General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrayon Martin yelling for help, that is another clincher
Did you see the neighbor lady say that on the stand, she said she heard a young kid yelling for help. It was a younger persons voice, so not Zimmermans. That is yet another clincher for this whole thing IMHO.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
btdt64
(18 posts)Scientific analysis was deemed inconclusive as to which person was yelling for help. I find that the "neighbor" could not determine this any more conclusive than scientific analysis could. The "friend" on the phone with TM could not determine who's voice it was, only that it "could have been Trayvon's".
In the final analysis, we may never know who was yelling!
If it doesn't make sense, it probably isn't true! The absence of visible physical injury to Trayvon, other than the fatal gun shot, would suggest that he was not on the recieving end of any physical attack that would cause him to yell for help. On the other hand, injuries to Z would suggest that he WAS on the receiving end of a physical attack.
quinnox
(20,600 posts)"We probably won't ever know" 
I saw her give her testimony, and she was very convincing to me. If you don't want to believe her, that is your business.
Yes we know. It was the black kid who was yelling for help after Zimmerman jumped on him and started beating him up, or maybe even pulled his gun at that point. She was an eyewitness and heard it all.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)I don't believe that somebody who never heard two people talking before in her life, can identify who it was screaming. Now she has heard zimmerman after the fact, but she probably has never heard trayvon''s voice. The screaming she heard, she assumed was trayvon.
Even the courts threw out voice experts, because it is voodoo science.
Merlot
(9,696 posts)17 yr old black kid and a man. Kids in high school talk differently, they have slang. Listen to any high schooler. A lot more variation in tone and pitch. A man in his late 20's sounds very different.
The voice experts were listening to a tape recording of the 911 call. That's a lot different than hearing it live, in person.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Merlot
(9,696 posts)High school kids speak differently than adults - no matter what the race.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)You write: It's probably pretty easy to tell the difference between a 17 yr old black kid and a man.
Really?
What does a 17 year old BLACK kid sound like? Explain, please, since you know.
Maximumnegro
(1,134 posts)Trayvon IS a 17yr old black kid. I mean come on, that's really jumping at shadows (SHADOWS? What do you mean SHADOWS?...)
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)I assume I sounded like any other 17 year old kid, regardless of my skin color.
....well, I'm from the South, so I probably had an accent.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)There was NONE of George Zimmerman's DNA on Trayvon Martin's hand, there is no way that Martin could attack in the way Zimmerman claims he did without picking up at least some DNA. Zimmerman is a liar, a racist, and a murderer, but you go ahead and keep defending the murder of a child, it only tells us the kind of person you are.
Welcome to DU for the short time you will be here.
ksoze
(2,068 posts)You need a decaf - this is a trial and its day 3 of many more.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Zimmerman is being exposed for the sick asshole that he is, I look forward to watching his lies continue to be torn to shreds.
ksoze
(2,068 posts)I mean the defendant is a "liar, racist, murderer" based on what you know on day 3 with the prosecution not even done. He may be, I'm gonna sit through it and see. Hell, someone worked hard to create this jury trial thing, so might as well give them their due.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Am I going to see you on here defending Ariel Castro? He is pleading not guilty too, are you going to insist that no one calls him a kidnapper and rapist until his trial is complete and a verdict is reached? I am sure you are totally consistent on this principle and I can expect to see you lecturing the people who call Ariel Castro a rapist, after all if this is a principled position you are taking you should be making sure that no one speaks an opinion on what Castro did until months in the future after his trial is complete, right? I suspect we won't see you in any Castro threads however because I suspect you are holding many others to a totally different standard than you hold the racist murderer George Zimmerman. Prove me wrong, go start an OP telling people it is wrong to judge Ariel Castro until the trial is complete, make sure to make it clear to people that you do not approve of them calling him a rapist until the trial is over. If you do that I will apologize for judging you as a hypocrite, if you are not willing to do that I will assume you are not as principled as you pretend to be.
ksoze
(2,068 posts)Your welcome to your opinion, just realize it is based on a one sided presentation. I am not a Zimmerman fan. He shot an unarmed teen and the Florida law that played a part is insane. But, I think it is wise to hear it all - instead of the media pre-trial. And bag the Castro distraction - it looks like you are avoiding this case with one with zero connection or similarity.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)If you are going to lecture me about forming a position before a verdict then I would expect you hold that position in all criminal trials, not just this one. If you are not truly taking a principled stand then don't try to lecture me on how I can speak about the racist murderer George Zimmerman.
ksoze
(2,068 posts)and nobody is lecturing you - if a few words are a lecture to you, you must have hated school.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Clearly you are not standing on principle because if you were the same principle would apply in all criminal cases.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)That's important.
Personally, I haven't heard anything throughout this whole thing, since the incident occurred, that tells me he's a racist. Not one bit of evidence that I've heard that indicates that. Just the fact that someone is of a particular race does not make everything that happens in his life the result of racism. Was TM racist against GZ? The witness today testified that TM used two racial derogatory terms to her about GZ. Did he attack GZ because of his race or ethnicity? GZ, OTOH, did not use a racial derogatory term in referring to TM, that we know of.
