George Zimmerman's bloody head

[Liability]

This takes a brand new assumption. Another what IF.

What IF Zimmerman was making a citizen's arrest?

He wasn't. This is more mucking up the issue.

Well, yeah. Maybe. But still. What if Kal-el had landed in Nazi Germany instead of Smallville?

It amazes me to the core that nobody is ever willing to address that one.

Dann natürlich würden wir alle bezahlen tributue an das Vaterland und sprechen Deutsch.



Dann natürlich würden wir alle bezahlen tributue an das Vaterland und sprechen Deutsch.

>>>>

And what impact would that have had on the Zimmerman/Martin case?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well, yeah. Maybe. But still. What if Kal-el had landed in Nazi Germany instead of Smallville?

It amazes me to the core that nobody is ever willing to address that one.

Dann natürlich würden wir alle bezahlen tributue an das Vaterland und sprechen Deutsch.



Dann natürlich würden wir alle bezahlen tributue an das Vaterland und sprechen Deutsch.

>>>>

And what impact would that have had on the Zimmerman/Martin case?

None.

But then on the other hand the butterfly effect would mean that it was such a large disruption to the time line that the Zimmerman/Martin case would likely have never occurred since it is likely that if Kal-el had been raised a Nazi then the Axis Powers would have lost WWII.





>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, they must have a reasonable belief that the person committed a felony. Nothing about Martin points to a conclusion that he had just committed a felony before his death.

Yep, I did misquote that. thanks for the correction.

Not to mention that a citizen's arrest forbids deadly force.

So does the law about police arresting people, yet they kill people all the time. Do you honestly have a point?

AND they get investigated when they kill someone, as they should. And cases that appear to be murder or manslaughter should be brought before the court. That IS the point.

They get investigated, and they routinely get cleared of any wrongdoing.

Again, what is your point?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When you think about the hypothesis that you are presenting in a general application you end up with something along these lines: "One person can lawfully detain another unknown person who the detainer observes committing a felony. In addition a person can detain an unknown person who is not committing a felony simply by claiming that they believe that the person may have committed a felony at some point in the past and that they would have immunity from their actions by claiming they thought it was possible the person committed a felony."

There you go jumping to a false conclusion again, is this how you get your exercise?

Do you understand the term "reasonable belief?" That does not allow you to make up stories and detain people, that is not a reasonable belief by any stretch of the imagination. Try it and the police will happily cart you off to jail for kidnapping, and the prosecutor won't have any trouble winning a conviction.

That is my understanding of what you position appears to be, that all Zimmerman has to do is claim that he thought Martin was committing a felony without any actual justification and that the police and a "reasonable person" would then accept that. Well speaking as a reasonable person I would not accept that. If you are going to claim citizens arrest which is only authorized for felony actions, then you would have the responsibility of defining the actions the unknown person was doing that would describe a felonious situation.

If that is truly your understanding of my position you are a fracking idiot. I don't believe that, so my only alternative is to conclude you are trying to troll me, and failing miserably.

At this point the only information available to the public is Zimmerman's dispatcher call. A call he made to a non-emergency number which right there indicates that Zimmerman was not observing a serious crime. If Zimmerman was observing a felony, a reasonable person would assume that Zimmerman would have called 911 - the emergency number to be called when a crime is in the process of being committed. Then we have the contents of the dispatcher where Zimmerman uses vague generality to describe Martin's actions such as: "suspicious", "looks like he's up to no good", "on drugs or something". Zimmerman goes on to say "he's walking around the area". That description alone means that Martin was not in the process of hot-wiring a car, was not attempting to rape someone, was not attempting to kidnap someone, was not in the process of burglarizing a home. That according to Zimmerman he was walking around and that in Zimmerman's mind he was "suspicious", but was not exhibiting a behavior that was felonious.

Yet you want to argue that, based on the fact that no information has come out that Zimmerman did not try to detain Martin, he might have tried to detain Martin, and this will allow the state to argue that he does not have a right to claim self defense. Then you want to get all faux intelligent and point out that you are only presenting scenarios, when you are actually attempting to manufacture evidence.

