George Zimmerman Arrested On Domestic Violence And Weapons Charge

[EPresence2]

Let's break it down yet again...

Such careless handling of statements that do not necessary mean only one thing. Since when does prevention of a get-away involve only detainment as opposed to stalling or following with police on the way?

And how would that work? Remember, Zimmerman supposedly lost sight of Martin completely. And yet, he somehow ends up fighting with him, around the corner from his car. How'd that happen?

And furthermore, you've accepted a quote from Rachel Jeantel, so she's now in play. And according to her, Zimmerman reappeared behind Martin, refused to identify himself or his purpose in following Martin, and did something to cause Martin to say "Get off, get off!" to anyone with any sense, this means that Zimmerman chased down and grabbed Martin

How condescending - "I'll breaking it down for you yet again" with "what ifs" that only you can employ. How can you forget the statement from Z about these assholes always getting away - he meant to keep eye contact on a "suspect," at the very least. And Trayvon allegedly said "Get off! Get off!" which could be taken in basically two ways that I've experienced: a literal or figurative sense. Did GZ think he would get off the hook for detaining a suspect for assumed drug possession - was he really that moronic?

I'm still not seeing a history of pre-meditated stupidity on GZ's part.

Who said anything about "pre-meditated"? Frankly, he seems to be unable to understand the consequences of his violent behavior, which is why, in addition to getting into trouble with so many people, he's also a remarkably poor liar.

The incidents of convicted and alleged crimes seem more like "heat of the moment" sort of reactions than planned violence. Maybe GZ felt confident enough with a concealed handgun and MMA training to handle "a suspect" if things went sideways (pre-meditated action), which explains why he got out of the car to confront Martin. It would be more premeditated stupidity if he then attempted to detain Martin for drug possession before the police got there. I'm not certain that Zimmerman was that stupid, and we don't know enough about Trayvon to negate the possibility he reacted violently to being confronted. I can imagine wanting to punch a guy like Zimmerman for confronting me while going about my business in a gated community. Zimmerman was also NOT buff or obviously armed from the perspective of Martin. And I agree that GZ certainly lied about a few things to make his case look better. But that doesn't mean he lied about everything.

He could have been trying to stall the "suspect" until the police arrived.

Possibly. But is only evidence of his stupidity, particularly when there's nothing for the "suspect" to be suspected of.

The guy was paranoid based on the general look of suspects involved in previous incidents of criminal activity in the area. Even if previous suspects had been apprehended, that doesn't mean any legitimate fear of recurrence would vanish. You are overreaching to think there was nothing suspicious about Trayvon's behavior given the context.

All the hand-waving around Zimmerman's record of convicted and alleged violence does not prove he started the physical altercation.

So, he was attacked by, among other things, a frightened teen, a wife holding an iPad, an old man, a table, a mistress, and a wine bottle.

But why did he stalk some random guy to his workplace, and then just stand around in plain sight with a gun on him, when he was *supposed* to be in hiding under mass threat of death?

You don't know how frightened he really was, and those other cases are... other cases.

And we can't be sure what Martin was thinking, being followed by a "creepy ass cracker" in a gated community. Maybe he wasn't as frightened of the guy as he should have been.

No, we can be sure, by his clear statements of fear, his running away from Zimmerman, and by his refusing to lead Zimmerman home, that he was frightened. It's very easy to put myself in his shoes, and I suspect it is for most other people. Far more difficult to understand why Zimmerman was so enraged by a black kid dressed warmly in cold weather, with snacks from the store, walking home.

I'm not sure those alleged statements and witness testimony indicate a fear that would preclude an initial strike during the confrontation. I put myself in his shoes as well and see more than one possibility.

Then again, GZ could have attempted to detain a suspect for assumed drug possession, as opposed to having stolen anything.

Which makes the NYPD look like Officer Friendly.

So you see the level of pre-meditated stupidity involved in such an act.

In the 911 call, Zimmerman seemed to be suggesting that Martin was canvasing the neighborhood for a robbery ("he's just milling around looking at the houses" or something like that) and on drugs or something.