So maybe you are viewing things from a skewed perspective. You've made certain assumptions, and you're going to stick with that, even if the evidence, or lack of it, shows otherwise.
Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #60)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #134)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Skittles
(171,709 posts)they got called on their bullshit
all american girl
(1,788 posts)How could he be screaming continuously, and have his mouth covered? I'm no expert, but wouldn't Trayvon Martin have DNA on his hands if he was covering George Zimmerman's mouth? I'm assuming that George Zimmerman was screaming (mouth opened) with Trayvon Martin's hand(s) over his mouth, it just seems that DNA would be all over Trayvon Martin's hands.
btdt64
(18 posts)You all have seemed to judge me without knowing anything about me and no evidence to support your accusations. I don't believe I have made any statements that would indicate anything other than an open mind, interested in the real evidence in the case.
I have said it before....the lack of DNA on TM's hands proves nothing! Expert testimony agrees with that fact!
You are entitled to your opinion, biased as it may be, as well as I am entitled to mine. If I choose to listen to ALL of the evidence and testimony before I form that opinion that's my choice. Those of you who would condemn Z without hearing all of the evidence have some serious issues.
I believe in our justice system.....and I can live with the outcome of this trial, either way, providing that it is based on facts and not opinions!
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)If you had been paying any attention at all you would know that Zimmerman's injuries were minor and no one except his lying ass knows how he received them. The evidence against Zimmerman is overwhelming yet you took his side entirely in your post, you sure as hell are not unbiased so I don't know how you can criticize me for being biased. I am actually able to admit to being biased, I am very biased against murderers. You seem to be biased in favor of a murderer.
btdt64
(18 posts)I am biased to the point that I refuse to condemn anyone without considering the facts. I have been paying attention.....and I have not seen ANY overwhelming evidence for EITHER side of the argument. If I have taken any side in this case at this point, it is the side of Justice. You are obviously blind to any comments or evidence that does not support your biased opinion.
Since you have already convicted Z, what is your response going to be if he is aquitted?
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)The fact that Trayvon had none of Zimmerman's DNA on his hands is evidence, the fact that Zimmerman said on the police call that he was following Trayvon is evidence, the fact that George Zimmerman committed perjury in relation to the murder is evidence, the fact that Zimmerman's wounds were not consistent with the attack he described is evidence, the fact that the neighbor says she heard Trayvon screaming is evidence, there is lots of evidence. How much evidence is there to support the claim that Trayvon repeatedly smashed his head in to the pavement? None unless you believe the words of the killer and ignore the physical evidence to the contrary.
I have not "convicted" Zimmerman, he has every right to a defense but that does not mean I have not heard enough to form a well based opinion. And my opinion is that Zimmerman and his racist gun nut defenders are the lowest forms of pond scum on this planet.
btdt64
(18 posts)The fact that Trayvon had none of Zimmerman's DNA on his hands is evidence.....NO...that's a LACK of evidence!
the fact that Zimmerman said on the police call that he was following Trayvon is evidence......and if a stranger were wandering through my private property, in the dark, essentially trespassing, I would follow them too!
the fact that Zimmerman's wounds were not consistent with the attack he described is evidence.......perhaps your opinion
the fact that the neighbor says she heard Trayvon screaming is evidence.............she testified she heard screaming...in her opinion a 'younger voice'...but certainly no proof it was TM's voice
the fact that George Zimmerman committed perjury in relation to the murder is evidence.....so if Z changes his story, it's perjury (I thought you could only commit perjury in relation to direct testimony in a court proceeding), but if a witness changes their story (under direct testimony) it remains credible?
Perhaps the "racist gun nut defenders" comment is a true insight to your mindset.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)You pretty much have to be a racist gun nut to try to justify killing an unarmed teenager over a bloody nose and a couple of scratches that resulted from a confrontation the killer started.
Criticize my mindset all you want, but I bet most people who are reading this are probably wondering about your mindset a lot more than they are wondering about mine.
btdt64
(18 posts)So, if I stand in support of Z's constitutional right to a fair and UN-Biased trial, I must be a racist gun nut?
It has yet been proven who started the confrontation......unless you believe that following a suspicious character through your private neighborhood is confrontation.
Since you insist on pointing out testimony, how is it that TM was 'nearly home' (direct testimony from his "friend"
, and yet he apparently turns around, doubles back through the complex, and confronts Z?
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)But I can support a fair trial without trying to make excuses for murder. There is no evidence to show Martin doubled back to confront Zimmerman, I would answer your question if it were based in reality but the only evidence you have is the words of a killer who is also facing perjury charges. There is no one aside from Zimmerman who has said they saw Trayvon initiate the confrontation.
JustAnotherGen
(38,054 posts)Been a member since Tuesday.
