Why is George Zimmerman allowed to roam free tonight?

NormanTheIntern wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

No one's contesting the fact that there was an altercation. But Zimmerman's injuries weren't serious, he was armed, and the cops (who Zimmerman called) were literally seconds away. It seems a giant leap from those facts to "I felt so threatened I had to shoot someone."

Unless you're arguing that someone had to actually deal you a life threatening wound in order to legitimately "feel threatened" that's pretty much irrelevant. It's a completely contextual/situational thing - I could dangle you off a bridge, not cause you any injury at all, but you'd be right to feel like your life was in danger.

I feel my life is threatened whenever there are cops nearby. I feel threatened by young people. Man, lots of trials to get through with all of this "self defense" I'll be conducting.

Like I said, there are contexts where that's a reasonable feeling and contexts where it isn't, being actually seriously wounded is not a pre-requisite so the extent of his wounds aren't relevant.

I don't see any resolution of the argument on any side here. Mainly because there is little real evidence to run with, but it's enough to cast doubt on what a lot of folks are saying.

I see Norman and others' point on here. Regardless of the severity of his injuries (which you don't stop to self-assess in the middle of a fight - you just don't) it seems that Zimmerman was the worse for wear up to the point where Martin was shot. Was Martin on top? Sure seems like it, or at least that they were rolling around. Did Martin appear to reach for the gun? That's what Zimmerman says. He sure was gentle on Martin up to the point where he shot him, though. Maybe he was jumped. Maybe he made the stupid decision to attempt to physically detain him. Maybe he shot him in cold blood and wounded himself. We don't know.

Personally I think Zimmerman was culpable well before the physical altercation for getting himself into this horrible mess. However, I don't see enough in any of the evidence or what's said here to make me feel like we have an accurate representation of what went on after he was off the phone.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Unless you're arguing that someone had to actually deal you a life threatening wound in order to legitimately "feel threatened" that's pretty much irrelevant. It's a completely contextual/situational thing - I could dangle you off a bridge, not cause you any injury at all, but you'd be right to feel like your life was in danger.

And we're back to ignoring everything up until the point that Martin struck Zimmerman.

If simply feeling threatened was the red line that justified violence, then Martine was justified in hitting Zimmerman for stalking him throughout the neighborhood.

But you're right that it's contextual, Norman. And the context was that Zimmerman was the instigator of the entire situation as well as the person who escalated things by following on foot. He was also armed and the police were literally seconds away from showing up.

DevilStick wrote:

Serious injuries aren't required for a claim of self defense. However, the extent of Zimmerman's injuries would be evidence for a jury to consider in deciding whether Zimmerman had a "reasonable belief" that "[deadly] force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm".

So now we know that a bloody nose will get you shot in Florida. God bless America.

The entire incident was series of increasingly bad decisions, virtually all of them made by Zimmerman. The real question, though, is would Zimmerman have been so eager to shoot had he not already assumed Martin was a very bad man--someone who was "up to no good," "on drugs or something," and "had something in his hands"?

DevilStick wrote:

Right, and I have considered the autopsy description (I quoted it in a post above after all). That's one of the bits of evidence that weakens Zimmerman's story the most.

So you're left with Zimmerman's word, which shouldn't be trusted given that he's the one on trial, and the word of an eyewitness who changed their story and didn't actually witness any hitting or head bashing.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Like I said, there are contexts where that's a reasonable feeling and contexts where it isn't, being actually seriously wounded is not a pre-requisite so the extent of his wounds aren't relevant.

The extent of his wounds are relevant if we are going to believe his story.

NathanialG wrote:
NormanTheIntern wrote:

Like I said, there are contexts where that's a reasonable feeling and contexts where it isn't, being actually seriously wounded is not a pre-requisite so the extent of his wounds aren't relevant.

The extent of his wounds are relevant if we are going to believe his story.