And again, given Zimmerman's amazingly poor judgement, I'm not sure why we should care what he thought about Martin. You don't seem to want to suggest anything less that perfectly clear video of the entire encounter, and that's unrealistic. Those of us us who concluded he was a murderer looked at Zimmerman's 911 call, Jeantel's testimony, Martin's known behavior, the location of Martin's body, and Zimmerman's idiotic stories.

Because we care so much about what Martin was thinking about Zimmerman; To be fair, what ifs go both directions. His judgement was very poor in hind-sight, and ill-advised in foresight. That doesn't make all his judgements poor.

I'm still not sure about what really happened and what charge the perp (Zimmerman) should have gotten.

Manslaughter, at the very least.

I could agree with a type of manslaughter, if Trayvon was "standing his ground" to pre-emptively strike an assailant.

 

[Arctish]

Her story was always "Back by his house, near his house" which has supposed to always have meant the T and the cut-through and not actually being near the house.

Exactly.

"By" and "near" are good descriptors but not good measures. For example: there is a gas station near my house, there is a city bus stop near my house, and there is a wild strawberry patch back by my house, near my house. They are all different distances from my house, and none of them is actually in my yard.

"Back by his house, near his house" covers a lot of ground, most of it where Zimmerman could easily intercept Martin.

We also have the problem that her testimony was influenced by TM's parents. However for her story to make sense and the one presented, we have to believe that Martin took of running but ran only about 100 feet on a near straight line and in direct visual line of Zimmerman and then stopped and started slowly inching back to his place instead of running around the back side of the houses and going to or very near his own place.

No, we don't have to believe that, and why would we? We don't know the neighborhood. We don't know where a teenager fleeing a creepy ass stranger would most likely go. We don't know what twists and turns he might have taken to throw off pursuit. All we know is that Martin fled and Zimmerman pursued. We can speculate all day about the exact route each one took and be wrong every time, but it doesn't matter. What matters is we have absolutely no reason to believe Martin changed his mind about wanting to avoid the creeper from the car.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Exactly. There is a gas station near my house. There is a city bus stop near my house. There is a strawberry patch back by my house, near my house. That does not mean any one of them is in my yard.

"Back by his house, near his house" covers a lot of ground, most of it where Zimmerman could easily intercept him.

We also have the problem that her testimony was influenced by TM's parents. However for her story to make sense and the one presented, we have to believe that Martin took of running but ran only about 100 feet on a near straight line and in direct visual line of Zimmerman and then stopped and started slowly inching back to his place instead of running around the back side of the houses and going to or very near his own place.

No, we don't have to believe that, and why would we? We don't know the neighborhood. We don't know where a teenager fleeing a creepy ass stranger would most likely go. We don't know what twists and turns he might have taken to throw off pursuit. All we know is that Martin fled and Zimmerman pursued. We can speculate all day about the exact route each one took and be wrong every time, but it doesn't matter. What matters is we have absolutely no reason to believe Martin changed his mind about wanting to avoid the creeper from the car.

Not true. To meet Zimmerman where they fought, Martin had to double back one way or the other.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Exactly. There is a gas station near my house. There is a city bus stop near my house. There is a strawberry patch back by my house, near my house. That does not mean any one of them is in my yard.

"Back by his house, near his house" covers a lot of ground, most of it where Zimmerman could easily intercept him.



No, we don't have to believe that, and why would we? We don't know the neighborhood. We don't know where a teenager fleeing a creepy ass stranger would most likely go. We don't know what twists and turns he might have taken to throw off pursuit. All we know is that Martin fled and Zimmerman pursued. We can speculate all day about the exact route each one took and be wrong every time, but it doesn't matter. What matters is we have absolutely no reason to believe Martin changed his mind about wanting to avoid the creeper from the car.

Not true. To meet Zimmerman where they fought, Martin had to double back one way or the other.

Do you have the GPS records?

 

[coloradoatheist]

Not true. To meet Zimmerman where they fought, Martin had to double back one way or the other.

Do you have the GPS records?

It would have proved it being a reasonable doubt...but the line of sight was from Zimmerman's car to the T in the intersection which is only a few feet from where the fight started.