So - understanding where you stand on the right of Zimmerman to get a fair trial - as ALL at Democratic Undeground want (from another post):
65. News Flash....if you stand in defense of our Justice System, you are a racist gun nut!
So, if I stand in support of Z's constitutional right to a fair and UN-Biased trial, I must be a racist gun nut?
It has yet been proven who started the confrontation......unless you believe that following a suspicious character through your private neighborhood is confrontation.
Since you insist on pointing out testimony, how is it that TM was 'nearly home' (direct testimony from his "friend"
, and yet he apparently turns around, doubles back through the complex, and confronts Z? No - but if you stand in defense of Zimmerman at DU and are that vocal in his Defense - and so absolute in it - folks around here are going to question that.
So - welcome to DU. Feel free to post in the Democrats, Politics 2013, African American Group, GLBT Groups . . . It will be very interesting to see if you are going to stay and support liberal and progressive ideals.
Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #103)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JustAnotherGen
(38,054 posts)First, this is the Democratic Underground . . . I for one have no problem EXPECTING you to be a Democratic Party Member.
Second - this is a message board - for liberals and progressives and yeppers - even socialists!
You joined yesterday. If you'd been around the past two weeks you'd know - questioning one anothers purity is now pretty much par for the course.
NEXT UP:
I find it funny that you joined this site the week of MAJOR decisions by the SCOTUS coming down and the only think you've posted to is a Trayvon Martin thread with the same talking points I could get on the Huffington Post message boards.
Finally:
Narrow Minded - We only ask that you be liberal and progressive - heck - even a Corporatist Dem at the . . . DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND.
Politically Biased - this is the
Democratic - not bi-partisan undeground.
Racially Biased - Against who? Ask a black member of DU what is going on in PMs and you'll find that if anything - we are probably not feeling the same bias here. Oh let me guess - you just pulled the Reverse
Racism Card . . . same one Zimmerman's attorney put in the deck today?
Ahem- YOU put the card in the deck.
Ignorance - Is in the eye of the beholder. And our MIRT Team.
Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #116)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JustAnotherGen
(38,054 posts)Response to JustAnotherGen (Reply #103)
Name removed Message auto-removed
yellowcanine
(36,792 posts)What made Trayvon a "suspicious character?" Did he have burglary tools? Was he looking into car windows or houses, checking to see if doors were locked, etc? Just what made him a suspicious character?
Response to yellowcanine (Reply #126)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to Name removed (Reply #128)
Name removed Message auto-removed
yellowcanine
(36,792 posts)Response to yellowcanine (Reply #135)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Response to Name removed (Reply #137)
uppityperson This message was self-deleted by its author.
Rhiannon12866
(255,525 posts)Thanks to Otto. 
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)Aren't I uppity?
Rhiannon12866
(255,525 posts) 
alittlelark
(19,139 posts)uppityperson
(116,020 posts)The fact that Trayvon had none of Zimmy's dna on his hand is evidence as if he were smothering him, he would have. Clean hands are evidence. The fact that Zimmy's wounds were not consistent with the attack he described is evidence he either misled or lied. Zimmy committing perjury is evidence independent of whether or not anyone else does.
Response to uppityperson (Reply #55)
Name removed Message auto-removed
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)Fly? His dad and he were visiting a friend there.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Trayvon broke his nose and repeatedly banged his head against the ground?
And further, the coroner said that there were no bruises on Trayvon's hands, either.
So, I ask: How does Zimmerman assert that he was assaulted and as a result, acted in self defense?
Frankly, I don't give a shit about Zimmerman.
When he defied the 911 Dispatcher and followed Trayvon, that was it for me. End of story. He should've kept his fat ass in the car and waited for the cops as directed.
His defiance (and racism) is why we're here.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Through all the muddying done through propagandized litigation, there is NO way to dispute what you've written. None. Zilch. Nada. Fact remains, Zimmerman's entire defense is based on his assertion that Trayvon had attacked him and he killed him in self-defense. Since NO DNA is present on Trayvon's hands, Zimmerman's testimony was all LIES, and his defense is totally wiped off the face of the earth. Every person with more than half a working brain can deduce that.
What we're now seeing is nothing more than desperate attempts by the Zimmerman side to garner sympathy from gun-nutz, racists, and Rightwingers; those who have no problem that a black kid was slaughtered in the streets in a relatively safe neighborhood. I tell you, were the tables turned and Zimmerman was Black and the boy was Caucasian, you bet your NRA gun membership this thing would be over in a matter of weeks.
It makes me ill to see, once again, that separate but equal still reigns supreme in this inherently racist country with an ugly racist history.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Let's flip the question around:
Suppose the 911 Dispatcher told Zimmerman not to follow a perpetrator, but Zimmerman follows anyway. Now suppose the alleged perpetrator (not Trayvon) really had a weapon of some kind, a fight ensues, and the perpetrator kills Zimmerman. Then what? Could the alleged perpetrator claim self defense? Would the 911 Dispatcher simply explain that he/she warned Zimmerman and that Zimmerman didn't listen? And therefore if he's dead, it's his own fault for defying the rules?
hack89
(39,181 posts)one one jury I sat on, the judge spend a lot of time explaining how "the world is not like CSI" and that it is rare to find smoking gun forensic evidence. He explained that the absence of forensic evidence like finger prints or DNA cannot be taken at face value as having any significance.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)However, I'm smart enough to question a claim that doesn't appear to make much sense.
