Im sure sometimes, while others he is the one reporting what he is seeing etc.
I think there may be a few dumbasses that will act out if GZ is acquitted but I don't think there will be mass rioting.
Serino said that Martin would not have appeared suspicious to him because he would have no idea whether or not Martin lived at that house. Zimmerman knew that Taaffe lived at that house.
I actually disagree, if you completely remove GZ and his statements your left with injuries.
If you look at that you have to conclude Martin hit him and he didn't hit martin.
Since there is no way to have evidence of Whiffs or a minor shove we cant assume they exist.
We don't need to believe anything Zimmerman says to conclude that it was self defense. We have eye witness testimony that Martin was on top. We have Zimmerman's injuries consistent with getting punched from above and some indication that zimmerman's head hit the concrete. We have one gunshot wound through the heart at close range. There is testimony from an expert medical examiner saying the wound appears to have occurred while Martin was on top.You still have to believe GZ's story as truthful though, he could've grabbed/shoved TM leaving no marks/evidence.
This.
We could say that GZ walked up brandished the gun, put it back in the holster, taunted, took a swing that missed, or multiple swings that missed, until TM got the upperhand in the encounter and was then shot. Granted we don't know 100%.
But we have take far fewer leaps (if any) to get to the conclusion that TM struck first and if anything it makes that conclusion the most appropriate.
Zimmerman could have brandished his gun and threatened Martin. Martin could have then tried to disarm Zimmerman and attacked in self defense. The problem, however, is that there is zero evidence to indicate that this happened.
Zimmerman could have crept up on Martin and threw the first punch (and missed) in which Martin defended himself and got carried away and punched him multiple times. However, there isn't any evidence to support this scenario.
There are countless possibilities as to what happened but there is little evidence to support any of them. The proper answer is "we don't know what happened" which works in the favor of Zimmerman.
Re-enactment because he knew what he was doing.
HE does not need to wait with everyone for 1-2 minutes; The timeline was not as critical as to the movements.
But what about Rachael's statements about what she heard?
I'm still pretty unclear on what she even indicates.
I have to give it little weight. "Get Off" "Get Off" if her level of certainty is high may provide evidence of GZ doing something. However I kind fo think she woudl have heard Zimmerman SAY more than he indicted if he was going to grab him etc.
Another thing is that Zimmerman seems to not be sure about exactly where he was when he hung up the phone. He seems to say he had already got to RVC across the T before he hung up the phone but if you listen to the call he is asking the police to call him when they got there so it would seem some of the time after hanging up was spent walking the rest of the way to RVC and getting an address.
Granted, her testimony is unclear, but she did mention a shove/thud whatever sound.
And it was Shellie who was "confronted" by the dog, why was GZ carrying, shouldn't it have been Shellie or does GZ go everywhere Shellie does.
And it was Shellie who was "confronted" by the dog, why was GZ carrying, shouldn't it have been Shellie or does GZ go everywhere Shellie does.
That's not what he said in redirect examination by the State.
So the dog was known to be a woman hater only? No threat to men?
I think you're absolutely wrong about that. The mob WANTS an excuse. If he's acquitted, there will be rioting -- even though there is no justification for a riot.
I'm still pretty unclear on what she even indicates.
I have to give it little weight. "Get Off" "Get Off" if her level of certainty is high may provide evidence of GZ doing something. However I kind fo think she woudl have heard Zimmerman SAY more than he indicted if he was going to grab him etc.
I agree with this. I don't believe GZ had a reason at that time to take a running account of each second, or even a full minute or two, of what he was doing.
The NEN call concluded with GZ awaiting the call of the arriving officer, but that call never came. My theory is that GZ waited for at least a minute or more there at RVC for that call, but after not receiving that call, and not seeing TM anywhere, and perhaps with the rain, he decided to walk back to his truck (which he said he did). It's at that point he was confronted at that T.
Well, I'm off to work, hope the jury waits till I get back !! LOL!
I doubt it, the jury skipped lunch, that says to me that they are close enough to a decision that they didn't want a break in the process to finish up.
Also BDLR asked her once if she heard anything after the "following" verbal exchange and before the phone went dead and she said no. Only the second time he asked did she offer up the "get off get off" (possibly he already knew that she was going to say that?)
If it was really said and she was really sure Martin said it you would think it would be something really important and surely she would have mentioned it on her own and I just don't understand why she wouldn't mention it the first time she was asked about it directly. It makes me wonder if Zimmerman was really the person who said it.
I doubt it, the jury skipped lunch, that says to me that they are close enough to a decision that they didn't want a break in the process to finish up.