patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,198,793 comments by 14,148 users - The_Deplorable online now
More proof of liberal bias in the media
invite response
2013 Apr 3, 3:05am 22,120 views 123 comments
« First « Previous Comments 66 - 105 of 123 Next » Last » Search these comments
Start from reminding us where did you get the idea about Z chasing M into his
backyard in the first place. We'll roll from there.
Well, if you read the original police report, here:
http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martinpolicreport.pdf
You will see on page 7 that Martin's body was found between 1231 Twin Trees Ln and 2821 Retreat View Circle.
A quick google maps search of those addresses shows that their back yards are adjacent to one another. This means that Martin's body was found in the grass, in the backyards, of these houses. This is no where near the street.
So in order to get from the street, where Zimmerman reports he was (sitting in his car) observing Martin, Martin had to follow, on the sidewalk, the path that lead behind those houses into the backyard.
Zimmerman had to get out of his car, with his gun, and follow Martin on this walkway behind a house into the backyard. These are the facts.
So I ask you, if someone follows your son, with a gun, into the back yard of a house in your neighborhood, then shoots and kills him, is there any situation in which he was not murdered?
Doesn't your son have the right to defend himself from someone chasing him with a gun?
At night, no less? The police report states that they arrived on scene at 7:17. Sunset in Sanford, FL on February 26, 2012 was 6:22. Nearly an hour - the time between sunset and dusk is usually a half hour.
There was no law or anything else that prevented GZ from going anywhere TM went. It is not a crime, or even wrong, to follow a suspicious person with or without a legal firearm. Some person who is loitering in the rain and unknown to the neighborhood watch is suspicious.
TM would most likely be alive today if he didn't choose to verbally threaten GZ with murder("You're going to die tonight") and attempt to steal GZ's legal firearm from his person.
TM would most likely be alive today if he didn't choose to verbally threaten
GZ with murder("You're going to die tonight") and attempt to steal GZ's legal
firearm from his person.
This is heresay, circumstantial evidence at best. Further, it does not matter - it is illegal to shoot another person with a gun and kill them unless it is justifiable homicide.
There are zero scenarios in which you may act as the aggressor in an altercation then later claim "self-defense" or "stand-your-ground." The primary (read: first) aggressor in this altercation was Zimmerman by the very nature of pursuing Martin.
Martin was within every one of his rights to take whatever steps neccesary to defend himself. It was his, and only his in this situation, right to "stand his ground."
It cannot be a justifiable homicide to chase someone with a gun, get your ass kicked, then shoot them.
Martin would MOST CERTAINLY be alive today if Zimmerman kept his fat ass in his car.
Dan8267
2013 Apr 15, 7:07am
If i was a mysogynist i'd try to laugh it off and change the subject too....
You are guilty as charged.
First of all, in order for me to be a misogynist, Hilary would have to be a woman...
It cannot be a justifiable homicide to chase someone with a gun, get your ass kicked, then shoot them.
Why not? Cops do that all the time.
Y
2013 Apr 15, 7:12am
Glad to see your back on topic.
Now, stop proving my point and try to prove yours....
If i was a mysogynist i'd try to laugh it off and change the subject too....
You are guilty as charged.
First of all, in order for me to be a misogynist, Hilary would have to be a woman...
Dan8267
2013 Apr 15, 7:16am
Trayvon Martin died because he made verbal threats to commit murder and committed a plausible attempt to get the gun to murder George Zimmerman.
As for Witnesses, their memory of recounting the event, sure improved as time wore on. It's amazing how embellished it became with each retelling.
So let me get this straight. In order to be impartial, I should consider the word of the accused to be unquestionable, but I should completely ignore the word of the neutral witnesses who have nothing to gain or lose in the outcome of the trial?
Pardon me if I think you got that backwards.
The primary (read: first) aggressor in this altercation was Zimmerman by the very nature of pursuing Martin.
False. The first crime of the night was when TM punched GZ in the face, probably breaking his nose. TM assaulted GZ first and unprovoked. GZ did not strike TM at all, and yelled for help about 50 times. Watching where someone is going and speaking no words other than "no" is not stalking or anything else.
Dan8267
2013 Apr 15, 7:33am
If Zimmerman were black and Martin white, you'd switch sides. I wouldn't.
That's how we test our own objectivity, n'est-ce pas?
It's the best criteria of objectivity I've ever heard. Of course, if someone can come up with a better criteria, I'd be happy to listen.
I really don't give a rat's ass about Martin's or Zimmerman's races except how they relate to the motive of the crime.