Zimmerman allegedly had a bloody head with lascerations and bloodied nose which he (and you agree) was broken.
No blood on Trayvon's clothes except his own. No sores on his knuckles, indicating that he had used his hands to hit Zimmerman. No DNA at all?
Come on. I know you're attempting to find anything to put holes in the case, but you have to admit that it doesn't make sense. Not a bit.
I don't have to be a forensic scientist to understand that.
hack89
(39,181 posts)I believe him.
Lets not also that a prosecution witness testified that it was raining hard and that Trayvon's body laid in the rain for a while - is it possible that what blood was on him got washed off?
I don't have the technical education or experience to know what makes sense when it comes to forensic evidence - neither do you. In any case, time will tell. I am sure they will spend a lot of time talking about such things in the trial.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)"The fact that Trayvon had none of Zimmerman's DNA on his hands is evidence
.....NO...that's a LACK of evidence! "
And goes against Z's story that Trayvon puts his hands over his bleeding nose and mouth.
"the fact that Zimmerman said on the police call that he was following Trayvon is evidence
......and if a stranger were wandering through my private property, in the dark, essentially trespassing, I would follow them too! "
Total bullshit. Trayvon was not trespassing in any way, shape or form. It was not Zimmerman's property and Trayvon was staying with a resident in the complex. He had every legal right to walk where he was.
"the fact that Zimmerman's wounds were not consistent with the attack he described is evidence
.......perhaps your opinion "
Since Z likely won't testify, it's very important that evidence tell his version of events.
"the fact that the neighbor says she heard Trayvon screaming is evidence
.............she testified she heard screaming...in her opinion a 'younger voice'...but certainly no proof it was TM's voice "
Witnesses don't have to have proof. They just have to be credible and she was very credible. Plus her 911 call gives more weight to her testimony.
"the fact that George Zimmerman committed perjury in relation to the murder is evidence
.....so if Z changes his story, it's perjury (I thought you could only commit perjury in relation to direct testimony in a court proceeding), but if a witness changes their story (under direct testimony) it remains credible? "
Not purjury if he wasn't under oath but goes to his credibility if the jury is made aware of it.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Is that people who take a strictly objective "just the facts, don't let's get emotion involved" stance tend to be pretty far from objective and unbiased themselves.
One of our posters has this as her post signature;
I cannot recall any argument I've encountered in my time, where this statement does not ring loud and true; those arguing for Vulcan-like rationality are almost always on the side of whatever injustice is at hand.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Injuries and let them go on?
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)The physical evidence does not support Zimmerman's claims, he is lying and the evidence against him is overwhelming. If you support Zimmerman you are supporting a racist child killer. Period. There is no excuse for killing an unarmed child and I am sickened seeing people trying to make excuses for it.
dkf
(37,305 posts)I've never seen someone get cuts on the back of their head due to being the guy on the top punching downward.
That tells me that Zimmerman was on the bottom at least once. Get me forensic evidence that shows Martin was on the bottom being beaten and maybe I can be open to the thought that he was the one screaming. Absent that I have evidence that supports Zimmerman doing the screaming.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)It seriously makes me ill to see people defending murder on the basis of a couple scratches and a bloody nose.
Pelican
(1,156 posts).... before you are "allowed" to respond with force?
This isn't Martin/Zimmerman specific but in general.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)We are talking about taking a person's life here, to even suggest suffering minor injuries in a scuffle with an unarmed teenager justifies taking the life of a person is absolutely insane. It says a lot about how insane gun nuts have become to see so many of them actually defending this shit.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)That's why this case is important. Gun lovers and bigots need to know this will not be tolerated, and Stand Your Ground laws need to be repealed.
dkf
(37,305 posts)I've never been punched, never even broken a bone. I have no idea at what point I would be afraid for my life. I probably have a low threshold.
That does go to the heart of the question though. At what point is it self defense? I bet women have a lower bar than men which makes that all woman jury very interesting.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)You are talking about killing a person, that is not something that should be done casually. The treshold for taking a life needs to be set very high, unless death or permanent disability are imminent no one should ever be allowed to kill another person. Certainly a skinny teenager armed only with Skittles and Iced Tea is not an imminent deadly threat that needs to be killed, not just wounded but killed. Seriously, anyone who defends this shit should be ashamed, it is absolutely sick to suggest killing an unarmed teenager is justified.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)Even under Florida's batshit crazy laws the evidence is damning that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin, Florida may have some stupid laws but second degree murder is still a crime down there and Zimmerman is being prosecuted for that crime.
dpibel
(3,943 posts)The law in Florida prescribes a "reasonable person" standard. That's a question for the jury.
