Video: Zimmerman Juror B-29 Denies Her Own Hand In Letting The Murderer Go..

[UPTOWN]

I just want to know how many posters donated to the Trayvon Martin fund

or how many are willing to donate to put a bounty on GZ's head?

smh

I can't be the only one

*bernie mack voice* y'all some niggas

you peep game right? haha

niggaz casually skipped over my post

yet still kept furiously arguing their positions in this thread

and none of these niggaz truly interested in taking a real position

i quoted you ....

haute .. al sharpton is spending your money on dominican call girls right now as we type

 

[Gold_Certificate]

If Zimmerman was confronted and attacked while walking back to his car as he claimed, then his actions would fall under basic self-defense (776.012-1).



Of course, there's no reason to assume his claims are true. However, for Zimmerman to have received anything other than "not guilty", the prosecution had to put forth an argument that completely ruled out Zimmerman's claims.

Since "we don't know the time, and how and what happened", it's hard to prove--beyond a reasonable doubt--that Zimmerman's claim that he was confronted and attacked while walking back to his car is false.

first bolded ... ok then

second bolded

how do we not know the time?? didnt he call 911 or whatever?? either way what ever dispatch he talked to has the time of that call. have the coroner give us a time of death and we do have a window.

how and what is why the case is in court .. if we all knew this ... there would be no trial

fact is ... zimmermans claims (that helped him win) are completely circumstancial. and since many people get convicted with even less circumstantial evidence than in this case, realistically its stupid for any respectable juror to believe that trayvon was being followed, knew he was being followed, and then went into a violent rage just as soon as he was not being followed anymore

its legal to kill black men in america .... /thread

I highlighted the unknowns with the below portion of one of my previous posts:

Observed/Testified: Zimmerman can be heard getting out of his car (point 3) during the non-emergency call. He was asked if he was following Treyvon and said "Yeah".

Unknown: It is not known how far he traveled from point 3 during this time.

Observed/Testified: Treyvon lost Zimmerman as he ran.

Unknown: It is not known how far Zimmerman or Treyvon traveled during this time.

Observed/Testified: At least 3 minutes and 52 seconds pass between the time Zimmerman says "He ran" and the time Treyvon's call with Rachel Jeantel disconnects as she hears the beginning of the confrontation at point 5.

Unknown: The locations, traveling paths, and traveling speeds of Zimmerman or Treyvon during the time leading up to the confrontation are not known.

^^All that's known is the final location of Treyvon, and the minimum amount of time that passed time between Zimmerman's claim that Treyvon ran and the time Rachel Jeantel said the confrontation began.

Since how they got there, how long they took to get there, their intended destinations, and their times of arriving there are unknown; I've said that "The extent of this 'following' has not been established.".

Additionally, even if Zimmerman was the one to confront Treyvon after following him, that would not preclude him from legally using self-defense.

This is why I also said, "It is not illegal. And it happens prior to the altercation so it has no bearing on the self-defense claim.".

well for one ... the damn diagram shows the distance LOL

if trayvon ran from point 3 to point 5 then obviously point 4 is where zimmerman lost trayvon thats where trayvon makes a right turn toward the house he was going to ... at point 3 he would not even have known he was being followed. so if zimmerman claims trayvon ran ... what caused trayvon to run???

Unknown: The locations, traveling paths, and traveling speeds of Zimmerman or Treyvon during the time leading up to the confrontation are not known.

^^All that's known is the final location of Treyvon, and the minimum amount of time that passed time between Zimmerman's claim that Treyvon ran and the time Rachel Jeantel said the confrontation began.

BWAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA ... you do not need a precise time on this. if trayvon was running then we know he is not faster then usain bolt and we also know he's not walking old school zombie speed in the rain. because he took shelter from the rain therefore we know he was walking at atleast a reasonable pace (3-4 miles an hour) if he was running thats about 8mph ...

all we need is an avg ...

looking at the diagram ... there is no way it took treyvon 4 mins to run from point 3 to point 4. this doesnt even make scientific sense .. that is a flaw right there in zimmermans claim

why do we say from point 3?? because common sense and the "non emergency call" say that trayvon was not confronted while under point 1 ... therefore the earliest he could have been confronted was point 3 ... WHICH IS WHERE ZIMMERMAN claims his car was. this means that trayvon walked towards zimmermans car to get to where he was going .. zimmerman could not have been following him until after trayvon passes that point. also if zimmerman did confront trayvon at point two. there no reason to believe that trayvon would run in the direction of zimmerman when zimmerman himself says that trayvon fled. remember ... zimmerman was following trayvon DURING the call to dispatch

now lets get to the part where zimmerman says he lost trayvon. the distance from point 3 to point 5 is not even 100 yards. an nfl player could run 100 yards in 10 seconds. if trayvon is 6 times slower then he can cover that same distance in 1 minute. and thats being very gracious to zimmermans defense, because logically we know trayvon will not take that long

so if trayvon ran ... he obviously didnt get far. so he ran, stopped, zimmerman comes around the corner and trayvon just snuffs him with no prior argument or anything?? LOLOLOLOL

yall cats is the laughs man LOL

So you're saying Treyvon went directly from point 3 to point 5? And then he stayed there--in the rain--as Zimmerman took at least 3 minutes and 52 seconds to travel from point 3 to point 5?

Can you prove that your claim is correct, and that no other alternatives are possible?

 

[UPTOWN]

Rather than follow up with another wall of text. I was incorrect about the text messages.

But clearly explain to me how me using common sense after the judge tells me not to consider who started the confrontation a bias ?

Then when you're done, explain how do you find it factual that Trayvon actually was "on top" of Zimmerman.

Finally explain to me who in their right mind would not defend themselves against someone following them with a gun.

I don't know why the judge made that call. I agree that it was a bad call. However, it's not the Jury's place to question the calls the judge makes. So common sense doesn't come into it at all. The jury has to deliberate over the evidence available.