I'd say otherwise. I've been in plenty of fights, and one thing you don't know during one is how hurt you really are. Adrenaline does that. Zimmerman had a broken nose and abrasions on the back of his head. Martin's body as quoted on here was "pristine". We don't know what happened, but that could speak to who had the upper hand prior to the shooting. Hell... I doubt Zimmerman really knows what happened if the situation was as chaotic as the witnesses describe. All we know is what happened prior when he was on the phone, and that he brought a gun into the situation. When you add a gun things can more easily escalate to where someone is going to die. Whoever has that gun has control, and when a struggle for that control starts... well... it's you or them at that point. Personally, that's one reason why I choose not to have one.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

But keep being glib about, no biggie.

Two belly laughs in one day - you, sir, are on a roll.

DevilStick wrote:

I have considered the autopsy description (I quoted it in a post above after all). That's one of the bits of evidence that weakens Zimmerman's story the most.

How about the fact that Zimmerman was caught lying to the judge in this case? (I've mentioned this in my repeated 'problems for Zimmerman's story' text, but don't know that anyone's ever actually noticed that bit).

The injuries to Zimmerman are only relevant insofar as they keep being cited (in conjunction with Zimmerman's testimony) as evidence that Martin began the physical confrontation. As far as I'm aware, the only testimony that Martin confronted Zimmerman at all is from Zimmerman himself, who (as mentioned previously) has shown a willingness to lie to the judicial system merely when his perceived financial interests are at stake - I'm not sure he would be more likely to find a conscience when his freedom is on the line. That, coupled with the fact that the autopsy of Martin does not jibe with Zimmerman's account of the fight, doesn't make me think his version of events is likely to be truthful. All the photo of Zimmerman's injuries shows is that Martin landed at least one good punch. It sheds no light onto the circumstances when that punch (or punches) were thrown. It's at least as plausible to assume that Martin swung at Zimmerman after being threatened with the gun as it is to assume that Martin initiated the physical conflict and continued even after Zimmerman could not reasonably be considered a threat.

Zimmerman is a problematic witness, and all the other evidence is conflicted. That definitely creates reasonable doubt, but even in Zimmerman's version of events he pursued a teenager who was armed with nothing stronger than a pack of Skittles, ignored the dispatcher telling him to cease pursuit, and left his vehicle (with a gun) to chase down the teen on foot.

[Edit: because unmatched parentheses are the Devil's playground.]

OG_slinger wrote:
DevilStick wrote:

Serious injuries aren't required for a claim of self defense. However, the extent of Zimmerman's injuries would be evidence for a jury to consider in deciding whether Zimmerman had a "reasonable belief" that "[deadly] force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm".

So now we know that a bloody nose will get you shot in Florida. God bless America.

It might get you shot, but the shooter would need the "reasonable belief" above to claim self defense. A bloody nose by itself won't suffice.

OG_slinger wrote:

The entire incident was series of increasingly bad decisions, virtually all of them made by Zimmerman.

Absolutely true.

OG_slinger wrote:

So you're left with Zimmerman's word, which shouldn't be trusted given that he's the one on trial, and the word of an eyewitness who changed their story and didn't actually witness any hitting or head bashing.

Zimmerman didn't actually testify - his defense was based on the other evidence. And in a criminal case, the defendant just has to show reasonable doubt.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

How about the fact that Zimmerman was caught lying to the judge in this case? (I've mentioned this in my repeated 'problems for Zimmerman's story' text, but don't know that anyone's ever actually noticed that bit).

If Zimmerman had taken the stand, the prosecution probably could have used this to undermine his credibility with the jury. Zimmerman didn't need to take the stand though.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

The injuries to Zimmerman are only relevant insofar as they keep being cited (in conjunction with Zimmerman's testimony) as evidence that Martin began the physical confrontation.