But it's not a "how did you feel?" standard.
It's well established in the law. The person claiming self defense must have acted in the way that a reasonable person would have acted under the circumstances.
dkf
(37,305 posts)dpibel
(3,943 posts)The question is not "Did the defendant feel like he was being reasonable at the time?"
It is "Would a reasonable person in the same circumstances have done what defendant did?"
Sure, most people think they're reasonable. That doesn't make them so. In fact, we have very little trouble in our daily lives proclaiming the actions of other people to be unreasonable, regardless of how they rationalize their actions.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Putting myself on the ground, broken nose, cuts on the back of my head, being beaten...is it reasonable for me to feel like my life is in danger? I think so.
Rex
(65,616 posts)What a totally absurd thing to post, why do you make up things out of whole cloth? Zim never got hit by Martin, why do some of you keep stating Foxnews talking points? Is that the only place you get your news from?
Iggo
(49,927 posts)uppityperson
(116,020 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)NM.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I see you have already been called out for trolling. How sadz. You don't believe in our justice system, you are just trolling here for kicks. You will ragequit after Zim is convicted, like most Foxnews viewers.
It must suck to be you.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)on his hands?
I think I heard that the police didn't bag TM's hands, so the evidence on the hands wasn't preserved.
The jury can consider this, together with all the other evidence, and decide what it means, or even that it doesn't mean anything.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)when Martin was smothering him with one hand, as he claimed.
So either Martin was not smothering him, and Zimmerman lied about that and loses credibility points.
Or Martin was smothering him and Zimmerman lied about being the one yelling for help and loses credibility points.
The snippet of tape I listened to last year sure sounded like yelling cut short by a gunshot, not yelling stopped because it was no longer needed.
The cuts on the back of Zimmerman's head could have easily have been caused by a backwards fall onto concrete. He has no proof that his head was injured by repeated slams into concrete walkway and no witnesses saw his head being slammed into the concrete.
That he didn't land any punches on Martin does not prove he didn't ambush Martin; only that he didn't land any punches and Martin got lucky and landed one.
I can't speak for you, but having someone pull a gun on me might just cause me to yell for help, or at least yell something. 
And pointing a gun at an unarmed person and telling them to get off me or I'll shoot you would cause me to do whatever the fuck the told me to do. So they wouldn't have to shoot me to make me put my hands in the air or whatever. But that's just me. ymmv.
dkf
(37,305 posts)uppityperson
(116,020 posts)I'll be back to see your proof.
dkf
(37,305 posts)uppityperson
(116,020 posts)I'll check back and see what you have beyond "looks messed up" to support your claim it was broken. I figured since you claimed it was, you'd have some proof which I haven't seen. Thanks for looking for me. I appreciate all you do here on DU. 
Kingofalldems
(40,277 posts)Nice try.
uponit7771
(93,532 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)uponit7771
(93,532 posts)...nose was broken
also, Z is a stuipd liar....I have NO DOUBT that he would do all this post be beaten within an inch of his life with no blood on the beaters hands
Incitatus
(5,317 posts)I believe Zimmerman took it upon himself to detain Trayvon for the cops. Some strange guy with a gun and no uniform pursuing a kid in the dark might cause that kid to scream for help. I don't buy Zs BS story.
ecstatic
(35,075 posts)A younger man will sound more child-like when screaming. Jane also emphasized that the older man sounded authoritative, which fits right in to Zimmerman the wannabe using his "command" cop voice. Other witnesses described how Zimmerman started barking orders to different people after he shot Trayvon.
adric mutelovic
(208 posts)Sorry, but to say that at age 17 a teenager still has that scratchy voice is a stretch.
By age 17 the transition from childish voice to adult voice has happened.
And do all male adults have manly screams? Or some?
Raine
(31,177 posts)everyone? I lost my last baby tooth when I was a sophmore in high school. People's rate of physical, mental or emotional maturity isn't on a set schedule.
Just Saying
(1,799 posts)Trayvon's voice:
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/t/video/exclusive-audio-voice-trayvon-martin-19352398
Zimmerman's voice can be found on the police call.
Everyone doesn't hit puberty at the same age, obviously. Nor does every male end up with a deep voice.
Regardless of what experts say, the jury will hear the screaming and make up their own minds. To me, based on the voice and the situation as I see it, I think it's Trayvon calling for help. Just my opinion much like the jury will have theirs. If the jury thinks so too, Zimmerman will be convicted.
Raine
(31,177 posts)she knows the sound of a young voice. As far as injuries whose dead and whose alive, would seem the dead one got the worst of it. If Zimmerman had done what he told and quit chashing Martin nothing would've happened, duh.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Bunch of assholes that agree with Foxnews imo.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)WHY would the person who was yelling for help abruptly stop yelling when the gunshot was heard? Hmmm?
