Exclusive! First hand Witness: Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman Zimmerman Innocent Smoking Gun

Originally posted by GhettoRice
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

Well the "expert" in this field said

The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90 percent.

So no 50/50 still says Zimmerman "Lied" to police IMO

Do you have a "source" that said witness saw and heard Zimmerman call for help, or is this a Hyperbole of someone witnessing a guy in gray on top of one in red?


I stand corrected on the "source" part
www.myfoxorlando.com...

edit on 4-4-2012 by GhettoRice because: (no reason given)

Would not ask that
question and look silly
if the op was read.
Like i would say that without
proof? READ THE OP page one
first page first post its all there.
treyvon was trying
to kill zimmerman!!! He had every right
to use his gun on someone trying to kill him.
If treyvon was on top of your wife beating her face in
and you did not know if he had a gun or not
you would scream for help help and wait for the police
show up 15 min. later?
As she lays there dead.
YOU WOULD SHOOT him and if you wouldn't
your a coward.
If zimmerman did not have a gun how could
he protect himself while watching the neighbor
and some armed thugs are breaking into a house?
Wait for the police IF they see you they will kill you.
He needed a gun for a situation like this

Originally posted by popsmayhem

Originally posted by GhettoRice
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

Well the "expert" in this field said

The software compared that audio to Zimmerman's voice. It returned a 48 percent match. Owen said to reach a positive match with audio of this quality, he'd expect higher than 90 percent.

So no 50/50 still says Zimmerman "Lied" to police IMO

Do you have a "source" that said witness saw and heard Zimmerman call for help, or is this a Hyperbole of someone witnessing a guy in gray on top of one in red?


I stand corrected on the "source" part
www.myfoxorlando.com...

edit on 4-4-2012 by GhettoRice because: (no reason given)

Would not ask that
question and look silly
if the op was read.
Like i would say that without
proof? READ THE OP page one
first page first post its all there.
treyvon was trying
to kill zimmerman!!! He had every right
to use his gun on someone trying to kill him.
If treyvon was on top of your wife beating her face in
and you did not know if he had a gun or not
you would scream for help help and wait for the police
show up 15 min. later?
As she lays there dead.
YOU WOULD SHOOT him and if you wouldn't
your a coward.
If zimmerman did not have a gun how could
he protect himself while watching the neighbor
and some armed thugs are breaking into a house?
Wait for the police IF they see you they will kill you.
He needed a gun for a situation like this

edit on 4-4-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)

A witness heard someone cry out for help. He can say it was zimmerman but please explain to me how this person would know it was zimmerman and not treyvon?
Did this person already know Zimmerman?
All witness, all of them, ill say it again, ALL of them, say it was dark and according to the 13 year olds account there was no moonlight (makes sense..it was raining)....and only on porch light on....so in that type of lighting PLEASE tell me how on earth this person knew it was Zimmerman screaming and not Treyvon....unless he already knew Zimmermans voice.....then everything he says comes into question.

That is a prime example of why eye witness testimony is important but is not facts of what happened in a case. The mind tends to cloud things and jumble things, especially when they happen very quickly and then you add on the anxiety and stress of having just seen a murder......so eye witness is very important, but in a court of law his account of hearing zimmerman scream wouldn't mean much especially if other witness say they heard something else. that is why we need all the information and ballistics, etc.

Not to mention that one witness reported telling cops that they heard the 'boy on the ground' (talking about the dead Treyvon) screaming for help and the cop tells that person 'no that was zimmerman not treyvon'....that is just another way the police messed this up. Police ask question and write down answers, there is no right or wrong answer in eye witness statements....so by correcting this witness he tampered with her. How would the officer know ti was Zimmerman screaming....only if Zimmerman told him that. It's not his job to correct witness statements. This whole case is a smelly cover up and it needs to go to trial.

And The Zim us still free meaning the police Still haven't found a reason to arrest him,despite the pressure

Which begs the question why his supporters are here defending him so vehemently? He's free. What more is there for you to want? To get everyone to think the way you do?

If you don't like what the media has done, don't pay them attention. I don't. It's one thing to point out the media bias and talk about it. I see it and agree that they're disgusting people, using this event and this kid's death to their personal gain. You won't get an argument out of me on that one.

If he is indicted and charged, then you have a side to be on. Right now, the law is on his side and he is free, so you have nothing to really argue about yet.

I know absolutely nothing about this story except it involves two young people of different racialness, who got into a fight and one of them died.

Who.

Flipping.

Cares.

Stop buying into the media drama and focus on more important things, like your own life.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


I have a question is this Treyvon's Girl Friend?

