Posted on 05/18/2012 5:58:15 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Trayvon Martin's death was “avoidable.”
That’s the conclusion of a new police report on the unarmed teen’s killing at the hands of George Zimmerman in Sanford, Fla.
"The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely, if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern," the document by Sanford, Fla. Police said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
Hmmm, according to police and ME reports, skittle boy’s knuckles are all mashed up and then we have Zimmerman’s face all mashed up.
Did Zimmerman decide to assault skittle boy’s knuckles with his face?
Hmmmm...please post a link to any reliable witness who saw Martin start the fight. Without one your post is speculation.
Show me where in John's statement he says that he saw the beginning of the fight.
Here's a little help...he doesn't.
“then I think Zimmerman would have been arrested on the night of the incident. Since he would have failed to follow the rules and standards of the neighborhood watch program - no guns allowed”
Those are just rules, though, right? I don’t assume it’s illegal for neighborhood watchmen to carry weapons. Breaking the rules oughtn’t to remove your right to self-defense. I suppose it could tip the scales in favor of supposing you were out looking for trouble and therefore probably started the fight. But then the preponderance of evidence should also show that, and not in the manner that Zimmerman leaving his car is pretended to prove he started it.
What I’m saying is, it would only be one out of many bits of evidence. After all, don’t vigilantes get to defend themselves, too, so long as others attack them? Even if they’re out looking for a fight, I mean, and through discipline restrict themselves to waiting for a fight to come to them. Or is that a form of entrapment?
Zimmerman’s brother said that Zimmerman said they were struggling for the gun. And, you avoided the question...did you ever see anybody start a fight and then get his ass kicked? It’s simple...either yes or no will suffice.
Anyone who doesn't cower behind the curtains and let the "professionals" handle it is a "macho fool."
Add in his pathological inability to admit, "hey, I was wrong," and he's not hard to figure out at all.
__________________________
Really? It shows that he never grabbed or pushed or punched in the chest...none of which would leave a mark on Zimmerman or Martin?,P>
It shows that he didn't show the gun or reach for it?
Please explain in detail (AND WITHOUT SHOUTING) exactly how the evidence shows this.
_______________________________
Hey, trailer park badass - post a link proving Martin attacked Zimmerman and I'll say "sure, absolutely I was wrong". Go ahead...post it.
Zimmerman himself also told police that Martin saw his gun and went for the weapon. At which time they struggled and he shot Martin.
And yes, I have seen someone start a fight and then lose. I am currently involved in such a thing on a blog, where this guy, completely devoid of reality, started speculating things which do not match the evidence. He is losing the fight, but doesn’t even realize it - it is almost sad.
_________________________________
THC lingers in the system for days in the occasional user and for weeks in the habitual user. Trace amounts in the system do not mean that the person was stoned. It means that at sometime in the past days or weeks he smoked.
I chose this line to highlight - it backs my outrage. That said, I could have chosen any line you wrote - highlighted it - and agreed with it. You're good - realistic and knowledgeable. I assume you've had experience in law enforcement and that you're a good person. Thanks for sharing.
“Sorry but all you state is evidence that there was a fight and that Zimmerman was losing”
I’m sorry if you’re not aware that analysis of wounds can be used to suggest which party was the attacker and which defended themselves, and that this is considered evidence. But that’s the case, and if Zimmerman was the attacker you would expect to see different wounds on himself and Martin. The eye witness testimony is less robust, but it does show that at some point Martin was on top of Zimmerman, as Zimmerman said, and that at some point Martin turned into the aggressor if he wasn’t to begin with.
If Zimmerman was losing a fight he started, as you and Zimmerman agree he eventually was, he would have to have been losing from the very beginning. As in, he didn’t get in any blows, or any blows of great consequence, at all. Which is possible, but again, we’re only looking for evidence that Martin started it, not absolute proof.
You are correct to assert nothing proves beyond a reasonable doubt Martin was the attacker. But I’m not seeking to do so, and all you asked for was evidence Martin was the attacker. Well, there you go.
_____________________________
Then tell us exactly how you know for a fact that this is not what happened, especially given the fact that Zimmerman was pro-active (if not aggressive) in following Martin and Martin had, according to Zimmerman himself, tried to avoid contact by running away.
“As for Zimmerman’s statement...I don’t believe it any more than I would have believed Martin’s statement had he ended up the one still living. It is self-serving and, without any neutral corroborating statements, should be seen as such”
Ah, but you must know, I’m sure, the way these things are used is to test them against the evidence. If the defendant’s comments and testimony don’t jive with the evidence it doesn’t automatically mean he’s guilty, nor does it mean he’s innocent if they do. But his statements lining up with the evidence can in itself be treated as evidence of his innocence. And I’m not aware of one instance in which Zimmerman’s account of events is contradicted by the police report, the 9-11 tape, the medical evidence, eye witness testimony, etc.
Of course, one reason his story isn’t contradicted by what we know of who started the fight is that we don’t have any direct, inarguable evidence of who started it. But that doesn’t mean his statements fitting with the known evidence isn’t itself evidence.
__________________________________
Please show where, in law, a suggestion is evidence.
The point is a simple one. There are many freepers swearing that Martin attacked Zimmerman and getting truly upset when asked for proof. Regardless of how upset they get, none can provide proof beyond 'suggestions'.
“Martin had THC in his system, so you are completely wrong in your claim. He was stoned, that is illegal and it was in his system during this episode. Care to retract the above claim?”
Well, the previous poster made a claim about Martin’s actions “in this episode.” THC, or the remnants thereof, stay in your body for a while. I’m not sure we’ve been given a time frame for what they found in Martin, but presumably they won’t be able to determine whether he was high at the time of the attack, or had gotten high at some point prior.
The court will consider his statement to be self-serving. The SC has declared that it is assumed that anybody will lie to mitigate responsibility or punishment. I do not take his statement as fully truthful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.