Police witnesses say the guy in the hoodie was on top of another guy beating him.

 

"He witnesses a black male, wearing a dark colored 'hoodie' on top of a white or Hispanic male and throwing punches 'MMA (mixed martial arts) style,'" the police report of the witness said. "He then heard a pop. He stated that after hearing the pop, he observed the person he had previously observed on top of the other person (the male wearing the hoodie) laid out on the grass."

 

A second witness described a person on the ground with another straddling him and throwing punches. The man on the bottom was yelling for help, the witness told police.

 

You left out the part where he said he went to call 911 and heard a pop. He wasn't watching what was going on at the time of the shot. All he can do is speculate that Martin was still whooping him.

You left out the part where he said he went to call 911 and heard a pop. He wasn't watching what was going on at the time of the shot. All he can do is speculate that Martin was still whooping him.

 

You are wrong in who has to prove what. The prosecution almost has to prove that Martin wasn't on top to get a murder conviction IMO. Speculation is for the defense. Facts beyond a reasonable doubt is on the state and jury. Not by your faulty definition of murder. I'm actually talking about the legal definition of murder here.

You are wrong in who has to prove what. The prosecution almost has to prove that Martin wasn't on top to get a murder conviction IMO. Speculation is for the defense. Facts beyond a reasonable doubt is on the state and jury. Not by your faulty definition of murder. I'm actually talking about the legal definition of murder here.

 

I know how the legal process works, so spare me. I'm not on the jury though so I'm allowed to formulate whatever opinion I want. I don't have to take an innocent until proven guilty approach.

 

You've already made up your mind that Zimmerman is innocent, just as you claim I've made up my mind, so let's just stop this nonsense.

Now the father is saying "hold up."

 

 

The police report states that Trayvon Martin's father told an investigator after listening to 911 tapes that captured a man's voice frantically callling for help that it was not his son calling for help.

 

But Tracy Martin, Trayvon's father, claims that is not true. The Martin family lawyer Ben Crump told ABC News that Tracy Martin initially listened to a distorted version of the 911 calls and said he could not identify the voice. But when he listened to a second tape that had been "cleaned," "He immediately broke down in tears because he knew it was his son calling for help," Crump said.

 

Cops, Witnesses Back Up George Zimmerman's Version - ABC News

 

My point was that the voice experts can't determine for sure who is screaming and the two fathers now disagree. It just adds to the mess.

I struggle to find the cause for Zimmerman killing Martin.

 

You're wrong about abortion. It's legal, therefore per your definition, it can't be murder.

Actually I'm not wrong. You can believe the law is wrong and something is murder. That doesn't mean in the eyes of the law it's murder. I can even understand if you believe what Zimmerman did was murder. However that doesn't mean every time one person kills another it's murder unless you think the law shouldn't allow for self defense.

I know how the legal process works, so spare me. I'm not on the jury though so I'm allowed to formulate whatever opinion I want. I don't have to take an innocent until proven guilty approach.

 

You've already made up your mind that Zimmerman is innocent, just as you claim I've made up my mind, so let's just stop this nonsense.

 

No I haven't. I've made up my mind that the evidence the general public has heard makes it really hard for me to believe he's guilty of the murder charge. There could very easily be evidence that sways that belief. I totally believe that Zimmerman is at fault for the death in that if he doesn't leave his vehicle Martin is most certainly still alive. I just haven't seen the evidence it would take to convince me he's guilty of murder. I in no way see him as a racist like you do for profiling. Almost everyone in the country profiles daily. He had a reason to be on the lookout for suspicious black people.

^Simple question. If Martin were white, would he still be alive today?

^Shooting an unarmed 17 year old kid is murder anyway you slice it. Now he may not get convicted of it, but let's not act like it's an accidental death. He pulled the trigger, he knew full well he was ending Martin's life when he did. Even if you kill someone in self-defense, you still "murdered" them. It's a justified murder, but it's still murder.

 

I think you are confusing the words, murder and homicide.

Even if Zimmerman started the fight by rushing Martin or by punching him it doesn't mean he couldn't legally shoot him. What is hard to understand about that?

 

Zimmerman backers keep coming up with the most outlandish scenarios. Explain why he is arrested. No law allows you to attack an unarmed man and shoot them and not face prosecution. Stop it, now. Police say confrontation was avoidable on Zimmerman's part. Everything else is happenstance caused by him.

Let me make sure I understand you. You are questioning eye witness testimony as unreliable but you are willing to take the word of voice recognition experts listening to a tape?

 

First day of law school, I'm told anyway, the professor is teaching and a mysterious person walks in the room wearing various items. Shows face and leaves after 15-30 seconds. Professor then asks students to identify the person as best as possible. This is done to show the unreliability of eyewitness testimony.