 

[Arctish]

Exactly. There is a gas station near my house. There is a city bus stop near my house. There is a strawberry patch back by my house, near my house. That does not mean any one of them is in my yard.

"Back by his house, near his house" covers a lot of ground, most of it where Zimmerman could easily intercept him.



No, we don't have to believe that, and why would we? We don't know the neighborhood. We don't know where a teenager fleeing a creepy ass stranger would most likely go. We don't know what twists and turns he might have taken to throw off pursuit. All we know is that Martin fled and Zimmerman pursued. We can speculate all day about the exact route each one took and be wrong every time, but it doesn't matter. What matters is we have absolutely no reason to believe Martin changed his mind about wanting to avoid the creeper from the car.

Not true. To meet Zimmerman where they fought, Martin had to double back one way or the other.

Not true. He could have been weaving between the buildings and never crossed his own path. But it doesn't matter. This is all just idle speculation. Even if Martin doubled back at some point, it does not indicate a change of mind about avoiding the creeper.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Not true. To meet Zimmerman where they fought, Martin had to double back one way or the other.

Not true. He could have been weaving between the buildings and never crossed his own path. But it doesn't matter. This is all just idle speculation. Even if Martin doubled back at some point, it does not indicate a change of mind about avoiding the creeper.

Still an issue. Because the argument is that Z followed him after, but if he stopped at the point where he got off the phone with the dispatcher and then Martin came to meet him, then the confrontation is the other direction. And if Jeantel's story is true, that he made it to the house and then went back, M starts the confrontation.

 

[RavenSky]

No such statement exists.



Again, this is simple. Martin was walking home, Zimmerman saw him, freaked out, parked at the clubhouse, and called 311. Martin walked past him, and that is when Zimmerman began stalking him.

It's actually very simple, when you think about it.

To meet where they did and in that manner Martin would have had to double back in some fashion, whether he double backed from the house or from a different spot.

At this point, I'm going to put it plainly. The claim that Martin "doubled back" from anywhere for the two to meet up, is not only completely without evidence, but it's simply stupid. All the fight really requires is for Martin to stop (yet again: Urban Rule #1), and for Zimmerman to continue pursuit.

And here is the video of her testimony of one place she says it. Around the 5 minute mark. She was asked what happened. and it was "He ran, I called him back and he said he was at the back of his dad's house there" Later she tries to rephrase it as by his house, after I think she realized her mistake.

and for simplicity, it's easy to imagine a 17 year old boy getting pissed that someone follows him and wants to see what's up and gets mad that he's being followed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR1VabQYLKQ&x-yt-ts=1421782837&feature=player_embedded&x-yt-cl=84359240

She says "by the back of" which does not in any way indicate that he was home but went back out looking for trouble as you maintain. We know for an indisputable fact that Trayvon was in the back alley that ran behind the parallel rows of townhomes... "by the back of." Are you seriously hanging your entire character assassination of a dead teenager on the idiosyncratic speech patterns of another teen?

 

[Arctish]

Not true. He could have been weaving between the buildings and never crossed his own path. But it doesn't matter. This is all just idle speculation. Even if Martin doubled back at some point, it does not indicate a change of mind about avoiding the creeper.

Still an issue. Because the argument is that Z followed him after, but if he stopped at the point where he got off the phone with the dispatcher and then Martin came to meet him, then the confrontation is the other direction.

Came to meet him as in "changed his mind about avoiding the creeper from the car", or came to meet him as in "resumed walking home too soon and encountered the creeper from the car who was still lingering on the sidewalk"?

And if Jeantel's story is true, that he made it to the house and then went back, M starts the confrontation.

Jeantel never said Martin made it to the house. As you yourself posted:

Her story was always "Back by his house, near his house"

Not "at his house".

 

[RavenSky]

He's from a world where beating someone up to get them to quit sticking their nose in your business is a common course of action. His world doesn't have people with CCW permits.

FINALLY! This must be the "culture" you were talking about.

Trayvon was from Miami. I know the neighborhood in Miami that he lived in quite well. I challenge you to provide factual evidence with credible citations that any "culture" in Miami beats other people as a "common course of action."

