Since there no eyewitnesses to the entire incident and the one witness who wasn't on trial for his life was killed, obviously this is something that would be hard to prove. Prosecutors often don't admit theories they feel are true but that they know will be hard to prove in court. What makes more sense though (setting aside what can be proved and what can't) when you use your brain: A) An overzealous neighborhood watchman who just 2 minutes ago has told a 911 Dispatcher "these assholes always get away. F'n punks. He's up to no good, I tell you!!!" tries to detain a 17 year old he was convinced was a criminal? B) A 17 year old who the person initiates an assault against someone he ran away from just 2 minutes prior for no known reason and decides to do so while he's literally on the telephone talking to a friend. GZ likely did something to set TM off that night aside from just following him. He has no reason to tell the truth given that it's obvious there are no witnesses who can dispute his story since his bullet took care of that potentially thorny issue. This is the side to the story that will never be known. Both the prosecution and defense acknowledge there's about a 2 minute window in this case where no one really knows what happened.
Not true at all. She testified she was on the phone with him when the physical confrontation occurred. She testified to having heard the inital arguing between the two and then hearing Trayvon's headset bumped. The phone went dead sometime thereafter. Her testimony was inconclusive as to who started the brawl, but conclusive that she was on the phone when it began. Phone records backed this up.
There is nothing to see there. I don't remember the exact phrase. It is something like he told the police it is weird, the voice doesn't sound like me. It was just a conversation piece. The lead detective he talked to at the time didn't think nothing of it. Quote: Mark O'Mara, lead attorney for the defense then asked Serino if he thought Zimmerman was in denial. "I didn't take it as denial. I took it as not recognizing his own voice," Serino said. http://www.businessinsider.com/george-zimmerman-cant-hear-himself-on-911-call-2013-7 ------------------------------- It fits his profile of allowing police to question him 4 or 5 times without lawyers present. If you said enough things, you will always say things to allow your opponents to twist your words. One thing I learned from this trial is if I ever go to police station, no matter how innocent I am, I am not going to talk without a lawyer present.
The first national poll is out. It is 48% agree with the verdict, 34% disagree and 18% not sure. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2013/48_agree_with_zimmerman_verdict_34_disagree
"That doesn't sound like my son"... Trayvon's dad. Significant? "That doesn't even sound like me"... Zimmerman's OWN exact words. Insigificant? Uhhhh, OK!
I never said I thought Trayvon was using logic that night. If you read his texts and FB posts plus the fact he was talking to Jeantel for as long as he did, you might conclude TM wasn't brilliant. He was likely trying to show Jeantel how tough he was. Like I said....all that outlandish stuff that she is saying now will haunt the Martin's if their star witness gets called to testify in the civil case. If Jeantel doesn't testify, there's a hole in their case.
Zimmerman didn't say it wasn't him. He said it didn't sound like him. Everyone thinks they sound different when they hear their speaking own speaking voice much less screaming like a girl.
Something clearly happened to cause Trayvon to attack. That said you don't have to attack everyone. Trayvon could have said "Hey why are you following me? I'm visiting my dad at XYZ address." Also, Trayvon could have very easily avoided Zimmerman if he wanted to. There is no way a guy like Zimmerman is catching an in shape kid like Trayvon. Hell...Zimmerman totally lost Trayvon after he ran. At any point in your life have you been followed by neighborhood watch people or security guards in a subdivision? I remember back when I was young and used to sneak out of the house we would avoid these guys. At no point did we ever think about stopping and beating the **** out of one of those watch guys. Zimmerman should not have pursued him and he sure as hell shouldn't have had a gun imo, but Trayvon clearly acted in an exceedingly violent fashion.
If you'd use your brain, you'd realize that the prosecution wouldn't be trying to convince everyone that the guy,identified by the closest eyewitness as the person delivering the beating, was the one screaming unless they weren't f'n desperate. That makes no damn sense and you know it.
Everyone's voice sounds different to them when they listen to a recording , scientific fact http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-does-my-voice-sound-different
I thought in court Trayvon's father said he wasn't sure if it was his son. Additionally, the jurors seemed to be in agreement that the voice screaming for help was Zimmerman's voice. Maybe we can find out if the NSA records everything and see if they have the Trayvon/Rachel phone call.
Actually, I find neither of them significant. But Trayvon's dad changed his positions to fit a narrative to benefit his side. Zimmerman never change his position. He just commented that he doesn't recognize his recorded voice. He never said the scream was not his. Tell you the truth. If person A changes his position to benefit his side, and person B (while never change his position) said something that can be twisted (by his opponent) as changing his position, I tend to believe in person B. Just common sense.
I'm quite sure that had Zimmerman actually identified himself as Neighborhood Watch this situation would have been diffused and Trayvon likely would have acted just as you suggested. This is another piece of objective evidence IMO that pointed to Manslaughter. Just pure negligence on his part. But Zimmerman did not identify himself. So, if you are Travyon, you now know that the person who's been following you is not a cop or security guard but some random person. In this situation, who isn't going to assume the person trailing them is likely trying to hurt or rob them? Zimmerman had a common sense obligation to tell TM who he was when they met. He was asked about this in his interrogation by the police and couldn't cite any reasons for not disclosing who he was. You have to wonder why he didn't do that if his TRUE intentions that night were just to keep an eye on the neighborhood. It really doesn't make any sense. But then, if you listen to his 911 call, he's obviously very frustrated about criminals getting away with things over and over.
You don't have to be brilliant to realize that it's logistically harder to assault someone WHILE you are on your cell phone, now do you? Completely ineffective attempt by you to explain away something that just flies in the face of basic common sense. Classic effort on your part to just deflect the topic to pile more dirt on TM. Can you cite any historical precedent for a criminal initiating an assault while they are on their cell phone? Even one? It makes absolutely no sense and you know it.
He mad bro. 16 y/o get's Carney's goat. <object id="flashObj" width="486" height="412" classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=2551447152001&playerID=1409164951001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAETmrZQ~,EVFEM4AKJdRjek0MS21pRzf_GTDAM-xj&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=2551447152001&playerID=1409164951001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAETmrZQ~,EVFEM4AKJdRjek0MS21pRzf_GTDAM-xj&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" swLiveConnect="true" allowScriptAccess="always" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object> http://www.politico.com/politico44/...tioner-of-carney-is-high-schooler-168601.html
I believe it was GZ screaming. I've listened to a tape of TM's voice on the internet (google it) and to me the screaming voice sounds more like GZ than it does TM. I'm not 100% convinced of this, but if I had to bet I'd bet GZ. I also felt it was telling the prosecution didn't try to rebut the lineup of 7-8 defense witnesses who testified it was GZ with witnesses of their own, such as TM's friends. I always wondered why the Prosecution didn't ask Rachel Jeantel if the screaming voice on the tape was TM. I felt that was telling. Not sure why you brought this up since I never disagreed with it. I have no doubts TM was beating up on GZ. But I have serious doubts as to why the altercation started. I don't for a second believe TM attacked GZ completely unprovoked. Not after GZ is on record as saying TM was clearly running away from him. GZ trying to detain TM makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than a completely unprovoked assault. It also fits in more logically with phone records. Both parties were at fault here. I think it was Manslaughter from Day 1 and think if the prosecution didn't overreach on an indefensible Murder 2 claim, this would have ended differently...
Asking for some kind of " historical precedent " on people commiting an assault while on the phone is silly . For one cell phones are a relatively new device as far as being owned by the masses , second he had an ear bud and it can also be argued that travon ended the call before he assaulted zimmerman .