Zimmerman says Trayvon was on top and an eyewitness corroborated that. Again, the Defense doesn't have to prove that is the case. They just have to raise it as a reasonable possibility. If they are successful in that, it should raise reasonable doubt. Even if you don't believe Zimmerman, the eyewitness was a neutral party who made that comment. Not to mention that Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with his story.

Also, I fail to see why you keep bringing up the fact that Zimmerman had the gun. Trayvon didn't know he had he gun. Unless, I'm mistaken it didn't even come into play until they were on the ground. If Zimmerman had the gun ready to go like that, I doubt he would have taken the beating that he did before he got off the shot.

you do realize that all this "logic" you're posting could be flipped and still have the same effectiveness as the way youre presenting it right???

classic example ... just because trayvon was winning the fight at one point doesnt mean that he was the instigator or aggressor of the fight. even freddy, jason, and michael myers get busted in their head with a lamp when they trying to kill white girls yo................

That's irrelevant though. Trayvon isn't on trial. Zimmerman is. And once again, this simple concept that people don't seem to understand, the Defense didn't have to prove that any of that stuff was true. They just had to prove that it was plausible enough to raise reasonable doubt.

IF the argument is as 7figz made it that Zimmerman must have been the aggressor since he could easily overpower Trayvon, then doubt is going to be thrown into that by the fact that Trayvon was getting the better of Zimmerman. If Zimmerman truly should have been able to overpower Trayvon, then that would all more support Zimmerman's claim that he was jumped from behind rather than he initiated the struggle.

and this is where youre wrong .. and you just proved my point .... IT WORKS BOTH WAYS USING THIS LOGIC

so even if the case is fought from this perspective it makes even more sense.

if the claim is that zimmerman can over power trayvon ... then that explains why trayvon was at one point winning .... AND THEN WAS OVERPOWERED BY ZIMMERMAN. there is less evidence that trayvon started the physical altercation because he was the one being followed. zimmerman is not robocop my dude even the best cops can get knocked down while trying to make an arrest and take a couple good punches from some random drunk college kid before regaining control. shit happens all the time

IT WORKS BOTH WAYS WITH THIS LOGIC........

You're completely missing my point. The fact that it works both ways is irrelevant. As long as Zimmerman's story is plausible, that's all that is necessary to raise reasonable doubt. It doesn't matter that it's also plausible the other way. The Defense does not have to prove their case against all potential explanations to the contrary. Even if we say that the scenario was 80% in Trayvon's favor and only 20% in Zimmerman's, that 20% is still large enough to be seen as reasonable doubt.

but im not asking you to tell me how these white ppl were able to get away with murder (same shit i pointed out to fiat) ... my point is that none of this technical shit ever even comes into play when the roles are reversed. therefore ... being that you admit that it can be seen both ways ... what is the deciding factor on why it is seen the way that it is???

let me see a black person get off scott free with only 20% of the scenario in their favor

you out here yelling that technicality of the law bullshit when it doesnt even apply to every case ... so why are you so understanding in this case??

Ever heard of OJ? How you think he got off? They threw stuff out there that was largely bullshit, but still enough warrant doubt. Let's not act like black people never benefit from this. Hell, I personally know more than one black dude that got caught up and got out of it because he had a good lawyer that knew how to play the game. And we all know of black celebrities and drug dealers with money that got out of cases because the prosecution couldn't outdo the defense. Not to mention that Matt posted a case very similar to this where the racial roles were reversed and the black man got off too. So miss me with that "it never works for us" bullshit.

nigga in oj's case they literally fucked up the physical evidence that would have convicted him ... the hell are you talking about??? LOLOLOL

have you ever heard of the rico act???

link me to this case

you are out of your mind ... that white supremacy complex got you on some we are the world bullshit

 

[UPTOWN]

So you're saying Treyvon (ran???) directly from point 3 to point 5? And then he stayed there--in the rain--as Zimmerman took at least 3 minutes and 52 seconds to travel from point 3 to point 5?

Can you prove that your claim is correct, and that no other alternatives are possible?

no ... thats my whole point .. im saying that scientifically and based on the situation this did not happen. the distance is too short

if trayvon ran ... why would he stop right there??

yes there are alternatives ... just too bad non of them support self defense ... not realistically anyway

 

[Gold_Certificate]

So you're saying Treyvon (ran???) directly from point 3 to point 5? And then he stayed there--in the rain--as Zimmerman took at least 3 minutes and 52 seconds to travel from point 3 to point 5?

Can you prove that your claim is correct, and that no other alternatives are possible?

no ... thats my whole point .. im saying that scientifically and based on the situation this did not happen. the distance is too short

if trayvon ran ... why would he stop right there??

yes there are alternatives ... just too bad non of them support self defense ... not realistically anyway

The bolded illuminates what I'm saying.

The 3:52 time-frame isn't from Zimmerman's estimation, it's the minimum difference between the time-stamp of Zimmerman saying Treyvon ran and the time of Treyvon's last call with Rachel Jeantel disconnecting.

This time difference is also supported by Rachel Jeantel saying that one of her calls with Treyvon disconnected after he said he was running, and she had to call him back. There are three minutes and fifty-six seconds between the time this call disconnected (7:11:47PM) and the time her last call with him disconnected (7:15:43PM) after she called him back.

So according to the call logs of both Zimmerman and Rachel Jeantel, at least 3 minutes and 52 seconds pass between the time of Treyvon running and the time of Treyvon's last call with Rachel Jeantel disconnecting.

With so much time passing, Treyvon and Zimmerman had plenty of time to travel in multiple paths at multiple speeds.

This is why I said:

...The locations, traveling paths, and traveling speeds of Zimmerman or Treyvon during the time leading up to the confrontation are not known.

