• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Trayvon hit first ---- Rachel Jeantel

Josie said:
Last night Rachel did an interview with Marc Lamont Hill on HuffPostLive. She says she thinks Trayvon hit first. Go to 10:00 if you don't want to listen to it all.

HuffPost Live
Click to expand...
Ok....and why is the causal reader supposed to care?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
And the relevance of that in helping us figure out what she is saying today is what?

I get that you don't find her credible. But credible or not, she is saying something. I am just trying to figure out what she said.
Click to expand...

It sounds like she is saying Martin swung first but that he swung first because he was provoked. That he was being pursued by Z and had no earthly idea why, since all he was doing was walking home at the time. Z, according to Rachel, approached Martin, possibly even grabbed him and Martin reacted (understandably so) by swinging at him. This would Z the aggressor.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
It doesn't seem that that is what she is trying to say.
Just after she says "Trayvon" she starts giving reasons why it would not have been TM.

I think there was some sort of communication error.

imho
Click to expand...
Why does everyone think it is a communication error,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it's a slip of the tongue...........after she says something that makes TM look bad, she changes the story to make GZ look bad. It has nothing to do with communication...........it's the lies that will get you!:cool:
 
What would you do if someone was following you like this? Would you calmly ask them why? I don't think so. Trayvon had reason to be concerned about why Z was following him. Z had obviously already made his mind up that Trayvon was up to no good, suspicious. If you recall, Z confirmed that himself. Therefore, it seems logical that Z was coming from a more aggressive mindset than someone who is just walking home. I'm sorry but Trayvons actions still seem more DEFENSIVE that OFFENSIVE to me.

Also, the fact that Trayvon did not get off the phone with Rachel DOES in fact make it appear as if Z took him by surprise when he approached him.
 
opendebate said:
It sounds like she is saying Martin swung first but that he swung first because he was provoked. That he was being pursued by Z and had no earthly idea why, since all he was doing was walking home at the time. Z, according to Rachel, approached Martin, possibly even grabbed him and Martin reacted (understandably so) by swinging at him. This would Z the aggressor.
Click to expand...
That's more or less what I got out of it.
raindrop said:
Why does everyone think it is a communication error,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it's a slip of the tongue...........after she says something that makes TM look bad, so changes the story to make GZ look bad. It has nothing to do with communication...........it's the lies that will get you!:cool:
Click to expand...
But then changes it right back again inside the same few seconds?
I find my theory more plausible. But I understand if you prefer your own.
 
Zyphlin said:
Which is kind of irrelevant because it's rather poor logic to take part of her statements as useful and part of her statements as NOT useful.

She says she thinks Trayvon hit first.

But she also says she thinks Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon first.

That grab constitutes an unwanted touching and justifies a strike on the part of Trayvon, which makes the entire revelation that "Trayvon hit first" moot.

If you believe her story and views on it to be the most plausible and likely scenario, then Trayvon threw the first punch but Zimmerman initated phyiscal contact.

If you don't believe her story and her views on it to be the most plausible and likely scenario then it goes back into question who threw the first punch or initiated the first physical contact.

But it doesn't make sense to care about who she says PUNCHED first if you're not taking into account her other views as well.

Ultimatley, I don't find her any more credible, expert, or impartial of a witness than Zimmerman himself and while I do think her scenario is PLAUSIBLE I don't think there's anywhere near enough evidence to say it's definitely or even "likely" the way it went down.
Click to expand...

Not to mention, HTF could you tell something like that from listening on the phone?
 
ARealConservative said:
her recounting who said what is useful.

but when she says she can hear wet grass, or she can tell who grabbed who based on things other then conversations, is when I roll my eyes and move on.
Click to expand...

right? I was starting to feel like I was missing something when people started discussion "what she heard" over the phone. The fact that large segments of the public thought it was relevant just amazed me
 
joko104 said:
Yeah, I mean if GZ had done as some GZ-haters done - to have run down TM, gotten in TM's face and demand TM answer his questions on identifying himself and his authority as neighborhood watch - it might have turned out differently. GZ's truck might have been vandalized, his apartment burglaries and GZ jumped coming out of his condo someday.