If the evidence does not support your theory, the theory is wrong, don't you watch CSI?

The example you provide above "someone breaking into a car and hot wiring it" is an example of felonious behavior that the police and a reasonable person would accept as felonious behavior even if it was later shown that the unknown person was the legal owner or their representative. You yourself provide an example of where the observed BEHAVIOR is felonious as justification, and a logical one at that. Zimmerman's description of Martin just ""he's walking around the area" is not a felonious act.

Never said it was. What I am arguing is that your insistence that you understand the law is absurd. Your initial claim was that someone had to observe a felony in order to be able to justify a citizen's arrest, I described a situation where no one actually observed a felony, yet a citizen's arrest was justified. Now I will further prove your assertion that someone has to actually observe felonious behavior in order to justify one is still absurd.

You get a call from someone you know to be a law enforcement official that a certain person is wanted for murder. When you later come across that person you detain that person, even though he insists he didn't do anything. The police show up and investigate, and they determiner that the officer who called you had a personal beef with the person, and that he lied to you. You did not know this, no one committed any felony, no one actually saw any felonious behavior, yet, under Florida law, you would still be justified in detaining him because your belief was reasonable.

If Zimmerman said Martin looked like he was attempting to hot-wire a car, to use your example, then it would be an entirely different matter. What this situation is though that we have Zimmerman attempting to follow Martin for nothing more that he was "he's walking around the area" and Zimmerman thinking he was "suspicious".

Zimmerman had every right to think Martin was suspicious. Since no evidence exist that indicates Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin, I have no idea why you keep trying to bring the discussion back to them. My point is still the same, you misinterpreted the law about citizen's arrests in Florida, just like you misinterpreted the law about use of force.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This takes a brand new assumption. Another what IF.

What IF Zimmerman was making a citizen's arrest?

He wasn't. This is more mucking up the issue.

Well, yeah. Maybe. But still. What if Kal-el had landed in Nazi Germany instead of Smallville?

It amazes me to the core that nobody is ever willing to address that one.

You would be surprised what has been addressed in the Superman mythos.

Superman: Red Son - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Liability]

Dann natürlich würden wir alle bezahlen tributue an das Vaterland und sprechen Deutsch.



Dann natürlich würden wir alle bezahlen tributue an das Vaterland und sprechen Deutsch.

>>>>

And what impact would that have had on the Zimmerman/Martin case?

None.

But then on the other hand the butterfly effect would mean that it was such a large disruption to the time line that the Zimmerman/Martin case would likely have never occurred since it is likely that if Kal-el had been raised a Nazi then the Axis Powers would have lost WWII.





>>>>

None? If Ubermensch had landed in Nazi Germany, obviously the Axis Powers vould have von the war. And if zat happened, ze Joooooz vould be no more!

Zimmerman therefore vould never have exeeested since his forebears vould haff been eeeliminated.

Landings have consequences.

 

[KissMy]

So much for the size advantage myth in a fight.

600lbs Sumo Vs 169lbs MMA Fighter = 483lb weight advantage.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWxlZ52O0rI"]600lbs Sumo Vs 169lbs MMA Fighter[/ame]

 

[WorldWatcher]

When you think about the hypothesis that you are presenting in a general application you end up with something along these lines: "One person can lawfully detain another unknown person who the detainer observes committing a felony. In addition a person can detain an unknown person who is not committing a felony simply by claiming that they believe that the person may have committed a felony at some point in the past and that they would have immunity from their actions by claiming they thought it was possible the person committed a felony."

There you go jumping to a false conclusion again, is this how you get your exercise?

Do you understand the term "reasonable belief?" That does not allow you to make up stories and detain people, that is not a reasonable belief by any stretch of the imagination. Try it and the police will happily cart you off to jail for kidnapping, and the prosecutor won't have any trouble winning a conviction.