 

[blakfyahking]

Uptown you a hypocrite for typing all these titangraphs of faux-rage

I know none of you niggaz in here better not have been to a strip club in the last year

when you ain't have the real nigganess to donate at least a damn dollar

 

[UPTOWN]

So you're saying Treyvon (ran???) directly from point 3 to point 5? And then he stayed there--in the rain--as Zimmerman took at least 3 minutes and 52 seconds to travel from point 3 to point 5?

Can you prove that your claim is correct, and that no other alternatives are possible?

no ... thats my whole point .. im saying that scientifically and based on the situation this did not happen. the distance is too short

if trayvon ran ... why would he stop right there??

yes there are alternatives ... just too bad non of them support self defense ... not realistically anyway

The bolded illuminates what I'm saying.

The 3:52 time-frame isn't from Zimmerman's estimation, it's the minimum difference between the time-stamp of Zimmerman saying Treyvon ran and the time of Treyvon's last call with Rachel Jeantel disconnecting.

This time difference is also supported by Rachel Jeantel saying that one of her calls with Treyvon disconnected after he said he was running, and she had to call him back. There are three minutes and fifty-six seconds between the time this call disconnected (7:11:47PM) and the time her last call with him disconnected (7:15:43PM) after she called him back.

So according to the call logs of both Zimmerman and Rachel Jeantel, at least 3 minutes and 52 seconds pass between the time of Treyvon running and the time of Treyvon's last call with Rachel Jeantel disconnecting.

With so much time passing, Treyvon and Zimmerman had plenty of time to travel in multiple paths at multiple speeds.

This is why I said:

...The locations, traveling paths, and traveling speeds of Zimmerman or Treyvon during the time leading up to the confrontation are not known.

ummm fiat

The 3:52 time-frame isn't from Zimmerman's estimation

Zimmerman saying Treyvon ran and the time of Treyvon's last call with Rachel Jeantel disconnecting.

so zimmerman SAID treyvon ran ... THATS HIS ACCOUNT MY DUDE WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??

trayvon ran and then stopped and then stood around for 4 mins answering phone calls etc???

why do we believe zimmermans account??

the shit makes 0 sense

 

[Gold_Certificate]

So you're saying Treyvon (ran???) directly from point 3 to point 5? And then he stayed there--in the rain--as Zimmerman took at least 3 minutes and 52 seconds to travel from point 3 to point 5?

Can you prove that your claim is correct, and that no other alternatives are possible?

no ... thats my whole point .. im saying that scientifically and based on the situation this did not happen. the distance is too short

if trayvon ran ... why would he stop right there??

yes there are alternatives ... just too bad non of them support self defense ... not realistically anyway

The bolded illuminates what I'm saying.

The 3:52 time-frame isn't from Zimmerman's estimation, it's the minimum difference between the time-stamp of Zimmerman saying Treyvon ran and the time of Treyvon's last call with Rachel Jeantel disconnecting.

This time difference is also supported by Rachel Jeantel saying that one of her calls with Treyvon disconnected after he said he was running, and she had to call him back. There are three minutes and fifty-six seconds between the time this call disconnected (7:11:47PM) and the time her last call with him disconnected (7:15:43PM) after she called him back.

So according to the call logs of both Zimmerman and Rachel Jeantel, at least 3 minutes and 52 seconds pass between the time of Treyvon running and the time of Treyvon's last call with Rachel Jeantel disconnecting.

With so much time passing, Treyvon and Zimmerman had plenty of time to travel in multiple paths at multiple speeds.

This is why I said:

...The locations, traveling paths, and traveling speeds of Zimmerman or Treyvon during the time leading up to the confrontation are not known.

ummm fiat

The 3:52 time-frame isn't from Zimmerman's estimation

Zimmerman saying Treyvon ran and the time of Treyvon's last call with Rachel Jeantel disconnecting.

so zimmerman SAID treyvon ran ... THATS HIS ACCOUNT MY DUDE WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??

trayvon ran and then stopped and then stood around for 4 mins answering phone calls etc???

why do we believe zimmermans account??

the shit makes 0 sense

So you're saying Rachel Jeantel is also lying about Treyvon running?

Her testimony is pretty consistent with his, in this regard (3:52 vs 3:56).

Is it just a coincidence that they both lied and said Treyvon ran around the same time?

 

[7figz]

I just want to know how many posters donated to the Trayvon Martin fund

or how many are willing to donate to put a bounty on GZ's head?

smh

I can't be the only one

*bernie mack voice* y'all some niggas

Speaking for myself, I already posted, before the verdict I believe, that I'd donate to any cause for killing that fat fuck.

 

[5th Letter]

We don't know or can prove if Zimmerman got out his car with the intention of killing Trayvon. That can't be proven. However if you add everything up if Zimmerman had decided to go back to his vehicle then this case wouldn't have existed and Trayvon is probably alive today. Therefore manslaughter is the proper charge.

The problem is that there is no legal bearing for this.

Nothing in the murder or manslaughter statutes that criminalizes Zimmerman's speculated following of Treyvon. And nothing in the justified use of force statute that makes self-defense unavailable to Zimmerman for his speculated following of Treyvon.

Furthermore, Zimmerman claimed he was going back to his car, and there is nothing to support or disprove his claim; so even if the speculated following were illegal, it'd still be required that his claim of being in the process of going back to his car gets disproven.

No one is criminalizing Zimmerman for following Trayvon or for using deadly force etc. The point you keep glossing over is that Zimmerman proved himself to be a liar. Meaning that he's changed his story to make himself look good. I bet knowing what he does now I bet be probably lies about following Trayvon as well. The point is that if he heeded the 911 dispatcher then this case wouldn't have existed.

Again if Zimmerman goes back to his vehicle and goes home Trayvon is alive today.

I didn't gloss over Zimmerman being a liar, I conceded I with the below portion of my post:

..."Zimmerman is a liar"

This doesn't disprove his claim that he shot Treyvon because he feared being killed or critically-injured, nor does it disprove his injuries or witness testimony.

...