There are obviously two possible scenarios to answer your question:
1: Either TM was the one who was yelling and he stopped when he was shot, or
2: Z was the one yelling and stopped when the threat was neutralized.
Either case is believable. Can't say that there is compelling evidence to support either scenario, which essentially leaves this particular argument in limbo. Perhaps there will be corroborating testimony, yet to come, that may clarify this issue.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)btdt64
(18 posts)Our opinions really don't matter in the final analysis....unless you happen to be on the jury......at which point you would be in contempt of court by discussing it in this forum.
In the absence of irrefutable evidence supporting either case, the issue becomes moot. Whether you support the prosecution or defense, the final outcome will have to be determined on other facets of the case.
Th1onein
(8,514 posts)And I think most people would agree with me. You don't yell HELP when you've got a gun in your hand. And you don't abruptly stop yelling HELP just because you've pulled the trigger.
btdt64
(18 posts)In terms of the outcome of this trial....your opinion don't mean squat.........nor mine for that matter.
Fact is, eyewitness testimony places someone "with a dark colored jacket or shirt" on top during the struggle. Z was wearing a bright red jacket! TM was wearing a dark gray "hoodie".........so who was on top?
Another eyewitness stated that she could see arms waving in an attacking type motion (not her exact words) as if the person were beating up on the other.
His gun was holstered until he drew it to defend himself.
madmom
(9,681 posts)My daughter and I go to the local school and run/walk the halls when it's too hot or cold to do it outside. Last night I got started ahead of her. I was on my way back when she was running toward me. I could not tell she had on a red top until she was very close, because the lights in that section of the hall were turned off, only shadows. Her top looked black, until she was much closer.
Response to btdt64 (Reply #52)
HangOnKids This message was self-deleted by its author.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)would have me screaming for help... and probably most other people on the planet.
What about having a gun pointed at you, while struggling with your assailant to keep him from pulling the trigger, doesn't equate to a physical assault?
The very minor injuries to Zimmerman have many explanations from him running in the dark into one of the many trees that were there with low branches; to both of them, when they were observed upright with arms flailing (probably in a struggle for control over positioning/retention of the gun), then losing their balance so that Trayvon landed on top of Zimmerman (hence the slight nose injury) who landed on his back (accounting for the several minor surface cuts on the back of his head); to the literally dead weight of Trayvon's dead head striking Zimmerman's face and simultaneously causing the injury to Zimmerman's nose and the cuts on the back of his head.
The absence of physical injury to Trayvon, especially on his hands, suggests that Trayvon wasn't punching Zimmerman and that the struggle, from the beginning, was over a gun that Zimmerman pulled on him, probably in an attempt to keep Trayvon in place until the police came. Trayvon, not knowing that was the nut cases intent, feared for his life and tried to get the gun away from Zimmerman.
In addition, everyone I know who has heard the tape says those are the screams of a young person, not of an adult male. The jury doesn't need any voice analysts to come to the same conclusion...only their own ears.
And Rachel Jeantel, an unsophisticated young teen adult and reluctant witness, whose innocent lie to Trayvon's mother, made before there was even a legal case, snowballed when she got dragged into a recording session and then a rushed deposition (where in her naivete she did not know it was important to pull out every detail and to be assertive in the face of authority) was never-the-less able to be Travon's voice for him and came across as authentic and credible.
yellowcanine
(36,792 posts)So someone pointing a gun at Trayvon would not make him yell for help??????
How do you conclude that?
It is kind of a moot point anyway. Getting the worst of a physical altercation after being the aggressor (and there is ample physical evidence for that) does not justify the use of lethal force, even in Florida. "Stand your ground" does not mean you can pursue and initiate a confrontation with someone who has done absolutely nothing to you. The person who had a self defense justification was Trayvon, not Zimmerman, based on everything I have heard so far. We will see what the jury says.
Rex
(65,616 posts)So if someone pulled a gun on you, you WOULDN'T yell for help?
Kinda a no brainer there.
mzmolly
(52,793 posts)He said he was being suffocated while screaming for help. That can be proven false, quite easily. Common sense also deems that Trayvon screamed for help. A boy can be heard on that tape, not a nasally grown coward. Further, Zimmerman has not a single defense wound to his hands. Not one.
adric mutelovic
(208 posts)Or is this a new revelation from her?
quinnox
(20,600 posts)I haven't been following this case that closely, I just happened to catch it on the news today. She seemed very credible to me however, in her testimony.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)it totally defies logic to think Zimmerman was standing there with a fucking gun yelling for help right before he shot the kid.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)This woman heard screaming but two eye witnesses put Zimmerman on his back and one said he was being hit. The police officer observed grass on the back of Zimmerman's jacket. He had injuries on the back of his head and his nose was swollen.