I've only suggested the injuries show an altercation of some sort happened.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

As far as I'm aware, the only testimony that Martin confronted Zimmerman at all is from Zimmerman himself, who (as mentioned previously) has shown a willingness to lie to the judicial system merely when his perceived financial interests are at stake - I'm not sure he would be more likely to find a conscience when his freedom is on the line. That, coupled with the fact that the autopsy of Martin does not jibe with Zimmerman's account of the fight, doesn't make me think his version of events is likely to be truthful. All the photo of Zimmerman's injuries shows is that Martin landed at least one good punch. It sheds no light onto the circumstances when that punch (or punches) were thrown. It's at least as plausible to assume that Martin swung at Zimmerman after being threatened with the gun as it is to assume that Martin initiated the physical conflict and continued even after Zimmerman could not reasonably be considered a threat.

This is possible - the prosecution simply didn't have sufficient evidence to support this at trial.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Zimmerman is a problematic witness, and all the other evidence is conflicted. That definitely creates reasonable doubt, but even in Zimmerman's version of events he pursued a teenager who was armed with nothing stronger than a pack of Skittles, ignored the dispatcher telling him to cease pursuit, and left his vehicle (with a gun) to chase down the teen on foot.

At the very least, Zimmerman was incredibly irresponsible, even if the prosecution couldn't prove criminal culpability.

I hope 911 dispatchers are more specific in the future, rather than "We don't need you to do that." regarding following him maybe "Stop doing that right now, remain stationary in the safety of your locked vehicle or return home immediately, the police will handle it."

krev82 wrote:

I hope 911 dispatchers are more specific in the future, rather than "We don't need you to do that." regarding following him maybe "Stop doing that right now, remain stationary in the safety of your locked vehicle or return home immediately, the police will handle it."

Based on testimony during the trial by Seat Noffke, the 9-1-1 dispatcher Zimmerman was speaking with, they're currently trained to avoid doing that for liability reasons. If that's their reason for not doing it, it's hard to imagine them changing their minds: any order, even if the best possible advice, could still have bad outcomes in the kind of situations 9-1-1 folks probably deal with. I'm not even remotely a legal expert, but I suspect at that point all you'd probably need for an attempted lawsuit is to come up with another plausible course of action that could have had better results, or an expert who thinks the advice wasn't the best possible after all.

http://crime.about.com/b/2013/06/25/opening-statements-kickoff-zimmerman-trial.htm

about.com wrote:

No Direct Orders

After opening statements, the first witness called by the prosecution was Seat Noffke, the 9-1-1 dispatcher who answered Zimmerman's call about seeing a suspicious person in the neighborhood.

Under questioning by the prosecution, Noffke said he told Zimmerman, "Okay we don't need you to do that," when Zimmerman told him he was following Martin.

Noffke said dispatchers are trained not to give specific commands during 9-1-1 calls because they can be held liable for any direct orders they give someone.

fangblackbone wrote:
3. Zimmerman didn't chase Martin down, he followed him. "Chasing down" is deliberately misleading.

From a few pages back but not to be overlooked.

Zimmerman followed him armed with a gun.

Following with a gun is looking for a confrontation.

Following without a gun, the motive could be questioned.

The onus should be on the gun owner to prove why it was necessary to follow someone while armed. That is responsible ownership. Hell, I would go on to say that anyone driving a vehicle should have to prove why they were following someone.

Where is the evidence that following with a properly licensed handgun is looking for a confrontation? Don't you think it odd that he called the police prior to seeking out this confrontation?

You may be right about increased accountability in those situations, but so far as I know, that's not existing law.

I'd say carrying around a deadly weapon is evidence enough. While the gun industry and their proxies have been attempting to force the meme that a gun just a fashion accessory, the fact remains it's a tool with a single purpose, unlike many other things that get considered deadly weapons. And this one happened to be carried by a likely sexual predator with a history of violence.

Ballotechnic wrote:

Where is the evidence that following with a properly licensed handgun is looking for a confrontation? Don't you think it odd that he called the police prior to seeking out this confrontation?

I believe the evidence would be his 911 call transcript where he started the call by saying Martin a "real suspicious guy" who "looks like he's up to no good" and, right before he left his car, saying "These assholes, they always get away."