And it is speculation to assume you know whether Zimmerman was going back to his car or not; plus, him speculatively not going back to his car would not preclude him from using self-defense.

But Zimmerman did at one time say he was going back to his car when Trayvon "attacked" him. Zimmerman wouldn't have been in a position to use "self defense" had he not followed Trayvon.

Are you assuming that the bolded claim is correct? If so, then that means Zimmerman was not attacked while following Treyvon.

If not, then--as I stated--it is still unknown whether Zimmerman was actually going back to his car when the altercation began.

Besides, it still wouldn't void his self-defense claim if Zimmerman was not going back to his car when the altercation occurred; so it's inconsequential.

No I'm not assuming its correct. That's what Zimmerman said at one point. You said we don't know the time, and how and what happened thus making everything outside of the raw facts (Zimmerman following Trayvon by his own admitted statement, and him shooting and killing the teen) thus the correct verdict should have been manslaughter.

If Zimmerman was confronted and attacked while walking back to his car as he claimed, then his actions would fall under basic self-defense (776.012-1).

Of course, there's no reason to assume his claims are true. However, for Zimmerman to have received anything other than "not guilty", the prosecution had to put forth an argument that completely ruled out Zimmerman's claims.

Since "we don't know the time, and how and what happened", it's hard to prove--beyond a reasonable doubt--that Zimmerman's claim that he was confronted and attacked while walking back to his car is false.

He lied about going back to his car and Trayvon attacking him in that scenario. Making him not as credible since he changed his story. The only facts are that he killed Trayvon which is of course manslaughter.

Can you prove the bolded?

If you can prove the bolded, it still stands that:

...even if Zimmerman was the one to confront Treyvon after following him, that would not preclude him from legally using self-defense...

Right and if Zimmerman goes back in his vehicle and leaves then he wouldn't have been in a position to use "self defense" therefore manslaughter was the appropriate charge.

 

[Gold_Certificate]

We don't know or can prove if Zimmerman got out his car with the intention of killing Trayvon. That can't be proven. However if you add everything up if Zimmerman had decided to go back to his vehicle then this case wouldn't have existed and Trayvon is probably alive today. Therefore manslaughter is the proper charge.

The problem is that there is no legal bearing for this.

Nothing in the murder or manslaughter statutes that criminalizes Zimmerman's speculated following of Treyvon. And nothing in the justified use of force statute that makes self-defense unavailable to Zimmerman for his speculated following of Treyvon.

Furthermore, Zimmerman claimed he was going back to his car, and there is nothing to support or disprove his claim; so even if the speculated following were illegal, it'd still be required that his claim of being in the process of going back to his car gets disproven.

No one is criminalizing Zimmerman for following Trayvon or for using deadly force etc. The point you keep glossing over is that Zimmerman proved himself to be a liar. Meaning that he's changed his story to make himself look good. I bet knowing what he does now I bet be probably lies about following Trayvon as well. The point is that if he heeded the 911 dispatcher then this case wouldn't have existed.

Again if Zimmerman goes back to his vehicle and goes home Trayvon is alive today.

I didn't gloss over Zimmerman being a liar, I conceded I with the below portion of my post:

..."Zimmerman is a liar"

This doesn't disprove his claim that he shot Treyvon because he feared being killed or critically-injured, nor does it disprove his injuries or witness testimony.

...

And it is speculation to assume you know whether Zimmerman was going back to his car or not; plus, him speculatively not going back to his car would not preclude him from using self-defense.

But Zimmerman did at one time say he was going back to his car when Trayvon "attacked" him. Zimmerman wouldn't have been in a position to use "self defense" had he not followed Trayvon.

Are you assuming that the bolded claim is correct? If so, then that means Zimmerman was not attacked while following Treyvon.

If not, then--as I stated--it is still unknown whether Zimmerman was actually going back to his car when the altercation began.

Besides, it still wouldn't void his self-defense claim if Zimmerman was not going back to his car when the altercation occurred; so it's inconsequential.

No I'm not assuming its correct. That's what Zimmerman said at one point. You said we don't know the time, and how and what happened thus making everything outside of the raw facts (Zimmerman following Trayvon by his own admitted statement, and him shooting and killing the teen) thus the correct verdict should have been manslaughter.

If Zimmerman was confronted and attacked while walking back to his car as he claimed, then his actions would fall under basic self-defense (776.012-1).

Of course, there's no reason to assume his claims are true. However, for Zimmerman to have received anything other than "not guilty", the prosecution had to put forth an argument that completely ruled out Zimmerman's claims.

Since "we don't know the time, and how and what happened", it's hard to prove--beyond a reasonable doubt--that Zimmerman's claim that he was confronted and attacked while walking back to his car is false.

He lied about going back to his car and Trayvon attacking him in that scenario. Making him not as credible since he changed his story. The only facts are that he killed Trayvon which is of course manslaughter.

Can you prove the bolded?

If you can prove the bolded, it still stands that:

...even if Zimmerman was the one to confront Treyvon after following him, that would not preclude him from legally using self-defense...

Right and if Zimmerman goes back in his vehicle and leaves then he wouldn't have been in a position to use "self defense" therefore manslaughter was the appropriate charge.

So you are unable to prove that Zimmerman "lied about going back to his car and Trayvon attacking him"?

Can you at least show where Florida law would reject the claim of self-defense if Zimmerman were not going back to his car?

 

[5th Letter]

We don't know or can prove if Zimmerman got out his car with the intention of killing Trayvon. That can't be proven. However if you add everything up if Zimmerman had decided to go back to his vehicle then this case wouldn't have existed and Trayvon is probably alive today. Therefore manslaughter is the proper charge.

The problem is that there is no legal bearing for this.

Nothing in the murder or manslaughter statutes that criminalizes Zimmerman's speculated following of Treyvon. And nothing in the justified use of force statute that makes self-defense unavailable to Zimmerman for his speculated following of Treyvon.