 

[coloradoatheist]

No such statement exists.



Again, this is simple. Martin was walking home, Zimmerman saw him, freaked out, parked at the clubhouse, and called 311. Martin walked past him, and that is when Zimmerman began stalking him.

It's actually very simple, when you think about it.

To meet where they did and in that manner Martin would have had to double back in some fashion, whether he double backed from the house or from a different spot.

At this point, I'm going to put it plainly. The claim that Martin "doubled back" from anywhere for the two to meet up, is not only completely without evidence, but it's simply stupid. All the fight really requires is for Martin to stop (yet again: Urban Rule #1), and for Zimmerman to continue pursuit.

And here is the video of her testimony of one place she says it. Around the 5 minute mark. She was asked what happened. and it was "He ran, I called him back and he said he was at the back of his dad's house there" Later she tries to rephrase it as by his house, after I think she realized her mistake.

and for simplicity, it's easy to imagine a 17 year old boy getting pissed that someone follows him and wants to see what's up and gets mad that he's being followed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR1VabQYLKQ&x-yt-ts=1421782837&feature=player_embedded&x-yt-cl=84359240

She says "by the back of" which does not in any way indicate that he was home but went back out looking for trouble as you maintain. We know for an indisputable fact that Trayvon was in the back alley that ran behind the parallel rows of townhomes... "by the back of." Are you seriously hanging your entire character assassination of a dead teenager on the idiosyncratic speech patterns of another teen?

No I am not. It's coming from the combined testimonies of both people along with area that the event happened.

 

[RavenSky]

No such statement exists.



Again, this is simple. Martin was walking home, Zimmerman saw him, freaked out, parked at the clubhouse, and called 311. Martin walked past him, and that is when Zimmerman began stalking him.

It's actually very simple, when you think about it.

To meet where they did and in that manner Martin would have had to double back in some fashion, whether he double backed from the house or from a different spot.

At this point, I'm going to put it plainly. The claim that Martin "doubled back" from anywhere for the two to meet up, is not only completely without evidence, but it's simply stupid. All the fight really requires is for Martin to stop (yet again: Urban Rule #1), and for Zimmerman to continue pursuit.

And here is the video of her testimony of one place she says it. Around the 5 minute mark. She was asked what happened. and it was "He ran, I called him back and he said he was at the back of his dad's house there" Later she tries to rephrase it as by his house, after I think she realized her mistake.

and for simplicity, it's easy to imagine a 17 year old boy getting pissed that someone follows him and wants to see what's up and gets mad that he's being followed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR1VabQYLKQ&x-yt-ts=1421782837&feature=player_embedded&x-yt-cl=84359240

She says "by the back of" which does not in any way indicate that he was home but went back out looking for trouble as you maintain. We know for an indisputable fact that Trayvon was in the back alley that ran behind the parallel rows of townhomes... "by the back of." Are you seriously hanging your entire character assassination of a dead teenager on the idiosyncratic speech patterns of another teen?

No I am not. It's coming from the combined testimonies of both people along with area that the event happened.

You can't be since neither person ever said Trayvon made it home that night

 

[coloradoatheist]

Still an issue. Because the argument is that Z followed him after, but if he stopped at the point where he got off the phone with the dispatcher and then Martin came to meet him, then the confrontation is the other direction.

Came to meet him as in "changed his mind about avoiding the creeper from the car", or came to meet him as in "resumed walking home too soon and encountered the creeper from the car who was still lingering on the sidewalk"?

And if Jeantel's story is true, that he made it to the house and then went back, M starts the confrontation.

Jeantel never said Martin made it to the house. As you yourself posted:

Her story was always "Back by his house, near his house"

Not "at his house".

Her answer on the stand was "the back of his house" She then changed her answer later. I think she realized her mistake.

- - - Updated - - -

No such statement exists.



Again, this is simple. Martin was walking home, Zimmerman saw him, freaked out, parked at the clubhouse, and called 311. Martin walked past him, and that is when Zimmerman began stalking him.

It's actually very simple, when you think about it.

To meet where they did and in that manner Martin would have had to double back in some fashion, whether he double backed from the house or from a different spot.

