Z Never Had A Broken Nose

So you can't prove a trial by jury means nothing to me. What a shame.

 

once again not enough evidence to say either way, you can throw shots and not hurt your hands due to contact or you can hammer fist someone and thats less likely to hurt your fist doing that. but as far as im concerned at the most T only hit the guy twice because there was apparently some damage to his forehead as well i think i read in the EMS report. maybe 2 quick shots???

all in all my opinion on these 2 mindsets is they are both defiant morons, one wanting to be a cop and the other trying to be a hard ass thug. 2 idiots crossing eachothers path, both too prideful to just be cool and let it go and this is the outcome. ive seen it many times at my job, 2 dudes that think they are (*)(*)(*)(*)in hard actiing like children and trying to impress somebody. For Z he may have been trying to be a super hero for his neighborhood, impress the police by taking down a "perp" . for treyvon he could have been trying to impress the girl he was on the phone with, constantly stating "he aint gonna run" because god knows a teenager cant be chicken(*)(*)(*)(*) in fron of his woman lol.

i dunno, im just waiting for trial, everything seems so sketchy, from Z's story to DeeDee's statement and now witnesses changing their story. its like a big cluster(*)(*)(*)(*) of bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and to be honest this whole situation is annoying. (*)(*)(*)(*) ups by the SPD, the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) the media tried to spit out feeding the fire and getting everyone all stirred up on lies or trying to misconstrue the truth.

this to me is the joke this country has become. the USA, land of the free and home of the drama queen,

 

how does she prove anything, her word is just plain hearsay, she could have made a bunch of (*)(*)(*)(*) up. with everyone changing stories and as sketchy as everyting is how in the world can you say DeeDee proves anything?

 

I definitely agree with the last part of your post but I don't think you are giving T enough credit for running away from Z. He was not trying to act like a hard ass when he did that and it proves his first choice was no altercation of any kind.

We have important physical evidence and I understand about the hammer fist, but how likely is it T was doing that? We know the struggle lasted approximately 60 seconds from initial contact (when T's phone call was cut off) to the gunshot. Z does not have any where near the injuries of someone get beat on for that duration. I think we both know his injuries took no more than ten seconds, so what was happening during the rest of the time that fits the physical evidence?

 

Her word is not hearsay. In court, hearsay is evidence obtained by someone who was not a witness to an event. She was a witness to the event even though she couldn't see anything.

She proves Z lied because Z's claim is that he was attacked by T while returning to his truck. Here is the crucial aspect: in the first statement put out by SPD Z and T did not exchange any words at all. It was simply T attacking Z. After Crump revealed T was on the phone then Z's dad (who lied in his first letter to the media) claimed T asked Z a question and Z gave a one word answer and then T punched him.

Dee, along with resident witnesses, heard an actual argument prior to any physical altercation. This is one piece that proves Z lied about what happened because it is obvious T did not simply walk up to him and punch him or ask one question then punch him. Z lied about the argument because if he had been honest and admitted he got in T's face yelling at him, that T would have been justified in hitting Z not knowing Z's motives for following him and then questioning him. Z lied to cover up the fact he knew he committed assault even before they touched each other.

 

how can we what T is likely to do? im saying possibilities, im not trying to say its straight fact. neither of us know T or Z other than what we are all told about their past. in this case the only people who know what really happened are T and Z and DeeDee but who the hell can we honestly believe? of course T cant have his say, but we got a dude trying to stay out of jail and a girl who could very well make (*)(*)(*)(*) up because of her bias of the obvious.

here is the only evidence we really have...

-dead teenager
-the shooter with injuries consistent of his head slamming concrete and getting punched atleast one time in the nose
-witnesses dont know what they hell they saw or heard, they basically saw shadows and heard voices and a gun shot
-a girl on the phone at the time it happened who didnt give a statement till she met with prosecutors, so who knows what she was told or lead into or if she is even being honest
-video that shows nothing truly important at all
-audio that gives us nothing hardly other than Z being a dumb ass and investigating treyvon further

and no, T's smart move was to run, i give him credit for trying the first time to avoid confrontation. but DeeDee says in her testimony over and over how T was telling her he dont wanna run, if she is even telling the truth about anything which im highly doubtful that shows T is just as defiant as Z. both idiots ignored good advice, one started to take it then both were like "(*)(*)(*)(*) it" .

to be totally honest i wish they both had guns and just shot eachother, 2 dumbasses canceling eachother out and we as a country could move onto more important (*)(*)(*)(*) that is truly an issue in this country instead of fighting about dumb (*)(*)(*)(*) like this case.

this (*)(*)(*)(*) is way overblown and people think they know the answer by what little we actually know. no doors have been busted open, no major events have been unfolded for this to go either way and once again this proves how quickly we as citizens can be divided. its ultimately pathetic in my eyes. and in the end, even with a fair trial no matter which way the verdict goes half of this country is gonna be pissed off and will never let it rest. people still fight over the OJ verdict for christs sakes.

