Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations..."

[Perd Hapley]

The part he's talking about doesn't say who was chasing whom. It indicates the direction they were going, which I suppose could tell us something.

[De Selby]

So just lets see if we get this right.
You believe that being chased by someone gives you the right to turn around and initiate an assault on them? Is that right?

Seriously, how many times do I have to point out that both parties can be guilty of something in these cases?  micro's biker example was on point.   If its foreseeable that you'd start a fight with some activity, your right to self defence gets incredibly narrow.

The main point about chasing is that it isn't consistent with earlier statements from the Zimmerman camp - it doesn't fit the "you got a problem?" or "ambush" theories very well.    It does fit the theory that Zimmerman kept chasing after he got off the phone, having described trayvon as running away, and it also fits the witness who heard trayvon saying "why are you following me for [sic]".

[MechAg94]

There was a lot of information in the first couple of days that has proven incorrect.  I'd like to see a good run down of the known facts and statements.  However, I think what we know if somewhat limited. 

[makattak]

Seriously, how many times do I have to point out that both parties can be guilty of something in these cases?  micro's biker example was on point.   If its foreseeable that you'd start a fight with some activity, your right to self defence gets incredibly narrow.

The main point about chasing is that it isn't consistent with earlier statements from the Zimmerman camp - it doesn't fit the "you got a problem?" or "ambush" theories very well.    It does fit the theory that Zimmerman kept chasing after he got off the phone, having described trayvon as running away, and it also fits the witness who heard trayvon saying "why are you following me for [sic]".

As with most witnesses, this one's story seems to be inconclusive.

The woman claims she saw a "chase" and then says it was just a glance and without her contacts. This is far too little to base a case on.

It could support your "Zimmerman was chasing the poor helpless boy and scaring him to death!"

It could also support a "Zimmerman was jogging back to the car and Martin closed on him quickly." Just a "glance" at such a situation could look like a chase, too.

I'll go back to the witness who saw Martin on top pounding Zimmerman "MMA Style" while Zimmerman screamed for help "at least 38 times." Whatever you believe happened before, this clearly indicates non-mutual combat and a desire to retreat. Unless these facts are false, Zimmerman was justified in shooting the unrelenting assailant.

[TommyGunn]

"Any fact, when viewed from an alternate perspective, will yield a completly different interpretation," ~~ Sherlock Holmes.

   Holmes was right.  
 

[De Selby]

As with most witnesses, this one's story seems to be inconclusive.

The woman claims she saw a "chase" and then says it was just a glance and without her contacts. This is far too little to base a case on.

It could support your "Zimmerman was chasing the poor helpless boy and scaring him to death!"

It could also support a "Zimmerman was jogging back to the car and Martin closed on him quickly." Just a "glance" at such a situation could look like a chase, too.

I'll go back to the witness who saw Martin on top pounding Zimmerman "MMA Style" while Zimmerman screamed for help "at least 38 times." Whatever you believe happened before, this clearly indicates non-mutual combat and a desire to retreat. Unless these facts are false, Zimmerman was justified in shooting the unrelenting assailant.

Did you consider the possibility that trayvon saw the gun, which is why he tried to pound zimmerman?   Strange man chasing you at night with a gun ought to be grounds for trying to take it from him.  But no, let's not imagine anything the ccwer did could be bad.   It must be a frame up because otherwise al sharp ton wouldn't have said anything about it.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

really?!  in your alternate version of reality he saw the gun?  and was gonna take it?  fascinating

[De Selby]

really?!  in your alternate version of reality he saw the gun?  and was gonna take it?  fascinating

How is that an alternate reality?   It's certainly a possibility, which if true would leave Zimmerman with no option but a plea, but it's also not necessary to make out the crime.

[TommyGunn]

How is that an alternate reality?   It's certainly a possibility, which if true would leave Zimmerman with no option but a plea, but it's also not necessary to make out the crime.

Objection, your honor; 'assuming facts not in evidence.' "

[De Selby]

Objection, your honor; 'assuming facts not in evidence.' "

Uh, who is assuming that's what happened?  

Edit to clarify:  the point there was that even with all of what mak assumed to be true, Zimmerman could still be guilty of a crime.   Assuming that Zimmerman was jogging back to his car doesn't make out self defence under the circumstances.   For example, if he had his weapon visible at any point in time (say, drawn because he was afraid of being ambushed by a criminal) and trayvon saw that, it would definitely be provocation enough to deprive Zimmerman of a self defense claim. 