Furthermore, Zimmerman claimed he was going back to his car, and there is nothing to support or disprove his claim; so even if the speculated following were illegal, it'd still be required that his claim of being in the process of going back to his car gets disproven.

No one is criminalizing Zimmerman for following Trayvon or for using deadly force etc. The point you keep glossing over is that Zimmerman proved himself to be a liar. Meaning that he's changed his story to make himself look good. I bet knowing what he does now I bet be probably lies about following Trayvon as well. The point is that if he heeded the 911 dispatcher then this case wouldn't have existed.

Again if Zimmerman goes back to his vehicle and goes home Trayvon is alive today.

I didn't gloss over Zimmerman being a liar, I conceded I with the below portion of my post:

..."Zimmerman is a liar"

This doesn't disprove his claim that he shot Treyvon because he feared being killed or critically-injured, nor does it disprove his injuries or witness testimony.

...

And it is speculation to assume you know whether Zimmerman was going back to his car or not; plus, him speculatively not going back to his car would not preclude him from using self-defense.

But Zimmerman did at one time say he was going back to his car when Trayvon "attacked" him. Zimmerman wouldn't have been in a position to use "self defense" had he not followed Trayvon.

Are you assuming that the bolded claim is correct? If so, then that means Zimmerman was not attacked while following Treyvon.

If not, then--as I stated--it is still unknown whether Zimmerman was actually going back to his car when the altercation began.

Besides, it still wouldn't void his self-defense claim if Zimmerman was not going back to his car when the altercation occurred; so it's inconsequential.

No I'm not assuming its correct. That's what Zimmerman said at one point. You said we don't know the time, and how and what happened thus making everything outside of the raw facts (Zimmerman following Trayvon by his own admitted statement, and him shooting and killing the teen) thus the correct verdict should have been manslaughter.

If Zimmerman was confronted and attacked while walking back to his car as he claimed, then his actions would fall under basic self-defense (776.012-1).

Of course, there's no reason to assume his claims are true. However, for Zimmerman to have received anything other than "not guilty", the prosecution had to put forth an argument that completely ruled out Zimmerman's claims.

Since "we don't know the time, and how and what happened", it's hard to prove--beyond a reasonable doubt--that Zimmerman's claim that he was confronted and attacked while walking back to his car is false.

He lied about going back to his car and Trayvon attacking him in that scenario. Making him not as credible since he changed his story. The only facts are that he killed Trayvon which is of course manslaughter.

Can you prove the bolded?

If you can prove the bolded, it still stands that:

...even if Zimmerman was the one to confront Treyvon after following him, that would not preclude him from legally using self-defense...

Right and if Zimmerman goes back in his vehicle and leaves then he wouldn't have been in a position to use "self defense" therefore manslaughter was the appropriate charge.

So you are unable to prove that Zimmerman "lied about going back to his car and Trayvon attacking him"?

Can you at least show where Florida law would reject the claim of self-defense if Zimmerman were not going back to his car?

That's what Zimmerman lied about happening.

Self defense and going back to the car are two different things.

Zimmerman wouldn't have needed to use self defense if he heeded the 911 dispatcher. Obviously if Trayvon attacked him first his SYG claim would be more than warranted. However we don't know who attacked who first, or who confronted who first or for how long who was following who. All we know is that Zimmerman followed Trayvon, shot him and killed him therefore manslaughter was the appropriate charge.

 

[UPTOWN]

So you're saying Treyvon (ran???) directly from point 3 to point 5? And then he stayed there--in the rain--as Zimmerman took at least 3 minutes and 52 seconds to travel from point 3 to point 5?

Can you prove that your claim is correct, and that no other alternatives are possible?

no ... thats my whole point .. im saying that scientifically and based on the situation this did not happen. the distance is too short

if trayvon ran ... why would he stop right there??

yes there are alternatives ... just too bad non of them support self defense ... not realistically anyway

The bolded illuminates what I'm saying.

The 3:52 time-frame isn't from Zimmerman's estimation, it's the minimum difference between the time-stamp of Zimmerman saying Treyvon ran and the time of Treyvon's last call with Rachel Jeantel disconnecting.

This time difference is also supported by Rachel Jeantel saying that one of her calls with Treyvon disconnected after he said he was running, and she had to call him back. There are three minutes and fifty-six seconds between the time this call disconnected (7:11:47PM) and the time her last call with him disconnected (7:15:43PM) after she called him back.

So according to the call logs of both Zimmerman and Rachel Jeantel, at least 3 minutes and 52 seconds pass between the time of Treyvon running and the time of Treyvon's last call with Rachel Jeantel disconnecting.

With so much time passing, Treyvon and Zimmerman had plenty of time to travel in multiple paths at multiple speeds.

This is why I said:

...The locations, traveling paths, and traveling speeds of Zimmerman or Treyvon during the time leading up to the confrontation are not known.

ummm fiat

The 3:52 time-frame isn't from Zimmerman's estimation

Zimmerman saying Treyvon ran and the time of Treyvon's last call with Rachel Jeantel disconnecting.

so zimmerman SAID treyvon ran ... THATS HIS ACCOUNT MY DUDE WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??

trayvon ran and then stopped and then stood around for 4 mins answering phone calls etc???

why do we believe zimmermans account??

the shit makes 0 sense

So you're saying Rachel Jeantel is also lying about Treyvon running?

Her testimony is pretty consistent with his, in this regard (3:52 vs 3:56).