Yes I understand reasonable belief which is why I agree that a person cannot attempt to unlawfully detain someone unless they have a "reasonable belief" that a felony has been committed.

Nothing in the information we have at t his point is that Zimmerman had ANY belief that Martin was committing a felony. Nothing in the dispatch call would lead a reasonable person to believe that Zimmerman had observed a felony, nothing in what has been released/leaked about his 5-6 hours with the police that night lead us to believe that he observed Martin committing a felony.

That is my understanding of what you position appears to be, that all Zimmerman has to do is claim that he thought Martin was committing a felony without any actual justification and that the police and a "reasonable person" would then accept that. Well speaking as a reasonable person I would not accept that. If you are gong to claim citizens arrest which is only authorized for felony actions, then you would have the responsibility of defining the actions the unknown person was doing that would describe a felonious situation.

If that is truly your understanding of my position you are a fracking idiot. I don't believe that, so my only alternative is to conclude you are trying to troll me, and failing miserably.

Are not you the one that said all that Zimmerman has to do is "believe"? How do we determine what Zimmerman "believes"?

Would there not have to be some type of corroboration? For example, in the example you previously proposed there would be evidence of someone hot-wiring a car. In the example later in this post you will proposed that a law enforcement officer identified someone as a felon.

Both examples you provide demonstrate behavior which a reasonable person can then conclude that the individual had a justifiable belief that the individual to be detained had or was committing a felony. Nothing Zimmerman indicated in the dispatcher call indicated Martin was doing anything felonious. Walking through a housing development is not a felony and Zimmerman described no actions which would qualify.

Yet you want to argue that, based on the fact that no information has come out that Zimmerman did not try to detain Martin, he might have tried to detain Martin, and this will allow the state to argue that he does not have a right to claim self defense. Then you want to get all faux intelligent and point out that you are only presenting scenarios, when you are actually attempting to manufacture evidence.

Presenting multiple possibilities that meet the known facts is what a scenario is. I've not attempted to manufacture any evidence, I've described possibilities that fit the evidence.

Very different.

If the evidence does not support your theory, the theory is wrong, don't you watch CSI?

Life is not a TV show where all the answers are arrived at in 44-minutes.

Presently the known evidence fits (not supports, fits) multiple theories, when new evidence is revealed then there are at least 3 possibilities: (a) one theory is confirmed, (b) all theories are rejected, (c) an existing theory is modified to account for the new evidence, (d) the evidence requires the creation of a totally new theory.

Although I like CSI when Bill Peterson was on, I prefer Sherlock Holmes when he said "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains--however improbable--must be the truth." I always liked that turn of phrase because it implies that you take the opposite approach from most people. Instead of examining evidence to come to a conclusion, examine the possibilities and use the evidence to exclude them.

The example you provide above "someone breaking into a car and hot wiring it" is an example of felonious behavior that the police and a reasonable person would accept as felonious behavior even if it was later shown that the unknown person was the legal owner or their representative. You yourself provide an example of where the observed BEHAVIOR is felonious as justification, and a logical one at that. Zimmerman's description of Martin just ""he's walking around the area" is not a felonious act.

Never said it was. What I am arguing is that your insistence that you understand the law is absurd. Your initial claim was that someone had to observe a felony in order to be able to justify a citizen's arrest, I described a situation where no one actually observed a felony, yet a citizen's arrest was justified. Now I will further prove your assertion that someone has to actually observe felonious behavior in order to justify one is still absurd.

In the example you provided (hot wiring a car) and individual was exhibiting a behavior consistent with a felonious act; hot wiring a car to steal it. Zimmerman, to our knowledge, ever indicated that Martin was performing a felonious act.

You get a call from someone you know to be a law enforcement official that a certain person is wanted for murder. When you later come across that person you detain that person, even though he insists he didn't do anything. The police show up and investigate, and they determiner that the officer who called you had a personal beef with the person, and that he lied to you. You did not know this, no one committed any felony, no one actually saw any felonious behavior, yet, under Florida law, you would still be justified in detaining him because your belief was reasonable.