Even assuming that did not happen, he's still got a problem because he ran after someone who wasn't doing anything wrong or threatening, knowing full well that the person was trying to get away from him.

[T.O.M.]

Sorry. Went camping over the weekend with my Cub Scouts.  No internet.  Anyways, I find  it interesting to find that so many are willing to take Z at his word as to what happened.  Just an observation.  When I was  a prosecutor, I never took aanyone's statement as gospel until everything made sense in my mind, start to finish.  So from that perspective, I played a lot of "what if" in my mind.  I also had the thought that DeSelby had.  Z goes into the unknown following a gang banger on drugs.  He may have drawn.  I imight have.  T sees the gun, may feel trapped, so attacks.

And anyone objecting to "facts  not in evidence," I'll overrule the objection as there are no facts in evidence as of yet, just press information, and we all know how reliable that can be.

[TommyGunn]

Uh, who is assuming that's what happened?  

Edit to clarify:  the point there was that even with all of what mak assumed to be true, Zimmerman could still be guilty of a crime.   Assuming that Zimmerman was jogging back to his car doesn't make out self defence under the circumstances.   For example, if he had his weapon visible at any point in time (say, drawn because he was afraid of being ambushed by a criminal) and trayvon saw that, it would definitely be provocation enough to deprive Zimmerman of a self defense claim.  

Even assuming that did not happen, he's still got a problem because he ran after someone who wasn't doing anything wrong or threatening, knowing full well that the person was trying to get away from him.

YOU were assuming.

Did you consider the possibility that trayvon saw the gun, which is why he tried to pound zimmerman?

Is there any evidence Trayvon saw the gun?  I don't think so.  This may pass muster on an internet forum but unless there's a reason to substantiate it, the question would be deemed too speculative to be allowed in court.

Moreover, if I was just passin' through and minding my own business and someone was ..."apparantly" following me and had a gun out, the last thing in the world I would do is "ambush" him or confront him.  That sounds like a crazy thing to do.

[Monkeyleg]

And anyone objecting to "facts  not in evidence," I'll overrule the objection as there are no facts in evidence as of yet, just press information, and we all know how reliable that can be.

Aw, c'mon. People were feeling pretty lawyerly using the phrase "facts not in evidence".

[TommyGunn]

And anyone objecting to "facts  not in evidence," I'll overrule the objection as there are no facts in evidence as of yet, just press information, and we all know how reliable that can be.

I was using the term rhetorically.  
Besides, it makes me feel like Perry Mason, one of my childhood heroes.  

Since O.J. Simpson was found "not guilty" can we assume courts have only a slightly better record of getting things right?

[Pharmacology]

Did you consider the possibility that trayvon saw the gun, which is why he tried to pound zimmerman?   Strange man chasing you at night with a gun ought to be grounds for trying to take it from him.  But no, let's not imagine anything the ccwer did could be bad.   It must be a frame up because otherwise al sharp ton wouldn't have said anything about it.

[De Selby]

Well, let's see, the prosecutor/judicial officer here sees something funny, the lead investigator swore probable cause before the papers knew this was a case, and now the only possible explanation some people see for the charges is "politix!!!!!".   

Let's all say it together folks:  chasing people who aren't doing anything while armed is insane, and will (should, even) lead to charges.   Playing the cop role when you're a junior college criminology student isn't just lame, it's dangerous, to your freedom and to the lives of others.

[makattak]

Well, let's see, the prosecutor/judicial officer here sees something funny, the lead investigator swore probable cause before the papers knew this was a case, and now the only possible explanation some people see for the charges is "politix!!!!!".   

Let's all say it together folks:  chasing people who aren't doing anything while armed is insane, and will (should, even) lead to charges.   Playing the cop role when you're a junior college criminology student isn't just lame, it's dangerous, to your freedom and to the lives of others.

And, again, conflating following with "chasing."

You are assuming a fact not conceded. Everyone concedes Mr. Zimmerman followed Mr. Martin. The disagreement comes in (1) the length of time of the following and (2) that the following led to "chasing". Those are disputed (and unknown!) data.

You build your entire argument upon those disputed facts.

[Tallpine]

Did you consider the possibility that trayvon saw the gun, which is why he tried to pound zimmerman?

And Zimmerman with a gun already in his hand would have shot Martin before he landed a punch.

[MechAg94]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/os-george-zimmerman-key-witnesses-20120522,0,4935982,full.story

A fourth abandoned her initial story, that she saw one person chasing another. Now, she says, she saw a single figure running.