Zimmerman made a lot of assumptions about Martin and not one of them was that he was a resident or guest of a resident who was simply out for an evening stroll.

Dimmerswitch wrote:
dejanzie wrote:

How many times has Dimmerswitch now refuted the 'pounding into concrete' argument? I haven't seen anyone refute or argue it, but it keeps cropping up every other page.

It's maddening!

Neither Martin nor Zimmerman displayed signs of heavy fighting. There was no pounding into concrete. Zimmerman was lying.

Perhaps more fairly - while it is not conclusively shown by the physical evidence that Zimmerman's description of the altercation is a lie, at least some of the physical evidence is problematic for / inconsistent with Zimmerman's version of events.

That is fair, but I would ask, how much damage should there have been? I've been in a few fights where I had no marks on my hands to speak of. I also wouldn't expect marks on my hands if I was grappling and slamming someone down.

And what about Zimmerman's resistance to the blows? Presumably Zimmerman is actually trying to struggle free and resist blows meaning not all are connecting with full impact. Defense testimony indicated evidence of Zimmerman being struck six times and eyewitness testimony confirmed that Martin was on top of Zimmerman attacking him.

We may look at it in hindsight and be dismissive, but fortunately or unfortunately (depending on where you fall for this case), all Zimmerman had to prove was a fear for his life and inability to retreat.

Ballotechnic wrote:

That is fair, but I would ask, how much damage should there have been? I've been in a few fights where I had no marks on my hands to speak of. I also wouldn't expect marks on my hands if I was grappling and slamming someone down.

And what about Zimmerman's resistance to the blows? Presumably Zimmerman is actually trying to struggle free and resist blows meaning not all are connecting with full impact. Defense testimony indicated evidence of Zimmerman being struck six times and eyewitness testimony confirmed that Martin was on top of Zimmerman attacking him.

We may look at it in hindsight and be dismissive, but fortunately or unfortunately (depending on where you fall for this case), all Zimmerman had to prove was a fear for his life and inability to retreat.

Zimmerman's story was that Martin was on top of him and raining down punches.

I appreciate that you're one of the folks with minority views in this thread who is arguing here in good faith, and there are points on which reasonable people can disagree, but you are wrong about what Zimmerman had to prove. The bar he had to clear was reasonable doubt about his guilt. This is a good and appropriate aspect of criminal law, but as I've said repeatedly throughout the thread, the actions of the Sanford PD on the night of the shooting made this an exceedingly easy bar to clear.

With regard to the defense expert witness you cited and the continued assertion that eyewitnesses corroborate Zimmerman's account:

The article you linked[/url]]Under cross-examination, DiMaio conceded that the gunshot could also be consistent with Martin pulling away from Zimmerman, and that he reached his conclusion without factoring in statements from some neighbors who say Zimmerman was on top of Martin.

Pointing our the the eyewitness testimony is conflicted and inconclusive about who was on top, only to have the assertions made a page or two later, is starting to wear a trifle thin.

OG_slinger wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:

Where is the evidence that following with a properly licensed handgun is looking for a confrontation? Don't you think it odd that he called the police prior to seeking out this confrontation?

I believe the evidence would be his 911 call transcript where he started the call by saying Martin a "real suspicious guy" who "looks like he's up to no good" and, right before he left his car, saying "These assholes, they always get away."

Zimmerman made a lot of assumptions about Martin and not one of them was that he was a resident or guest of a resident who was simply out for an evening stroll.

Yes, you are absolutely correct that Zimmerman profiled Martin with ultimately tragic results. But can you honestly say given the history of crime and violence in that neighborhood you wouldn't be suspicious of strangers?

Dimmerswitch wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:

That is fair, but I would ask, how much damage should there have been? I've been in a few fights where I had no marks on my hands to speak of. I also wouldn't expect marks on my hands if I was grappling and slamming someone down.