A reasonable person would believe, based on the word of a known law enforcement officer that, that the individual had committed a felony.

I assumed, which I know I probably should have done, that you understood the context would have applied to Zimmerman observing Martin. Guess I shouldn't have made that assumption.

If Zimmerman said Martin looked like he was attempting to hot-wire a car, to use your example, then it would be an entirely different matter. What this situation is though that we have Zimmerman attempting to follow Martin for nothing more that he was "he's walking around the area" and Zimmerman thinking he was "suspicious".

Zimmerman had every right to think Martin was suspicious. Since no evidence exist that indicates Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin, I have no idea why you keep trying to bring the discussion back to them. My point is still the same, you misinterpreted the law about citizen's arrests in Florida, just like you misinterpreted the law about use of force.

1. You wonder why I bring the discussion back to Zimmerman and Martin in a thread about Zimmerman and Martin? That seems a little odd.

2. I've said multiple times, MULTIPLE TIMES - that there is no evidence available to the public of Zimmerman attempting to detain Martin.

3. Since Zimmerman has made no indication during the dispatcher call that Martin's actions were in anyway felonious, there is no reason to assume he was attempting a lawful detention of Martin. Unless Martin was committing a felony, citizens arrest wouldn't apply, so if Zimmerman had tried to detain Martin it would have been unlawful.

4. I've not misinterpreted the law in Florida pertaining to citizen's arrest because I didn't bring up the law about citizens arrest. Since it was you that seems to be obsessing, as pointed out earlier, it's your responsibility to post the law that applies. To date I have not seen you link to the Florida Statues about citizen's arrest and so how can I misinterpret a law to which you've provided no link?


>>>>

 

[Ravi]

There are no real laws in Florida about a citizen's arrest. A citizen's arrest is treated like a police officer's arrest out of his/her jurisdiction. And police officers are not allowed to use unjustifiable force.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So much for the size advantage myth in a fight.

600lbs Sumo Vs 169lbs MMA Fighter = 431lb weight advantage.

600lbs Sumo Vs 169lbs MMA Fighter

I must agree with this. A 6'3" compared to a 5'8" size advantage doesn't really tell you that Martin didn't accost Zimmerman. On the other hand an adavantage of 200 lbs over a 160 lbs person doesn't really tell you that Zimmerman didn't accost Martin either.

You are correct.

Size advantage is not indicative of who starts a fight. Still could have been Martin or Zimmerman.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

When you think about the hypothesis that you are presenting in a general application you end up with something along these lines: "One person can lawfully detain another unknown person who the detainer observes committing a felony. In addition a person can detain an unknown person who is not committing a felony simply by claiming that they believe that the person may have committed a felony at some point in the past and that they would have immunity from their actions by claiming they thought it was possible the person committed a felony."

There you go jumping to a false conclusion again, is this how you get your exercise?

Do you understand the term "reasonable belief?" That does not allow you to make up stories and detain people, that is not a reasonable belief by any stretch of the imagination. Try it and the police will happily cart you off to jail for kidnapping, and the prosecutor won't have any trouble winning a conviction.

Yes I understand reasonable belief which is why I agree that a person cannot attempt to unlawfully detain someone unless they have a "reasonable belief" that a felony has been committed.

Nothing in the information we have at t his point is that Zimmerman had ANY belief that Martin was committing a felony. Nothing in the dispatch call would lead a reasonable person to believe that Zimmerman had observed a felony, nothing in what has been released/leaked about his 5-6 hours with the police that night lead us to believe that he observed Martin committing a felony.



Are not you the one that said all that Zimmerman has to do is "believe"? How do we determine what Zimmerman "believes"?

Would there not have to be some type of corroboration? For example, in the example you previously proposed there would be evidence of someone hot-wiring a car. In the example later in this post you will proposed that a law enforcement officer identified someone as a felon.