Your last response was a rehash of your past failed rebuttals. You keep trying to use me as a conduit to convince yourself Zimmerman murdered this kid. What this Is called is a straw man argument. By defenition.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

en.wikipedia.org...

The irony is the straw man will have to eat crow when no charges are filed or Zimmerman is acquitted

Jump to: navigation, search Eating crow is a U.S. colloquial idiom,[1] meaning humiliation by admitting wrongness or having been proved wrong after taking a strong position.[2] Eating crow is presumably foul-tasting in the same way that being proved wrong might be emotionally hard to swallow.[2] The exact origin of the idiom is unknown, but it probably began with an American story published around 1850 about a slow-witted New York farmer.[3] Eating crow is of a family of idioms having to do with eating and being proved incorrect, such as to "eat dirt", to "eat your words", and to "eat your hat" (or shoe)

en.wikipedia.org...

Just to educate you since you are new at this

When you bet your worldly possessions away like you said what will your excuse be? Will you burn down your own neighborhood? Will you be joining Al Sharpton in civil disobedience?

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

I have a question is this Treyvon's Girl Friend?

Your last response was a rehash of your past failed rebuttals. You keep trying to use me as a conduit to convince yourself Zimmerman murdered this kid. What this Is called is a straw man argument. By defenition.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position

en.wikipedia.org...

The irony is the straw man will have to eat crow when no charges are filed or Zimmerman is acquitted

Jump to: navigation, search Eating crow is a U.S. colloquial idiom,[1] meaning humiliation by admitting wrongness or having been proved wrong after taking a strong position.[2] Eating crow is presumably foul-tasting in the same way that being proved wrong might be emotionally hard to swallow.[2] The exact origin of the idiom is unknown, but it probably began with an American story published around 1850 about a slow-witted New York farmer.[3] Eating crow is of a family of idioms having to do with eating and being proved incorrect, such as to "eat dirt", to "eat your words", and to "eat your hat" (or shoe)

en.wikipedia.org...

Just to educate you since you are new at this

When you bet your worldly possessions away like you said what will your excuse be? Will you burn down your own neighborhood? Will you be joining Al Sharpton in civil disobedience?

edit on 4-4-2012 by Unknown Soldier because: (no reason given)

1. A 16 year old girl. You will have to ask Gutman (sp? abcnews) or Treyvons lawyer. Her identity hasn't been revealed. I believe she has been referred to as deedee, could be wrong about that name.
2. Im not trying to convince myself of anything. I have looked at everything coming out and have formed an opinion that, yes, this coward needs to stand trial and answer for himself in a court of law for killing an unarmed teenager. I don't for you to post definitions for me. You can try and use you under handed tactics to derail the conversation but it wont work.
3. If you need any dipping sauces for you're crow once Zimmerman is charged let me know, ill recommend some. We have all eaten crow, lets us know how this serving taste for you when its served up. Because its coming.
4. Will you be burning down your neighborhood when zimmerman is charged? Or will you just shoot up your neighborhood with your concealed weapon? I don't back out of bets, but if you want my wordly possesions please come get them. Im getting ready to move a great distance and plan on gettin rid of 90% anyway....im not worried about betting away my worldly possession....thats all they are are possessions I can get more if need. I value life over possessions,I know that is total foreign concept to you.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

1)Sad attempt. Zimm is under investigation and may still be arrested. Trey was investigated and no charges filed.

Sad attempt. Zimm was investigated and and no charges filed may still be arrested. Trey was investigated but is dead.

2)Saying its a good question, without even making an attempt to answer it, is dodging it.

Im not dodging it...

3)You missed the point completely. I hold it as a POSSIBILITY that Trey made threw the first punch. I KNOW FOR A FACT that Zimm shot him. See the difference?

You know for a fact now? Why? Because he said so and trayvaughn is dead? He also said treeboughnnn assaulted him and had wounds. You choose what you want to believe in, face it. The MSM tells you what to think so you can feel good about yourself.

And the fact of the matter still remains, that trey would have been protected in doing so, by the SYG laws. Why wont you speak on that?

According to the SYG laws Zimmerman was legally justified in the public execution-case closed...

And really, why cant you discuss without the personal insults? Is your argument really that weak? Or is it simply that my points hurt your argument to much, so its easier to deflect?

It was not an insult, you completely made up a new definition for hearsay to fit your argument. Pointing that out and telling you that you should look big words up before trying to use them was not an insult. It was advice.

I found this funny.....I'm not dodging it (the question)....then still didn't answer it.