Right now I would put my money on Zimmerman being the one who was screaming, but maybe further testimony will change my mind.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)The two were seen standing with arms flailing. The best way to account for your scenario of Trayvon being on top is that Trayvon may have already been tying to ward off Zimmerman's gun while they were upright, and then they lose their balance together. Trayvon lands on top of Zimmerman, who lands on his back, (hence the slight nose injury and several small abrasions on the back of his head). Trayvon struggles to keep the gun pointed away from him, he's losing the struggle and begs Zimmerman to stop, but Zimmerman is indifferent to his pleas, so Trayvon then starts to scream for help, from anyone...anyone, but no one comes. Zimmerman presses the gun against Trayvon's shirt aiming right at his heart and pulls the trigger. The screams end immediately after Trayvon is shot.
Zimmerman is already standing, probably having just shoved the dying Trayvon away from him as gravity pulled the dead boy down so that his upper body landed face down with his arms underneath him and Zimmerman wiggled his legs out from underneath the dead weight of Trayvon's legs, when a guy he apparently knows approaches the two. Instead of attempting to give Trayvon CPR or asking the guy to help give Trayvon medical assistance or to even call for an ambulance, he tells the guy to call his wife and tell her he shot someone.
That is depraved indifference to me.
Everyone I know who hears the screams has said they sound like they are of a teen not an adult male.
We'll see, but I think the case rests on who the jury believes is screaming.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I know it sounds crazy, but maybe, just maybe, his eyes didn't deceive him.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)and isn't he the one who changed his statement as to what he saw?
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:22 PM - Edit history (1)
Correction: His later statement confirms that he saw Martin on top, but it says that martin was either throwing punches or holding Zimmerman down.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)"huh"? as far as that witness goes.
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/jurors-reflect-complexities-zimmerman-case/nYPXx/
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2013/06/25/grading-opening-statements
Vattel
(9,289 posts)The bottom line is that you have the only close-up eye witness placing Zimmerman on his back with Martin on top throwing punches. You can always say "Well maybe the witness is lying" or "He actually saw Zimmerman on top," but given that Zimmerman was observed by a police officer to have wet grass on the back of his jacket and given his injuries, you reveal your bias if you believe that Zimmerman was the one on top throwing punches.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)as to what all went on in the fight. I have no doubt they tussled, and may have switched positions at some time. Or struck each other when upright and fell down. Or a lot of other things. I am trying to pass on info that ZIMMY was the one TRAINED in mma while one witness says he saw Trayvon "striking in a way that resembled mma" which makes me wonder about the witness and the fight.
If my "bias" is that I feel Zimmerman killed Trayvon unneccessarily? I do. If my "bias" is that I doubt the fight happened as Zimmy says (Trayvon attacked him, knocked him down, suffocated him with both hands which made him scream loud enough for the neighbors to hear while pounding his head into the pavement enough he felt he was going to pass out), well, Zimmy has proven to be unreliable and the facts don't add up.
If you believe all that, you reveal your bias.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)You and I don't know whether the confrontation and fight happened like Zimmerman said it did. And what eyewitnesses say is consistent with Zimmerman's story. I would be shocked if the prosecution nevertheless manages to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman threw the first punch, or brandished his gun prior to the fight, or that he did not reasonably fear grave bodily harm when he shot Martin. Of course, the jury might convict Zimmerman anyways.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)from the beginning in each of his statements? What is the guy's name and do you have links to (from what I understand) his various statements? Need more info before discussing this aspect further, otherwise I'll just wait till he testifies and see if his testimony is believable and he is a credible witness.
Regardless of positioning, I hear a teen's voice screaming for help on the tape, not an adult's, and after Zimmerman shoots Trayvon, the screams immediately stop. There is no doubt in my mind that it is Trayvon who is screaming.
On top of that, it simply makes no logical sense that Zimmerman, the heavier (4 weight classes heavier than Trayvon), stronger man with the gun, who had been taking kickboxing and MMA classes (at a gym billed as the best MMA gym in the world) for the year and a half prior to the murder, would be the one screaming.
In addition, Zimmerman initially denied he was the one screaming and made a statement to the police that the screaming "doesn't even sound like me". Zimmerman was not saying that in an abstract context..he was there...and was one of only two possible people at the scene who could have been screaming. Remember, this statement was made when he was claiming an SYG defense, so it wouldn't have mattered under that defense who was screaming, and it was made before his father, the judge, or an attorney could coach him in what to say. This statement only began to matter when he switched his claim to self-defense, and ever since then he has claimed that he was the one screaming. His initial statement carries more weight and I think the jury will find that it has the ring of truth to it.
As I am typing this, I have come to the decision that I'm not even willing anymore to debate WHO was screaming, as it's clear to me it is Trayvon, but as to positioning, I'm still open...
Vattel
(9,289 posts)If you are certain that it is Martin screaming, then you should reconsider. Frankly, the idea that it couldn't be Zimmerman screaming because it sounds like the voice of a juvenile is ridiculous. And Zimmerman right from the start said he was yelling for help; so you don't have your facts straight. (If you don't believe me, read his initial written statement to the police. He said he yelled "Help" several times.) He did say that the screaming on the tape didn't sound like him, but that is not a denial that he was screaming.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2013, 10:11 AM - Edit history (1)
Happy to do the research, if I have a name! As I said, am convinced on the scream...not going to debate that aspect of the case anymore.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)This is a great link. Having listened to the recording of the later interviews, I should mention that the witness in question revised his initial account by saying that although the lighter-skinned man was on bottom, he couldn't be sure that the man on top was throwing punches or just trying to hold Zimmerman down.
