Expert Witness: Trayvon Martin was on top of Zimmerman when teen was shot

[Smitty]

It would most definitely matter at minimum he would have had a concussion and most likely a fracture.

For you to say otherwise means you are just trying to be obtuse.

I'm waiting to see your medical degree on that one.

I am not even saying Zimmerman was not afraid for his life that's a totally eye of the beholder type thing, but any rational person can see he laid it on pretty thick.

The witnesses and experts, even the prosecution's, mostly all backed up his story.

On top of that, when the police told him they had a video of the entire incident, to try to scare him into changing his story, he was excited and it only reinforced his position. Not the conduct of a liar.

Some of it might be incorrect simply due to the fault of memory in a traumatic situation, but I don't doubt most of what he says is true.

 

[Jiggyfly]

I'm not sure why this matters? Following someone isn't illegal. Following someone does not cause their death. Was he a dumbass? Sure. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. One man following another did not cause a death.

Really?

 

[Carp]

I'm not sure why this matters? Following someone isn't illegal. Following someone does not cause their death. Was he a dumbass? Sure. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. One man following another did not cause a death.

It matters because he felt like he was in a position of authority...but he is just a guy like anyone else. He had no right to follow Martin or anyone else for that matter. You keep acting like having a stranger follow you would not be offputting or disconcerting. It is not breaking the law...just like it is not breaking the law to walk home from 7-11. Somehow though it is acceptable for Zimmerman to follow people around.

 

[Jiggyfly]

I'm waiting to see your medical degree on that one. Because a Doctor testified at trial to kinda confirm his story.



The witnesses and experts, even the prosecution's, mostly all backed up his story.

On top of that, when the police told him they had a video of the entire incident, to try to scare him into changing his story, he was excited and it only reinforced his position. Not the conduct of a liar.

Some of it might be incorrect simply due to the fault of memory in a traumatic situation, but I don't doubt most of what he says is true.

And you also believed Trayvon stole skittles, you have an obvious bias.

There are multiple doctors saying the injuries don't match his story, He said his head was struck 25 times on the concrete even his primary doctor said the wounds were not major.

Go ahead and admit it you followed very little of the actual trial.

 

[Smitty]

And you also believed Trayvon stole skittles, you have an obvious bias.

I suppose you don't, though.

 

[Deuce]

He had no reason to follow him.

Yes he did and that's been established numerous times. There were a string of burglaries in the neighborhood and he saw someone that matched a description of a robber. Since the cops didnt make it on time 7 out of 8 previous incidences, he kept an eye on him. He did everything I would hope my neighborhood watch would do up to that point. What happened after was a result of Martin starting a physical altercation.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

It matters because he felt like he was in a position of authority...but he is just a guy like anyone else. He had no right to follow Martin or anyone else for that matter.

He is an ubber dork, wanna be cop. That has already been established.

Legally speaking he did have a right to follow Martin. I get that your not trying to specifically talk about the law on that point, but I find it impossible to talk about someones "rights" without talking about the law. It wasn't socially acceptable however which is what I am assuming you are referring to.

 

[Genghis Khan]

I like how if you interpret evidence a certain way you are biased. Good one Jiggy. Classic baiting. The funny part is that you are clearly choosing to believe mere speculation over the actual reliable evidence presented at trial (like that pesky witness who corroborated Zimmerman's testimony). THAT sounds like bias to me.

Truth is, I originally supported Martin's side of things based on media reports. But the trial evidence swayed my opinion precisely because I'm not biased. And that makes it pretty clear that Martin escalated the confrontation into violence.

 

[Carp]

Yes he did and that's been established numerous times. There were a string of burglaries in the neighborhood and he saw someone that matched a description of a robber. Since the cops didnt make it on time 7 out of 8 previous incidences, he kept an eye on him. He did everything I would hope my neighborhood watch would do up to that point. What happened after was a result of Martin starting a physical altercation.