At this point, I'm going to put it plainly. The claim that Martin "doubled back" from anywhere for the two to meet up, is not only completely without evidence, but it's simply stupid. All the fight really requires is for Martin to stop (yet again: Urban Rule #1), and for Zimmerman to continue pursuit.

And here is the video of her testimony of one place she says it. Around the 5 minute mark. She was asked what happened. and it was "He ran, I called him back and he said he was at the back of his dad's house there" Later she tries to rephrase it as by his house, after I think she realized her mistake.

and for simplicity, it's easy to imagine a 17 year old boy getting pissed that someone follows him and wants to see what's up and gets mad that he's being followed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR1VabQYLKQ&x-yt-ts=1421782837&feature=player_embedded&x-yt-cl=84359240

She says "by the back of" which does not in any way indicate that he was home but went back out looking for trouble as you maintain. We know for an indisputable fact that Trayvon was in the back alley that ran behind the parallel rows of townhomes... "by the back of." Are you seriously hanging your entire character assassination of a dead teenager on the idiosyncratic speech patterns of another teen?

No I am not. It's coming from the combined testimonies of both people along with area that the event happened.

You can't be since neither person ever said Trayvon made it home that night

So Jeantel didn't give her explanation of what she thought happened?

 

[Arctish]

Came to meet him as in "changed his mind about avoiding the creeper from the car", or came to meet him as in "resumed walking home too soon and encountered the creeper from the car who was still lingering on the sidewalk"?

And if Jeantel's story is true, that he made it to the house and then went back, M starts the confrontation.

Jeantel never said Martin made it to the house. As you yourself posted:

Her story was always "Back by his house, near his house"

Not "at his house".

Her answer on the stand was "the back of his house" She then changed her answer later. I think she realized her mistake.

I think you misunderstood what Jeantel and Zimmerman's attorney West were talking about. I just reviewed that clip you posted. In it, West says he wants to talk about what happened after Martin ran. West seeks confirmation that Jeantel's impression was that at the time Martin ran he was intending to go to the back of his house, that about 20 seconds later she reconnected with Martin, and she didn't know where he was. She agrees this is correct. West then says and she agrees that at that point she believed he was close to home. So the summary I posted earlier appears to be accurate:

Here are the 13 crucial things she said during the testimony heard around the nation:

1. Despite rumors that she and Trayvon were dating, Jeantel told the court that they had never had an official date and were “just friends.”

2. While talking on the phone to her, Trayvon told Jeantel that there was “a man following” him.

3. “He told me he looked like a creepy ass cracker.” Jeantel on how Trayvon described Zimmerman to her.

4. Trayvon then told Jeantel that he was going to try to “lose the man.” He said that he was going to walk home.


5. A short while later, he says to Jeantel “the nigga is still following me.”

6. Jeantel tells the court what happens after that. She told Trayvon to run and she started hearing wind. He told her he was going to get home “through the back.” The phone then shuts off.

7. She calls back and Trayvon answers. He tells Jeantel he is almost home. She can hear that he is out of breath. He tells her that he “lost” the man following him.

8. A couple of seconds after Trayvon said he lost the man, he says to Jeantel, “Oh shit, the nigga is behind me.”

9. She hears the first exchange between Zimmerman and Trayvon. Trayvon to the man following him: “Why are you following me for?” Jeantel she hears another “hard-breathing man” say “What you doing around here?”

10. She hears a bump, and grass sounds, like people are rolling around or the phone dropped on the ground. She asks Trayvon what’s going on and she hears Trayvon saying “get off, get off.” The phone shuts off again.

11. She tells court that she didn’t hear from Trayvon again. “I had thought he was by his daddy’s house so somebody would come help him. ” On Monday there was a rumor that he was killed. She didn’t find out it was absolutely true until a friend texted her an article.

12. She told the jury that she didn’t realize she was the last person to speak to Trayvon.

13. After being asked why she lied about attending Trayvon’s wake, she said that she “didn’t want to see the body.” She also added that she felt guilty that she was the “last person to speak to their son.” (Referring to Trayvon’s parents)

Your entire argument about Martin reaching the safety of home rests on something neither Jeantel nor West said or implied was true.