He is asking stupid questions he knows the answer to

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused

And The Zim us still free meaning the police Still haven't found a reason to arrest him,despite the pressure

Which begs the question why his supporters are here defending him so vehemently? He's free. What more is there for you to want? To get everyone to think the way you do?

If you don't like what the media has done, don't pay them attention. I don't. It's one thing to point out the media bias and talk about it. I see it and agree that they're disgusting people, using this event and this kid's death to their personal gain. You won't get an argument out of me on that one.

If he is indicted and charged, then you have a side to be on. Right now, the law is on his side and he is free, so you have nothing to really argue about yet.

this thread is a prime example that it isn't about defendin Zimm, but rather about demonizing Trey.

Originally posted by DavidWillts

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

Originally posted by DavidWillts
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

1)Sad attempt. Zimm is under investigation and may still be arrested. Trey was investigated and no charges filed.

Sad attempt. Zimm was investigated and and no charges filed may still be arrested. Trey was investigated but is dead.

2)Saying its a good question, without even making an attempt to answer it, is dodging it.

Im not dodging it...

3)You missed the point completely. I hold it as a POSSIBILITY that Trey made threw the first punch. I KNOW FOR A FACT that Zimm shot him. See the difference?

You know for a fact now? Why? Because he said so and trayvaughn is dead? He also said treeboughnnn assaulted him and had wounds. You choose what you want to believe in, face it. The MSM tells you what to think so you can feel good about yourself.

And the fact of the matter still remains, that trey would have been protected in doing so, by the SYG laws. Why wont you speak on that?

According to the SYG laws Zimmerman was legally justified in the public execution-case closed...

And really, why cant you discuss without the personal insults? Is your argument really that weak? Or is it simply that my points hurt your argument to much, so its easier to deflect?

It was not an insult, you completely made up a new definition for hearsay to fit your argument. Pointing that out and telling you that you should look big words up before trying to use them was not an insult. It was advice.

I found this funny.....I'm not dodging it (the question)....then still didn't answer it.

He is asking stupid questions he knows the answer to

Maybe, but it appears you haven't answered it. And i've always heard there are no stupid question, just stupid people.....

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
A witness heard someone cry out for help. He can say it was zimmerman but please explain to me how this person would know it was zimmerman and not treyvon?

Eye witnesses are not the same.
Did not just hear but SAW.
Forget to read the OP?
John the eye witness
saw zimmerman on the ground on his back
with treyvon on top of zimmerman and zimmerman screaming.
Grasping for air with that little straw
in the ocean.
Thats not the only eye witness either
all the other ones back up zimmermans story
also one of them is black even so can't
play that game.

reply to post by DavidWillts



1)I'm not even sure how to respond to this incoherent statement.. Apprently you need to learn the difference between open and closed investigations.

2)3 times now you've completely dodged it.

3)false. I know because trey was killed by a bullet fired from Zimm's gun. I couldn't care less what he says. Forensics proves it.

4)time will tell. The fact remains, calling anything trey did an "assault" as you claim, is false and misleading.

5)again, why can't you refrain from personal attackss?

So, care to try again, or should I just write you off with the other people in this thread that deflect, dodge and lie?

reply to post by DavidWillts




Am I? Then they should be quite simple to answer. The only reason you won't, is because then you will have to admit that your accusations are only that-empty accusations.

Originally posted by popsmayhem

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
A witness heard someone cry out for help. He can say it was zimmerman but please explain to me how this person would know it was zimmerman and not treyvon?

Eye witnesses is not the same.
Did not just hear but SAW.
Forget to read the OP?
John the eye witness
saw zimmerman on the ground on his back
with treyvon on top screaming.
Grasping for air with that little straw
in the ocean.

edit on 4-4-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)

LOL you just messed up...your direct quote 'John the eye witness saw zimmerman on the ground on his back
with treyvon on top screaming' ..... exactly Treyvon was screaming....

and you haven't explained HOW john new it was Zimmerman screaming for help....do you agree it was dark? Do you agree there was a scuffle? So during this scuffle in the dark 'john' was able to tell it was zimmerman screaming, is that what you are saying? How would 'john' know zimmermans voice? I ask again....did 'john' already know zimmerman from the neighborhood. Is 'john' a part of that neighborhood watch.

Regardless. Just because 'john' said it doesn't mean it is true or accurate. Other eye witness accounts puts 'johns' into question. Was 'John' also told that night by police that it was zimmerman screaming, as has been reported by at least one other witness? You can't lay all your eggs in 'john' basket when there is so much other evidence out there that MAY contradict his.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

Originally posted by popsmayhem

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
A witness heard someone cry out for help. He can say it was zimmerman but please explain to me how this person would know it was zimmerman and not treyvon?

Eye witnesses is not the same.
Did not just hear but SAW.
Forget to read the OP?
John the eye witness
saw zimmerman on the ground on his back
with treyvon on top screaming.
Grasping for air with that little straw
in the ocean.

edit on 4-4-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)

LOL you just messed up...your direct quote 'John the eye witness saw zimmerman on the ground on his back
with treyvon on top screaming' ..... exactly Treyvon was screaming....

and you haven't explained HOW john new it was Zimmerman screaming for help....do you agree it was dark? Do you agree there was a scuffle? So during this scuffle in the dark 'john' was able to tell it was zimmerman screaming, is that what you are saying? How would 'john' know zimmermans voice? I ask again....did 'john' already know zimmerman from the neighborhood. Is 'john' a part of that neighborhood watch.

Regardless. Just because 'john' said it doesn't mean it is true or accurate. Other eye witness accounts puts 'johns' into question. Was 'John' also told that night by police that it was zimmerman screaming, as has been reported by at least one other witness? You can't lay all your eggs in 'john' basket when there is so much other evidence out there that MAY contradict his.

Oh wow a typo, you got me man!!!!
REALLY really grasping now that
fish out of water or man in ocean?
people are hillarious I am going to edit
the typo again i apologize bud

reply to post by popsmayhem

hmmm

Would not ask that question and look silly if the op was read. Like i would say that without proof?

Obviously didn't see me edit, and next post about "OTHER" witnesses.

READ THE OP page one first page first post its all there. treyvon was trying to kill zimmerman!!!

I have read the whole thing and if you could somehow show me where "trying to kill zimmerman" was said by your "john" witness or any other source I would be glad to hear it.

He had every right to use his gun on someone trying to kill him.

This is kinda what`s being disputed here

If treyvon was on top of your wife beating her face in and you did not know if he had a gun or not you would scream for help help and wait for the police show up 15 min. later? As she lays there dead.

Whoa! Uhh I think you might be taking this scenario a little too far now.............

YOU WOULD SHOOT him and if you wouldn't your a coward.

Never been a fan of ad hominem speach

If zimmerman did not have a gun how could he protect himself while watching the neighbor and some armed thugs are breaking into a house? Wait for the police IF they see you they will kill you. He needed a gun for a situation like this

You make it seem like Zimmerman was catching a band of armed thugs mid break in. If you will what are your opinions on this possible scenario playing out differently but with the same initial understanding Zimmerman had.

"Zimmerman approaches kid(guy/man depending on how your perspective is) and thinks he might be a treat, hence why he is watching/approaches him. Trayvon knowing he has done nothing wrong and is "also legally packin heat" see's Zimmerman approach in a possibly threatening manner. When an altercation does come down Trayvon draws first and Zimmerman is the one dead and no real investigation happens because of "stand your ground".

In the above scenario I believe that the initial inputs could have lead to Zimmerman's legal death by self defense just as much as it "possibly" stopped a crime.

Your thoughts?

P.S I appreciate you responding now

reply to post by captaintyinknots

1)I'm not even sure how to respond to this incoherent statement.. Apprently you need to learn the difference between open and closed investigations.

Zimmerman-self defense,case closed.

2)3 times now you've completely dodged it.

You already answered it, i thought it was more of a rhetorical question

Treyvon is dead, so no charges will ever be able to brought against him regarding any thefts or other crimes, he is innocent, because you will never be able to prove him guilty of you claims because Zimmerman killed him.

*please note, not innocent because he didn't do it but because he is dead.

There isnt one.

Why go on and on about "dodging" a question that you already know the answer to?

3)false. I know because trey was killed by a bullet fired from Zimm's gun. I couldn't care less what he says. Forensics proves it.

But he is innocent because he has not been proven guilty in a court of law, see how that works?

4)time will tell. The fact remains, calling anything trey did an "assault" as you claim, is false and misleading.

Define "assault" for us all.

5)again, why can't you refrain from personal attackss?

So, care to try again, or should I just write you off with the other people in this thread that deflect, dodge and lie?

Telling you to grab a dictionary is not a personal attack. Zimmerman's account of what happened is NOT hearsay and if it was hearsay that would mean he is innocent. Hearsay does not mean "stuff i don't agree with"

2. Law : Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony.

Originally posted by popsmayhem

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

Originally posted by popsmayhem

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
A witness heard someone cry out for help. He can say it was zimmerman but please explain to me how this person would know it was zimmerman and not treyvon?

Eye witnesses is not the same.
Did not just hear but SAW.
Forget to read the OP?
John the eye witness
saw zimmerman on the ground on his back
with treyvon on top screaming.
Grasping for air with that little straw
in the ocean.

edit on 4-4-2012 by popsmayhem because: (no reason given)

LOL you just messed up...your direct quote 'John the eye witness saw zimmerman on the ground on his back
with treyvon on top screaming' ..... exactly Treyvon was screaming....

and you haven't explained HOW john new it was Zimmerman screaming for help....do you agree it was dark? Do you agree there was a scuffle? So during this scuffle in the dark 'john' was able to tell it was zimmerman screaming, is that what you are saying? How would 'john' know zimmermans voice? I ask again....did 'john' already know zimmerman from the neighborhood. Is 'john' a part of that neighborhood watch.

Regardless. Just because 'john' said it doesn't mean it is true or accurate. Other eye witness accounts puts 'johns' into question. Was 'John' also told that night by police that it was zimmerman screaming, as has been reported by at least one other witness? You can't lay all your eggs in 'john' basket when there is so much other evidence out there that MAY contradict his.

Oh wow a typo, you got me man!!!!
REALLY really grasping now that
fish out of water or man in ocean?

people are hillarious I am going to edit
the typo again i apologize bud

OK yes I caught you in a typo, lol, haha....

Now, care to address any of the other points in the post.

It was dark ... how could he know zimmerman voice....

I asked a few questions and you ignored them all.....

Originally posted by pizzanazi75


It was dark ... how could he know zimmerman voice....

I asked a few questions and you ignored them all.....

I am trying am one person not zimmermans
defense attorney not getting paid for this
all though I think they really should hire me ...

Street lamps maybe, also he saw a guy on the bottom yelling
and guy on top he did not who was who at the time so he described
what they were wearing, he rushed to go call 911 also. We have no
reason not to believe this eye witness, because it lines up with other
witnesses also that could describe who was wearing what and who
was on top of who.. That is probably how. Also it is not too/that dark at 7-8 even
even with rain clouds.

Originally posted by GhettoRice
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

hmmm

Would not ask that question and look silly if the op was read. Like i would say that without proof?

Obviously didn't see me edit, and next post about "OTHER" witnesses.

READ THE OP page one first page first post its all there. treyvon was trying to kill zimmerman!!!

I have read the whole thing and if you could somehow show me where "trying to kill zimmerman" was said by your "john" witness or any other source I would be glad to hear it.

He had every right to use his gun on someone trying to kill him.

This is kinda what`s being disputed here

If treyvon was on top of your wife beating her face in and you did not know if he had a gun or not you would scream for help help and wait for the police show up 15 min. later? As she lays there dead.

Whoa! Uhh I think you might be taking this scenario a little too far now.............

YOU WOULD SHOOT him and if you wouldn't your a coward.

Never been a fan of ad hominem speach

If zimmerman did not have a gun how could he protect himself while watching the neighbor and some armed thugs are breaking into a house? Wait for the police IF they see you they will kill you. He needed a gun for a situation like this

You make it seem like Zimmerman was catching a band of armed thugs mid break in. If you will what are your opinions on this possible scenario playing out differently but with the same initial understanding Zimmerman had.

"Zimmerman approaches kid(guy/man depending on how your perspective is) and thinks he might be a treat, hence why he is watching/approaches him. Trayvon knowing he has done nothing wrong and is "also legally packin heat" see's Zimmerman approach in a possibly threatening manner. When an altercation does come down Trayvon draws first and Zimmerman is the one dead and no real investigation happens because of "stand your ground".

In the above scenario I believe that the initial inputs could have lead to Zimmerman's legal death by self defense just as much as it "possibly" stopped a crime.

Your thoughts?

P.S I appreciate you responding now

You askd him ....'You make it seem like Zimmerman was catching a band of armed thugs mid break in.'....

In texas they don't have to be armed, and they don't even have to be breaking into your house......

This vigilante justice whether some people on here want to admit that or not.....this man in texas walked scott free. This is the type of America that these defenders of Zimmerman.....shoot first ask questions later....maybe ask question later, but probably not. This man in Texas is the ultimate coward....but in 3...2...1...his devote followers will be here to praise him playing judge, jury, executioner.

911 Call of Texas Man, Shoots Two Robbers

reply to post by pizzanazi75

I have heard way to much idiocy the last few weeks over this as well


then good sir it is entirely possible that I mixed up videos I had watched with another video... my apologies...

the the statement I made over the video goes with the one I watched and will now waste time to go find it....




thank you for being polite ... ats seems to have lost this recently