He did not commit a crime though...so the point is not valid. If the police had done the same thing following someone everyone would be screaming bloody murder that the evil government was overstepping their bounds, but totally acceptable for Zimmerman.

 

[Smitty]

He did not commit a crime though...so the point is not valid. If the police had done the same thing following someone everyone would be screaming bloody murder that the evil government was overstepping their bounds, but totally acceptable for Zimmerman.

FWIW, I don't recall anyone ever faulting police for observing a suspect in a public place.

Barging into people's houses without a search warrant is a little different.

And I don't think Deuce's point was that Martin committed a crime. His point was that Zimmerman was not sure if he had or not, but in his role as neighborhood watch, he wasn't that far out of line investigating if there was a crime going on.

 

[Genghis Khan]

I'm waiting to see your medical degree on that one.



The witnesses and experts, even the prosecution's, mostly all backed up his story.

On top of that, when the police told him they had a video of the entire incident, to try to scare him into changing his story, he was excited and it only reinforced his position. Not the conduct of a liar.

Some of it might be incorrect simply due to the fault of memory in a traumatic situation, but I don't doubt most of what he says is true.

You are biased for believing the evidence! Believe my refutable speculation instead!

 

[Smitty]

You are biased for believing the evidence! Believe my refutable speculation instead!

Refutable speculation is what most of the Martin support boils down to (and by Martin support I mean people who thought Zimmerman should have been guilty or murder or manslaughter).

 

[Genghis Khan]

Really?

Zimmerman Shooting Martin dead is what was on trial, not Zimmerman following Martin. Not sure why that's so hard to understand.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

By the way, the real question in this case is if Zimmerman's life was really at risk. Just because you punch someone doesn't give them the right to use deadly force. Zimmerman may be guilty but there just isn't enough evidence to demonstrate that fact.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Refutable speculation is what most of the Martin support boils down to (and by Martin support I mean people who thought Zimmerman should have been guilty or murder or manslaughter).

I agree.

 

[Genghis Khan]

By the way, the real question in this case is if Zimmerman's life was really at risk. Just because you punch someone doesn't give them the right to use deadly force. Zimmerman may be guilty but there just isn't enough evidence to demonstrate that fact.

I'm pretty sure the real question is whether Zimmerman reasonably believed he was in danger of death or severe bodily harm, not whether he actually was at risk.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

He did not commit a crime though...so the point is not valid. If the police had done the same thing following someone everyone would be screaming bloody murder that the evil government was overstepping their bounds, but totally acceptable for Zimmerman.

Cops do that all the time with absolutely nothing to go on. It is perfectly acceptable. It's when cops physically stop someone with no reason for suspicion that causes people to get upset.

 

[Genghis Khan]

It matters because he felt like he was in a position of authority...but he is just a guy like anyone else. He had no right to follow Martin or anyone else for that matter. You keep acting like having a stranger follow you would not be offputting or disconcerting. It is not breaking the law...just like it is not breaking the law to walk home from 7-11. Somehow though it is acceptable for Zimmerman to follow people around.

A stranger following me would certainly be off putting. The question is, how do you handle it. Me, I would not try to beat the person to within an inch of his life. I would get to a safe place and/or call the police.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I'm pretty sure the real question is whether Zimmerman reasonably believed he was in danger of death or severe bodily harm, not whether he actually was at risk.

You're correct. It's not just that he believed he was in danger of death or severe bodily harm, that belief has to also be reasonable which is what I was getting at. Without knowing exactly what happened it is hard to say whether his belief was reasonable. I think Zimmerman was in fear of sever bodily harm, otherwise he would have shot him much earlier and not waited to be tackled to the ground. I think where the debate should take place is weather his fear of death or severe bodily harm was reasonable.

 

[Deuce]

And I don't think Deuce's point was that Martin committed a crime. His point was that Zimmerman was not sure if he had or not, but in his role as neighborhood watch, he wasn't that far out of line investigating if there was a crime going on.

Yes, that was my point.