No such statement exists.



Again, this is simple. Martin was walking home, Zimmerman saw him, freaked out, parked at the clubhouse, and called 311. Martin walked past him, and that is when Zimmerman began stalking him.

It's actually very simple, when you think about it.

To meet where they did and in that manner Martin would have had to double back in some fashion, whether he double backed from the house or from a different spot.

At this point, I'm going to put it plainly. The claim that Martin "doubled back" from anywhere for the two to meet up, is not only completely without evidence, but it's simply stupid. All the fight really requires is for Martin to stop (yet again: Urban Rule #1), and for Zimmerman to continue pursuit.

And here is the video of her testimony of one place she says it. Around the 5 minute mark. She was asked what happened. and it was "He ran, I called him back and he said he was at the back of his dad's house there" Later she tries to rephrase it as by his house, after I think she realized her mistake.

and for simplicity, it's easy to imagine a 17 year old boy getting pissed that someone follows him and wants to see what's up and gets mad that he's being followed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR1VabQYLKQ&x-yt-ts=1421782837&feature=player_embedded&x-yt-cl=84359240

She says "by the back of" which does not in any way indicate that he was home but went back out looking for trouble as you maintain. We know for an indisputable fact that Trayvon was in the back alley that ran behind the parallel rows of townhomes... "by the back of." Are you seriously hanging your entire character assassination of a dead teenager on the idiosyncratic speech patterns of another teen?

No I am not. It's coming from the combined testimonies of both people along with area that the event happened.

You can't be since neither person ever said Trayvon made it home that night

So Jeantel didn't give her explanation of what she thought happened?

She did. She said she believed Martin was almost home. That doesn't mean he was in the backyard or on the steps or had his hand on the doorknob. It means believe and almost, as in "I believe him when he says he almost caught a fish *this* big!"

 

[Mumbles]

Her story was always "Back by his house, near his house" which has supposed to always have meant the T and the cut-through and not actually being near the house. We also have the problem that her testimony was influenced by TM's parents.

Why should we believe that her testimony was somehow "influenced"?

However for her story to make sense and the one presented, we have to believe that Martin took of running but ran only about 100 feet on a near straight line and in direct visual line of Zimmerman and then stopped and started slowly inching back to his place instead of running around the back side of the houses and going to or very near his own place.

And why should we believe this? The only reason to think that Zimmerman's car even got to where he said he parked, is the word of the obvious liar George Zimmerman - and even then, we're discussing over 100 feet, according to Google Maps.

 

[bleubird]

All we know is a young man is dead because a man with a gun and a history of anger problems.
Just keep auguring for the sake of auguring.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Why should we believe that her testimony was somehow "influenced"?

However for her story to make sense and the one presented, we have to believe that Martin took of running but ran only about 100 feet on a near straight line and in direct visual line of Zimmerman and then stopped and started slowly inching back to his place instead of running around the back side of the houses and going to or very near his own place.

And why should we believe this? The only reason to think that Zimmerman's car even got to where he said he parked, is the word of the obvious liar George Zimmerman - and even then, we're discussing over 100 feet, according to Google Maps.

Huh? Did someone come and move his car later that night? He had the foresight on the 911 call to say that my truck is near the cut-through if it was parked at the clubhouse?

It would have been nice for the police to have interviewed Jeantel before she had a chance to talk to Martin's parents, but can't do that now.

 

[Underseer]

All we know is a young man is dead because a man with a gun and a history of anger problems.
Just keep auguring for the sake of auguring.

They aren't arguing for the sake of arguing. They desperately need to justify what happened. Why else would otherwise intelligent people publicly use such flimsy arguments?

 

[Mumbles]

Huh? Did someone come and move his car later that night?

As a matter of fact, yes. Zimmerman openly said that he called someone to move his car back to his house - and the police freely admitted that they never noticed his car.

 

[EPresence2]

Why should we believe that her testimony was somehow "influenced"?

For the same reason jury selection tries to avoid people with a likelihood of bias in a case. Btw, I've addressed your comments (to me) on the previous page.