Both examples you provide demonstrate behavior which a reasonable person can then conclude that the individual had a justifiable belief that the individual to be detained had or was committing a felony. Nothing Zimmerman indicated in the dispatcher call indicated Martin was doing anything felonious. Walking through a housing development is not a felony and Zimmerman described no actions which would qualify.



Presenting multiple possibilities that meet the known facts is what a scenario is. I've not attempted to manufacture any evidence, I've described possibilities that fit the evidence.

Very different.




Life is not a TV show where all the answers are arrived at in 44-minutes.

Presently the known evidence fits (not supports, fits) multiple theories, when new evidence is revealed then there are at least 3 possibilities: (a) one theory is confirmed, (b) all theories are rejected, (c) an existing theory is modified to account for the new evidence, (d) the evidence requires the creation of a totally new theory.

Although I like CSI when Bill Peterson was on, I prefer Sherlock Holmes when he said "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains--however improbable--must be the truth." I always liked that turn of phrase because it implies that you take the opposite approach from most people. Instead of examining evidence to come to a conclusion, examine the possibilities and use the evidence to exclude them.




In the example you provided (hot wiring a car) and individual was exhibiting a behavior consistent with a felonious act; hot wiring a car to steal it. Zimmerman, to our knowledge, ever indicated that Martin was performing a felonious act.



A reasonable person would believe, based on the word of a known law enforcement officer that, that the individual had committed a felony.

I assumed, which I know I probably should have done, that you understood the context would have applied to Zimmerman observing Martin. Guess I shouldn't have made that assumption.

If Zimmerman said Martin looked like he was attempting to hot-wire a car, to use your example, then it would be an entirely different matter. What this situation is though that we have Zimmerman attempting to follow Martin for nothing more that he was "he's walking around the area" and Zimmerman thinking he was "suspicious".

Zimmerman had every right to think Martin was suspicious. Since no evidence exist that indicates Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin, I have no idea why you keep trying to bring the discussion back to them. My point is still the same, you misinterpreted the law about citizen's arrests in Florida, just like you misinterpreted the law about use of force.

1. You wonder why I bring the discussion back to Zimmerman and Martin in a thread about Zimmerman and Martin? That seems a little odd.

2. I've said multiple times, MULTIPLE TIMES - that there is no evidence available to the public of Zimmerman attempting to detain Martin.

3. Since Zimmerman has made no indication during the dispatcher call that Martin's actions were in anyway felonious, there is no reason to assume he was attempting a lawful detention of Martin. Unless Martin was committing a felony, citizens arrest wouldn't apply, so if Zimmerman had tried to detain Martin it would have been unlawful.

4. I've not misinterpreted the law in Florida pertaining to citizen's arrest because I didn't bring up the law about citizens arrest. Since it was you that seems to be obsessing, as pointed out earlier, it's your responsibility to post the law that applies. To date I have not seen you link to the Florida Statues about citizen's arrest and so how can I misinterpret a law to which you've provided no link?


>>>>

I stopped reading your post when you mentioned Zimmerman.

Guess what, not everything in the universe revolves around Zimmerman, If you cannot have a simple discussion about something that does not revolve around him without mentioning him, how can you possibly have a discussion about anything that does involve him.

Try this again, this time without mentioning Zimmerman.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There are no real laws in Florida about a citizen's arrest. A citizen's arrest is treated like a police officer's arrest out of his/her jurisdiction. And police officers are not allowed to use unjustifiable force.

Except when they are, because no police officer, prosecutor, or judge wants to upset the police by holding them accountable for breaking a law.

Do you have a fracking point, or are you just going to repeat absurdities until I stop asking if you have a point?

 

[WorldWatcher]

I stopped reading your post when you mentioned Zimmerman.

Guess what, not everything in the universe revolves around Zimmerman, If you cannot have a simple discussion about something that does not revolve around him without mentioning him, how can you possibly have a discussion about anything that does involve him.

Try this again, this time without mentioning Zimmerman.

If you don't want to discuss Zimmerman and Martin in the "George Zimmerman's bloody head" thread, well I guess that's your choice. Have a nice day.