Per YOUR logic, you might be more credible if you posted your name and address on the forum. I think that is your logic of what GZ should have done to someone acting suspicious he thought was on drugs. The thing to do is to get in that person's face and say "my name is .... and I live right over there at xxxxxxxx address .... and I demand to know who you are and what you are doing!"

ENDLESSLY, ENDLESSLY, GZ-haters demand 2 diametric opposites - that GZ was legally required to stay in his truck AND that legally GZ was required to directly confront TM giving his name to TM plus declaring his (non-existent) authority as neighborhood watch.

And every time an anti-GZer makes those diametric opposite claims, that person proves they have exactly no intellectual integrity whatsoever.
Click to expand...
No Sir. You are the one suggesting that George give his address out; I never suggested that he do that. But if someone is following me like Trayvon got done to him I would most definitely want to know that person's name and that person's motives as to why he is doing what he is doing--especially with it being at night.
 
opendebate said:
What would you do if someone was following you like this? Would you calmly ask them why? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

No, I would continue on my way and if I felt like it might be a dangerous situation, I would get to safety ASAP and call police... Something that Martin had the time and opportunity to do, but didn't.


Trayvon had reason to be concerned about why Z was following him. Z had obviously already made his mind up that Trayvon was up to no good, suspicious. If you recall, Z confirmed that himself. Therefore, it seems logical that Z was coming from a more aggressive mindset than someone who is just walking home. I'm sorry but Trayvons actions still seem more DEFENSIVE that OFFENSIVE to me.
Click to expand...

Where I come from, approaching and physically attacking someone is definitely considered to be an offensive move.



Also, the fact that Trayvon did not get off the phone with Rachel DOES in fact make it appear as if Z took him by surprise when he approached him.
Click to expand...

Or maybe Martin at the last second decided to toss his phone and attack... Or maybe he just flew off the handle and he didn't give a damn about rachel and the phone?

Besides, how in the hell does Martin dissapear from the spot where the confrontation took place, and then 4 minutes later return to that spot and be "surprised" by someone who hadn't followed him during that entire 4 minute time? How does that work?
 
Of course Trayvon hit first… we know this because it follows that a rational person who is carrying a firearm, thus is keenly aware of the responsibilities, not to mention the liabilities, intrinsic to such, would NOT engage in a physical altercation, as the risk in doing so, FAR OUT WIEGHS the potential gain IN doing so.

There is nothing in Zimmerman's record which paints him as an irrational person. That he has taken the time to call 9-11, and report a person skulking along in the shadows, on a dark and rainy night; walking up next to private residences, off of the public right of way… in a neighborhood long since having been victimized by just the sort of individual that would walk up next to private residences, off the public sidewalk, on a dark and rainy night, is MORE then enough evidence that the guy had no intentions of confronting the would-be, soon to be departed, perpetrator.
 
Lutherf said:
If she actually said that it would have been in direct opposition to her testimony during the trial but what I got out of this particular interview is that Trayvon was feeling disrespected so he went to do something about it. That's understandable but if he approached Zimmerman and said "What you following me for?" and then Zimmerman said something back to him (which is also part of the testimony) that's where the conflict started. If Trayvon swung first that just escalated things. Frankly, at that point it was, as Jeantel said, a scuffle. As that scuffle continued Zimmerman obviously became concerned that he was going to either get killed or seriously beaten (the screams) and he held out even then for the better part of a minute before he shot......textbook self defense.
Click to expand...

I occasionally watch Judge Mathis on TV. It's a hoot. But. The reason I'm mentioning it here is that black litigants will often say, after they've hit someone over the head with a beer bottle, "She disrespected me." Or, "She called me out my name." (Whatever in the hell that means.) This disrespect thing is like lighting a fuse is what I gather.
 
MaggieD said:
I occasionally watch Judge Mathis on TV. It's a hoot. But. The reason I'm mentioning it here is that black litigants will often say, after they've hit someone over the head with a beer bottle, "She disrespected me." Or, "She called me out my name." (Whatever in the hell that means.) This disrespect thing is like lighting a fuse is what I gather.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily understand it either but it's certainly not limited to blacks. My secretary has mentioned it and 25 years ago my brother brought it up. Somewhere along the line it seems that folks started deciding that they deserved "respect" before a word came out of their mouth or they'd performed any kind of action. I just don't get it.