Is it just a coincidence that they both lied and said Treyvon ran around the same time?

that is not what jeantel said ... she said she TOLD MARTIN TO RUN (SOME INSTANCES SHE SAYS "JUST WALK AWAY TO YOUR DADS HOUSE") at the time when they were on the phone SHE NEVER ACTUALLY SAID THAT "trayvon then started running". she also said that she heard trayvon yelling "get off me" "get off me" ...the phone convo between them ends because of the scuffle ... she said she heard trayvon ask "why are you following me for?" and she said she heard zimmerman ask trayvon "what are you doing around here" then heard the scuffle. when trayvon FIRST TOLD HER ABOUT ZIMMERMAN ... to the time when she called him back and got no answer was the 4 mins my dude ... thats why the diagram made no sense

so she didnt call back until a couple mins later to see if he was good ... so what??? that doesnt support zimmermans case.

so what we have is

jeantel on the phone with trayvon at the 7 eleven. the call was dropped

trayvon is then at point 1 on the diagram you gave. the place where he stopped cause he was getting out of the rain.

it is during this time that he calls jeantel back and says he noticed zimmerman watching him. this is the beginning of the 4 minutes

jeantel says dont worry about it just head to your dads house

trayvon does ... but mind you he stays on the phone with her all the way up until zimmerman actually confronts him. before zimmerman confronts him trayvon says "im gonna try and lose him" which is where zimmerman gives chase and starts the confrontation, jeantel hears it, the call is dropped, she waits (even the prosecution asked her why didnt she call 911), then she calls back and gets no answer

^^^^

this is the four minutes ...

trayvon was standing under point 1 for how long waiting for the rain to die down??

then he tries to walk by where zimmerman says he was parked, then the whole situation goes down.

youre trying to imply that trayvon ran at the 0:00 mark and then 3:56 seconds later she couldnt get an answer. meaning that trayvon and zimmerman were scrapping for like 3 mins

So according to the call logs of both Zimmerman and Rachel Jeantel, at least 3 minutes and 52 seconds pass between the time of Treyvon running and the time of Treyvon's last call with Rachel Jeantel disconnecting.

thats not what happened my friend

thats where youre wrong ... nothing says that trayvon ran and then 4 minutes later she couldnt get back in touch ... the call between him and jeantel was initiated WELL BEFORE he ran

 

[damobb2deep]

So you're saying Treyvon (ran???) directly from point 3 to point 5? And then he stayed there--in the rain--as Zimmerman took at least 3 minutes and 52 seconds to travel from point 3 to point 5?

Can you prove that your claim is correct, and that no other alternatives are possible?

no ... thats my whole point .. im saying that scientifically and based on the situation this did not happen. the distance is too short

if trayvon ran ... why would he stop right there??

yes there are alternatives ... just too bad non of them support self defense ... not realistically anyway

The bolded illuminates what I'm saying.

The 3:52 time-frame isn't from Zimmerman's estimation, it's the minimum difference between the time-stamp of Zimmerman saying Treyvon ran and the time of Treyvon's last call with Rachel Jeantel disconnecting.

This time difference is also supported by Rachel Jeantel saying that one of her calls with Treyvon disconnected after he said he was running, and she had to call him back. There are three minutes and fifty-six seconds between the time this call disconnected (7:11:47PM) and the time her last call with him disconnected (7:15:43PM) after she called him back.

So according to the call logs of both Zimmerman and Rachel Jeantel, at least 3 minutes and 52 seconds pass between the time of Treyvon running and the time of Treyvon's last call with Rachel Jeantel disconnecting.

With so much time passing, Treyvon and Zimmerman had plenty of time to travel in multiple paths at multiple speeds.

This is why I said:

...The locations, traveling paths, and traveling speeds of Zimmerman or Treyvon during the time leading up to the confrontation are not known.

ummm fiat

The 3:52 time-frame isn't from Zimmerman's estimation

Zimmerman saying Treyvon ran and the time of Treyvon's last call with Rachel Jeantel disconnecting.

so zimmerman SAID treyvon ran ... THATS HIS ACCOUNT MY DUDE WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??

trayvon ran and then stopped and then stood around for 4 mins answering phone calls etc???

why do we believe zimmermans account??

the shit makes 0 sense

So you're saying Rachel Jeantel is also lying about Treyvon running?

Her testimony is pretty consistent with his, in this regard (3:52 vs 3:56).

Is it just a coincidence that they both lied and said Treyvon ran around the same time?

you remind me of Sheldon from big bang theory

 

[can'tyoutell]

So you're saying Treyvon (ran???) directly from point 3 to point 5? And then he stayed there--in the rain--as Zimmerman took at least 3 minutes and 52 seconds to travel from point 3 to point 5?

Can you prove that your claim is correct, and that no other alternatives are possible?

no ... thats my whole point .. im saying that scientifically and based on the situation this did not happen. the distance is too short

if trayvon ran ... why would he stop right there??

yes there are alternatives ... just too bad non of them support self defense ... not realistically anyway

The bolded illuminates what I'm saying.

The 3:52 time-frame isn't from Zimmerman's estimation, it's the minimum difference between the time-stamp of Zimmerman saying Treyvon ran and the time of Treyvon's last call with Rachel Jeantel disconnecting.

This time difference is also supported by Rachel Jeantel saying that one of her calls with Treyvon disconnected after he said he was running, and she had to call him back. There are three minutes and fifty-six seconds between the time this call disconnected (7:11:47PM) and the time her last call with him disconnected (7:15:43PM) after she called him back.

So according to the call logs of both Zimmerman and Rachel Jeantel, at least 3 minutes and 52 seconds pass between the time of Treyvon running and the time of Treyvon's last call with Rachel Jeantel disconnecting.

With so much time passing, Treyvon and Zimmerman had plenty of time to travel in multiple paths at multiple speeds.

This is why I said:

...The locations, traveling paths, and traveling speeds of Zimmerman or Treyvon during the time leading up to the confrontation are not known.

ummm fiat

The 3:52 time-frame isn't from Zimmerman's estimation

Zimmerman saying Treyvon ran and the time of Treyvon's last call with Rachel Jeantel disconnecting.

so zimmerman SAID treyvon ran ... THATS HIS ACCOUNT MY DUDE WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT??

trayvon ran and then stopped and then stood around for 4 mins answering phone calls etc???

why do we believe zimmermans account??

the shit makes 0 sense

So you're saying Rachel Jeantel is also lying about Treyvon running?

