[Vision2020] Zimmy beams as he tours gun factory

[Joe Campbell]

Thanks Scott. If you read the news reports or transcripts the testimonies are less definitive than you claim. But that's a relatively small disagreement between us. Joe

On Aug 26, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Just a couple of rebuttal points and then 'nuff said by me on this thread.
> 
> John Good was an eyewitness called by the PROSECUTION and he testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him as Zimmerman was lying on the ground.
> 
> If Saundra is truly saying 'that there is room for doubt and interpretation', then that hampers the prosecution and plays right into the hands of the defense.  She also goes on to say that there is something wrong with Florida  laws.  I agree with her on that one.  I don't think Zimmerman should have gotten off Scott Free and he should have some black mark on his record.
> 
> I don't disagree that Martin was provoked.  He knew he was being followed by a 'crazy ass cracker'.  The only injuries cited on Martin's autopsy report were the gunshot and a small abrasion on his left ring finger below the knuckle.  At issue is that once the two of them had been fighting for some time (45 seconds minimum since that's the only duration that can be firmly established) during which George Zimmerman is being beating (according to the prosecution witness and Zimmerman's injuries) and yelling 'Help! Help!' (according to two 911 calls and the prosecution witness) before he fires his gun, is it reasonable to conclude he was acting in self defense?  
> 
> -Scott
> 
> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:00:45 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Zimmy beams as he tours gun factory
> From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> To: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
> 
> The witnesses (plural) did not say anything definitively; nothing. All of their comments were qualified: "I think ..." etc. No one KNOWS what happened other than Zimmerman. Some folks choose to believe Zimmerman and some don't. There is room for doubt and interpretation -- and that is all that Sandra was saying.
> 
> Besides, suppose you follow someone for a length of time, first in a car then on foot. You get in shouting match with the person and it escalates into a fight. You think you then have the right to kill him in "self-defense"? That sounds wrong to me. Calling it "self-defense" sounds wrong since stalking someone is a kind of provocation. (I know that you accept some of this Scott; I generally agree with your take on the issue -- just not all of it.)
> 
> Lastly, we never saw pictures of Martin's face, did we? Hard to say who was beating on whom -- which again was the main point that Saundra was trying to make. Nothing cut and dry about this case at all.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Scott Dredge <scooterd408 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> BTW, regarding your statement:
> 
> 'Further, having had the most unfortunate experience of having had to literally fight for my life, neither Zimmerman’s nor Trayvon’s injuries are consistent with your  interpretation of Trayvon beating Zimmerman for “at least 45 seconds.”  They just aren’t, and that’s something that’s pretty indisputable, pure and simple.'
> 
> I can't establish a timeline of 45 seconds based on Zimmerman's bloody, swollen, broken nose, and cuts to the back of his head.  I'm basing the 45 seconds on the start of the first 911 disturbance cal, through all the screams of 'help', and up to the recorded gunshot on the call.  The 45 seconds of the beating of Zimmerman by Martin is what is recorded in that the call and assumes that the call was placed and connected IMMEDIATELY with 911 operator at the very start of the disturbance.   If you want to extend the beating by several more seconds due to the lag of the caller realizing that there was in fact a disturbance, a lag for her to get to a phone, a lag for her to dial it, a lag for the call to connect, and then a lag for the 911 operator to answer, then I think that's reasonable, but not measurable, so we're stuck with the 45 seconds at the start of the call being picked up, through the screams of help, up to the gunshot.  And the only eyewitness testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating.  The eyewitness claims that Zimmerman was yelling 'Help! Help!'  The eyewitness claims to have yelled to Martin to 'stop' and that he was 'calling 911'.  The police are on the scene within 2 minutes of the shooting, handcuff Zimmerman, photograph Zimmerman with a bloody nose, take him down to the station, and photograph him again with cuts on the back of his head.
> 
> If you want to say that Zimmerman's injuries are too minor for him to have  been beaten on for 45 seconds, I can't dispute that because I can't determine a timeline bases on those injuries.  If Zimmerman were lying on the ground in a completely defenseless position with Martin reigning blows on his face, I'd expect more damage.  But I don't have any information if Zimmerman was defenseless or if he was trying to block any of Martin's blows.  I'm not going by extent of injuries, I'm only going by the 911 timestamping which records screams for 'help' and 45 seconds later records a gunshot.  That coupled with Zimmerman's injuries (bloody nose, cuts), eyewitness testimony, and the fact that the shot was fired at very close range pretty much destroys any theory that Zimmerman was in a 3 point stance taking aim at Martin's kill zone.
> 
> The defense had a relatively easy task displaying 'reasonable doubt'.
> 
> From: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
> To: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm
> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:38:02 -0600
> 
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Zimmy beams as he tours gun factory
> 
> The irrefutable timeline, evidence, and witness testimony I was referring to was:
> Zimmerman hangs up on a recorded / timestamped phone call after talking with the police dispatcher for more than 4 minutes.