BTW - If you decide to start a new thread on a more generalized topic, please PM me a link. I might choose to participate.


>>>>

 

[Cecilie1200]

And what impact would that have had on the Zimmerman/Martin case?

None.

But then on the other hand the butterfly effect would mean that it was such a large disruption to the time line that the Zimmerman/Martin case would likely have never occurred since it is likely that if Kal-el had been raised a Nazi then the Axis Powers would have lost WWII.





>>>>

None? If Ubermensch had landed in Nazi Germany, obviously the Axis Powers vould have von the war. And if zat happened, ze Joooooz vould be no more!

Zimmerman therefore vould never have exeeested since his forebears vould haff been eeeliminated.

Landings have consequences.

Honestly, even if he had landed in Nazi Germany, the whole thing would still depend on the kind of people who found and raised him. There was an entire "alternate world" miniseries called "The Nail" that posited that Ma and Pa Kent got a flat tire the day they would have found him, and so he was found and raised by Amish people instead.

Germany under the Nazis was still full of good people, many of whom risked their lives to help the Jews. So . . .

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I stopped reading your post when you mentioned Zimmerman.

Guess what, not everything in the universe revolves around Zimmerman, If you cannot have a simple discussion about something that does not revolve around him without mentioning him, how can you possibly have a discussion about anything that does involve him.

Try this again, this time without mentioning Zimmerman.

If you don't want to discuss Zimmerman and Martin in the "George Zimmerman's bloody head" thread, well I guess that's your choice. Have a nice day.

BTW - If you decide to start a new thread on a more generalized topic, please PM me a link. I might choose to participate.


>>>>

Do you have something new to say about Zimmerman that you have not already said?

Didn't think so, yet you keep talking about him. We are talking about something that is not even tangential to what happened, yet you want to keep tying it to it. That just makes you look stupid.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

None.

But then on the other hand the butterfly effect would mean that it was such a large disruption to the time line that the Zimmerman/Martin case would likely have never occurred since it is likely that if Kal-el had been raised a Nazi then the Axis Powers would have lost WWII.





>>>>

None? If Ubermensch had landed in Nazi Germany, obviously the Axis Powers vould have von the war. And if zat happened, ze Joooooz vould be no more!

Zimmerman therefore vould never have exeeested since his forebears vould haff been eeeliminated.

Landings have consequences.

Honestly, even if he had landed in Nazi Germany, the whole thing would still depend on the kind of people who found and raised him. There was an entire "alternate world" miniseries called "The Nail" that posited that Ma and Pa Kent got a flat tire the day they would have found him, and so he was found and raised by Amish people instead.

Germany under the Nazis was still full of good people, many of whom risked their lives to help the Jews. So . . .

I loved that series.

 

[Ravi]

at QW. Gets his ass handed to him and pretends he didn't start down the garden path.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I stopped reading your post when you mentioned Zimmerman.

Guess what, not everything in the universe revolves around Zimmerman, If you cannot have a simple discussion about something that does not revolve around him without mentioning him, how can you possibly have a discussion about anything that does involve him.

Try this again, this time without mentioning Zimmerman.

If you don't want to discuss Zimmerman and Martin in the "George Zimmerman's bloody head" thread, well I guess that's your choice. Have a nice day.

BTW - If you decide to start a new thread on a more generalized topic, please PM me a link. I might choose to participate.


>>>>

Do you have something new to say about Zimmerman that you have not already said?

Not particularly.

There is now leaked information that Zimmerman in his after action statements said ((LINK):

1. Martin circled the truck three times,

Interesting because Zimmerman while on the phone and being recorded never made such a discription to the dispatcher.​

2. That Martin was attempting to get Zimmerman's gun,

Interesting because one has to wonder where was Zimmerman's gun? Did he GZ pull his gun early? Was it in a belt holster at the hip (and if so was GZ's jacket zipped or open making it visible)? Was it in a belt holster at the small of the back (meaning it was probably been hidden from Martin's view until GZ attempted to pull it)?​

3. Zimmerman claims Martin had his hands over his mouth.

Some may think this is proof that Zimmerman couldn't have been calling for help. Personally, IMHO, that isn't necessarily true. Fights are not a static moment in time, they flow so that different things can occur at different times.​

Didn't think so, yet you keep talking about him.