I'm sure a lot of things will come up in the trial, but this is what I know so far:
1. Martin did nothing wrong or illegal. Supposedly the only suspicious thing Martin did was wear a hoodie while being black. That's not probable cause in my humble opinion.
2. Zimmerman followed Martin for a length of time.
3. Martin was clearly freaked out by this as proved by his phone call to his girlfriend.
4. In defiance of police orders, Zimmerman got out of his car and followed Martin on foot.
5. A physical alteration occurred. No one who wasn't there knows exactly what happened, but clearly Zimmerman lied about where this alteration took place.
Now I have no problem with Martin using physical force to defend himself. Hell, self-defense is exactly what Zimmerman was claiming. But they can't both be acting in self-defense. And since Martin was the pursuer, I don't buy the stand-your-ground defense.
Displaying a weapon at a distance is highly discouraged by laws in most (if not all) states: it's called "brandishing" and can lead to loss of CCW permit or even gun rights altogether.
And killing a person with a weapon is considered way the fuck more illegal in most states, including Florida. A person fearing for his life does not follow the alleged would-be-murder like Zimmerman followed Martin, and a person fearing for his life certainly would not close the distance enough for the other person to make physical contact.
Had Zimmerman actually been on the defensive, he would have never gotten that close to Martin, or if Martin had turned towards him, would have drawn his weapon at a distance. This would be a much better thing to do under Florida's Stand-You-Ground and 10-20-Life laws. As it stands, Zimmerman faces life in prison under the 10-20-Life law.
And, yes, as a Floridian, I don't want to see the Stand Your Ground law becoming a loophole for any asshole with a chip on his shoulder killing innocent people.
There is no excuse what-so-ever for Martin not being alive today. Zimmerman had no reason to stalk and confront him to begin with. And anything Martin said or did in the heat of battle trying to defend himself after being hunted is not a license to kill for Zimmerman.
I strongly suspect that if IDDQD was the one being chased by Zimmerman, IDDQD would have simply turned around, taken out his gun, and shot Zimmerman in the head without asking questions, and then say "God bless America and the Second Amendment".
To refute your numbered points:
1. Martin was loitering in the rain past sundown. This is suspicious.
He began to do something wrong and illegal when he punched GZ in the face.
He continued to do something wrong and illegal when he threatened to kill GZ with his own gun.
2. True.
3. False. TM's girlfriend has been caught in lies, lowering her credibility about everything.
http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/06/prosecutors-admit-trayvon-martins-girlfriend-lied-under-oath/
4. False. There was no police order to do anything. "We don't need you to do that" from a non emergency dispatcher over the phone is not an order, lawful or otherwise.
5. False, we know exactly where the assault occurred. There are photographs of the damage done to GZ and the lack of damage, aside from a bullet wound, on TM.
I believe GZ approached TM because he did not fear for his life yet. Assaulting a person who says "no" is such an over the top, unnecessary and violent reaction that you have to question that person being a civilized human being.
Tenpoundbass
2013 Apr 15, 7:58am
So let me get this straight. In order to be impartial, I should consider the word of the accused to be unquestionable, but I should completely ignore the word of the neutral witnesses who have nothing to gain or lose in the outcome of the trial?
When that testimony reeks of collaboration rather than corroboration.
Y
2013 Apr 15, 8:04am
I hear they have operations for that....
As for Witnesses, their memory of recounting the event, sure improved as time wore on. It's amazing how embellished it became with each retelling.
So let me get this straight. In order to be impartial, I should consider the word of the accused to be unquestionable, but I should completely ignore the word of the neutral witnesses who have nothing to gain or lose in the outcome of the trial?
Pardon me if I think you got that backwards.
Dan8267
2013 Apr 15, 8:08am
Martin was loitering in the rain past sundown. This is suspicious.
1. Martin wasn't loitering. He was walking in his neighborhood.
2. This isn't suspicious unless your a racist and the other guy is black. I frequently walk around my neighborhood after dark and even in the rain. I like rain and I like stars.
3. You know what is suspicious? A white skin-head following a young black teenager in a car, then getting out of the car and chasing him down. That's mother-fucking suspicious.
He began to do something wrong and illegal when he punched GZ in the face.
Wait a second, I thought your whole premise that self-defense was legal. Martin, not Zimmerman, had every reason to be in fear of his life and to use self-defense. If Martin defending himself with his hands from a stalker isn't legal, then Zimmerman shooting Martin sure as hell isn't.