> 2.5 minutes later, a recorded / timestamped 911 call is made reporting a disturbance with screams of 'help' in the background.
> 30 seconds later another recorded / timestamped 911 call is made reporting reporting a disturbance with screams in the background.
> 14 seconds later (and 45 seconds after the first 911 disturbance call), a gunshot is recorded / timestamped.
> 2 minutes after the gunshot police arrive on the scene.
> Zimmerman has a bloody, swollen, broken nose and cuts on the back of his head.  Martin has been shot dead at very close range.
> The only eyewitness of the account (not including Zimmerman) is that Martin was on top of Zimmerman punching him while Zimmerman is call for help.
> 
> 
> Note that I don't even mention George Zimmerman's statement in the above.  The least unreliable of the above is the eyewitness testimony, so throw that out if you wish.  You still have 911 calls recording & timestamping calls for help, a delay, a gunshot, and then police arriving 2 minutes later finding a bloodied George Zimmerman smacked in the nose and head and a dead Trayvon Martin.  Concoct your own story if you wish, but if you want to convince a jury, you'd best have compelling evidence to back it up.  And as for 'compelling DNA' evidence.  What's compelling about it?  That this counters George Zimmerman's statement that Martin's hand was on the gun and holster?  This was was yet another lie in a long string of lies from George Zimmerman because he's a lying lyer and he's only full of lies.  So why believe anything he says?  Why even believe that he was 'reaching' for something'???:
> 
> 'Truth' - he was 'reaching'.  This is clearly established by Zimmerman's unreliable admission.
> 'Lie' - he was reaching for his phone.
> 'Truth' - he was reaching for his gun although there is no supporting evidence of this.
> 'Truth' - alternately he had already drawn his weapon although there is no supporting evidence for this.
> Possible Credible Truth - Martin tackled Zimmerman causing all of his injuries in one fell swoop.
> 'Truth' - Zimmerman yelled for 'help' for at least 45 seconds while Martin just looked at his watch.
> 'Truth' - Zimmerman having already drawn his weapon before being tackled waited around for 45 seconds for the cobwebs to clear out of his head after being tackle and then calmly placed his gun (which he had somehow managed to hold on to after being tackled) in the chest of Martin while Martin just continued looking at his watch.
> Undeniable Truth - Zimmerman pulled the trigger.
> 
> 
> Which version do you think the jury is going to believe?  The one that is backed by recorded / timestamped 911 calls & evidence corroborated by eyewitness testimony?  Or the one that is full of speculation and has absolutely zero evidence and witness testimony backing it?  If you can refute anything whatsoever in the topmost story, have at it.  Keep in  mind that the 911 calls are recorded and timestamped as I've already mentioned a number of times.  But if you don't find 911 calls to be reliable, then that defense strategy completely falls apart.  And admittedly, I'm putting a lot of weight on the 911 so-called 'evidence'.
> 
> 
> 
> -Scott
> 
> 
> 
> From: v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm
> To: scooterd408 at hotmail.com
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Zimmy beams as he tours gun factory
> Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:53:31 -0700
> 
> In part, Scott wrote:
> “Based on photographic evidence, audio evidence, the measurable timeline, GZ's medical report, TM's autopsy report combined with corroborating witness testimony, it's difficult to draw any conclusion other than TM being on top of GZ and hitting him for at least 45 seconds prior to the fatal and only shot.”
>  
> Here’s the thing, Scott:  it really isn’t difficult to draw a conclusion different than what you think.  Some people smarter than you & I agree with your interpretation, but some people smarter than you & I don’t agree with your interpretation.  For instance, I found the DNA evidence to be pretty compelling, and it absolutely did not support Zimmerman’s little one-sided tale.  You apparently think differently, or perhaps gave greater weight to other things I found less compelling.
>  
> I don’t know what “measurable timeline” you like, but the timeline I’m aware of absolutely supports that fact that an armed Zimmerman stalked Trayvon, and that Trayvon attempted to escape his stalker, unfortunately unsuccessfully, on at least one occasion.  Actually, I think it accurate to say he aggressively tracked and hunted Trayvon, but I’m content to call it stalking.
>  
> My interpretation of the evidence is that when Trayvon was unable to lose his stalker, he verbally confronted Zimmerman, who in his own statement admits that he (Zimmerman) started reaching for something.  Zimmerman “claims” he was reaching for the cell phone in his pocket, which I find to be utter rot & just another of his many lies  – he was going for his firearm.  Regardless of whether Zimmerman was reaching for his cell phone or his firearm, anyone with connected brain cells – particularly after having been stalked for several minutes and having tried unsuccessfully to escape the stalker – would reasonably assume that Zimmerman was going for a gun.  (Actually, for all you or I know, Zimmerman had already drawn down on Trayvon at that point.)  Besides, isn’t that the reaction all the gun nuts want us to have?  That’s the mindset they think will make society safer:  “Don’t mess with me because for all you know, I’m packing heat & I’ll shoot you dead.”  It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.
>  
> Anyway, unable to outrun a bullet, Trayvon took the only option available to him, and that was to make a running tackle at the goon with the gun before he could fire.  And, Zimmerman was as lame in the confrontation he initiated as he’s been in life:  Trayvon tackles Zimmerman before Zimmerman can get off a shot.  Having watched my share of football in my youn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130826/aab5d01b/attachment-0001.html>