealment, waited for his unsuspecting victim to approach, then sprung from hiding to launch his attack. And unlike the myth that Zimmerman pursued a fleeing Martin, this scenario is actually supported by the facts in evidence.
Incidentally, this also generally destroys the myth of Zimmerman following Martin in any way that could have caused Martin to be in fear. Zimmerman did not exit his car until Martin had turned the corner. Were Martin fleeing, or even walking, away he would have been at least 150 feet past the corner, the same distance that Zimmerman had to cover from his parked to reach the corner. We now know, of course, that Martin went nowhere much after turning the corner.
In the meantime, after Zimmerman lost sight of Martin at the point he tells the dispatcher “He’s running,” he doesn’t see Martin again until Martin emerges from the bushes. Can you be “following” someone you don’t even see?
Food for thought. And looks to me like this myth is . . . BUSTED!
Why is it that the media never seems to be able to tell the truth on this case?
From the article Svnla posted
Forty-four days later a Seminole County grand jury indicted Zimmerman on second degree murder charges.
There was no grand jury, Corey chose to charge GZ. I suspect had their be a grand jury there wouldn't have been an indictment..
Exactly!There was no grand jury, Corey chose to charge GZ. I suspect had their be a grand jury there wouldn't have been an indictment..
Eric Zorn at the Chicago Tribune, who has been following the George Zimmerman case since its inception and carefully reviewed the discovery as it became available, has a new article today, Zimmerman Trial Has All the Ingredients for a Miscarriage of Justice.
Looks like people are beginning to change their minds on this case and it's being mentioned in the news/blogs.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/6/30/0234/09466/crimenews/Sunday-George-Zimmerman-Thread
I don't think "sucker punch" means what you think it means.
A conversation certainly doesn't preclude it.
Even Zimmerman's account says they spoke before the sucker punch. He didn't ever say Trayvon just socked him in the nose out of no where.
From the urban dictionary:
sucker punch:
This occurs when someone hits someone else from behind, usually when the person being hit doesn't know it until afterwards. Usually considered shady or a "bitch move".
Definition of SUCKER PUNCH
: to punch (a person) suddenly without warning and often without apparent provocation
sucker punch noun
Notice in the article that he criticizes those that refuse to look at the evidence and want justice perverted because it matches up with their concepts/opinions.
Also correct. They were not having a normal conversation according to ear witnesses who heard loud arguing/talking. Not even GZ said he was sucker punched.
But this is entirely a known a human characteristic. In this specific case the media went out and portrayed the event as a white guy racial profiling a young black pre pubescent child, following him, and murdering him in cold blood. Then the white guy was let off scott free by the justice system.
That's a helluva notion to shake after folks have already made up their mind from the tales from the media.
If this thing had been portrayed with any clarity from the get go folks concepts/opinions would not have been warped to dangerous levels (see multiple twitter notes of blacks desire to murder whites if GZ goes free and known assaults on whites b/c of TM's death). I'm not sure how much you can blame someone for believing something that they've been tricked into believing. This is after all what occurred through 911 phone call edits, pictures that distorted the age/size/physical characteristics of TM, while carefully leaving out eye witness repots from John whom described the assault on GZ.
GZ needs to go after the media big time for their efforts to bake this entire thing. The 911 edits being some of the most egregious offenses.
An assault leading to a gun shot is a much different paradigm than a hate crime leading to cold blooded murder (the initial media narrative that many still haven't shaken).
Exactly this^^^.
Good read
http://lawofselfdefense.com/zimmerman-trial-myth-busters-did-zimmerman-chase-down-a-fleeing-martin/
Myth Busters: Did Zimmerman “Chase Down” a Fleeing Martin?
So what you're trying to say is GZ knew he was going to be punched in the nose and did nothing about it.............amirite????????
While Zimmerman says they spoke, what was said is in contention between Janteal and Zimmerman. Neither of which precludes that TM didn't throw a sucker punch.
Nothing of what was said from either Zimmerman's or Jantael's version of the initial verbal meeting between the two meet the legal standard of provocation that removes the right to self defense for Zimmerman. Which even IF Zimmerman's did, of which zero evidence has been presented, that right to self defense can be re-established. Which would be the case of TM in a dominate position while still attempting to cause bodily harm as Zimmerman tries to escape or call for help.
No, but if you're arguing with someone you don't know, who you think may be armed (he has his hand in his waistband), you think is a burgular, you called police to respond to, may not throw a punch at you, or worse, is beyond reason.
except at the actual time of the shooting they were on wet grass, not concrete, which means the threat of Martin pounding his head in the concrete no longer existed.
As to provocation, if Martin perceived a creep following him for no apparent reason, that's most likely sufficient provocation to defend himself. From a legal perspective the issue isn't what Zimmerman was actually doing, its what a reasonable person would think about a stranger looking them over, then pursuing them on a dark rainy night.
Only if you believe Rachel (DeeDee) story and not GZ statements where he said the following happened:
TM: Do you have a problem?
GZ: No
TM: Well, you do now.
Then the punch to the nose.
The evidence supports the theory they both waited until they were out of site of the other; in Zimmerman's case to get out of the car and follow Martin; in Martin's case to see if Zimmerman would follow him.
Your theory Martin hid to wait for Zimmerman to spring on him doesn't make any sense. How would he know Zimmerman was going to follow him ?
And if Zimmerman did follow him, how is that Martin's fault ?
From Martin's pov, some creep gives him the once over while sititng in his truck, then gets out and follows him, how does Martin defending himself, however he sees fit, make him a bad guy ? According to FL syg law he had a right to defend himself, even kill Zimmerman if his life was threatened; which obviously it was since he ended up dead.
[SIZE=-1]776.012[SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]Use of force in defense of person.
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the others imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if1)[SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](3)[SIZE=-1] [/SIZE]A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
[/SIZE]
In deciding whether defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you must judge [him] [her] by the circumstances by which [he] [she] was surrounded at the time the force was used. The danger facing the defendant need not have been actual; however, to justify the use of deadly force, the appearance of danger must have been so real that a reasonably cautious and prudent person under the same circumstances would have believed that the danger could be avoided only through the use of that force. Based upon appearances, the defendant must have actually believed that the danger was real.
IIRC, the ear witnesses (while they couldn't hear the actual words) indicated a heated/loud conversation, not the above 10 or so words.