He continued to do something wrong and illegal when he threatened to kill GZ with his own gun.
And where is the evidence that Martin made such a threat? Maybe if Zimmerman had pulled out a cell phone instead of a gun, we'd have reason to believe that. By the way, this is proof that smartphones are far better defensive weapons than guns. You start streaming live to YouTube and no one is going to do something that will land them in jail. You shoot someone you suspect may have a gun, and you're ass could be fried in many states.
Oh, and one more thing about this alleged threat. Martin didn't have a gun. Zimmerman was the only person armed.
Oh, and Zimmerman has a long history of committing crimes that were dismissed because he has family connections in courtrooms.
Maybe this case proves that we need new and better firearm restrictions.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/f4hcAw7pFG8
TM's girlfriend has been caught in lies, lowering her credibility about everything.
You mean like Zimmerman?
There mere fact that the call was made, which is an indisputable fact given phone records, proves that Martin was concerned about being followed and was not the suspicious one.
Dan8267
2013 Apr 15, 8:08am
we know exactly where the assault occurred. There are photographs of the damage done to GZ and the lack of damage, aside from a bullet wound, on TM.
Zimmerman lied about the very events that took place.
He even says that once he shot Trayvon, he [Zimmerman] somehow was able to get on top of him and straddle him while he was face down on the ground. According to Zimmerman, during this time he had pinned Trayvon’s arms down and was yelling at him to stop while Trayvon screamed and cursed. He even went further and said that someone came up with a flashlight and Zimmerman asked for help subduing Trayvon because he was still struggling. Keep in mind, Zimmerman said all of this took place after Trayvon was shot. If you listen to one of the 911 calls where you can hear screams in the background, you hear nonstop screams for help until you hear gunshots. No random yelling, screaming, or cursing like Zimmerman said was also going on at the time; just cries for help. Once the gun is fired, there is pure silence until neighbors begin to trickle out and the police come.
Speaking of lies...
The Many Lies Of The Zimmerman Family
Seriously, foxmannumber1, you need to listen to Martin's horrific screams for help as he was attacked by Zimmerman. This is an actual audio recording of events as heard by the 911 system.
Y
2013 Apr 15, 8:22am
No, your Mexican Chuhuahua, (rabid offshoot).
As a middle class white person, you're thinking its impossible to punch someone in the face. To young black males, it is a normal way of life.
first off, I'm hispanic,
I see. You're using word "backyard", commonly understood as private piece of land usually fenced and not accessible to general public to describe unfenced common-use grassy area. I'm not sure about FL laws but in self-defense/weapons cases CA treats such areas as public. Even SFH front yard or driveway are considered public areas if they are unfenced, i.e. you can't even go out on your front lawn with a loaded gun in your pocket and castle doctrine doesn't apply there either.
No, you don't see. I am not making an argument that Martin had private property or castle rights.
I am merely stating the facts. Zimmerman was watching Martin, from his car, walk along a road. Martin followed a path into the back yard of two houses. Zimmerman pursued him into the back yard.
Anything else that happened after that does not matter. Zimmerman forfeited any "stand your ground" or self-defense rights he had the minute he stepped out of his car and followed Martin.
If you want to talk about my sons, my advice to them would be: if somebody suspicious follows you close to you home - go inside and lock the door.
Fine advice. It would seem to me that Trayvon's father gave his son similar advice, evidenced by the fact that after noticing he was being followed by someone in a car, fled BEHIND A HOUSE, away from the street, towards his house.
Defend from what exactly? Following and asking questions in public areas? Do we know when the gun's presence became known - before or after physical contact? To claim defense the fact of an assault needs to be established. This goes both ways, of course. I don't feel we have enough information to come to a definite conclusion.
It is reasonable for someone who is being pursued to assume malice. Martin obviously suspected it; he mentioned as much to his girlfriend, and got away from his pursuer the best way he knew - by getting away from the street (as his pursuer was in a car). You obviously suspect it as well - as evidenced by your advice to your sons to get away as quickly as possible.
It is not reasonable for Zimmerman to assume malice. He did not witness Martin commit a crime; AND Martin fled from him.
Anything and everything that happened after Zimmerman got out of his car and pursued Martin is inconsequential. It does not matter if the events happened exactly as Zimmerman claims. Martin was within his legal rights, if he felt threatened, to defend himself in whatever way necessary. Martin did not even have to attempt to flee based upon Florida's Stand Your Ground Statute FL 776.012 (1). That he fled only strengthens his intent to avoid conflict.
