I think that is a very fair appraisal, F88. But..if Zimmerman hadn't had a gun, he would have probably left it up to the Police to intervene, or at least question Martin. I think Zimmerman was a coward, and the possession of the firearm gave him 'Dutch courage'. And this is one example whereby I honestly believe if Zimmerman HADN'T been armed, he would not have tried to 'sort it all out' himself, but would have waited for the Police. And Martin would not be dead. This is genuinely where my reluctance to allow 'Mr.Nobody' the right to carry arms is rooted. I know this won't go down well with the 'right to bear arms' folk here...but think about what I have said...no gun, no death..And finally...don't believe for a MOMENT that height/weight/size ALWAYS goes with the winner...the smaller person can win more often than not
I understand where you're coming from, however it's just as likely Zimmerman would have followed Martin and when attacked we'd be reading about Zimmerman's death instead of Martin's. Your scenario requries making a lot of assumptions that don't necessarily play out that way.
(actually, if Martin had killed Zimmerman, that wouldn't have been news, so nobody would care)
Your scenario requries making a lot of assumptions that don't necessarily play out that way.
(actually, if Martin had killed Zimmerman, that wouldn't have been news, so nobody would care)
Yes And that applies to almost every other theory being proposed here too You might recall me posting a year or so ago, about somebody attacking me at Ellie's restaurant? Now, had I not have had my arms and fists restrained by 3 other people, I am willing to bet that lout would NOT have struck me. But the scenario applies in the same way here, IWHT...had Zimmerman NOT been carrying a gun, he would not have been influenced by 'Dutch courage', just as the idiot who attacked ME would have kept his fists to himself. The subsequent encounter I had with the same guy, just the two of us, and in the street, goes to prove that. He was SCARED that I would attack HIM, and backed off, and apologised. I am 5ft 7inches, weigh around 160lbs, and he was over 6 ft tall, skinny, and a coward to boot. I did not approach him in an aggressive way (much as I wanted to punch his stupid face down his throat ), yet without the 'Dutch courage', he was literally shaking in his shoes. Another occasion, I was playing in a restaurant, and there was a fight. I stepped in, and one guy snatched my mike stand, and tried to hit me with it. I took it off him in seconds, and raised it to threaten HIM myself...and he nearly collapsed on the floor with fear. MORE Dutch courage that evaporated the second he lost his 'supremacy'. All cowards are the same, in my experience. So no...I don't think Zimmerman would have played super-hero without the 'heat' in his pocket/holster. JMHO , supported by Life experiences
[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 05-22-2012).]
He was talking to his girlfriend on a cellphone when Zimmerman asked him what he was doing.
That is what she said but in the police reports I have seen there is no mention of him having a cell phone on him after the fact in the reports, I have seen anyway.
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
Courage is a funny thing Nick, I didn’t have a gun on me when that nut attacked me but I didn’t back down. Do I wish I had a gun on me at the time? Your dam right I do, then this woman might not have attacked us. Maybe she would have and this would be all over. She is still in the nut house and has bitten inmates as well as her own therapist there.
I also know better than to go after someone who has me out gunned so to speak.
Being a neighborhood watch person, as far as I have seen he was the only one who wanted the job. I wouldn’t do it without carrying. And I do have some self-defense training behind me.
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
That is what she said but in the police reports I have seen there is no mention of him having a cell phone on him after the fact in the reports, I have seen anyway.
Steve
quote
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Martin_cell_phone_call_from_girlfriend Martin cell phone call from girlfriend
Around the time of the incident, Martin was talking on his cellphone to his girlfriend, according to Attorney Benjamin Crump and confirmed by phone company records.[111] She called at 7:12 pm[112] She was interviewed by Crump who made a statement for her, as her parents requested her anonymity.