 

how is it proof when its just her words. you have no bone in your body to think she could lie about anything? to me thats not proof, thats just word of mouth and she can say anything she wants because we will never be able to hear wat was said, we only know she was on the phone at the time.

and again, she gave no statement till she met with prosecutors, well after Zimmerman gave his account. to me thats sketchy because she could have spoke with the prosecutors to simply get the her story to contradict with Z in key places.

DeeDee's testimony=sketchy


and no, u are not justified in attacking someone just because they are yelling at you.

 

She gave a statement to Crump (Martin family lawyer) first (which is undated and in the evidence list), then to ABC, then to the Feds, then to the prosecutors weeks after the incident. She never gave a statement to the police.

 

so i was wrong and she talked to the martin family lawyer before anyone? oh lord thats even worse. run straight to the obvious bias side and lets get the words right shall we???

 

Her testimony is corroborated by witnesses who were there. Do you understand her testimony matches with people she never met in her life? It is possible she lied about something but you cannot dismiss what she heard when it is exactly what other witnesses heard. When complete strangers agree to what they witnessed, that is pretty strong evidence in court.

 

The only problem with your theory is Crump didnt know what the other witnesses saw/heard when he met with Dee. You are trying really really hard to make Dee a liar. It seems like you are giving more credibility to the guy who killed an unarmed 17 year old.

 

It does not make sense to put equal blame on Z and T with all the facts we do know.

 

That might be true, it's not what he possibly told her to say, but what he possibly told her NOT TO SAY, or LEAVE OUT.

 

So you accuse a 16 year old girl of lying but take everything coming out of Z's side as gospel. It is not an accident the double standards you guys employ here are visible in most of your positions.

 

exactly what the other witnesses heard? witness stories alone right now are going against eachother, not all witnesses agree with eachother and ell cant even figure out what story they wanna tell.

im not trusting anyones story at this point, its a cluster(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

im not giving any credibility, i said all stories were sketchy, the whole thing is sketchy.

 

the facts that we do know can go either way, there is still too many gaps in the whole thing.

all we have is a dead teenager and a man who got his head cut open and 2 black eyes and possibly a broken nose. we have nothing but speculation.

 

im no longer taking either side, but the fact is both sides are very guilty of what you are saying in this very post. Z defenders takes Z's side and T defenders take T's side. when in fact nobody knows truly (*)(*)(*)(*) about (*)(*)(*)(*).

 

I have given all evidence the same level of scrutiny and I can't speak for all supporters on either side but there is nothing I have claimed that is not supported by the facts and I have not ignored any evidence. I have tried to piece together what happened based on all of the info instead of bits and pieces.

 

I'm talking about only what Dee witnessed on the phone. She heard an argument at the beginning, which is what other witnesses have also said. We have a witness on the phone and witnesses who were there saying the same thing: there was an argument before it got physical and Z's claim is there was no argument and that T simply attacked him. I'm taking her testimony not simply because she said it, but because it is corroborated by other witnesses.

 

I understand it is frustrating but it is completely false to say all we have is speculation. Even leaving all of the witnesses out of it we have a lot of recorded evidence and medical and police reports that tell us quite a bit. Obviously we do not yet have the five different statements Z had provided but they obviously do not help his case which is why his lawyer is trying to keep some of his statements out of the trial. If Z was truly innocent, his lawyer would not be trying to suppress Z's own words.

 

What is your evidence that backs up this statement of fact?

Baseless conjecture.

Some of the best fighters I ever saw had killer jabs with their opposite hands, more baseless conjecture on your part.

Do you really think your made up nonsense passes as fact?

More unqualified conjecture on your part.

He ran back to the apartment he was staying at according to the girl friend.

 

He was returning towards the direction from which they would be coming.

That is not a fact, he was closer.

 

Why should he have run? If I am walking where I have every right to walk, because someone is following me is no reason for me to run. If TM had known that GZ was armed, maybe he would have run. The point is, TM didn't need to be intimidated into running, no one should.

 

Why didn't GZ do what the 911 operator told him and not follow him. Seems like you GZ defenders have all the answers as to what TM should have done, but have no complaints about GZ. People have the right to walk in their neighborhoods without being intimidated by anyone. If TM had known that GZ had intentions of killing him and was carrying a gun, maybe he would have run, then GZ would have had to shoot him in the back and you probably would still be defending him.