Man kills 17 year old Trayvon Martin, claims self defense

**plustheharm** · 05-26-2012

Originally Posted by Sufi

I think I was in an agrument with F34R about the confrontation too, where he said that it was Trayvon who confronted Zimmerman but we can see now that the investigator also believes that Trayvon was confronted first.

Yeah, there was speculation concerning how the "confrontation" started before ... much like the suggestion that he was attacked "blindly" as he was walking back to his vehicle. Differing, unconfirmed reports.

“He was on uppers and downers at the same time,” the attorney said. “These are medications that can cause side effects such as agitation, delusions and mood swings. That’s what he was on prior to the shooting. The question becomes, did those drugs have an effect on George Zimmerman the night he shot and killed Trayvon Martin?”

The Zimmerman medication issue is an interesting one, to me at least - considering I've known people taking medication that can have such wild side effects, but there isn't really much more that plays into that, at least currently. Unless he's been on these for a while and those earlier comments from colleagues were speaking to something of the sort. Do find it interesting the talk of a Trayvon Martin "stand your ground" fight might have been in effect, even though we'll never know.

Will be interesting to see what else comes into play. The pictures of his injuries don't exactly match up to the severity being suggested. His nose looks like it clearly took a knock, but his "black eyes" and "head wounds" appear to be pretty tame, even from the before-day-after pictures. His head wounds look pretty minor, for instance. Couple that with the eye witness testimony changing, and the unreleased evidence ... could get interesting ...

**Sufi** · 05-26-2012

Originally Posted by plustheharm

Yeah, there was speculation concerning how the "confrontation" started before ... much like the suggestion that he was attacked "blindly" as he was walking back to his vehicle. Differing, unconfirmed reports.

Well, the confrontation was definitely confirmed as to how it started. The problem is who is interpreting it. I think the person who started the confrontation is the one who stalked first. What F34R said, if I recall correctly, was that Trayvon started the confrontation by asking him "Why are you following me?"...

Which makes no sense because that would be the logical thing to ask someone who's following you...he didn't go out of his bounds to do that...that's what everyone would do. You can argue that he asked him that out of defense.

**plustheharm** · 05-26-2012

Right, I was speaking to the initial, differing accounts. As for whether or not him speaking up initiated the confrontation, I agree with you on that front, in that I don't agree with that.

**F34R** · 05-26-2012

Originally Posted by Sufi

Well, the confrontation was definitely confirmed as to how it started. The problem is who is interpreting it. I think the person who started the confrontation is the one who stalked first. What F34R said, if I recall correctly, was that Trayvon started the confrontation by asking him "Why are you following me?"...

Which makes no sense because that would be the logical thing to ask someone who's following you...he didn't go out of his bounds to do that...that's what everyone would do. You can argue that he asked him that out of defense.

Sure, I wouldn't have any problems with that. If the kid asked the guy why he was following him.. no problem with that at all.

**Sufi** · 05-26-2012

Originally Posted by plustheharm

Right, I was speaking to the initial, differing accounts. As for whether or not him speaking up initiated the confrontation, I agree with you on that front, in that I don't agree with that.

I see. I do remember now when people didn't know who actually confronted...i mean, we knew that he stalked but if Trayvon had just started getting messy with him...that would've been a different story.

Originally Posted by F34R

Sure, I wouldn't have any problems with that. If the kid asked the guy why he was following him.. no problem with that at all.

But you said earlier in this thread that the kid actually confronted him by doing that...whereas I said that it wasn't.

We had a big argument over who actually started the confrontation.

**F34R** · 05-26-2012

Originally Posted by Sufi

I see. I do remember now when people didn't know who actually confronted...i mean, we knew that he stalked but if Trayvon had just started getting messy with him...that would've been a different story.

But you said earlier in this thread that the kid actually confronted him by doing that...whereas I said that it wasn't.

We had a big argument over who actually started the confrontation.