Her testimony is pretty consistent with his, in this regard (3:52 vs 3:56).

Is it just a coincidence that they both lied and said Treyvon ran around the same time?

I believe you like to call this speculation?

 

[Gold_Certificate]

So you're saying Rachel Jeantel is also lying about Treyvon running?

Her testimony is pretty consistent with his, in this regard (3:52 vs 3:56).

Is it just a coincidence that they both lied and said Treyvon ran around the same time?

that is not what jeantel said ... she said she TOLD MARTIN TO RUN (SOME INSTANCES SHE SAYS "JUST WALK AWAY TO YOUR DADS HOUSE") at the time when they were on the phone SHE NEVER ACTUALLY SAID THAT "trayvon then started running". she also said that she heard trayvon yelling "get off me" "get off me" ...the phone convo between them ends because of the scuffle ... she said she heard trayvon ask "why are you following me for?" and she said she heard zimmerman ask trayvon "what are you doing around here" then heard the scuffle. when trayvon FIRST TOLD HER ABOUT ZIMMERMAN ... to the time when she called him back and got no answer was the 4 mins my dude ... thats why the diagram made no sense

so she didnt call back until a couple mins later to see if he was good ... so what??? that doesnt support zimmermans case.

so what we have is

jeantel on the phone with trayvon at the 7 eleven. the call was dropped

trayvon is then at point 1 on the diagram you gave. the place where he stopped cause he was getting out of the rain.

it is during this time that he calls jeantel back and says he noticed zimmerman watching him. this is the beginning of the 4 minutes

jeantel says dont worry about it just head to your dads house

trayvon does ... but mind you he stays on the phone with her all the way up until zimmerman actually confronts him. before zimmerman confronts him trayvon says "im gonna try and lose him" which is where zimmerman gives chase and starts the confrontation, jeantel hears it, the call is dropped, she waits (even the prosecution asked her why didnt she call 911), then she calls back and gets no answer

^^^^

this is the four minutes ...

trayvon was standing under point 1 for how long waiting for the rain to die down??

then he tries to walk by where zimmerman says he was parked, then the whole situation goes down.

youre trying to imply that trayvon ran at the 0:00 mark and then 3:56 seconds later she couldnt get an answer. meaning that trayvon and zimmerman were scrapping for like 3 mins

So according to the call logs of both Zimmerman and Rachel Jeantel, at least 3 minutes and 52 seconds pass between the time of Treyvon running and the time of Treyvon's last call with Rachel Jeantel disconnecting.

thats not what happened my friend

thats where youre wrong ... nothing says that trayvon ran and then 4 minutes later she couldnt get back in touch ... the call between him and jeantel was initiated WELL BEFORE he ran

They had multiple calls over the time period, the ones I'm referring to are the last two; as was mentioned in her testimony.

Starts around 1:28:40:


Transcript of her testimony:

DON WEST: Yesterday you said that as far as you knew those were accurate times of the calls that you and trayvon martin had on february 26th, CORRECT?

RACHEL JEANTEL: Yes, sir.

DON WEST: Because it was represented to you that those times were taken from the actual phone company records?

DON WEST: Present to you those times were taken from the actual phone company records.

RACHEL JEANTEL: Yes, sir.

WEST: So you don't have any argument with that.

JEANTEL: No, sir.

WEST: Well, take a look at the second to last call.

JEANTEL: Yes, sir.

WEST: It began at 6:54:16 p.m. and disconnected at 7:11:47. Do you see that?

JEANTEL: Yes, sir.

WEST: The next call picked up at 7:12:06. Do you see that?

JEANTEL: Yes, sir.

WEST: And disconnected at 7:15:43? Correct?

JEANTEL: Yes, sir.

WEST: So let's work backwards. Let's assume that at 7:15:43 the phone cut off.

JEANTEL: Yes.

WEST: When you were describing the interaction between Mr. Martin and Mr. Zimmerman. Ok?

JEANTEL: Yes, sir.

WEST: So that call had started at 7:12:06 which was a little over three minutes, correct?

JEANTEL: Yes, sir.

WEST: And there weren't any interruptions in that phone call?

WEST: No, sir.

WEST: And frankly you don't know at 7:15:43 when the phone cut off, whether it cut off for any reason other than it was just one more lost call?

JEANTEL: No, sir.

JEANTEL: So look at the other call though, the one before it, where it says it disconnected at 7:11:47. Do you see that?

JEANTEL: Yes, sir.

WEST: And that the next call started at 7:12:06.

JEANTEL: Yes, sir.

WEST: If you do the math and figure out how long it was between 7:11:47 and 7:12:06, to me, that is --

JUDGE: If you need to take a copy of that.

WEST: Step back. That's about 19 seconds, correct?

JEANTEL: Yes, sir.

WEST: So does that seem to you to be about right if, that when Trayvon Martin ran, ran towards the back of his father's house, while George Zimmerman was in the car, that about 20 seconds elapsed before your call reconnected?

JEANTEL: Yes, sir.

WEST: So the only time from before 7:00, before any part of this case actually started.

JEANTEL: Yes, sir.

WEST: You were on the phone with Mr. Martin for all of that time except about 20 seconds?

JEANTEL: Yes, sir.

WEST: And it was the 20 seconds we're talking about where Mr. Martin had decided to run and then you reconnected with him?

JEANTEL: Yes, sir.

So, as I said, Rachel Jeantel testified that Treyvon ran and her call disconnected at 7:11:47PM, she then called back, and her last call with him disconnected at 7:15:43PM; which is 3:56 later. Only 19 seconds pass between the time her second to last call disconnected and her last call began, and she said she didn't hear a confrontation until the end of the call, right before it disconnected at 7:15:43.

So this leaves around three minutes and fifty-six seconds between the time she says he ran, till the time she says a confrontation occurred.