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)uppityperson
(116,020 posts)about the witness, still don't know if they are credible, that said TM was doing MMA type moves.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:05 PM - Edit history (1)
Can't seem to get it from the poster who is asserting that this witness saw the two males in particular positions.
Yes, and I wonder why that, up until just last month, Zimmerman's defense never said a THING about Zimmerman taking classes at an MMA fighting gym for all that time before the murder. Instead, they were putting out insinuations that Trayvon was somehow the one making MMA-style punches, while knowing full well that Zimmerman was definitely trained in those fight movements. Zimmerman has not only made so many lies leading up to the trial, and lied about and tried to hide his assets and passport, but his whole defense team has behaved so sleazy and lied themselves.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)says they are the screams of a juvenile and not those of an adult.
angrychair
(12,281 posts)But surprised by a lot of the comments here. Martin was innocent of any wrong-doing. Period. He was walking home, maybe cutting through yards to do it or even taking the long way home while talking to his girlfriend. So what. it is NOT Zimmerman's call. He is not a cop. He is not even a rent-a-cop. He is normal "John Q. Citizen" with no more obligation than to contact the police if he thinks something is wrong. Someone here stated "if he was walking through my property I'd follow him too" well first, he wasn't on Zimmerman's property. Zimmerman did contact police. Despite being asked NOT TO DO IT, got out of his car and created a confrontation with Martin. Owning a gun DOES NOT make you the police or turn you into Deputy Dogshit because you see someone you THINK might be doing something wrong. It is very clear at this point that several people witnessed bits and pieces of everything that happened, both before and during. So it was not as if Martin was tip-toeing around and hiding in shadows, peeking in windows and such. The final confrontation occurred next to a sidewalk in-between houses well away from the road and where Zimmerman left his car to follow and confront Martin. It is as plain and simple as this: Zimmerman created a confrontation where none had existed. There is no debate on that point. If he had stayed in his car, as requested by the police, the event that changed his life and ended Martin's life, would not have occurred.
lunasun
(21,646 posts)
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)Other than that error of fact, I agree with what you said.
LINK: https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=1042
At time 2:10 Z gets out of the car
At time 2:23 the dispatcher figures out what is happening and tells asks Z if he is following him.
At time 2:26 the dispatcher says, "We don't need you to do that.:
At time 2:28 Z says, "OK."
angrychair
(12,281 posts)Last edited Thu Jun 27, 2013, 01:48 AM - Edit history (1)
"Please proceed Governor"
meaning: Please explain your broader point. Why do you feel the need to make that point? Nothing I said was meant to be a literal account of the series of events that lead to Martin's death. Typically, when people split hairs like that on this specific issue it is an attempt to allude to their bigger point, that since the police didn't specifically tell Zimmerman to not confront Martin (i.e. "do not do that" Vs. "we don't need you to do that" that by not saying "NO, do not do that" that the 911 operator's statement was a suggestion as opposed to a command. That a 911 operator isn't really a police officer and therefore Zimmerman was under no obligation to follow that request. I hate that ignorant line of reasoning. The meaning is clear. The intent of the 911 operator's statement is unambiguous. Zimmerman's actions, i.e. Zimmerman following Martin, Zimmerman confronting Martin, was not a good idea and that they did not need him to do that. The reason why Zimmerman was told "We don't need you to do that" should be very clear to him at this point.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)On things like this I consider accuracy to be vital.
angrychair
(12,281 posts)Typically people have a bigger point when it comes to that. I agree that my original statement was not specific. I concede your point. Thanks for keeping me honest
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Zimmerman claims that Martin confronted him. No eyewitness contradicts that.
Dawgs
(14,755 posts)Because that's what it look like.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)
Myrina
(12,296 posts).... and then at some point pulled a gun & shot him, essentially point blank.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I didn't think that gave me the right to physically assault my follower. And no, I don't know that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. I don't know what happened that led to Martin being on top of Zimmerman and then Zimmerman shooting Martin. Neither does the jury, and I doubt that the evidence presented in the trial will change that. Unless the prosecutors have some serious evidence up their sleeves, Zimmerman should be acquitted.
Response to quinnox (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
uppityperson
(116,020 posts)Also, posting nasty photoshops will not go over well here.
grok
(550 posts)The ONE irrefutable piece of evidence that will put gz in the clink for sure...
flvegan
(66,279 posts)Considering, that is.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 4, 2013, 12:16 PM - Edit history (1)
is playing the part of a juror. As a 'juror', Quinnox has formed an opinion based on what a witness said. WITNESSES are deposed, not jurors.