I think this is the witness De Selby is referring to about chasing.  She didn't have contacts in and just seems like a witness who saw little or nothing.

As for the other witness stories, I am not sure if they really hurt Zimmerman or not.  I guess it depends on how you are visualizing the events.  The one guy saying Zimmerman was on top after the shooting just doesn't seem relavant to me as it was after. 

[T.O.M.]

I was using the term rhetorically.  
Besides, it makes me feel like Perry Mason, one of my childhood heroes.  

Sometimes, I wish that real court was more like Perry Mason...

And I appreciate the use of the objection. 

[T.O.M.]

I would like to ask a question, and I'm being serious.  From what I understand, these are the facts known independent of Z's statement:

T was walking down the street, wearing a hood up.  Z was following him in his vehicle, and reported to the dispatcher that he was following a suspected gang member who appeared to be under the influence.  T ducked between houses.  Per his phone call, he tells his girlfriend that he's being followed by some guy, and he's nervous/scared.  Z tells dispatcher that he's going to follow T on foot, and is told not to by the dispatcher.  Witnesses describe seeing a fight between two males.  Some describe the black subject on top, others the white subject.  A shot is fired by Z.  T died.  No one saw the shot fired.  Z was taken to the police station, has injuries documented (facial bruising, broken nose?, injury to back of head).  Autopsy shows T had bruising on hands (consistent with punching), and trace amounts only of marihuana.

Is this accurate?  I'm not going out of my way to keep up with the case.  Too much of my own docket to worry about.  But, before I make my next argument about something, I want to make sure I know the facts as well as I can (without having to read a bunch on-line).

[makattak]

I would like to ask a question, and I'm being serious.  From what I understand, these are the facts known independent of Z's statement:

T was walking down the street, wearing a hood up.  Z was following him in his vehicle, and reported to the dispatcher that he was following a suspected gang member who appeared to be under the influence.  T ducked between houses.  Per his phone call, he tells his girlfriend that he's being followed by some guy, and he's nervous/scared.  Z tells dispatcher that he's going to follow T on foot, and is told not to by the dispatcher.  Witnesses describe seeing a fight between two males.  Some describe the black subject on top, others the white subject.  A shot is fired by Z.  T died.  No one saw the shot fired.  Z was taken to the police station, has injuries documented (facial bruising, broken nose?, injury to back of head).  Autopsy shows T had bruising on hands (consistent with punching), and trace amounts only of marihuana.

Is this accurate?  I'm not going out of my way to keep up with the case.  Too much of my own docket to worry about.  But, before I make my next argument about something, I want to make sure I know the facts as well as I can (without having to read a bunch on-line).

No. You are including unconfirmed reports with known facts.

T was walking down the street, wearing a hood up.  Z was following him in his vehicle, and reported to the dispatcher that he was following a suspected gang member youth who appeared to be acting strangely, indicating ciminal intent or being under the influence.  T ducked between houses. Per his phone call, he tells his girlfriend that he's being followed by some guy, and he's nervous/scared. That call was not recorded and all we have is Trayvon's girlfriend's word on that.   Z tells dispatcher that he's going to follow T on foot T has started running at which point the dispatcher asks where he went. Z gets out of the car to follow and begins breathing harder at which point he is asked if he is following T and replies in the affirmative. He is told not to by the dispatcher.  Some witnesses describe seeing a fight between two males.  Some describe the black subject on top, others the white subject. You have conflated testimony here. I believe only one witness actually saw a fight and described T as being on top. Other witnesses who saw Z "on top" do not describe a fight but say he was "standing over him.". A shot is fired by Z.  T died.  No one saw the shot fired.  Z was taken to the police station, has injuries documented (facial bruising, broken nose?, injury to back of head).  Autopsy shows T had bruising on hands (consistent with punching), and trace amounts only of marihuana.

[gunsmith]

Today's latest news is that the eyewitnesses have dramatically changed their stories.

[AJ Dual]

Today's latest news is that the eyewitnesses have dramatically changed their stories.

Social pressure to "fit the narrative". Not surprising.

[HankB]

Today's latest news is that the eyewitnesses have dramatically changed their stories.

Does this include the eyewitness that saw T atop Z beating the latter, just before the fatal shot was fired?

Changes in the stories of other witnesses would seem to do more harm to the prosecution's case rather than the defense . . . a matter of witness credibility.

You know, more info is leaking out, and I still don't know  - know! - whether Z is innocent or guilty; I suppose that means "reasonable doubt" still prevails right now.