 

[Gold_Certificate]

We don't know or can prove if Zimmerman got out his car with the intention of killing Trayvon. That can't be proven. However if you add everything up if Zimmerman had decided to go back to his vehicle then this case wouldn't have existed and Trayvon is probably alive today. Therefore manslaughter is the proper charge.

The problem is that there is no legal bearing for this.

Nothing in the murder or manslaughter statutes that criminalizes Zimmerman's speculated following of Treyvon. And nothing in the justified use of force statute that makes self-defense unavailable to Zimmerman for his speculated following of Treyvon.

Furthermore, Zimmerman claimed he was going back to his car, and there is nothing to support or disprove his claim; so even if the speculated following were illegal, it'd still be required that his claim of being in the process of going back to his car gets disproven.

No one is criminalizing Zimmerman for following Trayvon or for using deadly force etc. The point you keep glossing over is that Zimmerman proved himself to be a liar. Meaning that he's changed his story to make himself look good. I bet knowing what he does now I bet be probably lies about following Trayvon as well. The point is that if he heeded the 911 dispatcher then this case wouldn't have existed.

Again if Zimmerman goes back to his vehicle and goes home Trayvon is alive today.

I didn't gloss over Zimmerman being a liar, I conceded I with the below portion of my post:

..."Zimmerman is a liar"

This doesn't disprove his claim that he shot Treyvon because he feared being killed or critically-injured, nor does it disprove his injuries or witness testimony.

...

And it is speculation to assume you know whether Zimmerman was going back to his car or not; plus, him speculatively not going back to his car would not preclude him from using self-defense.

But Zimmerman did at one time say he was going back to his car when Trayvon "attacked" him. Zimmerman wouldn't have been in a position to use "self defense" had he not followed Trayvon.

Are you assuming that the bolded claim is correct? If so, then that means Zimmerman was not attacked while following Treyvon.

If not, then--as I stated--it is still unknown whether Zimmerman was actually going back to his car when the altercation began.

Besides, it still wouldn't void his self-defense claim if Zimmerman was not going back to his car when the altercation occurred; so it's inconsequential.

No I'm not assuming its correct. That's what Zimmerman said at one point. You said we don't know the time, and how and what happened thus making everything outside of the raw facts (Zimmerman following Trayvon by his own admitted statement, and him shooting and killing the teen) thus the correct verdict should have been manslaughter.

If Zimmerman was confronted and attacked while walking back to his car as he claimed, then his actions would fall under basic self-defense (776.012-1).

Of course, there's no reason to assume his claims are true. However, for Zimmerman to have received anything other than "not guilty", the prosecution had to put forth an argument that completely ruled out Zimmerman's claims.

Since "we don't know the time, and how and what happened", it's hard to prove--beyond a reasonable doubt--that Zimmerman's claim that he was confronted and attacked while walking back to his car is false.

He lied about going back to his car and Trayvon attacking him in that scenario. Making him not as credible since he changed his story. The only facts are that he killed Trayvon which is of course manslaughter.

Can you prove the bolded?

If you can prove the bolded, it still stands that:

...even if Zimmerman was the one to confront Treyvon after following him, that would not preclude him from legally using self-defense...

Right and if Zimmerman goes back in his vehicle and leaves then he wouldn't have been in a position to use "self defense" therefore manslaughter was the appropriate charge.

So you are unable to prove that Zimmerman "lied about going back to his car and Trayvon attacking him"?

Can you at least show where Florida law would reject the claim of self-defense if Zimmerman were not going back to his car?

That's what Zimmerman lied about happening.

Self defense and going back to the car are two different things.

Zimmerman wouldn't have needed to use self defense if he heeded the 911 dispatcher. Obviously if Trayvon attacked him first his SYG claim would be more than warranted. However we don't know who attacked who first, or who confronted who first or for how long who was following who. All we know is that Zimmerman followed Trayvon, shot him and killed him therefore manslaughter was the appropriate charge.

So you're not able to substantiate the bolded?:

So you are unable to prove that Zimmerman "lied about going back to his car and Trayvon attacking him"?

Can you at least show where Florida law would reject the claim of self-defense if Zimmerman were not going back to his car?

 

[Gold_Certificate]

So you're saying Rachel Jeantel is also lying about Treyvon running?

Her testimony is pretty consistent with his, in this regard (3:52 vs 3:56).

Is it just a coincidence that they both lied and said Treyvon ran around the same time?

you remind me of Sheldon from big bang theory

I have never watched this.

So you're saying Rachel Jeantel is also lying about Treyvon running?

Her testimony is pretty consistent with his, in this regard (3:52 vs 3:56).

Is it just a coincidence that they both lied and said Treyvon ran around the same time?

I believe you like to call this speculation?

Nah, speculation would be me trying to say I know what happened during the 3:56 time-frame.

The 3:56 time-frame comes from the call logs presented as evidence during the trial, and corroborated by Rachel Jeantel.

 

[7figz]

How come there's so much discussion around the minutiae / technicalities and not the basic facts of the case like the fact that Zimmerman stalked Trayvon, against 911's [I think] advice, and Trayvon was unarmed and killed ?

 

[The Lonious Monk]

nigga in oj's case they literally fucked up the physical evidence that would have convicted him ... the hell are you talking about??? LOLOLOL

have you ever heard of the rico act???

link me to this case

you are out of your mind ... that white supremacy complex got you on some we are the world bullshit

What "We are the World" bullshit? So because I pointed out that legally there was no mistake made in this case? And because I've stated that we all know of cases were blacks have gotten off because of bad cases or even good cases due to having money. Nobody said the system was fair. Of course blacks are still getting shitted on. But this "woe is us" bullshit ya'll are trying to pass, acting like no black man ever gets a fair shake is stupid. And the idea, that it's fair for a white person to be done wrong just because black people get done wrong is just as stupid. We should be looking for everyone to be treated justly not hoping that other people will be treated as unjustly as us. Ya'll niggas stay promoting some dumb shit that ain't going to help anybody, blacks included.