Zimmerman does not have rights under the statute because, WHILE SITTING IN HIS CAR, it was not reasonable for him to assume imminent unlawful force against himself by Martin.
Dan8267
2013 Apr 15, 9:57am
Maybe this case proves that we need new and better firearm restrictions.
As The Young Turks point out, if Zimmerman didn't have a gun, the worst thing that would have happen would have been simple assault and a few broken ribs.
Unfortunately "suspicion of malice" is not good enough to justify self-defense actions like shooting someone or starting throwing punches. For self-defense do be justified conditions should exist for reasonable person to fear that he's in immediate danger of death or great bodily injury. "Some creepy guy following me" does not qualify for self-defense actions.
Some creepy guy chasing after me on foot does. Martin had a greater reasonable expectation that his life was in danger than a homeowner has when someone breaks into his home just based on statistics.
A big ass man chasing you is a hell of a lot more likely to kill you than a burglar. Most burglars would flee on site of a homeowner, not knowing if he had a gun or not, and in fact plan their burglaries when they believe no one is at home. Yet, I but you'd be all for "shoot first, ask questions later" if a burglar entered your home.
Dan8267
2013 Apr 15, 9:59am
That is why he is making up all the "he went for my gun" and "he said he would kill me" bs... because he knows damn well that he had no good reason to shoot him.
He lost a fight and got pissed.
I believe that is the most likely scenario. Zimmerman had a history of being an angry, wanna-a-be cop who didn't want to follow the law himself.
Seriously, foxmannumber1, you need to listen to Martin's horrific screams for help as he was attacked by Zimmerman. This is an actual audio recording of events as heard by the 911 system.
TM had no reason to scream for help as he was the one giving the beating, not taking one. Even the most diehard black apologists, liberals and race deniers will admit that TM injured GZ with his fists and TM's only injury were bruised/bloody knuckles and a gunshot wound.
TM was not being physically injured in any way until he was shot to death. GZ, however, had plenty to scream over. GZ had a broken nose and constant pounding on the concrete which is easily proven. GZ did not fight back in the 2 minutes of this call. GZ only took TM's life after TM said "You're going to die tonight motherfucker" and TM attempted to take the gun from GZ, which was still on his side.
In order to believe that GZ wanted to kill TM, you have to believe that GZ is very lucky and had a very intricate plan. GZ called the police and wanted them out there before he even knew who the loiter was. GZ then takes a beating and ends up shooting his assailant right before the cops show up. GZ is either a mastermind criminal and everything went his sadistic way just like it would in a Hollywood movie, or TM really did try to kill GZ with his own weapon.
I don't follow how you jump from one guy following another in a public place to Z somehow forfeiting his self-defense rights.
Because by following him, he was not acting in "self-defense!" A very specific set of circumstances, beyond your control, must be met in order for you to have self-defense rights. You cannot go charging into a fight unprovoked and claim self defense.
One has the right to property as well - but property is not simply granted without meeting a set of circumstances first. One of many ways you can exercise your right to property is to purchase the property.
Without meeting any of the sets of circumstances to property, you cannot exercise that right.
Similarly, Zimmerman did not meet the set of circumstances to exercising his right of self-defense. Most specifically, he got out of his car and pursued Martin. He had the right to do so, but not without leaving his right of self-defense in the car.
Why not? Cops do that all the time.
True, but they also remember to sprinkle crack on the victim before the investigation starts.
Because by following him, he was not acting in "self-defense!" A very specific set of circumstances, beyond your control, must be met in order for you to have self-defense rights. You cannot go charging into a fight unprovoked and claim self defense.
GZ had no idea a fight was going to occur by simply attempting to see where someone went and possibly speak to them. This situation most likely happens tens of thousands of times per day in the USA and very few end in assaults and attempted murder. TM made sure there were very few words spoken.
It is unreasonable to approach anyone and punch them in the face, even if you believe you're being followed. There was no immediate threat of violence by simply "being followed".
It is attempted murder to say "You're going to die motherfucker" and attempt to steal a persons gun and shoot them with it.
GZ had no idea a fight was going to occur by simply attempting to see where someone went and possibly speak to them.
Why did he bring his gun then?
Dan8267
2013 Apr 15, 11:27am
This entire thread makes me wonder whether or not it's even possible to find an impartial jury for this trial. Perhaps America should adopt the British law forbidding news companies from publishing anything on a trial that has not completed. It does prejudice the public.
Why did he bring his gun then?
It's his legal right.
If he did not wear his gun on a regular basis I'm sure the prosecutor will present this evidence at trial.