Talking about Zimmerman in the "George Zimmerman's bloody head" thread. Shocking.

We are talking about something that is not even tangential to what happened, yet you want to keep tying it to it. That just makes you look stupid.

I didn't claim Zimmerman was making a citizens arrest.

................I discuss citizens arrest as it would pertain to Zimmerman in the "George Zimmerman's bloody head".

.........................This makes me look stupid?

..................................Don't think so.



>>>>

 

[paperview]

Not particularly.

There is now leaked information that Zimmerman in his after action statements said ((LINK):

1. Martin circled the truck three times,

Interesting because Zimmerman while on the phone and being recorded never made such a discription to the dispatcher.​

2. That Martin was attempting to get Zimmerman's gun,

Interesting because one has to wonder where was Zimmerman's gun? Did he GZ pull his gun early? Was it in a belt holster at the hip (and if so was GZ's jacket zipped or open making it visible)? Was it in a belt holster at the small of the back (meaning it was probably been hidden from Martin's view until GZ attempted to pull it)?​

3. Zimmerman claims Martin had his hands over his mouth.

Some may think this is proof that Zimmerman couldn't have been calling for help. Personally, IMHO, that isn't necessarily true. Fights are not a static moment in time, they flow so that different things can occur at different times.​

...

1. Zimmerman, according to the statement he gave to the police that night, did say TM circled his vehicle. There was no three times though.

2. The police report notes he carried the gun in a holster in the front.

3. Z stated TM had both of his hands on Z's mouth and nose, and it was at that time TM was also trying to grab his gun, he was then able to scoot away and shoot.
Two things:
I have heard that 911 tape of screams at least 50 times now. The cries at the end (and a good portion through) are of the same person, to my ears, and AT the end, supposedly immediately after said suffocating, was not a muffled cry. That was full-throated.

Also, how many hands does it take to cover both hands over mouth and nose, *while* slamming a head into concrete, *while* trying to grab for a gun?

Answer: more than two.

 

[Ravi]

Not particularly.

There is now leaked information that Zimmerman in his after action statements said ((LINK):

1. Martin circled the truck three times,

Interesting because Zimmerman while on the phone and being recorded never made such a discription to the dispatcher.​

2. That Martin was attempting to get Zimmerman's gun,

Interesting because one has to wonder where was Zimmerman's gun? Did he GZ pull his gun early? Was it in a belt holster at the hip (and if so was GZ's jacket zipped or open making it visible)? Was it in a belt holster at the small of the back (meaning it was probably been hidden from Martin's view until GZ attempted to pull it)?​

3. Zimmerman claims Martin had his hands over his mouth.

Some may think this is proof that Zimmerman couldn't have been calling for help. Personally, IMHO, that isn't necessarily true. Fights are not a static moment in time, they flow so that different things can occur at different times.​

...

1. Zimmerman, according to the statement he gave to the police that night, did say TM circled his vehicle. There was no three times though.

2. The police report notes he carried the gun in a holster in the front.

3. Z stated TM had both of his hands on Z's mouth and nose, and it was at that time TM was also trying to grab his gun, he was then able to scoot away and shoot.
Two things:
I have heard that 911 tape of screams at least 50 times now. The cries at the end (and a good portion through) are of the same person, to my ears, and AT the end, supposedly immediately after said suffocating, was not a muffled cry. That was full-throated.

Also, how many hands does it take to cover both hands over mouth and nose, *while* slamming a head into concrete, *while* trying to grab for a gun?

Answer: more than two.

Do you have a link to that....he certainly didn't mention it to the person he spoke to during his non911 call.