New Witness...TRAYVON was beating Zimmerman up!

[Si modo]

Where did they take him for questioning? When did they do drug and alcohol tests on Zimmerman?

They took him for questioning to the cop station and he was interrogated in their interrogation room. That is in the cop report - linked to so many times on this board in the last several days that it is probably tens of times.

Lazy ***** who won't help themselves to information, just believe what others tell them.

Secondly, unless Zimmerman was showing signs of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the cops would be breaking the law - not just any law, Constitutional law - if they tested his breath or his blood. No probable cause for intoxication, no investigation for intoxication.

No drug or alcohol testing.

Of course not; there was no probable cause for it.

 

[Emma]

"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911,"

Stop getting beat up?

 

[Sallow]

If Zimmerman was attacked, it does change the dynamics a bit. It wouldn't exonerate him completely, but it would help to better understand what happened. His apparent '******* Coons' racial slur will be a big problem for him in court. The Jury will not treat him kindly. Without the apparent racial slur, he would have likely gotten off on Self-Defense. So he'll probably still do some time.

I doubt it. I don't think he'll be charged in the first place.

He's getting charged. Count on it.

And I think he will do some time.

 

[Si modo]

Where did they take him for questioning? When did they do drug and alcohol tests on Zimmerman?

The police report lists where he was taken, and the person he was turned over to for questioning.

http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martinpolicreport.pdf

And that shows some glaringly bad police work. Zimmerman was not questioned and it seems that no evidence was taken from him.

Then you did not read the report because the report indicates the exact opposite of what you just said.

Zimmerman, after being disarmed then treated at the scene by EMTs for head wounds, was cuffed, taken in a cruiser to the cop station, placed in an interrogation room, and interrogated. The report also shows that his gun was entered into evidence and labeled "TS-1".

Read.

 

[paulitician]

If Zimmerman was attacked, it does change the dynamics a bit. It wouldn't exonerate him completely, but it would help to better understand what happened. His apparent '******* Coons' racial slur will be a big problem for him in court. The Jury will not treat him kindly. Without the apparent racial slur, he would have likely gotten off on Self-Defense. So he'll probably still do some time.

I doubt it. I don't think he'll be charged in the first place.

I think he will be charged. Look for the Feds to get involved at some point. But we'll see i guess.

 

[PredFan]

Zimmerman is older and stronger and had a weight advantage and a gun...
At some point if he was really getting the crap beat out of him just showing the gun
would have stopped the kid...

I still don't see the reason why he had to shoot the kid...

Brandishing a gun is always a bad idea.

He should have never chased the kid in the first place.

Trayvon's Martin's "right of self defense" appears to be forgotten. Also, when Zimmerman first saw the victim, HE was in his vehicle; he got out and followed the victim rather than wait for law enforcement as ADVISED. I have seen no reports that the teenager approached the killer.

Thus, Zimmerman thought the teenager was suspicious; it appears HE initiated contact. I have also read the victim put on his "hood" when he saw Zimmerman following him. Trayvon Martin also got on his cell phone to tell a friend Zimmerman was following him.............the victim then suddenly attacked Zimmerman? It doesn't add up.

I can't speak for anyone else but I haven't forgotten Martin's right to self-defense.

Zimmerman did follow the victim when he probably shouldn't have. Not a crime though.

Zimmerman's own story is that he was attacked from behind by Martin. A story that is corroborated by evidence.

It doesn't have to add up to you. The only question is whether the evidence corroborates or disputes Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. So far I've seen nor heard nothing that disputes his story and a couple of pieces of evidence and eyewitness accounts that corroborates it.

 

[PredFan]

I still cannot. Dead unarmed 17-year-old screams "take him in" too me. When in doubt...

Thye took him down for questioning, they confiscated the gun, and after investigation and witness accounts, they released him. I'm glad I livein a country where peo[ple aren't arrested first, and then stay in jail until proven innocent.

Where did they take him for questioning? When did they do drug and alcohol tests on Zimmerman?

They took him down to the station. Why would they do tests on him?

 

[Sallow]

They took him for questioning to the cop station and he was interrogated in their interrogation room. That is in the cop report - linked to so many times on this board in the last several days that it is probably tens of times.

Lazy ***** who won't help themselves to information, just believe what others tell them.

Secondly, unless Zimmerman was showing signs of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the cops would be breaking the law - not just any law, Constitutional law - if they tested his breath or his blood. No probable cause for intoxication, no investigation for intoxication.

No drug or alcohol testing.

Of course not; there was no probable cause for it.

There was a dead kid on the lawn. Of course there was "probable cause" for it. Zimmerman could have refused..as well.

 

[uptownlivin90]

There was a dead kid on the ground.

Praise God, not for a dead kid, but for a dead beast.

Given the 911 calls in which Zimmerman pursued Martin after he was told not to, at the very least, he aggravated the situation such that he was attacked. And thats if you believe Zimmerman's story.

The reason Zimmerman was told not to follow the black was to keep ZIMMERMAN out of danger.

Believe or not..Murphy have the very same right to defend himself from a hulking pursuer who was not law enforcement and very likely to do him harm.

Someone eyeballing you from a distance does not justify a physical assault. If Zimmerman was any danger to this black, with or without a gun, a confrontation would only increase that danger to the black, not remove that danger. Your logic is niggerish in its absurdity. If we believe your imagined scenario, the black is still dead because of his own actions.

We know why you and Zimmy eyeball black men Ariux, just admitt it... you wanted to wrestle that big black beast to the ground, didn't you?

 

[uptownlivin90]

Brandishing a gun is always a bad idea.

He should have never chased the kid in the first place.

Trayvon's Martin's "right of self defense" appears to be forgotten. Also, when Zimmerman first saw the victim, HE was in his vehicle; he got out and followed the victim rather than wait for law enforcement as ADVISED. I have seen no reports that the teenager approached the killer.

Thus, Zimmerman thought the teenager was suspicious; it appears HE initiated contact. I have also read the victim put on his "hood" when he saw Zimmerman following him. Trayvon Martin also got on his cell phone to tell a friend Zimmerman was following him.............the victim then suddenly attacked Zimmerman? It doesn't add up.

I can't speak for anyone else but I haven't forgotten Martin's right to self-defense.

Zimmerman did follow the victim when he probably shouldn't have. Not a crime though.

Zimmerman's own story is that he was attacked from behind by Martin. A story that is corroborated by evidence.

It doesn't have to add up to you. The only question is whether the evidence corroborates or disputes Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. So far I've seen nor heard nothing that disputes his story and a couple of pieces of evidence and eyewitness accounts that corroborates it.

What evidence? Every witness in the case has only testified to what they saw while the "tussle" (I guess you could call it) was in progress. I haven't seen any witness say they saw who hit who first. Trayvon's girlfriend's testimony outright contradicts Zimmerman's claim.

 

[Si modo]

No drug or alcohol testing.

Of course not; there was no probable cause for it.

There was a dead kid on the lawn. Of course there was "probable cause" for it. Zimmerman could have refused..as well.

Since when is discharging a firearm or even killing someone a standard indication of intoxication?

Probable cause is specific to the investigation to be done. If they want to test for intoxication, then there must be a REASON to do so - probable cause.

(It stuns me how little folks know about our Constitution...you should have learned this in 8th grade civics.)

 

[Sallow]

Brandishing a gun is always a bad idea.

He should have never chased the kid in the first place.

Trayvon's Martin's "right of self defense" appears to be forgotten. Also, when Zimmerman first saw the victim, HE was in his vehicle; he got out and followed the victim rather than wait for law enforcement as ADVISED. I have seen no reports that the teenager approached the killer.

Thus, Zimmerman thought the teenager was suspicious; it appears HE initiated contact. I have also read the victim put on his "hood" when he saw Zimmerman following him. Trayvon Martin also got on his cell phone to tell a friend Zimmerman was following him.............the victim then suddenly attacked Zimmerman? It doesn't add up.

I can't speak for anyone else but I haven't forgotten Martin's right to self-defense.

Zimmerman did follow the victim when he probably shouldn't have. Not a crime though.

Zimmerman's own story is that he was attacked from behind by Martin. A story that is corroborated by evidence.

It doesn't have to add up to you. The only question is whether the evidence corroborates or disputes Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. So far I've seen nor heard nothing that disputes his story and a couple of pieces of evidence and eyewitness accounts that corroborates it.

Self defense has requirements. One is you are fending off an aggressor..not that you are the aggressor.

Zimmerman was clearly the aggressor. The 911 tapes confirm that. He took of the role of a LEO against a child not involved in a crime.

Then killed him.

 

[PredFan]

I see the Zimmerman apologist are still grasping at crackers.

Nope, just using facts, logic, and reason instead of emotion and racism like the Martin lynch mob is doing.

Did Martin's girlfriend have facts? Show the "facts" of how Zimmerman got the bump on his head.

He didn't have a simple bump on his head you moron, he had a bloodied contusion. It was in the police report.

 

[PredFan]

Not it won't. If the "coon" comment actually happened it only proves Zimmerman doesn't like black people not that he killed the kid.

You can't go to jail for being a racist idiot. For good reason, we live in a free country.


...on another note how stupid do you have to be to saying something like "f***ing coon" on the phone with a 9-11 dispatcher?

I've heard the tape, it really isn't clear that that is what he said.

Yeah, it is a bit muffled. But it sounded like he did say it to me. Just my observation anyway. But it will have to be proven in Court. If the Jury believes he said it, he will be in some trouble.

How? Is saying "Coon" a crime?

 

[OODA_Loop]

What evidence? Every witness in the case has only testified to what they saw while the "tussle" (I guess you could call it) was in progress. I haven't seen any witness say they saw who hit who first.

Absent eyewitness accounts of who struck first what evidence is there we know of.

Injuries to the back of Zimmerman.

 

[uptownlivin90]

"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911,"

Stop getting beat up?

I thought the same thing. Maybe he was telling Trayvon to stop. Or maybe Zimmerman was asking the witness guy to help him keep Trayvon from escaping since Zimmy said himself "these guys always get away"... and the witnesses was saying something along the lines of "stop fighting him he's whooping your behind"... who knows?

 

[uptownlivin90]

I've heard the tape, it really isn't clear that that is what he said.

Yeah, it is a bit muffled. But it sounded like he did say it to me. Just my observation anyway. But it will have to be proven in Court. If the Jury believes he said it, he will be in some trouble.

How? Is saying "Coon" a crime?

It is not.

 

[PredFan]

I don't believe he was lying. I believe Zimmerman picked a fight with the wrong kid and the kid probably beat the crap out of him.

Accoring to Zimmerman, he had lost track of Martin and was walking back to his car when Martin attacked him from behind. That would explain the bloody contusion to the back of Zimmerman's head. Still self-defense. Just as you cannot shoot someone in the back, you cannot claim self-defense if you hit someone on the back of the head.

Didn't he have blood on his face as well? That couldn't be from a fall? Like falling on his back, which was the position I'm assuming he was in when the witness saw him? If he fell on his back wouldn't that suggest he was hit from the front?

Struck from behind and knocked to the ground and then Martin hitting him in the face while he was down. Again, it's only speculation as I wasn't there.

 

[Sallow]

Of course not; there was no probable cause for it.

There was a dead kid on the lawn. Of course there was "probable cause" for it. Zimmerman could have refused..as well.

Since when is discharging a firearm or even killing someone a standard indication of intoxication?

Probable cause is specific to the investigation to be done. If they want to test for intoxication, then there must be a REASON to do so - probable cause.

(It stuns me how little folks know about our Constitution...you should have learned this in 8th grade civics.)

Maybe it's my New York sensibilities, but discharging a firearm in a public place is frowned upon in these parts..and is illegal. Discharging a firearm and causing the death of a child is even more frowned upon and illegal. It's far outside the scope of normal human discourse.

Again..he could refuse. The police work here was strikingly bad.

 

[PredFan]

Or Zimmerman confronted the kid and in Zimmerman's fatter weaker state, as attested to by several posters here, the kid pushed Zimmerman off and Zimmerman fell backwards and hit his head on the ground.

So I'm quoting someone who was actually there and you counter with posters on a message board who weren't? Come on, really?

What posters am I countering with? And did your witness see how the incident started?

Read your own post.