According to Crump's statement, Martin's girlfriend said that he expressed concern about a strange man following him, and she advised him to run. She says she heard Martin say "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding "What are you doing here?" She said that she heard the sound of pushing and that Martin's headset suddenly went silent, leading her to believe that he had been pushed. She attempted to call him back immediately, but was unable to reach him.[113]
Originally posted by fierofetish: So no...I don't think Zimmerman would have played super-hero without the 'heat' in his pocket/holster
I don't think Zimmerman was playing "super-hero" - Dutch or otherwise. (whatever "Dutch courage" is. Sounds like a backhanded remark about the Dutch being cowards. Not really cool on a forum hosted by Cliff in the Netherlands.)
You have your views about how guns make people behave. Nothing will change that. I can tell you my personal life experience both with and without firearms suggests your assumptions don't translate to reality. It may be Dutch reality in Spain, but not so much in the U.S.
In the report, Serino also said he heard a man's voice yelling either "help" or "help me" 14 times in a 38 second time span on one of the 911 tapes, and that the voice was determined to be Zimmerman.
Another report recounts Tracy Martin, Trayvon's father, listening to the 911 tape. The report said Martin was asked whether the voice on the tape was his son, and Martin "quietly responded 'no.'"
Martin later listened to a cleaned-up version of the tape and claimed it was his son. However, the FBI ruled the call was of "insufficient voice quality and duration to conduct a meaningful voice comparison."
The FBI report also examined Zimmerman's 911 call to determine whether Zimmerman used a racial slur when talking about the suspicious person he was observing that night. There has been some talk over what word Zimmerman said. The FBI determined that the audio quality was too poor.
Meanwhile, DNA forensics of the gun used that night show that Zimmerman's DNA is on the firearm, except for the trigger.
According to the report, another individual's DNA was on the gun, but experts could not identify whose it is.
I don't think Zimmerman was playing "super-hero" - Dutch or otherwise. (whatever "Dutch courage" is. Sounds like a backhanded remark about the Dutch being cowards. Not really cool on a forum hosted by Cliff in the Netherlands.)
F88 I can assure you being married to a Dutch girl, and having lived in Holland, and speaking the language....If I wanted to insult Cliff, I could do it quite ably in his own language For your education and edification : Dutch courage: (n.) An alcoholic beverage had before an unpleasant task. The fact that Britains' second empire and the Netherlands' first rose at the same time caused a great deal of tension between the two nations (though never real animosity like there was with France) and when they joined in temporary naval alliances they noted that Dutch sailors took their alcohol allowance just before battle, whereas the Royal Navymen drunk throughout the day.
Originally posted by fierofetish: For your education and edification : Dutch courage: (n.) An alcoholic beverage had before an unpleasant task. The fact that Britains' second empire and the Netherlands' first rose at the same time caused a great deal of tension between the two nations (though never real animosity like there was with France) and when they joined in temporary naval alliances they noted that Dutch sailors took their alcohol allowance just before battle, whereas the Royal Navymen drunk throughout the day.
'K?
Here in the USA we just call it "Liquid Courage".
I am sick of hearing the anti gun and pro gun talk cause it all boils down to "the bullet" not the gun. "If it wasn't for the bullet, no one would fear the gun". Chad Brock.
Several of the "witnesses" of the Zimmerman vs Martin altercation are now changing their story from Martin beating on Zimmerman to not being able to tell who was on top or who was the agressor. I wonder if the Black Panthers, Al Shartpton or Jessie Jackson have gotten to them?
F88 I can assure you being married to a Dutch girl, and having lived in Holland, and speaking the language....If I wanted to insult Cliff, I could do it quite ably in his own language For your education and edification : Dutch courage: (n.) An alcoholic beverage had before an unpleasant task. The fact that Britains' second empire and the Netherlands' first rose at the same time caused a great deal of tension between the two nations (though never real animosity like there was with France) and when they joined in temporary naval alliances they noted that Dutch sailors took their alcohol allowance just before battle, whereas the Royal Navymen drunk throughout the day.
'K?
I have no doubt you are well versed in insulting people in multiple languages. Thank you so much for such a morally uplifting educational experience.
Why use a euphamism about alcohol when referring to a gun? For your education and edification, firearms are not alcoholic beverages.
Lesson 2 Part 1. "A euphemism is a generally harmless word, name, or phrase that substitutes an offensive or suggestive one.[1] Some euphemisms intend to amuse, while others intend to give positive appearances to negative events or even mislead entirely. Euphemisms also often take the place of profanity. The opposite of euphemism roughly equates to dysphemism." Part 2. "An adage ( /ˈædɨdʒ/; Latin: adagium) is a short but memorable saying which holds some important fact of experience that is considered true by many people, or that has gained some credibility through its long use." 0/10 F88...must try harder .
FWIW I am a redneck and knew what he meant when he said "Dutch Courage".
It was a term used many times in a book I read, wish I could remember what it was.
Brad
I knew it was some form of artificial courage, but the context of his post came across as stating those who use "Dutch courage" are cowards, in his experience, and left me wondering just how derogatory the term was. Someone reading a description of blacks using the "n" word wouldn't have a hard time figuring out the word was a reference to black people, but they'd have no context for how offensive it might be.
I knew it was some form of artificial courage, but the context of his post came across as stating those who use "Dutch courage" are cowards, in his experience, and left me wondering just how derogatory the term was. Someone reading a description of blacks using the "n" word wouldn't have a hard time figuring out the word was a reference to black people, but they'd have no context for how offensive it might be.
F88, the thought of an American trying to teach an Englishman ENGLISH, is so hilarious Just out of interest, I scored 98% in English Language and 87% in English Literature in my 'O' level exams As Brad so rightly pointed out, 'Dutch courage' is a term used prolifically in hundreds of books for many years. Just because you aren't familiar with the phrase (which I find surprising, to say the least), doesn't allow you to put your 'twist' on it, and give it a whole new meaning. I used it correctly, and in context. To say something so inane as 'alcohol isn't a firearm' is something beyond comprehension, to me at least. The possession of the firearm GAVE him Dutch courage...alcohol doesn't even remotely come into it! So....DEAL with it You were soooo wrong And you are, apparently, patently convinced in your HEAD that Trayvon Martin was the offender, without ANY proof or evidence other than that which everybody else who can be bothered to research the Media for. And that 'evidence', until processed in Court, is NOT admissible in any form, OR discussion on a Forum. I have kept an open mind about the whole thing as I have read it, and still don't know the answer, any more than you do. Now, as to whether that legal process will get to the truth...nobody will ever know, except Zimmerman, who is ' the last Man standing'. Will it indeed be the truth, finally? Again, nobody knows...but the OJ Trial set a terrible precedent, IMHO. So too, does this one. And it is also very apparent to ME, that Doni, who started this thread, is somewhat more unsure of Zimmerman's guilt, than you are SURE of Trayvon Martin's.
[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 05-22-2012).]
Look, you've already made up your mind, like so many others, that Zimmerman is guilty and any gaps in what we know about what happened you'll fill in with whatever makes Zimmerman look bad.
If you want to know what I really think about this, they both are at fault because they both made bad choices. We don't know what caused Martin to give Zimmerman an azz whooping "out of the blue" on his way home. All we know is that Zimmerman was running towards Martin right before the phone conversation he was having with the police dispatcher ended. The next thing we know is from the eye witnesses descriving the fight that ensued and it's aftermath. We don't know who ultimatley approached the other first or what was said or done to start the fight. That will determine which way this case goes, if the lawyers can make a case about it. The problem they have is that there is only one witness who can actually say what happened then, because the other is dead. It's going to come down to how believeable his story is and if a jury will buy it.