And what about Zimmerman's resistance to the blows? Presumably Zimmerman is actually trying to struggle free and resist blows meaning not all are connecting with full impact. Defense testimony indicated evidence of Zimmerman being struck six times and eyewitness testimony confirmed that Martin was on top of Zimmerman attacking him.

We may look at it in hindsight and be dismissive, but fortunately or unfortunately (depending on where you fall for this case), all Zimmerman had to prove was a fear for his life and inability to retreat.

Zimmerman's story was that Martin was on top of him and raining down punches.

I appreciate that you're one of the folks with minority views in this thread who is arguing here in good faith, and there are points on which reasonable people can disagree, but you are wrong about what Zimmerman had to prove. The bar he had to clear was reasonable doubt about his guilt. This is a good and appropriate aspect of criminal law, but as I've said repeatedly throughout the thread, the actions of the Sanford PD on the night of the shooting made this an exceedingly easy bar to clear.

With regard to the defense expert witness you cited and the continued assertion that eyewitnesses corroborate Zimmerman's account:

The article you linked[/url]]Under cross-examination, DiMaio conceded that the gunshot could also be consistent with Martin pulling away from Zimmerman, and that he reached his conclusion without factoring in statements from some neighbors who say Zimmerman was on top of Martin.

Pointing our the the eyewitness testimony is conflicted and inconclusive about who was on top, only to have the assertions made a page or two later, is starting to wear a trifle thin. :-?

I was addressing your point about the damage or lack thereof in Martin's autopsy. The article for the medical examiner was cited because it stated that he suffered 6 blows to the head, blows were not supported by the damage to Martin's hands. I'm not referring to the gunshot.

So again, how much damage should there have been on Martin's hands?

I did not cite the witness who testified he saw Martin on top because it's been linked before. I was unaware that this too was now conflicted and in doubt.

You're right about this wearing thin.

Ballotechnic wrote:

Yes, you are absolutely correct that Zimmerman profiled Martin with ultimately tragic results. But can you honestly say given the history of crime and violence in that neighborhood you wouldn't be suspicious of strangers?

The Retreat at Twin Lakes was like many neighborhoods that hit the skids after the economic bubble burst. But all those communities didn't have their Neighborhood Watch guy shoot an innocent kid.

And drop the whole "suspicious of strangers" thing. Zimmerman followed Martin because Martin was a young black man, not because he was a stranger.

There were 260 units in The Retreat at Twin Lakes, half of which were being rented because the previous owners had been foreclosed on. There's no way Zimmerman could have possibly known every owner or renter in the community along with their families and friends. He simply saw a black kid walking at night and immediately thought "thief."

EDIT

Ballotechnic wrote:

I was addressing your point about the damage or lack thereof in Martin's autopsy. The article for the medical examiner was cited because it stated that he suffered 6 blows to the head, blows were not supported by the damage to Martin's hands.

The Florida state medical examiner who testified at the trial about Zimmerman's injuries said: "They were not life-threatening. They were very insignificant," and that the "injuries did not involve great force and were consistent with one blow to the face and one impact with the concrete."

The only person that said Zimmerman had been hit six times in the head was a forensic pathologist who was paid by Zimmerman's attorneys to say that.

Both medical experts made their conclusions based on reviewing the photos the police took the night of the shooting. That was because there was no medical report. And that was because Zimmerman wasn't injured enough to warrant a trip to the hospital.

So, again, we have one person saying Zimmerman was hit multiple times in a vicious, life threatening beat down and another saying it really wasn't that serious at all. But Zimmerman's own actions--not going to see a doctor that night and only seeing one the next day because he needed a note for work--supports the state medical examiner's testimony.

I wonder if the people that actually commit crimes in that neighborhood are buying guns now.

OG_slinger wrote:
Ballotechnic wrote:

Yes, you are absolutely correct that Zimmerman profiled Martin with ultimately tragic results. But can you honestly say given the history of crime and violence in that neighborhood you wouldn't be suspicious of strangers?

The Retreat at Twin Lakes was like many neighborhoods that hit the skids after the economic bubble burst. But all those communities didn't have their Neighborhood Watch guy shoot an innocent kid.

And drop the whole "suspicious of strangers" thing. Zimmerman followed Martin because Martin was a young black man, not because he was a stranger.

There were 260 units in The Retreat at Twin Lakes, half of which were being rented because the previous owners had been foreclosed on. There's no way Zimmerman could have possibly known every owner or renter in the community along with their families and friends. He simply saw a black kid walking at night and immediately thought "thief."

EDIT

Ballotechnic wrote:

I was addressing your point about the damage or lack thereof in Martin's autopsy. The article for the medical examiner was cited because it stated that he suffered 6 blows to the head, blows were not supported by the damage to Martin's hands.

The Florida state medical examiner who testified at the trial about Zimmerman's injuries said: "They were not life-threatening. They were very insignificant," and that the "injuries did not involve great force and were consistent with one blow to the face and one impact with the concrete."

The only person that said Zimmerman had been hit six times in the head was a forensic pathologist who was paid by Zimmerman's attorneys to say that.

Both medical experts made their conclusions based on reviewing the photos the police took the night of the shooting. That was because there was no medical report. And that was because Zimmerman wasn't injured enough to warrant a trip to the hospital.

So, again, we have one person saying Zimmerman was hit multiple times in a vicious, life threatening beat down and another saying it really wasn't that serious at all. But Zimmerman's own actions--not going to see a doctor that night and only seeing one the next day because he needed a note for work--supports the state medical examiner's testimony.

And it doesn't matter to you that Martin matched the description of perpetrators of previous crimes? Do you think he would have followed a black man he recognized?

So you feel the forensic pathologist the prosecution called is unbiased? What about the fact that "later under questioning by one of Zimmerman's lawyers, Rao said Zimmerman could have been hit more than once?"

And yes, I believe the defense witness because the description of multiple blows correlates with Jonathan Good's testimony.

Some may find this interesting, prior to verdict but talks about some of the nuances of the case.
O&A with Judge Alex Ferrer discuss Zimmerman/Martin 07-10-13

EDIT: Fixed typo and added link.

Anyone have a link to actual collected evidence? I originally assumed Zimmerman went straight out from his car past the end of the building. But I've seen things indicating he went all the way around the building, past the house martin was staying at and was almost back to his vehicle when the altercation occurred. It's this from testimony? Or do they have footprints showing where each person had been?

I found this. Quite a few things I didn’t know, actually. One that struck me:

One of the most important, and remarkably under-publicized facts that came out at trial is that one of the detectives, while interrogating Zimmerman at the police station that night, told him that the entire incident had been caught on surveillance video. The detective was bluffing, but Zimmerman didn’t know that. His reaction: “Thank God”.

That doesn't sound like someone who is trying to get away with killing someone.

KingGorilla wrote:

Did anyone post this?

Zimmerman helps save family of 4 from overturned car.

No, but I'm sure ABC will run a story shortly on how he's responsible.

Again, Zimmerman has greatly benefited from the mainstream media failing to spread the allegations of sexual abuse around, so the media victim angle rings hollow.

SpacePPoliceman wrote:

Again, Zimmerman has greatly benefited from the mainstream media failing to spread the allegations of sexual abuse around, so the media victim angle rings hollow.

They've failed to spread it? By mainstream media are you referring to CNN, Reuters, the Washington Post, Huffington Post, etc that have articles that readily come up in a Google search?

I sincerely hope it's thoroughly investigated. If there is a case he should be prosecuted appropriately and to the fullest extent of the law.

Edited: Typos and blather.

Ballotechnic wrote:

And it doesn't matter to you that Martin matched the description of perpetrators of previous crimes? Do you think he would have followed a black man he recognized?

Matched how? As in he was black and male?

The guy who broke into Olivia Bertalan's house and the guy who Zimmerman saw looking into another house a few months later was Emmanuel Burgess.

IMAGE(http://florida.arrests.org/mugs/Seminole/2012/201200001586.jpg)

He doesn't look like Martin at all.

On top of that the police arrested Burgess three weeks before the shooting happened.

Ballotechnic wrote:

So you feel the forensic pathologist the prosecution called is unbiased? What about the fact that "later under questioning by one of Zimmerman's lawyers, Rao said Zimmerman could have been hit more than once?"

I feel she is more unbiased than someone who was paid to say certain things by Zimmerman's lawyers.

That and the fact that Zimmerman didn't see a doctor until the following morning--and only then because he needed a doctor's note for missing work--proves that his wounds were exactly what the state medical examiner testified: insignificant. Whether they were the result of one or two or six blows doesn't matter.

Ballotechnic wrote:

And yes, I believe the defense witness because the description of multiple blows correlates with Jonathan Good's testimony.

Was there another Jonathan Good who testified? Because the one I know about said nothing of the sort.

Good: It looked like that position was a Ground-and-Pound type of position, but I couldn’t tell 100% that there were actually fists hitting faces.

O’Mara: But you did see [reading from Good's original statement to the police] “the guy in the top in the black hoodie pretty much just throwing down blows on the guy kind of MMA-style.”

Good: Meaning arm motions going down on the person on the bottom. Correct.

O’Mara: You’re’ not going to tell the jury here today that you saw fists hit flesh or face if you didn’t actually see it, right?

Good: I wouldn’t tell them that anyway, because i didn’t actually see it.

O’Mara: Great, thanks very much , no further questions.

BDLR: Not to elaborate but the thing that Mr. O’Mara said from the transcript, the bottom line, you needed to clarify after that to make sure that everybody understood that you did not hear or see fists the guy on the top hitting the guy on the bottom.

Good: Both sides made me clarify.

BDLR: Is that correct?

Good: That’s correct.

BDLR: You did not see blows on the guy on the bottom, correct?

Good: Correct

Good also specifically testified that he did not see Martin slam Zimmerman's head into the ground.

Ballotechnic wrote:

They've failed to spread it? By mainstream media are you referring to CNN, Reuters, the Washington Post, Huffington Post, etc that have articles that readily come up in a Google search?

Yeah, failed, because again, while "Martin" goes hand-in-hand with "weed" and "trouble at school" thanks to repetition, "Zimmerman" does not with "restraining order" and "sex abuse." If they hadn't failed, then the notion that Mr. Martin "should have been polite" to the violent, lying, sex abuser following him first in a car then on foot through the streets of the night...well, I don't think you'd see anyone putting forth that idea in the first place, so I can't finish that sentence. The continued flagellation of The Media meme is manipulative and empty to the extreme. Mr. Martin's minor faults have permeated everything, Zimmerman's upsetting darkness has not.

OG_slinger wrote:

Matched how? As in he was black and male?

The guy who broke into Olivia Bertalan's house and the guy who Zimmerman saw looking into another house a few months later was Emmanuel Burgess.

IMAGE(http://florida.arrests.org/mugs/Seminole/2012/201200001586.jpg)

Good also specifically testified that he did not see Martin slam Zimmerman's head into the ground.

Yes, young, black males wearing hoodies. I've never disputed Zimmerman wasn't racially profiling. All anyone in the neighborhood had were very generalized descriptions of multiple suspects from multiple burglaries. So you're saying in the absence of detailed descriptions you just ignore anything or anyone that seems out of place?

If white women wearing ponchos have been burglarizing your neighborhood and you see an individual matching that description, would that not grab your attention? That perhaps calling the police to investigate might not be in order?

Which is why Zimmerman called the police, because he didn't recognize Martin and he matched the vague description of folks who had burglarized the area. He seemed, in Zimmerman's estimation, to be behaving oddly.

In regards to Goodman's testimony. So we know Zimmerman received blows to the head. We also know that Goodman saw Martin "throwing down blows". But he didn't see them connect, or Zimmerman's head get slammed against the ground. How did Zimmerman receive the injuries then? Did he fight someone else along the way? Were they self inflicted?