Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In all fairness to you, most of the call was focused on the gunshot though.
I just heard it again and he said someone is calling for help and "I'm not going out." Can you find me a link? I can't hear any part of his 911 call that indicates he was even outside. All I keep hearing on every audio is that he "heard a gunshot" and then he tells the 911 operator that "I don't want to go outside." He didn't say "again."
I just heard it again and he said someone is calling for help and "I'm not going out." Can you find me a link? I can't hear any part of his 911 call that indicates he was even outside. All I keep hearing on every audio is that he "heard a gunshot" and then he tells the 911 operator that "I don't want to go outside." He didn't say "again."
I was just listening to the testimony, I can certainly go back and review. If I am wrong, it is in my error.
I just heard it again and he said someone is calling for help and "I'm not going out." Can you find me a link? I can't hear any part of his 911 call that indicates he was even outside. All I keep hearing on every audio is that he "heard a gunshot" and then he tells the 911 operator that "I don't want to go outside." He didn't say "again."
Here's a link to his testimony and the 911 call is at 45:57. He says in the call and I quote "They're wrestling right in the back of my porch".
I was just listening to the testimony, I can certainly go back and review. If I am wrong, it is in my error.
I am not saying you're wrong, only that it's in his testimony, not in the 911 call. Last year when the 911 calls were posted on the Sanford police website, I listened to them, and it was the same. He said he heard a gunshot. I cannot ever recall this man saying he was outside on the 911 call or that he peeked outside. It's just something I wouldn't leave out if I called 911. In fact, in his testimony he said he peeked outside while watching TV with his wife and said "stop it," but last year I read that he walked past the 2 men fighting on the ground and told them to stop. I mean, there are only so many witnesses, so I am sure this is the same man.
However, if the defense didn't question his story, I guess the news articles I read left out some details. I'm not accusing this witness of lying, only wondering why he didn't tell the 911 operator he was outside and saw 2 men fighting. I hear "911 Emergency" and then I hear him saying "I heard a gunshot" with no description of the fight he just witnessed.
1) There were not "no injuries" on Martin's hands, per past news releases. There was an injury, though fairly small. It also looks as if most of his blows struck Zs nose. Just how much bruising of the hands does that cause. As to Z, it is reasonable to expect that he was trying to block Ms "MMA" punches. So hands would be striking hands. Again, how much injury would you expect? Though it's fair to wait for the forensics reports to come out on that.
2) I've seem the report stating that the round was fired at "intermediate" range, which in forensic speak means 1 inch to 3 feet, 2 to 8 inches or 2 to 12 inches, from the various news reports I've seen. Again, I'll wait for the pathologist to refine that number. In any case, the distance is in a range I would expect to see for someone in violent physical confrontation to fire from. Certainly any of the distances either of us has mentioned is well within "lethal threat" range, and also within a range one would expect in a violent, hand to hand fight.
3) His PA described Z as overweight with high blood pressure. Certainly not in peak condition. Whereas, based on the photos I've seen of M, he looks to be in prime health, tall and not carrying obvious extra weight. He also was a football player in the recent past. I think it's very reasonable that he would "take" Z in a fight. Which fits with witness testimony.
So, if we accept that M was on top and was punching Z in the face, we have a few possible scenarios.
a. M beat the tar out of Z and stood up and got off of him. Fights over and M is standing over Z. Z pulls out his gun and shoots him because he's pizzed and embarrased. Not likely since the ranges we both saw published for the GSW don't work.
b. M takes Z and is beating him in the face. He has victim down and he is continuing to swing and punch his defeated opponent. He does not stop, which places Z in reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death. This fits the testimony of today's witness (Jones?) who saw the guy with the red jacket on the ground being beat. And who saw the beating continue even after he attempted to intervene verbally. Z pulls his gun out and shoots to stop the attack, shooting as soon as he can get the gun clear of the holster and brought to bear. The forensics on the GSW (from what I understand) support this, with a shot from "intermediate" range. What will be very interesting is where any GSW residue is found on both and the angle of the entry wound on M.
c. Z is on top and is beating M about the face and head. M is screaming for him to stop. In a rage, Z pulls out his gun and shoots M, while sitting on his chest. While the GSW forensics with regards to range work, that doesn't fit any of the other testimony. It is Z that has the injuries to his face, back of his head and whose back is wet and covered with grass clippings. Let alone the witness that places M on top.
d. Your scenario where M is on top and beating Z. Z draws his gun and M goes for it while screaming for help when he sees the gun. This fits both the reports that M was on top, and that M was screaming. Keep in mind that the screams lasted considerable time, many seconds at least. It seems likely that if they were fighting for the gun that Ms hands would be all over the gun to keep it away from his body. That would most likely result in lacerations and contusions to his hands due to the front site of the gun, as well as his fingerprints and possibly DNA on the gun. I don't believe there was any evidence to support this, but again, we'll see as the trial continues. In addition, if M were on top and went for the gun, he's in a much better position to get both hands on the firearm, and to deflect the shot, if not actually take the gun from Z, especially if they fought for it for any period of time.
None of these scenarios fits all the evidence and testimony. In my opinion, "b" best fits the evidence, with the witness who heard the screaming being wrong about who was screaming (in line with Geos "mousy" voice). But again, I'll wait for the rest of the testimony before getting too attached to that theory.
well, b) is an option but does not fit the facts. Z had very little damage to his face. Not continued punches. No blood streaming from his nose. Only at the tip of his nose. If M had continued punching Z hard there would be a lot of damage to Ms hand(s). And there wasn't. And a whole lot more damage to Zs face and nose than the minor amount shown in the picture.
I think that you can discount Z getting beaten up. There is nothing to support that. There was no serious fighting between the two, no evidence of it at all. The most realistic option is that M punched Z, Z fell (on his back), Z got up, etc (go from there with previous suggested possibilities).
I am not saying you're wrong, only that it's in his testimony, not in the 911 call. Last year when the 911 calls were posted on the Sanford police website, I listened to them, and it was the same. He said he heard a gunshot. I cannot ever recall this man saying he was outside. In fact, in his testimony he said he peeked outside while watching TV with his wife. Last year he said he walked past the 2 men fighting on the ground and told them to stop. I mean, there are only so many witnesses, so I am sure this is the same man. However, if the defense didn't question his story, I guess the news articles I read left out some details.
I think we crossed posted. I've linked the testimony and given the time stamp for the 911 call.
well, b) is an option but does not fit the facts. Z had very little damage to his face. Not continued punches. No blood streaming from his nose. Only at the tip of his nose. If M had continued punching Z hard there would be a lot of damage to Ms hand(s). And there wasn't. And a whole lot more damage to Zs face and nose than the minor amount shown in the picture.
I think that you can discount Z getting beaten up. There is nothing to support that. There was no serious fighting between the two, no evidence of it at all. The most realistic option is that M punched Z, Z fell (on his back), Z got up, etc (go from there with previous suggested possibilities).
Watching this trial, this is not at all the impression I have of the events. Everything from the photographic evidence that evening of Zimmerman's face to Good's testimony seems to contradict everything you've said here.
I just heard it again and he said someone is calling for help and "I'm not going out." Can you find me a link? I can't hear any part of his 911 call that indicates he was even outside. All I keep hearing on every audio is that he "heard a gunshot" and then he tells the 911 operator that "I don't want to go outside." He didn't say "again."
Hmmm. Are you saying that he lied in his testimoney?
Hmmm. Are you saying that he lied in his testimoney?
I linked it with the 911 call in there. It's there. He didn't lie.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