If you want to know what I really think about this, they both are at fault because they both made bad choices. We don't know what caused Martin to give Zimmerman an azz whooping "out of the blue" on his way home. All we know is that Zimmerman was running towards Martin right before the phone conversation he was having with the police dispatcher ended. The next thing we know is from the eye witnesses descriving the fight that ensued and it's aftermath. We don't know who ultimatley approached the other first or what was said or done to start the fight. That will determine which way this case goes, if the lawyers can make a case about it. The problem they have is that there is only one witness who can actually say what happened then, because the other is dead. It's going to come down to how believeable his story is and if a jury will buy it.
Originally posted by fierofetish: . And it is also very apparent to ME, that Doni, who started this thread, is somewhat more unsure of Zimmerman's guilt, than you are SURE of Trayvon Martin's.
For an "Englishman" who boasts of his command of the English language, you must have missed all those times I've posted in this thread over and over that we really don't know who's guilty and that the determination of that will come down to who started the fight.
I'm pretty sure I've said that a couple, or 12, times already. You must have missed it... every time.
You see what you want to see. I can't help you there.
For an "Englishman" who boasts of his command of the English language, you must have missed all those times I've posted in this thread over and over that we really don't know who's guilty and that the determination of that will come down to who started the fight.
I'm pretty sure I've said that a couple, or 12, times already. You must have missed it... every time.
You see what you want to see. I can't help you there.
F88 Yes, I have heard your WORDS which could definitely imply or that all our infer you don't know. But your use of, IMHO, the "blessed Trayvon' bit seems to imply an insult towards Trayvon Martin? And I haven't seen any even slightly derogatory terms used against Zimmerman...but maybe I missed those too? Quite possible, I will admit. It is just that, from reading your posts, I get the feeling that you have a certain amount of bias against only one person: Martin. MY bias, if you are interested, is towards neither of them, because I regard them both, from what I have READ in the Media, as rather stupid people. But Zimmerman had the advantage of being somewhat older than Martin, and should therefore have learned a little more about how to behave sensibly.Apparently not . I also believe that carrying a firearm gave him a psychological feeling of 'supremacy' against anybody else;(unless. of course, they were too). And that feeling is correctly described by using the term 'Dutch courage'. Here is a bit of conjecture on MY part . Why, out of possibly hundreds of people living in that community, was Zimmerman the only one to seem eager to become a 'neighbouthood watch' man? Could it possibly be because he seized the opportunity to justify carrying his gun? I know it is LEGAL...but then, so would it be for anybody else, should they wish to carry. But why only HIM? I think, from my experience with many people during my life, it was a craving for power, more than anything. Power over others. You know...the sort of accusation which many here level against LEO's. If it readily applies to LEO's, why not people like Zimmerman? One thing I find hard to understand, is the incredible difference in the appearance of Zimmerman in the first photo used by the Media, and the photo/video of Zimmerman in the footage of his appearance in Court Could it be he disappeared for so long, when his Lawyer was looking for him, to be groomed and to lose weight to present a 'better' image in his forthcoming trial?
[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 05-23-2012).]
" All we know is that Zimmerman was running towards Martin right before the phone conversation he was having with the police dispatcher ended"
What Ive heard from several places, is Zimmerman lost sight of Martin in the dark (IT ISNT WELL LIT..Proof is videos of the incident), and was walking back to his vehicle when Martin knocked him to the ground from behind.
Let’s see so far we have found out that the kid was into fight club, smoking the devils weed, and more that we will never find out because he is a juvenile and those records are sealed to the public.
We haven’t seen the white/Hispanic/negro guy being guilty of too much from what I have read, not compared to the kid.
But the black population sees him as only white. Because that is all they want to see.
I am going to start a new thread that probably will get me band because of the nature of the thread. Just something I have always been curious about.
This has gotten ridicules. He was 17 and if the roles were reversed he would have been tried as an adult.
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
Originally posted by Twofatguys No, we don't know that.
Could you spin harder?
I have no need to spin anything, listen to the actual phone conversation and you can hear Zimmerman running after he says he is losing sight of Martin. There is nothing we can say that will have any effect on the outcome of this trial, as we are not part of that process. Our opinions will have no effect, so there is no need to be so emotionally involved, bothered, or angered. It is out of our hands and up to the judge and jury to determine guilt or innocence. I can state my opinion based on my views of the evidence that has been released, as can you. My opinion is not spin, it's just my opinion. You don't seem to like my opinion and that is your right. It doesn't mean that you are right or that I am wrong, it just means that we don't agree. We also are both entitled to our own opinions and they don't need to be the same. No two people will see things in exactly the same way. We don't need to agree and that it doesn't make either of us right or wrong. In the end our opinion does not mean anything, as we aren't the ones that will be judging Zimmerman. To get upset over something we have no control over, like you seem to be doing, is not very healthy. I can state that Zimmerman killed Martin and that is an irrevocable fact. It is now up to the court to determine if he had the right to do so, not us. We don't have all of the facts, and probably never will, because of that we can't form an opinion of guilt or innocence, nor does it matter if we do. We are not seated on that jury, so it doesn't matter. No one knows exactly what caused the parties to have a confrontation, except for Zimmerman. We can only assume what happened. I'll be perfectly comfortable with any verdict the court reaches because they will have access to more evidence than we will ever know about. Let them sort it out.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-23-2012).]
What Ive heard from several places, is Zimmerman lost sight of Martin in the dark (IT ISNT WELL LIT..Proof is videos of the incident), and was walking back to his vehicle when Martin knocked him to the ground from behind.
Where the incident happened and where the truck was parked is quite a distance. Zimmerman could not see Martin from where his truck was parked, even if it had been a clear sunlight day. It wasn't in a direct line of sight from the truck to where the altercation took place. Martin was already well behind the buildings where he was staying when the altercation took place.
Originally posted by avengador1: Where the incident happened and where the truck was parked is quite a distance. Zimmerman could not see Martin from where his truck was parked, even if it had been a clear sunlight day. It wasn't in a direct line of sight from the truck to where the altercation took place. Martin was already well behind the buildings where he was staying when the altercation took place.
Your map may or may not be correct as to where everything happened, so far your map is the only one I have seen of where the incident happened and that could be wrong as well.
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
That really does beg the question what was he doing 'well behind the buildings where he was staying'
He was on the sidewalk, between the back of the buildings, walking southbound, towards the place he was staying. The news here showed that the residence was the last house, on the right side, at the bottom of the picture I posted. The body was found a few doors south and on the left side of the "T" intersection in the sidewalk. This is consistent with him going "home" and only being a few doors away from there.
Your map may or may not be correct as to where everything happened, so far your map is the only one I have seen of where the incident happened and that could be wrong as well.
My map location I posted is based on crime scene photos and local news reports I have seen. I know exactly where this neighborhood is and googled it to show a birds eye view of the area. I have posted the picture in it's original orientation with North being at the top of the picture. Anybody that reads the transcript of the phone cal can google the address and find this neighborhood. The sidewalk where this incident happened is a unique feature to this neighborhood and can bee seen in many of the crime photos on the local news.
If you're wondering why this case is getting so much attention and why cases like the murdered British tourists aren't...
And sadly, I think there's a very real risk that Zimmerman will be convicted solely because the powers that be want it that way. I hope I'm wrong, and I hope there's enough evidence released to make it clear that however the verdict goes it's just and fair, but I don't have a lot of confidence in that.
I have no need to spin anything, listen to the actual phone conversation and you can hear Zimmerman running after he says he is losing sight of Martin. There is nothing we can say that will have any effect on the outcome of this trial, as we are not part of that process. Our opinions will have no effect, so there is no need to be so emotionally involved, bothered, or angered. It is out of our hands and up to the judge and jury to determine guilt or innocence. I can state my opinion based on my views of the evidence that has been released, as can you. My opinion is not spin, it's just my opinion. You don't seem to like my opinion and that is your right. It doesn't mean that you are right or that I am wrong, it just means that we don't agree. We also are both entitled to our own opinions and they don't need to be the same. No two people will see things in exactly the same way. We don't need to agree and that it doesn't make either of us right or wrong. In the end our opinion does not mean anything, as we aren't the ones that will be judging Zimmerman. To get upset over something we have no control over, like you seem to be doing, is not very healthy. I can state that Zimmerman killed Martin and that is an irrevocable fact. It is now up to the court to determine if he had the right to do so, not us. We don't have all of the facts, and probably never will, because of that we can't form an opinion of guilt or innocence, nor does it matter if we do. We are not seated on that jury, so it doesn't matter. No one knows exactly what caused the parties to have a confrontation, except for Zimmerman. We can only assume what happened. I'll be perfectly comfortable with any verdict the court reaches because they will have access to more evidence than we will ever know about. Let them sort it out.
You thinking a sound is him running does not make it a fact.
Let’s see so far we have found out that the kid was into fight club, smoking the devils weed, and more that we will never find out because he is a juvenile and those records are sealed to the public.
We haven’t seen the white/Hispanic/negro guy being guilty of too much from what I have read, not compared to the kid.
But the black population sees him as only white. Because that is all they want to see.
I am going to start a new thread that probably will get me band because of the nature of the thread. Just something I have always been curious about.
This has gotten ridicules. He was 17 and if the roles were reversed he would have been tried as an adult.
Steve
I don't think that smoking marijuana is enough to make him violent, it usually causes the opposite effect in people.
But several eyewitnesses accounts of him doing this does.
Show me on the Police report, or court record where he was running after Martin. Joe Blow popping up a month after the fact is not a witness, it's someone looking to be famous.
You can't have it both ways here. You have already argued that there were no witnesses, now you want me to believe that there were. Which is it?
Show me on the Police report, or court record where he was running after Martin. Joe Blow popping up a month after the fact is not a witness, it's someone looking to be famous.
You can't have it both ways here. You have already argued that there were no witnesses, now you want me to believe that there were. Which is it?
Brad
Why don't you do some of the legwork yourself? I already have done a lot of it. I may have argued that there were no witnesses, in the beginning, that was because none of them had come foward at the time. We now know that there where several witnesses and some even saw the actual shooting. There still are no witnesses that have come foward to say they saw the exact moment when Zimmerman and Martin first came face to face. If you have any information on witnesses saying that they saw what happened at that exact moment please share it. It could determine the guilt or innoncence of Zimmerman. As far as I know there aren't any, but that doesn't mean that information has been made public, if it exists. There are 67 discs of information that were collected on this incident and all of that information has not been released to the public. The news last night talked about a couple of eyewitnesses that saw men running that night. I don't want you to believe anything I say, please post any proof you may have that shows what I have posted is wrong, or refrain from posting misinformation based on your opinion of what that night's events might have been, especially if you can't back your statements up. Here are some links of what witnesses saw. http://www.foxnews.com/on-a...e-zimmerman-shooting
quote
the Sanford police did make it clear that what George Zimmerman told them was that he was actually getting back into his SUV when he said Trayvon Martin came around the left-hand side of him and he says that Trayvon Martin said, do you have a problem? And he said no, and then Trayvon said something like well, you do now. Then George Zimmerman told the cops that he got punched in the nose. He hit the ground, and that's when Trayvon Martin jumped on top of him and slammed his head into the sidewalk and that's when he began to yell for help. I mean, that's what Sanford police tell us that George Zimmerman told them.
Martin sure must have had a great reach to punch Zimmerman by his truck from all the way from behind the buildings. Is this how things actually went down? The locations of the vehicle and the crime scene say no. Is this a lie? I wonder what the court will have to say about this.