Well, there is a difference between the kid asking the guy why he was following him and not doing anything else vs. the kid asking the guy why he was following him, and the kid initiating a physical altercation with the guy.

**Sufi** · 05-27-2012

Originally Posted by F34R

Well, there is a difference between the kid asking the guy why he was following him and not doing anything else vs. the kid asking the guy why he was following him, and the kid initiating a physical altercation with the guy.

and we don't know what happened in between that time other than what he said so who knows what happened.

though it's not odd that if someone is following you, you ask them why and they don't tell you, instead they interrogate you...that somewhere along the line you're going to blow a fuse.

that's not out of the ordinary.

now had he followed him and identified himself before Trayvon suspected something and asked him first...and then Trayvon hits him, that'd be a completely different story. if a guy follows me and starts asking me questions, i'm going to be pretty pissed off from the getgo.

**F34R** · 05-27-2012

Originally Posted by Sufi

and we don't know what happened in between that time other than what he said so who knows what happened.

though it's not odd that if someone is following you, you ask them why and they don't tell you, instead they interrogate you...that somewhere along the line you're going to blow a fuse.

that's not out of the ordinary.

now had he followed him and identified himself before Trayvon suspected something and asked him first...and then Trayvon hits him, that'd be a completely different story. if a guy follows me and starts asking me questions, i'm going to be pretty pissed off from the getgo.

Blowing a fuse.. sure. Arguing with someone that has been following you, and then he questions you... sure, get pissed, blow a fuse, argue with the guy. I wouldn't see any problem with that in a legal sense.

So, bringing up that we don't know what happened in between that time, other than what he said....

The prosecutors have a large burden here. Will they have enough evidence to prove that this guy was not defending himself, etc.? It's going to be tough.

**Sufi** · 05-27-2012

Originally Posted by F34R

Blowing a fuse.. sure. Arguing with someone that has been following you, and then he questions you... sure, get pissed, blow a fuse, argue with the guy. I wouldn't see any problem with that in a legal sense.

So, bringing up that we don't know what happened in between that time, other than what he said....

The prosecutors have a large burden here. Will they have enough evidence to prove that this guy was not defending himself, etc.? It's going to be tough.

I agree with that because they can only go by what he said unless it can be disproved which isn't likely.

Though the defendant will run into the issue of going after him without identifying himself.

I'm glad we have come to some sort of agreement here finally lol.

**btbam** · 05-29-2012

You also have to contend with the severity of the charge as well. Man 2. Many speculated it was too big of a charge. So he might be guilty of something but not Man 2 so he gets off the lesser punishment because he can't be charged again.

**Two4DaMoney** · 06-01-2012

I know you guys have been keeping up with the news. What in the hell was Zim thinking? Lying and the 2nd passport. Has his lawyer looking like a fool from not knowing any of this information. Why would an "innocent" man that's being protected around the clock lie as such?

**weskurtz81** · 06-02-2012

Originally Posted by Two4DaMoney

I know you guys have been keeping up with the news. What in the hell was Zim thinking? Lying and the 2nd passport. Has his lawyer looking like a fool from not knowing any of this information. Why would an "innocent" man that's being protected around the clock lie as such?

Sure it was a bad move, no doubt, but because his wife said she didn't know how much money was in the account, (maybe she did maybe she didn't), and about his second passport... doesn't mean he is guilty of murder.

**Two4DaMoney** · 06-02-2012

Originally Posted by weskurtz81

Sure it was a bad move, no doubt, but because his wife said she didn't know how much money was in the account, (maybe she did maybe she didn't), and about his second passport... doesn't mean he is guilty of murder.

I think she knew based off the phone calls and the codes they were using. And when she was in court she was saying that they had nothing.

I didn't mean for innocent in quotations to imply he was guilty of murder. What I meant was people are going to really question his credibility. I'm curious as to what Zim is going to say at his new bond hearing about those phone calls and 2nd passport.