If he did wear his gun on a regular basis then the defense will present this evidence at trial.
This entire thread makes me wonder whether or not it's even possible to find an impartial jury for this trial.
Impartiality implies intelligence. Given that 50% of the population has an IQ below 100 (and votes Republican! jk) I am not hopeful.
A retired judge in my family has always said - If you did it, go with the jury trial. If you didn't, go without.
Shows his opinion of the chances of a jury getting the outcome correct...
Speaking of IQ, it is a fact that the average black American has an IQ of 85 and the average white American has an IQ of 100.
Speaking of politics, it is another fact that blacks vote for other blacks unconditionally and for democrats when no black is available. This would imply systemic racism by blacks for always voting black.
Dan8267
2013 Apr 15, 11:39am
Given that 50% of the population has an IQ below 100
50% of the population has an IQ below 100 by definition, and as such, that says nothing about what the intelligence baseline is. However, I would agree that Americans as a whole are dumb and uneducated. I think that has more to do with our economic and social systems rewarding stupidity and greed rather than intelligence rather than some fundamental biological reason. The brain is like a muscle; the more you use it, the stronger it becomes.
50% of the population has an IQ below 100 by definition
Hence the word "given."
However, I would agree that Americans as a whole are dumb and uneducated.
And here is the baseline I was alluding to characterized in plain english.
Dan8267
2013 Apr 15, 11:52am
Speaking of politics, it is another fact that blacks vote for other blacks unconditionally and for democrats when no black is available. This would imply systemic racism by blacks for always voting black.
You do realize that African Americas used to vote Republican all the time, before the 1960s when all the Dixicrat racists left the Democratic Party and went into the Republican Party, right?
Please read up: Blacks and the Democratic Party
Basically, African Americans vote for the party less likely to oppress and harm them. This hardly makes them racist.
The Republican Party has no one but itself to blame for losing the black vote. They lost it when they decided that the evangelical racist vote was more important back in the 1960s. Hell, even the icon of Conservatism, Barry Goldwater, warned against this very thing.
You remember Goldwater. He's the guy you said
Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have.
and
The income tax created more criminals than any other single act of government.
He's the guy that Republicans have wet dreams about. Well, he also said,
I am a conservative Republican, but I believe in democracy and the separation of church and state. The conservative movement is founded on the simple tenet that people have the right to live life as they please as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process.
The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others.
I don't have any respect for the Religious Right.
Every good Christian should line up and kick Jerry Falwell's ass.
Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.
Fuck, he sounds like a liberal.
It's his legal right.
If he did not wear his gun on a regular basis I'm sure the prosecutor will present this evidence at trial.
If he did wear his gun on a regular basis then the defense will present this evidence at trial.
Its not a belt for christ's sake. Are you honestly arguing that Zimmerman could have casually wore his gun as part of everyday life, similarly to jewelry or a baseball hat? Therefore he did not bring his gun because he needed it - ie thought his safety might be in jeopardy based upon the action he was about to take - but because he wore it everywhere?
If that is true, it is not an excuse. It only shows how irresponsible he was. You are telling me if he happened upon a little girl who was injured after wrecking her bicycle on the sidewalk - he would have gotten out of his truck to assist her while wearing a loaded handgun?
And that wouldn't be irresponsible?
This is where you guys are getting confused - you assume that some other crime must have been committed by Zimmerman in order for him to have committed murder. The crime - what he did wrong - was shooting Trayvon.
You are right - it is not illegal for Zimmerman to follow Trayvon. It is not illegal for him to carry a gun, given a concealed/carry permit. However, it is illegal for him to shoot Trayvon and kill him UNLESS the shooting was justified. There are very specific circumstances that must be met in order for the shooting to be justified. None of those circumstances were met.
Both Trayvon and Zimmerman could not be acting in self-defense. In a conflict, there is an aggressor and a defender. Martin was not pursuing Zimmerman - Zimmerman was chasing Martin. This is where the confrontation starts.
It is impossible to start a confrontation then claim self defense.
you assume that some other crime must have been committed by Zimmerman in order
for him to have committed murder. The crime - what he did wrong - was shooting
Trayvon.
This is just going in circles.
You can either believe GZ's story that TM said "You're going to die tonight motherfucker" and TM attempted to steal GZ's firearm and shoot GZ with it.
or
You can choose not to believe GZ's story and TM did not threaten to shoot GZ with his own gun and attempt to steal the gun. Instead, TM was shot in either premeditated murder or for a petty reason like GZ losing a fist fight.