One witness said she saw a fistfight and two figures chasing each other. “I saw two guys running. Couldn’t tell you who was in front, who was behind,” she told lead investigator Chris Serino. But when speaking to a Florida Department of Law Enforcement official later, she said she only saw one figure running and could not describe much about it. “I couldn’t tell you if it was a man, a woman, a kid, black or white. I couldn’t tell you because it was dark and because I didn’t have my contacts on or glasses…I just know I saw a person out there.”
quote
A fourth witness, possibly most important because he actually spoke with Zimmerman after the shooting, said he saw Zimmerman with blood on the back of his head. Zimmerman asked the man to call his wife and tell her what happened. He said Martin “was beating up on me, so I had to shoot him.” In two interviews that took place a month later, the witness says demeanor was not excited or upset, but rather calm.
Zimmerman’s demeanor, the witness said was “not like ‘I can’t believe I just shot someone!’ — it was more like, ‘Just tell my wife I shot somebody …,’ like it was nothing.”
Twenty-two people are listed as witnesses in the case. The four whose stories changed will likely undergo more interviewing before Zimmerman’s trial begins. His next court date is scheduled for Aug. 8.
Maybe you will like this story better, since it fits your point of view. New Trayvon Martin Twist: Anonymous Witness Reportedly Tells Police Martin Attacked Zimmerman http://themoderatevoice.com...-attacked-zimmernan/
quote
A witness has reportedly come forward and told police that Martin provoked neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman:
Trayvon Martin may have attacked a Neighborhood Watch captain before the man shot dead the unarmed teen in a gated community in Florida, an anonymous witness who spoke to police claimed yesterday.
The witness, known only as John, told Sanford police that he saw Martin on top of George Zimmerman shortly before the fatal shot that has led to a national outcry, including a huge ‘hoodie’ march in Philadelphia last night.
He recounted the details to Fox 35 News in Florida.
The witness told FOX 35 in Orlando that he saw evidence of a fight between Martin and Zimmerman, which could lend credence to the gunman’s claim that he was acting in self-defence.
This witness still didn't tell if he saw Martin approach Zimmerman or vice versa. He just saw the fight and shooting, not what led up to it. From that article itself "the fact that none of the news sites (including Fox) are not reporting it suggests a)editors need to confirm the report that was on the local TV station and carried on The Daily Mail b)there is some uneasiness. Sometimes editors will not pick up a “new twist” story if they cannot get confirmation or their sources dismiss it as not solid."
Witness 2: A young woman who lives in the Retreat at Twin Lakes community, where Martin was shot, was interviewed twice by Sanford police and once by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
She told authorities that she had taken out her contact lenses just before the incident. In her first recorded interview with Sanford police four days after the shooting, she told lead Investigator Chris Serino, "I saw two guys running. Couldn't tell you who was in front, who was behind."
She stepped away from her window, and when she looked again, she "saw a fistfight. Just fists. I don't know who was hitting who."
A week later, she added a detail when talking again to Serino: During the chase, the two figures had been 10 feet apart.
That all changed when she was re-interviewed March 20 by an FDLE agent. That time, she recalled catching a glimpse of just one running figure, she told Investigator John Batchelor, and she heard the person more than saw him.
"I couldn't tell you if it was a man, a woman, a kid, black or white. I couldn't tell you because it was dark and because I didn't have my contacts on or glasses. ... I just know I saw a person out there."
That's a lot of detail to decide to recant it later. It makes one wonder why she told the story in the first place or why she is changing it now.
[This message has been edited by avengador1 (edited 05-24-2012).]
Originally posted by avengador1: Why don't you do some of the legwork yourself? I already have done a lot of it. I may have argued that there were no witnesses, in the beginning, that was because none of them had come foward at the time.
I counted 20 witnesses on that link to the police reports, ya that’s right 20, not none.
I can assure you being married to a Dutch girl, and having lived in Holland, and speaking the language....If I wanted to insult Cliff, I could do it quite ably in his own language 
), doesn't allow you to put your 'twist' on it, and give it a whole new meaning. I used it correctly, and in context. To say something so inane as 'alcohol isn't a firearm' is something beyond comprehension, to me at least. The possession of the firearm GAVE him Dutch courage...alcohol doesn't even remotely come into it!
I know they can call ducks.
.