To me it's pretty simple. You intentionally take another's life (regardless of circumstance) it's murder.

 

 

A robber breaks into my house in the middle of the night, I'm grabbing my gun and killing the robber. I'm legally justified, but make no mistake about it, I murdered the guy.

 

You are more than welcome to keep thinking that way, but you are wrong.

^Well, that matters a great deal. If no one saw the shot, no one can claim that Zimmerman was in danger. For all we know Zimmerman could've got Martin off him, pulled a gun and delivered the kill shot. The only way the "in danger" defense works is if Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he fired. I'm surprised that information hasn't came out yet. They should be able to determine by the angle of the shot what position they were in.

 

You are wrong regarding what's in bold.

 

Picture this. Martin is on top of Zimmerman giving him a good ole butt whoopin. Zimmerman manages to kick Martin off of him for a brief moment, while drawing his gun. Martin comes back in to attack Zimmerman again, and Zimmerman fires the round. I think he could argue he was "in danger" at that point because Martin was coming back for more.

 

Not saying that's what happened. But your example is not the only way Zimmerman could be "in danger".

First day of law school, I'm told anyway, the professor is teaching and a mysterious person walks in the room wearing various items. Shows face and leaves after 15-30 seconds. Professor then asks students to identify the person as best as possible. This is done to show the unreliability of eyewitness testimony.

 

There is a big difference in your example, which is; unsuspecting students focused on a teacher can't describe a mysterious person who walks in the room for 30 seconds...

 

Vs. people who are watching something out of the ordinary (a fight in their back yard).

 

It's not like people are asking them to identify them by their faces. They are saying the one with the hoody was on top of the other guy. That's not that difficult to remember.

SSC; 75Center have already made their minds up, just as I and others have made ours up saying Zimmerman is guilty. Point blank (pardon the pun). Cops say Zimmerman could have avoided confrontation. Audio experts say screams for help are not Zimmerman's voice. I bet Tracy Martin said that wasn't his son's voive because the voice sounded so wimpy. But having a gun drawn on you can do that. Zimmerman got handled by a kid, and killed him. Zimmerman caused this by himself. The thing that keeps this from being an open and shut case is that ZImmerman was not given a drug or urine test after shooting. He will go down for something. As I said way back when, the killing of an unarmed high school student, at the hands of a grown man is not just good clean fun. Although the law was made by bureaucrats, this was a crime against a human and must be punished. I saw a lawyer analyst say this on CourtTV many years ago. It stuck with me. They were talking about a murder of a pregnant woman and the defendant, whom was not related to her, had such circumstantial evidence agisnt him, and not any real hard evidence if memory serves. But the man was convicted. The thing about somebody has to pay was the analysts explanation for the weak conviction. We definitely know who shot this unarmed high school pedestrian. We know the confrontation was avoidable. Zimmerman will pay.

All making excuses for Zimmerman need a reality check. He killed a kid. You are not supporting conceal/carry or any controversial law in Florida. You are supporting a cold-blooded killer. And as I have said before, Zimmerman white friend (Frank Taafe) and his black friend (Joe? Oliver) have both said more than once on prime time cable television these exact words, "All Trayvon had to do was say he was visiting his stepmother's house, and none of this happens." That is what ultimately is going to do Zimmerman in. It shows Zimmerman accosted him and asked a question of some sorts. Trayvon is allowed to stand his ground at that point. For SSC and 75Center and others clearly supporting ZImmerman, at what point was Trayvon allowed to use the stand your ground law in his favor? Just because he didn't have a gun, doesn't mean he wasn't standing his ground. He stood his ground and whipped a grown man with his bare hands. How impressive. The grown man didn't like it, this uppity negro in his neighborhood and has the nerve to beat me down, so I will shoot and show him a thing or two.

There is a big difference in your example, which is; unsuspecting students focused on a teacher can't describe a mysterious person who walks in the room for 30 seconds...

 

Vs. people who are watching something out of the ordinary (a fight in their back yard).

 

It's not like people are asking them to identify them by their faces. They are saying the one with the hoody was on top of the other guy. That's not that difficult to remember.

 

Not like the teacher doesn't stop and acknowledge the person in room. In a scuffle, the simple physics of a scuffle says the hoody would come off your head. If it was as dark as everyone claims it was back there, how can you tell if someone is wearing a hoody, especially if they are going at it MMA style.

So Zimmerman shot the kid while the kid was on top, got him off of him, then stood up and straddled the kid? Or were they standing up after Trayvon displayed his ground game was polished as his hand work, and Zimmerman pulls, Trayvon screams for help, and Zimmerman shoots, Trayvon falls face first and then Zimmerman straddles him.