I choose to believe GZ did not shoot TM for any reason other than to save his own life.
This is just going in circles.
It seems like it is going in circles to you because you continue to attempt to build strawmen to argue against. That is, you want to talk about what happened after Zimmerman confronted Martin. I am saying that does not matter.
It is legal to drink beer.
It is legal to drive a car.
It is legal to shoot a gun.
It is not legal to drink a case of beer, get in your car, and shoot your gun out of the window while driving around town.
Causality is important. Trayvon showed through his actions that he did not wish to start the fight - he retreated behind the houses away from his pursuer. The fight started when Zimmerman got out of his car and chased Martin.
Everything that happened after that is inconsequential.
I choose to believe GZ did not shoot TM for any reason other than to save his
own life.
It is fine to believe that. However, based upon the circumstances, doing so was still murder.
Causality is important. Trayvon showed through his actions that he did not
wish to start the fight - he retreated behind the houses away from his pursuer.
The fight started when Zimmerman got out of his car and chased Martin.
100% false. He approached GZ and punched him in the face. That was the start of a 1 sided beating. It is wrong to call it a fight.
There was no verbal, non verbal or physical contact before TM said "You got a fucking problem homie?" and almost immediately punched GZ in the face, knocking GZ down and getting on top of GZ. This was no retreat. It was simple assault.
All this talk of stalking, stand your ground and self defense is rhetoric designed to take attention away from the fact that TM said "You're going to die tonight motherfucker" and attempted to steal GZ's gun.
100% false. He approached GZ and punched him in the face. That was the start
of a 1 sided beating. It is wrong to call it a fight.
This could be true if it happened anywhere near Zimmerman's car.
The fact that it happened more than 200 feet from Zimmerman's car in the backyard of two houses makes it untrue. Chasing someone into the backyard is an act of aggression. It was within Martin's right, provided he feared malice, to defend himself and meet that aggression with some of his own. And it is reasonable to assume that someone chasing you, in the dark, behind a house for 200+ feet intended malice.
There was no chase. They both lost sight of each other.
Following someone is not an act of aggression. It is an act of survelliance and GZ tried to give the whereabouts of the suspicious person who was loitering to the non emergency police dispatcher.
Saying "You got a fucking problem homie?" as a greeting is an act of aggression.
Punching someone in the face is an act of aggression.
Following someone is not an act of aggression. It is an act of survelliance
and GZ tried to give the whereabouts of the suspicious person who was loitering
to the non emergency police dispatcher.
Allow me to admit that this is not correct. GZ states that TM approached GZ's car and circled it while GZ was on the phone with the non emergency police dispatcher.
The wikipedia page on TM's death is very detailed. I suggest we all read it. I liked the part about GZ passing the voice stress tested when asked ""Were you in fear for your life, when you shot the guy?", to which Zimmerman answered, "Yes."
Zimmerman's testimony on the events is garbage.
His conversation, on a recorded line with the non emergency police dispatcher is not:
(Zimmerman breathing heavy, sounds like he is running)
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Now Zimmerman claims that Martin circled his car while he was on the phone with the dispatcher. He doesn't mention it at the time, though. This claim only arises after he has time to talk to his attorney and begin to build his affirmative defense- of self-defense.
So the non-biased recording indicates that Zimmerman was chasing Martin.
Now Zimmerman claims that Martin circled his car while he was on the phone with
the dispatcher. He doesn't mention it at the time, though.
Yes he did. Transcript of the non emergency police dispatcher call.
Zimmerman: Yeah, now he's coming towards me.
Zimmerman: Something's wrong with him. Yup, he's coming to check me out. He's got something in his hands. I don't know what his deal is.
During the call, Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin was "coming to check me out." A source to the Orlando Sentinel said in May that Zimmerman told investigators that at one point Martin circled his vehicle, and he rolled up his window to avoid a confrontation
« First « Previous Comments 66 - 105 of 123 Next » Last » Search these comments
http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/press-drops-illegal-immigrant-standards-book/story?id=18862824
The Associated Press, the largest news-gathering outlet in the world, will no longer use the term "illegal immigrant."
The news came in the form of a blog entry authored by Senior Vice President and Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll on Tuesday afternoon, explaining that the decision is part of the company's on-going attempt to rid their Stylebook of labels.
"The Stylebook no longer sanctions the term 'illegal immigrant' or the use of 'illegal' to describe a person. Instead, it tells users that 'illegal' should describe only an action, such as living in or immigrating to a country illegally," Carroll wrote.