I fully agree that one should be respectful to strangers and even give them the benefit of the doubt if there is a question of their respectability but in no way, shape or form am I going beyond that until you show me what kind of person you are.
 
What there has been little to no speculation on was about TM initially approaching GZ while he was on the phone to the police operator - and then TM suddenly turned and dashed off. And as GZ told that narrative to that operator (not something later concocted), TM was reaching into his pocket or waistband.

WHY did TM approach GZ's vehicle?

And since we KNOW what GZ was saying because it was recorded in the police call, why did TM turn around and run - latter it appears TM telling DeeDee he thought GZ was a cop or security.

So... why did TM approach GZ's truck in the first place? And why did TM turn and run off when he thought GZ was police or security?

I have stated from the start, I don't think TM was outside pacing for no reason. He was in a new city. I've always contended it is most likely he was looking to buy drugs - or possible sell them, particularly given his cell phone pictures (kept from the jury) of marijuana plants.

Since, actually it all started at that point, I've been surprised there as been no speculations of why in hell did TM approach GZ's truck in the first place. But assuming he had a reason, then why did TM turn and run?

So to those GZ haters who said it started when GZ got out of his truck? Actually, what make TM super suspicious was TM approaching GZ's truck until seeing (and maybe hearing) GZ talking to the police (or someone on the phone) about TM - for which TM apparently decided he had seriously miscalculated and took off running.

And since nothing was found in TM's waistband, what did TM ditch before he came back towards GZ - after GZ was OFF the phone? Was TM's real motive to get GZ's phone because GZ might have taken his photo? And did the struggle over the gun really start as TM thinking he was going for GZ's cell phone that TM wanted to eliminate his picture to the police?
 
Last edited:
Her opinion matters to me not.

For she could not SEE with EYEBALLS what was going on.......

**** her....

Well, actually, no.....just **** one of her side rolls.....


Actually... not even that..
 
Caine said:
Her opinion matters to me not.

For she could not SEE with EYEBALLS what was going on.......

**** her....

Well, actually, no.....just **** one of her side rolls.....


Actually... not even that..
Click to expand...

did you see it caine ?
 
Medusa said:
did you see it caine ?
Click to expand...

No.
But the testimony from witness who did see parts of it confirmed Zimmerman's story. That witness was "3rd party"

This "earwitness" was a friend of the "victim", so she is filling in noises she heard with opinion to get the desired story.
 
Caine said:
No.
But the testimony from witness who did see parts of it confirmed Zimmerman's story. That witness was "3rd party"

This "earwitness" was a friend of the "victim", so she is filling in noises she heard with opinion to get the desired story.
Click to expand...


maybe he didnt see either
 
raindrop said:
Why does everyone think it is a communication error,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it's a slip of the tongue...........after she says something that makes TM look bad, she changes the story to make GZ look bad. It has nothing to do with communication...........it's the lies that will get you!:cool:
Click to expand...

She did the same at trial (after being coached)
 
MaggieD said:
I occasionally watch Judge Mathis on TV. It's a hoot. But. The reason I'm mentioning it here is that black litigants will often say, after they've hit someone over the head with a beer bottle, "She disrespected me." Or, "She called me out my name." (Whatever in the hell that means.) This disrespect thing is like lighting a fuse is what I gather.
Click to expand...
Apparently a glance is all it takes to 'disrespect these days.

Biden was sure wrong about the 'nod'.
 
Speculation around the "blood' she was referring to was most likely gang related. For decades, wearing the wrong color or a slight glance was enough to set gang members off.

Then there's this...

 
Commentary on same interview.......
Rachel Jeantel Says Martin Threw the First Punch

Personal opinion, I believe the "race baiter" attorney ben crump crafted a story for Jeantel. She's not very good at retelling same.

Don't know how many watched the al sharpton interview with her. It's painful. I don't believe there was a complete sentence between the two of them for most of the interview.
 
WCH said:
That's the way it works out but, someone initiated it.
Click to expand...

I don't think the media initiated the Zimmerman feeding frenzie, but they certainly ran with the ball once the story started to gain some traction, such as when the President opined on his fantasy son being just like Trayvon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom