# George Zimmerman's bloody head



## MarcATL (Apr 11, 2012)

Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?







Again, crystal clear evidence of not one single, solitary scratch on his face, body or anywhere else for that matter...the man is fit as a fiddle, looking like a super model with his coifed hair.

No evidence of a black eye, no broken nose, no scars, not even a scratch...pure, clean smooth skin....like he just walked of a model runway.

Does that face look like it was just in the struggle that left him near death?

Is it becoming more clear why Angela Corey didn't need much to come to her conclussion?

The man has been Bullshatting from the beginning...he's a big-time bullshatter.

RWers....where do you stand on the case now?

Are you still buying George Zimmerman's swill hook, line and sinker?

Or are you ready to accept the FACTS of the case as it stands?

What say you?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 11, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Where is the picture of his head wound?


----------



## Ariux (Apr 11, 2012)

Shit-for-brains racist lynch mob thinks there should be scratches on his face all this time later.   No one even said his face was scratched, in the first place.


----------



## Salt Jones (Apr 11, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Shit-for-brains racist lynch mob thinks there should be scratches on his face all this time later.   No one even said his face was scratched, in the first place.



I was hoping it was an autopsy photo.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Apr 11, 2012)

The incident was 45 days ago, not "a good month" ago.

But don't let facts get in the way of your rant.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 11, 2012)

A broken nose guys?

Takes 45 to look brand new from a broken nose?

Are you KIDDIN' meh!?!?


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 11, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> A broken nose guys?
> 
> Takes 45 to look brand new from a broken nose?
> 
> Are you KIDDIN' meh!?!?



You don't really know shit about broken noses, do you Marc?  I've had two.  Once the swelling goes down...usually 4 or 5 days...you look pretty much like you did before.  45 days later even if you had black eyes from the broken nose (one I had two serious black eyes with one broken nose and the other no black eyes at all) it would be long gone by then.  Threads like this simply show ignorance.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 11, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > A broken nose guys?
> ...


You really gonna fall on the sword of that lie huh?

The thing is in the Court's hands now dude, these facts will come out.

Are you siding on the BOGUS claim that this pretty boy's nose was broken a mere 45 days ago?


----------



## The Gadfly (Apr 11, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Shit-for-brains racist lynch mob thinks there should be scratches on his face all this time later.   No one even said his face was scratched, in the first place.
> ...



Just so sane people understand what we are dealing with in seeking justice; here's one more who wants to murder the man without benefit of a trial. Why am I NOT surprised? At least you're honest; I wonder how many more here think the same but won't quite say it (though they'd celebrate if it happened)?


----------



## Dr Grump (Apr 11, 2012)

Looks like he's lost weight..prolly not eating too well at the mo'....


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Apr 11, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



You're right, the facts will come out in court. Unless the prosecutor lets him plea bargain to a lesser crime.

And how do you know it's a bogus claim? Do you have access to EMT and/or medical records that you would like to share with us?


----------



## The Gadfly (Apr 11, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



I don't know whether it's bogus or not, but I do know this picture doesn't prove that, one way or another. What exactly is your medical/allied professional expertise? I've treated quite a few broken noses, of varying degrees of severity (it's a VERY common injury, after all), as a fully licensed EMT and Paramedic, and I'll tell everyone here, that your assertion on this is absolutely without foundation, in my professional experience; when you're on a community rescue squad, you get to see quite a few of your patients a week or a month after their injury, since many of them are people you know.

Salt wants Zimmerman killed, with or without due process; you with him on that?


----------



## Sherry (Apr 11, 2012)

Coiffed hair??


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 11, 2012)

Rat in the Hat said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Dude..the footage of him gingerly strolling in the initial arrest in Sanford police station.

Now this latest mugshot.

Not even my face is so smooth and perfect and mark free as his.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 11, 2012)

The Gadfly said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


I don't want him killed w/o justice.

However, if he's found guilty of the highest charge, I wouldn't mind if he were put to death.

Electric chair would be my preference.


----------



## IndependntLogic (Apr 11, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> 
> Again, crystal clear evidence of not one single, solitary scratch on his face, body or anywhere else for that matter...the man is fit as a fiddle, looking like a super model with his coifed hair.
> 
> ...



I boxed in high school and went through combat training with Marines while I was in the Navy. I've had my nose broken. Seems to me I had swelling etc... for maybe a week or so. By the next week, I didn't look perfect but unless you knew me, you probably wouldn't have noticed.
Where you often seem to be one of the more reasonable posters, in this case you're no different than those who claim to know Zimmerman is innocent without having been there. They claim his story of self-defense is "proof" he's innocent - which is complete bs. You claim he is a murderer without having been there - which is also complete bs.

I think it is completely reasonable that he has been arrested and charged with a crime. 
I think it is unreasonable for either side to presume to know the facts or declare innocence or guilt.
One other thing: Unless she has some STRONG evidence that none of us know about, I think the prosecutor made a huge mistake by going for 2nd degree murder instead of manslaughter.


----------



## MikeK (Apr 11, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> 
> [...]


It does not.  

However, the determining factor won't be a lay opinion.  It will be what some attending physician at the ER where Zimmerman was examined has written down.  

Point of information:  I once sustained a hard elbow to the nose while wrestling.  The result was pain, swelling and a lot of non-stop bleeding.  The examining ENT MD's diagnosis was "fractured septum" (broken nose).  But within a few hours the bleeding stopped completely.  Within a day the pain was completely gone.  Within a few days the swelling receded and my nose was back to normal.  

So I'm guessing the outcome of this case will depend heavily on the medical record.  If Zimmerman can maintain he was being attacked by Martin and there is no conflicting evidence -- he could walk.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Apr 11, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Oh, I see. A grainy video off a CCTV camera and a picture 45 days later trumps medical records in your world.

And weren't you one of the posters here who said Zimmerman was never arrested in the first place? What changed your mind?


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 11, 2012)

LOL! When nose was broken I never had a scratch on my nose. What'd y'all expect? That when someone's nose is broken, the bone jutts out of the skin or something. His nose looks a tad crooked. 

And Marc, "no injuries on his body"? It's a picture of his face, for crying out loud.


----------



## alan1 (Apr 11, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> I don't want him killed w/o justice.
> 
> However, if he's found guilty of the highest charge, I wouldn't mind if he were put to death.
> 
> Electric chair would be my preference.



I have serious doubts that you would accept it as "justice" if innocence is what comes to pass after his trial.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Apr 11, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Second degree murder is not a capital offense in Florida.

So you won't get your wish.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 11, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Shit-for-brains racist lynch mob thinks there should be scratches on his face all this time later.   No one even said his face was scratched, in the first place.



His nose has never  been broken in his life, its straight as an arrow.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 11, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> You don't really know shit about broken noses, do you Marc?  I've had two.  Once the swelling goes down...usually 4 or 5 days...you look pretty much like you did before.



yeah, you'll look exactly like you did before - _except for the crooked nose_




> 45 days later even if you had black eyes from the broken nose (one I had two serious black eyes with one broken nose and the other no black eyes at all) it would be long gone by then.  Threads like this simply show ignorance.



Since the extent of Zimmerman's injuries are so severe I'm sure he received medical treatment and thus he'll be able to submit those records as evidence.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 11, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> ...


My friend...

Let's do some simple 'rithmaticks here.

1. The meme that he was beaten half to death...including having his head smashed repeatedly to the concrete multiple times.
2. The claim that his nose was broken.
3. The claim that he was in such horror that he had to kill to save his very life.
4. The footage of pretty boy killer, George Zimmerman gingerly strolling in the Sanford police station with no evidence of injury.
5. This recent mugshot

Add it all together and it paints the picture of a smug, narcisstic pretty boy that's been LYING all this time.

Dude...the man doesn't have a scratch. Not. one. scratch.

Either he was beaten half-to-death or he was lying.
And if he was beaten half-to-death, he doesn't seem to have any signs of it now, nor deed he less than an hour according to the video footage we've all seen.

So heads, he's a liar, and tails, he's a liar.

It's not rocket science.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 11, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Shit-for-brains racist lynch mob thinks there should be scratches on his face all this time later.   No one even said his face was scratched, in the first place.
> ...



Take a look again.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 11, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> LOL! When nose was broken I never had a scratch on my nose. What'd y'all expect? That when someone's nose is broken, the bone jutts out of the skin or something. His nose looks a tad crooked.
> 
> And Marc, "no injuries on his body"? It's a picture of his face, for crying out loud.



A tad crooked? His nose is nearly perfect. His head is slightly tilted to one side, I think that's why the nose looks crooked to you.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 11, 2012)

Rat in the Hat said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > The Gadfly said:
> ...


Oh well...a guy can only dream. Right?


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Apr 11, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Your dream will really be crushed if he cops to manslaughter, and walks in 5.


----------



## MikeK (Apr 11, 2012)

IndependntLogic said:


> [...]
> 
> One other thing: Unless she has some STRONG evidence that none of us know about, I think the prosecutor made a huge mistake by going for 2nd degree murder instead of manslaughter.


You're absolutely right.  And for exactly the reason you've cited I (cynically) believe she knows what she's doing.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 11, 2012)

Rat in the Hat said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...


I can make a couple of phone calls and have a good night's rest if that happens.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 11, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...


^replies to your weak emotional appeals in parentheses in quote

He seems to genuinely believe he acted in self defense according to my reading. He didn't run when he could've, he said he would turn himself in if he was charged and did so. Seems to me he isn't a liar, atleast about those things.

How about we let the courts take it from here?


----------



## Sherry (Apr 11, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



You're such a fucking blowhard.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Apr 11, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



So why haven't you done it already, Don Corleone?


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 11, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > LOL! When nose was broken I never had a scratch on my nose. What'd y'all expect? That when someone's nose is broken, the bone jutts out of the skin or something. His nose looks a tad crooked.
> ...


Nearly perfect is the key word. Nice emotional appeals you all keep pushing.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 11, 2012)

Rat in the Hat said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...



LOLing!!!

Now THAT was funny dude.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 11, 2012)

Sherry said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...



What....whatdidIsay!!?!?!??


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 11, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



I wouldn't claim to know whether Zimmerman's nose was broken a month and a half ago on the night he had the confrontation with Trayvon Martin because I haven't seen his medical records.

What I am saying...is that if your nose WERE broken...it wouldn't look like much a month and a half later.  With the broken nose I had that DID give me two beautiful shiners...those black eyes turned purple...then yellow and after a couple weeks any discoloration I had was totally gone.  The other broken nose didn't give me black eyes at all...it simply swelled up.

You've obviously led a rather sheltered life if you think that you're still going to look like you were just in a fight a month and a half after a fight took place.  I'm sorry, Marc but that's silly.  You see professional fighter's faces that are swollen so badly they can't see and a few weeks later they're pretty much back to normal.  That's after standing toe to toe and punching each other's lights out for ten rounds.  But you think Zimmerman should still be disfigured a month and a half later from a brief scuffle?


----------



## The Gadfly (Apr 11, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...


No, but you WISH you could. You do realize, that even if he's guilty, that makes you at least as bad as he is, and if he's not....but you don't care about that, do you? Nice to know.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 11, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


OK, good...now that you've publicly defended Zimmerman's physical exeburance a good month and a half after the alleged fight, how do you reconcile his physical perfection less than an hour after the alleged fight?

Hmmmm...!!!?!???


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 11, 2012)

The Gadfly said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...


What do you mean by "bad as he is?" What do you think I meant earlier?


----------



## Zoom (Apr 11, 2012)

Rat in the Hat said:


> The incident was 45 days ago, not "a good month" ago.
> 
> But don't let facts get in the way of your rant.



Yet still no pics of him with a broken nose.  Dont you find that strange?


----------



## Inthemiddle (Apr 12, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> Once the swelling goes down...usually 4 or 5 days...you look pretty much like you did before.



Yet decades later, you can still see it on this guy.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Apr 12, 2012)

Zoom said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > The incident was 45 days ago, not "a good month" ago.
> ...



No. The police and prosecutors usually don't release evidence before trial. And I'm sure Zimmerman's lawyers told him not to release any pictures either.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Apr 12, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > A broken nose guys?
> ...



If your nose looks like it did before it probably wasn't broken.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 12, 2012)

Zimmerman hasn't had proper representation until very recently, like today or yesterday.

How do you know what his "laywers" told him?


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 12, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Once the swelling goes down...usually 4 or 5 days...you look pretty much like you did before.
> ...



Love your avatar of a young President Obama.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (Apr 12, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Zimmerman hasn't had proper representation until very recently, like today or yesterday.
> 
> How do you know what his "laywers" told him?



So who were the 2 guys that announced Tuesday that they were no longer representing him?

And i don't know what they told HIM, but I do know what lawyers have told other people I know. The phrase usually is along the lines of, "You have the right to remain silent, USE IT"


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 12, 2012)

Rat in the Hat said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman hasn't had proper representation until very recently, like today or yesterday.
> ...


You mean the two dopes who have never met him face-to-face and didn't know where their alleged client was? They didn't even know he had already "fired" them... allegedly.

Are those the "lawyers" you're referring to?


----------



## MikeK (Apr 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...


It depends on how badly it was broken.  

A relatively minor fracture will not produce the same after-effect as a completely shattered septum.  But on paper it is still a "broken nose" as far as a defense lawyer is concerned.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 12, 2012)

Does the type of beating that Zimmerman allegedly described and had his proxies describe that left him near death so that he felt he had no choice but to shoot Trayvon Martin to death, does that jibe with a slightly broken nose?

I mean...you RWers came down so hard on that story it's virtually impossible to walk back from that now.

You went on hammering for two straight weeks that Martin almost bludgeoned Zimmerman to death.

All those blows and not a single scratch and/or a slightly or non-broken nose?

Please.....!


----------



## sitarro (Apr 12, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



"physical perfection"? How long have you been hanging out in the closet? Seems your desire for this spanish blooded young man is overwhelming to you.........is it hard to type while sucking on your own thumb?


----------



## sitarro (Apr 12, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Once the swelling goes down...usually 4 or 5 days...you look pretty much like you did before.
> ...



Hey dumb fuck, Stallone is an actor like the simpleton in your avatar.........you people really are dumber than you look or act.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 12, 2012)

Yes, use the gay route to attack me.

CLASSIC!!!


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 12, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



When you show me a photo that was taken less than an hour after the fight then we'll discuss THAT photo...you've shown me one that was allegedly taken six weeks after the fight and want to use THAT as proof Zimmerman wasn't in an altercation.  I have no clue what you're talking about when you refer to Zimmerman's "physical exeburance".  

This thread is a general waste of space...since it proves, or disproves, nothing.  

This is not a "right wing" issue by the way, no matter how hard you try to spin it into being one.  Zimmerman is a Democrat.  He's not some gun crazed white Republican country clubber scared to death of blacks...he's a Hispanic living in a mixed race community who has close friends who are black.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 12, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah, he looks white doesn't he?


----------



## PredFan (Apr 12, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have always been ready to accept the facts. You haven't and I'm betting you still aren't.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 12, 2012)

Rat in the Hat said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



He doesn't know shit, he's a racist idiot.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 12, 2012)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Shit-for-brains racist lynch mob thinks there should be scratches on his face all this time later.   No one even said his face was scratched, in the first place.
> ...



Doesn't make a damned bit of difference.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 12, 2012)

Sherry said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Rat in the Hat said:
> ...



He is that.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 12, 2012)

The ignorance on display here is depressing.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 12, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Unlike RWers, I have a problem with state sanctioned killing of human beings. In any case, this particular crime doesn't rise to the level of a death penalty IMHO.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Apr 12, 2012)

PredFan said:


> The ignorance on display here is depressing.



Then you should really stay away from mirrors and large, blank screens.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 12, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > The ignorance on display here is depressing.
> ...



Oh thanks for reminding me, and childishness too.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Apr 12, 2012)

sitarro said:


> Hey dumb fuck, Stallone is an actor like the simpleton in your avatar.........you people really are dumber than you look or act.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 12, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Shit-for-brains racist lynch mob thinks there should be scratches on his face all this time later.   No one even said his face was scratched, in the first place.
> ...



negged.... what an asshole!


----------



## WillowTree (Apr 12, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> 
> 
> 
> ...












I say he's a good looking guy.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 12, 2012)

Sallow said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > The Gadfly said:
> ...



But you have no problem with vigilante lynch mobs....? Fucking leftwing hypocrites!


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 12, 2012)

WillowTree said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> ...




You racist


----------



## kwc57 (Apr 12, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You hate him because he's hispanic, don't you racist?


----------



## High_Gravity (Apr 12, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Looks like hes lost weight for sure.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 12, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> "..pure, clean smooth skin....like he just walked of a model runway."
> 
> What say you?



I say you need to come out of the closet, sugar britches. You won't need to fantasize about tossing salads anymore.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 12, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Rat in the Hat said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...


Muahahahahahahahaha......!!!!    



			
				KissMy said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -166 reputation points from KissMy.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> ...


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 12, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Check out this butthurt radical RW response...





			
				The Infidel said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -569 reputation points from The Infidel.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> ...


 lol


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 13, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> ...


Another RW Palooka joins the fray...





			
				kwc57 said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -282 reputation points from kwc57.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> ...


ROTFLMBAO!!!


----------



## Rocko (Apr 13, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Once the swelling goes down...usually 4 or 5 days...you look pretty much like you did before.
> ...



What's that? Exibit A?



No matter what evidence this trial presents, there are going to be some people that will find any reason to rationalize Zimmerman's guilt.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 13, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...


More poutrage...





			
				Barry44sucks said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -84 reputation points from Barry44sucks.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> ...


loling


----------



## kwc57 (Apr 13, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



That's right racist.  Every time you post racist shit, you can expect more.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 17, 2012)

(Reuters) -  Neighbors of George Zimmerman say he had bandages on his nose and head  the day after he shot dead Trayvon Martin, supporting statements by the  neighborhood watch volunteer that he was beaten in a confrontation with  the black Florida teenager.

<snip>

Jorge Rodriguez, Zimmerman's next-door  neighbor, told Reuters that when he saw Zimmerman the day after the  incident, "he had two big, butterfly bandages on the back of his head,  and another big bandage...on the bridge of his nose." He was talking to a  police detective in his driveway.​Rodriguez's  wife Audria also said she saw the bandages and a third neighbor, who  spoke only on condition of anonymity, agreed with the Rodriguez couple's  account. "I saw two bandages on the back of his head, and his nose was  all swollen up," said the witness, who had watched from a nearby  second-floor window.


Zimmerman showed signs of injury: neighbors | Reuters
​​


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Apr 17, 2012)

Missourian said:


> (Reuters) -  Neighbors of George Zimmerman say he had bandages on his nose and head  the day after he shot dead Trayvon Martin, supporting statements by the  neighborhood watch volunteer that he was beaten in a confrontation with  the black Florida teenager.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Sure if I had just shot an unarmed boy i would be wearning a neck brace and have someone pushing me around in a wheelchair but they do have photos of Zimmerman after the shooting.


----------



## strollingbones (Apr 17, 2012)

where is the film from the squad car?  so many questions


----------



## Douger (Apr 17, 2012)

Missourian said:


> (Reuters) -  Neighbors of George Zimmerman say he had bandages on his nose and head  the day after he shot dead Trayvon Martin, supporting statements by the  neighborhood watch volunteer that he was beaten in a confrontation with  the black Florida teenager.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...


That's all fine and dandy. I can run into a wall and reverse head butt myself on the pavement too. I'm smarter than that but the name " Zimmerman" wouldn't allow him to place a drop gun on Mr. Hoodie. A P.O.S. .25 would have cost him $50. Whaaaaaaaa ! My muuuuuuuuuuneeeeee !


----------



## bodecea (Apr 17, 2012)

Missourian said:


> (Reuters) -  Neighbors of George Zimmerman say he had bandages on his nose and head  the day after he shot dead Trayvon Martin, supporting statements by the  neighborhood watch volunteer that he was beaten in a confrontation with  the black Florida teenager.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



Bandages.    Ok...and?


----------



## konradv (Apr 17, 2012)

If someone was coming at me with a gun, I'd try to get some licks in too.  I don't see where it helps Zimmermann, unless he can prove that, despite having a gun and going after a supposed miscreant, he didn't have it out.


----------



## McBain (Apr 17, 2012)

More evidence to support Zimmerman's self defense claim. He might not even need to use the "stand your ground" law.  This could be a situation where regular self defense applies.

Of course what's going to really matter..... the police photos, EMT reports, autopsy, eye witness accounts, and a fair judge.  If all of those things work in his favor there won't be a trial.  He'll have immunity.  From what I heard yesterday, that also applies to a civil lawsuit.


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 17, 2012)

Missourian said:


> (Reuters) -  Neighbors of George Zimmerman say he had bandages on his nose and head  the day after he shot dead Trayvon Martin, supporting statements by the  neighborhood watch volunteer that he was beaten in a confrontation with  the black Florida teenager.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



This information is about as useless as all the other information any of us have from this case.  Until it is determined which of the two was the aggressor, we can't come to any kind of conclusion.  If Zimmerman cornered Martin, and then Martin fought out of fear, then you cannot excuse Zimmerman's action as self-defense.  On the other hand, if Martin did attack Zimmerman as Zimmerman has suggested, then it's a completely different story.  I know what I believe, but what I believe may not be right, so I'm not going to jump to conclusions.  Unfortunately, due to the lack of any decent witnesses to the entire event, I'm not certain we will ever know for certain what transpired.


----------



## Ariux (Apr 17, 2012)

The police report says Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and the back of his head.  Witnesses said they say that African on top of Zimmerman, beating him.  When Liberals enter the room, the quality of conversation goes into the toilet and we're reduced to debating with Liberals whether Zimmerman was hurt.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 17, 2012)

Ariux said:


> The police report says Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and the back of his head.  Witnesses said they say that African on top of Zimmerman, beating him.  When Liberals enter the room, the quality of conversation goes into the toilet and we're reduced to debating with Liberals whether Zimmerman was hurt.



Nevermind.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 17, 2012)

Lol, the libtards are in full throat again, it seems.

Dumbasses, the medical records and video and neighbors testimony is obviously not faked and prove that Zummerman was assaulted PRIOR to him drawing his gun, obviously.

WTHF are you people smoking?


----------



## Ariux (Apr 17, 2012)

auditor0007 said:


> This information is about as useless as all the other information any of us have from this case.  Until it is determined which of the two was the aggressor, we can't come to any kind of conclusion.  If Zimmerman cornered Martin, and then Martin fought out of fear, then you cannot excuse Zimmerman's action as self-defense.  On the other hand, if Martin did attack Zimmerman as Zimmerman has suggested, then it's a completely different story.  I know what I believe, but what I believe may not be right, so I'm not going to jump to conclusions.  Unfortunately, due to the lack of any decent witnesses to the entire event, I'm not certain we will ever know for certain what transpired.



If you're smart enough to form complete sentences, you're smart enough to be able to come up with better ideas than the shit spilling from your keyboard.  The shooting did not happen in a corner, and 6'3" Trayvon could easily have outran the fat Zimmerman, not to mention that Trayvon had plenty of time to be a half mile away, or to his much closer home, before the shooting happened.  Zimmerman didn't "suggest" he was attacked, he said he was attacked. And, all the evidence supports him.

I know beyond a reasonable doubt what happened.  Zimmerman caught the thug casing the neighborhood, so he called police.  The thug caught Zimmerman watching him, so he assaulted Zimmerman.  And, Zimmerman shot in self-defense.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 19, 2012)

Trayvon Martin was quite a practiced FIGHTER.

Rare Video Of Trayvon Martin Fighting Video


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 20, 2012)

Warning Graphic Photo: Possible New Evidence Shows George Zimmerman's Bloodied Head - Yahoo!

So much for the no evidence claim of the left.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Apr 20, 2012)

We told you racists for weeks that Zimmerman was attacked, that he was yelling for help and that he had cuts to his head. But you racists wanted to demonize the white guy (who is actually half Argentine and half Jewish). 

Ya'll wanted to make this about the poor black guy. Poor black guy can't even thug w/o someone daring to ask what he's up to. Screw ya'll. This is what Trayvon Martin is about and this is why he got popped. 






And screw your hag, Angela Corey who is doing your evil racist bidding.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Apr 20, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> We told you racists for weeks that Zimmerman was attacked, that he was yelling for help and that he had cuts to his head. But you racists wanted to demonize the white guy (who is actually half Argentine and half Jewish).
> 
> Ya'll wanted to make this about the poor black guy. Poor black guy can't even thug w/o someone daring to ask what he's up to. Screw ya'll. This is what Trayvon Martin is about and this is why he got popped.
> 
> ...



But but but he wasn't in danger at any point in time!

Oh snap, those pictures make a lot of people look intentionally dishonest


----------



## FuelRod (Apr 20, 2012)

If this is authentic the DA needs to lose their job.


----------



## Oconnor4NYC (Apr 20, 2012)

like.......... at the most 2 stitches. He killed a person over 2 stitches...


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

Oconnor4NYC said:


> like.......... at the most 2 stitches. He killed a person over 2 stitches...



Indeed----he should have waited until he at least had a skull fracture.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Apr 20, 2012)

Oconnor4NYC said:


> like.......... at the most 2 stitches. He killed a person over 2 stitches...



No he killed a person over fear that his own life was going to be ended by the person he killed....the cuts on his head back up his statements that he feared for his life.

It is what it is.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Apr 20, 2012)

Oconnor4NYC said:


> like.......... at the most 2 stitches. He killed a person over 2 stitches...



You have no idea whether it was zero stitches or 40. I don't think that's really the point. If someone is banging your head against the pavement and you're yelling for help like crazy, your life is in danger. Stop blaming the victim.


----------



## theHawk (Apr 20, 2012)

Can't wait to hear what the race baiting libtard trash on this board will say about this.


----------



## theHawk (Apr 20, 2012)

Oconnor4NYC said:


> like.......... at the most 2 stitches. He killed a person over 2 stitches...



He defended himself from someone who attacked him.  Simple as that.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 20, 2012)

Whats wrong, you can not handle facts or evidence of your stupidity?


----------



## KissMy (Apr 20, 2012)

To the racist OP!


----------



## Ariux (Apr 20, 2012)

Well, well, new evidence revealed to the public, which supports Zimmerman, and not these racist shitheads who defend that f*cking c**n burglar.


----------



## kwc57 (Apr 20, 2012)

Bump for Marc


----------



## Douger (Apr 20, 2012)

When they get the paramedics who worked on him to the stand, you'll have your nosegasm.


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

Only medical records will tell. His skin appeared to be paler from today's photos it seems.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 20, 2012)

George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk



> George Zimmerman, the neighbourhood watch volunteer charged with the murder of Trayvon Martin, unexpectedly took the stand at a bail hearing on Friday and apologised to the teenager's family.
> 
> "I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of their son. I did not know how old he was  I thought he was a little bit younger than I am. And I did not know if he was armed or not," Zimmerman said.



So he shot someone when he didn't even know if they were armed?


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> So he shot someone when he didn't even know if they were armed?



I'm not prepared to take sides on this story because I don't have all the evidence but there is another side to your comment here.  So, without referring to any particular case, if you were in the process of being beat to death by a stronger foe, wouldn't you use any weapon you might have at your disposal to stop your pending death?  

I would.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 20, 2012)

I'm still going with my original question.


----------



## Jackson (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am surprised his attorney allowed him to say that.  If he was armed, he would have used his weapon instead of his hands.  I can see that as an argument.


----------



## Nosmo King (Apr 20, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > So he shot someone when he didn't even know if they were armed?
> ...


Where's your evidence that he was being beat to death by a stronger foe?  That part of the story is easier to believe than Zimmerman acted out of pure blood lust I suppose.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 20, 2012)

Jackson said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> ...



Thank you. That's what I'm saying.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Zimmerman has never stated that he shot Martin because he suspected he was armed...Zimmerman has maintained that he shot Martin because Martin assaulted him and he feared for his life.  I fail to see what this "apology" means other than the fact that George Zimmerman isn't a racist monster and he wishes Martin's death hadn't happened.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 20, 2012)

And Martin assaulted him why? 

If people could just own that he should not have racially profiled a young man out to get a soda and skittles, none of this would have happened? That'd be great.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> I'm still going with my original question.



Then yes, there could be a situation in which it would be considered reasonable to use deadly force upon an unarmed man or a man you did not know was or was not armed.  Certainly, the unarmed man better be in the process of inflicting serious harm on the armed man.  

Again I ask, if you were in the process of being beat to death by a stronger foe, wouldn't you use any weapon you might have at your disposal to stop your pending death?


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 20, 2012)

How about - would I fight for my life if some stranger followed me for a time, and then accosted me? 

Yes. I would.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 20, 2012)

Nosmo King said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I have no such evidence, which is why I stated "I'm not prepared to take sides on this story because I don't have all the evidence".  I merely commented on the hypothetical statement of shooting someone without knowing if they were or were not armed.  I'll leave the Zimmerman case to the jury.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> How about - would I fight for my life if some stranger followed me for a time, and then accosted me?
> 
> Yes. I would.



Excellent.  So would I.  But you didn't answer my question.  Will you?


----------



## Nosmo King (Apr 20, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...


There should never had been any question that this case should be heard by a jury, stand your ground law or no stand your ground law.  Whenever deadly force is used, someone should be held accountable for it.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 20, 2012)

Nosmo King said:


> *Whenever deadly force is used, someone should be held accountable for it.*



I do not agree with this statement.  For example, there are plenty of cases in which repeat offenders (burglars, rapists, etc) have armed themselves and broken into the home of what they perceive to be a vulnerable single woman.  Occasionally, that woman is armed and ends up using deadly force.  In such circumstances, I would consider putting that woman on trial or even before a grand jury to be a travesty.  Defending one's life with deadly force is not necessarily a bad thing.

Again, I make no comparison here to the Zimmerman case.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 20, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > How about - would I fight for my life if some stranger followed me for a time, and then accosted me?
> ...



I can't. I don't do guns. I follow the rules. Somebody tells me not to follow the man, I don't.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Well, first, I said "weapon" and not gun.  But hey, if you're being beat to death and choose not to pick up a nearby weapon to defend yourself, that's your prerogative.  You are free to give up and die.  Personally, I would make a different choice.

Regarding following anybody, it remains to be determined if Zimmerman followed Martin after being told to stop.  Again, I'll let the jury decide.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 20, 2012)

"Nearby weapon?" Gracious, you're wandering far afield.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> "Nearby weapon?" Gracious, you're wandering far afield.



Look, you can choose to not have a pocket knife on you at all times.  I choose differently.  You can even choose to carry a firearm legally, but you've made you choice on that clear.  Lots of objects can be weapons.  When you're being raped by a 250lb convict, you can choose to stick that pen in your pocket into his eye, or you can wait for the police to arrive.  Your choice.

The point is, you've made it clear that you would rather die than fight back.  That's fine.  I choose differently.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It was a weird apology. He should have never qualified it.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 20, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > "Nearby weapon?" Gracious, you're wandering far afield.
> ...



Fighting back in a fight you initiated involves proportional force. Using a gun goes far beyond that. And considering that the police arrived almost seconds after Martin had died, it was completely un-necessary.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 20, 2012)

Sallow said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



We were talking hypothetically.  Initiation of the conflict was not part of the conversation.  Again, I'm not commenting on the Zimmerman case.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> How about - would I fight for my life if some stranger followed me for a time, and then accosted me?
> 
> Yes. I would.



Someone asking a stranger in a gated community who they are and what they are doing is not "accosting" them.  What gives you the right to assault someone asking those questions?  Fight for your life because someone asks you questions?  Are you kidding me!  You fight for your life if someone attacks you.  Someone asking you a question does not fall under the heading of an "attack".


----------



## Flagrant.Foul (Apr 20, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > How about - would I fight for my life if some stranger followed me for a time, and then accosted me?
> ...



I'd have told the bastard to fuck off if he started asking me those questions


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 20, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > "Nearby weapon?" Gracious, you're wandering far afield.
> ...



I already said I'd fight back. I believe that's what Trayvon was doing.


----------



## Flagrant.Foul (Apr 20, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> Regarding following anybody, it remains to be determined if Zimmerman followed Martin after being told to stop.  Again, I'll let the jury decide.



you didn't hear the 911 tapes?? 

zimmerman was following martin


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 20, 2012)

Flagrant.Foul said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I would have walked faster.


----------



## Nosmo King (Apr 20, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > *Whenever deadly force is used, someone should be held accountable for it.*
> ...


When a policeman shoots a suspect there's a coroner's inquiry.  No citizen, no matter the circumstances, should get away with taking a life without a clear record and testimony.  The "stand your ground" law is a license to kill without consequence.  A day in court to tell the story before a judge is NOT an infringement of liberty.  It's judicial responsibility.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 20, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > How about - would I fight for my life if some stranger followed me for a time, and then accosted me?
> ...



It wasn't a casual encounter. Martin saw Zimmerman who was not an officer of the law, following him. Then after trying to flee from him..Zimmerman confronts him. It was reasonable to believe that Zimmerman meant to do him harm.

Martin was well within his rights to defend himself.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Apr 20, 2012)

theHawk said:


> Can't wait to hear what the race baiting libtard trash on this board will say about this.



U.S. News - Zimmerman's bond set at $150,000; he apologizes to Trayvon Martin's parents

he is wicked white at least


----------



## Flagrant.Foul (Apr 20, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Trayvon wasn't old enough for a concealed carry license. Too bad. Maybe he would have been able to stand his ground a little more effectively then.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 20, 2012)

Flagrant.Foul said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



IMHO the "Stand your ground" law is reckless and dangerous. This was predicted by the people who opposed it.

It's a disgrace that it had to come to this to recognize the folly of that legislation.


----------



## Flagrant.Foul (Apr 20, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Flagrant.Foul said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



It's a terrible shame.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 20, 2012)

Flagrant.Foul said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



That pretty much appears to be the tact that Trayvon took.  Gee, how'd that work out again?

If someone asked me that, I'd tell them my name and the name of the person I was there visiting.  But that's just good 'ole logical me.  I got stopped twice by the cops in a fifteen minute stretch in Westchester, NY years back because it was a REALLY nice neighborhood and I was driving my college beater.  Did I tell the police to fuck off because they were stereotyping me?  No, I told them who I was there visiting and asked for directions because I was lost.  If Trayvon Martin had done that the night of the shooting, George Zimmerman probably would have given him a ride to his dad's girlfriend's house.  But instead, Trayon reacted like you say YOU would have...an altercation took place and he was shot dead.  Sorry, but that's just plain stupid.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 20, 2012)

Flagrant.Foul said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding following anybody, it remains to be determined if Zimmerman followed Martin after being told to stop.  Again, I'll let the jury decide.
> ...



You didn't hear all the tapes either, but that's not the point.  Without choosing sides here, I suspect Zimmerman will state that once he was asked to not follow Martin, and after he responded "Okay", he will claim that he did indeed stop following and returned to his vehicle and that it was Martin that later followed and attacked him.  Again, I have no idea what happened but I'd bet that will be the defense's claim.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 20, 2012)

If you're in a gated community, you answer when someone asks you what you're doing. 

You don't run, then circle around and punch them in the face.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 20, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> Flagrant.Foul said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...


 
He wasn't asked not to follow Martin.

Don't we have like 8 threads of this bs already?


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 20, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> Flagrant.Foul said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



You were talking to the cops. Trayvon was accosted by a stranger.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 20, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Flagrant.Foul said:
> ...



With Zimmerman apologizing. No. We don't.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 20, 2012)

No proof he was accosted. Nobody claims that except the dipshit racists who want Zimmerman to go to jail for being concerned about hoodlums in the area..

Cuz the hoodlums might be...shhhhhh...black...shhhhhh....it's racist to notice...


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...


 
Zimmerman and this ongoing case.

Yes, we do. Liar.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 20, 2012)

Ordinarily I'd say "you don't have to lie to make friends" but in this case, that would be a lie.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> And Martin assaulted him why?
> 
> If people could just own that he should not have racially profiled a young man out to get a soda and skittles, none of this would have happened? That'd be great.



There isn't anything to own and zero evidence that race had anything to do with this entire episode. You simply want to believe racial profiling occurred. Why?


----------



## Sallow (Apr 20, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> Flagrant.Foul said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Zimmerman wasn't a cop.

Some time ago..I was asked the very same thing Martin was probably asked, by 2 guys. After which..one pulled out a gun..and relieved me of my wallet, coat and several personal items.

Glad I survived that.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 20, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> He wasn't asked not to follow Martin.



Perhaps you're right but I heard he was by a 911 operator.  Whatever, this is for the jury.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 20, 2012)

Oconnor4NYC said:


> like.......... at the most 2 stitches. He killed a person over 2 stitches...


He killed someone that attacked him with the intent and ability to do bodily harm, as was his right.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > He wasn't asked not to follow Martin.
> ...



you heard wrong


----------



## FuelRod (Apr 20, 2012)

The Defense needs to do everything it can to keep him off the stand.  This dude will hang himself.


----------



## Nosmo King (Apr 20, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> If you're in a gated community, you answer when someone asks you what you're doing.
> 
> You don't run, then circle around and punch them in the face.


Right!  Because doing so means a death sentence.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 20, 2012)

FuelRod said:


> The Defense needs to do everything it can to keep him off the stand.  This dude will hang himself.



Yep.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 20, 2012)

Nice of Zimmerman to recognize the loss publicly.  I'm sure some will argue whether he meant it or not.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 20, 2012)

holy cow, so now if woman is being raped the woman would have to stop and ask the rapist if he is ARMED before she shoots his pecker off?

good grief..


----------



## Sallow (Apr 20, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Nice of Zimmerman to recognize the loss publicly.  I'm sure some will argue whether he meant it or not.



Well..he misstated something in his weird apology. He said he didn't know how young Martin was..

Yet in the 911 tape he clearly says he's a teen.

That's probably going to come back to haunt him in the trial.


----------



## Nosmo King (Apr 20, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> holy cow, so now if woman is being raped the woman would have to stop and ask the rapist if he is ARMED before she shoots his pecker off?
> 
> good grief..


What powers of deduction led you to this conclusion?


----------



## Sallow (Apr 20, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> holy cow, so now if woman is being raped the woman would have to stop and ask the rapist if he is ARMED before she shoots his pecker off?
> 
> good grief..



Holy Cow..if a woman is being chased by a rapist..she can't hit him?


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 20, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > holy cow, so now if woman is being raped the woman would have to stop and ask the rapist if he is ARMED before she shoots his pecker off?
> ...



fuck that...shoot his rapist ass so he doesn't hurt you or any other woman again..


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 20, 2012)

Racist!


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 20, 2012)

Nosmo King said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > holy cow, so now if woman is being raped the woman would have to stop and ask the rapist if he is ARMED before she shoots his pecker off?
> ...



from the OP:
So he shot someone when he didn't even know if they were armed?


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

Sallow said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Nice of Zimmerman to recognize the loss publicly.  I'm sure some will argue whether he meant it or not.
> ...



He also admitted shooting the victim, yes it was known, but emphasizing that fact isn't wise.


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Flagrant.Foul said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Ah, yes...funny thing about that.  If you look at the timeline from when Martin took off running from Zimmerman and when the Witnesses called 9/11 to report a struggle it's over two and a half minutes.  Take a look at the map and tell me why Trayvon isn't easily back at Brandy Green's condo LONG before Zimmerman concludes his phone call with the police.  It's literally only a couple hundred yards if that.  If 17 year old football playing Trayvon takes off running you're REALLY telling me that out of shape George is going to even come close to catching him?  Trayvon's in Brandy Green's condo before Zimmerman finishes his call and gets out of the truck if he keeps going.  The only way he's not is if he stops and confronts Zimmerman...as it's perfectly plain he did when he's heard to say "What's up Homes?"  That isn't someone avoiding a conflict...that's someone bracing another person.


----------



## theHawk (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> And Martin assaulted him why?
> 
> If people could just own that he should not have racially profiled a young man out to get a soda and skittles, none of this would have happened? That'd be great.



I would guess Martin assulted him after they had a verbal exchange.  Martin was probably pissed, so he decided to attack.  Martin may had been within his rights to be pissed about being "profiled", but he did not have the right to physically assault Zimmerman after he was walking away.  

Martin was the one who made a bad situation worse, by making it a physical confrontation.  With the new picture of Zimmerman's bloody head, its quite apparent that Martin drew first blood.


----------



## Flagrant.Foul (Apr 20, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > He wasn't asked not to follow Martin.
> ...



I'm always stunned when people deny that zimmerman was asked to NOT pursue trayvon

911 call
(wind noises)
dispatch: are you following him?
zimmerman: yeah
dispatch: okay, *we don't need you to do that*.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

Flagrant.Foul said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



I'm always stunned to see people who can't understand what is said.


----------



## Flagrant.Foul (Apr 20, 2012)

btw, the more often gets on the stand to "apologize" the better it is for prosecution

...he will show himself to be a lying crazy (a crazy that florida gave a concealed carry permit to )


----------



## theHawk (Apr 20, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > holy cow, so now if woman is being raped the woman would have to stop and ask the rapist if he is ARMED before she shoots his pecker off?
> ...



Unbelievable, you expect a woman to have to use her fists to fight a rapist off before shooting him in order to defend herself?

Liberals...the champions of womens rights.


----------



## Nosmo King (Apr 20, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


That's what Zimmerman said in his apology.


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

theHawk said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > And Martin assaulted him why?
> ...



This looks like blood from some type of injury, but then, we know he was not taken to a hospital. If he had any injury that could require antibiotics, or cause a concussion, why didn't the police FORCE him to get medical attention THEN?


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



omg stop being so stupid--please.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 20, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Flagrant.Foul said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Wow, that's REALLY splitting hairs.  Is "We don't need you to do that" that same thing as "Don't do that"?  Pretty damn close.  Whatever, it's up to the jury to decide.


----------



## theHawk (Apr 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Holy fuck you are stupid.

The paramedics treated him at the site before he was taken to the police station for questioning.....

Try to keep up....


----------



## theHawk (Apr 20, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Flagrant.Foul said:
> ...



The problem is he is in no way required by law to follow what a phone operator tells him to do.


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



I was in a car accident, no visible injury, still forced to go to a hospital. Having wounds after a fight and not being required to get a complete medical exam is STUPID!


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Flagrant.Foul said:
> ...



Close but no cigar------they did NOT tell Zimmerman to do ANYTHING. Settling for "close" when communicating is bound to lead to misunderstanding.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 20, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Flagrant.Foul said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Well yeah, us citizens should just let the *criminals *rob, RAPE, beat the shit out of us..then AFTER we get to call 911..how lovely


----------



## Sallow (Apr 20, 2012)

theHawk said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



Keep up with what?

Where is the picture from?

The blood patterns look very strange..and there is no apparent wound. Why is that?

In any case..if there was a struggle..it was Zimmerman who initiated it. Are you saying that the kid had no right to defend himself?

You know Ron Goldman had cuts and bruises all over his hands? Why didn't anyone make a fuss about that?


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

theHawk said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > theHawk said:
> ...



From you, the insult is APPRECIATED. Fear of deadly force is necessary for the use of deadly force; so Zimmerman doesn't even get a run through at a hospital. Of course, I am more concerned with victims than killers.............


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Who had the authority to force you to receive medical treatment? Do you have a guardian? If so that explains a lot.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



LOL, please Peach, you're killing me here.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 20, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Flagrant.Foul said:
> ...



You have every right to defend yourself. But after that..it must be investigated and vetted. You do not have the right to take a life without question.


----------



## Nosmo King (Apr 20, 2012)

Amazing!  The Stand Your ground Law is indeed irresponsible.  Yet, in defense of the indefensible, Conservatives win another Gold Medal for Conclusion Jumping!  

No, criminals cannot just beat you and rob you and kill you.  And no, once you have defended yourself by killing someone, you should not just walk away without a clear, legal testimony defending your actions. 

If Stand Your Ground really means kill without consequence or accountability, how can anyone defend it and still say they favor the rule of law over anarchy?


----------



## Oldstyle (Apr 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Ah, hate to break this to you but nobody can force you to go to a hospital unless they think you're mentally unstable...wherein they can use what I believe is called a "Baker Act" to have you kept in either a hospital or mental health institution for your own protection...or so inebriated as to not be competant.


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 20, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



well, now that I can agree on..but you said....*IMHO the "Stand your ground" law is reckless and dangerous*.

so make up your mind.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 20, 2012)

Nosmo King said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



It most assuredly is.


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Law enforcement said GET ON THE STRETCHER, I did.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Someone does not have to be armed to kill you. Just an FYI.


----------



## theHawk (Apr 20, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Keep up with what?
> 
> Where is the picture from?
> 
> ...



The picture is from ABC news, hardly a right wing rag.

"There is no apparent wound".  Glad to get your take as a medical expert.  If there was no wound then why was he treated by the paramedics?

"If there was a struggle, it was Zimmerman who initiated it".  
Really?  Because Swallow says so?  I am saying everyone has the right to defend themselves when attacked.  The evidence and testamony of witnesses clearly shows that Martin attacked Zimmerman.  *IF* Zimmerman attacked Martin first, then of course he would of been in his right to defend himself, but I have not heard of any evidence that suggests thats the case.

But all you libs want to do is omit certain testamony and physical evidnence to paint a picture of an innocent black boy eating skittles getting shot by a racist white man.  After all, you've got a political agenda to push, and thats far more important than the whole story with all the facts.


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



That is a 72 hour hold in Florida; not comparable. After accidents or injuries from confrontations, police can instruct. I obeyed, though I did not feel injured. (As I am both defending Romney, and in favor of VICTIM's rights, I'm ticking off a lot of posters today.)


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 20, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



no kidding..and I'm one for shooting first ask them later...


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

Stephanie said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



As is Zimmerman it appears.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



So the answer to your question is that the police did not have the AUTHORITY to force Zimmerman to seek medical treatment.


----------



## Too Tall (Apr 20, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



The death penalty is not an option with a 2nd degree murder conviction in Florida.  You lose!


----------



## theHawk (Apr 20, 2012)

Nosmo King said:


> Amazing!  The Stand Your ground Law is indeed irresponsible.  Yet, in defense of the indefensible, Conservatives win another Gold Medal for Conclusion Jumping!
> 
> No, criminals cannot just beat you and rob you and kill you.  And no, once you have defended yourself by killing someone, you should not just walk away without a clear, legal testimony defending your actions.
> 
> If Stand Your Ground really means kill without consequence or accountability, how can anyone defend it and still say they favor the rule of law over anarchy?



Zimmerman did not "walk away" that night.  He was taken in for questioning, witness' statements were taken, and all the evidence was handed over to the DA.  And all the evidence at that time showed he acted in self-defense.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 20, 2012)

Nosmo King said:


> Amazing!  The Stand Your ground Law is indeed irresponsible.  Yet, in defense of the indefensible, Conservatives win another Gold Medal for Conclusion Jumping!
> 
> No, criminals cannot just beat you and rob you and kill you.  And no, once you have defended yourself by killing someone, you should not just walk away without a clear, legal testimony defending your actions.
> 
> If Stand Your Ground really means kill without consequence or accountability, how can anyone defend it and still say they favor the rule of law over anarchy?



I'm a conservative and I have stated many times on differing threads, that Stand Your Ground is fundementally flawed.


----------



## Too Tall (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He knew he was getting the shit beat out of him by someone with TWO arms. A right one and a left one!


----------



## theHawk (Apr 20, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Again, propagate the lie!

The lie that Zimmerman just killed someone "without question".  He was taken into custody that night and after they examined all the evidence he was released.


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Not without a formal proceeding, no. But his fear of deadly harm claim would be stronger, TO ME at least, had he sought medical attention THAT NIGHT. I am actually questioning the police more than Zimmerman, they questioned him at length, that also belies any belief on their part he was in fear of great harm. But, the conclusion was self defense. He isn't getting as much sympathy from the system so far, however.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 20, 2012)

theHawk said:


> The picture is from ABC news, hardly a right wing rag.
> 
> "There is no apparent wound".  Glad to get your take as a medical expert.  If there was no wound then why was he treated by the paramedics?
> 
> ...



Please link the bolded part Hawk.  I've heard witnesses state Martin was on top, but that is far from Martin starting the fight.  Also, IF threatened with a gun, it would justify Martin starting the fight correct?  Things we don't know and good reason to let the fats come out in court and not on a message board.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 20, 2012)

theHawk said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



And the police NEVER act in a corrupt fashion. Never-ever!

Right?


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

Zimmerman also mentioned Trayvon's Martin's age, that seemed strange:

 "I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I was and I did not know if he was armed or not."


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Law enforcement can be mistaken WITHOUT being corrupt.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 20, 2012)

Personally, I'm finding the right trying to prove innocence before the trial nuts.  Also the claim its simply the left trying to make a race issue.  I'd like to see Zimmerman get a fair trial (that means he might be innocent liberals).  I'd like to know the taking of life in America is an important issue and Stand Your Ground creates more problems than it solves.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Was he supposed to ask "hey wait stop smashing my head into the ground and tell me if you are armed or not"  ?

C'mon BDBoop, you can do better than this.  

The courts will decide if what he did was justified or not when they get to look at all the facts/evidence.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 20, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> > The picture is from ABC news, hardly a right wing rag.
> ...



The "fats"?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TC3kqFUmqQ]Minnesota Fats - YouTube[/ame]

Or

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcCkvvqQ1rY]Fat Joe - Lean Back (Remix) Ft Eminem, 50 Cent, J.Cole & Lil Jon - YouTube[/ame]

(sorry..couldn't resist)


----------



## Againsheila (Apr 20, 2012)

Nosmo King said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



What a waste of our court system.  As bad as our taxes are and as big as our deficit is, do you really think we should be wasting money putting people on trail who shot people who broke into their homes or attacked them?


----------



## Sallow (Apr 20, 2012)

theHawk said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



What lie?

Police should not be judge or jury in cases like this. This isn't a traffic incident. This is a life.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Zimmerman also mentioned Trayvon's Martin's age, that seemed strange:
> 
> "I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I was and I did not know if he was armed or not."



oh man--that is strange if I've ever heard it.


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Personally, I'm finding the right trying to prove innocence before the trial nuts.  Also the claim its simply the left trying to make a race issue.  I'd like to see Zimmerman get a fair trial (that means he might be innocent liberals).  I'd like to know the taking of life in America is an important issue and Stand Your Ground creates more problems than it solves.



I don't see race as a factor as much as gender, and an overly eager wannabe cop. He did have blood on his head, so he suffered SOME injury..................................


----------



## Againsheila (Apr 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Zimmerman also mentioned Trayvon's Martin's age, that seemed strange:
> 
> "I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I was and I did not know if he was armed or not."



You don't think that could possibly be because the media mad a big deal about him shooting a child, do you?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Apr 20, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Well said sallow....since I agree


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Personally, I'm finding the right trying to prove innocence before the trial nuts.  Also the claim its simply the left trying to make a race issue.  I'd like to see Zimmerman get a fair trial (that means he might be innocent liberals).  I'd like to know the taking of life in America is an important issue and Stand Your Ground creates more problems than it solves.
> ...



He was shot because he was a male ?


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Zimmerman also mentioned Trayvon's Martin's age, that seemed strange:
> 
> "I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I was and I did not know if he was armed or not."



To me he was saying that he may have done things differently, if he knew he was dealing with a high school age person versus an adult.


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman also mentioned Trayvon's Martin's age, that seemed strange:
> ...



Zimmerman's statement indicates he might not have shot a younger person; if he was attacked & in fear of great bodily harm, what difference would the AGE of the attacker make?


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman also mentioned Trayvon's Martin's age, that seemed strange:
> ...



Which is why his lawyers need to get him to shut up.


----------



## Liability (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Knowing or even believing that Trayvon was (or might have been) armed is irrelevant to the issue of whether his own conduct was "justified" in the eyes of the law.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 20, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



Yeah..because it should be established, without doubt, that's exactly what happened.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



no---his statement does NOT indicate that. Keep trying


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 20, 2012)

He was profiled. None of this would have happened otherwise.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> He was profiled. None of this would have happened otherwise.



Last tag.


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



I believe you are correct.


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



You can read his mind?


----------



## Againsheila (Apr 20, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



courts don't go for "no doubt" they go for "reasonable doubt".


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



actually it would be reading your mind if you are making a determination about what his statement indicates.


----------



## Againsheila (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> He was profiled. None of this would have happened otherwise.



He was on suspension from school for the 3rd time this year, if his parents had grounded him, none of this would have happened either.  Who lets their suspended kid go out at night and doesn't even bother to worry about them until the next day?

Oh, and FYI, I don't necessarily believe the "profiled" accusation since one of Zimmerman's friends who spoke out for him is black, it's clear he's not a racist.


----------



## Liability (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> He was profiled. None of this would have happened otherwise.



I gather that this is supposed to mean that Zimmerman "profiled" a young black man wearing a hood in a gated community at night.

(A) I don't think that's what "profiling" refers to.

(B) Neighborhood Watch folks WATCH.

(C)  We (none of us) know what Trayvon was actually doing just prior to the events that unfolded.

(D)  Some of us seem to forget that there is reason to believe that the community had been the target of some reason break ins.  This might amount to a perfectly valid (non racist based) REASON to "watch."

(E)  Therefore, with or without "profiling," there is a very good chance that much if not all of "this" would have happened anyway.


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



His statements, thus far, are subject to interpretation; OBVIOUSLY.  I don't see his talking as helping him. It raises more questions, and his attorney wants this thrown out, it appears.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



ya think ?


----------



## Zoom (Apr 20, 2012)

An armed man approached someone after following him.  Martin should have killed Zimmerman and used the stand your ground law.


----------



## Liability (Apr 20, 2012)

Zoom said:


> An armed man approached someone after following him.  Martin should have killed Zimmerman and used the stand your ground law.



It might be that Trayvon tried.

Didn't work out too well for him.

Stupid advice from a stupid you.


----------



## Againsheila (Apr 20, 2012)

Zoom said:


> An armed man approached someone after following him.  *Martin should have killed Zimmerman* and used the stand your ground law.



Well, from the looks of it, he certainly tried.  Probably would have succeeded if Zimmerman didn't have the gun.


----------



## Intense (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think when one is repeatedly getting one's head bashed into the concrete, while underneath the assailant, it is self defense. I know it's a hard concept to grasp, but just close your eye's, deprogram, and try real hard. What is more important to you, Justice, or a Conviction?


----------



## Sallow (Apr 20, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman also mentioned Trayvon's Martin's age, that seemed strange:
> ...



To me..he's contradicting what he said on the 911 tape.


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

Intense said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> ...



The State Attorney does not so conclude, and I see nothing to indicate Zimmerman was "getting his head bashed in".


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 20, 2012)

Sallow said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Which is why we need a court and not a message board trial.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I guess you didn't read the reports, he stated for the record that Trayvon tried to take HIS weapon and stated that Zimmerman was going to die. But hey we can't actually expect you liberal dumb asses to keep abreast of the facts and all. You are to busy claiming a Hispanic is white and claiming the shooting was racist unprovoked and that Zimmerman is a liar even though all the available information and facts SUPPORT his statements.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 20, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> ...



Even if that's the case, Zimmerman initiated the fight. Everything that happened after that..is on Zimmerman.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 20, 2012)

Liability said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > He was profiled. None of this would have happened otherwise.
> ...





Intense said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> ...



As Liability has shown, you don't need to insult someone's intelligence or allege that they are brainwashed in order to make a point.


----------



## Intense (Apr 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 20, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> I guess you didn't read the reports, he stated for the record that Trayvon tried to take HIS weapon and stated that Zimmerman was going to die. But hey we can't actually expect you liberal dumb asses to keep abreast of the facts and all. You are to busy claiming a Hispanic is white and claiming the shooting was racist unprovoked and that Zimmerman is a liar even though all the available information and facts SUPPORT his statements.



Well thanks for unearthing these interesting reports.  Please link them or I'll assume you made it up.


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

Intense said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...


Still looks like a couple cuts, but only Zimmerman knows what fear he felt........................medical treatment would show more about the injuries. I gather the SA has all the police statements..............................


----------



## hjmick (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> I'm still going with my original question.






BDBoop said:


> So he shot someone when he didn't even know if they were armed?




Slapping a question mark at the end of a statement does not necessarily make it a question. Your "question" is more an expression of what you believe rather than your need to seek some sort of answer. You have already reached a conclusion, as have many others, as to what Zimmerman's intentions and mindset were, telling us you're asking a question is disingenuous. At best your "question" was rhetorical...


----------



## Intense (Apr 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



All's I'm saying is "Wait and See", is better than jumping to false conclusions, no matter how appealing. There is no substitute for True Justice. I don't know which way it will go. I just know that being lied to and played, and manipulated, and pressured, really, really, really pisses me off.


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

Intense said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



I see coming in all directions myself. One MUST be a SAINT, the other a SINNER. which is which is the tough part.............................


----------



## Interpol (Apr 20, 2012)

I think it's pretty clear with Zimmerman's statement today that perhaps a plea deal is in the works? 

I think it was a brave step for him to apologize. Takes a real man to hone up to a mistake. 

If this goes to trial, than it becomes about Zimmerman's injuries and if a jury thinks those injuries stand a common sense test for a life being in danger or not.


----------



## sitarro (Apr 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Only medical records will tell. His skin appeared to be paler from today's photos it seems.



The photo was shot in the dark with an iPhone. Although the camera is pretty good in the phone, when the flash is used it isn't going to render color as well as the higher resolution camera with correct lighting that was used for the other shot.


----------



## MaryL (Apr 20, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




As looks go, ISNT this issue about NOT judging folks by how they look? Or did I miss some subtlety here?


----------



## Jackson (Apr 20, 2012)

Interpol said:


> I think it's pretty clear with Zimmerman's statement today that perhaps a plea deal is in the works?
> 
> I think it was a brave step for him to apologize. Takes a real man to hone up to a mistake.
> 
> If this goes to trial, than it becomes about Zimmerman's injuries and if a jury thinks those injuries stand a common sense test for a life being in danger or not.



I'm not sure if it takes a real man to hone up to a mistake when you are looking at life behind bars and there is a wanted poster on your head.  He is appealing to the family to calm the waters and wait for the trial.

This man is in a truly bad spot even if he is acquitted.  I'm not giving him sympathy, it's just a fact.


----------



## frazzledgear (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you under the impression you can only be killed with a gun?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There goes his very lame "stand by your ground", self-defense defense. 

Not to mention that his apology is a lie. 

I mean, get real. He's sorry for the "LOSS" of their son? Like, he was misplaced. I really hate these lame apologies that are not apologies at all. He had other opportunities to apologize to the family - such as on his blog - but said nothing. 

OTOH, he couldn't very well say, "I'm sorry I chased, confronted and gunned down your son". 

And, I hope the idiotic "stand your ground" laws get gunned down. Trayvon Martin was well within in his rights to stand his ground and defend himself and it got him killed. 

Also, just saw the so-called wounds on the back of his head. This is just too fishy. On the photos, supposedly taken by his father (the judge) the next day, there are two horizontal slices on the back left and fresh red blood. On the video in the police station there appears to be a bruise at the top right. And, yet, the cops cleaned his wound in the back of the police cruiser and he was not sent to the emergency room. 

The only crime Trayvon committed was "walking while black".


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> ...



YOU were there TOO?


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> ...



Will he be tried for that posthumously ?


----------



## MaryL (Apr 20, 2012)

Yes, He apologized, so I hear. I also heard, Martins family rejected that apology. I dont know, that is hot off the press. I wonder, lets suppose, for a second, If Trayvon Martin had been the shooter, and Geo. Zimmerman, the victim here, would THIS  be an issue at all? I wonder were the real RACISM is here, sometimes. I wonder WHO has a right to be outraged here, if anyone. I grieve for innocence  lost. Pure plain and simple...


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


No, the deceased are out of the system.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 20, 2012)

Oconnor4NYC said:


> like.......... at the most 2 stitches. He killed a person over 2 stitches...



Police kill people over a lot less.

In fact, they kill people over calling for medical care. So individuals have fewer rights than the people that work for the state?


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > luddly.neddite said:
> ...



That's so unfair that they get away with it like that.


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



It might be called "jumping bond, forever". As for Zimmerman's apology & the victim's family: NO ONE KNOWS what is in Zimmerman's heart, and the family of the victim hearing it in Court probably tainted THEIR reaction.


----------



## eots (Apr 20, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> ...



no ,not racist monster more like ...paranoid wannabe cop loon


----------



## OtaniKitano (Apr 20, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> We told you racists for weeks that Zimmerman was attacked, that he was yelling for help and that he had cuts to his head. But you racists wanted to demonize the white guy (who is actually half Argentine and half Jewish).
> 
> Ya'll wanted to make this about the poor black guy. Poor black guy can't even thug w/o someone daring to ask what he's up to. Screw ya'll. This is what Trayvon Martin is about and this is why he got popped.
> 
> ...



Hmmmm....and yet these horrible wounds did not even require a BandAid as witnessed from the police video when Zimmerman was taken out of the squad car.  Nor a doctor's attention.  In fact, the second EMS vehicle called, which was designated for Zimmerman, turned around, too.

I shot a S&W 686 revolver once.  It was the first time I had ever fired a gun.  The recoil knocked me back against a fence and I had a nasty bruise on my back.  Sorry it didn't bleed in order to convince you Neanderthals that something besides my own actions caused the problem.  I suspect the superficial cuts on the back of Zimmerman's hairless head were due to similar circumstances.


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

eots said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


I see it that way also, which does impact his guilt or innocence of the charge.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 20, 2012)

Someone who has never taken a life will never understand how sorry one that has is.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 20, 2012)

KissMy said:


> To the racist OP!



Makes sense he wasn't arrested at the scene.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 20, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > To the racist OP!
> ...



Yes. It always has until Obama, Holder, Sharpton and Jackson got involved. Can you imagine the immense pressure that prosecutor who brought charges was under to do so? Talk about coming from the "Top".


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 20, 2012)

OtaniKitano said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > We told you racists for weeks that Zimmerman was attacked, that he was yelling for help and that he had cuts to his head. But you racists wanted to demonize the white guy (who is actually half Argentine and half Jewish).
> ...



LOL, you are to much!  Thanks for the laugh.


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

OtaniKitano said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > We told you racists for weeks that Zimmerman was attacked, that he was yelling for help and that he had cuts to his head. But you racists wanted to demonize the white guy (who is actually half Argentine and half Jewish).
> ...



I thought of that also. I know a man who had it happen, he had a concussion though.


----------



## The Gadfly (Apr 20, 2012)

Zoom said:


> An armed man approached someone after following him.  Martin should have killed Zimmerman and used the stand your ground law.



I have a prediction for you and every other fool here who believes this: if someone simply follows you, and you turn and assault him, or kill him, without his having done at least one of the following (1)make a direct verbal threat of force) (2) initiate a use of physical force, (3) make an unlawful demand, or (4)present a weapon, YOU are going to be the one going to jail! That holds for any jurisdiction in America. This means, incidentally, that based on all the evidence we have so far, IF the police had arrived a few seconds earlier, Trayvon Martin would be awaiting trial, and a lengthy potential sentence in ADULT prison, for felonious assault or aggravated battery, depending on the terminology used for the offense under Florida law. When you knock someone to the ground, that's assault and battery; when you then jump on top of them and continue the assault, THAT becomes a felony. Right now, there's more evidence (that we know of) for that (eyewitness testimony), than there is for any proposition that Zimmerman threatened or assaulted Martin first, which, unless other physical evidence/witness testimony can be presented, remains PURE SPECULATION.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 20, 2012)

> With ABC News&#8217; release of the George Zimmerman photo showing blood flowing freely from his head, the question becomes whether Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the case, had access to the photo before charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder.
> 
> The arrest affidavit did not mention the photograph, or the bleeding, gashes, and bruises on Zimmermans&#8217; head. Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School stated upon release of the arrest affidavit that it was &#8220;so thin that it won&#8217;t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge &#8230; everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense.&#8221;
> 
> ...



More...http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/219537-new-dershowitz-blasts-zimmerman-prosecuter-becuase-of-photo.html#post5159697

He goes on to say that the Prosecutor may be in hot water.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 20, 2012)

He should have let Trayvon go. That is all.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> He should have let Trayvon go. That is all.



He may have. last tag


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> > With ABC News release of the George Zimmerman photo showing blood flowing freely from his head, the question becomes whether Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the case, had access to the photo before charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder.
> >
> > The arrest affidavit did not mention the photograph, or the bleeding, gashes, and bruises on Zimmermans head. Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School stated upon release of the arrest affidavit that it was so thin that it wont make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge  everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense.
> >
> ...



He's another media hound, just on the other side of the fence. I see blood on the head, perhaps a bruise, no "gashes". Zimmerman da*n sure healed quicker than Martin.............


----------



## Sallow (Apr 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > > With ABC News release of the George Zimmerman photo showing blood flowing freely from his head, the question becomes whether Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the case, had access to the photo before charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder.
> ...



It's a weird photo to be sure. No wounds. Just blood. And it wasn't taken by the police.


----------



## The Gadfly (Apr 20, 2012)

Interpol said:


> I think it's pretty clear with Zimmerman's statement today that perhaps a plea deal is in the works?
> 
> I think it was a brave step for him to apologize. Takes a real man to hone up to a mistake.
> 
> If this goes to trial, than it becomes about Zimmerman's injuries and if a jury thinks those injuries stand a common sense test for a life being in danger or not.



I didn't hear him "own up to any mistake"; he simply said he was sorry Martin ended up dead. That's not an "admission" of anything, beyond the uncontested fact that he shot Martin. Some people here so desperately need, (for either political or emotional reasons), for Zimmerman to be guilty of some legal offense, that they will hang on any word they think even MIGHT lead to that result. You'll get a trial, (assuming a judge doesn't quash the information on grounds of statute, which is still entirely possible), so why can't you wait for all the evidence to be presented, before rushing to judgement? The kind of "justice" some of you believe in, is absolutely frightening, and frankly abhorrent by  American standards of jurisprudence.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 20, 2012)

And it's not "Freely flowing", it's mostly dried up.


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

Sallow said:


> And it's not "Freely flowing", it's mostly dried up.



The photo came from the DEFENDANT'S father............................


----------



## The Gadfly (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> He should have let Trayvon go. That is all.



Right now, how can you be certain he didn't? From the evidence we have at present, we cannot know that; as a matter of fact, there is at present exactly ZERO evidence that after he initially lost sight of Trayvon, Zimmerman EVER regained visual contact with him, until the moment of the confrontation, and there, Trayvon's girlfriend's account of the phone conversation she was having with him at the time, suggests the verbal confrontation was initiated by Trayvon Martin. Did Zimmerman even see Martin just before those first words were spoken? We don't know.


----------



## Liability (Apr 20, 2012)

It was taken three minutes after the shot was fired.

That is, JUST three minutes.

To think this was part of some coverup is almost as imbecilic as the twoofers theory that orbs took down the twin towers.


----------



## inALIENable (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> So he shot someone when he didn't even know if they were armed?



LOL, when someone is on top of you with intent to do you harm by smashing away at your head, and you have a gun, then you blow as many holes in them as necessary until they stop moving!   I'm sure even you would do the same to save your life, you have every right. Personally, I would have shot an attackers nuts off and hoped he lived, ha.

 Now, is he guilty of anything? Certainly,  Zimmerman should be charged with obstruction when he didn't immediately halt his surveillance when the police told him to do so  the first time. Police shouldn't have to repeat themselves when giving an order that was clearly understood the first time. Obstruction of justice is a felony and for that he  should serve time.


----------



## chopstiks (Apr 20, 2012)

The Gadfly is right.

How many people has Zimmerman stopped in his neighborhood before? How many times has he called the police as a neighborhood watchmen? If you can't answer that, why insist racial profiling. Speculate and buy into the media hype at your peril.


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

chopstiks said:


> The Gadfly is right.
> 
> How many people has Zimmerman stopped in his neighborhood before? How many times has he called the police as a neighborhood watchmen? If you can't answer that, why insist racial profiling. Speculate and buy into the media hype at your peril.



He called 911 46 times in less than a year I believe; no evidence he was a hard core racist, some evidence he was not. But he was too ready to PLAY policeman, that it is the problem. He reported open garage doors for example.


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Someone who has never taken a life will never understand how sorry one that has is.



He seemed subdued at both first appearance & the bond hearing, he certainly does NOT appear cocky, brash, or rude in court.................................


----------



## chopstiks (Apr 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> chopstiks said:
> 
> 
> > The Gadfly is right.
> ...



You've decided he is guilty for being "too ready to play policeman" and reporting open garage doors? That's desperate, and speculative. I want to see justice as much as anyone else, but based on the evidence, it looks like Zimmerman walks. Cue moral outrage.


----------



## zzzz (Apr 20, 2012)

Prosecutors are not elected for justice. They are elected to put people in prison or get them to plead guilty to a charge. In this case, the prosecutor had to charge Zim to settle the lynch mob down. If it would have went to a grand jury there was a possibility that there would have been no indictment although most grand juries are just rubber stamps for prosecutors. 

The blood shows there was a struggle and according to the law that is enough to dismiss the charges as will be argued in the preliminary hearing on dismissing the charges. I do not see this ever getting to a jury. However the Justice department may try a federal avenue.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 20, 2012)

The Gadfly said:


> Interpol said:
> 
> 
> > I think it's pretty clear with Zimmerman's statement today that perhaps a plea deal is in the works?
> ...



I agree with Interpol.  Create some sympathy for Zimmerman with his admission and then force the prosecution into the least severe penalty in a plea.  Probably four weeks out or more though.  Got to let folks calm down more first.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > Interpol said:
> ...



Why plea when there is zero evidence to convict him of 2nd degree murder ?


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

Liability said:


> It was taken three minutes after the shot was fired.
> 
> That is, JUST three minutes.
> 
> To think this was part of some coverup is almost as imbecilic as the twoofers theory that orbs took down the twin towers.



Thanks Liability.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 20, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > The Gadfly said:
> ...



Seriously, you have no idea what evidence there is in the case.  I said nothing of a second degree murder plea.  If you had been paying any attention to this, you would know I suggested a much lighter charge a long time ago.  IMO, the biggest problem Zimmerman will have is matching his story to the timeline.  If this place is any indicator, I wouldn't want a trial.  Unfortunately, innocent or guilty, he might go to jail either way.  At least with a plea, it should be less time.


----------



## inALIENable (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> He should have let Trayvon go. That is all.



I don't think Zimmerman was the one on top.   I think it was the Skittles kid on top.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 20, 2012)

No. I'm not talking about the end. When 911 said let him go, he should have let him walk.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Apr 20, 2012)

[youtube]ZVyh-uwM0aI[/youtube]

I'm so f'ing disgusted by the prosecutors tone. He was talking down to Zimmerman and badgering him. His lawyer should have objected but even still that doesn't let the prosecutor off the hook or the judge who allowed that to happen. Just listen to his disgusting tone; that's reprehensible. That type of tone is not conducive to a fair trial.

And they let him get away with leading and confusing questions.

"Sir you're not really addressing that to the court, you're doing that here to the *victim's* family is that correct?....I thought you were going to address your honor Miss Judge Lester, so that's really addressed to the family and where the media happens to be, correct Mister Zimmerman...Okay, tell me, after you committed this *crime* and you spoke to the police...Before *you committed this crime *on February 26th..."

*WTF!?!?! - That's BS. Prosecutors aren't allowed to project guilt. That's Law One Oh F'ing One. The judge and Zimmerman's lawyer were asleep at the wheel.*.

And then the prosecutor was allowed to grill Zimmerman about aspects of the case not related to the apology. The prosecutor was asking George things like did he change his testimony.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 20, 2012)

How did anyone grill Martin?


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Actually I do have an idea of some of the evidence that there is in this case however I don't claim to know all of it nor how if any of it will be presented as evidence. On what evidence and why do you suggest that he be charged with a lesser crime ? Zimmerman doesn't have to match his story with the timeline. The prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman's story is a lie.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> No. I'm not talking about the end. When 911 said let him go, he should have let him walk.



link to where 911 said "let him go", please.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 20, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Actually Zimmerman probably will have to match the story to the timeline.  His defense rests on self defense and that requires his testimony.  You see, he already admits he pulled the trigger, now the prosecution argues it was murder and he argues it was self defense.


----------



## inALIENable (Apr 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> No. I'm not talking about the end. When 911 said let him go, he should have let him walk.



Oh. Yeah, totally agree. As much as I despise cops, when confronted by them, you better listen and do exactly as they say or you'll be inviting trouble.  Even if you're really pissed, listen and chill or you'll regret it.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 20, 2012)

Not following. You said you agree, and then talked about confronted by cops. Zimmerman was not a cop.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > > With ABC News release of the George Zimmerman photo showing blood flowing freely from his head, the question becomes whether Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the case, had access to the photo before charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder.
> ...



Unbelievable you don't care about the truth or the facts, you have decided what happened and you want vengeance. Quick now make another post where you claim you just want justice.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> OtaniKitano said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Eye witness to Martin pounding Zimmerman, you dismiss it. Eye Witness to Zimmerman calling for help you dismiss it. A picture to prove his head was damaged and you dismiss it. Remind again how you are all impartial and just want the truth again.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



The timeline that the prosecution tries to establish ? That outta be interesting.


----------



## Jackson (Apr 20, 2012)

They will need expert testimony to the wound, how it was caused and how much bleeding it produced.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Oconnor4NYC said:
> 
> 
> > like.......... at the most 2 stitches. He killed a person over 2 stitches...
> ...



No, he shouldn't have followed the kid after he was told not to..
Of course your morons can't figure out the kid was probably attacked, and fought back... Because you know, you just want to accept the fact it was the black kids fault. You know the one who was followed by someone twice his size, and after he did nothing wrong.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

Kind of goes along with wounds, that could be considered by scratch marks from someone who was on the ground fighting back.... PS head wounds bleed. And gun shots kill.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Oconnor4NYC said:
> ...



RETARD ALERT. Zimmerman DID stop following when advised to do so. There is absolutely zero evidence Zimmerman laid a hand on the kid. AT least according to the autopsy and the Mortuary witness. We do have eye witnesses that place Zimmerman on the bottom having his head pounded calling for help. We have the girlfriend corroborating that all Zimmerman did is ask a question.

You idiots amaze me.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Apr 20, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5OiLQjUcOU]George Zimmerman on Police Surveillance video - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

You guys keep making the argument he had the right to defend himself, what about the kids right to defend himself? Does the law not apply to him because A. He didn't have a gun? B. He is black?

Fact: Zimmerman is on tape saying he was following the kid, and its on tape he was told to stop.

Is being followed by someone who is not a Police Officer not a threat? And what crime did this kid commit that gave Zimmerman reason to follow him? You guys keep mentioning Zimmermans right to defend himself, but what about the kid? If someone was following me for no apparent reason, I would see that as a threat, and that I was in imminent danger.


----------



## Peach (Apr 20, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



INCORRECT, I want Sharpton, the NBP, and Dershowitz type "commentators" OUT of it. Dershowitz discussing prosecution 'errors' in public might land HIM in hot water. Is he licensed in Florida?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



If that is true why was he there? If he stopped following him he wouldn't have been there to get beat up. And they have witnesses that contradict that he was on the ground being pounded by someone half his size. 
And if he had his head pounded on the pavement it would look a little worse. I have seen people who have received two stitches on the back of their head that looked worse than that picture.

And tell me Retard, why was he following him in the first place? What crime did he commit that warranted him being followed by a normal citizen?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

Retard Alert: They also have witnesses who say Zimmerman had the kid on his stomach after he had been shot, pinned down, and was not providing any sort of help for the gun shot he just inflicted on the kid whom he started following for no apparent reason.


If I start following you RGRetard, and you feel threatened, is it your fault?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

I am going to go stalk someone, hopefully they will feel threatened and fight back, and then I can blame them....because you know its their fault for me following them.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



There is a theory that Martin returned to where Zimmerman was. All heads and sidewalks aren't the same.


----------



## Jackson (Apr 20, 2012)

All expert testimony will come out in the trial.  We don't know jack.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Gotta make the restless natives calm down for a bit.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



I have seen about 200 hundred head injuring to the back of the head, they bleed a lot. 
We had a lady fall a month ago, she ended up with two stitches about the same place Zimmermans wounds are, and she had a large pool of blood on the ground where she fell.

And the only theory that is important is Zimmerman followed someone who committed no crime, he had no evidence he commited a crime, and he didn't witness him committing a crime.
A kid is dead because he stereo typed. The law is stupid, and Zimmerman posed a immminent danger to a kid who did not do anything wrong.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Oconnor4NYC said:
> ...



Lol! This is the dumbest post I've seen.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Oconnor4NYC said:
> ...



What evidence do you have that he followed Martin after the dispatcher informed him that they did not need him to do so? In fact, what evidence do you have that he was told not to follow anyone?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



I see you are a great addition to this thread.


So tell me smart one.......What did this kid do to warrant being followed?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Kind of goes along with wounds, that could be considered by scratch marks from someone who was on the ground fighting back.... PS head wounds bleed. And gun shots kill.



Have you ever had your head bounced on a sidewalk?


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



The hispanic dude thought it was a rich white guy and he was gonna rob him.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> You guys keep making the argument he had the right to defend himself, what about the kids right to defend himself? Does the law not apply to him because A. He didn't have a gun? B. He is black?
> 
> Fact: Zimmerman is on tape saying he was following the kid, and its on tape he was told to stop.
> 
> Is being followed by someone who is not a Police Officer not a threat? And what crime did this kid commit that gave Zimmerman reason to follow him? You guys keep mentioning Zimmermans right to defend himself, but what about the kid? If someone was following me for no apparent reason, I would see that as a threat, and that I was in imminent danger.



Martin's right to defend himself ended when Zimmerman hit the ground. just like it would anywhere else people have common sense.


----------



## syrenn (Apr 20, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Zimmerman flat says he lost martin. Lost him. You cant follow someone you lost. After that the whole conversation was about zimmerman meeting the cops at the mail boxes.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



I can't comment on the story, but I can comment on how stupid you look acting like you know what happened.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Do you have a point in that post? The picture clearly shows blood and abrasions on the back of Zimmerman's head. If Zimmerman had Martin pinned face down on the ground how did the back of his head get injured? Do you think the rain that was falling that night did it?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Um, if you watch the news they have played the tape of the dispatcher telling him not to follow the kid...

And hasn't he been told by other law enforcement officers in the past not to follow someone?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


I said what I thought in an earlier post.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



educate yourself and get back in touch. You're just throwing out crap and don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...


You're a ditz.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > LockeJaw said:
> ...



I don't know what happened, I do know the kid did not commit a crime, you know the reason why someone would follow him. 
If someone followed you for no reason, would you not see it as a threat?


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



If Martin came back and assaulted Zimmerman he committed a crime. Do you know if that was the case or not ?  I didn't think so.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Was he not told by the dispatcher to stop following him?

Was he not told in the past by a law enforcement officer not to follow someone?


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



no


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > LockeJaw said:
> ...



One could say he was innocent under the Florida Law, Martin could have reasonable belief of a threat, and the law applies to public places. Or does it only apply to non blacks who carry guns?


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...


Depends.


----------



## syrenn (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...




Zimmerman did stop following him. Zimmerman lost martin.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



From a right wing source
"At 2:26, the dispatcher says, Okay, we dont need you to do that, to which Zimmerman responds, Okay.

Read more: 911 call shows Zimmerman stopped following Martin after dispatcher

As for the other one, you might want to look into when he was charged with assaulting an officer.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...


Would you quit with the racial crap? I'm black and I don't appreciate you injecting racially divisive rhetoric into this case.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

Say Martin did come back and attack Zimmerman.........

Lets put it this way, if I felt threatened by someone following me for no apparent reason and I came back and assaulted them because I felt I was in danger, would I be in the wrong even though a stranger was following me for no apparent reason.

Remember Florida's Stand Your Ground law when you consider that.


----------



## Salt Jones (Apr 20, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Dance coon dance.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



You can't comment on this case, and you are black.............

Yeah, and I am Mother Theresa.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



hey--she thinks she's helping you. Don't ruin her good deed for the day.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Funny you say that, I have heard they have 911 tape of Zimmerman saying fucking Coon in the past.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Dude, shut up.
And I do a lot of good things, I don't need to be a bleeding heart liberal to feel like I did a good deed for the day. So peddle that right wing bull shit somewhere else.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> > LockeJaw said:
> ...



too bad you haven't heard any recent truths.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...


How are you today, King Malik Zulu Shabazz?


----------



## syrenn (Apr 20, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...




Damn... fuck you, you racist piece of shit.


----------



## Salt Jones (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> > LockeJaw said:
> ...



I said it a few minutes ago.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Salt Jones said:
> ...



He followed a kid for no reason, that is all I need to know.


----------



## Salt Jones (Apr 20, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> > LockeJaw said:
> ...



Boo hoo.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



of course---then close your little mind and go to bed.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...





Luissa said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...


I promised not to comment on specifics of the case because I'm participating on the board's jury when/if the trial takes place.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...




Give me a good reason why this man should have followed someone who did not commit a crime?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

And I notice no one answered my earlier question.

I guess Martin if he did attack Zimmerman for following could not have felt imminent danger because he didn't have a gun, and he was black.


----------



## syrenn (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...




He looked suspicious in zimmermans opinion. The point of a neighborhood watch is to keep an eye out for anyone or anything that looks suspicious. You don't have to see someone committing a crime for them to look suspicions.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



And a little mind would blame the person who was followed for no reason. 
You know the person who is dead now.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa, like most liberals do on any and every given subject, fell for the media's emotional appeals. It's all about feeeeelings.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Your compassion for him is overwhelming too.

nite !


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Why did he look suspicious?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



I did listen to the tape, which is why I know he wasn't told not to follow Martin, he was told "We don't need you to do that." If you have some evidence that he was actually told not to follow Martin, or anyone else, feel free to post it.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



He was acting white.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

Where did Mr. Salty Jones run off to?


----------



## syrenn (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...




I really don't care why. In zimermans opinion he did look suspicious.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...


How's it going syrenn?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Or, just a thought, you could look into what he did when those same cops beat down a homeless black man.


----------



## syrenn (Apr 20, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Just fine... how about you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Say Martin did come back and attack Zimmerman.........
> 
> Lets put it this way, if I felt threatened by someone following me for no apparent reason and I came back and assaulted them because I felt I was in danger, would I be in the wrong even though a stranger was following me for no apparent reason.
> 
> Remember Florida's Stand Your Ground law when you consider that.



And, as I said, that right to self defense ended the moment Zimmerman was on the ground.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> And I notice no one answered my earlier question.
> 
> I guess Martin if he did attack Zimmerman for following could not have felt imminent danger because he didn't have a gun, and he was black.



I did, twice. Unlike you, I am not a racist.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Say Martin did come back and attack Zimmerman.........
> ...



Not according to Florida Law.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

I will give you hint, the law doesn't only apply to using a gun.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

syrenn said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Just kickin back enjoying the show. You on din-din break from the Tavern?

Did you see this?

George Zimmerman | Demanded Police Officer Discipline | The Daily Caller

I guess Mr. Zimmerman publicly protested the beating by police officers of a homeless black man. What a racist SOB he is, right?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



But why? He didn't commit a crime, and unless he was being annoying or posed as a threat to the people around him being on drugs is not a crime. Possessing drugs is, being public intoxicated is not unless you pose as a danger to yourself or others around you. Giving the fact Martin alone, if he was on drugs, he was not committing a crime.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > LockeJaw said:
> ...



So?

Why did he follow Martin?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > And I notice no one answered my earlier question.
> ...



Who am I racist against?


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



I'm not a mind reader.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

What evidence did Zimmerman present to back up his claim that Martin seemed like someone was on drugs?

If you tell me Zimmerman didn't follow him because he was a black kid wearing a hoodie, I will call you a liar.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

I will say one thing, the gated community he lived in was not Lilly white. It has a high population of black residents, not to mention the article I just posted  so assuming it was just because the deceased was black doesn't seem all that probable.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > LockeJaw said:
> ...


I thought you knew all about this case, and why Zimmerman did what he did, and why Martin attacked him, well according to the rest in this thread. 


You wanna know why I think the people in this thread are judging this kid because he is black? First off, they defend Zimmerman for following him and believing he deserved to be followed. Second, they don't think the law applies to Martin if he did attack Zimmerman after being followed, but does apply Zimmerman because he shot him. 

The original person in this case who was threatened was Martin, not Zimmerman.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> I will say one thing, the gated community he lived in was not Lilly white. It has a high population of black residents, not to mention the article I just posted  so assuming it was because the deceased was black doesn't seem all that probable.



Are you saying only white people are racists and suspicious of black people?


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> What evidence did Zimmerman present to back up his claim that Martin seemed like someone was on drugs?
> 
> If you tell me Zimmerman didn't follow him because he was a black kid wearing a hoodie, I will call you a liar.



Call me a liar all you want, mind reader lady.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > I will say one thing, the gated community he lived in was not Lilly white. It has a high population of black residents, not to mention the article I just posted  so assuming it was because the deceased was black doesn't seem all that probable.
> ...



How the hell did you come to that conclusion, Sherlock?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > What evidence did Zimmerman present to back up his claim that Martin seemed like someone was on drugs?
> ...



I don't have to be a mind reader, he didn't provide evidence he was on drugs.

Did they find drugs in Martin's system when they did the autopsy?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > LockeJaw said:
> ...



Read your post


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

You pretty much stated because the community was mostly black, plus there is the fact Zimmerman wasn't white, it had nothing to do with him being black. 

And PS Lily white is term used a lot during segregation. 

You were just implying that because the community wasn't lily white, you know not a lot of white people, there is no way this killing had anything to do with Martin being black.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

So if you didn't mean to imply that you might want to look up with lily white means, and what the term comes from.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Which Florida law are you talking about? Because the real ones work just the way I said.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



In Florida you can use deadly force if you feel threatened, it doesn't matter if you are on the ground. Kind of like shooting someone without having to retreat. 

Read the law.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

This is also part of the point I am trying to make, and wow it is from a conservative blog. Stole this from another thread.



> The question is not what happened when Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman encountered each other, but what led up to that encounter. Liberals are so busy destroying the Constitution that it&#8217;s easy to just assume bad faith is involved in everything they touch. But every conservative and libertarian should be concerned about an America where you can&#8217;t even go out for some candy without, yes, being hassled by the man.
> 
> Read more: Trayvon Martin | Trayvon Martin and the right to be left alone | The Daily Caller



Zimmerman had no right to follow Martin, Martin was the one threatened, and the original person who could claim self defense becasue he felt threatened by a stranger following him.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> You pretty much stated because the community was mostly black, plus there is the fact Zimmerman wasn't white, it had nothing to do with him being black.
> 
> And PS Lily white is term used a lot during segregation.
> 
> You were just implying that because the community wasn't lily white, you know not a lot of white people, there is no way this killing had anything to do with Martin being black.



No, I was saying since that was the case,a black kid wouldnt automatically be suspicious to Zimmerman since there are alot of black folks there, plus he protested publicly against the police brutslity case of a homeless black man and he mentored black youths. That makes the racial aspect kind of unlikely.
Who gives a shit if "lily white' was a term used during segregation? WTF does that have to do with anything, dufus?


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> So if you didn't mean to imply that you might want to look up with lily white means, and what the term comes from.



Oh shut up, dumb ass.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> This is also part of the point I am trying to make, and wow it is from a conservative blog. Stole this from another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You know all of this HOW?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > This is also part of the point I am trying to make, and wow it is from a conservative blog. Stole this from another thread.
> ...



If a stranger followed you for no reason would you not feel threatened? Martin didn't know Zimmerman was block watch or that he suspected him of drug use.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > You pretty much stated because the community was mostly black, plus there is the fact Zimmerman wasn't white, it had nothing to do with him being black.
> ...



You implied because the community was not mostly white there is no way it could be because he was black. And I am the dumb ass who knew what lily white meant.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



You really need to get caught up on the facts of this case. I cant discuss that right now, i already told you why.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



I knew what lily white meant too, I am the one who used it moron. I didnt say there was no way, I said it was unlikely due to his history and the neighborhood's demographics. You're just too stupid to get the point.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > You pretty much stated because the community was mostly black, plus there is the fact Zimmerman wasn't white, it had nothing to do with him being black.
> ...



And because a lot of black people live in a community that proves Zimmerman wouldn't be suspicious of him because he was black kid wearing a hoodie? 
I think you are the one being a mind reader, and a complete dumb ass. Keep digging your hole. Its fun to watch. 
And lily white has to do with this, because you either had no idea what it meant or you were implying that only in a mostly white community would a black teenager be viewed as suspicious.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



LOL! You are a complete imbecile.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

Are you high, Luissa?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Are you high, Luissa?


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

Did Zimmerman say tMartin was black to the 9-11 operator before or after he was asked to give a description of Martin?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > LockeJaw said:
> ...



Smart enough to realize you were implying that only stereotyping happens in lily white communities, and not in mostly black communities. 

So did you have no idea what it meant?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Did Zimmerman say tMartin was black to the 9-11 operator before or after he was asked to give a description of Martin?



Why did Zimmerman follow him?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

I wear a hood a lot, should I be followed?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Are you high, Luissa?



So what right wing lady repped you and told you to ask me that or said I was? I know you are not smart enough to come up with that on your own. 



And this is why I don't post much here anymore.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 20, 2012)

Give me one good reason from what Zimmerman told the dispatcher for him to follow Martin


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Good grief, I knew what it meant, yes. Thats why I used the phrase correctly.
I was not implying anything of the sort. I was saying that seeing black kids in the neighborhood would not be suspicious in his neighborhood, because there are alot of black folks who live there.

Anyway, can you give me a quick run down of everything you know about the case... be detailed as much as possible as well. You seem to know very little of it.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

Luissa said:


> I wear a hood a lot, should I be followed?



You're making me laugh over here. You think you have me pinned down or something with these stupid remarks. Let's stick to the facts. So far all you've proven is that you are easily swayed by emotional appeals and lack one iota of critical thinking skills.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 20, 2012)

And I'm not disputing your claims of Martin acting in self defense at this point. I told you I cannot go too much into this because I promised not to in order to be on the board's mock jury when/if the trial takes place.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > LockeJaw said:
> ...


Where did anyone imply he was suspicious because there was a black kid in his community? It has to do with him being a black kid period.  And one who wears a hoodie.

And as a black man you should know what I am talking about. If he had been a black kid wearing a polo and slacks he would have never been followed, if he had been a white kid he would have never been followed.

And when you used the phrase, you were implying there is no way he would have been viewed as suspicious because he was in a black community but would have if he was in a white community.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > LockeJaw said:
> ...



And if you are suppose to sit on a jury for this board or whatever board you are doing this for, how come you are even in this thread? Wouldn't you be less unbiased if you refrained from posting and viewing any thread on the matter?
Personally, I think your involvement in this thread is reason to enough not to allow you on the jury.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > I wear a hood a lot, should I be followed?
> ...



Well you claimed he wasn't suspicious because was black, and lived in a black community, so isn't because he wore a hoodie?
You obviously don't have critical thinking skills either.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Please luisa,  read the transcript of the 911 call.  


 Fiction: Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after Dispatch told him "we don't need you to do that".

Truth: Zimmerman stopped chasing Martin, and had no idea where he was. From the transcript, Zimmerman said when asked his address, "Its a home its 1950, oh crap I dont want to give it all out, I dont know where [Martin] is."


http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/326700/full-transcript-zimmerman.pdf


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



No I was not implying that. Ive explained that to you. And why would someone, anyone, be suspicious of someone for wearing a hoodie when its raining outside, Sherlock?

Dont tell me what I should think as a black man. For someone complaining about stereo typing you sure do alot of it yourself.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

When I was called to do jury duty, had I been found to be participating in open debate on the defendant, I wonder if they would have allowed me to sit on the jury?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > LockeJaw said:
> ...



So if it wasn't because he was black, and it wasn't because he was wearing a hoodie then why was he suspicious of Martin? Was it the pop?


----------



## heady (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> This is also part of the point I am trying to make, and wow it is from a conservative blog. Stole this from another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

I hope this jury thing isn't on this board, kind of seems like a joke already if they picked lockedjaw to be on the jury.


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> When I was called to do jury duty, had I been found to be participating in open debate on the defendant, I wonder if they would have allowed me to sit on the jury?



Well we are going to go strictly by what evidence and information is presented during the trial. I'm not debating you. I'm watching you make a fool of yourself and being confident of yourself while doing so. It's quite entertaining. I'm done for now though. I'll let others spank your little italian behind from here on out.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 21, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > LockeJaw said:
> ...





 "There is nothing more painful tome at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.... "	  ---Jesse Jackson


Jesse Jackson - Wikiquote


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

heady said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > This is also part of the point I am trying to make, and wow it is from a conservative blog. Stole this from another thread.
> ...


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> I hope this jury thing isn't on this board, kind of seems like a joke already if they picked lockedjaw to be on the jury.



So you think you know where I stand on this case? LOL!


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > When I was called to do jury duty, had I been found to be participating in open debate on the defendant, I wonder if they would have allowed me to sit on the jury?
> ...



Italian? 
Are you referring to my avatar? 

That is the Irish flag, dumb ass. Italian flag has a red stripe, not an orange one...

Yeah, I am the one who looks like a fool here.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > I hope this jury thing isn't on this board, kind of seems like a joke already if they picked lockedjaw to be on the jury.
> ...



No, but I think your involvement in this thread should be proof enough to not allow you on the jury.


----------



## Missourian (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> heady said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

Missourian said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > heady said:
> ...


----------



## Missourian (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...


----------



## LockeJaw (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Well if it turns out to go down that way, I'll seek you out and give you a lesson on this case.

You're in dire need of one.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

Missourian said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

LockeJaw said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > LockeJaw said:
> ...



And you are in dire need of lessons on flags. But what can you do?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

So who is more of a threat in this case? Zimmerman or Martin?
Martin was minding his own business walking home, Zimmerman was carrying a gun, first followed Martin in his car, then exited his vehicle and it is proven he followed him on foot for a little while. 
From what I see, Zimmerman posed as more of threat than Martin did.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

If I beat up a man who followed me in a car, and then on foot, and who was holding a gun.......Who do you think the Cops would arrest, if you take out the killing part?


----------



## asterism (Apr 21, 2012)

FuelRod said:


> If this is authentic the DA needs to lose their job.



Actually, if this is authentic then the DA is brilliant.  2nd Degree Murder will never stand with these injuries.


----------



## heady (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> heady said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...


----------



## Missourian (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...


----------



## Missourian (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> If I beat up a man who followed me in a car, and then on foot, and who was holding a gun.......Who do you think the Cops would arrest, if you take out the killing part?



You.

Following someone is not illegal.

Assaulting someone is.


----------



## Annie (Apr 21, 2012)

Lots of links at site:

A trial will be held, but seems there are ample cautions to be thrown at prosecutors:

JustOneMinute: Zimmerman Bond Hearing - Media Reaction



> April 20, 2012
> 
> Zimmerman Bond Hearing - Media Reaction
> 
> ...


----------



## Full-Auto (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Oconnor4NYC said:
> ...



There you go, adding what if to justify your predjudice.


----------



## heady (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Missourian said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...


----------



## asterism (Apr 21, 2012)

OtaniKitano said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > We told you racists for weeks that Zimmerman was attacked, that he was yelling for help and that he had cuts to his head. But you racists wanted to demonize the white guy (who is actually half Argentine and half Jewish).
> ...



Really?

I still have scars on my head and ears from an attack by a teen.  I suffered a concussion and lacerations to my head and ears by a thug that jumped me one night.  I got band aids, butterflys, and gause.  30 minutes after the Paramedics showed up it looked like I had just fallen down.

You can't judge by these photos.


----------



## asterism (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> You guys keep making the argument he had the right to defend himself, what about the kids right to defend himself? Does the law not apply to him because A. He didn't have a gun? B. He is black?
> 
> Fact: Zimmerman is on tape saying he was following the kid, and its on tape he was told to stop.
> 
> Is being followed by someone who is not a Police Officer not a threat? And what crime did this kid commit that gave Zimmerman reason to follow him? You guys keep mentioning Zimmermans right to defend himself, but what about the kid? If someone was following me for no apparent reason, I would see that as a threat, and that I was in imminent danger.



You raise a good point.


Thread here:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/219575-this-mexicans-looking-at-me.html


----------



## asterism (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Retard Alert: They also have *witnesses who say Zimmerman had the kid on his stomach after he had been shot, pinned down, and was not providing any sort of help for the gun shot* he just inflicted on the kid whom he started following for no apparent reason.
> 
> 
> If I start following you RGRetard, and you feel threatened, is it your fault?



I'd like to see some credible sources for the bolded.  I'm an hour away and can easily drive and check out that line.


----------



## asterism (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



We are apparently dealing with a populace that thinks a 911 dispatcher is an authority.  


How sad.


----------



## asterism (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



He was on private property and wasn't recognized by a resident.


----------



## asterism (Apr 21, 2012)

heady said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Missourian said:
> ...


----------



## heady (Apr 21, 2012)

asterism said:


> heady said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



You can do the same thing in California, so what Florida law are you talking about that you think is different? As a matter of fact, in California, you are legally free to chase someone down the street in order to kill him.

You read it.



> The stand-your-ground doctrine, which has vaulted into national  prominence with the killing of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin, isn't  limited to the two dozen states that have passed laws since 2005  expanding the right to use deadly force in confrontations.
> It's also the rule in California, by court decree. For more than a  century, the state's judges have declared that a person who reasonably  believes he or she faces serious injury or death from an assailant does  not have to back off - inside or outside the home - and instead can use  whatever force is needed to eliminate the danger.
> The California Legislature has never enacted one of the National  Rifle Association-sponsored laws, pioneered by Florida in 2005, that  spell out the rights of a defendant in such confrontations and the  procedures for applying them in court. But in California, the judicial  rulings had much the same effect. The rulings are binding on state  courts and are reflected in judges' instructions to juries in cases  involving claims of self-defense.
> The instructions say a person under attack is even entitled, "if  reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of death  or great bodily injury has passed. This is so even if safety could have  been achieved by retreating."



Stand-your-ground the rule in state, courts affirm

The problem here is not the law in Florida, it is the idiots who think the law in Florida is somehow responsible for what happened.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

asterism said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > LockeJaw said:
> ...



Um, don't think so.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> This is also part of the point I am trying to make, and wow it is from a conservative blog. Stole this from another thread.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Actually, what matters is how Zimmerman felt. If he reasonably believed his life was in danger he was entitled to use force to defend himself. This has nothing to do with the stand your ground laws, or Florida, it is simple common sense. If his account is true, and he was on the ground, he was entitled to kill Martin even in New York. He would probably face a weapons charge in New York, but he would not face a murder charge. Anyone that does not understand that simple truth shouldn't be writing about this at all, whatever their political leanings.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

asterism said:


> He was not on the phone with the "POLICE."  He was on the phone with a dispatcher of the  county department of public safety.


*Zimmerman called the Sanford Police Department* non-emergency number, not 911.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 21, 2012)

I'm taking it the concensus of the bigots is that following a black kid gives that kid the right to beat the shit out of you, bash your head, and you'd better not shoot him cuz you deserved it?

Bull fucking shit.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Let me ask you something, and see if you can be honest. You are driving through your neighborhood, and you know most of the people who live there. You see a young person walking down the street, looking into the various houses he passes, and when he sees you he takes off running. Would you find this a little suspicious, or would you assume he was on his way home from the store after buying Skittles?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > Did Zimmerman say tMartin was black to the 9-11 operator before or after he was asked to give a description of Martin?
> ...



Because Martin left the sidewalk, and took off between the houses?


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > LockeJaw said:
> ...


Your narrative here is incorrect.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Give me one good reason from what Zimmerman told the dispatcher for him to follow Martin



Gee, I don't know.



> Dispatcher: Sanford Police Department. ...
> 
> Zimmerman: Hey we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle, um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.
> 
> ...


If Zimmerman had been an on or off duty cop he would have shot him for walking toward him with his hand in his waistband, and every cop in the country would have backed him up.


----------



## Sallow (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > This is also part of the point I am trying to make, and wow it is from a conservative blog. Stole this from another thread.
> ...



Are you fucking kidding? New York isn't an insane state..like Florida. Zimmerman would be in so much trouble it wouldn't be funny if this happened here..


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> heady said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



I actually had someone call the police on me for following them once. They thought it was a joke, but they had to check on it anyway. It seems that I was more credible than the person that called them about people following them, it seems she thought she could read my mind, a bit like you think you can read Zimmerman's mind.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Give me one good reason from what Zimmerman told the dispatcher for him to follow Martin
> ...



But he wasn't. And an off duty Cop would have known better, and if he hadn't his ass would have been in trouble.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> If I beat up a man who followed me in a car, and then on foot, and who was holding a gun.......Who do you think the Cops would arrest, if you take out the killing part?



It wouldn't be the guy who called them to report suspicious activity.

Just saying.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > This is also part of the point I am trying to make, and wow it is from a conservative blog. Stole this from another thread.
> ...



He would have never had to defend himself if he had not followed someone who had not committed a crime.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 21, 2012)

Cripes, since when is it okay to attack someone for FOLLOWING you?

People follow me all the time. Why is it okay for the kid to perceive a man following  him as a threat, and be justified in attacking him..but it's not okay for zimmerman to perceive the kid who attacked him as a threat?

Do you have any idea how crazy that is?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Um, it is a gated community, that makes everything private property, even the streets.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...


 
Um, you don't know what a gated community is?

"A subdivision or neighborhood, often surrounded by a barrier, to which entry is restricted to residents and their guests."

In other words, private property.

Read more: gated community: Definition from Answers.com


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Prosecutor stated Zimmerman *"was scared because Mr. Martin started circling his car."*  That's from Z's statement to police the night of the incident.

Pretty strange a guy would follow someone who he was so scared of, who he didn't know may have been armed, and might, in his opinion, be "on drugs."


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



It comes from the transcript of the 911 call, show me what I got wrong.


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 21, 2012)

Too bad Travon didn't hit him harder, he might still be alive.  That kid was fighting for his life.

Lest we forget, Zimmerman outweighed him and had a gun?

The prosecution will remind us, I'm sure.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Didn't I just say that he would be facing a weapons charge?

By the way, when did self defense when a guy is beating the crap out of you become insane?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



An off duty cop would have known better than what?


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Well, the "looking into houses" part - just for starters.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Really? Last time I thought someone was following me I did not confront him, I made sure I lost him. 

Just something an intelligent person would think about.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > If I beat up a man who followed me in a car, and then on foot, and who was holding a gun.......Who do you think the Cops would arrest, if you take out the killing part?
> ...



He might not go to jail, if he did call me in. But if a man called me in for walking down the street only carrying pop and candy, I then later say punch him for following me. If I explained to the cops and it was proven I didn't do anything wrong, that I had no idea who the man was, and that I felt threatened. You think they would charge me with assault? I doubt it.

If I killed that same man in Florida, and proved I had no idea why he was following me and that I felt threatened. You think I should be charged with murder? 

The point you are all missing, is Martin is the first person to be threatened in this incident. Zimmerman may be on the block watch, but he drives his own car and is not a Police Officer. If Martin was a white woman, this would be a completely different story. You know it, we all know it.


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 21, 2012)

Besides, Zimmerman already lied on the stand.  He said he thought the kid was just a couple of years younger than him but on the audio he described Travon as being in his late teens.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> Too bad Travon didn't hit him harder, he might still be alive.  That kid was fighting for his life.
> 
> Lest we forget, Zimmerman outweighed him and had a gun?
> 
> The prosecution will remind us, I'm sure.



He was also younger, and could run faster. and had actually managed to get away from him, yet they ended up in a fight.

think about that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Really?



> Dispatcher: OK, he's just walking around the area...
> 
> Zimmerman: ...looking at all the houses.
> 
> Dispatcher: OK...



Yep, you are right, sounds perfectly innocent to me.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Then there's the part where Zimmerman said TM circled around Zimmerman's vehicle...and that made Zimmerman afraid.

And the fact that Z could not know many of the residents, as something like 40% of the townhouses were getting foreclosed on, or were unable to be sold, and a good many were renters - like Zimmerman was, a renter.

Lots of new residents in and out, all the time...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Let me get this straight, you think you can punch random people on the street and get away with it? Are you a dumb blonde, or just ignorant?


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Too bad Travon didn't hit him harder, he might still be alive.  That kid was fighting for his life.
> ...



I so wish he would have run.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


I also choose not to follow young males I don't know. You know, it is what intelligent people do.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Then there's the part where Zimmerman said TM circled around Zimmerman's vehicle...and that made Zimmerman afraid.
> 
> And the fact that Z could not know many of the residents, as something like 40% of the townhouses were getting foreclosed on, or were unable to be sold, and a good many were renters - like Zimmerman was, a renter.
> 
> Lots of new residents in and out, all the time...



What part was that? Unlike you, I have a link to the actual conversation, not what someone says someone else said Zimmerman said to another person.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Looking *at* and *looking into* are not the same.  You failed.

When I walk, I look _at_ things too.  Many people do.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



He did, and then came back.

Think about it.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



Didn't he live there?


----------



## heady (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Prosecutor stated Zimmerman *"was scared because Mr. Martin started circling his car."*  That's from Z's statement to police the night of the incident.
> 
> Pretty strange a guy would follow someone who he was so scared of, who he didn't know may have been armed, and might, in his opinion, be "on drugs."



GZ may have been (in his mind) trying to do the right thing even if it means putting yourself in danger for the good of the neighborhood. 

I dont know and dont care as it doesn't matter.  That has nothing to do with what happened. 

Again, if Martin would have just called the cops (911) instead of talking to his girl, maybe noone would have died.  

I think if someone broke into my house, I will not stay on the phone with my girl while I confronted the thief (assuming i thought there was a threat), i would immediately call the COPS IF THERE WAS TIME (which it seemed there was).


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



How would you know what intelligent people do?


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...


Or get out of your car packing heat and following someone you think might be armed, even though he was told not to do that...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



And, if you are walking down a residential street, people will think the fact that you are looking at their house is suspicions. In fact, if you saw someone walking down your street looking at every house on the block, you would think it is suspicious.


----------



## heady (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Doesn't matter, he is just saying why someone might think he is suspicious.  Because someone who knows most people living there didn't recognize him.  geez.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



No, he was visiting. Even if he did, it is still private property, which makes your initial statement that he was not on private property wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Funny how two people who are trying to look smart can't even get the facts right.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Yeah, and you have?


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Again, you enhance the narrative.

I wonder at what point Trayvon "circled" Zimmerman's car.  Z said he did that too.

He said that *after* the police call, though.

Curious, isn't it?


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...


Oh, I have the facts straight.  Much more so than you.
*
Zimmerman was specifically told by police not to physically get involved in any suspicious activity he reported.*


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I know that he was not told not to follow Martin, yet you insist I need to listen to the transcript of the call because it proves he was. For the record "We don't need you to do that." is not an instruction not to follow, it is a statement of policy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Me pointing out that if you see someone doing what Martin did you would find it suspicious is enhancing the narrative, but you flat out lying about what the dispatcher said to Martin is sticking to the facts.

Got it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Zimmerman was told no such thing.

I dare you to prove me wrong.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


He was instructed not to get physically involved in people he reported as suspicious.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

And how about we look at the facts......

Do we have evidence of Martin getting violent with anyone in the past? What of his criminal record? You guys bitch at liberals for being quick to judge Zimmerman, but lets remember there is witnesses on both sides that are saying the other person started it. There is a man who says Zimmerman was on the ground, and there is witnesses who say Martin was the one being attacked.
Show me where there is a witness who saw Martin first attack Zimmerman, not just see him on top or that Martin ran after Zimmerman.
Zimmerman has been charged before in cases involving assault, Martin has no juvenile record and was only suspended for trace amounts of pot. Is there any records of Martin fighting at school?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



You are lying.

All you have to do to prove you are not lying is post the audio or a transcript of the call that proves he was told not to follow. shouldn't be hard, unless I am right.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


That's easy.


*Sanford Police Department Neighborhood Watch Handbook
*


> You will add your &#8220;eyes and ears&#8221; to
> those of the Police Department which
> cannot be everywhere, all the time, by
> keeping a watchful eye and open ear to
> ...


^^^^ Emphasis THEIRS.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf

    In big bold-up fonts the above words there  INSIST people are not to     "* get physically involved with any activity you report or       apprehen[d] of any suspicious persons."*

    They do that in not only one area of the NW Guidelines, *but twice.      
    In BOLD letters.*

    We KNOW Zimmerman was told by police this, as Z was the one who     helped facilitate the NW meeting with the *Sanford Police Chief*     for guidelines, and as* contact and Captain* would necessarily     need to be informed of the rules:

    Twin Lakes at Retreat news letter -*Sept 2011*:
*George Zimmerman's name listed as contact & that Chief Lee       was coming to next meeting:
* 
RTL Newsletter September 2011 FINAL

*Feb 2012* Twin Lakes at Retreat news letter - *George       Zimmerman identified as Captain.*

RTL February 2012 Newsletter

    SFP -meeting with residents after shooting - Relaying Zimmerman *was       acting as NW at the time.*

Sanford PD Meeting

In addition:



> In September, the Sanford police helped the Retreat start a     neighborhood watch program.
> 
> "Some residents called me wanting to do a startup," said Dorival, a      civilian police employee. About 30 people came to the clubhouse for      that first session, she said. "Everyone was enthusiastic." *Zimmerman     volunteered to be captain.*
> 
> "I told them, this is not about being a vigilante police force,"     Dorival said.* "You're not even supposed to patrol on neighborhood     watch. And you're certainly not supposed to carry a gun.*"


 Trayvon Martin's killing shatters safety within Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford - Tampa Bay Times


----------



## heady (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



He was never told to NOT follow him.  He was told "We dont need you to do that (follow him)".  He freaking said "OK"!!!

So as SOON as he was told that he wasn't "needed" to do something, he said ok and from what we know, didn't do it anymore.

Not needing someone to do something is not the same as telling them NOT to.

Why do people keep saying he was following someone even after he was "told" not to when that clearly is NOT the case.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

I drove down a street today and looked at every house, I like to look at houses.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

I drove down a street today and looked at every house, I like to look at houses.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> And how about we look at the facts......
> 
> Do we have evidence of Martin getting violent with anyone in the past? What of his criminal record? You guys bitch at liberals for being quick to judge Zimmerman, but lets remember there is witnesses on both sides that are saying the other person started it. There is a man who says Zimmerman was on the ground, and there is witnesses who say Martin was the one being attacked.
> Show me where there is a witness who saw Martin first attack Zimmerman, not just see him on top or that Martin ran after Zimmerman.
> Zimmerman has been charged before in cases involving assault, Martin has no juvenile record and was only suspended for trace amounts of pot. Is there any records of Martin fighting at school?



There are witnesses that said Martin was being attacked who actually saw the attack? where have they been hiding? Why didn't the prosecution mention them in the affidavit? Will they actually show up for the trial, or will they still be invisible?


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Poor little Windbag.

I already did prove you wrong.  Again.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



You say he said that, yet provide no evidence to back it up.

By the way, here is a link to the transcript, it should make it easier for you to show where Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin.

Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police


----------



## heady (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> And how about we look at the facts......
> 
> Do we have evidence of Martin getting violent with anyone in the past? What of his criminal record? You guys bitch at liberals for being quick to judge Zimmerman, but lets remember there is witnesses on both sides that are saying the other person started it. There is a man who says Zimmerman was on the ground, and there is witnesses who say Martin was the one being attacked.
> Show me where there is a witness who saw Martin first attack Zimmerman, not just see him on top or that Martin ran after Zimmerman.
> Zimmerman has been charged before in cases involving assault, Martin has no juvenile record and was only suspended for trace amounts of pot. Is there any records of Martin fighting at school?



None of that matters.  Both of them were not perfect.  Sometimes good people do bad things and bad people do good things, we don't know which is which in this case.

Answer the simple question of if Martin felt threatened, why didn't he stop talking to his girl, or even call 3 way, and call the cops when it seems to me he had time to do so?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Proving me wrong does not involve you saying something, and assuming I am too stupid to understand that you need proof.


----------



## heady (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> I drove down a street today and looked at every house, I like to look at houses.



And I would have every right to call the cops on you because in my silly little mind you looked suspicious for whatever stupid reason I had.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


I don't know how you missed this.  http://www.usmessageboard.com/5161103-post207.html

There were a lot of words there. 

Pay attention to words.  I specifically said THIS:

*"Zimmerman was specifically told by police not to physically get involved in any suspicious activity he reported."*

So, I'll post it for you again.  Seeing you had problems the first time.

*Sanford Police Department Neighborhood Watch Handbook
*


> You will add your &#8220;eyes and ears&#8221; to
> those of the Police Department which
> cannot be everywhere, all the time, by
> keeping a watchful eye and open ear to
> ...


^^^^ Emphasis THEIRS.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf

    In big bold-up fonts the above words there  INSIST people are not to     "* get physically involved with any activity you report or       apprehen[d] of any suspicious persons."*

    They do that in not only one area of the NW Guidelines, *but twice.      
    In BOLD letters.*

    We KNOW Zimmerman was told by police this, as Z was the one who     helped facilitate the NW meeting with the *Sanford Police Chief*     for guidelines, and as* contact and Captain* would necessarily     need to be informed of the rules:

    Twin Lakes at Retreat news letter -*Sept 2011*:
*George Zimmerman's name listed as contact & that Chief Lee       was coming to next meeting:
* 
RTL Newsletter September 2011 FINAL

*Feb 2012* Twin Lakes at Retreat news letter - *George       Zimmerman identified as Captain.*

RTL February 2012 Newsletter

    SFP -meeting with residents after shooting - Relaying Zimmerman *was       acting as NW at the time.*

Sanford PD Meeting

In addition:



> In September, the Sanford police helped the Retreat start a     neighborhood watch program.
> 
> "Some residents called me wanting to do a startup," said Dorival, a      civilian police employee. About 30 people came to the clubhouse for      that first session, she said. "Everyone was enthusiastic." *Zimmerman     volunteered to be captain.*
> 
> "I told them, this is not about being a vigilante police force,"     Dorival said.* "You're not even supposed to patrol on neighborhood     watch. And you're certainly not supposed to carry a gun.*"


 Trayvon Martin's killing shatters safety within Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford - Tampa Bay Times
------------------

So, I'm going to go with, yeah, you are_ too stupid._


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

heady said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > I drove down a street today and looked at every house, I like to look at houses.
> ...



If she had actually drove down the street looking at every house she would have hit a tree.


----------



## heady (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> heady said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



And then I would have called the cops because in my silly little mind, it looks like someone might be hurt!  And it might be cause I have a thing for the pic in your avatar, who knows, who cares.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

So, what have we learned?

* The dispatcher DID suggest he not follow
* GZ is/was NW Captain - well aware of the guidelines of that organization. 
* With that he carries a  lot more responsibility than an ordinary citizen,
*  Pursuing a citizen with a concealed  weapon also carries greater responsibilities.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Interesting.

You have a problem here though, the neighborhood watch in Sanford only reports what they see from their homes. The fact that Zimmerman was in his car when he called meant he was not acting as part of the watch, he was simply a concerned citizen. Unless, that is, you want to try to argue that no one who is a member of the watch is supposed to report anything unless they are at home.

By the way, didn't I already point this out in an earlier thread about this case? Did you try to repeat your misdirected idiocy in the hope that I forgot? Or do you honestly not understand English?


----------



## heady (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> So, what have we learned?
> 
> * The dispatcher DID suggest he not follow
> * GZ is/was NW Captain - well aware of the guidelines of that organization.
> ...



If/when in doubt, freaking call the cops!


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > And how about we look at the facts......
> ...



I said started it. And do you have a witness that says they saw who first started it?


> "I saw two men on the ground, one on top of the other. I felt they were scuffling and I heard gunshots which to me were more like pops," he said in an interview broadcast on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360, his voice disguised to protect his identity.
> 
> "I don't know if was an echo but it definitely made more than one pop.
> "After the larger man got off there was a boy, obviously now dead, on the ground facing down.
> ...


Trayvon Martin killing: witness says he saw Zimmerman walk away uninjured | World news | guardian.co.uk

The only person who seems to say he attacked him first is the person who is facing murder charges. Show me a witness who saw Martin attack him at his truck. If Zimmerman's head was slammed into the pavement don't you think his head injury would have been more severe? You guys are quick to defend someone with not a very clean past, but have no problem with assuming a black kid started it who has no criminal history.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Your first and second sentences are absolutely not true.  

In addition, refer to this  link: Sanford PD Meeting 

Police confirm that Zimmerman was *"serving in the role of neighborhood watch" when the shooting occurred.*


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> So, what have we learned?
> 
> * The dispatcher DID suggest he not follow
> * GZ is/was NW Captain - well aware of the guidelines of that organization.
> ...





A suggestion is not a command.
Neighborhood watch does not leave their home.
Zimmerman was not on patrol, he was going to the store.
How does being a member of the neighborhood watch carry greater responsibility? Is their some sort of law, or even a court case, that you can use to back that up?
I carry a knife, does that make me more responsible?
I don''t think you have learned anything, but I certainly learned you have no problem exaggerating a narrative if it suits you.


----------



## heady (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



I am not ASSUMING anything.  That's the problem here.  Noone know who started it.  If we did, there would be a lot less issues.  

But, WHY didn't Martin call the cops if he felt threatened?????  That is what I do not understand.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Soooo...."Zimmerman was afraid because Mr. Martin started circling his car" - per Zimmerman to police that night.

Yet, after such fear, because this "fucking punk" was circling his  vehicle,and he looked suspicious, and he didn't know if he was armed, Z  still got out and started pursuing the "asshole?"


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > So, what have we learned?
> ...


The irony bleeds.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



The charging affidavit says, and I quote, "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued." 

So, again, I ask, why doesn't the prosecution mention the witnesses that say Zimmerman started it? Why don't they even hint that such witnesses exist? Why do you know more about the case than the state attorney or the lead investigator on the case?


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Re: The bloody head picture.

The blood flow  is not  interrupted  by repeated bashing onto sidewalk...

Curious.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

heady said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Probably for the same reason why many in this thread are quick to judge Martin, and believe what Zimmerman said happened. How many young black males you know that trust the cops? He calls the Cops, ten bucks even if he wasn't doing anything wrong, who do you think they are going to bother?

It is not being a bleeding heart liberal if you realize that black males are the most stereo typed, wrongfully accused group in America.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

And that part about TM having his hands on Z's mouth and nose,  both hands.

Yet Z was screaming for help.

Hmm.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

And that That _circling his vehicle _statement definitely contradicts Z's  recorded call to police.

Lots of contradictions adding up.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Did you read the handbook you just posted? did you see the part where the neighborhood watch does not patrol? If my first sentence is not true, how do you explain what the handbook says? Sanford actually has a separate group that is trained to patrol neighborhoods, Zimmerman was not a member of that group.

Since they do not patrol, and Zimmerman, according to the police, was traveling to the store at the time he saw Martin, he was not acting in the capacity of the neighborhood watch, which is not actually an official capacity anyway.

The link is nice, but cops have been known to lie. Saying he was acting as a member of the watch, even though he wasn't, gave them a reason not to charge him. since he is now being charged, I would argue the official position of the prosecution is he was not acting as a member of the watch.

But feel free to make the case for the defense if you want.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

> UNIDENTIFIED MALE:  And isn't it true that a lot of statements  that he  made do not make sense in terms of the injuries that he  described.  Did  he not describe to the police that Mr. Martin had him  on the ground and  kept bashing his head on the concrete over and over  and just physically  beating him with his hands?
> 
> GILBREATH:  He has said that, yes.
> 
> ...


CNN.com - Transcripts


----------



## heady (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> heady said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Trust cops or not, but if i feel threatened at night, they are my best option.  As I dont trust my kick butt skills over someone who might have a gun.  That is my opinion, and I don't trust cops that much either.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



What are you even talking about? You are kind of an idiot. 

And it says right there in your affidavit that Zimmerman confronted Martin, where does it say Martin first attacked Zimmerman? Or that there is a witness backing up Zimmerman's claim?

Like Paperview said, his head wounds don't look like someone who had his head hit on pavement. And if they were scuffling on pavement, where is the evidence? Wouldn't he have more then small wounds on the back of his head? Wouldn't he have at least a little road rash on other parts of his body?
And if his head wound was so bad, which it would most likely be from getting it repeatedly hit on the pavement wouldn't the paramedics take him to the hospital? Speaking of, did he ever go to the hospital? I thought he had a broken nose. I know when I broke my nose and had a head injury I had to spend all day at the ER.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Soooo...."Zimmerman was afraid because Mr. Martin started circling his car" - per Zimmerman to police that night.
> 
> Yet, after such fear, because this "fucking punk" was circling his  vehicle,and he looked suspicious, and he didn't know if he was armed, Z  still got out and started pursuing the "asshole?"



Do you have an actual link to that, or are you just going to repeat until people believe it?


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Hey folks.  Get a load of the Windbag's post. 

Now that's some creative spinning.  Even has the Sanford police lying now.

And no, there was NO OTHER "separate" NW group at that community.  Man, that takes balls to assert such windbaggery without thinking you'd look like  a dope.

But there you are.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Re: The bloody head picture.
> 
> The blood flow  is not  interrupted  by repeated bashing onto sidewalk...
> 
> Curious.



Huh? Do you think blood stops if you hit someone more than once?


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Soooo...."Zimmerman was afraid because Mr. Martin started circling his car" - per Zimmerman to police that night.
> ...


What?  You didn't watch the Bond hearing?

Color me surprised.

re the "circling his car" part.

It's here at exactly 1:46:45

George Zimmerman bond hearing :: WRAL.com


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Re: The bloody head picture.
> ...


You have a difficult time reading the actual words that are posted, don't you?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

heady said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > heady said:
> ...


I don't believe he confronted Zimmerman, and if he did I don't think he attacked him first.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Re: The bloody head picture.
> ...



I really hope LockedJaw comes in and calls you out........If he doesn't, his creditably is out the window.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Gilbreath also "*was asked what further evidence he had about a  confrontation  apart from the phone call and witnesses' statements: "We  have Mr.  Zimmerman's statement, we have the shell casing, and we have  the body,"  he said.
...
When asked by the prosecuting attorney whether there was any  evidence   that suggests Zimmerman's original statement to police was  not true,   Gilbreith replied, "Yes.*"

Judge grants $150K bail for George Zimmerman - CBS News


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



It is not my affidavit. I am not making any claims about who started the fight, it is irrelevant, all that matters is what Zimmerman thought when he shot Martin, and if the state can prove what he says is not true. I actually posted a link to the law in California to prove that self defense is not about who started the fight when you were trying to say this was about the law in Florida, I wonder why you ignored that.

Guess what, if you have your leg torn off, and it is laying on the side of the road, and you tell the paramedics you don't want to go to the hospital, they won't take you. Period. The paramedics are trained to take anyone who has a head injury to the hospital, no matter how minor it appears, because they cannot properly gauge the condition of the person in the field. The only reason they would not do that is if Zimmerman refused to go or if the police refused to let them take him.

In other words, drop this line about the paramedics not taking him to the hospital, it was not their decision. Harping on it just makes your case weaker, even if you don't know that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Police always lie, everyone knows it.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

More:

Q: And isn't it true that a lot of statements that he  made do not make sense in terms of the injuries that he described. Did  he not describe to the police that Mr. Martin had him on the ground and  kept bashing his head on the concrete over and over and just physically  beating him with his hands?

GILBREATH: He has said that, yes.

*Q: And isn't it true that there is evidence that indicates that's not true? 

GILBREATH: Yes. * 

==========================
*
GILBREATH: Managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk and that is  at that point is when the shooting subsequently followed. That is not  consistent with the evidence we found. 		*


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


You know, you're not helping your case when you suggest the Sanford PD have lied to cover up something.

Think about that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Gee, how do we explain a cop saying all sorts of bad things about a defendant?

Did you know police always wait at least 24 hours before they question another police officer about a shooting? In fact, in some places, it is actually written into contracts, and it can go as high as 3 days. Do you know why they do that, or why attorneys always tell people not to talk to police, even if you know you are innocent?

I want to see the video of the interrogation before I pass judgement on what a cop says a defendant said during it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Your exact words are "The blood flow  is not  interrupted  by repeated bashing onto sidewalk..." I repeat my question, do you think blood stops if you hit a person more than once?


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

"His injures are consistent with trauma to the back of his head,"   Gilbreath said. "He mentioned that his head was being physically bashed   against the concrete sidewalk, and this was just prior to him firing  the  shot. *That is not consistent to the evidence that we found."*

Zimmerman apologizes, judge grants bond - wistv.com - Columbia, South Carolina |


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


And I repeat my reply:  You have a difficult time reading the actual words that are posted, don't you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I hope he does too, just so I will know you are an idiot.

What, exactly, do you expect to see from someone getting their head bounced off a sidewalk on a rainy night, stripes?


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

I STILL want to know what the heck this thing is about *TM circling Z's  truck*  - according to the story Zimmerman told police. 

???  What the hell?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Gilbreath also "*was asked what further evidence he had about a  confrontation  apart from the phone call and witnesses' statements: "We  have Mr.  Zimmerman's statement, we have the shell casing, and we have  the body,"  he said.
> ...
> When asked by the prosecuting attorney whether there was any  evidence   that suggests Zimmerman's original statement to police was  not true,   Gilbreith replied, "Yes.*"
> 
> Judge grants $150K bail for George Zimmerman - CBS News



Yet, despite your interpretation of the events, the judge granted bail. Do you have any idea how rare it is for a murder suspect to get a bail of $150,000?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Feel free to prove that Sanford PD never lies. You can start with the way they didn't try to cover up the fact that a cops son did this.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHGEam82GME]Cops Son Caught On Camera Punching Homeless Man - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Um, actually the paramedics do not have to take anyone with a head injury to the hospital without them declining especially with minor cases. It is not the only reason they do not take someone. You know how I know this? I have seen it. I call the paramedics often, I deal with them often. 
And why didn't he take himself to the hospital? Especially if he broke his nose? 
And I have no clue what you are even talking about when it comes to California. I ignore half of what you say anyways, stick to being Syrenn's toy. 

Also, the paramedics would take you to the hospital, they would wait for you to pass out from shock or loss of blood. They could also take you and prove that you were not fit at the time to form a rational decision due to shock from a severe injury.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Gilbreath also "*was asked what further evidence he had about a  confrontation  apart from the phone call and witnesses' statements: "We  have Mr.  Zimmerman's statement, we have the shell casing, and we have  the body,"  he said.
> ...


Yes.  The defense made a good case for him not being a flight risk, showed he was indigent, or at least of little means, they surrendered his passport, he has to wear an ankle bracelet, be monitored, no weapons, no alcohol and he has a curfew, and sworn testimony Z's parents and wife will insure Z return to court.  Good.  We don't have to feed him.

Zimmerman has a good attorney.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



What words am I not reading?

"The blood flow is not interrupted by repeated bashing onto sidewalk..." It was raining, unless it stopped between the time Martin had on a hoodie to stay dry and the time the arrived, and Zimmerman is bald. I wouldn't expect blood to stay on the back of a head in the first place, a shaved head makes it less likely, and the rain makes it even less likely. What, exactly, is the point you thought you were making? That it looks like Zimmerman washed his head in the rain?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> I STILL want to know what the heck this thing is about *TM circling Z's  truck*  - according to the story Zimmerman told police.
> 
> ???  What the hell?



You don't know what Zimmerman told police, all you know is what one cop says he told them.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Better be careful when you go down the road of: The Sanford Police are lying and covering up in this case.

Cause you know where that leads to next...


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> I STILL want to know what the heck this thing is about *TM circling Z's  truck*  - according to the story Zimmerman told police.
> 
> ???  What the hell?



Was he in the truck at the time?

I don't get that either???

QW will explain, he seems to be an expert. They all claim I am pretending to be an expert, but they sure know Zimmerman is innocent and Martin started it all. No witnesses to back up this claim, or that they were even on the pavement.


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



And we know this, how?


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > I STILL want to know what the heck this thing is about *TM circling Z's  truck*  - according to the story Zimmerman told police.
> ...


I know what the investigator said Zimmerman told the police that night.  That's a matter of record now.

Z said  *TM was circling Z's  truck.

*The investigator can't make that up, doofus.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > I STILL want to know what the heck this thing is about *TM circling Z's  truck*  - according to the story Zimmerman told police.
> ...


He would had to have been.

Yet nothing like that in the police call from Z about that.

Another strange Zimmerman inconsistency.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Really? You think paramedics who access a head injury where a guy says his head was pounded on the sidewalk will make a judgement call not to take the guy to the hospital? Do you have any idea how much money the city/county would be on the hook for if it turned out they were wrong?

Could the reason he didn't go to the hospital be that the fracking police arrested him and drug him down to the police station against his will? Was he supposed to escape from them and drive to the hospital?

I know you have no clue what I am talking about, you would need to be able to think beyond your little world where guns are bad and blacks are always innocent.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Anyone that can afford $150,000 ail is a flight risk when facing life in prison.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


No chance. Police can't risk the liability and humungous shit storm that would occur if he died while he was under interrogation.


Here's an example: Do you remember that actress, Natasha Richardson?  While skiing she bumped her head. She refused medical treatment  -  thought she was OK.  But not long after, she developed a epidural   hematoma and subsequently  died not long after.

That was just from a bunnyhill bump.  You don't mess with shit like  that, and *EMT's know they are liable if they clear a potential severe  head injury without proper treatment.*

EMT's treated him in a matter of minutes in the back of a police car, did field tests on him and *cleared him*.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

What I think is interesting, is what his girlfriend had to say. Plus the phone call took place five minutes before the police arrived. Don't you think if he was going to go after Zimmerman he would have hung up the phone? 


> "He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run."
> 
> Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.
> 
> ...


Trayvon Martin Arrest Now After ABC Reveals Crucial Phone Call - ABC News

Zimmerman's story just doesn't add up, but the right is so quick to believe him.. Why?? Because he isn't black?

Did Zimmerman plot to kill Martin, no...Should he do prison time, for sure. You can't act like a Cop because you need to compensate for something, and kill an innocent boy for no reason and get away with it. He put himself in that situation, he is the cause of it, and a kid is dead. It is due to Zimmerman's negligence that Martin is no longer alive.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Let me make my position perfectly clear, all cops lie.

Take it wherever you want.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Because Zimmerman was advised that the police would prefer he not chase him. 

Unless, of course, you want to insist that Zimmerman didn't follow him.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Actually, we don't.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



So, you agree with me, the reason the paramedics didn't take them to the hospital is he said he didn't want to go, because EMTs are not qualified to make medical decisions that will put the city/county on the hook for damages.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Is it your mission here to make yourself look like an idiot?

Cause you're doing a fine job if it is.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> What I think is interesting, is what his girlfriend had to say. Plus the phone call took place five minutes before the police arrived. Don't you think if he was going to go after Zimmerman he would have hung up the phone?
> 
> 
> > "He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run."
> ...



Actually, I don't believe him, I just don't believe the cops either. You prefer to let your racism make your decisions, I prefer to wait for all the facts to come out.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


He cannot refuse to go if it's serious enough, or there was proof he wasn't coherent.
  The police are taking him into custody and are responsible for him at that point.  If he dies because he was not treated on their watch it's shit city for the police.

No Refusal form was noted, all field tests would have to be administered  and passed -- and he was CLEARED <-- read that again *cleared by  EMS.*


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Because I don't beleive a cop will always tell the truth I look like an idiot?

Only if you think cops never lie. If you do, I will be glad to disillusion you, I can provide plenty of examples.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > What I think is interesting, is what his girlfriend had to say. Plus the phone call took place five minutes before the police arrived. Don't you think if he was going to go after Zimmerman he would have hung up the phone?
> ...



My racism towards who, you weirdo?


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


So now you think a cop lied and wrote in the report that Zimmerman said TM circled his vehicle, even though (in your mind) Zimmerman never said that?

Wow.  Stretching that tupid taffy all the way, arencha?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Wanna bet?



> A patient has the right to refuse any treatment, except as otherwise provided       by law.



Patient Bill of Rights - Medical Quality Assurance - Patient Bill of Rights

that means that the EMTs have to be able to prove to a judge that someone is incapable of making a decision, not that they clear him as able to make decisions.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Yourself.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Do you have a report where a cop said that? Or do you simply have a link to a video where a cop said that Zimmerman said that in response to a question?

Let me repeat, all cops lie.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

They cleared him. In a matter of minutes.  In the back of a squad car.  And they didn't even apply bandages.  

Guess what that tells me?


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Travon's girlfriend asked him to run and he said no, he would walk fast.  Zimmerman kept following him and Travon finally asked him why.

So your story is that Travon ran and then decided to come back and seek his stalker out?  Doesn't make sense.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



First off I asked why he didn't go to the hospital if he had a broken nose and head injury, never said the paramedics would declined his case. I stated they don't always take head injuries like you claimed. And even if he refused to go in ambulance, the Police are still obligated to take him if he asks. He could have also gone when he was released. 
And in my little world I stated in a thread today I was not against guns, and I have also seen bullet fragments be taken out of my brother's face after he was shot by a black kid. I don't think every black man is innocent, I just don't assume all are guilty, there is a difference. 
In my little world I have been arrested in a hospital bed while I was being treated for a broken nose and head injury. I also grew up with Uncles who were Cops, and neighbors who were Cops. So if you continue to say all Cops lie, I will continue to think you are a douche bag.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

- Investigator reveals that Zimmerman initially claimed Trayvon Martin was "circling his car."

Live: George Zimmerman Will Leave Jail [+Video]

That's part of police taped testimony by Zimmerman, bub.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Towards myself? Huh?

Do you have any idea what you are talking about now, because I sure don't.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



I don't think QW has any clue what he is saying now.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Every time I read a post by the Windbag, I don't think he knows what he's saying.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



He is a boy toy, he isn't expected to know much.


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



He was on the phone with his girlfriend until Zimmerman got out of his car and approached him then she said the phone was somehow dropped.  

She was a witness until that moment.  This self defense theory is Ludicrous.  So is the stand your ground theory in this case.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...


Even the guy wrote wrote the Florida law, and the Governor who signed the bill says so and agrees with you.


----------



## waltky (Apr 21, 2012)

Yea, just got the pic in my email...

... Granny says dat poor man got the tar beat outta him by day hoodied black teenager...

... no wonder George shot the lil' thug...

... clear case ofself-defense.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 21, 2012)

The witnesses tend to support Zimmerman, however.

Theory is great, but it's just theory. The evidence is all that matters in a courtroom.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

"I am Neighborhood Watch, why are you here?"

8 words that could have diffused the situation.  8 words. 

Not while that could have happened when TM was "circling his car."

I guess.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 21, 2012)

He didn't get a chance to say those words.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> The witnesses tend to support Zimmerman, however.
> 
> Theory is great, but it's just theory. The evidence is all that matters in a courtroom.


And there is a  witness who observed Zimmerman on top of Martin at the time the gun was fired.


----------



## syrenn (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> "I am Neighborhood Watch, why are you here?"
> 
> 8 words that could have diffused the situation.  8 words.
> 
> ...





What makes you think those 8 words would have diffused the situation?


----------



## OODA_Loop (Apr 21, 2012)

> *by Paperview:*
> He's not getting out on bail.
> 
> Mark it.



Marked as wrong.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> He didn't get a chance to say those words.


Too busy during that 4 minute phone call to police, eh?

And guess he couldn't say it when TM was "circling" his vehicle.

Or at any point from a little after 7PM to 7:16 on.

Poor fella.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

syrenn said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > "I am Neighborhood Watch, why are you here?"
> ...


What makes you think it wouldn't?

Obviously GZ identifying himself would have made a world of difference.

To most people, anyway.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

OODA_Loop said:


> > *by Paperview:*
> > He's not getting out on bail.
> >
> > Mark it.
> ...


Yup.  I was wrong. It's rare, but I was.

GZ has a damn good lawyer, and the judge is obviously sympathetic.  

Yay George!


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > He didn't get a chance to say those words.
> ...


 
He was walking towards Trayvon when Trayvon broke and ran.

So where was his chance?


----------



## syrenn (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...





You are the one who claims it would have diffused the situation and made a world of difference.  You have no idea what was said.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > > *by Paperview:*
> ...


 
It's not rare.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > > *by Paperview:*
> ...



Yes its a bad judge. Got it.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

...


----------



## syrenn (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...





You don't have to be committing a crime to look suspicious.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 21, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Anyone point out yet that this is a lie? On the 911 tape he says martin is in his late teens.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Apr 21, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Anyone point out yet that this is a lie? On the 911 tape he says martin is in his late teens.




What is the definitive age range for _a little bit younger than me _?


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 21, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Depending on where you live and this is a high crime area, it is best to assume everyone is armed.  If Trayvon Martin had not assumed Zimmerman was unarmed, he'd be alive today.


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 21, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Zimmerman implied that Travon might be in the process of committing a crime when he said these punks always get away.  Some people say he said something racist other than punks. 

He is really talking a lot and digging himself in deeper.  Corey is going to be all over him just with the stuff he's already said.  Apologizing to the family at the bail hearing for one.


----------



## Peach (Apr 21, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...


We will see, but he should be out in a day or so; many want to help HIM. And he is accepting donations I believe.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 21, 2012)

OODA_Loop said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone point out yet that this is a lie? On the 911 tape he says martin is in his late teens.
> ...



Two years.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Apr 21, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> ...



*If Trayvon wasn't a thug and he hadn't attacked GZ then he'd still be alive today. *


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 21, 2012)

Peach said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



He gets bail but he has to wear an ankle bracelet.  Which is fine, he doesn't seem to be a flight risk but he really should shut the hell up.  The things he is saying are stupid and make no sense.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 21, 2012)

Zimmerman is way too naive.  When Trayvon's parents complained that Zimmerman never even apologized for killing our son.  At least we deserve an apology.  He really believed them.   When a victim wants an apology it's only because they can then say the apology was self-serving and insincere.  Zimmerman walked right into that one.


----------



## Jackson (Apr 21, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Zimmerman is way too naive.  When Trayvon's parents complained that Zimmerman never even apologized for killing our son.  At least we deserve an apology.  He really believed them.   When a victim wants an apology it's only because they can then say the apology was self-serving and insincere.  Zimmerman walked right into that one.



That is true.  But the family cannot say they didn't get an apology, they just may use it against him, however.

No one answered the question I posed on another thread, so I'll try here.  It's a basic wquestion that is at the heart of the scenario that is bothering me.

What is the role of the Neighborhood Watch person?  Is there a written procedure for this person to follow?  My experience with Neighborhood watch persons was that they put a card in the window of their home that shows children they are a "safe house" to come to if they are in trouble or lost.

If they are also to report suspicious people in the neighborhood are they supposed to follow them, especially armed or just report it?  Is there a written protocol for their role?

If I was on the jury, that would important to know.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Apr 21, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> He is really talking a lot and digging himself in deeper.  Corey is going to be all over him just with the stuff he's already said.  Apologizing to the family at the bail hearing for one.



Lead invesigator testified under oath there wasn't evidence to indicate Zman's story didnt happen exactly as he recounted.


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 21, 2012)

OODA_Loop said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > He is really talking a lot and digging himself in deeper.  Corey is going to be all over him just with the stuff he's already said.  Apologizing to the family at the bail hearing for one.
> ...



That's all well and good but now he has opened the door, she can ask him anything she wants regarding his statements.  Legal acrobatics?  Maybe but what he did isn't some traffic citation.  He needs to stop with the lies.  Corey is very savvy and she can take him down paths that he won't know how to wiggle out of.


----------



## Emma (Apr 21, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> But you racists wanted to demonize the white guy (who is actually half Argentine and half Jewish).



A Jewish altar boy? And half Peruvian, btw.


----------



## Intense (Apr 21, 2012)

Jackson said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman is way too naive.  When Trayvon's parents complained that Zimmerman never even apologized for killing our son.  At least we deserve an apology.  He really believed them.   When a victim wants an apology it's only because they can then say the apology was self-serving and insincere.  Zimmerman walked right into that one.
> ...



It's been addressed. It's against the Neighborhood Watch guidelines to be Armed while Patrolling. It is not against the Law in his community.


----------



## Intense (Apr 21, 2012)

What is Neighborhood Watch?

In essence, Neighborhood Watch is a crime prevention program that stresses education and common sense (Stegenga 2000). It teaches citizens how to help themselves by identifying and reporting suspicious activity in their neighborhoods. In addition, it provides citizens with the opportunity to make their neighborhoods safer and improve the quality of life. Neighborhood Watch groups typically focus on observation and awareness as a means of preventing crime and employ strategies that range from simply promoting social interaction and "watching out for each other" to active patrols by groups of citizens (Yin, et al., 1976).

Most neighborhood crime prevention groups are organized around a block or a neighborhood and are started with assistance from a law enforcement agency. Volunteers who donate their time and resources are typically at the center of such programs, since many do not have a formal budget or source of funding. One study (Garofalo and McLeod, 1988) found that most Neighborhood Watches were located in areas that contained high percentages of single-family homes, little or no commercial establishments, and residents who had lived at their current address for more than five years. This study also found that most of the programs used street signs to show the presence of the program to potentially deter any would-be criminals.

All Neighborhood Watches share one foundational idea: that bringing community members together to reestablish control of their neighborhoods promotes an increased quality of life and reduces the crime rate in that area. As Rosenbaum (1988) put it ". . . if social disorganization is the problem and if traditional agents of social control no longer are performing adequately, we need to find alternative ways to strengthen informal social control and to restore a 'sense of neighborhood'". That's precisely what Neighborhood Watch strives to do. In fact, from the earliest attempts to deal with the neighborhood structure as it relates to crime (through the Chicago Area Project of the early 1900s), to modern attempts at neighborhood crime prevention, collective action by residents has proved one of the most effective strategies.

The reason for this effectiveness is rather simple: Involving community members in watch programs decreases opportunities for criminals to commit crime rather than attempting to change their behavior or motivation.

Today's Neighborhood Watch Program is an effective means of crime control and neighborhood cohesiveness. While not all of the programs in place today go by the same name, they all accomplish the same goal: to bring community members together to fight crime. As Minor aptly wrote, "Neighborhood is the key to maintaining successful relationships."

Deprecated Browser Error


----------



## Jackson (Apr 21, 2012)

Intense said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Thank you very much.  So, "Patrolling" I would say, that he was alright to go around looking for suspicious characters and following Martin was perhaps a little bit of a stretch, but not much depending how closely and long he followed him.  Obviously, Martin knew he was being followed so it was long enough to be noticed.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

OODA_Loop said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > He is really talking a lot and digging himself in deeper.  Corey is going to be all over him just with the stuff he's already said.  Apologizing to the family at the bail hearing for one.
> ...


Not true.  Not true at all. Not only did the lead homicide detective find Z's story inconsistent with the evidence and want to charge him, 

but the investigator that was under oath yesterday said:



> "Gilbreath also *was asked what further evidence he had about a  confrontation  apart from the phone call and witnesses' statements: "We  have Mr.  Zimmerman's statement, we have the shell casing, and we have  the body,"  he said.
> ...
> When asked by the prosecuting attorney whether there was any   evidence   that suggests Zimmerman's original statement to police was   not true,   Gilbreith replied, "Yes.*"



Judge grants $150K bail for George Zimmerman - CBS News


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Would you expect different testimony from a prosecution witness?  if the statement was anything different, he'd be a defense witness not a prosecution witness.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

I'm here to point out bullshit when I see it.

What OODa-loopy said was bullshit and I countered with facts.

That is all.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (Apr 21, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Zimmerman is way too naive.  When Trayvon's parents complained that Zimmerman never even apologized for killing our son.  At least we deserve an apology.  He really believed them.   When a victim wants an apology it's only because they can then say the apology was self-serving and insincere.  Zimmerman walked right into that one.



I was really annoyed at the Martins attorney's vile contemptuous remarks in the wake of the apology. It tells me that they are playing games. What do you expect from a mother that trademarked her son? She wants sensationalism.


----------



## Jackson (Apr 21, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman is way too naive.  When Trayvon's parents complained that Zimmerman never even apologized for killing our son.  At least we deserve an apology.  He really believed them.   When a victim wants an apology it's only because they can then say the apology was self-serving and insincere.  Zimmerman walked right into that one.
> ...



I think SHE walked into that one from the advice of Sharpton.  He should have kept his big nose out of it.


----------



## OtaniKitano (Apr 21, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > OtaniKitano said:
> ...



You are dismissing the fact that this is all HEARSAY until "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" in a court of law.  Reading this thread it seems that many would like to forego our legal system in lieu of what is reported by the press....Like I said, Neanderthals.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Jackson said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman is way too naive.  When Trayvon's parents complained that Zimmerman never even apologized for killing our son.  At least we deserve an apology.  He really believed them.   When a victim wants an apology it's only because they can then say the apology was self-serving and insincere.  Zimmerman walked right into that one.
> ...



Here you go:



*Sanford Police Department Neighborhood Watch Handbook
*


> You will add your eyes and ears to
> those of the Police Department which
> cannot be everywhere, all the time, by
> keeping a watchful eye and open ear to
> ...


^^^^ Emphasis THEIRS.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf

    In big bolded font the above words there  INSIST people are not to     "* get physically involved with any activity you report or       apprehen[d] of any suspicious persons."*

    They do that in not only one area of the NW Guidelines, *but twice.      
    In BOLD letters.*

    We KNOW Zimmerman was told by police this, as *Z was the one who     helped facilitate the NW meeting with the* *Sanford Police Chief*     for guidelines, and as* contact and Captain* would necessarily     need to be informed of the rules:

    Twin Lakes at Retreat news letter -*Sept 2011*:
*George Zimmerman's name listed as contact & that Chief Lee       was coming to next meeting:* RTL Newsletter September 2011 FINAL

*Feb 2012* Twin Lakes at Retreat news letter - *George       Zimmerman identified as Captain: *RTL February 2012 Newsletter

    SFP -meeting with residents after shooting - Relaying Zimmerman *was       acting as NW at the time of the shooting:* Sanford PD Meeting

In addition:



> In September, the Sanford police helped the Retreat start a     neighborhood watch program.
> 
> "Some residents called me wanting to do a startup," said Dorival, a       civilian police employee. About 30 people came to the clubhouse  for      that first session, she said. "Everyone was enthusiastic." *Zimmerman     volunteered to be captain.*
> 
> "I told them, this is not about being a vigilante police force,"     Dorival said.* "You're not even supposed to patrol on neighborhood     watch. And you're certainly not supposed to carry a gun.*"


 Trayvon Martin's killing shatters safety within Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford - Tampa Bay Times


----------



## manifold (Apr 21, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> ...





He didn't have time to check, he was too busy worrying about the fact that his head was being repeatedly bounced off the pavement.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 21, 2012)

Pull a gun on me and its on.  Just saying.


----------



## Jackson (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



That is what I am concerned about.  That was the beginning of trouble.  In civil suits, juries assign blame in percentages.  Zimmerman would be assigned blame for going outside the protocol for Neighborhood watch and the entire scenario escalated until an unarmend man was dead.  Good thing for Zimmerman this is not a civil suit.


----------



## manifold (Apr 21, 2012)

When Zimmerman gets acquitted and riots ensue, the blood will be on the hands of a completely reckless and irresponsible media.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

I think we can say to a near certainty,  that if Zimmerman had stay in the truck and not  followed Martin, Martin would have been home  by 7:15PM, in time to  settle down and watch the game with his  (soon-to-be)  little brother, and  the world would never know of the now  infamous, incarcerated, 911 calling, George Zimmerman.


----------



## manifold (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> I think we can say to a near certainty,  that if Zimmerman had stay in the truck and not  followed Martin, Martin would have been home  by 7:15PM, in time to  settle down and watch the game with his  (soon-to-be)  little brother, and  the world would never know of the now  infamous, incarcerated, 911 calling, George Zimmerman.



That doesn't make him guilty of 2nd degree murder.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Jackson said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Jackson said:
> ...


If Zimmerman is unable to be granted immunity under the SYG law, (where he will have to take the stand and be cross-examined by prosecutors) - then even if he is found not guilty by a jury, you can bet your ass there will be a civil suit against Z and the HOA.


----------



## Jackson (Apr 21, 2012)

manifold said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> ...



What was expected when Zimmerman was following him?  He turned and fought him.  We aren't sure of the details.  We will have to wait for all of the evidence.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

manifold said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > I think we can say to a near certainty,  that if Zimmerman had stay in the truck and not  followed Martin, Martin would have been home  by 7:15PM, in time to  settle down and watch the game with his  (soon-to-be)  little brother, and  the world would never know of the now  infamous, incarcerated, 911 calling, George Zimmerman.
> ...


All along, I've seen it as manslaughter.

Prosecutors often shoot high.  Oh well.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> I think we can say to a near certainty,  that if Zimmerman had stay in the truck and not  followed Martin, Martin would have been home  by 7:15PM, in time to  settle down and watch the game with his  (soon-to-be)  little brother, and  the world would never know of the now  infamous, incarcerated, 911 calling, George Zimmerman.



That is true.  If Zimmerman had not called attention to himself, Martin would never have attacked him and bashed his head into the sidewalk.


----------



## manifold (Apr 21, 2012)

Jackson said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...




Correct, we're not sure of all the details.  But the last couple of details released sure do support Zimmerman's story.


----------



## Jackson (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Jackson said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Yes, but at this juncture, that is the least of his worries!  Maybe not the HOA.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 21, 2012)

A jury's verdict makes him guilty or innocent.  I was wondering if Florida allows the judge to be the jury?  I'd probably feel better with a judge ruling over 12 inexperienced emotional jurors.


----------



## manifold (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Why?

If Martin attacked him and it was reasonable for him to fear for his life, how could you possibly come to the conclusion that he's guilty of manslaughter?  The fact that you think Zimmerman shouldn't have asked him what he was up to is only your opinion and not relevant to the criminal charge.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> A jury's verdict makes him guilty or innocent.  I was wondering if Florida allows the judge to be the jury?  I'd probably feel better with a judge ruling over 12 inexperienced emotional jurors.


Z can ask to not have a jury trial, but the prosecution and judge have to agree to it.


----------



## manifold (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > A jury's verdict makes him guilty or innocent.  I was wondering if Florida allows the judge to be the jury?  I'd probably feel better with a judge ruling over 12 inexperienced emotional jurors.
> ...



Are you sure about that?


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

manifold said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


It's the word "if" you start with. If.

My conclusion, with the (albeit slight) evidence I have seen and my analysis, leads me to different _if's_.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

manifold said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


Pretty sure, last I checked, that's the way it works.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 21, 2012)

eflatminor said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > *Whenever deadly force is used, someone should be held accountable for it.*
> ...



Please don't tell me you think that is a valid comparison.


----------



## manifold (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Such as?


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 21, 2012)

To me the aggressor was Zimmerman, armed with a gun.  Whatever happened after that is on him.  Placing all that occurred on Martin who was stalked seems unreasonable.


----------



## manifold (Apr 21, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> To me the aggressor was Zimmerman, armed with a gun.  Whatever happened after that is on him.  Placing all that occurred on Martin who was stalked seems unreasonable.



Based on what evidence?


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 21, 2012)

manifold said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



I understand it as paperview has explained.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 21, 2012)

manifold said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > To me the aggressor was Zimmerman, armed with a gun.  Whatever happened after that is on him.  Placing all that occurred on Martin who was stalked seems unreasonable.
> ...



Zimmerman's admission to the shooting, 911 call and timeline.


----------



## manifold (Apr 21, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



^When objectively considered, all points to self-defense.

And now layer in Zimmerman's bloody head and the gunpowder residue on Martin's shirt and it's a slam dunk.

Sucks for you to be so wrong, I just hope you don't riot (or apologize for those that do) once Zimmerman is rightly acquitted.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

manifold said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


EMS reports will tell the story.  Investigators have suggested it does not match the evidence. In addition, his first aid treatment was a matter of a mere few minutes in the back of a squad car.
And the gunpowder residue, shell casing, investigators have said it does not match the evidence.

We have yet to see those reports.

No slam dunk.


----------



## Jackson (Apr 21, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> To me the aggressor was Zimmerman, armed with a gun.  Whatever happened after that is on him.  Placing all that occurred on Martin who was stalked seems unreasonable.



I see where you are coming from but it really depends on the time involved.  I can see Martin turning and pouncing on Zimmerman in a fight or flight response to the stalking, but if Zimmerman was clearly retreating with time clearly indicating that, it's a different ball game.

That would mean that Martin had to go a distance to Zimmerman to attack him.  But it no way absolves Zimmerman from having a gun and patrolling if he wasn't supposed to be.

Too many questions we don't have the evidence for.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 21, 2012)

manifold said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Strawman.  Thanks for playing.


----------



## manifold (Apr 21, 2012)

Jackson said:


> But it no way absolves Zimmerman from having a gun and patrolling *if he wasn't supposed to be*.



He had a permit for the gun and it's his neighborhood.  There's no reasonable argument that he wasn't supposed to be there, or armed.


----------



## manifold (Apr 21, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Fail.

I've not represented your position in any way shape or form, let alone incorrectly.

Go look up what strawman means or continue to look the fool.


----------



## manifold (Apr 21, 2012)

manifold said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Questions a friend asked, that we have yet to see the answers to:

What are the autopsy results?
What are the toxicology results?  
What are the results of the blood spatter testing?
Was there gunshot residue on Trayvon's hands, body?
What are the results of the testing on zimmerman's clothing?  
What is the sworn testimony of each witness?  
What is the trajectory of the bullet?  
Were there fingerprints on the gun and who did they belong too?  
Was zimmerman's dna found under Trayvon's fingernails?
Did Trayvon sustain any defensive wounds?
What are the results of the FBI enhanced tapes?
Who was screaming "help?"
What does the EMT's report say?
Was blood found on the walkway, tree or electrical coverings in the grass?
What did zimmerman say in each of his three/five interviews?
Where exactly was zimmerman's truck parked.
In which direction was the truck pointed?


If you know the answers to these questions, please speak out, so we can all be sure the Special  Prosecutors arrested and charged a man who killed a teenager with no evidence to back it up.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

manifold said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


This one covers a good portion of it:



saveliberty said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



Oh, and the unanswered questions from above.


----------



## Jackson (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Questions a friend asked, that we have yet to see the answers to:
> 
> What are the autopsy results?
> What are the toxicology results?
> ...



These are all questions the prosecuters have answers to and decided to charge Zimmerman.  Until we hear the evidence all we can do is speculate and listen to the media and we know the media is right on top of things...right?

Guess we have to wait for the trial.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 21, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...


It seems to me in this case that Zimmerman himself was fighting a strawman, i.e. he saw a black kid and thought "criminal." It's just too bad someone had to die.


----------



## manifold (Apr 21, 2012)

Some people are so damned biased they can convince themselves of anything.

Yup, it's so much easier to believe that Zimmerman is a racist who shot an innocent black man, and then got high fives from the local, also racist police department, who swept the incident under the rug and didn't arrest him at the scene, than to believe it was simply a tragedy resulting from a situation that got out of hand.  You guys crack me up!


----------



## manifold (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



That doesn't cover any 'Ifs'

Try again.


----------



## manifold (Apr 21, 2012)

Ravi said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



In a neighborhood where black kids are not exactly rare, he just picked this time and this kid to act out his racist fantasies.  Yeah, that makes all the sense in the world.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 21, 2012)

manifold said:


> Some people are so damned biased they can convince themselves of anything.
> 
> Yup, it's so much easier to believe that Zimmerman is a racist who shot an innocent black man, and then got high fives from the local, also racist police department, who swept the incident under the rug and didn't arrest him at the scene, than to believe it was simply a tragedy resulting from a situation that got out of hand.  You guys crack me up!



If that was directed at me I didn't say he was racist.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 21, 2012)

OtaniKitano said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > We told you racists for weeks that Zimmerman was attacked, that he was yelling for help and that he had cuts to his head. But you racists wanted to demonize the white guy (who is actually half Argentine and half Jewish).
> ...



You fail to understand that you do not need to wait until you have received a serious wound before you can use deadly force to protect yourself.

Whether is failure is deliberate or due to a lack of means is up for your to decide.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Kind of goes along with wounds, that could be considered by scratch marks from someone who was on the ground fighting back.... PS head wounds bleed. And gun shots kill.


Sometime they do - but then, the right to arms is all about having the means to kill peiople if/when necessary.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 21, 2012)

They know it, they have no problem with Trayvon applying deadly force because someone may have followed him (then stopped) and questioned his presence in a gated community that has been suffering from a rash of serious crime.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 21, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Kind of goes along with wounds, that could be considered by scratch marks from someone who was on the ground fighting back.... PS head wounds bleed. And gun shots kill.
> ...


 
Head wounds kill as well.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> You guys keep making the argument he had the right to defend himself, what about the kids right to defend himself? Does the law not apply to him because A. He didn't have a gun? B. He is black?


Dumb + ass.

When you attack someone, you are the assailiant.,  One you become an assailant, your right to claim self-defende goes out the window.  The kid attacked Zimmerman.  End of story.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 21, 2012)

The democrat's desired result is starting to bear fruit.

Alton Hayes III | Suspect: I Beat Up White Man Because I Am Mad About Trayvon Martin Case

Maywood, Ill. - Alton L. Hayes III, a west suburban man charged with a hate crime, told police he was so upset about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida that he beat up a white man early Tuesday.

Hayes and a 15-year-old Chicago boy walked up behind the 19-year-old man victim and pinned his arms to his side, police said. Hayes, 18, then picked up a large tree branch, pointed it at the man and said, &#8220;Empty your pockets, white boy.&#8221;

The two allegedly rifled through the victim&#8217;s pockets, then threw him to the ground and punched him &#8220;numerous times&#8221; in the head and back before running away, police said. Hayes and the boy are black; the victim is white.

After being arrested, Hayes told police he was upset by the Trayvon Martin case and beat the man up because he was white


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Questions a friend asked, that we have yet to see the answers to:
> 
> What are the autopsy results?
> What are the toxicology results?
> ...


 
"No evidence to back it up" not only doesn't make sense, but it's incorrect if you mean what you appear to mean.
You don't know what evidence exists. There are pictures of the head wounds that you had no idea existed until the last day or so...who knows what else there is.

Who knows what else is out there.


----------



## manifold (Apr 21, 2012)

The next shred of evidence released that contradicts Zimmerman's account of the incident will be the first.

Sucks to be a race baiter I guess.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Questions a friend asked, that we have yet to see the answers to:
> ...


EMS records trump pictures by an anonymous bystander any day of the week.

Try again, skunky.


----------



## Peach (Apr 21, 2012)

CHARGED: 2nd degree murder, probable cause affidavit accepted, arraignment May 29th. Bond: $150,000.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

manifold said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


If you don't like my reply, that's on you, not me.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


 
The bystanders aren't anonymous to the police, you moron.

They're anonymous to YOU.


----------



## Peach (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Those charges kind of kill the "no evidence" claim.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 21, 2012)

Peach said:


> CHARGED: 2nd degree murder, probable cause affidavit accepted, arraignment May 29th. Bond: $150,000.


 
So?


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 21, 2012)

And that bond shows the Court doesn't consider him a threat.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

Peach said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



How ?


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > You guys keep making the argument he had the right to defend himself, what about the kids right to defend himself? Does the law not apply to him because A. He didn't have a gun? B. He is black?
> ...


That's only because you believe Zimmerman's story.

Some of us don't, and prosecutors have said his story does not match the evidence.

And only two people know the exact story of how it went down.

This is more than  a he said/he said.

This is he said/he's dead.

The evidence that remains is what will allow us to deduce as best we can of exactly how it went down.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


Have you establihed the chain of custody of the picture?

Nope.  

Who's the moron? 

And no matter any pictures - EMR report trumps 'em. 

Fack-a-toid.


----------



## Peach (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



IF the SA charged with NO EVIDENCE to support anything but self defense, she might be sanctioned.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

Peach said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



JustOneMinute: Zimmerman Bond Hearing - Media Reaction


----------



## Liability (Apr 21, 2012)

Peach said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Why would he have to be admitted to the Florida Bar in order to question the propriety of the Special Prosecutor's behavior?


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> And that bond shows the Court doesn't consider him a threat.



Not exactly accurate.  The court doesn't consider him a flight risk.   No court would consider a defendant a threat without any credible evidence that the defendant presents a threat.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 21, 2012)

When did the prosecutors say his story doesn't match the evidence?

Link and quote, please.


----------



## manifold (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I like your thinly veiled concession very much.

Not sure why you think I wouldn't.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Peach said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...


Gov. Scott, tea party favorite, seems to think she has the evidence to back up the charges.

Go figger.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

manifold said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


Good. Nice to see you concede to my superior logic.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



and the link is where ?


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

A no-nothing bit of information I'm just adding here:


> SANFORD --
> The state attorney who originally handled the George Zimmerman case will not seek re-election.
> 
> Norm Wolfinger, the long-time state attorney for Brevard and Seminole counties, made the announcement Friday.
> ...


http://www.cfnews13.com/content/new...icles/cfn/2012/4/20/george_zimmerman_sta.html
http://www.cfnews13.com/content/new...icles/cfn/2012/4/20/george_zimmerman_sta.html


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...


Geeze. Do I have to do ~everything~ for you guys?

Hold up.  I'll get it.  <<<again>>>>


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Here: *Gov. Scott, in West Palm Beach, says Trayvon's family deserves justice*



> WEST PALM BEACH &#8212; Gov. Rick Scott got a reminder of the worldwide   impact of the shooting death of Trayvon Martin at an international   business conference here today.
> <snip>
> *Scott told the crowd at the Palm Beach  County Convention Center that  he had met with Martin's parents and "my  commitment to them was that  justice will prevail." *
> 
> ...


Gov. Scott, in West Palm Beach, says Trayvon's family deserves justice


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Here: *Gov. Scott, in West Palm Beach, says Trayvon's family deserves justice*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A bit self serving to give props to the person that he appointed to handle the case, don't you think. Bring on your evidence, Angela. Let's see what you got.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...


No reason not to, at this point.



> Some of us don't


Of course not - for some of you, when a back guy is killed by someone that's not black, the benefit of the doubt goes to the dead guy; when a black guy is killed by another black guy, you don't care.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Here: *Gov. Scott, in West Palm Beach, says Trayvon's family deserves justice*
> ...


You asked for a link.  There it is.

He is not required to make strong statements like that, is he?  Nope.  Yet he made them.

Deal with it.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

I'll also add, the rep who wrote the Florida SYG law, and the Governor who signed it into law, Jeb Bush, think it was never meant to be used in the way it is being used, re: Zimmerman.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...


You don't know diddly squat about me, so don't even try, tomatohead.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 21, 2012)

Ravi said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > George Zimmerman sorry for Trayvon Martin death as bail set at $150,000 | World news | guardian.co.uk
> ...



Repeatedly. There is none so blind as s/h/it who will not see.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Hope your vision improves quickly. I'll put you on my prayer list.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


He even called him a *kid* in the police phone call. 

A *kid.*  And he was close enough he was able to see a button he was wearing.

And Z said TM *circled* his vehicle.  (Funny he never mentioned that to the police during the call) - so he was purt darn near close to him, yet he thought he was older -- on the stand, that is.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> I'll also add, the rep who wrote the Florida SYG law, and the Governor who signed it into law, Jeb Bush, think it was never meant to be used in the way it is being used, re: Zimmerman.



Is Zimmerman using the SYG law in his defense ?


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > I'll also add, the rep who wrote the Florida SYG law, and the Governor who signed it into law, Jeb Bush, think it was never meant to be used in the way it is being used, re: Zimmerman.
> ...


It's the reason Sanford Police said they couldn't arrest him, amiright?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > You guys keep making the argument he had the right to defend himself, what about the kids right to defend himself? Does the law not apply to him because A. He didn't have a gun? B. He is black?
> ...



Where is the witness that backs up Zimmerman claim Martin first attacked him?


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Well he's arrested now. I thought he was going with self defense.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > M14 Shooter said:
> ...



We don't? The media sure has made a big deal about Michael Jackson dying. THey think a black man killed him.


----------



## BDBoop (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Rubber, yada-yada glue blah-blah and etc. Rush taught you well.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> When did the prosecutors say his story doesn't match the evidence?
> 
> Link and quote, please.



Not exactly her saying it doesn't match the evidence. But it shows she doesn't believe the whole story.



> An affidavit made public by special prosecutor Angela Corey said her investigators determined Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer in a gated community in Sanford, Fla., was the one who pursued and confronted Martin.
> 
> It said Zimmerman was on the phone with a 911 dispatcher on the night of Feb. 26, just minutes before the confrontation. The dispatcher told him not to chase after the teen.
> 
> Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home, the document said. Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.





> That account contradicts what Zimmermans family has said publicly. Zimmermans brother and father have said Zimmerman was walking back to his vehicle when Martin came up from behind and attacked him.


Prosecutor Doesn&#8217;t Buy George Zimmerman&#8217;s Story | TPMMuckraker

If you don't like the source, I have seen the quote on a few sites.


----------



## rdean (Apr 21, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> We told you racists for weeks that Zimmerman was attacked, that he was yelling for help and that he had cuts to his head. But you racists wanted to demonize the white guy (who is actually half Argentine and half Jewish).
> 
> Ya'll wanted to make this about the poor black guy. Poor black guy can't even thug w/o someone daring to ask what he's up to. Screw ya'll. This is what Trayvon Martin is about and this is why he got popped.
> 
> ...








Do these pictures match?

What I'm trying to figure out is how all this blood is going to the left on the left side and going to the right on the right side.  It defy's gravity.  

Check out this one:






See the blood going straight down.  That looks real to me.  

And look at this one.  Two trails of blood, both going straight down:











Again, blood going straight down.  And this took 5 stitches to close up.

And on Zimmerman, with all that bleeding, there's like 15 trails of blood that all "artfully" stopped after about two inches?  

And who took the picture?  

Seems there are interesting questions ahead.  Can't wait for the answers.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


He would have a much better chance under the SYG defense. 

I'm pretty sure lawyers have said he will use it.

Course that means he'll have to take the stand, and be cross examined. 

Which should be...velly velly intellesting.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

The girlfriend's testimony also says Zimmerman was the one who continued to follow Martin and pursue him, not the other way around. Didn't she testify for the prosecution? I would say that is the witness that doesn't back up Zimmerman's claim.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



never heard of him


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> The girlfriend's testimony also says Zimmerman was the one who continued to follow Martin and pursue him, not the other way around. Didn't she testify for the prosecution? I would say that is the witness that doesn't back up Zimmerman's claim.



She wasn't there.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 21, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Fighting back in a fight you initiated involves proportional force. Using a gun goes far beyond that. And considering that the police arrived almost seconds after Martin had died, it was completely un-necessary.



*Florida Statutes 776.041 - Use of force by aggressor.* - The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

- (a)&#8195;Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

- (b)&#8195;In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

rdean said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > We told you racists for weeks that Zimmerman was attacked, that he was yelling for help and that he had cuts to his head. But you racists wanted to demonize the white guy (who is actually half Argentine and half Jewish).
> ...


No doubt.  Something very hinky about that picture.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > The girlfriend's testimony also says Zimmerman was the one who continued to follow Martin and pursue him, not the other way around. Didn't she testify for the prosecution? I would say that is the witness that doesn't back up Zimmerman's claim.
> ...


She's still a witness, and can take the stand and testify as to what she heard.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


Actually, if he uses SYG the judge can rule on it before any trial. If the judge agrees SYG applies, the case will get thrown out.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



I'll be anxious to hear her explain how she heard where people were.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


Yes, I know.  What I am referring to is the immunity hearing. 
He would have to take the stand there.

A prosecutors dream to cross-exam.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Yep. Now we can add to known facts about Zimmerman: He's not above lying to make himself look better.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


Okay. I don't actually know how it works, the immunity hearing.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



knowing someone is in their late teens is NOT the same as knowing his age. Nice try, Ravi.


----------



## Peach (Apr 21, 2012)

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


He is a Defendant in a criminal case; we know not whether his statements are true or not.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Here's some kibbles and bits:

*George Zimmerman Expected To Take The Stand In Trayvon Martin Murder Case*



> (MSNBC)- If George Zimmerman, the killer of Trayvon Martin, wants  to  claim self-defense under Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, he most   certainly will have to testify, criminal defense attorneys in Florida   told msnbc.com.
> 
> It is rare in criminal cases for defendants to be called to testify   because they have a right against self-incrimination and it opens them   up to sharp questions from prosecutors.
> 
> *But Zimmerman, charged with second-degree murder in the fatal   shooting of Martin during a scuffle in a gated Sanford, Fla., community   on Feb. 26, will need to explain why he thought his life was in danger   when he shot the unarmed black teenager, attorneys not involved with  the  case say.*





> *"There is no way around it*," Derek Byrd, incoming  president of the  Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, told  msnbc.com. "I  personally believe he would have to testify. *It's not  like a case where  there were three other witnesses. Who else is going  to say he was  fearing for his safety when he shot Trayvon Martin*?


"George Zimmerman Expected To Take The Stand In Trayvon Martin Mu - kcentv.com - KCEN HD - Waco, Temple, and Killeen


----------



## Ravi (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Maybe, but that is just opinion. I was under the impression that a judge can simply review the facts of the case and make a ruling.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



He's charged with 2nd degree murder. He may just see if the proscution can make a case for that. If they can't even come close he can plea not guilty.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



She testified to Martin saying Zimmerman came back, not the other way around. I guess Martin told her. The dropped call was five minutes before the Police go there. How long do you think it would take for Martin to circle back around, attack Zimmerman, and for the Police to get there? 

You guys are sure quick to believe Zimmerman who is the only one saying Martin came after him, while there is actually a witness to back up that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin. Zimmerman has a history of assault, Martin does not. 
I am still trying to figure out why you  guys are quick to accept Zimmerman's account without witnesses, but not Martin's who's girlfriend has testified to Martin saying Zimmerman was the one who actually followed him. 

Tell Me dildo, why do you believe Zimmerman over Martin and Martin's girlfriend?


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


That's not what they are going to ask her.

She cannot testify to that portion.

She can testify as to what she heard only.  She cannot even say she "heard Zimmerman."

She can say she heard an unidentified man say "...." and what she directly heard of Trayvon's words.  That's it.

Phone records will be produced to show she was on the phone with the victim when the incident occurred. There will even be experts to testify as to the authenticity and validity of the phone records.

That is, if it makes it to trial.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

And don't say there is a witness to him attacking Zimmerman, none of those witnesses saw Martin follow Zimmerman or start the attack. Plus there is no witness that places the men on the pavement, only the grass.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 21, 2012)

Peach said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > And it's not "Freely flowing", it's mostly dried up.
> ...



Photo or no photo, the original police report noted that Zimmerman was bleeding from his head and his nose.  All of the evidence so far supports Zimmerman's account of what happened and the case against Zimmerman is supported only by the groundless belief that Martin was victimized because he was black.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


Actually, the call was dropped just one minute before he shot Trayvon.  

Her call to him started at 7:12.  Records show they were on the phone 4 minutes. 7:16PM.

(now there *could* be some cushion in the seconds, if it was rounded up to the nearest minute, (likely), but the actual internal records of the cell log should show the exact second when it was cut off.)


----------



## Ravi (Apr 21, 2012)

On further review, I see the attorneys for both sides can present their cases before the judge. I don't see anything that compels the defendant to testify. Not that there isn't, I just can't find it.


----------



## Misty (Apr 21, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> I'm still going with my original question.



What would you do if your head was being bashed into the concrete?  Lie there and take it until your skull broke open?

I fault Zimmerman for involving himself with Trayvon beyond a 9-11 call. He should have made the call and gone home. 

And he should keep his gun at home.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

Misty said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still going with my original question.
> ...



According to Martin's defenders, Zimmerman should not have fought back until he was dead and should have only been able to hit Martin's head on concrete because any other method would be unfair.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Is one minute time for Martin to circle back around as Zimmerman claimed, circle his truck, and then attack Zimmerman? 

I think Zimmerman tried to hold Martin because those punks always get away, Martin fought back which is his right to since he was being held against his will. Martin got the upper hand at some point after being attacked by Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shot him because he was the idiot who went after and started an altercation with an innocent man.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



One minute can last hours in situations like that and the only person so far that can testify only has hearsay evidence via Martin over a cell phone.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

I'll add this *if* -- IF records show the call ended at exactly 7:16, then I present a scenario where it was literally only 11 seconds before someone called 911 to report the confrontation.  Even if it was 7:15:30PM, we are still not talking a very long time.  41 seconds.

As I posted earlier:

His girlfriends call to his phone and the timeline is important.
  It bugs me.

So just laying this out here.  For now, and for later.  I think we'll be  seeing something more about something I keyed in on earlier.

We know the girlfriend place a call at *7:12.* [Rounded up or down? Don't know]
Zimmerman's call to police ended *7:13:41*

Phone records show the g/f's call ended at *7:16 p.m*.  <-- Phone records  obtained by Huff Post/ABC.  Trayvon Martin Case Spotlights Florida Town's History Of 'Sloppy' Police Work
[Up/down rounding again. ??]

*---> The first witness 911 call comes in at 7:16:11 p.m.*

  That's the one where in the background you can hear the  struggle and then the sound of the pistol being fired.

 The exact time of shot:* -->7:16:56* 

First call to police with timing synched:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a58plIcrdo]Trayvon Martin Case 911 Calls Time Stamped part 1 (placed before gunshot) - YouTube[/ame] 

 Here&#8217;s Zimmerman&#8217;s call to police with proper timing synced:

 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BI03-MRKnI]George Zimmerman Police Call w. Time Stamps and Notes - YouTube[/ame] 

Police arrive 7:17.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


Who can testify that Martin came back and attacked Zimmerman? Like I said there is only a witness saying Martin was on top of Zimmerman, no one to back up Zimmermans claim that Martin came back after him.


----------



## gallantwarrior (Apr 21, 2012)

zzzz said:


> Prosecutors are not elected for justice. They are elected to put people in prison or get them to plead guilty to a charge. In this case, the prosecutor had to charge Zim to settle the lynch mob down. If it would have went to a grand jury there was a possibility that there would have been no indictment although most grand juries are just rubber stamps for prosecutors.
> 
> The blood shows there was a struggle and according to the law that is enough to dismiss the charges as will be argued in the preliminary hearing on dismissing the charges. I do not see this ever getting to a jury. However the Justice department may try a federal avenue.



Considering the lengths to which this case has been taken in order to "settle the lynch mob down", I wonder how much further the so-called justice system will go to keep that mob settled down.  Is there any sane being who honestly believes at this point that Zimmerman will get a fair hearing?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

So if you go off of what Martin's girlfriend is saying, when did Martin come back after Zimmerman after Zimmerman first talked to Martin? Did Zimmerman retreat after asking Martin what he was doing there?


----------



## mudwhistle (Apr 21, 2012)

Sallow said:


> And it's not "Freely flowing", it's mostly dried up.



Dried up blood is almost black.

Freely flowing blood is red.


----------



## Liability (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Misty said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...




Or, wait until his brains were leaking out of the crack in his skull, then scoop them up and choke Martin with them.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Ravi said:


> On further review, I see the attorneys for both sides can present their cases before the judge. I don't see anything that compels the defendant to testify. Not that there isn't, I just can't find it.


I don't see how he can claim he feared for his life, or great bodily harm, when *he* is the only one who can testify to that.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

I'd pretty sure he's  pleading not guilty no matter what.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > On further review, I see the attorneys for both sides can present their cases before the judge. I don't see anything that compels the defendant to testify. Not that there isn't, I just can't find it.
> ...



and conversly we have heard zero evidence or even rumors of evidence to warrant a 2nd degree murder charge.


----------



## Liability (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > On further review, I see the attorneys for both sides can present their cases before the judge. I don't see anything that compels the defendant to testify. Not that there isn't, I just can't find it.
> ...



You don't see how he can make the claim just because he survived what he says was the attack on him -- an attack for which there now appears to BE some actual physical, photographic, maybe medical and possibly forensic evidence?

Hm.

I fail to see how that constitutes a problem for him.


----------



## Liability (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



True dat.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Again, I repeat what I posted earlier:

Have you seen the autopsy results?
 Have you seen the toxicology results? 
 Have you seen the results of the blood spatter testing?
 Have you seen the gunshot residue on Trayvon's hands, body?
 Have you seen the results of the testing on zimmerman's clothing? 
 Have you seen the sworn testimony of each witness? 
 Have you seen the trajectory of the bullet? 
 Have you seen fingerprint report on the gun and who they belonged too? 
 Have you seen if Zimmerman's DNA  was found under Trayvon's fingernails?
 Do you know if Trayvon sustained any defensive wounds?
 Have you seen the results of the FBI enhanced tapes?
 Do you know who was screaming "help?"
 Have you seen the EMT's report?
 Do you know if blood was found on the walkway, tree or electrical coverings in the grass?
 Do you know what Zimmerman said in each of his three/five interviews?
 Have you seen exactly where Zimmerman's truck was parked?
 Do you know in which direction was the truck pointed?

Do you know the answers to any these questions? (here, I'll help you out) *NO.*

 If you DO know the answers to these questions, please speak out, so we can  all be sure the Special Prosecutors arrested and charged a man who  killed a teenager with "zero" evidence to back it up.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I clearly said 





> we have* heard *zero evidence or even rumors of evidence to warrant a 2nd degree murder charge


----------



## Ravi (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > On further review, I see the attorneys for both sides can present their cases before the judge. I don't see anything that compels the defendant to testify. Not that there isn't, I just can't find it.
> ...



Yeah, he'd look pretty stupid if he wouldn't answer questions.

Is this where I'm supposed to start posting IN CAPS AND CALL YOU A MORON or an OBAMABOT so I don't have to admit you are probably RIGHT???

Or, maybe I'll just neg Dillo.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



A hoodie is sort of a hat, Ravi. Got one in your closet?


----------



## Ravi (Apr 21, 2012)

It looks superficial, not a wound produced by someone's head being repeatedly bashed against concrete.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 21, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> The democrat's desired result is starting to bear fruit.
> 
> Alton Hayes III | Suspect: I Beat Up White Man Because I Am Mad About Trayvon Martin Case
> 
> ...



Whitie's fault!


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


Word has it you have a permanent _hat on._


;p


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



really ?---I never get to hear those rumors. Such brave people


----------



## whitehall (Apr 21, 2012)

I think Rodney King apologized in a way. The words "can't we all get along" have become a source for jokes but they were intended to stop the rioting that took the lives of about 55 people. What's going to happen if Zimmerman gets acquitted? Will the OWS rabble join with the new panthers and try a little anarchy like Bill Ayers and his weatherscum rabble tried forty years ago?


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

Ravi said:


> It looks superficial, not a wound produced by someone's head being repeatedly bashed against concrete.



C'mere Ravi----I wanna try an experiment on you.


----------



## Liability (Apr 21, 2012)

Ravi said:


> It looks superficial, not a wound produced by someone's head being repeatedly bashed against concrete.



Trained forensic photograph and medical examiner Ravi has spoken.

Back here in the real world, that particular image, standing alone, neither does look like adequate proof nor does it fail, on its own, to qualify as solid evidence.

What it DOES do is this:  it serves (minimally) as corroboration that something violent was happening to Zimmerman.  It serves as contemporaneous evidence suggesting that he wasn't merely making shit up after the shooting.  In short, it bolsters his case.  

"Bolstering his case," at this juncture, does NOT mean the same thing as sufficing as adequate proof of legal "justification."   What it means is that there is now available and publicly disseminated evidence tending to support what he maintained from the outset.

Those are not inconsequential points for him.  Yesterday's news, on balance, was indeed good new for the defense.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


It was a joke, hardon.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

manifold said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > I think Rodney King apologized in a way. The words *"can't we all get along"* have become a source for jokes but they were intended to stop the rioting that took the lives of about 55 people. What's going to happen if Zimmerman gets acquitted? Will the OWS rabble join with the new panthers and try a little anarchy like Bill Ayers and his weatherscum rabble tried forty years ago?
> ...


Nope.  Rodney King.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sONfxPCTU0]Can We All Just Get Along? For The Kids & Old People? RODNEY KING SPEAKS! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## manifold (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...



yeah, I immediately had second thoughts after posting, and upon doing my own research I deleted.


----------



## old navy (Apr 21, 2012)

Ravi said:


> It looks superficial, not a wound produced by someone's head being repeatedly bashed against concrete.



You are wrong. 

In 30 plus years of treating wounds of all types, I see wounds on ZMan that could be caused by the head being bashed against concrete. If someone sucker-punched me and commenced to dribble my cranium on the sidewalk, I would put hollowpoints center of mass.

I am anxious to see the postmortum report which hopefully will describe the angle of entry of the bullet and distance of the shooter, etc.

I bet the jury will be interested in that as well.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 21, 2012)

Ravi said:


> It looks superficial, not a wound produced by someone's head being repeatedly bashed against concrete.



Silly.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

EMS report will trump photo any day of the week.

Prosecutors *have *seen that.


----------



## Liability (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> EMS report will trump photo any day of the week.
> 
> Prosecutors *have *seen that.



Reports may not trump photographs.

The reports MIGHT add some light or they might cause some smoke.  Combine them with actual medical records, maybe an x-ray (who knows) and you may end up with something.

And just because the special prosecutor saw a report from some EMT (assuming she did), does not mean that she took it properly into account, either.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 21, 2012)

The only question will be does the evidence and the eyewitness testimony support GZ's case or dispute it. If they cannot prove that the incident went down in a way otyher than what GZ said, he walks. The blood on the back of his head supports his story. It doesn't have to be severe, it only has to show that Zimmerman and the eyewitnesses were being truthful.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 21, 2012)

I have heard, in the past few days, several other lawyers (other than Dershowitz) complaining about the affadavit, and saying that the Prosecutor failed miserably. There is no way that she will get a 2nd degree murder charge to stick.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Peach said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > And it's not "Freely flowing", it's mostly dried up.
> ...


I'm pretty sure that's not the case.

The father was not there the night of the incident, afaik.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Liability said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > EMS report will trump photo any day of the week.
> ...


Yes, reports by trained medical professionals DO trump images that were not taken by police.

Do you know the chain of custody of the photo in question?

I'm going to make a bold leap and say: NO.

Dunk, slammed.


----------



## Liability (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



NO.  They don't.  You are making shit up without ANY shred of proper factual underpinning.

There is no such "rule."  

Indeed, if the jury were to credit the photograph (without caring about who took the picture) and if, upon a good cross examination, the jury discredited to some extent the adequacy of the EMTs' factual reporting, the fact is, the jury could reject the EMT report in its entirety if they felt that justice called for that result.

And yes.  In fact, we DO know something about the image.  We know it was taken on a cell phone camera.  We know it came embedded with information about the image including the "when it was taken" component.  We know it was taken three minutes from when we know the gun was shot.

You went for a slam dunk and missed the hoop.


----------



## Peach (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



It was released by him or so I read.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 21, 2012)

old navy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > It looks superficial, not a wound produced by someone's head being repeatedly bashed against concrete.
> ...



Absolutely - Getting your nose busted & head bashed on concrete will usually knock you out before it causes a gash.

During the bail hearing the investigator said that the gunshot left powder burns on Martins hoody that were visible to the naked eye at night while they were performing CPR on him. He also said there was stippling on Martin's skin. That means the gun was about 6" away.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 21, 2012)

Liability said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



She couldn't slam dunk a donut into a swimming pool of coffee.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Liability said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


Ok, pumpernickel, we'll go with your suggestion the jury will disregard the EMS report (and the pictures police no doubt have taken - if they didn't more incompetence from the SPD)  --and go with an low resolution image with chain of custody issues.

Whatever you say, scrapheap.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Peach said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...


No.  His father said at the Bond hearing he only saw the image through the media.

His father *did* testify he saw his son the next day, and saw two *vertical* wounds on the back of Z' head.


----------



## Peach (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Thanks, I guess the EMT report will carry more weight since there was no hospitalization the night of the killing.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 21, 2012)

The photo is admissible. It was taken by a witness who heard the scuffle. The photos encrypted GPS data proves it was taken by the witness 3 minutes after the shooting at the location of the scuffle. "The person who took the photograph of a bloodied Zimmerman, asking not to be identified, told ABC News exclusively that they did not see the scuffle that night, but did hear it. The person recalled seeing Martin's prostrate body on the wet grass and said the gunpowder burns on Martin's gray hoodie were clearly visible."


----------



## manifold (Apr 21, 2012)

Ravi said:


> It looks superficial, not a wound produced by someone's head being repeatedly bashed against concrete.



How many times have you seen a head that was repeatedly bashed against the concrete?


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

KissMy said:


> old navy said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Here is the transcript: George Zimmerman Bond Hearing (Transcript) «

Maybe you can show us where he said that.  

Search for 

gunshot
powder
burns
CPR
visible
naked
hoodie
stippling
skin

NOT FOUND


----------



## Ravi (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> EMS report will trump photo any day of the week.
> 
> Prosecutors *have *seen that.


Yeah, but this is a picture from an anonymous person that shared it with the media instead of the police! If Martin was banging Zimmerman's head on concrete he sure wasn't trying very hard if that is real evidence.


----------



## Peach (Apr 21, 2012)

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > EMS report will trump photo any day of the week.
> ...



I see one cut, some blood, that is it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> They cleared him. In a matter of minutes.  In the back of a squad car.  And they didn't even apply bandages.
> 
> Guess what that tells me?



That you are clear to jump to conclusions?

The NFL used to clear people with minor bumps on their head to go back to the game pretty quick, now they need to be evaluated by a doctor every single time because they have learned that concussions are a lot easier to miss than anyone knew. It will take a while for civilian medicine to catch up, in the meantime cops will cheerfully interview people with mild concussions, and use their confusion against them later.

After all, innocent people are never confused.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



I don't have a story, I just repeat the stories of others, just like you. Unlike you, I actually know I am just repeating stories.


----------



## old navy (Apr 21, 2012)

Peach said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



What about the soft tissue trauma that probably caused contusions below the epidermis?

We don't see that either but if Z'man's story is true, he had contusions as well as the bleeding open wounds.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



He didn't go to the hospital because he was in police custody. being that he thought he was innocent, and that he is stupid enough to actually believe police when they say they only want to clear him, he actually cooperated with them, even though the on scene investigator wanted to file charges. 

Funny how you are willing to assume that Zimmerman is guilty while trying to claim you don't assume every black kid is innocent. Your racism is showing again. The only reason you think Zimmerman is guilty is you don't like his skin color. If he was black and had shot a white kid, you would be demanding the police let him go. 

Me, I prefer to be honest, and wait for the facts. The ones that we know tell me that Zimmerman is not guilty of murder, and until someone comes up with some more facts, I will wait.

Funny thing, I can point to at least on DA who, knowing everything the police know, and listening to the same cop who testified on the stand, decided not to charge Zimmerman. All you can point to is your bias, and the political aspirations of a woman who doesn't care about facts.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > old navy said:
> ...



Your transcript is not complete.



> D = Defense / P = Prosecution
> 
> D - Do you have any evidence that supports who started the fight?
> 
> ...


----------



## Zoom (Apr 21, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Zoom said:
> 
> 
> > An armed man approached someone after following him.  *Martin should have killed Zimmerman* and used the stand your ground law.
> ...



Who approached who?  When you answer that, you will answer who starting that fight.  He knew he was armed and started a fight and shot a kid.

He wins?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> - Investigator reveals that Zimmerman initially claimed Trayvon Martin was "circling his car."
> 
> Live: George Zimmerman Will Leave Jail [+Video]
> 
> That's part of police taped testimony by Zimmerman, bub.



Is it? Why do you assume the interview was taped?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Yep.

You feel guilty every time you see a black kid who scares you, so you hate yourself.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Yep, Zimmerman walked up to Martin and attacked him with the back of his head. 

Funny thing, the only people I see who mention stand your ground are the idiots who think Zimmerman is guilty. I have repeatedly pointed out that, even without stand your ground, Zimmerman had a right to defend himself if Martin was on top of him and he couldn't get away. That applies in every single state in this country.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > The witnesses tend to support Zimmerman, however.
> ...



Another one of your invisible witnesses that the prosecution can't find?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



So?


----------



## Ariux (Apr 21, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> He goes on to say that the Prosecutor may be in hot water.



The reason for the prosecution of Zimmerman is 100% political.  The dumb **** Prosecutor is only thinking about re-election.

The Probably Cause affidavit is a joke.  It claims that [non-racist] Zimmerman profiled Trayvon, then chased him down while he [6'3" athletic Trayvon] was running home, and then shot him out of malice [definition of murder].   However, none of the evidence presented by the affidavit supports that position.  And, the evidence we have contradicts that position.

From the affidavit, we are told that the autopsy shows that Trayvon was shot in the chest, that his mom claims the screaming on the 911 tape was Trayvon, and that Zimmerman referred to Trayvon as a f-ing punk.  No mention of the time line.  No mention of Zimmerman's wounds.  No mention of what the witnesses said.  No mention that it was purely suspicious BEHAVIOR that Zimmerman pointed to on the 911 tape for the reason for the call.  No mention that no one reported Trayvon running toward home.  No mention that it really sounds like Zimmerman said it's f-ing cold.  No mention that Trayvon was worthless and that the world is better with him gone.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Cops lie, why do you have a problem with this concept? Here is an example.

Bogota Officer: May Be Fired For Stopping Beatdown - WPIX

Gee, look at that, someone calls for help, and the police attack the guy they are supposed to help. Another cop shows up and joins the attack, then the smart cop shows up and stops them. Guess who is in trouble.

I will give you a hint, it isn't the cops who are attacking someone for no reason.

Cops lie.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

Peach said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



How many times can someone cut you before you think it might be OK to defend yourself?


----------



## Peach (Apr 21, 2012)

old navy said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



He'll provide medical records to back all that up, I'm sure......................


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

KissMy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


What is in the transcript I provided.



> UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So do you know who started the fight?
> GILBREATH: Do I know?
> O&#8217;MARA: Right.
> GILBREATH: No.
> ...


Here is the video of the entire thing. >>> George Zimmerman bond hearing :: WRAL.com

At exactly  1:38:34 is what is above, and I just listened to it for accuracy, and it is - so  your transcription is lacking as well.

This is likely the reason for the drop:



> ---> (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
> 
> 
> COSTELLO: Back live to the bond hearing in Sanford, Florida. Mark  O&#8217;Mara, who is George Zimmerman&#8217;s attorney is doing another redirect of  the state&#8217;s attorney investigator. They&#8217;re talking about what injuries  George Zimmerman had to his head that night. Let&#8217;s listen.


On to more at 1: 50 :00  





> GILBREATH: Managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk and that  is at that point is when the shooting subsequently followed. That is not  consistent with the evidence we found.
> O&#8217;MARA: The injuries seem to be consistent with his story, though, don&#8217;t they?
> Dale; The injuries are consistent with a harder object striking the back of his head than his head was.
> O&#8217;MARA: Could that be cement?
> ...


I am not doubting some of those words were used, I just want to see the entire transcript.  I have not been able to find that anywhere, yet. 

The part about TM "circling" Z's car is not in any transcript I can find either.  I had to go and relisten for myself to find it.  

Blame commercial breaks.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



yes one minute is more than ample time to circle a vehicle, knock a man down, and bash his head into the ground several times.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



I'm not sure i'm not a member of the defense or prosecution so I don't have access to all the evidence in the case, nor does anyone in the media or on this forum.  

Maybe there is a witness that the media, and thus you and me, have not heard about?  Who knows, not us that is for sure.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



A prosecutor said that, the first one said the evidence did not warrant charging Zimmerman.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

rdean said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > We told you racists for weeks that Zimmerman was attacked, that he was yelling for help and that he had cuts to his head. But you racists wanted to demonize the white guy (who is actually half Argentine and half Jewish).
> ...


  You are trying to figure out how blood flows down? ever here of gravity?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Could it be that Zimmerman went back to his car and found Martin walking around it?

That would explain everything, unless you already have all the facts.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Except the body was found no where near the car, nor did the screaming begin there.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


No, a real live witness.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74kyUhRsLBc&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1&safe=active]Eye Witness: "Police REFUSED to see Crime Scene in Trayvon Martin Case".mp4 - YouTube[/ame]

About 5:30 on the video.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Worthless---he says himself that he didn't see anything clearly enough to testify to.


----------



## Liability (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Sorry sour dough.  But that's not what I said.  I merely noted that YOU were making shit up.  You claimed that the report would have more weight or value than a photo.  It doesn't have to be that way.

A photo can often speak far more loudly than a report --your claims to the contrary notwithstanding.  You DID just make the claim but it IS made-up bullshit.

Sorry garbage-pail, but the facts are the facts regardless of your dishonest but baseless desire to recast them into something else.


----------



## Liability (Apr 21, 2012)

Zoom said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Zoom said:
> ...



Your analysis reveals only what a low caliber thinker you are zoom.

From what we now understand, it is apparent (although not yet proved) that INITIALLY Zimmerman followed the kid.  It is an open question of whether, then, at some point, the kid turned it around and "followed" Zimmerman.

But it hardly matters EITHER way.

Your sub-moron "analysis" would  have folks believe that "following" is the be-all and end-all of the legal quandary.  

You dope.  It isn't.  In point of fact, that "issues" borders on being irrelevant.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


He/she saw a larger man on top at the time of the shooting. Clearly.

It's like you weren't even listening to the words.


----------



## manifold (Apr 21, 2012)

Peach said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > > With ABC News release of the George Zimmerman photo showing blood flowing freely from his head, the question becomes whether Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the case, had access to the photo before charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder.
> ...



Other side from who? 

You do know that Dershowitz is a well known liberal, right?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Does he have a face?

A name? 

Is he a he?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Did you listen?

"I know it was very dark, but I have to say that I think it was the larger person that was on top."

Yep, sounds convincing to me, if I forget that people see things that aren't real all the time. people judge size by comparing objects to their surroundings, a person laying on the ground always looks smaller than a person who is kneeling.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


When did Martin go back to the truck and circle it between 7:16 and 7:17? 
And why are you guys so quick to believe Zimmerman? Is it only because the liberals have sided with Martin?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

Where is the witness that saw Martin first attack Zimmerman or circle his vehicle?


----------



## Luissa (Apr 21, 2012)

There is a witness that says Zimmerman is the one who followed Martin.


----------



## Liability (Apr 21, 2012)

Lots of folks here persist in asking the wrong questions.

WHERE is THIS particular evidence?

Where is THAT particular evidence?

Calm down.  The STATE has the duty, the full-fledged OBLIGATION, to produce the evidence -- in the right forum and at the right time.

This Board and the media are not such forums.  This is also not the time.  WE all may have a right to know and a pronounced interest, too.  But Zimmerman is the one who has the actual RIGHT to receive the information FROM the State.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 21, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> He was profiled. None of this would have happened otherwise.



Straight out of a Florida Neighborhood Watch Book.


> *Suspicious Activities Include:*
> 
> - A person with seemingly no purpose, wandering around or loitering in the neighborhood.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 21, 2012)

Liability said:


> Lots of folks here persist in asking the wrong questions.
> 
> WHERE is THIS particular evidence?
> 
> ...



I think that is what people here are anticipating, what the state will bring, what they will ask, do, say.  Everyone here knows what is said in this forum doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

It's just discussion.  The complaints about trying Zimmerman in the media are lame.  We want to know what's going on.  We all have an opinion.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



That is not true in all cases.  Under Florida Statute 776.041 (use of force by an aggressor) negates the self defense claim if Zimmerman was the aggressor and (a) was committing a forcible felony, OR (b) they fear death or great bodily harm and did not take reasonable steps to escape the situation.

Under the first clause, if it can be shown that Zimmerman initiated hostilities, then you possibly have assault and and unlawful detention which is defined in 776.08 as a forcible felony.  Under the second set of circumstances the state will likely make the case that Zimmerman did not take advantage of an escape from the situation because he left his truck and intruded himself into a situation where he'd been specifically instructed as a member of the Neighborhood watch not to go.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




NO, She (the witness) clearly says that the larger man was on top, the shot was fired, then the larger man (the same one that was on tip) rose and walked into better light.

I think we can all agree that the one that did not rise was Martin.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Yes.



Quantum Windbag said:


> A name?



Yes.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Is he a he?



Don't think so, my impression was that he was a she.


>>>>


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 21, 2012)

manifold said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



And one of the country's top appellate lawyers who has won nearly all his appeals of murder and attempted murder convictions, so when Dershowitz says something is wrong with the prosecutor's actions, a smart prosecutor will pay attention.


----------



## Intense (Apr 21, 2012)

Liability said:


> It was taken three minutes after the shot was fired.
> 
> That is, JUST three minutes.
> 
> To think this was part of some coverup is almost as imbecilic as the twoofers theory that orbs took down the twin towers.



Bulls-eye.


----------



## Intense (Apr 21, 2012)

Class!!!..... Class!!!.....  Pay attention now Class!!!!!.......


----------



## KissMy (Apr 21, 2012)

old navy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > It looks superficial, not a wound produced by someone's head being repeatedly bashed against concrete.
> ...



Getting your nose busted & head bashed on concrete will usually knock you out before it causes a gash.

During the bail hearing the investigator said that the gunshot was "near contact" on Martins hoodie. Witness said "the gunpowder burns on Martin's gray hoodie were clearly visible." Martins mortician said there was no exit wound, suggesting the gunshot was at an angle. (likely up-wards angle)



> George Zimmerman bond hearing VIDEO at time 1:48:20 in video.
> 
> Judge?: "Any evidence with respect to how far the individuals were from each-other when shot was fired?"
> 
> Detective Gilbreath: "It was close proximity. There were powder burns on the sweatshirt. Near contact on that and there was also stippling on Martin indicating it was close proximity."





> ABC: George Zimmerman Tells Trayvon Martin's Parents 'I Am Sorry' - "The person who took the photograph of a bloodied Zimmerman, asking not to be identified, told ABC News exclusively that they did not see the scuffle that night, but did hear it. The person recalled seeing Martin's prostrate body on the wet grass and said *the gunpowder burns on Martin's gray hoodie were clearly visible."*



The photo is admissible as evidence in court. It was taken by a witness who heard the scuffle. The photos encrypted GPS data proves it was taken by the witness's smart phone 3 minutes after the shooting at the location of the scuffle.


----------



## syrenn (Apr 21, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...




I listened to the tape..and i hear punks.  In my opinion the comment about the punks getting away is about correct. I did not hear anything about him saying he saw him commenting a crime... he said he was suspicious.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Apr 21, 2012)

Who cares what Doucheowitz thinks?


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 21, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...



Why would he call him a punk and say they always get away when he didn't know anything about Travon.  He was profiling him.  He actually said these punks (or whatever) always get away.

What was Travon getting away with?  He was just walking down the street.

That's why Zimmerman kept following him and finally stopped him, imo.  He didn't want that punk getting away.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 21, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



There is no evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the police dispatcher said he didn't have to.  In fact, at the bond hearing the state investigator admitted there is no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's claim that he turned back towards his car after talking to the dispatcher.


----------



## syrenn (Apr 21, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...





All kids are punks...   And i understand the feeling...in my opinion they always get away too. I don't think the statement had anything to do with martin.... but young punks in general. 

As far as i see it...zimmerman followed him to make sure he did not do anything criminal.... or did not break any laws.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Maybe he wanted to use it to get away from the guy that was chasing him with a gun.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 21, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > syrenn said:
> ...




As to the first claim, that there is no evidence Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the police dispatcher said he shouldn't, there is...

Dispatcher Call ~~ 19:11
Girlfriend Inbound Call ~~ 19:12
Zimmerman Exits Truck ~~ + 2 minutes 10 seconds
Zimmerman Acknowledges Dispatcher Instruction Not To Follow ~~ +2 minutes 28 seconds
Dispatcher Call Ends ~~ 19:15
Girlfriend Call Ends ~~ 19:16

Examining the recording, the time from exiting the truck to acknowledging the dispatcher instructions was 18 seconds.

To claim Zimmerman was returning to his truck at the point he acknowledges the dispatcher with "OK", that would have occurred at approximately time 19:13:28.  The girlfriends call ended at approximately 19:16 based on phone records (call time + duration).  The difference is approximately 2 minutes 30 seconds to return to the truck, when traveling away from the truck for 18 seconds.  From the truck's likely location (based on Zimmerman's description of the location in the dispatcher tape) the truck was likely about 150 yards away from the shooting site.  **IF** he began returning at the "OK" acknowledgment he'd have had 833.3% more time to return (2:30) then the 18 seconds traveling away.


>>>>


----------



## Ariux (Apr 21, 2012)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Who cares what Doucheowitz thinks?



Right.  Who cares what a Jew thinks... Doucheowitz's  comments reflect his instinct to defend criminals.  It's a coincidence that Zimmerman is innocent.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



I don't hear the National Association for the Protection of Punks bitching.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Apr 21, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares what Doucheowitz thinks?
> ...



You have no idea if Zimmerman is innocent or guilty.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Not true. Even if Zimmerman started the fight, which there is no evidence of, if Martin reacted in such a way as to put him in fear of his life, then Zimmerman has a right to defend himself. There was a case in Wisconsin, which is hardly a mecca for right wingers, where a guy kicked in the door at a neighbor's house to break up a loud party. One of the underage kids ran away from the crazy guy breaking down doors, and hid on the porch of the very guy he was running from, and was killed when he came back. He argued in court that he was defending his family, even though he admitted he was responsible for the initial confrontation, and won.

People want to think that who started the fight makes a difference, but the only way it would is if the state could provide proof that Zimmerman both started the fight, and that Martin did not pose a threat to him in the ensuing fight. That is a really high hurdle.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



You, quite obviously, did not listen to the interview.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Clearly ?  It was dark. At 6:19 the eyewitness said he/she couldn't see clearly enough to testify.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I didn't say Zimmerman didn't have a right to defend himself, what is true is that under Florida Law (Statute 776.041) **IF** Zimmerman was the aggressor and was found to be in the commission of a forcible felony, then Zimmerman would not qualify under the Self Defense statutes from immunity from prosecution and a determination of justifiable homicide.  A subtle but important distinction.




Quantum Windbag said:


> There was a case in Wisconsin, which is hardly a mecca for right wingers, where a guy kicked in the door at a neighbor's house to break up a loud party. One of the underage kids ran away from the crazy guy breaking down doors, and hid on the porch of the very guy he was running from, and was killed when he came back. He argued in court that he was defending his family, even though he admitted he was responsible for the initial confrontation, and won.



This case will be argued under Florida law, not Wisconsin law and I've noted the applicable statutes under Florida Law (776.041) which specifically notes that self defense IS NOT a defense when certain conditions apply and I noted them.



Quantum Windbag said:


> People want to think that who started the fight makes a difference, but the only way it would is if the state could provide proof that Zimmerman both started the fight, and that Martin did not pose a threat to him in the ensuing fight. That is a really high hurdle.



I didn't say that the State didn't have a burden of proof to show the conditions existed which nullifies the affirmative defense of - well - self defense.

I was simply pointing out that under Florida law there are certain conditions were if you are identified as the aggressor and the hostilities escalate to the point where you - as the aggressor - fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, that you are not exempt from prosecution under the guise of "Self Defense" if someone uses force in return because you have created a situation where the non-aggressor fears death or great bodily harm.


Sorry, that's Florida Law.

>>>>


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> ...
> As to the first claim, that there is no evidence Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after the police dispatcher said he shouldn't, there is...
> 
> Dispatcher Call ~~ 19:11
> ...


Hey, WW. (you'll be proud of me for this) 

This is not related to your post, per se, but I know how you, like me, like to have the details in order, and available for use. 

I have searched in vain to find the portion of the transcript where they broke away to commercial and important testimony was covered. None.  

Anywhere.  I even looked for small portions of a dozen sentences to see if I could find it anywhere.  argh.  So, obsessed with getting the facts out, silly lil me, just took some bloody freakin time to transcribe a portion of it. (the part about TM "circling" Z's car has not been transcribed yet, or the introduction of the two flashlights found on Zimmerman.  That's next.) 

But here, (I think I can claim to be the first with this. 

Portion not yet transcribed - anywhere - but here at USBM.  (I think it's important)


> _*DE LA RIONDA:* Mr. Zimmerman never claimed that he chased - in terms of 'ran after - Mr. Martin?
> 
> *GILBREATH:* No.
> 
> ...


_ From the video testimony here: George Zimmerman bond hearing :: WRAL.com_

ETA: starts at 1:47 (this portion)


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...




Quite obviously I did.  She said the larger man was on top.  She said the boy was on the bottom.  She said she was watching during the time the gunshot was heard.  She said the larger man rose and walked into better light.  We now know the larger man was Zimmerman because it is unlikely that Martin got up off the ground.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



That's not what the witness said.

Let's look at what was said in context of the preceding questions:


(Start Time ~6:00)
Reporter (6:00): When you first saw him coming towards you could you see any blood on his face? Was it light enough for you to be able to see any blood on his face if their was any there?
Witness (6:10): It was not light enough for me to see if there was any blood on the face.
Reporter: So there could have been, it was just not something you could testify to?
Witness (6:17): No I could not testify because I could not see 
Reporter (6:20): Did he say anything?
Witness (6:24): There was a man that came out with a flashlight who was a resident, and ah they possibly were saying something to each other but I could not hear what the words were.
(End Time ~6:36)


Clearly the answer at 6:17 is to the question about seeing blood on the fact.

>>>>


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



correct and that was when the man in question was closer to her AND in better light. She could not testify. Is someone going to believe the details of something that occurred further away and in a darker location ?
A defense attorney will chew that to bits.


----------



## Ariux (Apr 21, 2012)

Truthseeker420 said:


> You have no idea if Zimmerman is innocent or guilty.



You are an ignorant moron.  You're ignorant because "you have no idea".  You're a moron because you think others are as ignorant as you are.  



> D = Defense / P = Prosecution
> 
> D - Do you have any evidence in your investigation to date that contradicts or conflicts with his (Zimmerman's) contention that he... Turned back to his car
> 
> ...



You might have a couple of working brain cells in that ball of shit that you call a brain, use them.  The above questions come from a court room.  Even the Prosecution concedes that they have no evidence that Zimmerman didn't turn back to his car as he says he did.  They concede that the evidence is consistent with Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon was bashing his head into the ground.  They have zero evidence Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense and Zimmerman has evidence that he did act in self-defense.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 21, 2012)

Not a lot of blood for head wounds.   Really.


----------



## Ariux (Apr 21, 2012)

bodecea said:


> Not a lot of blood for head wounds.   Really.



Blunt force, not a knife, you f-ing moron.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...




Why do you seem to have difficulty with reading what was said.

You said she said it was to dark to testify.  That was untrue.  She said it was to dark for her to testify that the man had blood on his face (or not), which is completely different then what you presented.  She DID NOT say that it was to dark for her to identify that the larger man was on top, that the shot occurred, and that after the shot the larger man rose and the boy remained on the ground.

What a defense attorney or the prosecution does to this are irrelevant at this point.  We will see how her questioning proceeds at trial and then it will be the juries responsibility to weigh the validity of her testimony.



>>>>


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Apr 21, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > You have no idea if Zimmerman is innocent or guilty.
> ...



First off that didn't prove anything and the link takes you to emptysuit website. again you have no idea if he is innocent or guilty and it will be up to 12 jurors to decide.


----------



## Peach (Apr 21, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



He hasn't access to the evidence, he is just running off at the moth. The TWO Judges that have seen it did not express any concerns. THIS is not a charge, that will come soon when the INFORMATION is filed.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 21, 2012)

Truthseeker420 said:


> First off that didn't prove anything and the link takes you to emptysuit website. again you have no idea if he is innocent or guilty and it will be up to 12 jurors to decide.



Here is the entire George Zimmerman bond hearing VIDEO. See for yourself.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

> D = Defense / P = Prosecution
> 
> D - Do you have any evidence in your investigation to date that contradicts or conflicts with his (Zimmerman's) contention that he... Turned back to his car
> 
> ...


Let's see...hmmmm.

_*DE LA RIONDA:* Mr. Zimmerman never claimed that he chased - in terms of 'ran after - Mr. Martin?

*GILBREATH:* No.

*DE LA RIONDA:*  But you still have, is it not true, a witness who   describes someone  chasing another person from the area where they ended   up... in other  words, from where, near where Mr. Martin lived to the   area where the  murder happened?

*GILBREATH:* Yes.
... ...
*O'MARA*; You had mentioned, the prosecutor had  questioned you  about Mr. Zimmerman  saying that he was having his head  hit on the back,  correct?

*GILBREATH:*Yes.

*O'MARA*;  I thought you said the evidence was inconsistent with that?

*GILBREATH: *No, I don't believe that was his question.

*O'MARA*;  Oh, then let me ask you. Is the evidence inconstant  with the  suggestion by Mr. Zimmerman that he was his having his head hit  or   bashed on the ground?

*GILBREATH: *His injuries are consistent with trauma to the back of his head, yes.

*O'MARA*;Ok. What are those injuries?*

GILBREATH: *There's two lacerations to the back of his head
*
O'MARA*; OK*. *Did you identify what caused those lacerations?*

GILBREATH: *No.
*
O'MARA*: *Could it have been having his head bashed on the ground as he testified to?*

*GILBREATH: *He  suggested, I don't know about testified to, he  mentioned that his head  was being physically bashed against the concrete  sidewalk, and that  he...this was just prior to him firing the shot, and  that he managed to  scoot away from the concrete sidewalk, and that is  at that  point is  when the shooting subsequently followed. *That is not consistent with the evidence we found."*
_


_ From the video testimony here: George Zimmerman bond hearing :: WRAL.com_

ETA: starts at 1:47 (this portion)


----------



## Peach (Apr 21, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > Who cares what Doucheowitz thinks?
> ...



Racist AND anti Semitic, a real treat


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Nor was she cross examined as to how convinced she was who was the larger man in the darkness.
She certainly is nowhere near a witness who can testify beyond a reasonable doubt.
She also saw them lying on the ground---good luck picking the larger man. Even what they were wearing could throw all perceptions of size off.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



True, we'll have to see how it plays out in court.



dilloduck said:


> She certainly is nowhere near a witness who can testify beyond a reasonable doubt.



That's for the jury to decide.

At this point she is as valid a witness as any of the other neighbors.




dilloduck said:


> She also saw them lying on the ground---good luck picking the larger man. Even what they were wearing could throw all perceptions of size off.



Are you confusing "larger" with "taller"?  Those are two different things.

When two people are on the ground it's pretty difficult to determine the "taller".  On the other hand determining that one is "skinny" and one "stocky" and assigning the mental tag of "larger" to the stocky person pretty easy.  

The fact remains that the "larger man" was the one on top when the gun was discharged and that is the person that got up from the struggle.



>>>>


----------



## KissMy (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> > D = Defense / P = Prosecution
> >
> > D - Do you have any evidence in your investigation to date that contradicts or conflicts with his (Zimmerman's) contention that he... Turned back to his car
> >
> ...



Continuing the exchange:

GILBREATH: Managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk and that is at that point is when the shooting subsequently followed. That is not consistent with the evidence we found.

OMARA: The injuries seem to be consistent with his story, though, dont they?

Dale; The injuries are consistent with a harder object striking the back of his head than his head was.

OMARA: Could that be cement?

GILBREATH: Could be.

OMARA: Did you just say it was consistent or did you say it wasnt consistent?

GILBREATH: I said it was.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

KissMy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > > D = Defense / P = Prosecution
> ...



If they plan on trying to impeach Zimmerman over what exactly cut his head open, they don't have much. Coulda been a rock on the grass.


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

What I infer from the commentary, is that blood at the crime scene is where the basis of this inconstancy lies. 

That's pretty important, wouldn't you say?


----------



## Peach (Apr 21, 2012)

"That is not consistent with the evidence we found."

That leaves it wide open. No immediate medical exam, healed now. Might be tough to find any fear of deadly injury in this scenario. Ambulatory, had the capacity to be interviewed that night, and sought only a doctor's care the next day; nothing SO FAR, to indicate he was even given SOP for a concussion. He walked, talked to police, then was interviewed AGAIN, for a total of HOURS before medical care. Those injuries healed quick, and a jury seeing a fear of deadly force will take a lot of explaining.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> What I infer from the commentary, is that blood at the crime scene is where the basis of this inconstancy lies.
> 
> That's pretty important, wouldn't you say?



I can't tell---apparently the big inconsistency in the story is exactly where his head was hurt. On grass or concrete. I think it would be more important to know who did it, when they did it and how.
If someone was hitting my skull on the ground and I was struggling to avoid it, I would be hard pressed to tell you exactly where the blood started to flow.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> What I infer from the commentary, is that blood at the crime scene is where the basis of this inconstancy lies.
> 
> That's pretty important, wouldn't you say?



How would the location of GZ head striking the ground be "pretty important" for the prosecution?

If GZ head was pounded on the grass, it means that TM was slamming his head with even greater force to cause the marks in the photo. This will help the defense IMHO. It will also show just how disoriented GZ was due to his head being pounded.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

Peach said:


> "That is not consistent with the evidence we found."
> 
> That leaves it wide open. No immediate medical exam, healed now. Might be tough to find any fear of deadly injury in this scenario. Ambulatory, had the capacity to be interviewed that night, and sought only a doctor's care the next day; nothing SO FAR, to indicate he was even given SOP for a concussion. He walked, talked to police, then was interviewed AGAIN, for a total of HOURS before medical care. Those injuries healed quick, and a jury seeing a fear of deadly force will take a lot of explaining.



Toughest part of the case. How in the hell is someone supposed to get into someone elses head and determine if they feared for their lives BEFORE they took action.


----------



## Peach (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> What I infer from the commentary, is that blood at the crime scene is where the basis of this inconstancy lies.
> 
> That's pretty important, wouldn't you say?



I see inconsistency with fear of deadly force from the events following the killing; the police found he had the capacity to be interviewed, he could walk, and was not LED to a doctor the next day. No report the police feared a concussion; Zimmerman seemed to have some cuts on his head, none of which had any impact on his mental capacity.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > "That is not consistent with the evidence we found."
> ...



They will never get 12 jurors to convict on that beyond a reasonable doubt.


----------



## Peach (Apr 21, 2012)

KissMy said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > What I infer from the commentary, is that blood at the crime scene is where the basis of this inconstancy lies.
> ...



Zimmerman was NOT disoriented minutes later, he was able to walk unaided, be interviewed and did not even get checked out at a hospital. It looks as though Zimmerman could not have been in fear of his life actually. How can the defense turn these boo boos into fear of deadly force?


----------



## paperview (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > What I infer from the commentary, is that blood at the crime scene is where the basis of this inconstancy lies.
> ...


It's open to possibilities. It could have been on the tree, even as he was standing up (and knowing he had to show an injury, quick) - it could have been self-inflicted with his flashlight, (to me, it was curious as to why they brought that flashlight up)--  it could have been found a number of places.  

These are just meandering postulations, of course.  Until we see exactly what is* "not consistent with the evidence we found"* regarding the story he gave police. 

*"The injuries are consistent with a harder object striking the back of his head than his head was"* leaves many possibilities, and I do believe the prosecution was beiing careful with not showing their hand right now, but enough to give us an indication it wasn't the concrete sidewalk.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Wrong--the person who appeared larger was the person who appeared to walk away from the struggle.

Yes --larger and taller are two different things and consdering how close in size they really were and it was dark with them lying on the ground I wouldn't give a wooden nickle for her testimony. No wonder the didn't call her back.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > "That is not consistent with the evidence we found."
> ...



They're not.  The standard always is would an ordinarily prudent person have believed he was in danger of great bodily harm.  In practice, the jurors have to ask themselves if they would have believed that at the time the gun was fired.  If you accept Zimmerman's account that Martin knocked him down and was sitting on his chest banging his head against the ground, I think everyone would believe he/she was in danger of suffering great bodily harm at that moment.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

Peach said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



the FEAR of deadly force is not related to the injury sustained. How about if I lift a baseball bat to hit you and you shoot me? You will have no injuries therefore you just murdered me.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Not everyone on this board---your brains have to be splattered all over the ground before you can lift a finger.


----------



## Peach (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



The fact remains he never lost consciousness, was walking minutes later, the police felt no need to get him to a hospital, and he was able to be interviewed for HOURS. The cut on the head might have been him falling after he shot Trayvon Martin. The shooter appears much better right after the killing than a man who had been in fear of his life; in fact he appears calm, and at first, from reports, standing over the body, PROUD. Almost like a hunter who has bagged his prey............................


----------



## Ariux (Apr 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> I do believe the prosecution was beiing careful with not showing their hand right now, but enough to give us an indication it wasn't the concrete sidewalk.



How could a wound on the back of the head possibly not be bad for the Prosecution?  The Persecution has no hand, except bullshit.  Their case will center on trying to confuse the jury to make them think Zimmerman is a liar.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

Ariux said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > I do believe the prosecution was beiing careful with not showing their hand right now, but enough to give us an indication it wasn't the concrete sidewalk.
> ...



They will probably pull a Fuhrman on him and ask him if he has ever used the word "******".


----------



## Peach (Apr 21, 2012)

Ariux said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > I do believe the prosecution was beiing careful with not showing their hand right now, but enough to give us an indication it wasn't the concrete sidewalk.
> ...



No, the prosecution has a shot & killed teenager, and a man who had full mental capacity for a police interview shortly thereafter. The killer might have hit his head on the dropped can of tea. One thing is certain, his injuries were superficial.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

Peach said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



You're out of your fucking mind.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Apr 21, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



It must have been Martian's blood.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

Truthseeker420 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



nah  latest theory is that it was self inflicted.


----------



## Peach (Apr 21, 2012)

Note also; Zimmerman's testimony in Court also showed a clear memory of events. He stated what he was thinking at the time, not "I CAN'T REMEMBER". I do not see any of the facts helping with self defense, outside of possible grass stains on the back of his jacket, and the unseen blood on his clothes. He looked neat, clean, and not disheveled when going into the station.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

Peach said:


> Note also; Zimmerman's testimony in Court also showed a clear memory of events. He stated what he was thinking at the time, not "I CAN'T REMEMBER". I do not see any of the facts helping with self defense, outside of possible grass stains on the back of his jacket, and the unseen blood on his clothes. He looked neat, clean, and not disheveled when going into the station.



Are you pretending there is no head wound at all now ?


----------



## Ariux (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> They will probably pull a Fuhrman on him and ask him if he has ever used the word "******".



Any "white" person asked that question is automatically condemned ("no" makes you be perceived as a liar and a racist, "yes" makes you doubly racist).  I don't know if that'll be done here.  We're not dealing the the ilks that OJ had as his lawyers.  We're dealing with public servants who just don't want be tarred and feathered by the jewish media and the black mob.  It's also possible that the judge would be reasonable and disallow that question, for being nothing but inflammatory.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



You mean they think Zimmerman's brains would have to be all over the ground before he could defend himself, but the jurors will be asked to consider how they would feel if some one were sitting on his/her chest banging banging his/her head on the ground.  If they honestly consider how they would have felt under those circumstances, they will have to concede they would believe they were in danger of suffering great bodily harm.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



We can only hope.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



that still reqiures a wound.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 21, 2012)

Peach said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Boxers get knocked to the ground disoriented all the time. It takes many up to 10 seconds just to get back on their feet. They are then good enough to continue the fight & still not go to the hospital. I have been completly knocked out a couple of times & was fine 30 seconds later. Never even went to the doctor.

The punch that broke GZ nose must have knocked him out for a second in order for him to fall to the ground from it.

You GZ haters bias has been exposed.

Zimmerman following Martin is enough to make Martin fear for his life.

BUT

Martin punching Zimmerman breaking his nose knocking him to the ground, pounding his head on the ground is not enough for Zimmerman to fear for his life.

BIAS MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Peach (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


You are claiming he didn't walk unassisted, and was not questioned for HOURS after the killing? Where does THIS come from? HE TESTIFIED just yesterday, and remembered what he was thinking: HINT, that equals CAPACITY.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

Truthseeker420 said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Truthseeker420 said:
> ...



yes----and GZ has one. What's your point?


----------



## Truthseeker420 (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



I didn't see one.


----------



## rdean (Apr 21, 2012)

Intense said:


> Class!!!..... Class!!!.....  Pay attention now Class!!!!!.......



Trails of blood going in two directions not affected by gravity?  Seen better on Halloween.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

rdean said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Class!!!..... Class!!!.....  Pay attention now Class!!!!!.......
> ...



centrifugal force--don't you know shit about science?


----------



## KissMy (Apr 21, 2012)

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wW9TIduSV8"]Boxing Knock Down First Punch[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zl_kE8U-gys"]100 One Punch Knockouts[/ame]


----------



## Peach (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Note also; Zimmerman's testimony in Court also showed a clear memory of events. He stated what he was thinking at the time, not "I CAN'T REMEMBER". I do not see any of the facts helping with self defense, outside of possible grass stains on the back of his jacket, and the unseen blood on his clothes. He looked neat, clean, and not disheveled when going into the station.
> ...



A wound was present, it did not require hospital treatment to check for a concussion, and it did prevent him from walking unassisted, nor the police from questioning him that night. FEAR OF DEADLY force will require more than, "I hurt my head". The idea the police had a change of clothes available is ABSURD.  He was neat, clean, and ambulatory when he reached the police station; get a grasp on reality. This wasn't the Shootout at the OK Corral; an armed teenager was shot by a free lance WANNABE cop.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 21, 2012)

KissMy said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Just because I like to argue.

Suppose the prosecutor can find evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent to do him some harm, not kill him but intimidate him with threatening words or actions, such as flashing his gun - such actions could rise to the level of a felony - then regardless of the circumstances at the moment the shot was fired, Zimmerman would have killed Martin in the course of committing a felony and be guilty of murder.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

Peach said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Fear of deadly force doesn't even require an injury. 
Peach schnapps ? put it away.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Then by all means---bring it on. If we can get passed the race baiting and the poor little black kid we might have a fair trial.


----------



## Peach (Apr 21, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Zimmerman, the failed police trainee, had guns & ammo but never a chance to use them LIKE a police officer, until that night. Probably spent a lot of time target shooting......then he sees his chance to "save" the community from PERCEIVED danger.....................and an unarmed teen paid for it with his LIFE.


----------



## Ariux (Apr 21, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Suppose the prosecutor can find evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent to do him some harm, not kill him but intimidate him with threatening words or actions, such as flashing his gun - such actions could rise to the level of a felony - then regardless of the circumstances at the moment the shot was fired, Zimmerman would have killed Martin in the course of committing a felony and be guilty of murder.



Trayvon's ho didn't say anything about Trayvon saying Zimmerman had a gun.  All the evidence is against the hypothetical situation you suggest.  However, there is evidence that Trayvon intended to intimidate Zimmerman, and then later assaulted him.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 21, 2012)

Peach said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



That was a TV movie,wasn't it?


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...


 no--just Peach schnapps drama.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 21, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Just because I like to argue.
> 
> Suppose the prosecutor can find evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent to do him some harm, not kill him but intimidate him with threatening words or actions, such as flashing his gun - such actions could rise to the level of a felony - then regardless of the circumstances at the moment the shot was fired, Zimmerman would have killed Martin in the course of committing a felony and be guilty of murder.



*Florida Statutes 776.041 - Use of force by aggressor.* - The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

- (a)&#8195;Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

- (b)&#8195;In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 21, 2012)

Ariux said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Suppose the prosecutor can find evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent to do him some harm, not kill him but intimidate him with threatening words or actions, such as flashing his gun - such actions could rise to the level of a felony - then regardless of the circumstances at the moment the shot was fired, Zimmerman would have killed Martin in the course of committing a felony and be guilty of murder.
> ...



The evidence seems to support Zimmerman's account, but suppose the prosecutor can find some one in whom Zimmerman confided that he was sick to death of these punks getting away with all these burglaries and if he ever got the chance to talk to one of them he would scare him straight, or something to that effect.  It might just have been loose talk, but it could also provide a basis for claiming Zimmerman followed Martin with the intent to intimidate him.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 21, 2012)

KissMy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Just because I like to argue.
> ...



Yes, but if Zimmerman's actions constituted a felony, it's a whole new ballgame.  If you kill some one in the course of committing a felony, even accidentally, you've committed murder.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



If Zimmerman's actions constitute a felony they will have to disband every neighborhood watch in the country.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> I didn't say Zimmerman didn't have a right to defend himself, what is true is that under Florida Law (Statute 776.041) **IF** Zimmerman was the aggressor and was found to be in the commission of a forcible felony, then Zimmerman would not qualify under the Self Defense statutes from immunity from prosecution and a determination of justifiable homicide.  A subtle but important distinction.



Probably too subtle for some. The statute you are trying to use to defend your argument would only apply if Zimmerman was committing a felony, or trying to feel from the site of a felony, and Martin was trying to stop him.

In other words, it doesn't apply to this situation, but thanks for letting me know that I am not talking to an actual lawyer.



WorldWatcher said:


> This case will be argued under Florida law, not Wisconsin law and I've noted the applicable statutes under Florida Law (776.041) which specifically notes that self defense IS NOT a defense when certain conditions apply and I noted them.



No you didn't, you just think you did.



WorldWatcher said:


> I didn't say that the State didn't have a burden of proof to show the conditions existed which nullifies the affirmative defense of - well - self defense.
> 
> I was simply pointing out that under Florida law there are certain conditions were if you are identified as the aggressor and the hostilities escalate to the point where you - as the aggressor - fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, that you are not exempt from prosecution under the guise of "Self Defense" if someone uses force in return because you have created a situation where the non-aggressor fears death or great bodily harm.
> 
> ...



It might be Florida law, but it doesn't apply here, and doesn't help the state at all. If the law you are trying to apply here actually applied Zimmerman would be facing the death penalty and multiple charges.

He isn't.

That, sir, is Florida law.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 21, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



The exact quote is "I know it was very dark, but I have to say that I think it was the larger person that was on top."

That is nothing like what you said.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 21, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



*unless:*

- (a)&#8195;Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

- (b)&#8195;In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Straight out of a Florida Neighborhood Watch Book.


> *Suspicious Activities Include:*
> 
> - A person with seemingly no purpose, wandering around or loitering in the neighborhood.
> 
> ...


----------



## rdean (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



You mean his head was spinning?  Wanna see that.


And it wasn't even smeared.  Amazing.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> You guys keep making the argument he had the right to defend himself, what about the kids right to defend himself? Does the law not apply to him because A. He didn't have a gun? B. He is black?
> 
> Fact: Zimmerman is on tape saying he was following the kid, and its on tape he was told to stop.
> 
> Is being followed by someone who is not a Police Officer not a threat? And what crime did this kid commit that gave Zimmerman reason to follow him? You guys keep mentioning Zimmermans right to defend himself, but what about the kid? If someone was following me for no apparent reason, I would see that as a threat, and that I was in imminent danger.



Your GZ hater bias has been exposed.

Zimmerman following Martin is enough to make Martin fear for his life.

BUT

Martin punching Zimmerman breaking his nose knocking him to the ground, pounding his head on the ground is not enough for Zimmerman to fear for his life.

BIAS MUCH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## rdean (Apr 21, 2012)

KissMy said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



They can't even say this:

 A person with seemingly no purpose, wandering around or loitering in the neighborhood.

The kid walked to the store before the game.  He had a purpose.  Worse, Zimmerman had to chase him down before he could shoot him.  We know this from the tapes.


----------



## Ariux (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> If Zimmerman's actions constitute a felony they will have to disband every neighborhood watch in the country.



Disbanding neighborhood watch programs would make the African-American community very happy.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Apr 21, 2012)

Luissa said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Be so kind as to cite the law that permits someone to physically assault someone for "following" you. Be so kind as to cite the law that allows you to physically assault someone for asking you a question.

In order to STALK someone it requires more then a single 10 minute episode. But then the law and you are not good friends are you?

And be so kind as to link for me the supposed claim that Zimmerman was on top. That someone saw Zimmerman strike the kid. I have the 911 call and the husband of the caller stating that Zimmerman was on the bottom and that the yells fro help came from Zimmerman.

I have Zimmerman agreeing to stop following the kid on his call. I have the girlfriend of Martin admitting all Zimmerman did is ask a simple question. I have the autopsy which shows no signs of a physical nature on Martin's body. I have the testimony of the Mortuary mortician stating there were NO SIGNS of a physical struggle on Martin.

I have the testimony of the cops on the scene and the EMTs as well as now 2 pictures of Zimmerman bloody and wounded. I have the testimony of his neighbors that the next day his nose was bandaged and swollen and the back of his head was damaged.

Every shred of verifiable evidence SUPPORTS Zimmerman's statements.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 21, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...




Bolded Part: Which is exactly what I said.  The witness says the larger person walked away and the larger person was on top.


Who walked away from the shooting Zimmerman or Martin?


>>>>


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 21, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...





> Appeared


 is the key word---if I appear to be something it doesn't mean that i am.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 21, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't say Zimmerman didn't have a right to defend himself, what is true is that under Florida Law (Statute 776.041) **IF** Zimmerman was the aggressor and was found to be in the commission of a forcible felony, then Zimmerman would not qualify under the Self Defense statutes from immunity from prosecution and a determination of justifiable homicide.  A subtle but important distinction.
> ...




**IF** sir, Zimmerman grabbed Martin that is Assault under Florida Law, if Zimmerman tried to unlawfully detain Martin and prevent him from leaving the event, that sir is a felony.

Under Florida Law (776.08), that becomes a forcible felony and Zimmerman would no longer qualify for an affirmative defense of self defense under Florida Law 776.041.

That is the Florida Law.

[DISCLAIMER:  With the evidence released to the public, it appears that would be difficult to prove.  But that does not change the law.]


>>>>


----------



## KissMy (Apr 21, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Bolded Part: Which is exactly what I said.  The witness says the larger person walked away and the larger person was on top.
> 
> 
> Who walked away from the shooting Zimmerman or Martin?



That wacko witness you are quoting will be laughed out of court. You are seriously grasping at straws if have to resort to her ramblings.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 21, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> **IF** sir, Zimmerman grabbed Martin that is Assault under Florida Law, if Zimmerman tried to unlawfully detain Martin and prevent him from leaving the event, that sir is a felony.



Florida Statutes 776.041 - *unless:*

- (a)&#8195;Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

- (b)&#8195;In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


----------



## Liability (Apr 21, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Lots of folks here persist in asking the wrong questions.
> ...



Maybe YOU and I just want to know.  But I see shitloads of folks declaring Zimmerman guilty already (and it started almost from jump street).  Alternatively, some folks have already "decided" that Trayvon brought it all on himself and that Zimmerman 
is" completely innocent.  

Such preconceived notions this early on, while we are at a point where we lack crucial, basic, necessary information, is not the same as "just discussing it."


----------



## Liability (Apr 21, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



There was NEVER an "instruction" not to follow.


----------



## Salt Jones (Apr 21, 2012)

Zimmerman will be dead within a year, in jail or on the street, it doesn't matter.


----------



## rdean (Apr 21, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Republicans will say the testimony doesn't count because it's a woman.

Rush will call her a slut.


----------



## rdean (Apr 21, 2012)

Liability said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



Follow?  Or "chase"?  Was there an instruction to chase?


----------



## Liability (Apr 21, 2012)

rdean said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



There was no "instruction" at all, you dipshit.

Following need not be "instructed."  It is lawful, you asshole.

There is no evidence of any "chase," you punk ass dope.


----------



## Liability (Apr 21, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> Zimmerman will be dead within a year, in jail or on the street, it doesn't matter.



You up to being a murder, bitch?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 22, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



You really are one of the stupid ones aren't you?

Here is the law you are trying to site as proof that Zimmerman is wrong.



> Use of force by aggressor.The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
> *(**2)&#8195;**Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:**(a)&#8195;Such  force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is  in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has  exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the  use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the  assailant; or*
> *(b)&#8195;In  good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the  assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires  to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues  or resumes the use of force.*



Funny thing, the second part, which I emphasized, is exactly what I have  been saying, it doesn't fracking matter if Zimmerman started the fight  if Martin was reacting with more force than was reasonable.

Thanks for making my point in an attempt to make yourself look smarter than me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 22, 2012)

rdean said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



this is why people pity the people who actually know you.


----------



## The Gadfly (Apr 22, 2012)

Peach said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



That conclusion, premature and emotionally driven as it is, does not follow from the evidence. Let me make something clear for you; to establish self defense, it is NOT necessary that a person have *sustained* serious bodily harm; only that he* reasonably feared *same. A showing of a continued assault after the person was knocked to the ground is quite sufficient for that purpose (there is PLENTY of legal precedent for that), and it would appear that there is eyewitness testimony to that effect. The state will have to either disprove that, or prove that Zimmerman did something that would justify what appears to be an assault by Martin that, if it did not constitute felonious assault or aggravated battery, would certainly border on it (a point I am sure the defense will try to emphasize). I remind you that allegations and suppositions are NOT probative facts in a court of law, unless substantiated by physical evidence and/or witness testimony It is noteworthy that in many jurisdictions, most likely including Florida, continued physical assault is considered prima facie evidence of intent to inflict serious injury, if not death. The state will have a considerable burden in overcoming that presumption, one which it may or may not have sufficient evidence to meet; to this point, the state has provided no such evidence at all.


----------



## The Gadfly (Apr 22, 2012)

So far, there have been exactly TWO people commenting in this thread who have any extensive experience seeing and treating the sort of head wounds Zimmerman apparently sustained-one former navy corpsman, and one EMT/Paramedic (that would be Old Navy, and myself). Now, what I want to know, is just where the rest of you self-styled experts on head wounds, what they should look like, and how they might have been sustained, got the requisite professional experience to know what you claim to be so sure of. Please tell us; I sure would like to know how qualified you are to offer an opinion, since you seem to know so much more than we do. Ravi, rdean, and Peach (among others), let's hear it.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 22, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Don't get me wrong.  I agree with you, but I keep wondering why the prosecutor charged him with 2nd degree murder instead of manslaughter.  Nothing in the evidence so far would justify a murder charge, but what if Zimmerman had made prior statements, perhaps just loose talk, about what he might do to a burglar if he had the chance?  What if the things he said he might do would have constituted a felony?  The prosecutor might try to portray Zimmerman's actual actions as attempts to carry out these threats, in effect, attempts to commit a felony, and if he killed Martin while committing a felony, that's murder.


----------



## The Gadfly (Apr 22, 2012)

rdean said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



Can and will. We know some things Zimmerman could not have known, that would have made some perfectly innocent behavior on Martin's part appear suspicious. Martin was not familiar with the neighborhood, in which it appears from photos Brandy Green's townhouse is in a row of buildings on one of two parallel streets, which look very much alike. Martin left in daylight, but now at a little after 7pm it was completely dark, and raining. Martin would have been looking around, trying to get his bearings, looking for a street sign or a building for a landmark-"Do I turn at this building, or is it that one over there?" To an observer, he might well have appeared to be unsure, confused, or just aimlessly looking around, which behavior could well look suspicious, especially in a gated community. On top of that, his face would have been at least partially hidden by the hoodie, enough so that Zimmerman was not even sure of his race; when asked by the dispatcher, Zimmerman did NOT say "he's Black"; he said "I think he's Black" because he couldn't be sure. We don't know that Zimmerman "chased him down" either; all we know, is that after losing sight of him, Zimmerman ran a short distance to see if he could regain sight of him; as of the time his call to the dispatcher ended, he still had not regained sight of Martin, because he told the dispatcher near the end of the call that he still didn't see the kid. If he had sighted Martin at that point, he would have had every reason to tell the dispatcher where Martin was, and no reason whatever not to. In fact, at that point in time, we do not know where *either* party was; all we know is where the altercation between the two occurred, some 30-38 seconds later.


----------



## The Gadfly (Apr 22, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



Only one problem with that theory: that would be 1st degree murder (by Florida statute), and if there *were* any such evidence, that's what the prosecutor would have charged. As it is, the state now has to present evidence of "depraved mind", i.e. actual malice, which would take some pretty strong evidence we haven't seen yet (if it exists). Otherwise, this is a deliberate over-charge, intended either to induce a plea bargain, or as an invitation for a judge to quash the charge. I would not bet the farm either way; it's a win-win for the Prosecutor; she brought the stiff charge so many wanted; she wins if she get a plea, she wins if a judge throws it out ("Hey, I tried!"), and if it goes to trial, she wins if she gets a guilty verdict, and she wins if he's acquitted (It's the jury's fault!"). Not bad for any elected official with some ambition, if you ask me.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 22, 2012)

The Gadfly said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



You're right, that would be first degree murder if Zimmerman had been attempting to commit a felony, but it could also show a depraved state of mind since intending to threaten or intimidate Martin could be seen as acts imminently dangerous to Martin.  

This could just be a political stunt, as you suggest, but if the prosecutor cannot make a substantial case for 2nd degree murder it would be an act so frivolous that I doubt it does anyone any good.


----------



## The Gadfly (Apr 22, 2012)

I don't know whether it's a political stunt, or whether she actually has some real evidence, since she elected to bypass a grand jury. We'll find out, when pretrial motions begin. All I said was, that either way she can't lose, politically speaking, even if this turns out to be nothing but political theater. Ay worst, she at least LOOKS like she TRIED to make a murder charge stick; if she wins, great, and if she doesn't, well, she won't be the first prosecutor to ever lose a case. Like I said, not a bad position for an elected official to be in.


----------



## FireFly (Apr 22, 2012)

rdean said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



BULLSHIT

It was less than a 15 minute walk from 7 Eleven to where Trayvon was staying. Why did it take him an hour to get back? He had to be doing something other than walking. He may have been casing homes. He also had over 6 minutes to go 800 feet to get into the house he was staying at after Zimmerman dialed 911. It should have only taken 1 or 2 minutes. Martin had to have circled back or hid & launched an ambush on Zimmerman.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 22, 2012)

The Gadfly said:


> I don't know whether it's a political stunt, or whether she actually has some real evidence, since she elected to bypass a grand jury. We'll find out, when pretrial motions begin. All I said was, that either way she can't lose, politically speaking, even if this turns out to be nothing but political theater. Ay worst, she at least LOOKS like she TRIED to make a murder charge stick; if she wins, great, and if she doesn't, well, she won't be the first prosecutor to ever lose a case. Like I said, not a bad position for an elected official to be in.



I disagree.  If Corey cannot make a credible case to justify charging 2nd degree murder rather than manslaughter, she will look like a fool.  It doesn't do a politician any good to say, I tried, if the effort shows she hasn't got the goods.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 22, 2012)

KissMy said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


We don't know how and why Zimmerman was injured, and to what extent. We don't know who attacked who.

We do know that Zimmerman profiled Martin and followed him, making him the aggressor.

The aggressor deserves scrutiny. And now he's getting it. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 22, 2012)

Oconnor4NYC said:


> like.......... at the most 2 stitches. He killed a person over 2 stitches...



Maybe it was over the embarrassment of getting his sissy ass whupped by a teenage kid.


----------



## PredFan (Apr 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> We don't know how and why Zimmerman was injured, and to what extent. We don't know who attacked who.



True



Ravi said:


> We do know that Zimmerman profiled Martin and followed him, making him the aggressor.



False.



Ravi said:


> The aggressor deserves scrutiny. And now he's getting it. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever.



He deserves scrutiny because a person is dead. We do not know if he was the aggressor.


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 22, 2012)

I'm beginning to like Alan more and more daily. Yes, hell has frozen over.

Dershowitz really goes to town on this. He's saying flat out IF the Prosecutor had seen this picture before laying charges that this would make Corey guilty of "grave ethical misconduct".







*" Dershowitz continued, An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie."*

Dershowitz Blasts Zimmerman Prosecution: 'Not Only Immoral, But Stupid'

And if you don't like The Blaze link, the picture released by ABC news has gone viral.

Here's The Telegraph link.

George Zimmerman pictured with bloodied head after Trayvon Martin shooting - Telegraph


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 22, 2012)

Why do you keep putting thread about Zimmerman here when they should be under "Law and Justice"?  

Dershowitz was a guy who though OJ was as pure as the driven snow... lest we forget.


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 22, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Why do you keep putting thread about Zimmerman here when they should be under "Law and Justice"?
> 
> Dershowitz was a guy who though OJ was as pure as the driven snow... lest we forget.



Because the decision to charge Zimmerman is political. 

Plain and simple. If you remember correctly, it was the Florida Governor who demanded Prosecutors to "cough *reinvestigate* cough" the case. 

This is not a "justice" issue whatsoever. It's glaringly political.


----------



## The T (Apr 22, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you keep putting thread about Zimmerman here when they should be under "Law and Justice"?
> ...


 
The Governor of Florida doesn't want a repeat of the L.A. riots (Rodney King) in Florida. The fact that the shit disturber race-baiters as Al not-so-Sharpton were down there is proof.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 22, 2012)

KissMy said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > **IF** sir, Zimmerman grabbed Martin that is Assault under Florida Law, if Zimmerman tried to unlawfully detain Martin and prevent him from leaving the event, that sir is a felony.
> ...




*776.041&#8195;Use of force by aggressor.The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
*(2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)&#8195;Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)&#8195;In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.​

Which supports what I said, there are certain conditions under Florida Law where the aggressor IS NOT covered by self defense if the actions he initiates escalate to the use of deadly force.

Secondly, you left out the preceding paragraph, that paragraph notes that self defense is not available if the individual is committing a felony.  Under Florida law, an assault combined with unlawful detention is a forcible felony.


>>>>


----------



## JoeB131 (Apr 22, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you keep putting thread about Zimmerman here when they should be under "Law and Justice"?
> ...



So was the decision not to prosecute him when he was standing over a dead body with a smoking gun.  

The decision there was, "We wouldn't want to get the gun nuts upset after they passed a goofy Stand Your Ground law."  The cops wanted to charge the guy, the prosecutors said no. 

I should point out the Florida Governor is a Republican.  

My own view. Zimmerman is guilty in the strict moral sense. His actions led to the death of a kid who wasn't guilty of anything. Trayvon would be alive today if not for George Zimmerman.  Now, maybe he can wiggle out under the law, but I hope not.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...




Yes there was, there was specific instructions from the Sanford Police department not to get physically involved with any activity reported.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 22, 2012)

rdean said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




That was kind of  dumb and doesn't contribute to the discussion of the known facts in the case and how they may fit into different scenarios.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 22, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




At this stage in the process I'm not trying to prove Zimmerman is wrong, I'm not trying to prove Martin was wrong.

I'm examining the facts that have been made public in terms of multiple scenarios that the facts support.  Right now we are missing information during those critical sentence that (a) support Zimmerman's version of the events, or (b) conflict with Zimmerman's version of the events.

If I were on the jury and had to vote right now, I'd say "not guilty" as the evidence does not support a Murder 2 charge (IMHO and subject to change based on new information).



Quantum Windbag said:


> > Use of force by aggressor.&#8212;The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
> > *(**2)&#8195;**Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:**(a)&#8195;Such  force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is  in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has  exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the  use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the  assailant; or*
> > *(b)&#8195;In  good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the  assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires  to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues  or resumes the use of force.*
> 
> ...




Actually under the second part you highly lighted it does matter if Zimmerman was the aggressor.  If he was the aggressor AND he was presented with an opportunity to escape the situation that a reasonable person would have used to escape the situation and CHOOSE NOT TO, then the self defense claim is no longer available.

Secondly you appeared to ignore the the first section which also notes that self defense is not available if the individual is involved with committing a forcible felony.  If the state were to show (as a possible scenerio for those missing critical seconds) that Zimmerman assaulted Martin (was the aggressor) and attempted to unlawfully detain Martin (felony) then the combination of assault and unlawful detention would be a forcible felony under Florida law.

But to go back to the beginning of this conversation you said (and I paraphrase) that self defense always applies so that when someone is hitting your head on the ground the claim of "self defense" can be used.  As you've shown by citing the Florida law, there are cases under that law where the aggressor cannot use the self defense claim and be immune from prosecution.

>>>>


----------



## old navy (Apr 22, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> Zimmerman will be dead within a year, in jail or on the street, it doesn't matter.



If found not guilty or if the case is thrown out, Z'man will be given back his Second Amendment rights. He has shown a willingness and ability to shoot to kill. Potential murderers would be wise to approach him with caution. Or, as the scenario will probably play out, his killer will do it in a drive-by or other such manner.


----------



## Peach (Apr 22, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



Dershowitz should be assisting the defense if he sees such a terrible wrong; instead he is making money off of it...........................


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 22, 2012)

Luissa said:


> The girlfriend's testimony also says Zimmerman was the one who continued to follow Martin and pursue him, not the other way around. Didn't she testify for the prosecution? I would say that is the witness that doesn't back up Zimmerman's claim.



The girlfriend is not a witness to the events since she didn't witness anything.  She wasn't there.  She can be a witness to what Martin told her.   She can't even be a witness that what Martin told her is the truth.  What Martin told her, is only hearsay.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 22, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Then you have evidence that no one else has because all that is known and no doubt the dispatcher will testify that he said 'we don't need for you to do that".


----------



## paperview (Apr 22, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > The girlfriend's testimony also says Zimmerman was the one who continued to follow Martin and pursue him, not the other way around. Didn't she testify for the prosecution? I would say that is the witness that doesn't back up Zimmerman's claim.
> ...


You obviously don't understand the legal term _hearsay_.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 22, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




The Sanford PD handbook for Neighborhood watch specifically tells them not to get physically involved.

"What you will not do is get physically involved with any activity you report or
apprehension of any suspicious persons. This is the job of the law enforcement agency.​

Police instruction to Neighborhood Watch personnel not to get physically involved seems pretty clear to me.



http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 22, 2012)

Peach said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



If this picture had been available to the Prosecutor, shouldn't it have been made available in the affadavit?

That's what Dershowitz is simply arguing here. That if the Prosecution had this photo and didn't include it in the affadavit, that would be unethical.


----------



## paperview (Apr 22, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


I've posted this several times now.

Surprised you missed it:




*Sanford Police Department Neighborhood Watch Handbook
*


> You will add your &#8220;eyes and ears&#8221; to
> those of the Police Department which
> cannot be everywhere, all the time, by
> keeping a watchful eye and open ear to
> ...


^^^^ Emphasis THEIRS.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf

    In big bolded font the above words there  INSIST people are not to     "* get physically involved with any activity you report or       apprehen[d] of any suspicious persons."*

    They do that in not only one area of the NW Guidelines, *but twice.      
    In BOLD letters.*

    We KNOW Zimmerman was told by police this, as *Z was the one who     helped facilitate the NW meeting with the* *Sanford Police Chief*     for guidelines, and as* contact and Captain* would necessarily     need to be informed of the rules:

    Twin Lakes at Retreat news letter -*Sept 2011*:
*George Zimmerman's name listed as contact & that Chief Lee       was coming to next meeting:* RTL Newsletter September 2011 FINAL

*Feb 2012* Twin Lakes at Retreat news letter - *George       Zimmerman identified as Captain: *RTL February 2012 Newsletter

    SFP -meeting with residents after shooting - Relaying Zimmerman *was       acting as NW at the time of the shooting:* Sanford PD Meeting

In addition:



> In September, the Sanford police helped the Retreat start a     neighborhood watch program.
> 
> "Some residents called me wanting to do a startup," said Dorival, a        civilian police employee. About 30 people came to the clubhouse   for      that first session, she said. "Everyone was enthusiastic." *Zimmerman     volunteered to be captain.*
> 
> "I told them, this is not about being a vigilante police force,"     Dorival said.* "You're not even supposed to patrol on neighborhood     watch. And you're certainly not supposed to carry a gun.*"


 Trayvon Martin's killing shatters safety within Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford - Tampa Bay Times


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 22, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > The girlfriend's testimony also says Zimmerman was the one who continued to follow Martin and pursue him, not the other way around. Didn't she testify for the prosecution? I would say that is the witness that doesn't back up Zimmerman's claim.
> ...




Can blind people testify in court as to what they hear?  Or are they not to be considered a witness because they can't see?



[Silly question of course.]

>>>>


----------



## paperview (Apr 22, 2012)

I even took  a picture for those who don't like to read the smaller fonts.






From the *actual* *Sanford Police Department Neighborhood Watch Handbook*


----------



## Peach (Apr 22, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > JoeB131 said:
> ...



That is up to the Judge.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 22, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...




If you mean NW organiztion can't report activity in their neighborhoods, that's silly.

On the other hand if you mean NW organizations are possibly pursuing/following/chasing individuals creating situations where unarmed people are getting shot, then ya, they would have to disband.


[/Silly answer to hyperbolic statement.]


>>>>


----------



## Peach (Apr 22, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



Reporting isn't the problem, shooting someone dead before the police got there WAS.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 22, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Trayvon's ho didn't say anything about Trayvon saying Zimmerman had a gun.  All the evidence is against the hypothetical situation you suggest.  However, there is evidence that Trayvon intended to intimidate Zimmerman, and then later assaulted him.




Would that evidence be...

1.  When he was near the clubhouse (per Zimmerman's phone description) with the Zimmerman's truck parked between him and his destination (house and location of Zimmerman's truck) so that Martin had to walk toward the truck to continue down the street to where he was staying?

2.  Would that evidence be that Martin reached into his pocket to answer an inbound phone call at the exact time that Zimmerman claims he was reaching into his "waistband"? (Based on dispatcher call and phone records.)

3.  Or would it be that of the two we have Martin known for running away from the situation (per Zimmerman's account) and Zimmerman running after Martin AFTER Martin began to to leave?​


>>>>


----------



## rdean (Apr 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I'm the dope?  The tapes have been linked to dozens of times.  You can clearly hear Zimmerman getting out of the care and huffing and puffing to catch up to that child who Zimmerman said is running away.   It's why he says "they always get away".  The police asked if Zimmerman is following that kid and Zimmerman says "yes".  When the policeman says, "You don't need to do that", is it the same as "do that"?  See?  One has "don't" in it and the other doesn't.  Which one did the police say?

Go ahead, call me a dope, but you are being "willfully ignorant".  No way around that.


----------



## rdean (Apr 22, 2012)

paperview said:


> I even took  a picture for those who don't like to read the smaller fonts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Funny, that part in bold is the only part Republicans can't see.  What they don't believe in, turns invisible and is suddenly not there and never was.  So convenient.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 22, 2012)

Peach said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...




Shooting someone dead before the police get there is not a problem either if you observed and reported and then were attacked by some unknown individual.  On the other hand if you inject yourself into a situation in such a manner as to be considered the aggressor in a felonious manner, then their would be a problem.

At this point we don't have specific evidence for either claim.


>>>>


----------



## Meister (Apr 22, 2012)

*merged*


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

rdean said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > I even took  a picture for those who don't like to read the smaller fonts.
> ...



Not getting physically involved cannot possibly mean that you are forbidden from defending yourself if one of the guys you have been monitoring happens to react by assaulting you.  

So, once again, rderp's post is lacking in even basic comprehension.

rderp, you dishonest mopey shit-sucker;  If we are permitted in this free society to engage in neighborhood watch activities (which we are -- and we need not ask ANYBODY for such "permission, either), then the direction not to get physically involved obviously means tht you leave holding, restraint, arrests and so forth to the police.  It does NOT mean that you lose the right of self defense if attacked.

We do not know if Trayvon attacked Zimmerman.  But we also don't know that he didn't.  YOUR stupid speculation has no foundation in anything we do know, either.


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

rdean said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Yes.  You are the dope.  Following is not the same as chasing you utterly dishonest stupid hack piece of crap.

Furthermore, it's already obvious to all thinking honest people, but the advice that one is not obligated to do an act is NOT the same as a direction to refrain,.

You can't even be honest about things when you KNOW that everybody plainly sees that you are lying.

As propagandists go, you suck moose dick at it, rderp.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 22, 2012)

paperview said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Obviously you don't.   What Martin told his girlfriend is hearsay, now which exception will be applied to the girlfriend's statements?


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

The girlfriend's "testimony?"

What "testimony" was that?

There has been no trial yet.

I don't recall a girlfriend testifying at the one bail hearing, either.


----------



## California Girl (Apr 22, 2012)

rdean said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > I even took  a picture for those who don't like to read the smaller fonts.
> ...



Was Zimmerman acting in his neighborhood watch capacity at the time? No. Therefore, it is irrelevant. But you seem to lack the basic comprehension to grasp that fact. Why do you hate education so much?


----------



## paperview (Apr 22, 2012)

California Girl said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


The need to go personal right off the bat is obviously very deep with you.

That's too bad.

Now that that's out of the way, here is where I tell you you are wrong.

Sanford Police Department Letter -----> Relaying* Zimmerman 
was       acting as NW at the time of the shooting: Sanford PD Meeting*  <----Link


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 22, 2012)

California Girl said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



GG, you may be confused so let me speak in general as a member of Neighborhood Watch.

Most neighborhoods don't have "patrols", "don't have shifts", don't have a timeclock where we "punch in/punch out".  Neighborhood Watch is typically a group of citizens that commit to - well - watching the neighborhood and reporting activity to the police if and when needed.  

There is no "on clock/off clock".  If you look to the sentence before the bolded part of the paragraph you will note that we "You will extend their ability to provide security by reporting anything unusual or suspicious, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, so they can follow up on your calls."


>>>>


----------



## paperview (Apr 22, 2012)

*Would it help if I put a picture there for you too, CG?*












*Sanford PD Meeting*


----------



## oracle (Apr 22, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> We told you racists for weeks that Zimmerman was attacked, that he was yelling for help and that he had cuts to his head. But you racists wanted to demonize the white guy (who is actually half Argentine and half Jewish).
> 
> Ya'll wanted to make this about the poor black guy. Poor black guy can't even thug w/o someone daring to ask what he's up to. Screw ya'll. This is what Trayvon Martin is about and this is why he got popped.
> 
> ...



Was that a police photo? Where's the time stamp? Why wasn't it released in the beginning? Ever heard of photoshop? Why did the lead officer want to arrest him INSTEAD of take him in for stitches? Run that goofy shit and staged photo on someone else. When they were initially trying to use this "head wound" look at the areas they circled then. the spots don't match up to these current spots. And again...Time stamp please.


----------



## oracle (Apr 22, 2012)

M14 Shooter said:


> Oconnor4NYC said:
> 
> 
> > like.......... at the most 2 stitches. He killed a person over 2 stitches...
> ...



ATTACKED HIM??? I guess emmet till had it coming too.


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

oracle said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > We told you racists for weeks that Zimmerman was attacked, that he was yelling for help and that he had cuts to his head. But you racists wanted to demonize the white guy (who is actually half Argentine and half Jewish).
> ...



The time stamp was incorporated into the digital information in the image taken on a cell phone ~ 3 minutes AFTER the gun was fired -- according to a report I saw from ABC News.  (Time of gunshot established independently from the 9-1-1 call and tape.)

George Zimmerman Trial: New Photographic Evidence | Video - ABC News

Look to the 2:20 mark on that video report to about 2:28 or so.  Date taken:  2/26/2012 707 PM.


----------



## oracle (Apr 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> oracle said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...


WRONG! The Fla. police have already said there were no visual witnesses...So who took the pic?


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

oracle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > oracle said:
> ...



WTF are you babbling about?

No visual witnesses to WHAT, first of all.

Three MINUTES after the shooting, ANYBODY could snap a photo of the back of Zimmerman's head.  ABC news honored his/her request to remain anonymous. 

Even a pinhead like YOU should be able to fathom that SOMEBODY was enough of a "visual witness" to snap the cell phone picture, you moron.

The term, by the way, is "eyewitness."  One need not observe a crime to be an eyewitness.  For example, if one is a block away and saw a person running by on foot wearing a particular item of clothing moments later, one is an eyewitness to THAT which he or she OBSERVED.

Back to the photo.  WTF are you trying to grunt out?  The photo exists.  The time/date stamp is embedded.  ABC got it from SOMEONE.  It shows what it shows.  

That a pinhead like you doesn't like those facts is quite clearly of no significance to any matter under discussion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 22, 2012)

The Gadfly said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



That pretty much sums it up. As of this point there is no real evidence that would cause me to believe Zimmerman is lying. Are their inconsistencies in his story? Of course, but that does not prove he is lying, it just proves that he was confused. That often happens if someone is attacked, so it is not enough for me to think that he is lying.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 22, 2012)

The Gadfly said:


> So far, there have been exactly TWO people commenting in this thread who have any extensive experience seeing and treating the sort of head wounds Zimmerman apparently sustained-one former navy corpsman, and one EMT/Paramedic (that would be Old Navy, and myself). Now, what I want to know, is just where the rest of you self-styled experts on head wounds, what they should look like, and how they might have been sustained, got the requisite professional experience to know what you claim to be so sure of. Please tell us; I sure would like to know how qualified you are to offer an opinion, since you seem to know so much more than we do. Ravi, rdean, and Peach (among others), let's hear it.



I have some experience with head wounds, from the inside. That experience has taught me that the guy inside a head wound usually overreacts to the blood, or under reacts to the concussion. The one cut I had on my head bled so much that my shirt was soaked, and I didn't even need stitches. The one concussion I had left me thinking I was fine, even if I couldn't remember actually bouncing my head off the turf.


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 22, 2012)

To be honest, it doesn't look like all that much blood.  He also said his nose was broken, no blood there either.  If this is the extent of his injuries, he should be embarrassed exaggerating so.

When he got out of the squad car at the station, there was no blood on the front of his shirt like there would be from a nose injury.


----------



## Intense (Apr 22, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> To be honest, it doesn't look like all that much blood.  He also said his nose was broken, no blood there either.  If this is the extent of his injuries, he should be embarrassed exaggerating so.
> 
> When he got out of the squad car at the station, there was no blood on the front of his shirt like there would be from a nose injury.



Shiut. Kerry got at least 2 Purple Hearts for injuries far less than that.


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> To be honest, it doesn't look like all that much blood.  He also said his nose was broken, no blood there either.  If this is the extent of his injuries, he should be embarrassed exaggerating so.
> 
> When he got out of the squad car at the station, there was no blood on the front of his shirt like there would be from a nose injury.



You can't see his face through the back of his bloodied head.

The images that came later (from the police garage) were AFTER he had time to get cleaned up.  So we don't know if they fairly reflect how he looked at the time the back of his head was shown in the ABC news photo.

Is it POSSIBLE that he had no injury to his nose?  Sure.  But can any of us say WHAT the condition of his nose was?  Nope.


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

Intense said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest, it doesn't look like all that much blood.  He also said his nose was broken, no blood there either.  If this is the extent of his injuries, he should be embarrassed exaggerating so.
> ...



Rice Puffs are deadly man!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Actually, the only thing we know for sure about this case is that Zimmerman did not profile anyone. The reason for that is actually very simple, by definition, only government agencies can profile, individuals cannot. If your only basis for calling Zimmerman the aggressor is your misunderstanding of profiling then you are flat out wrong.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 22, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Why do you keep putting thread about Zimmerman here when they should be under "Law and Justice"?
> 
> Dershowitz was a guy who though OJ was as pure as the driven snow... lest we forget.



And?


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

JoeB131 said:


> Why do you keep putting thread about Zimmerman here when they should be under "Law and Justice"?
> 
> Dershowitz was a guy who though OJ was as pure as the driven snow... lest we forget.




Maybe it was moved.  But we ARE in law and justice.

Dershowitz could have been wrong yesterday. ::  He might be right today.

So the question is NOT whether he has ever been wrong.

*The question is whether he's right, now.*

And, he might very well be right in this case.


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest, it doesn't look like all that much blood.  He also said his nose was broken, no blood there either.  If this is the extent of his injuries, he should be embarrassed exaggerating so.
> ...



An injury to his nose would have created blood dripping on his shirt, there was none of that in the video.  I can see him not having blood on the back of his head if they stupidly cleaned him up but a punch in the nose would create blood on his clothes.

He could have gotten that bloody head by being pushed backwards but that would mean that Travon intended to push him down and run.

That would have been my strategy.  I don't think we even know where the bullet entered Travon.  That would underscore Travon's intent.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 22, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> At this stage in the process I'm not trying to prove Zimmerman is wrong, I'm not trying to prove Martin was wrong.
> 
> I'm examining the facts that have been made public in terms of multiple scenarios that the facts support.  Right now we are missing information during those critical sentence that (a) support Zimmerman's version of the events, or (b) conflict with Zimmerman's version of the events.
> 
> If I were on the jury and had to vote right now, I'd say "not guilty" as the evidence does not support a Murder 2 charge (IMHO and subject to change based on new information).



What you are, however, trying to do is inject an erroneous and sepcious interpretation of Florida law. Even when more than one person has pointed out the flaw in your "reasoning" you persist in arguing that, under Florida law, Zimmerman is automatically guilty if he started the fight. That is so stupid that it is hard to believe that anyone other than rdean would even try it, yet you are going so. You can pretend to clear it up by saying you aren't trying to say he is guilty, but that is not the issue I have with your posts, so I can ignore it, and point out how stupid your position is.



WorldWatcher said:


> Actually under the second part you highly lighted it does matter if Zimmerman was the aggressor.  If he was the aggressor AND he was presented with an opportunity to escape the situation that a reasonable person would have used to escape the situation and CHOOSE NOT TO, then the self defense claim is no longer available.
> 
> Secondly you appeared to ignore the the first section which also notes that self defense is not available if the individual is involved with committing a forcible felony.  If the state were to show (as a possible scenerio for those missing critical seconds) that Zimmerman assaulted Martin (was the aggressor) and attempted to unlawfully detain Martin (felony) then the combination of assault and unlawful detention would be a forcible felony under Florida law.
> 
> ...



No, it doesn't? Did you actually read it before you started to blather? If he, as he claimed, was lying on the ground getting his head bashed in, he had no opportunity to escape. 

Self defense always applies, even under Florida law. The statutory exceptions to that apply only if the person trying to claim self defense is in the midst of committing a felony, or is trying to escape from being captured. In other words, it means that a guy who breaks into your house and kills you cannot argue self defense because you pulled a gun on him. That is suck basic common sense that only an idiot would need it explained to him, and only an asshole would try to use it to defend his absurd argument that Zimmerman cannot claim self defense if he was the aggressor.

Again, I thank you for making my point.


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you keep putting thread about Zimmerman here when they should be under "Law and Justice"?
> ...



That's what my fascination for the case is. Hey I'm just a person who loves crime. I'm watching this one and going this is nuts.  I think Alan is bang on the money on this though.

I've watched Alan for years. He's dogged this one. Most interesting.

Really more involved in the Tori Stafford case up here and trying to get laws changed.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 22, 2012)

paperview said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



If you are trying to argue that what she heard is not hearsay you are the one that does not understand.


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



First off:  maybe.  Secondly, let's go with "probably."  Thirdly, do you have some way of knowing that he hadn't gotten cleaned up and gotten his shirt changed?



Sarah G said:


> I can see him not having blood on the back of his head if they stupidly cleaned him up but a punch in the nose would create blood on his clothes.



see 1, 2 and 3, above.



Sarah G said:


> He could have gotten that bloody head by being pushed backwards but that would mean that Trayvon intended to push him down and run.



No.  It does not "mean" any such thing.  It MIGHT (for example) mean that Trayvon was on top and managed to pound Zimmerman's head at least a couple of times into the ground before Zimmerman extricated himself from that disadvantageous situation by firing the gun.



Sarah G said:


> That would have been my strategy.



Perhaps.  But maybe Trayvon had his OWN strategy.  Maybe his was to beat the shit out of a guy who had been following him around?



Sarah G said:


> I don't think we even know where the bullet entered Travon.  That would underscore Travon's intent.



No.  You don't know where it entered the victim's body.  And where it entered his body MIGHT tell you what Zimmerman was busy doing at that very moment -- at least in conjunction with the rest of the forensic evidence.  It is not likely to tell you anything about what Trayvon might have been concerned with.


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 22, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> To be honest, it doesn't look like all that much blood.  He also said his nose was broken, no blood there either.  If this is the extent of his injuries, he should be embarrassed exaggerating so.
> 
> When he got out of the squad car at the station, there was no blood on the front of his shirt like there would be from a nose injury.



The EMT's had already taken care of him.

You know what this is? Crazy talk over and over and over sarah.



Okey dokey. Sarah you ever been hit?  First time my ex husband put his fist right at my head I didn't bleed. Fuck man. It hurt.

Shall we continue?


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Honestly, what do you think Liability? Right from the hip.


----------



## California Girl (Apr 22, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



OK. Thanks.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> The girlfriend's "testimony?"
> 
> What "testimony" was that?
> 
> ...



Indeed, and the statements the gf has made were to Benjamin Crump, the Martin family's attorney, in the presence of an ABC reporter.  These statements contained very little substance.  



> ABC News was there exclusively as the 16-year-old girl told Crump about the last moments of the teenager's life. Martin had been talking to his girlfriend all the way to the store where he bought Skittles and a tea. The phone was in his pocket and the earphone in his ear, Crump said.
> 
> "He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on. He said he lost the man," Martin's friend said. "I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run."
> 
> ...



Trayvon Martin Arrest Now After ABC Reveals Crucial Phone Call - ABC News



> He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on.



That seems a strange response to some one watching him.  Why was Martin afraid of being recognized or identified?  Why did this seem such a natural response to his gf?  What did she know about Martin's activities that made hiding his identity seem so natural to her?  



> I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run, but he said he was not going to run.



This suggests Martin had not yet made up his mind about fight or flight.



> Eventually, he would run, said the girl, thinking that he'd managed to escape. But suddenly the strange man was back, cornering Martin.



Who thought Martin had managed to escape, Martin or the gf?  It's not credible that this 17 year old 160 lb. football player couldn't have outrun overweight Zimmerman, suggesting that Martin was not running _away _from Zimmerman, and since the confrontation took place in an open area, the idea that Martin had been "cornered" is an obvious "invention" of the gf.  That raises the question, what else in her account of the conversation might have been invented?



> Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn't answer the phone."



Of course, she could have no idea if "the headset just fell" because some one pushed Martin or because Martin attacked Zimmerman.

The gf's parents have hired an attorney to protect their daughter's rights.  Just what rights are those?  Her fifth amendment rights against self incrimination?  Just what did she know about the allegedly stolen jewelry and the burglary tool found in Martin's backpack?  Did she have knowledge that these items were related to Martin's past or present activities in the gated community?  Is this why they were both so afraid of him being recognized?


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Travon said to his girlfriend that he wasn't going to run but he would walk fast.  Then Zimmerman confronted him.  It wasn't the other way round.  Zimmerman was the aggressor from the start.

He didn't look at all like a guy who had been hit in the face, there wasn't any swelling, nothing.  He wasn't hurt and that blood on the back of his head was minimal.  So you're saying he might have been allowed to change his shirt?  

He may have got pushed but he wasn't hit.

Plus he was already concocting his self defense story, why would he want to change his shirt?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 22, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...





> The initial police report noted that Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of the head and nose, and his lawyer later claimed that Zimmeran suffered a broken nose. After receiving medical attention at the scene of the shooting, it was decided that he was in good enough condition to travel in a police cruiser to the Sanford, Fla., police station for questioning. He did not check into the emergency room following the police questioning.



Trayvon Martin Case: Doctor Sees Little Evidence George Zimmerman Had Broken Nose - ABC News

So according to the initial police report Zimmerman's injuries are consistent with his account of being attacked by Martin.  Although the doctor in the above link claims he sees little evidence of a broken nose, according to the Mayo Clinic,



> Signs and symptoms of a broken nose may appear immediately or may take up to three days to develop.



Broken nose: Symptoms - MayoClinic.com


----------



## oracle (Apr 22, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Actually, it's you who doesn't understand. The legal statute for hearsay, is if the girlfriend's buddy had been the one to tell about what the girlfriend said she heard him say. In other words, if Trayvon's words were relayed by a third party.


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



I am content with knowing that I don't know, that I don't have enough information (reliable information) yet to MAKE a determination and that *eventually* we are likely to get the information needed to make a rational "call" on this one.

Given the limited information we do have so far, together with the legal presumption of innocence, I am also content that anyone who declares Zimmerman "guilty" at this juncture has a screw loose.

Is it *possible* that Zimmerman is guilty?  Yes.   Given what we know so far, is it at least as likely that he's not guilty?  Yes.


----------



## oracle (Apr 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> oracle said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Apparently, so was the blood. So....you're just pulling something from your ass? You post the abc video so we can see the time stamp, OR should we just take your word for it?


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

oracle said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



oracle you are wrong.

Hearsay is an out of court statement offered (in a court proceeding) for the proof of the matter asserted.  There are some scenarios where what seems like hearsay is legally NOT hearsay at all.  There are other scenarios where something IS hearsay but is allowed to be received into evidence just the same based on a legally recognized exception to the general rule prohibiting hearsay.  It is also true that sometimes one's *own* words (uttered out of court) are hearsay and can't be used in court.

In this case, we are not really talking about any "hearsay" at this juncture.


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

oracle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > oracle said:
> ...



I did post the link you mental pygmy.  It's right there (underlined) in the post of mine you fucking quoted, you imbecile.  

George Zimmerman Trial: New Photographic Evidence | Video - ABC News


----------



## oracle (Apr 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> oracle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Hey Dickhead! The Fla. police called them "visual witnesses" and you obviously sit on your brain, because your example of eyewitness still said what someone "SAW" YOU FLAMING JACKASS! B.T.W. Who do you suppose got that close right after the "beating" and shooting to snap a photo? What? Police don't have cameras or phones? Get a clue mongrel. The photo exists. It's laughable at best. As is your feeble argument.


----------



## oracle (Apr 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest, it doesn't look like all that much blood.  He also said his nose was broken, no blood there either.  If this is the extent of his injuries, he should be embarrassed exaggerating so.
> ...


Actually, it's already been proven that there was no damage to his nose...by several experts. AND did you see his mug shot? Or him at the arraignment? How about the front of his shirt at the station? did they take him to the laundry on the way?


----------



## oracle (Apr 22, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



You are dumb. You know that right?


----------



## oracle (Apr 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> JoeB131 said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you keep putting thread about Zimmerman here when they should be under "Law and Justice"?
> ...



Because he's speaking your language?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 22, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



Aren't you one of the people that argued that the video proved there was no injury to the back of his head?


----------



## oracle (Apr 22, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest, it doesn't look like all that much blood.  He also said his nose was broken, no blood there either.  If this is the extent of his injuries, he should be embarrassed exaggerating so.
> ...



Sounds like he went there once too often, because you are clearly touched. So, what happened the first time he broke your nose? Slammed your head into the concrete repeatedly for over a minute?


----------



## oracle (Apr 22, 2012)

California Girl said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



Are you forgetting that said watch group has explained he wasn't with them?


----------



## KissMy (Apr 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Bullshit!

Straight out of a Florida Neighborhood Watch Book.


> *Suspicious Activities Include:*
> 
> - A person with seemingly no purpose, wandering around or loitering in the neighborhood.
> 
> ...


----------



## oracle (Apr 22, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



According to his father, he was verbally assaulted at his truck first. Anyone remember that? His brother said his nose was clearly broken. Anyone remember that? Now we know those statements to be lies, but I guess we should keep thinking that there's a reasonable explanation right? What about his token "black" uncle? Why is he gone again? So many questions and so many wanting to strike a blow for the white man.lol


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 22, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > At this stage in the process I'm not trying to prove Zimmerman is wrong, I'm not trying to prove Martin was wrong.
> ...



Nope, never made such speculation that Zimmerman is automatically guilty if he started the fight.  What I have done is simply cite Florida Law that says that his self defense claim could be negated **IF** the state were to prove that Zimmerman was in the process of committing a forcible felony, which is in fact true.

So you are debating a strawman that I have no claimed.




Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Actually under the second part you highly lighted it does matter if Zimmerman was the aggressor.  If he was the aggressor AND he was presented with an opportunity to escape the situation that a reasonable person would have used to escape the situation and CHOOSE NOT TO, then the self defense claim is no longer available.
> ...




Thank you for contradicting yourself with "Self defense always applies, even under Florida law. The statutory exceptions...".  If there are statutory exceptions to the use of Self Defense as an affirmative defense, then Self Defense does not always apply.  If there are exceptions, then self defense does not always apply.

The law is very clear (776.041) there are certain conditions under Florida Law where the aggressor cannot claim self defense.  You use an example of someone breaking into your home and you fear for your life, self defense is warranted.  I agree.

On the other hand if you are female and walking home from the local library at night and someone drags you into an alley and begins aggravated assault and battery upon your person.  You fear for your life and fight back, you begin winning and the assailant pulls a gun and shoots you.  In that case the individual is committing a forcible felony and the claim of "self defense" by the initial aggressor would be negated.

I have not claimed as truth (unlike some others) of Zimmerman's guilt or innocence, I'm simply discussing the law as it pertains to multiple scenarios that current comply with the evidence that is available.  As more facts come out in the future some scenarios my be modified or eliminated, we'll just have to wait and see.


>>>>


----------



## oracle (Apr 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Yeah! Just like Casey Anthony. Because she was found "not guilty and CLEARLY innocent. Gotta love the Florida justice system.


----------



## oracle (Apr 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> oracle said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



GOOGLE strikes again. Because I didn't use the word for word edition doesn't mean I'm wrong. First he has to even SEE a courtroom. Second, if you know how the premise for how the hearsay claim works, then you know they try to bring it out before it get's into a courtroom. The reason being, you can't make the jury unhear a spoken statement. And in fact, fox HAS brought up hearsay already, so yes we are. Right now, the media is flooding the airways with so much misinformation, that the defense is already trying to push the point that he can't get a fair trial, because such misinformation could prejudice any jury due to "hearsay". Law 101.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> oracle said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Liability, I would greatly appreciate a more in-depth explanation of the application of the hearsay rules as it applies to this case.

Here are the Florida rules:

90.801   Hearsay; definitions; exceptions.
90.802   Hearsay rule.
90.803   Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial.
90.804   Hearsay exceptions; declarant unavailable.


My understanding is that the girlfriend if called to the witness stand would testify as to four fundamental parts of her involvement:
1.  Date/Time of telephone conversations/messages with Martin which would be corroborated with phone records.
2.  The content of conversations with Martin (specifically what she told him).
3.  The content of conversations with Martin (specifically what he said to her).
4.  Any background noise or statements/questions said by an unknown third party through the telephone connection.​

For each of the 4 parts, would that likely be considered hearsay and or not?  If hearsay would it qualify under one of the exemptions to admission to be heard and weighed by the jury?  (Since it was included in the Probable Cause Affidavit, we can assume the prosecution will be trying to bring in all or part of the 4 points so I'm curious on how they would stand.)



Thank you in advance for your thoughtful input.

WW

>>>>


----------



## oracle (Apr 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> oracle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I said video with time stamp!!! Getting foul of the mouth doesn't make you more right, it just makes you look frustrated, sexually confused  and dumb. M-kay sissy pants.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 22, 2012)

oracle said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...














Funny, there have been links to the Homeowners Association news letter listing Zimmerman as the Watch Captain.

Then there is the Sanford Police Department release that states that Zimmerman was acting as part of the Neighborhood Watch.

(But truth be told, whether Zimmerman was part of the Neighborhood Watch program is irrelevant to the actual case because NW instructions specifically say not to become involved with activity you report.)


>>>>


----------



## oracle (Apr 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> oracle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I looked at your link. THAT was you "proof"? So...I guess it's irrefutable let him go free.  You must have something better than that right?


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

oracle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > oracle said:
> ...



If you looked at the link, dipshit, then your demand that I post the video makes no fucking sense.

And I didn't say it was proof.  YOU, being the douche bag you are, demanded the video link.

I provided it with some evidence (if you can believe those reporter types from ABC) that the image of Zimmerman's banged up noggin came from a witness who snapped the picture within three minutes of the gun shot.

Indeed, unless the witness lied to ABC and somehow quickly fudged the embedded data (you could be a 9/11 twoofer if that's your idiotic theory), then the image is exactly as I described it.

Also, you fucking asshole, I haven't said anything about letting him go free.  YOU and your asshole ilk have pronounced him guilty.  By contrast, I have refused to label him either guilty or innocent.

Objective and honest you will never be, oracle.


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

oracle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



No such thing has been "proven."

On the basis of a serious LACK of actual evidence, SOME folks have offered premature opinions on the matter.  That's your kind of thing.  Because you are a douche.


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

oracle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > oracle said:
> ...



Forget google.  And forget the fact that he hasn't even been to court on the actual charges yet.

YOU pontificate on the matter as though you know anything about it.  You don't.

You throw out legal sounding phrases as though you understand what they mean.  Clearly you don't.

A fair trial, you asshole, starts WITHOUT the presumption of guilt.  So work on that, you twerp.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 22, 2012)

Peach said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > > With ABC News release of the George Zimmerman photo showing blood flowing freely from his head, the question becomes whether Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the case, had access to the photo before charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder.
> ...



Yes, well, I believe that IS the point of self-defense:  to make sure YOU don't end up dead.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 22, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Nope, never made such speculation that Zimmerman is automatically guilty if he started the fight.  What I have done is simply cite Florida Law that says that his self defense claim could be negated **IF** the state were to prove that Zimmerman was in the process of committing a forcible felony, which is in fact true.
> 
> So you are debating a strawman that I have no claimed.[/quote[
> 
> ...


----------



## paperview (Apr 22, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> oracle said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...


*hey!!* <hands on hips> ** I work my ass off tor you , and I get no credit***

Harrumph!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 22, 2012)

Luissa said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Oconnor4NYC said:
> ...



Why is it that everything we say on the subject ends up having evidence to support it, and everything you say on the subject is all stuff you "figured out", ie. speculation?

Please show us some sort of evidence that he "followed the kid after he was told not to" (contradicted by the 911 call), that "the kid was _probably _attacked" (contradicted by the fact that Martin didn't have a mark on him OTHER than the gunshot wound), that this had anything to do with Martin's race (contradicted by the fact that not one of you has provided a shred of evidence stating otherwise, and have instead falsified evidence to try to prove it), or that Zimmerman was "twice his size" (contradicted by just looking at the two of them).

By all means, source ANY of the bullshit you've decided to believe about this case, and keep presenting to us as accepted "facts".  For that matter, prove that you can define the word "fact", because quite frankly, your posts lead me to believe you can't.


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > oracle said:
> ...



Florida law (including governing case law analysis) might differ from the rules I am used to.  So, really, I can't address your questions EXCEPT in very general terms using some basic NY law as my point of reference.  If the case ever goes to trial (I doubt it will), then the prosecution could call Trayvon's girlfriend in order to lay the proper foundation to get into evidence (assuming they wish to do so) the contents of the call. 

Since Trayvon is not available to tell the jury what happened, it is possible that she could relate what she heard at that time under an exception to the general rule prohibiting hearsay.  For example, it might be introducable as evidence as (possibly) an "excited utterance."  It could (possibly) come in as HER "past recollection recorded" if it had been recorded simultaneously.  The later seems unlikely.  

It (or portions of her memory of what was said) could also come in under the exception for "present sense impression" which might suffice to describe Trayvon's emotional state (anger or fear, etc).

The basic legal problem with the admission of hearsay is that it is impossible to cross examine the "other" person to test for the reliability of whatever HE might have been saying at that time.  For example, if SHE claims that HE said "X, Y and Z" but he never did say those things, you can cross examine her, but you can't cross examine HIM.  Plus if he did say "X, Y and Z" but was busy lying his ass off at that very moment (for whatever reasons he might have had) -- how do you establish that he was being dishonest by cross examining HER about it?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 22, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Shame on you for actually paying attention to the evidence, instead of "figuring out what probably happened" based on your own prejudices and wild-assed speculation.  Luissa doesn't accept that sort of shoddy, logic-based decision-making, I'll have you know.


----------



## Againsheila (Apr 22, 2012)

Luissa said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



He was a stranger in a neighborhood that had a high crime rate and a neighborhood watch group.  Walking through the neighborhood at night, acting strangely "like he was on drugs or something".


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Some hearsay evidence is permissible, some isn't. Ultimately, it comes down to how the judge feels about it at the moment. Under the circumstances, the girlfriend will probably be able to testify about the phone call and what she heard, because that is direct knowledge. my guess is she will also be able to testify about what Martin told her was happening, even though it is hearsay, because they will be able to justify it under the excited utterance exception. Additionally, hearsay evidence is generally allowed in a case where the person who made the statement is unavailable.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



It's important to distinguish between what was said on the phone and what actions Martin and Zimmerman actually took.  If called, she can testify to what was said on the phone because she has first hand knowledge about the conversation, but she cannot testify about what actions Martin and Zimmerman actually took because she has no first hand knowledge about what they actually did.


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Unless he had a camera phone and was sending her the images.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Images of what?


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 22, 2012)

Has anyone on this board ever been a member of Neighborhood Watch?

I have. Mid 80's huge high rise Toronto suburb.  Nightmare from hell. You don't go out gunslinging. You are actually quite fearful for most of your members.

I breathe cock locked and ready to rock, but then I'm a hunter. Most people who join NW groups are like Zimmerman. Nice people, never thinking once in their lives that some one is going to be "mean".


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



Who knows?

Whatever it is that's deemed worthy of description from the witness.  Maybe he had an image of Zimmerman pointing the gun at him from a distance.  And if he did have such an image on his phone, and happened to have sent it to his girlfriend, I have no doubt the prosecutor could make a pretty compelling argument as to its admissibility.

If the prosecution could get that into evidence, game over.  Zimmerman would go down like a cheap whore.

It hardly matters.  This is entirely hypothetical "what if" nonsense at this point.

Like the old SNL skit:  "What if Kal El had landed in Nazi Germany instead of in Smallville?"


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 22, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, never made such speculation that Zimmerman is automatically guilty if he started the fight.  What I have done is simply cite Florida Law that says that his self defense claim could be negated **IF** the state were to prove that Zimmerman was in the process of committing a forcible felony, which is in fact true.
> ...



Except the fact is that I have pointed out in this thread and in multiple threads on this board **IF** the state were to prove that Zimmerman was in the process of committing a forcible felony then he would not qualify under Florida Law 776.041 for self defense immunity.  *AND* that the state would have to supply evidence to prove it or that Zimmerman should be found not quilty for lack of evidence.

Repeated numerous times.  And for those that have paid attention I'm very careful to qualify the description of such a scenario as unknown and one the state would have to prove.




Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for contradicting yourself with "Self defense always applies, even under Florida law. The statutory exceptions...".  If there are statutory exceptions to the use of Self Defense as an affirmative defense, then Self Defense does not always apply.  If there are exceptions, then self defense does not always apply.
> ...



You do understand what a "forcible felony" is right?

Forcibile Felony includes such things as aggravated assault, aggravated battery, kidnapping and unlawful detention, rape, murder, etc.

If Zimmerman was the aggressor and was committing simple assault he would still be able to claim self defense as simple assault is a misdemeanor.  On the other hand if Zimmerman was committing assault coupled with attempted unlawful detention, then that is a forcible felony.

I never said that Zimmerman couldn't claim self defense simply on the basis of (possibly) being the aggressor, however Zimmerman would loose his self defense immunity **IF** the state were to prove he was committing a forcible felony.

All true under Florida Statute 776.041.




Quantum Windbag said:


> when you insisted on doubling down, and then tried to throw in a strawman, and beat the crap out of it, I took the same strawman you used, and proceeded to mock you further with it. In none of that did I contradict anything, other than your argument.



Actually, your mocking you look bad since I've tried to maintain high standards of conduct.

**IF** the state tries to negate self defense, they will have to rely on the provisions of 776.041 and ONE of the two possible disqualifying factors is if the person is committing a forcible felony.

[DISCLAIMER:  Not saying Zimmerman did commit one as no evidence has come out to support that possible scenario and lacking evidence the state would have a hard time making it stick.) 


**********************************************

776.041&#8195;Use of force by aggressor.*The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or*
(2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)&#8195;Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)&#8195;In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


>>>>


----------



## freedombecki (Apr 22, 2012)

old navy said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


I see blood oozing along lines--which could have been the curb his head was slammed into, just like he said.

No wonder the policemen let him go: his wounds were most consistent with his story.

But racists don't want his story to be true, and seems to me they bought the judge. I smell a Jessie Jackson racially-charged _quid quo pro_.


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

IF is sometimes a huge word.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 22, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > And how about we look at the facts......
> ...



Of course they'll still be invisible.  That's because they'll still be figments of Luissa's imagination.


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 22, 2012)

This is such a sad story. One more time, just like Jena, you have the douche bag pricks of racism Sharpton and Jackson rocking into a story.

My heart breaks for Trayvon's parents. My heart breaks for Zimmerman's parents. Skittles at the wrong freaking time.

BUT I hate the race baiters. I hate what everyone else has done around a non case. I hate everyone trying to make money off this. I hate the New Black Panthers trying to get profile off this.

This is sad. This is just so sad. And two young mens lives are ruined. One is dead. One will be notorious forever. 

This is a pity.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 22, 2012)

paperview said:


> And that part about TM having his hands on Z's mouth and nose,  both hands.
> 
> Yet Z was screaming for help.
> 
> Hmm.



Maybe he screamed before Martin put his hands over his mouth and nose.  Hey, maybe the screaming is WHY Martin covered his mouth and nose.

Unless you have trouble with the concept of things happening at different times.


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 22, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



FYI

I got this story within seconds of it happening. Your press knew they had a "biggie" and they were going to run with it no matter the truth.

Now I have put up the photos that ABC "cough *discovered* just fucking now.

Trust me everyone is now running for mother fucking cover on this. Dershowitz is hitting it hard.

THAT'S why everyone is running for cover. Everyone is shitting their pants. Hold the fucking depends.

Alan isn't kidding.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 22, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the charging affidavit under criticism for fudging the facts?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 22, 2012)

Luissa said:


> heady said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Are you basing that belief on one of your famous "feelings", or just on the fact that Martin was black?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 22, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Except for the fact that, again, you have the law wrong.

The only fracking way they could allege Zimmerman was involved in a felony at the time of the assault is if they charge him with it now, not later. No one is charging him anything that is not a direct result of the assault, therefore the law you dancing with is irrelevant.

As I said, you really are one of the dumb ones.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 22, 2012)

PredFan said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > We don't know how and why Zimmerman was injured, and to what extent. We don't know who attacked who.
> ...



He profiled Martin, followed him, and called 911. Oh, yeah, he was the original aggressor.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



What kind of ego trip are you on----GZ profiled Martin because you say he did? Sorry toots but it requires proof.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 22, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...



Did you listen to the 911 tape....if so, why then did he call 911 and report Martin if he hadn't profiled him?


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



ok--I see your little trick. Your claiming he profiled him as someone suspicious. NOT BECAUSE OF HIS RACE.
You're a sly one.
Aggressor ?  Na--you're still a loony bird on that one.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 22, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



Wow, are you full of assumptions, or what? IMO, he saw a black kid and thought he was suspicious. You can make the point that he didn't think Martin was suspicious because he was black, but because he was walking around in the rain chatting on his cell phone (though knowing teens, that is NOT suspicious behavior, but very normal behavior).

And yes, he profiled Martin and called 911. Why does that upset you so?


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Never mind---I gave you far too much credit. Mani is going mock me now, dammit.


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Naturally Ravi misuses the term "profiling."  Having had it noted that the term doesn't apply to a private citizen, she tosses it out there anyway,

We also don't know that Zimmerman DID anything of the kind even if the term did apply to private citizens.

Zimmerman was allowed to follow Martin.  Zimmerman was allowed to call 9-1-1.  No liberal "leave" required.  

And we also don't know that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor.  Martin may have been.  Ravi sure doesn't know, but she's not honest enough to admit that fact.

There is nothing wrong with the whole incident getting scrutinized.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 22, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...



I'm sorry that manifold is able to make you avoid questions with his bullshit allegations.

But not surprised.

Ciao.


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> dilloduck said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



What you should be sorry about is that you are a tool; a dishonest tool.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > PredFan said:
> ...


Huh, private citizens can't profile? Why, is it against the law?

Zimmerman was allowed to follow Martin and was allowed to call 911. None of that means he didn't profile Martin.

Maybe you can explain why he called 911 without profiling Martin, but I doubt it.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > dilloduck said:
> ...


For someone that pretends to be intelligent, you made bad use of a semi-colon. Idiot.


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Your pathetic deflection attempt is noted.

But, unlike you, I don't pretend.

And unlike you, I don't rely on dishonesty, you lying loser.


----------



## Liability (Apr 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



You need to understand that words have meaning, you imbecile.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 22, 2012)

Peach said:


> OtaniKitano said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



Heh, that is the stupidest scenario yet. LOL, you guys are killing me with this crap!


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 22, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




Charges can be amended prior to discovery and the immunity hearing and preliminary hearings.

Unless they have something though that we haven't seen, the forcible felony route is pretty unlikely.  (But the law FS 776.041 does negate self defense if the aggressor is committing a forcible felony.)  Much more likely is for them to attempt to paint a picture that Zimmerman does not qualify for self defense based on his voluntary insertion into the event by leaving his truck and pursuing/follow/chasing Martin.  I don't think that will work very well for a Murder 2 charge also, but we'll have to see what they bring forth.  Look's like O'Mara is pretty competent.


>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 23, 2012)

Ravi said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



How do individuals profile?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



still missing the point. If it worked the way you think they would charge him with murder, and they wouldn't need a trial because the murder charge would prove he was not defending himself. Since the law doesn't work that way in this country, they would have to prove that, in addition to being in a fight, he was also robbing the 7-11 where Martin got the Skittles.

I hope that explanation isn't to complicated for you, but I expect to be disappointed.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Apr 23, 2012)

*Threads Merged.*


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 23, 2012)

Peach said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



I don't think even Florida requires a license to express an opinion.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...





Quantum Windbag said:


> still missing the point. If it worked the way you think...



I didn't say that the scenerio is the way I think it went down.  Some of us are able to keep and open mind and can consider alternatives.



Quantum Windbag said:


> ...they would charge him with murder...



They did charge him with murder.



Quantum Windbag said:


> ...they wouldn't need a trial because the murder charge would prove he was not defending himself.



Under our legal system, charge does not equal conviction, not the way out legal system works.  A suspect must either admit to a crime or there is a trial to determine guilty or not guilty.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Since the law doesn't work that way in this country, they would have to prove that, in addition to being in a fight, he was also robbing the 7-11 where Martin got the Skittles.



This makes no sense.  Martin didn't rob the 7-11 and neither did Zimmerman so the state would have nothing to prove regarding robbery.

If they were to attempt to show that Zimmerman was in the act of committing a forcible felony against Martin it would have nothing to do with 7-11.  But of course there is no public evidence that the state could show this.



Quantum Windbag said:


> I hope that explanation isn't to complicated for you, but I expect to be disappointed.



Sorry you are so confused about how the legal system works and it appears basic facts of the case (thinking charge = guilty, that Zimmerman robbed the 7-11).  Again it appears that the state has no evidence to support Zimmerman as a forcible felon which makes this discussion academic.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

>


Neighborhood watch shooter released from Fla. jail | Fox News


Zimmerman is out of jail on bond.


>>>>


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 23, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



It was a statement made out of court.  Therefore it is hearsay.  

The definition as follows  
1. Unverified information heard or received from another; rumor.
2. Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than the personal knowledge of a witness and therefore generally not admissible as testimony. 

Since the girllfriend wasn't there, whatever she has to say is based on what she was told by Trayvon Martin.  Not her personal observation so it is hearsay.  It might come under an exception, like state of mind, but it is still hearsay.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> >
> 
> 
> Neighborhood watch shooter released from Fla. jail | Fox News
> ...



As he should be.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Unless they have something though that we haven't seen, the forcible felony route is pretty unlikely.  (But the law FS 776.041 does negate self defense if the aggressor is committing a forcible felony.)  Much more likely is for them to attempt to paint a picture that Zimmerman does not qualify for self defense based on his voluntary insertion into the event by leaving his truck and pursuing/follow/chasing Martin.



I dont understand how GZ leaving his truck negates his right to self defense.

Obviously I am not a lawyer, but if two guys get into a bar fight caused by patron A, and in that fight B gets the upper hand and begins to do things that are not just 'friendly fight' type of things but lethal, then doesnt A still have the right to use lethal force in response?

I  have always heard that when B refuses to stop when A 'taps out' in some fashion, then B is taking the violence to a lethal level and this changes the options legally available to A in response.

While I am asking stupid questions, isnt the introduction of a third party assaulting A in support of B not also an escalation of the violence that justifies lethal force by A?

Anyway, I think the law is getting pretty convoluted when it expects people who are getting pummelled to cooly analyze their legal obligations. Most people just instinctively know that you dont beat peoples heads on sidewalks and not expect some kind of escalation on the part of the one being beaten.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 23, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > >
> ...



Given the evidence we now have, he never should have been arrested and charged with 2nd degree murder in the first place. If the prosecutor doesnt have a serious bomb in terms of evidence, she is wasting the tax payers dollar and everyones time with this.

Why on Earth didnt she go with manslaughter? That would have had a chance to stick, though I would disagree that that happened either.

Why are the libs trying to criminalize self-defense?


----------



## Nosmo King (Apr 23, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Unless they have something though that we haven't seen, the forcible felony route is pretty unlikely.  (But the law FS 776.041 does negate self defense if the aggressor is committing a forcible felony.)  Much more likely is for them to attempt to paint a picture that Zimmerman does not qualify for self defense based on his voluntary insertion into the event by leaving his truck and pursuing/follow/chasing Martin.
> ...


If I'm in a vehicle, I have two things vital to self defense: protection and means of escape.

This "Stand your ground" law is flawed in that it gives any potential murderer a quick and easy out.  Just say you felt threatened.  Even if circumstances are legitimate and you are threatened, if you use deadly force you should make an account of it.  When a policeman shoots a suspect, there is a coroner's inquiry.  Killing someone and explaining it from your point of view is not a limit on freedom, it's purely judicial responsibility.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 23, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Too many criminals are getting killed.  Too many innocent people are defending themselves.   The whole thing against George Zimmerman is that he didn't lay there and take the beating like he was supposed to.  He was supposed to act like the tourist in Baltimore and feel grateful if he wasn't beaten to death.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Are you saying people can't observe and report anything but what they perceive with their eyes?

Testifying as to the existence of the phone call would not be hearsay.

Testifying as to what she told Martin would not be hearsay.

Testifying as to hearing an unknown third voice over the connection would not be hearsay.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > >
> ...




Agree, bond release is not that uncommon for less than capital offense charges, Mr. Zimmerman voluntarily turned himself over to police when the initial charges were filed, it is very likely that family are placing assets on the line to secure the total bond amount.

To Mr. Zimmerman's credit he's done the right things to demonstrate he is a minimal flight risk.  Good on him.


>>>>


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Testifying what Martin told her is hearsay including his description of what was happening that night.
No one is denying that phone call ocurred, that she heard a third voice on the phone,or what she told Martin.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Unless they have something though that we haven't seen, the forcible felony route is pretty unlikely.  (But the law FS 776.041 does negate self defense if the aggressor is committing a forcible felony.)  Much more likely is for them to attempt to paint a picture that Zimmerman does not qualify for self defense based on his voluntary insertion into the event by leaving his truck and pursuing/follow/chasing Martin.
> ...




It wouldn't.

The **possible** scenario would apply to that critical 60-seconds or so between the end of the girlfriends phone call at approximately 19:16 and the gun shot recorded in the neighbors call 911 tape.

During the time of the initial hostilities we have no evidence (that has been made public) as to who specifically was the aggressor.  At this time either Martin or Zimmerman scenarios are equally likely.  Given the presumption of innocence then there would (or should) be insufficient evidence to convict Zimmerman.

Some assume for a fact that Martin attacked Zimmerman and other claim as a fact that Zimmerman attacked Martin, the reality is that we don't know at this point.




JimBowie1958 said:


> Obviously I am not a lawyer, but if two guys get into a bar fight caused by patron A, and in that fight B gets the upper hand and begins to do things that are not just 'friendly fight' type of things but lethal, then doesnt A still have the right to use lethal force in response?



Maybe.

Under Florida law if patron A has no prior conviction of assault and there was no other felony in progress, then patron A's action would be classified as simple assault (784.011) which is classified as a misdemeanor.  If the fight escalated to the point where he feared death or great bodily injury then he could advance the use of force to include lethal force.  However if patron A had a previous conviction for assault and then initiated the bar fight, has actions would be then aggravated assault (784.021) which is a felony and would fall under the provisions of 776.041 (use of force by an aggressor) and in this case under Florida law his actions would have negated a self defense claim.




JimBowie1958 said:


> I  have always heard that when B refuses to stop when A 'taps out' in some fashion, then B is taking the violence to a lethal level and this changes the options legally available to A in response.



That is basically the second provision of 776.041 which provides that if the initial attacker is presented with a reasonable opportunity, as determined by a reasonable person, to withdraw and does not take it and continues the fight, then again they can lose the claim of self defense. 




JimBowie1958 said:


> While I am asking stupid questions, isnt the introduction of a third party assaulting A in support of B not also an escalation of the violence that justifies lethal force by A?



I would think so, if the introduction of the third party was in a manner that continued to threaten patron A.  For example someone jumps in and tries to pin patron A's arms, then yes.  However if someone jumps between the two trying to separate them, then no.



JimBowie1958 said:


> Anyway, I think the law is getting pretty convoluted when it expects people who are getting pummelled to cooly analyze their legal obligations. Most people just instinctively know that you dont beat peoples heads on sidewalks and not expect some kind of escalation on the part of the one being beaten.



IMHO, that would be an incorrect interpretation of what the law is trying to do.

What the law is trying to do, again IMHO, is to state that if you are the initial aggressor and you are in the act of committing a forcible felony (murder, rape, kidnapping, unlawful detention, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, etc.) that you cannot initiate the conflict, have it escalate and then claim self defense.

Take for example a woman walking down the sidewalk returning home from the library.  An unknown assailant grabs her and drags her into an ally.  The unknown assailant then begins to beat and attempts to rape her.  However she fights back - maybe she knows martial arts or grabs a short piece of 2x4 laying on the ground and beats back at the attacker.  The attacker then pulls a gun and shoots the woman dead, the police arrive on scene and arrest him.  In this case where the attacker is committing a forcible felony, he cannot claim self defense because she hit him with a board because he was the initial aggressor.


************************

Link to FL Laws -->> http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/Title46/#Title46


>>>>


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 23, 2012)

Link to the third voice report please. I don't even believe half the bullshit the news have put out there so I'd really like a solid link.

Hell's bells as if the NBC editing scandal wasn't bad enough, you also had that asswipe Wolf Blitzer driving that phoney story of Zimmerman saying "fucking coon".

Cripes the media just made shit up. It's outrageous. I hope Zimmerman sues the ass off that fired NBC executive that allowed that editing to make Zimmerman look like he was profiling.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...




None of the three areas of testimony that I mentioned are "Testifying what Martin told her...".

But yes there are provisions where hearsay is admissible when the declaration is not available or if the availability of the deodorant is immaterial, we will have to wait for the discovery and preliminary hearings to see if that aspect of her testimony would be allowed under Florida Rules of Evidence 90.803  (Hearsay exceptions; availability of declarant immaterial).


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Link to the third voice report please. I don't even believe half the bullshit the news have put out there so I'd really like a solid link.



Trayvon Martin girlfriend speaks detail: Trayvon Martin's girlfriend speaks out with details of teen's death. - Orlando Sentinel


The girlfriend has been interviewed by investigators at this point and will have made official statements to them.  We will now have to probably wait for trial to see what she testifies to.


>>>>


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Link to the third voice report please. I don't even believe half the bullshit the news have put out there so I'd really like a solid link.
> ...



I like the part where he realizes someone is watching him so he hides in his hoodie.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Yes I am saying that people can't testify to anything but what they personally perceive.  Testifying as to the existence of the phone call would not be hearsay.   Testifying that what Martin told her was happening is hearsay.  Testifying what she said is not hearsay as long as it is not used for the purpose of proving the facts of what was happening.   Testifying as to hearing a voice that the witness did not recognize is not hearsay as long as the testimony is not used to prove it was Zimmerman speaking.  

I'll give you an example.

Witness says she spoke to victim at 11:47 and the victim said he was being followed.   This can be used to prove that at 11:47 the victim was alive, but can't be used to prove that he was being followed or who was following him.   What it can be used for is to prove that there is a state of mind exception to the hearsay rule that at 11:47 the victim thought he was being followed.  But it can't be used to prove that the victim was really being followed or who was following him.

Is it any more clear now?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...




Perfectly, but not where I was going.

Some seem to be of the opinion that they can call something "hearsay" and it will not be admissible, which is not true.  Hearsay is admissible under certain conditions.  If hearsay testimony is sought, it will normally be delt with during pre-trial motions and if allowed the conditions and limits set.

All I was say'n.  


>>>>


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 23, 2012)

Okay, I read the Orlando Sentinel's story a quizzillion times and I don't see anything about the girlfriend saying that she heard a third voice.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Okay, I read the Orlando Sentinel's story a quizzillion times and I don't see anything about the girlfriend saying that she heard a third voice.



"She told attorneys she then heard the 17-year-old ask "What are you following me for?"

Then a man, presumably Zimmerman, replied: "What are you doing around here?""​

Martin = 1

Girlfriend = 2

"Then a man" = 3



>>>>


----------



## The Gadfly (Apr 23, 2012)

I expect Parts of the young lady's account may be admitted at trial; other parts of it very well might not be. I'm thinking about her comments about Trayvon being cornered" and "being pushed'. Those would likely be considered speculation on her part, and inadmissible.

There are some key questions here. First did Zimmerman follow Martin with the intent to confront him, or simply to attempt to regain sight of him? We really don't know the answer to that; all we do know is that as of the end of his call to the dispatcher, Zimmerman had NOT regained sight of Martin; he said as much a few seconds earlier, and there is NO reason to suppose that if he had regained sight of Martin, he would have told the dispatcher where he saw him.That call ended at 19:5:22. Martin's cell phone call ended no later than 17:16:00, and by the girlfriend's account the verbal confrontation began a few seconds before the call was dropped. That leaves a period of some 30-35 seconds for Zimmerman to regain sight of Martin. Where were each of them during that interval? We don't knowThat is , however plenty of time for Zimmerman to have proceeded up the sidewalk in the common area , in an attempt to regain sight of Martin, beyond the point where the altercation occurred, and having failed to do so, turned around and started walking back toward his vehicle. Did he? We don't know, but that is both possible and consistent with his account. IF that's what happened we can reasonably conclude it is likely that Martin did not proceed too far in that direction, and was not proceeding toward Brandy Green's home at the time;if he had been he would have been visible to Zimmerman, because the area is open.  That makes it more likely that Martin had ducked behind a corner of one of the rows of buildings, and the closest point at which he could have done that, looking at the map, is behind the corner of the group of buildings on the left, when looking at the map posted here earlier. If that is correct , that would place him behind Zimmerman and to his left, as Zimmerman turned and walked toward his vehicle. That would be consistent with Zimmerman's account that Martin approached him from the left rear. None of this proves anything, but it does make Zimmerman's account consistent with those facts we know.


----------



## bayoubill (Apr 23, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> IndependntLogic said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



it amazes me the extent to which you undermine your own argument, Marc...


----------



## FuelRod (Apr 23, 2012)

I've never heard anything but blogoshpere and tabloid reports of a "broken" nose.  A bloody nose is in the responding officers report.  
Columbo, noses have been known to bleed without being broken.
The photo's of the back of the bloody head have now made broadcast media.  So either they have been vetted or the media is completely irresponsible (wouldn't be the first time.)
If the bloody head photo is real, the murder charge needs to be dropped.


----------



## bucs90 (Apr 23, 2012)

GRAPHIC PHOTO: George Zimmerman | www.wftv.com

This is why Zimmerman will be not guilty!!!

Ever watch UFC fights? Notice two things about them:

- It is illegal to "rabbit punch", or, hit in the back of the head. Why? Because the chance of death from it is higher. It's a violent sport, but they dont want people to die.

- When a fighter is on his back, taking repeated punches to the face, with his skull bouncing off the PADDED MAT surface, the ref stops the fight. The fight is over. Why? Death or injury would occur if it kept going.

Now...imagine instead of a trained pro fighter on a padded mat, you have an untrained citizen with his head laying on concrete, taking shots to the head. Would a UFC ref stop that fight? Instantly. Why? The guy could die....just like they stop them in UFC on a padded floor.

But there was no ref at Zimmerman vs Martin. And Martin may have kept punching until....who knows when. Does Zimmerman then have a right to do whatever is necessary to stop his skull from bouncing off that pavement? Yes.

This is a no-brainer case. Zman confronts choir boy Trayvon. Wrong? Immoral? Profiling? Sure. Maybe. Zman walks back to car. 1st encounter ends. THEN.....Travyon, his ego and pride hurt, attacks Zman. Begin 2nd encounter. The trial is about the 2nd encounter. Not the first. The ONLY crimes, texbook crimes, occurred in the 2nd incident. The "profiling" incident was not a crime. Immoral maybe. Not criminal. That incident does NOT give Trayvon a right to assault anyone. But he did. THAT assault, and Zman's defense, are the case.

Pure medical proof that the head, being pounded on a concrete surface, IS DEADLY, will break this trial. Thats why the UFC stops fights on a PADDED surface when this happens. But this was concrete, with no refs, no sportsmanship, and an absolute threat of seriously bodily injury or death to Zimmerman. 

To sum it up....if a cop was on the ground, with a guy on top of him pounding his head into the concrete, would or COULD that cop be justified in shooting the guy? YES. Without doubt. ANd cops are held to a HIGHER standard than Zman will be.

NOT GUILTY verdict will rock the left and the race baiting will be epic.

Riots will erupt afterwards. Obama will cherish in the race baiting.


----------



## SniperFire (Apr 23, 2012)

No horse in this race, but looking at the courtroom footage, Zimmerman stuck me a frail little guy with little girly hands.

I can see how that big 6'2" gangsta wanna-be punk would decide to kick his ass in a confrontation.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> GRAPHIC PHOTO: George Zimmerman | www.wftv.com
> 
> This is why Zimmerman will be not guilty!!!



Zimmerman may not be guilty, Zimmerman may be guilty.  However, injuries are not indicative of who started the fight resulting in the gun shot.



bucs90 said:


> Ever watch UFC fights? Notice two things about them:



Irrelevant material deleted.


>>>>


----------



## Fang (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> GRAPHIC PHOTO: George Zimmerman | www.wftv.com
> 
> This is why Zimmerman will be not guilty!!!
> 
> ...



Well thought out. Best commentary I've read or heard yet.


----------



## RightWingFerret (Apr 23, 2012)

ok, well like I posted. The Black Panthers dont care that an hispanic shoots a black man, they will take it out on the whites. Guess they don't wanna mess with hispanics being they are outnumbered.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> GRAPHIC PHOTO: George Zimmerman | www.wftv.com
> 
> This is why Zimmerman will be not guilty!!!
> 
> ...



I agree he won't be found guilty; the charges were not the right ones to file.  Blood doesn't make one innocent.

As for the politics of it, I doubt it will help Romney at all (an innocent verdict).  How much Obama wishes to make of this in Florida is the only variable.


----------



## Peach (Apr 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> > GRAPHIC PHOTO: George Zimmerman | www.wftv.com
> ...


UFC rules do not control here; and the injury may have come after he killed the victim. The STATE seems to think a crime was committed, we will know when we know. The important matter NOW, is the Defendant's safety.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 23, 2012)

Yep. it definitely looks like Zimmerman got  a beating.
Then of course maybe Martin inflected those wounds while trying to protect himself if Zimmerman had his gun drawn. 
There are alot if "ifs" that the general public doesn't know.
I've thought all along that a trial will answer those questions and thusly all we have is conjecture based on emotions and simple guessing. So, I am glad there's going to be some sort of legal end to this and we all can stop guessing.
The law is on Zimmerman's side if the circumstances warranted Zimmerman to shoot Martin.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Apr 23, 2012)

The trier of facts will decide.  Zimmerman is innocent until they do.  I don't have to wonder though how Bucs90 would have viewed this event if Zimmerman were black and Martin white.  His many posts more than suggest he would want the shooter hung by the neck without trial.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 23, 2012)

Doesn't take much for a head wound to bleed like crazy. 

All it proves is Zimmerman got more of a fight than he expected. Doesn't prove who was acting in self defense


----------



## bucs90 (Apr 23, 2012)

Peach said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bucs90 said:
> ...



UFC "rules" arent the point. It is the MEDICAL BASIS which these rules are founded that are relevant. A head being struck in the front, and bouncing off a padded mat, CAN be fatal. Which is why the UFC bans "rabbit punches" and STOPS fights after several repeated strikes to the head with the head bouncing off the mat. CONCRETE is even worse. Thats the point. The medical basis is that Zimmerman was in a situation that he could've been killed by those punches.

Liberals HATE this thought. They vomit at thinking of it. But its the truth. In that situation, Zimmerman was absolutely in danger for his life.

UFC was just the most mainstream, easily identified source showing that this basis of medical justification is TRUE. It's the reason they stop fights that millions of people paid millions of dollars to watch too early.....despite customer anger..........because a DEATH in the ring would end that sport.

Well.....thats it. Medically, the self defense he used is just.

Not guilty. Now, lets watch the liberals and race baiters riot in a month or so.


----------



## Conservative (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



who instigated the altercation? Was the gun drawn before or after the altercation began?

Go on... tell us. You seem to know the 'facts' of the case... answer those two questions definitively.


----------



## konradv (Apr 23, 2012)

So what if Zimmermann was bleeding?  Doesn't someone have the right to protect themselves from a man with a gun or does that only apply to the person with the gun?


----------



## bucs90 (Apr 23, 2012)

rightwinger said:


> Doesn't take much for a head wound to bleed like crazy.
> 
> All it proves is Zimmerman got more of a fight than he expected. Doesn't prove who was acting in self defense



It proves:

Zimmerans skull was back up against a hard surface while being struck in the front. The lacerations on the back of the head prove that. OR he was struck in the back of the head.

Now, I think it's safe to say a prolonged struggle/fight happened. And at some point, Zman's head was laying on the concrete getting hit in the front.

Which, as I showed and provided a perfect mainstream example, is medically sound in arguing lethal self defense.

If a cop had a guy mounted on top of him, punching him and bouncing his skull off pavement, would the cop be justified in shooting? 100%, absolutely, in every single court in America.

Zman has a lower standard than a cop.

Not guilty.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 23, 2012)

Peach said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bucs90 said:
> ...


 
The injury may have came after he killed Trayvon?

Are you proposing that Trayvon is a zombie? WTF?


----------



## konradv (Apr 23, 2012)

Conservative said:


> who instigated the altercation? Was the gun drawn before or after the altercation began?
> 
> Go on... tell us. You seem to know the 'facts' of the case... answer those two questions definitively.



Considering that he was following a "suspicious person", why wouldn't he have the gun drawn?  I realize the left has been calling him stupid, but here you're implying he's a complete idiot!!!


----------



## Conservative (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't take much for a head wound to bleed like crazy.
> ...



who instigated the altercation? Was the gun drawn before or after the altercation began?

Go on... tell us. You seem to know the 'facts' of the case... answer those two questions definitively.


----------



## Conservative (Apr 23, 2012)

konradv said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > who instigated the altercation? Was the gun drawn before or after the altercation began?
> ...



So, following someone who you think is suspicious, is a good enough reason to draw a gun on said person?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> In that situation, Zimmerman was absolutely in danger for his life.





bucs90 said:


> Well.....thats it. Medically, the self defense he used is just.



Hate to break it to you but "self defense" is a legal term not a medical term.  Whether Zimmerman was authorized the use of self defense is based on the law not based on a cut on the head.

**IF** Martin initiated hostilities, and the hostilities escalated to the point were Zimmerman feared for his life or great bodily harm, the Zimmerman can claim self defense as a justification for the shooting.

**IF** Zimmerman initiated hostilities with simple assault, and the hostilities escalated to the point were Zimmerman feared for his life or great bodily harm, the Zimmerman can claim self defense as a justification for the shooting.

**IF** Martin initiated hostilities with a forcible felony (assault + unlawful detention), and the hostilities escalated to the point were Zimmerman feared for his life or great bodily harm, the Zimmerman can not claim self defense as a justification for the shooting.



It will be the states responsibility to present such evidence as it has.  If they can't show Zimmerman committing a forcible felony then it's unlikely they can prove their charge.


>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Keeping an open mind does not mean considering the possibility that the Moon is made of green cheese, it means waiting for the facts to come out. By asserting your wrong interpretation of Florida law you are not keeping an open mind, you are insisting that your interpretation is the only possible one that counts. Can you show a single case in Florida where the state ever successfully asserted that a person who started a fight was not able to argue self defense simply because, by virtue of him starting a fight, he was committing a felony?

Of course not, because it never happened. That alone proves you are wrong in your interpretation, because prosecutors would love to invoke that clause in order to get more convictions.

Get your head out of your ass and start dealing with the real world, and stop insisting that pointing out that ghosts are real proves you have an open mind.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


 
Good luck. The idiots who maintain Zimmerman should have not defended himself because he was *just* getting his head bashed have shown repeatedly their ignorance, willful and otherwise, of the realities of physical altercations and head trauma (as well as law, due process, and just about every other topic they've ever blathered about). 

It was pointed out from the beginning that the potential for serious injury and even death exists when it comes to getting one's head hit, even if there are NO VISIBLE INJURIES AT ALL. They don't care. And they aren't interested in learning.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 23, 2012)

konradv said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > who instigated the altercation? Was the gun drawn before or after the altercation began?
> ...



These guys post's keep getting dumber.  You remind me of that black bitch that  claimed Martin was hunted down like a rabid dog.


----------



## bucs90 (Apr 23, 2012)

Conservative said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...




Ok.

Instigation 1: Zman confronts Trayvon. Profiling? Probably. Moral? No. Legal? Well....not illegal. Zman leaves to go back to his car. Incident 1 ends.

Instigation 2: Trayvon, with his ego and street cred in question, decides he's not gonna let Zman get away with an immoral act of profiling, and initiates a 2nd contact. How? We dont know. A punch? A verbal shout? Dont know. And wont ever know.

#1 was initiated by Zimmerman. While rude/immoral, no crime occurred.

#2 was initiated by Trayvon. An assault occurred, obviously.

Thus, in this criminal court, ONLY incident #2 will be used to determine guilt. Just like in a bar, if a guy calls your GF a slut, and walks away, then you pursue him.....and a fight ensues.....and you kill him..........they'll find you guilty, even if he was rude to you and your date.

YOU DONT GET THE RIGHT TO ASSAULT SOMEONE JUST BECAUSE THEY PROFILED YOU. 

Thats the case in a nutshell.

Zimmerman probably deserved to get his nose busted too. I agree with that. He probably deserved a good ass kicking, as he was overzealous, and he was charged with assaulting a cop in the past (And I"m extremely pro-police). This guy has needed a good foot in the ass for a while, and Trayvon was giving it to him.

BUT....at some point, we all must show self control. Even when we punch the guy who calls our GF a slut.

And at some point, as men, we all have been in a good old fashioned fist fight. But at some point, we must realize when we cross the line into "Oh shit I could hurt/kill this guy".

And bouncing the back of his head off pavement is PAST THAT LINE.

At that point, the other guy has a right to not die during the fight and can use force. Zimmerman did just that.

This is an ugly, disgusting case.

But Zimmerman will be not guilty.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 23, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Prosecutors always try to criminalize self defense. They prefer that people run away and call the police because it gives the state more power.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 23, 2012)

if your stalker kills you while you are trying to protect yourself against him than its OK for him to kill you?

why was it OK for Zimmerman to kill someone he was stalking if that person tried to defend themselves?

BTW you have no proof Trayvon was doing anything but walking home from the store with some want to be cop started stalking him.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 23, 2012)

You people really dont think black people have any rights do you?


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 23, 2012)

It's not okay for you to track a stalker down and kill him. 

In fact, it's not okay to kill a stalker for stalking you.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't take much for a head wound to bleed like crazy.
> ...



His head could have hit the sidewalk while they were wrestling. 

It is not self defense if you start the fight. I think he will get off....all it takes is one juror


----------



## Conservative (Apr 23, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



And how do you know Trayvon was not simply defending himself, after a gun was drawn ob him? You don't.

Neither do I.

That's why they have these things called trials.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 23, 2012)

then why did you not want an arrest and a trial in the past?


----------



## FuelRod (Apr 23, 2012)

Since these photos have gone mainstream it is safe to assume authenticity.  
The murder charge needs to be dropped to save embarassment of an acquital and save the country's ghetto's from the subsequent rioting.
For those unfamiliar with the US Justice System, prosecution must prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  Not the other way around.  An injury at the time of the incident with Martin is all it takes to create that he was acting in some kind of self defense..which takes murder out of play.
A manslaughter charge and put this "stand your ground" law on trial?  Go for it.


----------



## Conservative (Apr 23, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> You people really dont think black people have any rights do you?



Oh, just shut the fuck up why don't you.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

konradv said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > who instigated the altercation? Was the gun drawn before or after the altercation began?
> ...



Under Florida Law (See below), drawing a firearm (even without the intent to kill) can be construed as a threat rising to the level of Aggravated Assault.  A felony.  Under Florida Statute 776.041 Aggravated Assault negates the self defense claim.

Supporters for Zimmerman better hope there is no proof Zimmerman drew his weapon and used it to threaten Martin.  


784.021&#8195;Aggravated assault.
(1)&#8195;An aggravated assault is an assault:
(a)&#8195;With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b)&#8195;With an intent to commit a felony.
(2)&#8195;Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as​
784.021 - Aggravated assault. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

>>>>


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 23, 2012)

Who said I did?

My point is that it's not okay to kill your stalker.


----------



## bucs90 (Apr 23, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 23, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> then why did you not want an arrest and a trial in the past?


 


Are you fucking overmedicated? Or perhaps abusing your meds?

If so, please stop. Or find another hobby, because your weird, convoluted and retarded posts are painful for people of normal intelligence to wade through.


----------



## konradv (Apr 23, 2012)

Conservative said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



He had a gun, he thought the person was suspicious.  What else are we supposed to think?  I certainly would have it drawn in that situation.  To do otherwise doesn't make sense.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > bucs90 said:
> ...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 23, 2012)

Nosmo King said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Just say you felt threatened? Seriously, does anyone actually read laws before they start blathering about what is wrong with them? All stand your ground does is give a person who acted in self defense an additional hearing before a judge to argue his case. It is not an automatic out, it just forces the state to prove someone might actually have done something before they take them to trial.

I have no idea why anyone would have a problem with that. Do you prefer that the state be able to pick people up at random, lock them up, and leave them there until it is convenient to take them to trial? If you do, move to Mexico.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 23, 2012)

SniperFire said:


> No horse in this race, but looking at the courtroom footage, Zimmerman stuck me a frail little guy with little girly hands.
> 
> I can see how that *big 6'2" gangsta* wanna-be punk would decide to kick his ass in a confrontation.



6'2" and weighing 160lbs isn't big at all.  You're projecting with your pre-determined conclusion of the circumstances that you want to hear.  But Martin did certainly have the "reach" advantage and in a fight that can be important.  But then I've seen little guys kick bigger guys butts when I was a bouncer while going to college.

So again, we will find out more truth about the incident than you or I can take into account without knowing all the facts.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 23, 2012)

As I've said from the beginning..the cops and the prosecutors have the facts, and are best able to determine whether or not it needs to go to trial.

I think initially the cops wanted to go to trial, but then cops always do. Any body who has a son, brother or husband who has responded to an attack by kicking the ass of the attacker knows that in those cases, the cops look at the person who is on the ground as the *victim* regardless of how the incident went down. In this case, based on what the prosecutor herself has said, what the witnesses have released, what the police reports have said, and the crap affidavit, I don't think they have much of any kind of murder case. I'm not even sure they have manslaughter. I just don't see that they have any case at all.

But who knows....time will tell, I suppose.


----------



## Conservative (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > bucs90 said:
> ...



the number of unsubstantiated assumptions in that response boggles the mind.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 23, 2012)

konradv said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



LOL, then you are an idiot!


----------



## bucs90 (Apr 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



Wrong. Drawing a firearm, with no intent to use it, would be a "Pointing or Presenting a Firearm".

"Aggravated" assault means: An assault HAS occurred. The "aggravated" is just a situation that amplifies the severity.

Otherwise, a cop would be "assaulting" a person every time they drew their firearms on traffic stops, thus enabling the driver to use deadly force to resist that traffic stop: Obviously not the case.

Had Zimmerman drawn the weapon...then pistol whipped Trayvon...that would be aggravated assault.

Flashing his gun to scare Trayvon? Not assault. That would be "Pointing or Presenting a Firearm".

Learn the law first.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Every time you post you drop the intelligence of the entire planet by a percentage point.

Hearsay is not what you know, and is not always inadmissible. If this goes to trial, and she testifies, if she testifies that Martin told her he was being followed, that is hearsay. That does not make it inadmissible,m it just means a judge will have to rule about it.


----------



## Conservative (Apr 23, 2012)

konradv said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



walking around at night, following a 'suspicious person' with your gun drawn, is NOT a smart idea.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 23, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


----------



## bucs90 (Apr 23, 2012)

kiwiman127 said:


> SniperFire said:
> 
> 
> > No horse in this race, but looking at the courtroom footage, Zimmerman stuck me a frail little guy with little girly hands.
> ...



The best fighter in the UFC is George St Pierre. 6'1, 170 lbs.

Another 20 pounds, Trayvon would be as big as some NFL football players.


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> GRAPHIC PHOTO: George Zimmerman | www.wftv.com
> 
> This is why Zimmerman will be not guilty!!!
> 
> ...



Ur dreaming again, try not to cream ur jeans.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 23, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Just say you felt threatened? Seriously, does anyone actually read laws before they start blathering about what is wrong with them? All stand your ground does is give a person who acted in self defense an additional hearing before a judge to argue his case. It is not an automatic out, it just forces the state to prove someone might actually have done something before they take them to trial.
> 
> I have no idea why anyone would have a problem with that. Do you prefer that the state be able to pick people up at random, lock them up, and leave them there until it is convenient to take them to trial? If you do, move to Mexico.



It muddies the waters to the point local law enforcement is uneasy about even charging someone apparently.  As in cases where one participant dies as a result, it makes it even tougher.  Its a bad law.


----------



## kiwiman127 (Apr 23, 2012)

Wow, this place is loaded with Perry Masons!


----------



## Liability (Apr 23, 2012)

FuelRod said:


> I've never heard anything but blogoshpere and tabloid reports of a "broken" nose.  A bloody nose is in the responding officers report.
> Columbo, noses have been known to bleed without being broken.
> The photo's of the back of the bloody head have now made broadcast media.  So either they have been vetted or the media is completely irresponsible (wouldn't be the first time.)
> If the bloody head photo is real, the murder charge needs to be dropped.



You are absolutely right about the "broken nose."

It may have been the subject of LATER spin, but the police report did describe it as "bloody."  WESH PDF Viewer

I wonder if there's a photo of that, too, out there somewhere?


----------



## J.E.D (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > bucs90 said:
> ...



I believe the point Conservative is trying to make is that you don't have all of the facts of the case; therefore, you cannot say who instigated what. Conjecture is not proof.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Yeah, they call that "Menacing", it's a crime. Some of these guys who know nothing about firearms and the law are pure dumb.


----------



## Conservative (Apr 23, 2012)

JosefK said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



How dare you put me in a position that I have to thank you!


----------



## Moonglow (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > bucs90 said:
> ...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > bucs90 said:
> ...




You forgot...

Instigation 1: Zman confronts Trayvon. Traycon tries to leave like he did at the truck.  Zimmerman grabs Martin to prevent Martin's departure committing assault, battery, and unlawful detention which are felonies.  

#3 Since Zimmerman is committing (theoretically) a felony against Martin, Martin under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law has no requirement to retreat and can defend himself.  Martin gains the upper hand, Zimmerman realizes the fight he started he is now losing, pulls his weapon and fires.



Under #3 Zimmerman would be guilty of a crime, but the state would have a burden of proof to show that Zimmerman was committing a forcible felony.



>>>>


----------



## Dick Tuck (Apr 23, 2012)

The fact is still the fact.  Martin committed no crime.  He was followed, stalked, and murdered by some armed nut with a record of violence.  

Given the excuses, I have to think most of you are happy that another ****** bit the dust.  I hold you contemptible.


----------



## J.E.D (Apr 23, 2012)

Conservative said:


> JosefK said:
> 
> 
> > bucs90 said:
> ...



Don't worry. I'm sure I'll annoy you at some point in the future


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 23, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Just say you felt threatened? Seriously, does anyone actually read laws before they start blathering about what is wrong with them? All stand your ground does is give a person who acted in self defense an additional hearing before a judge to argue his case. It is not an automatic out, it just forces the state to prove someone might actually have done something before they take them to trial.
> ...



Actually, the fact that it makes it harder for the government to lock people up makes it a good law. It is way to easy for the government to lock people up right now, which is why the US has a larger population of incarcerated people than China, which has a population over 4 times ours.


----------



## Peach (Apr 23, 2012)

Conservative said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...


As I WROTE, MAY. No, I do not have the answers, nor have I written that I have first hand knowledge.


----------



## SniperFire (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > SniperFire said:
> ...



Here is a shot of his 'guns':


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...




784.011&#8195;Assault.
(1)&#8195;An assault is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.
(2)&#8195;Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

784.021&#8195;Aggravated assault.
(1)&#8195;An aggravated assault is an assault:
(a)&#8195;With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b)&#8195;With an intent to commit a felony.
(2)&#8195;Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.


Read the law yourself.

If Zimmerman pulled his weapon and used it to threaten Martin, then you have assault ("unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another") aggravated with the use of a lethal weapon ("With a deadly weapon without intent to kill") which raises the incident to Aggravated Assault which is a forcible felony.  Those committing a forcible felony have their self defense claim negated under Florida Law 776.041.



Try again.

>>>>


----------



## Seawytch (Apr 23, 2012)

A question for the OP...

If a rape victim managed to scratch the eye out of her rapist, does that make the rapist "innocent"?


----------



## Conservative (Apr 23, 2012)

Peach said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > bucs90 said:
> ...


as you can see from that quote chain, my questions were directed at bucs, not you.


----------



## American Horse (Apr 23, 2012)

Conservative said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



Zims father, being interviewed by Sean Hannity said that while lying on his back with Martin on top the gun was seen by Martin.  Upon seeing the gun Martin is quoted as saying "you are going to die tonight." (at that point there may have been a hand-struggle for possession of the gun).

But that is the point at which the gun came into play in the struggle.  He did not have the gun drawn as they met and while they were still both standng.  That information would be in the possession of the officers who were at the scene of the incident and be used in their evaluation. Not much information has come out from the police to inform us about what actually happened.


----------



## Conservative (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> kiwiman127 said:
> 
> 
> > SniperFire said:
> ...



yeah... the placekickers


----------



## Conservative (Apr 23, 2012)

American Horse said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > konradv said:
> ...



Because the guys father told Hannity that, it becomes fact?

Really???


----------



## BlindBoo (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



First of all there must be someone who clean Zimmerman up.  I'll wait for their testemony.  Second if his head was being bashed on the concrete, were there blood stains on the concrete?  I'll wait for the testemony if there is any on that point.  

Who fixed Zimmermans broken nose,  they don't fix themselves.  Again I'll wait for the testemony...


----------



## American Horse (Apr 23, 2012)

Conservative said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



Not necessarily, but it makes total sense, and sorry, but to you it is so unbelievable because it discredits about ten of your previous posts where you describe him as walking around with gun drawn.  For my part, I don't see Zim drawing a gun until he felt he actually needed to use it.  His comments/reports to the police during the 911 call do not sound like an irrational man to me.  And if that is his report to the officers it supports or fits why he was questioned but not held.


----------



## Peach (Apr 23, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



My apologies, I thought it was directed at me. Again, I do not have the facts, they will ascertained as the process continues.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




This has always been presented as an alternative to scenario to the "Martin Attacked First" crowd and at this point is as valid as any other scenario the fact that you don't want it considered is not my problem.

As I've said, without evidence (either way) the default decision should be in Zimmerman's favor.


>>>>


----------



## Ed Spacer (Apr 23, 2012)

No offense.
people need to stop sticking up for illiterate gangers.
zimmerman was defending himself.
itll be sad if an innocent man goes to jail simply to stop raceriots of obamas gang.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 23, 2012)

American Horse said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...


 
If his gun had been drawn, Martin would never have jumped on him and started pounding him.


----------



## Conservative (Apr 23, 2012)

American Horse said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > American Horse said:
> ...



Show me 5 of the 10 posts where I claimed Zimmerman was walking around with his gun drawn. 

I have not got the slightest idea if he walked around with a gun drawn or not. If he drew before or after any involvement directly with Treyvon. You'd know that if you actually read any of my posts in this thread, you incredible moron. 

I have consistently said no one here knows for a fact what exactly happens, or in what order events took place. THAT, is for the trial to determine.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > bucs90 said:
> ...


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 23, 2012)

Unfortunately, it appears the majority of progressives don't understand the theory of "innocent until PROVEN guilty".

Or even due process, that protects citizens from being rounded up and thrown in jail on allegations that have no feet to stand upon...

Color me shocked.


----------



## Ed Spacer (Apr 23, 2012)

Anyone thats lived in a bad neighborhood knows these teen and young adults think their illiterate culture run the streets.


----------



## Ed Spacer (Apr 23, 2012)

If its self defense,whine baby wannebe thug got what he deserved.im sorry. If treyvon said that hes gonna die to zimmerman,then he got what he deserved.


----------



## Conservative (Apr 23, 2012)

vampiric68 said:


> Anyone thats lived in a bad neighborhood knows these teen and young adults think their illiterate culture run the streets.



you realize this was not a 'bad neighborhood' right? It was in a gated community.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

So, did he hit himself in the head with his gun to try and give himself a defense? Did Trayvon defend himself before being MURDERED?


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

vampiric68 said:


> Anyone thats lived in a bad neighborhood knows these teen and young adults think their illiterate culture run the streets.



So he's an illiterate youth because... he's what, black? And you think it was in a bad neighborhood? He's a wannabe thug because he's... what?

What are you saying, city council person? Please remember, you are on the record.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Apr 23, 2012)

bodecea said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


----------



## Ed Spacer (Apr 23, 2012)

Its not a superficial race categorist thing.ITS THE CULTURE,you liberal nutcases.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

vampiric68 said:


> Its not a superficial race categorist thing.ITS THE CULTURE,you liberal nutcases.



What culture, city council person? American Culture?


----------



## Ed Spacer (Apr 23, 2012)

Unlike you liberals,i do not categorize or superficially divide.
ITS CITY URBAN GANG CULTURE.


----------



## Ed Spacer (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowtard.
urban gang culture
i do not categorize or superficialize biological differentiations.
HIPHOP GANG CULTURE,retard.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

vampiric68 said:


> Unlike you liberals,i do not categorize or superficialky divide.
> ITS CITY URBAN GANG CULTURE.



He was in a "city urban gang culture" because he was black, city council person? Or was it because he was young? Or was it because he was involved in a violent confrontation? What is it you mean exactly city council person? Please elaborate on how Trayvon was involved in "city urban gang culture" any more than Zimmerman. Why say "urban" city council person? You are aware that is slang for black very often by people like yourself, correct?

You have the floor.


----------



## Ed Spacer (Apr 23, 2012)

And the hiphop culture is the racist divisiooning nachine of communism at work.


----------



## Ed Spacer (Apr 23, 2012)

I dont categorize people by your liberal standards.
urban city culture.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

Hiphop culture? Will the gentleman please explain himself. What is hiphop culture and how is it responsible for the violence that took place? Is the RIAA to blame for Zimmerman being victimized by a violent young black man who may or may not listen to a particular musical genre?


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

vampiric68 said:


> I dont categorize people by your liberal standards.
> urban city culture.



Black people culture.


You're not as clever as you think, city council person. I mean come on... urban city culture, hip hop culture. You're not fooling anybody.

It's no wonder you were asked to resign, city council person. Nobody wants a racist asshole as their representative. What a sad, fake legacy you leave behind.


----------



## Ed Spacer (Apr 23, 2012)

Communism and the left are the architects to create divided groups and instill self disinfranchising and selfvictimization.


----------



## Ed Spacer (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowtard.
urban culture.
no matter what division you categorize 
i do not so DO NOT PUT WORDS into my mouth.
urban is the city freaking culture.
no categorization
cities in NE have same gang mentality,but different people,hispanics.
so your dividing a race categorization.
i know it as URBAN CULTURE,all peopke,part of your liberal communist machine.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

vampiric68 said:


> Communism and the left are the architects to create divided groups abd instill self disinfranchising and selfvictimization.



Go back to the 1950's, city council person. You could persecute both those communists and those urban city cultured individuals the way you wanted to.

Pretty much nobody you'll talk to today on the left will be a communist. And they aren't a communist just because you say they are.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

vampiric68 said:


> Cowtard.
> urban culture.
> no matter what division you categorize
> i do not so DO NOT PUT WORDS into my mouth.
> ...



Urban culture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes... African Americans. I know what you're saying city council person.

Try to be a bit more sensitive.


----------



## Conservative (Apr 23, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0p0TMQVrkk]Kyle and Cartman Slap Fight - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Ed Spacer (Apr 23, 2012)

Hey cowtard race divisioner.
again,you will not put words in my mouth.
urban culture is ALL URBAN PEOPLE.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 23, 2012)

Fuck communists, including those who portray themselves as "cultured" urban "liberals".


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

vampiric68 said:


> Hey cowtard race divisioner.
> again,you will not put words in my mouth.
> urban culture is ALL URBAN PEOPLE.



Urban people don't participate in a singular culture.

That would be as dumb as saying "rural culture". What fucking rural culture?


----------



## Ed Spacer (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowtard.
i was councilman from 2002 to 2004.
alsi,my evolution is ending the socialist divisioning of political correctness.
if your born here,regardless of superficial bioligical differentiations,your a fucking american.
if your born in another country or region,then you are,regardless of biological superfucial differentiation,that native country of origin.


----------



## Ed Spacer (Apr 23, 2012)

Its true,cowman
like it or not,people lije are putting an end to racial superficial divisioninf,and squash your divide and conquer.


----------



## American Horse (Apr 23, 2012)

Conservative said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



Here you are, what you have said, in no particular order:

1. So, following someone who you think is suspicious, is a good enough reason to draw a gun on said person?


2. And how do you know Trayvon was not simply defending himself, after a gun was drawn ob him? You don't.

Neither do I.

That's why they have these things called trials.


3. walking around at night, following a 'suspicious person' with your gun drawn, is NOT a smart idea


4. And how do you know Trayvon was not simply defending himself, after a gun was drawn ob him? You don't.

Neither do I.

That's why they have these things called trials.


You are right, I was wrong, and you have my apologies.  I had seen quotes several times and in my mind counted them as seperate instances, and your intent is only by implication, and probably only mine.

BTW, when you feel compelled to be calling fellow posters names, try to remember this  is just a forum board for people to express themselves and have a good time, hopefully as adults.


----------



## Ed Spacer (Apr 23, 2012)

you are trying to bait me into your racial divisioning.
It will not work.
as i do not think like a liberal sheeple.
people are individuals,not races or liberally,socially engineered categorizations.
otherwise,wed be puppets and robots.
but,culture is culture,and its a mantra,a message that all people that like such,adopt.
like liberalism,for example...


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 23, 2012)

I wonder how much blood in the picture of zimmermans is trayvons blood.


Did you forget the man had just blown a hole through a teenager at close range


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Apr 23, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> I wonder how much blood in the picture of zimmermans is trayvons blood.
> 
> Did you forget the man had just blown a hole through a teenager at close range



When your stupid opinion is desired, we'll let you know...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> I wonder how much blood in the picture of zimmermans is trayvons blood.
> 
> 
> Did you forget the man had just blown a hole through a teenager at close range




Probably none unless you think that Martin was behind and above Zimmerman and that Zimmerman drew his weapon and reached up and shot Martin upside down over his shoulder so that Martin blood dripped on the back of Zimmerman's head.



>>>>


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 23, 2012)

when you tussle you grab the other guy right?

bloody Trayvon hands could have been the culprit.

I dont see much real injury.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 23, 2012)

see how silly you people are with facts


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 23, 2012)

I sure hope they took samples of the blood


----------



## Ed Spacer (Apr 23, 2012)

TM...if treyvon threatened his life...
he deserved that close range shot...
regardless of superficial differentiation
if any human being threatened my life.
theyd get a blowhole at shortrange,too


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

vampiric68 said:


> Cowtard.
> i was councilman from 2002 to 2004.
> alsi,my evolution is ending the socialist divisioning of political correctness.
> if your born here,regardless of superficial bioligical differentiations,your a fucking american.
> if your born in another country or region,then you are,regardless of biological superfucial differentiation,that native country of origin.





vampiric68 said:


> Its true,cowman
> like it or not,people lije are putting an end to racial superficial divisioninf,and squash your divide and conquer.



Sorry. I just can't believe somebody so incapable of writing proper English with correct spelling would ever be able to be a city council person. I would give you the benefit of the doubt if it looked like you made actual attempts, but you don't. They look for snakes, not idiots.

You're just some pathetic loser who aspires to be something he's not.


----------



## Ed Spacer (Apr 23, 2012)

People,regardless.of any differentiation have to accept responsibility for their own behavior,and not blame others. If you act or threaten people a certain way,there are consequences.
cowman
you proved no ability to debate my points
so attack my grammar,lol.
how bout not making yourself look stupid,and debate mty points?


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Apr 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how much blood in the picture of zimmermans is trayvons blood.
> ...



Yeah.. that's the ticket!


----------



## Ed Spacer (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowman,you're in the josefk,hortysir,neddite land of no debate troll.
congratulations.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 23, 2012)

Trayvon likely had blood on his hands after having a hole blown into his teenage body


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 23, 2012)

I hope they tested the blood


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 23, 2012)

I bet they did not.

they just accept what Zimmerman said as truth.

Trayvon didnt even have a chance to tell his side of the story.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Apr 23, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> I bet they did not.
> 
> they just accept what Zimmerman said as truth.
> 
> Trayvon didnt even have a chance to tell his side of the story.



Like you give a shit anyway...  just another asshole on the dead-black-kid bandwagon.


----------



## Ed Spacer (Apr 23, 2012)

If somebody threatened my life..
theyd have blood all over their body,too
regardless of who they are.


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 23, 2012)

vampiric68 said:


> If somebody threatened my life..
> theyd have blood all over their body,too
> regardless of who they are.



I'm skeeered.......


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

vampiric68 said:


> If somebody threatened my life..
> theyd have blood all over their body,too
> regardless of who they are.



How do you know Trayvon threatened his life? He's the one that ended up dead. Funny that you should automatically take the side of the murderer who had the gun and pursued the kid against police orders.

Yep. You would have done the same, too. Anything to show it to those urban culture illiterate gangsta wannabe kids. YOU'RE GOING TO CLEAN UP YOUR CITY, CITY COUNCIL PERSON!

Pew pew!


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowman said:


> vampiric68 said:
> 
> 
> > If somebody threatened my life..
> ...



How do you know he didn't?  Police orders?  When was Zimmerman convicted of _murder_?

Bottom line.. if the races were reveresed or if they were both black, your race-baiting ass wouldn't have shit to say.


----------



## Ed Spacer (Apr 23, 2012)

Funny you take the side of the thug that proof now shows,withoutMSM proven fraud,that zimmerman had been antagonized and viciously assaulted.i even gave it the benefit of the doubt in the beginning,but there was too much hidden,frauded,and skewered. Regardless of who or what people are in the liberally divided world,a man was defending himself from an attack,the attacker lost his life.
if what proof shows is reallty true,this punk ass had been harassing this guy for awhile.
shoe on my foot,and my life gets threatened...
i would have done the same.
my life is more valuable than an attacker threatening mine.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

vampiric68 said:


> Funny you take the side of the thug that proof now shows,withoutMSM proven fraud,that zimmerman had been antagonized and viciously assaulted.i even gave it the benefit of the doubt in the beginning,but there was too much hidden,frauded,and skewered. Regardless of who or what people are in the liberally divided world,a man was defending himself from an attack,the attacker lost his life.
> if what proof shows is reallty true,this punk ass had been harassing this guy for awhile.
> shoe on my foot,and my life gets threatened...
> i would have done the same.
> my life is more valuable than an attacker threatening mine.




Could you provide some specifics as to what "proof" you are talking about this is not based on statements made by the individual now charged with a crime?

What independently verifiable proof do you have that Zimmerman was antagonized and viciously assaulted?  (And no, injuries are not proof of who started a fight, they only show who was losing fight.)

You say Zimmerman was defending himself from an attack, what independently verifiable proof do you have that Zimmerman was attacked?  What proof precludes Zimmerman from not having attacked Martin?


>>>>


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 23, 2012)

hell the cops didnt even test that blood to make sure it was blood let alone whos blood.


----------



## Peach (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowman said:


> vampiric68 said:
> 
> 
> > If somebody threatened my life..
> ...


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Apr 23, 2012)

Peach said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bucs90 said:
> ...



After? Seriously?? Did you not read the article about the time these pics where taken?
And lets say for the sake of your stupid argument that they where taken at a later date.
Dont you think the cops might notice the difference between the pics and his actual condition at the time the police showed up?
Good God your statement has to be the most moronic thing i've read in a long while.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > vampiric68 said:
> ...



A black man stalking a white man for looking suspicious(wearing a sweater-vest) in a neighborhood watch neighborhood? Yeah, that'll happen. You're telling me you'd still be on the side of Black Zimmerman if he shot White Trayvon?

I'd still be on Trayvon's side. Zimmerman stalked and later killed that kid.


----------



## Ed Spacer (Apr 23, 2012)

Heres videos and statements,etc,everywhere out there backing up zimnerman.
stuff the frayd liberal MSM couldnt hide or skewer


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Apr 23, 2012)

konradv said:


> So what if Zimmermann was bleeding?  Doesn't someone have the right to protect themselves from a man with a gun or does that only apply to the person with the gun?



So you're saying that trayvon was stupid enough to attack a guy with a gun in his hand?
Doesnt seem likely.But if you say so................


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



Well, you should make sure you go to FL and testify as it seems you were there and saw the whole thing from start to finish.


----------



## Ed Spacer (Apr 23, 2012)

There were statements made,and evidence from zimmermans own father that he had been stalked for days.
the MSM lied when they said he automatically racecalled,when the truth if the matter was he only offered that info when the dispatcher asked identifying factors on the individual.
if it wasnt a political op for the left,or if there was nothing to hide,it would have been handled objectively.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

vampiric68 said:


> Heres videos and statements,etc,everywhere out there backing up zimnerman.
> stuff the frayd liberal MSM couldnt hide or skewer



Motherfucker, you only care about the statements made in favor of Zimmerman, not the ones against him. There are plenty of those, including the witnesses that said they heard crying just before the gunshot, and it ended after the gunshot.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

vampiric68 said:


> There were statements made,and evidence from zimmermans own fatger that he had been stalked for dats.
> the MSM lued when they said he automatically eacecalked,when the truth if the matter was he only offered that info when the dispatcher asked identifying factors on the individual.
> if it wasnt a political op for the left,or uf there was nothing to hide,it would have been handled objectively.




I find it funny that you made a comment about "illiterate urban youth" earlier, and you are fucking illiterate yourself. You have serious fucking problems with the writing skills.

How about you slow the fuck down and spell check your sentences. It's not an occasional thing with you, it's every other word in your god damn sentences.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Apr 23, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> [ All stand your ground does is give a person who acted in self defense an additional hearing before a judge to argue his case. It is not an automatic out, it just forces the state to prove someone might actually have done something before they take them to trial.



In Florida SYG means you don't have to retreat from someone trying to inflict great bodily harm, death or a forcible felony upon you or others before using lethal or other force to stop the attack.  Before SYG you had to retreat or try to retreat while outside your home.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> vampiric68 said:
> 
> 
> > Funny you take the side of the thug that proof now shows,withoutMSM proven fraud,that zimmerman had been antagonized and viciously assaulted.i even gave it the benefit of the doubt in the beginning,but there was too much hidden,frauded,and skewered. Regardless of who or what people are in the liberally divided world,a man was defending himself from an attack,the attacker lost his life.
> ...





vampiric68 said:


> Heres videos and statements,etc,everywhere out there backing up zimnerman.
> stuff the frayd liberal MSM couldnt hide or skewer




Assuming this none quoted response was to my questions.



So make the claim their is proof that Martin attacked Zimmerman, yet when asked to cite such proof you give - well - nothing.

The fact is that there is location evidence (descriptions based on phone calls, the truck, the event site), there is phone evidence (dispatcher, girlfriend, 991 calls) - but the fact is there is *NO EVIDENCE* that has been presented to the public at to who attacked who exactly during that critical 60 seconds (or so) between the end of the girlfriends call and the 991 time stamp of the firearm being discharged.

Your claims about Martin's (supposed) actions are just unsubstantiated bias (either for Zimmerman or against Martin) and not supported by any facts.



>>>>


----------



## Soggy in NOLA (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowman said:


> vampiric68 said:
> 
> 
> > There were statements made,and evidence from zimmermans own fatger that he had been stalked for dats.
> ...



If you're going to take the Lord's name in vain.. please capitalize his name... that would be _God_... not _god_.


----------



## Peach (Apr 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > vampiric68 said:
> ...



Only Zimmerman & Martin were there, for some reason the State charged 2nd degree, I doubt it was on a whim.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 23, 2012)

Unless the blood was tested there is no way to even tell if it was blood


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

Peach said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...




2nd Degree Murder requires a depravity of mind case that I think the state will have a very difficult row to hoe.  Manslaughter needing only to prove reckless endangerment would have been much easier.  (Of course the state may have the option submitting a lesser included offense to give the jury an option if there is no plea bargain achieved.)



>>>>


----------



## eots (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> GRAPHIC PHOTO: George Zimmerman | www.wftv.com
> 
> This is why Zimmerman will be not guilty!!!
> 
> ...



what a fucking incoherent ramble that was


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > vampiric68 said:
> ...



Why the hell would I capitalize it? I'm not referring to any god in particular.


----------



## Peach (Apr 23, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> Unless the blood was tested there is no way to even tell if it was blood



Law enforcement can testify; the officers have most certainly seen blood before...............


----------



## bucs90 (Apr 23, 2012)

Moonglow said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


----------



## SayMyName (Apr 23, 2012)

This was never meant to be about Zimmerman anyway.

It was about much more, and that was a cause to excuse mounting unsociable behavior on one part of the populace. It will be interesting to see what develops.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Apr 23, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> A question for the OP...
> 
> If a rape victim managed to scratch the eye out of her rapist, does that make the rapist "innocent"?



Nope..if a guy manages to shoot and kill the guy who is assaulting him does that make the guy who assaulted him innocent?
Did you post that with a straight face? I know I was LMAO when I read it.


----------



## Jarhead (Apr 23, 2012)

Peach said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



if they had compelling evidence, they would have prewsented it at the bail hearing.

I know...I know...."they dont want to let the defense know what they have"

News flash for all of you that only know about the courts based on what you see on TV drama's....

If a DA has compelling evidence that a potential defendant has commited murder and had no concern for human life (as is a second degree murder charge)....they would lose their jobs as a DA if they did not present it in a bail hearing.

Why?

Becuase a bail hearing is used by a judge to determine if the defendant is a threat to society. Compelling evidence would show exactly that.

There is not a DA in this country that would not present it at a bail hearing.


----------



## manifold (Apr 23, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Unfortunately, it appears the majority of progressives don't understand the *theory* of "innocent until PROVEN guilty".



It's not a theory, it's a judicial concept.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 23, 2012)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > A question for the OP...
> ...



he was stalking the boy by his own admission


----------



## Meister (Apr 23, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



He admitted to stalking?  Really?


----------



## Jarhead (Apr 23, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Wrong.....as usual.


----------



## Seawytch (Apr 23, 2012)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > A question for the OP...
> ...



I teach my kids about "stranger danger" and how important it is to fight. Why doesn't Trayvon get to fight back against a guy stalking him?


----------



## OODA_Loop (Apr 23, 2012)

State's special appointed lead investigator testified under oath there is no evidence to contradict Zman's statements.


----------



## Jarhead (Apr 23, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



you would want your children to turn TOWARD the stranger who is following them and APPROACH that stranger?

Wow.

You are one fucked up mother in my eyes.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Apr 23, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



Because he ran and came back to attack Zman.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Apr 23, 2012)

bodecea said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


----------



## Jarhead (Apr 23, 2012)

OODA_Loop said:


> State's special appointed lead investigator testified under oath there is no evidence to contradict Zman's statements.



Did you notice that the lead investigators admitting that there is no evidence that contradicts Zimmermans story never made it to the MSM news?

Likewise, his admittance that there is no evidence that shows that Zimmerman did NOT stop following Martin ALSO did not make the news.


----------



## bucs90 (Apr 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Oh Jesus Christ. You liberals are such fucking idiots. This is like week 1 police academy shit dude.

The "verbal" assault, in all states I'm sure, refers to saying "I will kill you".
The "aggravated" attachment, in regards to the weapons part, means the WEAPON did the actual harm/assault. Simply being armed while using VERBAL words to commit the assault does not make the weapon an aggravated circumstance. That would be simple assault, plus pointing and presenting. Aggravated Assault "WITH" a deadly weapon, meaning the weapon did the harm, is different than an assault via verbal threats "while armed". Those are two VERY different legal situations.

If you had ever attened a basic police academy, or worked with city attorneys on how/why "aggravating" circumstances apply, you'd know that.

So....lets review:

A) Holding a baseball bat, and yelling at your neighbor "I'll come over there and beat your ass": Simple verbal assault.

B) Taking that baseball bat over there and cracking him in the ribs with it: Aggravated Assault.

BTW, Pointing and Presenting, in most states, is a felony and FAR more serious than a simple verbal assault. Which is why when most dirtbag thugs pull a gun on someone, they are charged with that...not assault. Althought in 99% of cases, when someone points a gun, they are robbing them or end up shooting them, so the aggravated robbery, attempted murder, etc, kicks in.

There. I'm charging tuition next time.


----------



## jillian (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> GRAPHIC PHOTO: George Zimmerman | www.wftv.com
> 
> This is why Zimmerman will be not guilty!!!
> 
> ...



yawn... this is like thread #20 on this subject... the racists love it.

no worries.


----------



## bucs90 (Apr 23, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



He does, if the guy is threatening him.

Of course...Trayvon had a cell phone. He coulda called 911 and said "Hey some guy is following me please help". Instead he chose to become violent towards the neighborhood watchman.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 23, 2012)

OODA_Loop said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > [ All stand your ground does is give a person who acted in self defense an additional hearing before a judge to argue his case. It is not an automatic out, it just forces the state to prove someone might actually have done something before they take them to trial.
> ...


Or someone you believe is trying to do that. It also means that some murderers get away with murder.


----------



## Seawytch (Apr 23, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



There is no EVIDENCE of what you are claiming other than the word of the guy who doesn't want to go to jail for shooting an innocent & unarmed kid.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Apr 23, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> I wonder how much blood in the picture of zimmermans is trayvons blood.
> 
> 
> Did you forget the man had just blown a hole through a teenager at close range



On the back of his head? BWAHAHAHAHA!!!! Shit thats funny!!!!!


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 23, 2012)

trayvon had hands and your guy claims they were grappling.


----------



## Rocko (Apr 23, 2012)

vampiric68 said:


> TM...if treyvon threatened his life...
> he deserved that close range shot...
> regardless of superficial differentiation
> if any human being threatened my life.
> theyd get a blowhole at shortrange,too


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 23, 2012)

Ravi said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



It also means some murderers get killed as well.


----------



## OODA_Loop (Apr 23, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Or someone you believe is trying to do that. It also means that some murderers get away with murder.



Every law has a percentage of non-compliance which evades prosectution.

The nature of man made law.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

You know why they look for skin and hair under the fingernails of rape victims? To determine if the victim provoked the attack.

True story.


----------



## bucs90 (Apr 23, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...





You, sir, know the legal system better than most.

People are gonna raise holy hell when Zimmerman makes bail, and they're gonna blame the judge and DA. If they could have done anything to prevent that, they would. They cant. They dont have it.

IMO, the ONLY reason the made this charge is to prevent race riots in Florida. They'd rather lose a case and say "we tried" than to take a stand and say "The law allows him to defend himself".


----------



## Rocko (Apr 23, 2012)

Zimmerman gets his day in court. He should be presumed innocent in regards to the justice system, and in the court of public opinion.


----------



## Conservative (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> Jarhead said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



welcome to 9:00AM this morning.
George Zimmerman released from jail on bond in Trayvon Martin case - Crimesider - CBS News


> George Zimmerman, the man accused of second-degree murder in the killing of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, was released from jail early Monday on $150,000 bail.


----------



## Conservative (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowman said:


> You know why they look for skin and hair under the fingernails of rape victims? To determine if the victim provoked the attack.
> 
> True story.



No. To determine if the victim attempted to fight the perp off, and to obtain DNA to identify the perp.


----------



## Peach (Apr 23, 2012)

Conservative said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...


I hope & pray the State has evidence to back up the charge.......................


----------



## OODA_Loop (Apr 23, 2012)

Seawytch said:


> There is no EVIDENCE of what you are claiming other than the word of the guy who doesn't want to go to jail for shooting an innocent & unarmed kid.



Cept' our system doesnt work like that.

The State has to prove Zman's story wrong.

Their lead invesigator already swore under oath once they don't have that evidence.


----------



## Rocko (Apr 23, 2012)

Peach said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > bucs90 said:
> ...



why?


----------



## bucs90 (Apr 23, 2012)

Conservative said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> > Jarhead said:
> ...





HAHA!! Oh dam, didn't know that. Been at the park with the dog all day.

Well.....guess the DA didn't have enough to show the judge to get him the massive bail. The DA can't risk a true killer on the streets. The horrible PR. How could he get such a low bail? 

Easy. They aint got a case.


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Apr 23, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> HereWeGoAgain said:
> 
> 
> > Seawytch said:
> ...



I would hardly call what Zimm was doing "stalking" And besides,that doesnt give Trayvon the right to assault Zimm.
I dont know why I even respond to you. You're so far out in left field you're in the stands.
I really cant take anything you post seriously. It's like you're trying to funny.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> This is why Zimmerman will be not guilty!!!


Gimme a break!!

He was playing *"super-cop"*....after the *REAL cops* told him to *back-OFF*....proceeded to get his *ASS kicked*....more-than-likely the reason the *REAL** cops* *TOLD* him to back-off....and, ended-up shooting an unarmed-person.

If he doesn't end-up "doing time", something's *seriously-fuckin'-wrong!!*

Hell......the *next* time, he might end-up shooting a *WHITE-PERSON!!!!!!*


----------



## bucs90 (Apr 23, 2012)

Peach said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > bucs90 said:
> ...


----------



## Peach (Apr 23, 2012)

Rocko said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



*IF NOT, the motivation for charging would be as many have written. *


----------



## HereWeGoAgain (Apr 23, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



My thoughts exactly. Between this clown and truthmatters .......


----------



## Peach (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...


----------



## bucs90 (Apr 23, 2012)

Mr. Shaman said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> > This is why Zimmerman will be not guilty!!!
> ...



Ah........once again, time to school up a retarded liberal.

They never "TOLD" him to back off. The 911 op said we "dont need you" to follow him. Thats basic police academy 101. Always tell them we "dont need you" to follow someone. Why? Lawsuits. 

Saying "we dont need you to follow them" means no one can sue and say "the cops said to follow him and I got hurt".

However, they teach to also AVOID saying "do not follow" someone, because they still wanna catch the guy.

So....."we dont need you to" means "we arent' telling you to, but you have the choice to if you wish".

Get your shit right. It's important in court. He was never ordered to stop following him. He was simply told by 911 that they dont need him to continue if he chooses not to.

HUGE detail in court.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > You know why they look for skin and hair under the fingernails of rape victims? To determine if the victim provoked the attack.
> ...



You should be able to read my sarcasm by now.


----------



## Meister (Apr 23, 2012)

*merged*


----------



## bucs90 (Apr 23, 2012)

Peach said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...


----------



## Rocko (Apr 23, 2012)

Peach said:


> Rocko said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Yeah, I understand.

If the case is found to be week, then many will  look at political motivation..

The burden of proof, as always is on the state. Time will tell.


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> Mr. Shaman said:
> 
> 
> > bucs90 said:
> ...



....But, he *DID*....and, got *OUT*-of-his-vehicle, *to DO so!!!!!*

He *fucked up!!!*.....and, it's time to *pay!*​


----------



## Mr. Shaman (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > bucs90 said:
> ...


----------



## GHook93 (Apr 23, 2012)

Marc BLACK POWER Asshole, why are you such a liar! Pictures taken RIGHT at the scene show a bloody head!

NEG!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMQo3YrEniU&feature=related]New Photo Shows Zimmerman&#39;s Bloody Head Injuries - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 23, 2012)

Truthmatters said:


> I wonder how much blood in the picture of zimmermans is trayvons blood.
> 
> 
> Did you forget the man had just blown a hole through a teenager at close range



Zimmerman pounded Martin with the back of his head?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bucs90 said:
> ...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 23, 2012)

Ravi said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Really? How many? Can you name one?


----------



## candycorn (Apr 23, 2012)

Tends to happen when you go picking a fight...nothing to see here folks.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

bucs90 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bucs90 said:
> ...



Nice attempt at personal insult, but I'm not a liberal.

Until all the evidence comes out, I'm not committed to guilt or innocence, unlike some other people that will proclaim Zimmerman's innocence no matter what the evidence eventually shows or others that claim Zimmerman is guilty no matter what the evidence shows.



bucs90 said:


> The "verbal" assault, in all states I'm sure, refers to saying "I will kill you".



Or showing a holstered weapon and saying "don't move or I'll shoot".



bucs90 said:


> The "aggravated" attachment, in regards to the weapons part, means the WEAPON did the actual harm/assault. Simply being armed while using VERBAL words to commit the assault does not make the weapon an aggravated circumstance. That would be simple assault, plus pointing and presenting. Aggravated Assault "WITH" a deadly weapon, meaning the weapon did the harm, is different than an assault via verbal threats "while armed". Those are two VERY different legal situations.



True, the weapon would have to be displayed an the individual would have to indicate as part of the verbal threat that the weapon would be the means if inflicting harm.

If Zimmerman had a holstered weapon and said, "I'm going to kick your ass", then the weapon would not be a factor.  On the other hand if he shifted his jacket, displayed the weapon, and said "I'm going to shoot you" then ya, the weapons becomes a factor.




bucs90 said:


> So....lets review:
> 
> A) Holding a baseball bat, and yelling at your neighbor "I'll come over there and beat your ass": Simple verbal assault.



Not under the Florida law.

784.011 is simple assault and does not require a weapon.

784.021 is aggravated assault and can result when a weapon is used as part of the assault.  Us as a baseball bat which can be lethal.

011 is a misdemeanor, while 021 is a felony.



bucs90 said:


> B) Taking that baseball bat over there and cracking him in the ribs with it: Aggravated Assault.



Actually that would be battery under Florida Law 784.03.  Assault is the intent to do harm, battery is the actual occurrence of harm.




bucs90 said:


> BTW, Pointing and Presenting, in most states, is a felony and FAR more serious than a simple verbal assault. Which is why when most dirtbag thugs pull a gun on someone, they are charged with that...not assault. Althought in 99% of cases, when someone points a gun, they are robbing them or end up shooting them, so the aggravated robbery, attempted murder, etc, kicks in.
> 
> There. I'm charging tuition next time.



So whether it's aggravated assault a felony or "pointing and presenting" which is as you describe is a felony, then if Zimmerman did either one then his self defense immunity under Florida Statute 776.041 would be negated.

Thanks, that goes to confirm what I said.


No need to "charge tuition" the posts you have made are often substandard and show an extreme bias to Zimmerman being not guilty at all costs.  The fact remains there is a critical time between the end of the girlfriends phone call and the shot being time stamped on the 911 tape that we have NO EVIDENCE to support either Martin as the aggressor or Zimmerman as the aggressor.  If the state fails to prove it's case, then Zimmerman should be judged not guilty, but at this point it is impossible to make a logical case either way because we don't know.


>>>>


>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 23, 2012)

HereWeGoAgain said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > HereWeGoAgain said:
> ...



I could arguably call TM an idiot.

Stalking is a pattern of behavior, unless Zimmerman had been following Martin for a few days at least the only way you could call it stalking is if you are deluded.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

OODA_Loop said:


> State's special appointed lead investigator testified under oath there is no evidence to contradict Zman's statements.



"UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But -- and I'm going to get into every little contradiction but wouldn't you agree that a lot of his statements can be contradicted by the evidence either witnesses or just based on what he says himself?

GILBREATH: Yes. "​

CNN.com - Transcripts

>>>>


----------



## Ravi (Apr 23, 2012)

OODA_Loop said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Or someone you believe is trying to do that. It also means that some murderers get away with murder.
> ...


Yes, but laws should be written to protect the innocent. This law is poorly written.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 23, 2012)

The innocent includes people who have to defend themselves from thuggish brutes who attack them.


----------



## Liability (Apr 23, 2012)

Ravi said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Your ignorance is both astounding AND arrogant.

If you were ever to be physically attacked and found it within your means to grab a weapon to defend yourself, and in the process you managed to foil the attacker's efforts to maim or kill you, you'd probably feel some sense of relief.

And if you then were faced with the prospect of getting prosecuted for having caused the death of your attacker, you'd probably feel a bit offended and think "I SHOULD be allowed to use even deadly physical force to fend off an attack that seems hell bent on causing my death!"

Well, HOW do cops and prosecutors and judges and juries figure out whether or not YOUR behavior fit within the bounds of what the law allows?

Holy shit, sometimes there was nobody else around.  Sometimes the "evidence" that remains is ambiguous and your word may not be "good enough" standing alone to convince folks that you legitimately felt yourself to be in mortal peril.

So, the laws get written in a way that permits lots of factors to be considered.

YOUR criticism of the allegedly "poor" draftsmanship of the law notwithstanding, it's been doing its job pretty well for a long time.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 23, 2012)

I know a kid who was convicted of a measure 11 crime at 15 because he used a rock to bash the head of a bully who attacked him out in a field.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 23, 2012)

dilloduck said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



And THAT'S assuming she didn't just make it all up.  The records can prove that they were on the phone together, but there's no evidence except her word for it as to what was actually said.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 23, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



True.  If Dershowitz is expounding on political issues, I pay him no more mind than I do any other liberal.  When he's expounding on the proper way to do a lawyer's job, I will concede him his expertise in that area.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2012)

Mr. Shaman said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> > This is why Zimmerman will be not guilty!!!
> ...



*proceeded to get his ASS kicked....and, ended-up shooting an unarmed-person.*

Trayvon should make sure the next person be beats up is unarmed.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> The innocent includes people who have to defend themselves from thuggish brutes who attack them.




I agree, now we just need some evidence that proves whether the thug turns out to be Zimmerman or Martin.


>>>>


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > The innocent includes people who have to defend themselves from thuggish brutes who attack them.
> ...



From the available evidence (at this point in time) it looks like the aggressive thug is dead and rightly so.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...




Actually at this point in time there is no evidence of that critical time between the end of the girlfriends call and the time stamp for the gunshot from the 911 tapes that would indicate who was the aggressive thug.

If you have some evidence to fill in that time, please feel free to share.  Right now we have a Neighborhood Watch member calling in a report (a responsible thing to do) and we have a youth who getting stared at by an unknown man does the responsible thing and runs away showing no "thugism".

So go ahead fill in that missing time frame for us.



>>>>


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> The innocent includes people who have to defend themselves from thuggish brutes who attack them.



Thuggish brutes. Right. He was a kid with a pack of skittles. Zimmerman was the thuggish brute. You're a disgrace.

Zimmerman was looking for a confrontation. He got it. He got what he wanted I guess in a way it's given you what you wanted as well... a venue to label black kids as thuggish brutes because of the clothing they wear.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



At this point in time it sounds like Martin jumped Zimmerman which ended up being the reason for Martin's death. There is evidence to that point including the eye witness statement as to what happened. There also seems to be no one to dispute that evidence or Zimmerman would have been arrested and charged at the time of the incident. There seems to be more evidence in Zimmerman's favor then agaisnt at this point. I suspect there will be more evidence in Zimmerman's favor as hearings and/or a trial proceeds. Zimmerman's case is looking pretty good so far other then the fantasy's that some are trying to push here. 

I am all for letting the court clear Zimmerman, I sure hope that they do as I like the Stand your Ground law, but we will see how it goes.


----------



## eag154 (Apr 23, 2012)

Whiny blacks will inherit the earth, Florida maybe, Watts fer sure!


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowman said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > The innocent includes people who have to defend themselves from thuggish brutes who attack them.
> ...



He was a "No limit Nigga" just ask him...oh you can't as he lost a fight that he started because he planned on winning. Oh well.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Yep, you don't even have to lynch them anymore.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



Nope. Not when they bring Skittles to a gunfight.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Thuggish brutes. Right. He was a kid with a pack of skittles. Zimmerman was the thuggish brute. You're a disgrace.
> 
> Zimmerman was looking for a confrontation. He got it. He got what he wanted I guess in a way it's given you what you wanted as well... a venue to* label black kids as thuggish brutes because of the clothing they wear.*



What you going to say if it turns out that Zimmerman actually was acting in self defense?

Plus, just because he had skittles does not mean he cant act stupidly by attacking a guy that was looking his way while on a phone... Maybe if Trayvon actually was scared for his life or worried about being followed, he should have called the police as well. He did have a cell phone after all 

Stupid decisions led up to an unfortunate tragedy.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > Thuggish brutes. Right. He was a kid with a pack of skittles. Zimmerman was the thuggish brute. You're a disgrace.
> ...



You mean if it was ruled by judge or jury that he acted in self defense? I dunno. I suppose I'll stand behind the jury's decision 100%. You know, like everybody does with all court cases. That's why nobody ever disputes the O.J. Simpson ruling as an example.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 23, 2012)

All of the evidence known so far indicates that Zimmerman cannot be convicted.  Liberals and race baiters have to bring in enormous amounts of IF facts to reach a conviction.  IF Zimmerman pulled his gun and confronted Martin. IF Zimmerman continued to follow Martin instead of returning to his car as he said he did.   IF Zimmerman knew that Martin was unarmed.   Without proof of the "if" facts, the known case is a failure.

I don't know what the girlfriend really said to the police.  If she will testify that Martin told her he was frightened (which I doubt.  She would never respect him if he got scared being followed), or that he felt cornered, no prosecutor would put her on the stand.  Likely she'd be called as a DEFENSE witness and questioned as a hostile witness.  If admitted under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, the girlfriend would be saying that Martin felt cornered, frightened, unable to correctly assess the threat level and more, far more likely to initiate an attack.  

All the facts need to come out.  Unfortunately so far, what real evidence there is, without the liberal race baiting  if arguments, Zimmerman is innocent.  Killing Martin with a gun is no different than killing Martin by getting the best of him in a fistfight and bashing HIS head into the sidewalk.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



Really, what evidence supports that?



Bigfoot said:


> There is evidence to that point including the eye witness statement as to what happened.



Really, what eye witness has made claim to seeing the start of hostilities?  (Not someone that saw them together on the ground after hostilities started, but someone that saw the beginning.)



Bigfoot said:


> There also seems to be no one to dispute that evidence or Zimmerman would have been arrested and charged at the time of the incident.



What evidence exists for the time from the end of the girlfriends call when we know both were still standing (approximately 19:16) and the sound of the gunshot sync'd to the 911 call?




Bigfoot said:


> There seems to be more evidence in Zimmerman's favor then agaisnt at this point.



What "evidence" please be specific.

What we have right now is Zimmerman saying that Martin ran and Zimmerman followed.




Bigfoot said:


> I suspect there will be more evidence in Zimmerman's favor as hearings and/or a trial proceeds.



Probably, but I'd be interested in seeing this evidence you say already shows that Martin attacked Zimmerman.




Bigfoot said:


> Zimmerman's case is looking pretty good so far other then the fantasy's that some are trying to push here.



I agree Zimmerman's case looks good.  However that is based on lack of evidence not affirmative evidence to support his claim that Martin jumped him.  The fact is that there is no evidence that Zimmerman didn't jump Martin.



Bigfoot said:


> I am all for letting the court clear Zimmerman, I sure hope that they do as I like the Stand your Ground law, but we will see how it goes.



You realize that if Zimmerman attacked Martin, under Stand Your Ground he would have been perfectly enabled to stand his ground and to use force against Zimmerman, if that was the case.


>>>>


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowman said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



That's why all those white folks rioted in the streets when the OJ verdict came in, right?


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



What are you saying?

It wasn't something racist, was it?

It wasn't... "black people are prone to violence", was it?


----------



## Liability (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



I do believe you just had bullshit called on you and now you're whining like a stuck pig.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> All of the evidence known so far indicates that Zimmerman cannot be convicted.  Liberals and race baiters have to bring in enormous amounts of IF facts to reach a conviction.  IF Zimmerman pulled his gun and confronted Martin. IF Zimmerman continued to follow Martin instead of returning to his car as he said he did.   IF Zimmerman knew that Martin was unarmed.   Without proof of the "if" facts, the known case is a failure.
> 
> I don't know what the girlfriend really said to the police.  If she will testify that Martin told her he was frightened (which I doubt.  She would never respect him if he got scared being followed), or that he felt cornered, no prosecutor would put her on the stand.  Likely she'd be called as a DEFENSE witness and questioned as a hostile witness.  If admitted under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule, the girlfriend would be saying that Martin felt cornered, frightened, unable to correctly assess the threat level and more, far more likely to initiate an attack.
> 
> All the facts need to come out.  Unfortunately so far, what real evidence there is, without the liberal race baiting  if arguments, Zimmerman is innocent.  Killing Martin with a gun is no different than killing Martin by getting the best of him in a fistfight and bashing HIS head into the sidewalk.




Actually I agree a lot with this post.

I think that it is unlikely, unless the prosecution has some evidence not in the public view, that Zimmerman will not be convicted.  Presumption of innocience demands that unless the state can prove Zimmerman committed a crime, then the verdict should be "not guilty".

Where I disagree is that the jury returning a "not guilty" verdict proves that Zimmerman is "innocent", it doesn't - it simply shows that Zimmerman didn't commit a crime.  Zimmerman will not be innocent of of killing Martin due to his actions that perpetuated the event.

Secondly, I disagree, I think the prosecutors are fully preparing to place the girlfriend on the stand to provide evidence to conflict with Zimmerman's statements made to police (supposedly that Martin jumped him from behind) by testifying to hearing Zimmerman confronting Martin based on hearing him on the phone.


>>>>


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



You asked it.... you answer it 

But I dont recall whites burning down their 'hood' and beating the shit out of innocent whites in 18 wheelers, and destroying oriental owned businesses over a courts decision.

But whatever...


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



The evidence that we have all been discussing in the past dozen or so threads on the subject. Which certainly doesn't bear repeating again, its all right here on this very forum. The eyewitness is Zimmerman himself and the evidence shows that his account was good enough for him to not be arrested and charged until the incident became embroiled in politics.. If anyone thinks that Obama and Holder had no effect on Zimmerman's arrest I would suggest that they spend some time reevaluating thier thoughts on the subject. The available evidence as of right now supports Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked him. What I am waiting for is the Corner's report of Martins bullet wound which along with what we already know may be enough for an acquittal.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



I'm sure there are no crime stats to back up that claim.....


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

Liability said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Bullshit called on me? My point was that people didn't accept the verdict on O.J.(myself included), and still don't to this day.

How stupid are you people? My post had no insinuation of crime. It had to do with opinion.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



So, is that your claim? Black people are prone to violence? Stand by it dude. Provide those crime stats and show everybody where you stand.


----------



## Liability (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



There was no legitimate reason TO accept the OJ verdict.

And?

When a verdict is patently bullshit, there's no reason to stand behind it.

But the CONTEXT of what you posted, you dishonest pig, was that Zimmerman is guilty.  YOUR sub-moron claim was that Zimmerman was "looking" for a confrontation.

You have no way of knowing any such thing, but you are a tool so you state your vapid opinions AS "fact."  

Damn.  You are truly a stupid cow.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

I'm not stating my opinions as fact. Please state where I said they were fact. It's always been a clash of opinions. My opinion is based on witness accounts of moments just prior to and after the murder, and the call Zimmerman had with the police telling him not to pursue, etc.

Thanks for proving my point about the bullshit verdicts. That's exactly what I was going for.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowman said:


> I'm not stating my opinions as fact. Please state where I said they were fact. It's always been a clash of opinions. My opinion is based on witness accounts of moments just prior to and after the murder, and the call Zimmerman had with the police telling him not to pursue, etc.
> 
> Thanks for proving my point about the bullshit verdicts. That's exactly what I was going for.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwOP-AMyCKI]I meant to do that - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowman said:


> I'm not stating my opinions as fact. Please state where I said they were fact. It's always been a clash of opinions. My opinion is based on witness accounts of moments just prior to and after the murder, and the call Zimmerman had with the police telling him not to pursue, etc.
> 
> Thanks for proving my point about the bullshit verdicts. That's exactly what I was going for.



Zimmerman was NEVER told not to pursue. It has also been shown that he did not as he lost track of Martin. But some of you guys pretend like you don't know that ~rolleyes~


----------



## Liability (Apr 23, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not stating my opinions as fact. Please state where I said they were fact. It's always been a clash of opinions. My opinion is based on witness accounts of moments just prior to and after the murder, and the call Zimmerman had with the police telling him not to pursue, etc.
> ...





Cowboi is getting soooooo twisted now, he's gonna be a knot soon.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 23, 2012)

Liability said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 23, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



I have seen absolutley zero, zip, nada evidence presented on this forum (and I've been following the threads) which proves what happens between the end of the girlfriends call at approximately 19:16 and the 911 time stamped gun shot about 60 seconds later.

How about humoring us and present what evidence covers this time frame.




Bigfoot said:


> The eyewitness is Zimmerman himself and the evidence shows that his account was good enough for him to not be arrested and charged until the incident became embroiled in politics..



And further investigation was done and he was charged.  Your logic is that because the Sanford police didn't charge him he's innocent, then using your logic then he must be guilty because the state has charged him.



Bigfoot said:


> If anyone thinks that Obama and Holder had no effect on Zimmerman's arrest I would suggest that they spend some time reevaluating thier thoughts on the subject.



I don't give a rats ass about Obama and Holder.  **YOU** said the evidence supports Martin as the attacker.  I challenged that for you to show us specifically what evidence exists that differentiates between Zimmerman and Martin as possible "attackers" you you dodge instead of providing this evidence.




Bigfoot said:


> The available evidence as of right now supports Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked him.



Cool.

Detail for us what evidence exists during that critical time frame between the end of the girlfriends call and the gun shot which shows who was the aggressor of hostilities.




Bigfoot said:


> What I am waiting for is the Corner's report of Martins bullet wound which along with what we already know may be enough for an acquittal.



Let me make a prediction.  The Coroner's report will show that Martin was shot at close range with a 9mm in the chest. 

Well we already knew that.  Please explain how that shows *who initiated the hostilities* that resulted in Zimmerman and Martin being on the ground in a fight where Zimmerman shot Martin.  We already know who shot whom, that will be no great revelation (unless it shows Martin was shot at a distance, then Zimmerman is in deep shit.)


>>>>


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not stating my opinions as fact. Please state where I said they were fact. It's always been a clash of opinions. My opinion is based on witness accounts of moments just prior to and after the murder, and the call Zimmerman had with the police telling him not to pursue, etc.
> ...





The Infidel said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > Thuggish brutes. Right. He was a kid with a pack of skittles. Zimmerman was the thuggish brute. You're a disgrace.
> ...





			
				Cowman said:
			
		

> *You mean if it was ruled by judge or jury that he acted in self defense? I dunno. I suppose I'll stand behind the jury's decision 100%. You know, like everybody does with all court cases. That's why nobody ever disputes the O.J. Simpson ruling as an example.*



It's not so funny when you're not stupid. I don't even know how you're getting a laugh out of that. You demonstrated what I said perfectly... that people don't accept what they believe to be bullshit verdicts.


Also I post on these forums because I find it relaxing, dealing with simpleminded idiots as opposed to the challenges I face in the daytime at work. Hard to get wound up and twisted over something that I enjoy.


----------



## Liability (Apr 23, 2012)

What the fuck?

Cowboi and whine just shouldn't go together so hand in hand.

It's wrong.

Just wrong.

Cowboi meltdown on way soon?

Stock up on kleenex.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

Liability said:


> What the fuck?
> 
> Cowboi and whine just shouldn't go together so hand in hand.
> 
> ...









Are you really pulling the "baby gonna cry" card? That's so lame. Real schoolyard shit. But then again, I am dealing with conservatives.


----------



## Liability (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > What the fuck?
> ...




Oh snap!  You so good at this!



(Yes, cowboi.  That's right.  We ALL see that you are doing the very thing you pretend to be above doing.  There's a word for that kind of sanctimonious hypocrisy.  But I can't seem to recall that word. ... I think it rhymes with Hypocrite.  Or maybe it's just cowman.)


Sit right there.  I'll get your tissues for you.  

Need Midol?


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

Send me a PM when your sophistication level improves.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



Crime rates are the same across neighborhoods regardless of the racial percentages in each neighborhood? Show me.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Send me a PM when your sophistication level improves.



Why....? Im enjoying watching you make an ass of yourself


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Was it your claim that black people are more prone to violence? You seem to be skirting around the issue. I'm not the one offering stats, you are. Post them to bolster your claim. Come on man, if you get COLD HARD NUMBERS that black people are savage beasts more prone to violence than the fairer race, who can refute it?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 23, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I expect she'll be able to testify to what she herself heard, but I would be stunned if the defense lawyer wasn't able to make mincemeat out of her credibility based on the facts that a) she has no proof that what she's saying is true, and b) she's got a powerful motivation for lying and wanting revenge.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



*Was it your claim that black people are more prone to violence?*

Was it? Where? Link?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 23, 2012)

Jarhead said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Also, the prosecution is prohibited by law from having any secrets or surprises from the defense.  They don't have the ability legally to "not let the defense know what they have".  They're required to disclose all evidence in their possession to the defense prior to trial, and can be disbarred and criminally charged if they don't.  I believe all of this falls under some obscure little legal rule referred to as the "Fifth Amendment to the Constitution".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowman said:


> You know why they look for skin and hair under the fingernails of rape victims? To determine if the victim provoked the attack.
> 
> True story.



No, they do it to match the DNA under the victim's fingernails to the accused rapist, to prove that he really is the guy.

There is no such thing as "provoking a rape", because there is literally nothing a woman can say or do to "provoke" a man into shoving his penis into her vagina, short of "please shove your penis into my vagina".


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > You know why they look for skin and hair under the fingernails of rape victims? To determine if the victim provoked the attack.
> ...



I agree completely. That post was obvious sarcasm. At least obvious to the regular trolls on the forum I was addressing. I was mirroring their behavior.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 23, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



On this board, your post is not obviously sarcasm.

Whether it was sarcastic or not, it was utterly inappropriate.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Because, at this point, the alternative explanation is that Zimmerman jumped Martin and attacked him with the back of his head, which is really stupid, considering he had a gun.



WorldWatcher said:


> Really, what eye witness has made claim to seeing the start of hostilities?  (Not someone that saw them together on the ground after hostilities started, but someone that saw the beginning.)



Maybe Martin actually had the gun, and Zimmerman was so confused by the fight he accidentally claimed it was his.



WorldWatcher said:


> What evidence exists for the time from the end of the girlfriends call when we know both were still standing (approximately 19:16) and the sound of the gunshot sync'd to the 911 call?
> 
> What "evidence" please be specific.



What evidence do we need?



WorldWatcher said:


> What we have right now is Zimmerman saying that Martin ran and Zimmerman followed.



You complain about a lack of evidence, and then make up stuff?

Wait, you also insist that Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin, even though he wasn't. Making stuff up is what you do.



WorldWatcher said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman's case is looking pretty good so far other then the fantasy's that some are trying to push here.
> ...



How do you explain the injuries on the back of Zimmerman's head if a guy with a gun attacked a kid with Skittles?

The problem here is not the lack of evidence to support Zimmerman's story, the problem is the lack of evidence to disprove it. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove Martin attacked him. The state has to prove he attacked Martin, that he did so with malice, and that he was never in any danger. Most people who pretend to understand the law would know that, and not try to force an innocent person to prove that he didn't do something. This isn't France, the presumption lies with the defendant, not the state.



WorldWatcher said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > I am all for letting the court clear Zimmerman, I sure hope that they do as I like the Stand your Ground law, but we will see how it goes.
> ...



You realize that you are an idiot.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 23, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Cow turd cant help himself....he is pathetic if ya ask me.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



LOL. Everyone in these threads has been over all of this stuff so many times. Just because you want to pretend that you haven't is rather amusing. 

As far as the Coroner's report the path the bullet took through Martin's body is of importance. If you were anywhere near as smart as you think you are you would know that or again you are just talking more shit to be amusing or annoying...either way it doesn't matter. 

It is difficult to believe that you are stupid so the only conclusion I am drawing from interacting with you is that you are enjoying acting like you don't know what is going on. Or you are acting like you do not know what has already been presented here on this forum in several threads. Either way I will leave it at that you are being amusing. I don't feel like playing your little game when I already know that you are pretending that you don't know what is going on and that you also have a penchant for making stuff up.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 23, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Oh fucking please. I was responding to people claiming that any sign of struggle or wounds on the perpetrator is a sign that they probably provoked the attack. It's blame the victim mentality and it's absolutely bullshit. I was throwing their disgusting logic right back at them.

I can't even count the number of times I've been in arguments against conservatives concerning rape and how they think the woman was responsible(at least partly they always say) in part for putting herself in a specific location, wearing a specific outfit or hanging out with certain kinds of people. I'm seeing the same motherfucking thing right here.


----------



## sitarro (Apr 23, 2012)

Luissa said:


> LockeJaw said:
> 
> 
> > Did Zimmerman say tMartin was black to the 9-11 operator before or after he was asked to give a description of Martin?
> ...



Luissa want a cracker? How many times are you going to repeat that fucking question? Do you know anything about this case at all? Are you just trolling like an imbecile......wait, forget that question, I know the answer.

There had been over 8 break ins in that community in the last few months and Trayvon matched the eye witness description of the people doing the break in. He was walking around near the buildings in an erratic  manner talking to himself( the dumb ass "hoodie""style""is intended to mask your identity, give you a badass look in their very small minds) the hood was hiding his bluetooth set. The "hoodie's" other use is to hide a weapon or stolen property.

What science are you using to determine that a 5'9" overweight guy is twice the size of a 6'2",
170 ib guy. Just the reach alone is going to give a 6" 2" guy a huge advantage over someone 5'9". A sucker punch from someone that size is devastating. His twitter account was "@No Limit Nigga"....... his cousin questioned him about punching a bus driver. This "kid" was not the little boy in the football uniform, that was 4 years before, he wasn't on a football team anymore. If he was worried about someone following him in a neighborhood that he didn't live in, why didn't he easily outrun Zimmerman to his Daddy'a girlfriends house and call the police. Martin's death was inevitable with where he was heading in life, it was Zimmerman's bad luck that he was the one to kill him rather than the standard rival gang asshole....... nobody would be talking about it.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





			
				GHook93 said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -257 reputation points from GHook93.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> ...


----------



## Cowman (Apr 24, 2012)

Man, based on some of the explosive negative comments I've received from GHook93... I have no reason to question the validity of that.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 24, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > OODA_Loop said:
> ...


Thanks for illustrating  my point so well.

You, in your infinite wisdom, have judge Martin guilty of launching an attack when we know no such thing.

There is already a right to self defense. There should not be a right to kill someone that is unarmed and apparently doing nothing wrong with out scrutiny. Even the cops in Florida, for the most part, were against this law.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 24, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



Again your lack of ability to backup your claim is telling.

So far there has been no evidence to show exactly what happened between the end of the girlfriends call and the shot being fired.



Steel-W0LF said:


> As far as the Coroner's report the path the bullet took through Martin's body is of importance. If you were anywhere near as smart as you think you are you would know that or again you are just talking more shit to be amusing or annoying...either way it doesn't matter.



Of course the Coroner's report will be an important piece of evidence, but will not show who started the fight, it will ONLY show that proximity of the firearm at discharge and the path of the bullet through the body.

It does not show who started the fight.



Steel-W0LF said:


> It is difficult to believe that you are stupid so the only conclusion I am drawing from interacting with you is that you are enjoying acting like you don't know what is going on. Or you are acting like you do not know what has already been presented here on this forum in several threads. Either way I will leave it at that you are being amusing. I don't feel like playing your little game when I already know that you are pretending that you don't know what is going on and that you also have a penchant for making stuff up.




It is difficult to believe that some people make determination of guilt or innocence based on preconceive bias thereby determining the outcome of the case and then only seeing the events in the manner they wish while ignoring other possibilities.

Lack of evidence of that critical time frame may well result in the need for a non guilty verdict based on burden of proof and presumption of innocence.  That does not mean alternate possibilities don't exist.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 24, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



You right that's really stupid, and not the alternative that conforms to the facts that was proposed at all.  



Quantum Windbag said:


> You complain about a lack of evidence, and then make up stuff?



Not making stuff up any more then the ones stating that Martin attacked Zimmerman.

The fact remains is the only description of the happened it from the man charged with Murder 2 (which is still an overreach IMHO).

I'm not arguing that the alternate scenario is true, only that it is a scenario that fits with the known facts not based on Zimmerman's self serving story.

Could it have happened?  Yes.  Would the State have to prove it?  Yes.  Can they prove it?  Probably not.




WorldWatcher said:


> Wait, you also insist that Zimmerman was told not to follow Martin, even though he wasn't. Making stuff up is what you do.



Zimmerman was told by the Sanford Police Department in NW training materials NOT to physically inject themselves into situations.




WorldWatcher said:


> How do you explain the injuries on the back of Zimmerman's head if a guy with a gun attacked a kid with Skittles?



It's possible Martin attacked Zimmerman, true - never said it wasn't.

On the other hand it's possible Zimmerman grabbed and attempted to detain Martin if he tried to leave the situation for a second time (first being leaving the truck area) and that Martin responding the the assault and unlawful detention actions of Zimmerman.  Martin may have fought back, which under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law, he would be fully justified in doing.

Right now there is no evidence to support either version, but under burden of proof and presumption of innocence, Zimmerman would still be found not guilty.





WorldWatcher said:


> The problem here is not the lack of evidence to support Zimmerman's story, the problem is the lack of evidence to disprove it. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove Martin attacked him. The state has to prove he attacked Martin, that he did so with malice, and that he was never in any danger. Most people who pretend to understand the law would know that, and not try to force an innocent person to prove that he didn't do something. This isn't France, the presumption lies with the defendant, not the state.



Exactly what I've been saying.  Lack of evidence does not confirm one scenario over the other.

However lack of evidence does not support a guilty verdict, it only supports a non guilty verdict.



WorldWatcher said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...




So stand your ground only applies to certain individuals and not to others?


>>>>


----------



## Liability (Apr 24, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Send me a PM when your sophistication level improves.



It wouldn't help you, you whining pussy.

Midol not working?

Poor poor you.

Go take a warm soaking bath.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 24, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > All of the evidence known so far indicates that Zimmerman cannot be convicted.  Liberals and race baiters have to bring in enormous amounts of IF facts to reach a conviction.  IF Zimmerman pulled his gun and confronted Martin. IF Zimmerman continued to follow Martin instead of returning to his car as he said he did.   IF Zimmerman knew that Martin was unarmed.   Without proof of the "if" facts, the known case is a failure.
> ...



The conversation does not go that far.

"Trayvon said, 'What are you following me for,' and the man said, 'What are you doing here.' Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell. I called him again, and he didn't answer the phone."

The line went dead. Besides screams heard on 911 calls that night as Martin and Zimmerman scuffled, those were the last words he said.
Trayvon Martin Arrest Now After ABC Reveals Crucial Phone Call - ABC News

The girlfriend can't testify that Zimmerman pushed Trayvon.  She can testify that what she heard was the same sound made when someone is pushed, but not that anyone was really pushed, or that Zimmerman did the pushing.  

A not guilty verdict has never meant innocence.  It has always meant that the prosecution did not prove guilt.  There has never been a doubt that Zimmerman pulled the trigger and shot Martin.  Was this a crime?  That's the question.   So far, unless the prosecution has something they haven't made public, the answer is no.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 24, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...




I agree and understand.  That's why I've described the need for critical information as being from the end of the GF phone call to the time stamp of the shot being recorded on the 911 tape.

During the phone call we can assume that TM and GZ are both on their feet and have come into contact, that's about all that can be assumed.  Now it will be the states responsibility to fill in the missing 60 seconds (or so) between the end of the call to the shot being fired.

If they can't, then Zimmerman should be found not guilty because the state will have failed to show a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.



>>>>


----------



## Cowman (Apr 24, 2012)

Liability said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > Send me a PM when your sophistication level improves.
> ...



Quit regurgitating your posts.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 24, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



That's funny, I can't tell you how many times I've been in arguments with progressives where they claim the victim deserved what he got.

For example this case. There are three or four of you arguing right now that Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman, because Zimmerman dared to question him about his presence in a gated community where a spate of robberies had taken place.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 24, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Yeah, it is telling. I'm telling you that all of the information you want (again) is available multiple times on this forum. The fact that you want to play with it again doesn't interest me. Yesterday I had a good opinion of you, it's slipping because of this game you are trying to force. 

Again, I think Martin attacked Zimmerman based on the information that is available at this point in time. You may disagree and that is fine with me. My opinion may change if new evidence that disputes that is uncovered, that is also fine with me. 

I am starting to think that you are black.


----------



## Liability (Apr 24, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



Stop whining, ya pathetic pussy.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 24, 2012)

I have to say, I'm not fully buying that blood-on-the-head pic too tough, but even if it were true/real....


Where's the evidence of the broken nose?


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 24, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > A broken nose guys?
> ...


Why hasn't Zimmerman released photos of his bruises?

He was in hiding for a long time, he's had AMPLE time to take MULTIPLE photos of his broken nose and other related injuries.

Where are they?

All we have is some 60's bad-movie-effect blood photo to show.

Smells fishy.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> I have to say, I'm not fully buying that blood-on-the-head pic too tough, but even if it were true/real....
> 
> 
> Where's the evidence of the broken nose?



You should accept that photo of the back of his head, it is solid evidence. You should also realize that Zimmerman likely had a bloody nose from Martin hitting him.


----------



## Rocko (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> I have to say, I'm not fully buying that blood-on-the-head pic too tough, but even if it were true/real....
> 
> 
> Where's the evidence of the broken nose?



shocker


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> I have to say, I'm not fully buying that blood-on-the-head pic too tough, but even if it were true/real....
> 
> 
> Where's the evidence of the broken nose?



I don't blame you for this at all Marc

They (Many media outlets) lied to us about zimmerman's race.
They (NBC) lied to us about his 911 call and him having used racial slurs.

Who knows what else is true or a lie from the media anymore.

I will say one thing about ABC, who released the picture, is that they have been pretty good about keeping their coverage "news" based as a hard news story without much commentary.    I watched MSNBC and those guys are basically convicting zimmerman over there, its not news its like watching the USMB if we had a TV station.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 24, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > I have to say, I'm not fully buying that blood-on-the-head pic too tough, but even if it were true/real....
> ...


Nice touch.

Doesn't that "bloody" pic look on the doctored side to you?

So tell me something, you're quick to point out the "lies" of some of the media.

How about Zimmerman's lies. How many of Zimmerman's lies have you identified thus far?


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 24, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > I have to say, I'm not fully buying that blood-on-the-head pic too tough, but even if it were true/real....
> ...


No, no, no...! I won't let you, and/or others, get away with the sneaky BS. The report was a BROKEN nose, not a BLOODY nose and you know it.

That's been now proven to be a lie. Has it not?


----------



## Liability (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Actually, the POLICE report mentioned only a bloody nose.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 24, 2012)

Liability said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...


So you ADMIT that that PROVES that Zimmerman and/or his proxies have been blatantly LYING all along....yes?


----------



## yidnar (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


the answer to your racialy biased question is yes !!


----------



## Liability (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



No.

The police saw a bloody nose.

We have *no* reason to believe they were in a position to determine whether it came from a broken nose or not.  Their report contained OBSERVATIONS, not conclusions.

Now, if a family member or some other Zimmerman "proxy" said that Zimmerman had a broken nose, that opens a couple of possibilities.  Either he did have a broken nose in which case any such claim would have been accurate and honest OR he didn't have a broken nose in which case any such claim would have been inaccurate -- and possibly dishonest.

Personally, I have no idea if his nose was broken or not.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> I have to say, I'm not fully buying that blood-on-the-head pic too tough, but even if it were true/real....
> 
> 
> Where's the evidence of the broken nose?



The first police report noted Zimmerman was bleeding from the back of his head and his nose.  



> Zimmerman was also bleeding from his nose and the back of his head.



http://mit.zenfs.com/102/2012/04/69081607-29132322.pdf



> Signs and symptoms of a broken nose may appear immediately or may take up to three days to develop.



Broken nose: Symptoms - MayoClinic.com

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a reasonable person will accept the bleeding from Zimmerman's head and nose noted in the police report as injuries inflicted on him by Martin.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 24, 2012)

Blood from a head wound and a bloody nose, don't sound life threatening.  Maybe that is why people played it up to a broken nose and a more serious head injury?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Honestly I'm not sure if the pic is real or doctored.  Previous things the media presented, such as NBC's edited 911 tape that misled me initially, have me not trusting what the media is telling us or deciding not to tell us about this whole case.  

I'm not sure what is true coming out of zimmerman or the Martin family/friends either.  This is why I had kept saying that zimmerman needed to be arrested and put in front of a judge who could evaluate the REAL evidence and decide where to go from there.

I'm not sure why you appear to take issue with someone being honest about the situation, unless you already decided Zimmerman's guilt or innocence.

EDIT:  I just read the other posts after the one I quoted.  I never saw Zimmerman claim his nose was broken, can you provide me with the evidence that he did so himself?


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



I heard "bloody nose" then someone in his family said "broken" his father perhaps? Your mileage may vary. ~shrug~ You are going to deny anything you want to anyway. As far as Zimmerman NOT releasing much evidence as of yet, I am sure that is exactly what his Attorney would be telling him to do. 

That photo of the back of his head was shot about 3 minutes after the altercation. A reasonable person would find that evidence difficult to deny.


----------



## Liability (Apr 24, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Blood from a head wound and a bloody nose, don't sound life threatening.  Maybe that is why people played it up to a broken nose and a more serious head injury?



I was not there so I can't pretend to know that this scenario is what happened.  So this is entirely a "what if:"

WHAT IF you (a guy who is part of a neighborhood watch group in a neighborhood which has seen some recent unsolved burglaries) sees some person in a gated community whom you do not recognize, and the other guy is acting furtively.  So you watch and follow.  And, suspicious, you notify the police.  Then something happens.  The guy under observation ends up on top of you POUNDING your head into concrete and possibly punching you in the schnozola.

As your head is being rammed forcibly backward into the unyielding concrete, do you stop and think, "Ok; am I really in risk of death or great bodily injury here?"

OR, possibly, do you just kinda sorta FEEL a lot like you're brains are about to get scrambled?

Do you weigh out your options *or* do you react as quickly and as forcibly as you can to end the attack upon you?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 24, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Blood from a head wound and a bloody nose, don't sound life threatening.  Maybe that is why people played it up to a broken nose and a more serious head injury?



They don't have to be life threatening to justify the shooting.  The question is, would a reasonably prudent person lying on the ground being beaten by Martin perceive the beating to be putting him in danger of great bodily harm?  How many times would your head have to be pounded into the ground before you believed you were in danger of suffering great bodily harm?  That is the question the jury has to answer, not how serious were the actual injuries.


----------



## Nosmo King (Apr 24, 2012)

Liability said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Blood from a head wound and a bloody nose, don't sound life threatening.  Maybe that is why people played it up to a broken nose and a more serious head injury?
> ...


I was not there either.  But so long as we're playing "what if" try this one on:

What if you are in your car playing cop and you see someone 'suspicious'.  You place the 911 call.  the dispatcher tells you to remain in your car and wait for the cops (the real cops) to arrive. 

Do you do as you were instructed, or do you assume the Barney Fife character and ignore instructions?


----------



## Liability (Apr 24, 2012)

Nosmo King said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...




Interesting contrary to fact hypothetical.

What if the cop ACTUALLY only said, "You don't have to do that?"

And what if this is America where he was fully authorized to follow just the same?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 24, 2012)

Nosmo King said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



But that is not what happened.  The dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was following Martin after Zimmerman had already left the car, and when Zimmerman said he was, the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that."  That's a suggestion, not an instruction.  And Zimmerman's response is, "Ok," indicating that he stopped following Martin.

Transcript of George Zimmerman's Call to the Police


----------



## Nosmo King (Apr 24, 2012)

Liability said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


Being 'authorized' and being prudent aren't the same thing, are they?  I mean I might be 'authorized' to enter an asbestos removal containment, but if I ignore the instructions to don personal protective equipment, am I then liable for any health consequences?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 24, 2012)

Nosmo King said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Then it would be reasonable to argue that no matter how pissed off he was about being followed it was imprudent of Martin to confront and attack Zimmerman and therefore, Martin was responsible for his own death.


----------



## Nosmo King (Apr 24, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


What?!?  If you are being pursued and decide that the pursuit is unwarranted, are you then responsible for the actions of your pursuer?  Is a rape victim responsible if she turns and attacks her rapist?


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 24, 2012)

Why in God's name would a woman being chased by a man who wants to rape her go back to find him after she manages to get away?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 24, 2012)

Nosmo King said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Wow, asbestos, rape, apparently you want to discuss this in any terms at all other than the facts of the case.  _Pursue_ implies an intent to overtake, confront or capture, but all the evidence indicates that Zimmerman had no intention of overtaking and confronting Martin and was merely following him so he could advise the police of his location when they arrived, and when the dispatcher suggested he stop following Martin, Zimmerman said, "Ok," indicating he had stopped following him.  That being the case, the confrontation must have been initiated by Martin who had now turned and pursued Zimmerman.  Clearly, this was an imprudent action by Martin that contributed heavily to his death.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 24, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


We don't know that that is what happened. But if it had, the Stand your Ground law would have backed Martin up.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 24, 2012)

Ravi said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



That makes no sense at all.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 24, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



The defendant's side of the trial doesn't "release evidence".  They get to keep anything they have a secret, if they choose to, until trial.  Only the prosecution is required to reveal everything prior to trial, and then only to the defendant's lawyer and the court.  NO ONE is required to tell the public jack shit, and the defendant's lawyer would have to be stupid to the point of malpractice to tell anyone anything before the trial.

Cripes, people.  You can learn this shit from reading John Grisham.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 24, 2012)

Nosmo King said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



If running away is an option?  Or better yet (since the guy had a cell phone), running away and calling the police?  Yes, turning and confronting - especially if unarmed - is a piss-poor, stupid choice.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 24, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Yeah. claiming Zimmerman's camp has nothing because they haven't released any evidence is pretty silly. Sometimes I just don't get MarcATL.


----------



## Liability (Apr 24, 2012)

Nosmo King said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Again, not the case.  A cop advised GZ that he did not "have" to do something.  GZ was, nevertheless, entitled to go right ahead.

And we aren't discussing the possibility of civil liability for the police or Sanford, FL.  

The topic is whether following a possible suspect entitles that possible suspect to bea the shit out of the one doing the following.  and the answer is "no."

Again, we don't know that this is the scenario that happened.  But if it is, the fact that Zimmerman followed Trayvon is of NO significance.


----------



## Liability (Apr 24, 2012)

Nosmo King said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



Why do so many folks insist on trying to conflate "followed" with "pursued?"

Even *if* Trayvon *HAD* been "pursued," TRAYVON and ONLY Trayvon is responsible for his own ensuing CONDUCT.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 24, 2012)

Liability said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Blood from a head wound and a bloody nose, don't sound life threatening.  Maybe that is why people played it up to a broken nose and a more serious head injury?
> ...



We don't know what really went down, but from the girlfriend's testimony, I am going with Zimmerman following Martin, confronting him, and then trying to hold him there until police arrive because he was sick of those punks getting away with it. Martin fought back, and from Zimmerman's lack of injuries, I highly doubt his head hit the pavement more than once. Martin also probably fought back because he has no idea who Zimmerman is. 
Zimmerman has a history of assault, Martin does not.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 24, 2012)

Interesting how the right tends to be going with the CLAIM that Trayvon doubled-back and attacked Zimmerman.

When there is no evidence of that happening as a matter of fact.

Yet, these people are and have been going with this claim as if it were fact. Basing everything on that claim...as if if were fact.

Interesting.


----------



## Luissa (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Interesting how the right tends to be going with the CLAIM that Trayvon doubled-back and attacked Zimmerman.
> 
> When there is no evidence of that happening as a matter of fact.
> 
> ...



There is no evidence, they only have witnesses that saw them on the ground.

There quick to judge Martin who didn't even get charged with possession of Marijuana, but don't question the fact Zimmerman has attacked someone. Yes, it got dropped to a lesser charge but he is the only one in this situation with a history or a record for that matter. He is also the only one who is saying Martin attacked him first. I would probably too if I was facing murder charges.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 24, 2012)

That's because the only people who claim that Zimmerman attacked anyone are people who weren't there.

The one eye witness to this event claims that he was attacked.

One eye witness trumps no witnesses, if there's evidence to support...or at least, there's no evidence to contradict.

And so far, there appears to be ZERO evidence that Zimmerman is untruthful.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 24, 2012)

Luissa said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting how the right tends to be going with the CLAIM that Trayvon doubled-back and attacked Zimmerman.
> ...


These RWers are comparing and contrasting a couple of suspensions vs. some real crime like domestic violence and police assaults of all things.

They are painting the gunned down victim, Trayvon Martin, as a menace and thug, but the perp, gunman and criminal-record-having George Zimmerman, as some sort of saint.

I mean...WoW!!!







*!!!bizarro worlD*


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 24, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> That's because the only people who claim that Zimmerman attacked anyone are people who weren't there.
> 
> The one eye witness to this event claims that he was attacked.
> 
> ...



Except the many instances where Zimmerman has been PROVEN to be a liar.

e.g. the claim that he thought the gunned-down victim, Trayvon Martin was older than he actually was. When from the 911 call he HIMSELF reported to the phone operator that Trayvon APPEARS to be a black teen.

e.g. the broken nose bogus claim

e.g. the reports of him getting his head repeatedly slammed against the contrete

All the evidence we've been privy to thus far has shown those to be *COMPLETELY FALSE!!!*

Zimmerman is a damn liar.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Well, Martin was a no limit Nigga! Heading into the thug life.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 24, 2012)

> Zimmerman claims the 17-year-old Martin had punched him in the face and was bashing his head against the pavement when he fired his registered handgun in self-defense, striking Martin in the chest.



Well, there was an eye-witness you know.


----------



## Sarah G (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > That's because the only people who claim that Zimmerman attacked anyone are people who weren't there.
> ...



He is a liar but he looks scared shitless all the time.  The jury might take pity on him, you know how Florida juries are.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 24, 2012)

Sarah G said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


You mean country, backwards, dumb and perhaps racist?

Yeah...unfortunately. *sigh*


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 24, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Well, Martin was a no limit Nigga! Heading into the thug life.


What does that mean?


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Well, Martin was a no limit Nigga! Heading into the thug life.
> ...



Google Trayvon Martin No limit Nigga.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 24, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



There's only skin deep differences between the "thug life" and the "gun nut" life.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 24, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



LOL, that certainly isn't true.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 24, 2012)

Cowman said:


> There's only skin deep differences between the "thug life" and the "gun nut" life.



You really are a dummy are'nt ya cow turd?

Im a gun nut and I have NEVER thought about using them to harm a soul... but I promise you this, come into my house un-welcomed and you will be visiting your maker shortly there after.... thats a promise buddy.

As for CHL carriers, we are law abiding citizens who have no criminal record... yep, just like he thugs Ive known in my life


----------



## Againsheila (Apr 24, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> bucs90 said:
> 
> 
> > GRAPHIC PHOTO: George Zimmerman | www.wftv.com
> ...



It doesn't matter who started the fight..it only matters if Zimmerman thought his life was at risk.  If he was indeed yelling for help and Trayvon didn't stop, then he was well within his rights to shoot, especially if the alternative was loss of consciousness and/or death.

If you start a fight with me, I have a right to fight back, I do not have a right to pummel you into the ground until you die.  Once you are crying for help, the fight is over.

Whatever happened to "never hit a man when he's down?"


----------



## Againsheila (Apr 24, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > There's only skin deep differences between the "thug life" and the "gun nut" life.
> ...



Umm, did you read what you wrote?  Apparently you have thought about using them to harm a soul, granted in self defense, but you still considered it.


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 24, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



The gf has given no testimony we know of, but from Zimmerman's 911 call, we know he had stopped following Martin before the confrontation took place so Martin must have turned back and come after Zimmerman and forced the confrontation.  We don't know if Martin had a criminal history for violence because he was a minor and his records would be sealed, but by his violent response to Zimmerman following him for a while, it seems likely he did.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 24, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Im a gun nut and I have NEVER thought about using them to harm a soul... but I promise you this, come into my house un-welcomed and you will be visiting your maker shortly there after.... thats a promise buddy.





Thanks for demonstrating it perfectly. You come into their "house" and they'll gun you down just the same.

But, Trayvon wasn't a part of that world. I have cousins who were his age not too long ago and they were probably more rambunctious and out of control than he could ever hope to be. They wouldn't deserve to be killed either.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 24, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Whatever happened to "never hit a man when he's down?"



No-Limit-Niggaz dont hold to those values 

*NA NA NA NA NA....*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpGZZRUKPLQ]Master P - Make &#39;Em Say Ugh - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Interesting how the right tends to be going with the CLAIM that Trayvon doubled-back and attacked Zimmerman.
> 
> When there is no evidence of that happening as a matter of fact.
> 
> ...



There is evidence that Zimmerman had stopped following Martin before the confrontation took place.  During the 911 call, when the dispatcher says, "You don't have to do that [follow Martin]" Zimmerman replies, "Ok," indicating he stopped following him.  That being the case, Martin would have had to have turned back to confront Zimmerman.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 24, 2012)

Cowman said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Im a gun nut and I have NEVER thought about using them to harm a soul... but I promise you this, come into my house un-welcomed and you will be visiting your maker shortly there after.... thats a promise buddy.
> ...



You think its OK to come into a mans home *un-welcomed*?

Damn your stupid!
*
So, "thanks for demonstrating it perfectly."*


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 24, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting how the right tends to be going with the CLAIM that Trayvon doubled-back and attacked Zimmerman.
> ...



That has been pointed out to some of these people time and time again. They don't care. To them Martin was the victim of a hate crime no matter what evidence is presented.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 24, 2012)

He also stopped breathing as if he was trotting along.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 24, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



Where did I say it was okay? You better stay out of my hood, son.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 24, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting how the right tends to be going with the CLAIM that Trayvon doubled-back and attacked Zimmerman.
> ...


No righties, that did NOT indicate that Zimmerman stopped following Martin. It only indicated that he heard and understood what the phone operator said.

I can see "yes ma'am" and "yes sir" all day to someone giving me advice, good or bad, doesn't have a lick to do with whether or not I HEED to what they told me.

You guys can't even help but to lie...can you?

*SMH*


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 24, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



Again, I'm asking you, Bigfoot of USMessageBoard fame...

What does that mean?

Stop being such a coward, answer the simple and straightforward question.

Google is not necessary for this.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 24, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



It's not even a "hate crime" that's what the real problem is here... it's the crime of pursuing somebody who wasn't doing anything wrong, bringing a confrontation to somebody and being more than willing to use your firearm if things don't go your way, resulting in a homicide.

Zimmerman's actions would be 100% as questionable as they are now no matter the race of the victim.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 24, 2012)

Cowman said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



So who is the thug here?

Fuck you cowturd.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 24, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...


Thus far YOU'RE the only one that made statements and promises about having people meet their maker.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 24, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



But would innocent folks be getting the shit beat out of them for no good reason, other than being white?

Yaeh.... whatever.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 24, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



I'm mocking you if you can't tell, idiot.

Also what is it with you conservatives here and your completely monochromatic insults directed at me? It's like your brains are only capable of processing the word Cow into feces. Cowturn, cow pie, etc. Creativity and individuality doesn't run very high among you guys.

I always get the feeling like I'm talking to the same person with many different aliases.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 24, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



I don't understand the question. You believe if the victim wasn't a black person, he gunman wouldn't have been involved in an altercation?

What are you saying?


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



I dismiss whatever you say because you have 0 credibility as far as I am concerned.

You have showed me that you are a racist.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 24, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> You right that's really stupid, and not the alternative that conforms to the facts that was proposed at all.



There are no injuries to Zimmerman's hands, just the back of his head. If, as you keep insisting is possible because there is no evidence to counter it, Zimmerman attacked Martin with the back of his head. If you actually think that is stupid, why do you keep saying it?



WorldWatcher said:


> Not making stuff up any more then the ones stating that Martin attacked Zimmerman.
> 
> The fact remains is the only description of the happened it from the man charged with Murder 2 (which is still an overreach IMHO).
> 
> ...



What alternative explanation do you have? Here are the facts we know.



Zimmerman had a gun.
There was an altercation.
All of Zimmerman's injuries are on the back of his head.
What possible reason would a man with a gun have to start a fight and leave his gun in his holster. You are saying Zimmerman's explanation doesn't make sense, but what possible scenario has a man with a gun loosing a fight he intentionally and with malice aforethought starts.






WorldWatcher said:


> Zimmerman was told by the Sanford Police Department in NW training materials NOT to physically inject themselves into situations.



And? Does that mean that if, as an example, a watch volunteer reports someone breaking into his home he has to run away? If not, why keep bringing it up? Is it because you have no clue how to actually debate the actually situation Zimmerman found himself in, so you have to inject random facts in order to look semi intelligent?



WorldWatcher said:


> It's possible Martin attacked Zimmerman, true - never said it wasn't.
> 
> On the other hand it's possible Zimmerman grabbed and attempted to detain Martin if he tried to leave the situation for a second time (first being leaving the truck area) and that Martin responding the the assault and unlawful detention actions of Zimmerman.  Martin may have fought back, which under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law, he would be fully justified in doing.
> 
> Right now there is no evidence to support either version, but under burden of proof and presumption of innocence, Zimmerman would still be found not guilty.



Sure, it is possible a man with a gun elected to grab a kid a decade younger than him rather than use the weapon to detain him. It is also possible the moon is made of green cheese. Seriously, do you really want to assert that scenario?



WorldWatcher said:


> Exactly what I've been saying.  Lack of evidence does not confirm one scenario over the other.
> 
> However lack of evidence does not support a guilty verdict, it only supports a non guilty verdict.



That doesn't even make sense. 

You are the one trying to argue you have an open mind, yet you keep insisting that, because we don't know what happened in a minute or so you think is critical, that we cannot reach a valid conclusion. If we actually have to come down on the not guilty side without clear evidence, we actually have enough evidence to reach a valid conclusion.



WorldWatcher said:


> So stand your ground only applies to certain individuals and not to others?
> 
> 
> >>>>



Only idiots think that, which proves you are an idiot.

The fact of the matter is that Stand your Ground actually requires you to back off once you are out of danger. Florida is not California, so his right to self defense ended when Martin was out of the fight. The moment Zimmerman was on the ground Martin had no reasonable fear for his life, and he should have walked away.


----------



## Againsheila (Apr 24, 2012)

Cowman said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



He's saying that had Trayvon been white, blacks wouldn't now being beating up white people in his name.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 24, 2012)

Cowman said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



OK, I will speel (sic) it out for ya so you can understand it a bit easier.

If the victim were white, I doubt that there would be innocent folks getting the shit beat out of them. Remember the "this is for Trayvon" assaults that have been happening as of late.

If ya had'nt heard, crowds of thugs are beating white folks to within an inch of their lives.

Is that better Cowman? These hate crimes are ALL uncalled for.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Why should he? If I had photos like that, and the prosecutor insisted on charging me, I would give them to my lawyers and let them use them to sandbag the asshole.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 24, 2012)

I will try to be more civilized Cowman, but I am appalled at the violence that has ensued over this tragedy.

Im sorry for being a jerk....I will refrain from the cowturd remarks. Its juvenile, I know.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 24, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



Yes, I understand what you're saying perfectly. That black people are way more violent prone than white people. It's in their nature to mob people. Whites never do that sort of thing.

Thanks for clearing it up.


----------



## koshergrl (Apr 24, 2012)

Well according to the statistics that is true.

I guess the stats are *racist*.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Why hasn't Zimmerman released photos of his bruises?
> 
> He was in hiding for a long time, he's had AMPLE time to take MULTIPLE photos of his broken nose and other related injuries.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cowman (Apr 24, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> I will try to be more civilized Cowman, but I am appalled at the violence that has ensued over this tragedy.
> 
> Im sorry for being a jerk....I will refrain from the cowturd remarks. Its juvenile, I know.



Your cowturd comments don't bother me. I'm not interested in your changing your behavior.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 24, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Well according to the statistics that is true.
> 
> I guess the stats are *racist*.



I love this. So easy.


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 24, 2012)

Cowman said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



Really...? Thats the angle you are going to take?

Your dead wrong, I NEVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE SORT!

Those are your words Buddy, not mine.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 24, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Why hasn't Zimmerman released photos of his bruises?
> ...


The black eye poncho...the broken nose.
Those are the bruises I'm referring to.
Do keep up.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



LOL!


----------



## The Infidel (Apr 24, 2012)

Cowman said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > I will try to be more civilized Cowman, but I am appalled at the violence that has ensued over this tragedy.
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbS8JK4TS8Q&feature=related]Phil Collins - True Colors - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 24, 2012)

Ravi said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



How, exactly, do stand your ground laws make it legal to attack people who are allegedly following you? Please explain that because there are always people following me, and I prefer to walk on the streets alone.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...





			
				Bigfoot said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -6 reputation points from Bigfoot.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> ...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



*They are painting the gunned down victim, Trayvon Martin, as a menace and thug*

You're funny.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 24, 2012)

Trayvon. the Nigga. on his tweets. Am I allowed to quote his last tweets?

Oh and he says he's a nigga That's his handle. That really is his handle. 

Gold teeth and all. Have you see his real picture people? Not the Hi!!! I'm in grade 8 bullshit.


----------



## FuelRod (Apr 24, 2012)

Well by all means then let's shoot him.

Bottom line if these bloody head photographs can be authenticated...there is no case for murder.


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 24, 2012)

Trayvon had been busted for dope at his school and sent up to his dads. I'm not blaming the kid for his own death. I won't do that. But it's not a white community. It's mixed. 

If anything could ever go wrong and be wrong and make it wrong it was this night. It's a horrible moment in time.

But fuck me over if beating up a whole batch of white people  and going "this is for Trayvon" warms the cockles of my heart.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 24, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> The gf has given no testimony we know of, but from Zimmerman's 911 call, we know he had stopped following Martin before the confrontation took place so Martin must have turned back and come after Zimmerman and forced the confrontation.  We don't know if Martin had a criminal history for violence because he was a minor and his records would be sealed, but by his violent response to Zimmerman following him for a while, it seems likely he did.




1.  If the gf has given no "testimony" (which of course is true), then no witness have given "testimony".  Correct?

2.  We know from the dispatcher call that Zimmerman says he lost sight of Martin, we don't know if he stopped.  In fact, we know that Zimmerman was following Martin (he said so).  We also know that 18 seconds after exiting the truck he acknowledged the dispatchers instructions that he need no follow the unknown individual.  Yet the Zimmerman did not return to his truck, which he'd been traveling away from for 18 second up to 2:30-3:30 later (in other words he had 10 times more time to return to the truck then he'd been moving away from the truck).

3.  There is no evidence that Martin turned back anywhere, although he may have.  It is also possible that Zimmerman continued to look for Martin.  It's also possible that they took different routes and ran into each other.

4.  There is no evidence that Martin initiated any violent response.  He could have or it may have been Zimmerman that initiated hostilities.  If it was, then Martin would be justified under Stand Your Ground to defend himself.



At this point we don't know how it actually went down in those critical seconds between the end of the gf's call and when the shot was fired.  We do know that the state will have a heavy burden to provide evidence to support it's claims, without such evidence then Zimmerman cannot be found guilty of a crime.  Lack of evidence is not evidence for either scenario.


>>>>


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 24, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting how the right tends to be going with the CLAIM that Trayvon doubled-back and attacked Zimmerman.
> ...



That occurred 18 seconds after he existed the truck.  Yet he had 2:30-3:30 second before the shot and he didn't reach his truck?  As a matter of fact he ended up FARTHER away from the truck then he would have traveled in 18 seconds.

Do you think that Martin knocked Zimmerman unconscious, dragged him to the event location, and then woke him up so that Zimmerman could make the shot?

Time distance don't bear that out.


>>>>


----------



## Cowman (Apr 24, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Trayvon had been busted for dope at his school and sent up to his dads. I'm not blaming the kid for his own death. I won't do that. But it's not a white community. It's mixed.
> 
> If anything could ever go wrong and be wrong and make it wrong it was this night. It's a horrible moment in time.
> 
> But fuck me over if beating up a whole batch of white people  and going "this is for Trayvon" warms the cockles of my heart.



What does dope and gold teeth have to do with anything?

Do you know how many people smoke dope in this country? Many of them probably more saintly than you. It's a fucking natural plant put here by your god to get high on.

If anything you're making up a measure of how worthy one is of dying based on how "black" they are. The more gold teeth you have, the more marijuana you smoke, the more times you use "nigga" the more black you are and the more acceptable it is for you to die.


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 24, 2012)

FuelRod said:


> Well by all means then let's shoot him.
> 
> Bottom line if these bloody head photographs can be authenticated...there is no case for murder.



ABC broke the pics. And the policeman who attended the scene noted that Zimmerman had been punched out.

It really makes me want to puke that these race baiting bastards and there is no nice way of putting it put up a picture of a 12 year old Trayvon.

I hate the press at this point in time. Horrid and vile they are.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 24, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Trayvon. the Nigga. on his tweets. Am I allowed to quote his last tweets?
> 
> Oh and he says he's a nigga That's his handle. That really is his handle.
> 
> Gold teeth and all. Have you see his real picture people? Not the Hi!!! I'm in grade 8 bullshit.



And Zimmerman's was DatNiggy....do you have a point?


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 24, 2012)

Cowman said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Trayvon had been busted for dope at his school and sent up to his dads. I'm not blaming the kid for his own death. I won't do that. But it's not a white community. It's mixed.
> ...



What type of maniac are you? My company in my rock years was called Ixtlan. Link let me help you out here asshole....Ixtlan. You know now google quickly, Journey to Ixtlan by Carlos Castenada?

You do crack me up daily cowman. You couldn't spell Castanada on a good day let alone live with him.

Too funny.


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 24, 2012)

Ravi said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Trayvon. the Nigga. on his tweets. Am I allowed to quote his last tweets?
> ...



Why does everyone only post his grade 8 picture. Not his current? You tell me. Because it's the media manipulating this game.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 24, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > You right that's really stupid, and not the alternative that conforms to the facts that was proposed at all.
> ...



I've not said once that Zimmerman attacked Martin with the back of his head.



Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Not making stuff up any more then the ones stating that Martin attacked Zimmerman.
> ...



Try again.  I didn't say Zimmerman's explanation didn't make sense.  Do you always put words in peoples mouth and then argue against things they didn't say?

All I've said is that there are multiple scenario's that fit the existing facts and that the state has a burden of proof the support it's theory of what happened.  If the state fails to meet that burden of proof then Zimmerman would/should be set free because of lack of evidence.  Lack of evidence though is not evidence that supports Zimmerman's story.



Quantum Windbag said:


> And? Does that mean that if, as an example, a watch volunteer reports someone breaking into his home he has to run away? If not, why keep bringing it up? Is it because you have no clue how to actually debate the actually situation Zimmerman found himself in, so you have to inject random facts in order to look semi intelligent?



No it doesn't mean that if someone is breaking into a NW person house they have to run away.  That's what the Stand Your Ground Law means.  Which is not the situation in this case.  In this case Zimmerman was actively attempting to follow someone in public against advice of the dispatcher and against the training he'd received as a NW representative.

Take that for what you will.  The jury will do the same.




Quantum Windbag said:


> Sure, it is possible a man with a gun elected to grab a kid a decade younger than him rather than use the weapon to detain him. It is also possible the moon is made of green cheese. Seriously, do you really want to assert that scenario?



Fits the known facts and is supported by the same evidence that says that the only person that is noted (by Zimmerman himself) as to running away from the situation doubled back and then attacked the person with a criminal record of violence who was following some unknown person into a situation against training he'd received from the police.



Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly what I've been saying.  Lack of evidence does not confirm one scenario over the other.
> ...



Which is what I said.  There are multiple scenario's that fit the evidence.  In some of those scenario's Zimmerman is at fault, in other Martin is at fault.  At the end of the day, once all the information is made public, the prosecution will have presented their case and the defense will have presented their case.  Then it will time to decide.  If the state lacks evidence to show that Zimmerman acted outside the legal bounds of self defense, then it will have failed to achieve it's burden of proof and Zimmerman should be found "not guilty".




Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > So stand your ground only applies to certain individuals and not to others?
> ...



No, what it means is that some in these threads want to apply SYG only to Zimmerman and refuse to acknowledge that if Zimmerman were the aggressor, then Martin would have been within his rights to apply SYG in defense of his person.



Quantum Windbag said:


> The fact of the matter is that Stand your Ground actually requires you to back off once you are out of danger. Florida is not California, so his right to self defense ended when Martin was out of the fight. The moment Zimmerman was on the ground Martin had no reasonable fear for his life, and he should have walked away.



There's no telling that Zimmerman was "out of the fight", that is speculation on your part.  Zimmerman may have been been actively engaging Martin.  At least one witness reports that it was Zimmerman on top at the time of the shot.  If Zimmerman was on top it would be kind of hard for Martin to run.

Of the two, the only one that was ever described as "running away" from the situation was Martin (in Zimmerman's words).  The only one described as following the other was Zimmerman (again his own words in response to the dispatchers question).


>>>>


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 24, 2012)

If the shot is fired from below. it's a no brainer. Why can't anyone quickly answer this question?

Because we have to have a show trial for the race baiters. It's really fucking simple. Did Zimmerman fire into Trayvon's chest? Or did Zimmerman shoot him in the back.

Nice and mother trucking simple.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 24, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> If the shot is fired from below. it's a no brainer. Why can't anyone quickly answer this question?
> 
> Because we have to have a show trial for the race baiters. It's really fucking simple. Did Zimmerman fire into Trayvon's chest? Or did Zimmerman shoot him in the back.
> 
> Nice and mother trucking simple.




Just wondering, and this is a serious question as I don't know.


If Zimmerman was on the bottom, reaches to his holster, pulls his firearm, presses against Martin chest and pulls the trigger, what would the difference in the GSR, burn marks, and bullet path be if Zimmerman is on the top, reaches to his holster, pulls his firearm, presses against Martin chest and pulls the trigger?


Would it possible to determine if the shot was fired with Martin on top or Zimmerman on top?


>>>>


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 24, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



My first love is murder. Boy that doesn't sound right does it?. But you rock when you make a legal opinion just a real deal to me. Nice and simple and truly appreciated. 

Kudos and thanks on that.  Good show. And greatly cheered as we are muddling thru this.


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 24, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > If the shot is fired from below. it's a no brainer. Why can't anyone quickly answer this question?
> ...



OMG before the end of this thread we could be dating. Joking. Joking. !!!!! Great minds think alike though.  I want the forensics report.

Zimmerman would have had to fire from below.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 24, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> My first love is murder. Boy that doesn't sound right does it?. But you rock when you make a legal opinion just a real deal to me. Nice and simple and truly appreciated.
> 
> Kudos and thanks on that.  Good show. And greatly cheered as we are muddling thru this.




I know we are not on the jury, but there are two ways to approach this.  One, decide guilt or innocence - then ignore any other possibility.  The other is to consider many possibilities that fit the facts and the law, as more facts are revealed - eliminate scenario's that are not supported by the facts.  In the end, look to the law and determine if the facts presented by the state prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, if they don't vote "not guilty" if they do vote "guilty".


>>>>


----------



## MeBelle (Apr 24, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



If whites are being beat up by people in the 'name of Trayvon', shouldn't the ones doing the beatings be beating on Hispanics?


----------



## MeBelle (Apr 24, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> OMG before the end of this thread we could be dating. Joking. Joking. !!!!! Great minds think alike though.  I want the forensics report.
> 
> Zimmerman would have had to fire from below.



I'm hankering for autopsy report...morbid, I know.


----------



## Againsheila (Apr 24, 2012)

MeBelle60 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



You would think, wouldn't you?  Probably they are picking on whites because they know the Hispanics will fight back even if it means hunting them down.


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 24, 2012)

Do you think in all honesty, people can rise above it?Serve. OJ's verdict wasnt that he was let off; it was the attitude of the jury. Flippant. 

Bothers me to this day.


----------



## FuelRod (Apr 24, 2012)

This doesn't look for for the prosecution and the charges appear reckless to me.


----------



## Trajan (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



hes sure some cracker aint he?


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 24, 2012)

MeBelle60 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



One would think Holder would speak out. But then I have to remember he's Janet the mentor  "kill 70 innocent men women and children " dude.

These dems are fucked up. She burned 70 alive. And I hate the Bushes for not prosecuting her.

Dont get me going on GH.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 24, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...


More...more!! 


			
				koshergrl said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -313 reputation points from koshergrl.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> ...


----------



## FuelRod (Apr 24, 2012)

Trajan said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> ...



History books will have him painted like a blonde haired blue eyes Jesus.


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 24, 2012)

Trajan said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> ...



Time date the photo.

Or shut the fuck up. With all due respect.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 24, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Do you think in all honesty, people can rise above it?Serve.




IMHO, yes.

You (royal you here) have to believe in the fundamental goodness of people, that they can rise to greatness when duty calls.  Sometimes greatness its a firefighter running into a burning building.  Sometimes it's a soldier who gives his life to save a little girl from being run over in a street in a foreign land.  Sometimes its being called to sit in judgment of our fellow men.  That they can put away the anger, listen with their brains and their hearts, that when called they apply the law and make the just decision.

You have to believe in that, because frankly I can't think of a better system.


>>>>


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 24, 2012)

Let's do this correctly. When one gets punched in your face,,,,,,when a fist really hits you one must appropriately defer to the riders.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 24, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Let's do this correctly. When one gets punched in your face,,,,,,when a fist really hits you one must appropriately defer to the riders.




Could you try that again in English.   


>>>>


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 24, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think in all honesty, people can rise above it?Serve.
> ...



I do beleive as well sir. And I pray with all my heart we can pass it on.

There is one movie that moved my soul as a child. Formed me as it were. Zulu. 

It made me who I am. Bless their souls.


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 24, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Let's do this correctly. When one gets punched in your face,,,,,,when a fist really hits you one must appropriately defer to the riders.
> ...



lololol

when you get smacked you have to hit back or you are dead these days. And you better fight for your life. Because it appears you have to. 

It's so sad we've come to this. I know our dimensions are way better than yours. But cripes, it's like you really want a race war down there.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 24, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...




Watch the 1957 version of "12 Angry Men" on Netflix or Amazon Prime if you have it.

My daughter was home just a short time ago and had to watch it as part of an Air Force ROTC assignment on decision making and leadership.  We all watched it together as a family movie.  The discussions about guilt/innocence based on bias are truly - chilling.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 24, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...




And the other side of that coin might be that if a stranger comes up and grabs you, you better be willing to fight because if they don't identify themselves as law enforcement (as officers are trained to do) you have no idea who they are and what their intentions are.


>>>>


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 24, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think in all honesty, people can rise above it?Serve.
> ...



I can't dream of better men and women that serve on a day to day. I admire them beyond belief. 

My guys last heart issue learned you have to throw a stick for a dog called Duke before you could cart me off the emergency ward.

I'm stroking out in the back of the ambulance and trying to tell the EMT's we aren't getting out of here unless we throw "stick" for Duke,.

It was hysterical. I'm glad I didn't die. Throw sticks at Duke for crying out loud or I'm going to die.

Too funny.

ETA: I'm his pack. He didn't want to let me go.


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 24, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



How do we make this calm down? I don't like where we are headed. I don't like this at all.

Old fuckers who by the way are millionaires had stirred the pot. They are alll filthy rich race baiters.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 24, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> I've not said once that Zimmerman attacked Martin with the back of his head.



No, you keep saying the evidence does not support Zimmerman's statement that Martin hit him from behind and knocked him to the ground. The only way any intelligent person can interpret that, given that Zimmerman actually has injuries to the back of his head, is that Zimmerman actually attacked martin using the back of his head.

In other words, it isn't my fault that your position doesn't actually correspond to reality, do don't blame me if I mock it for ignoring factual evidence.



WorldWatcher said:


> Try again.  I didn't say Zimmerman's explanation didn't make sense.  Do you always put words in peoples mouth and then argue against things they didn't say?
> 
> All I've said is that there are multiple scenario's that fit the existing facts and that the state has a burden of proof the support it's theory of what happened.  If the state fails to meet that burden of proof then Zimmerman would/should be set free because of lack of evidence.  Lack of evidence though is not evidence that supports Zimmerman's story.



Funny, you keep saying that there are alternate explanations, yet you never present one that actually corresponds to said facts. Could that be because you can't actually think of any?



WorldWatcher said:


> No it doesn't mean that if someone is breaking into a NW person house they have to run away.  That's what the Stand Your Ground Law means.  Which is not the situation in this case.  In this case Zimmerman was actively attempting to follow someone in public against advice of the dispatcher and against the training he'd received as a NW representative.
> 
> Take that for what you will.  The jury will do the same.



So you admit that the Neighborhood Watch handbook is only advisory and  not actually binding. Which, again, begs the question, why do you keep mentioning it?



WorldWatcher said:


> Fits the known facts and is supported by the same evidence that says that the only person that is noted (by Zimmerman himself) as to running away from the situation doubled back and then attacked the person with a criminal record of violence who was following some unknown person into a situation against training he'd received from the police.



I hate to point out the obvious here, but neither person involved in the fight had a criminal record of any type. Martin has a couple of expulsions from school, which hardly rise to the level of a criminal record, even in this day and age, and Zimmerman has no record at all that I know of.

Funny how the guy who claims to have an open mind keeps making up facts to support his untenable position.



WorldWatcher said:


> Which is what I said.  There are multiple scenario's that fit the evidence.  In some of those scenario's Zimmerman is at fault, in other Martin is at fault.  At the end of the day, once all the information is made public, the prosecution will have presented their case and the defense will have presented their case.  Then it will time to decide.  If the state lacks evidence to show that Zimmerman acted outside the legal bounds of self defense, then it will have failed to achieve it's burden of proof and Zimmerman should be found "not guilty".



You keep saying that you keep saying things, yet you never actually say them.



WorldWatcher said:


> No, what it means is that some in these threads want to apply SYG only to Zimmerman and refuse to acknowledge that if Zimmerman were the aggressor, then Martin would have been within his rights to apply SYG in defense of his person.



"Some in these threads?" Unless you can point to me saying anything like that I don't understand why you make vague assertions about other people saying things that are so ridiculous only idiots would say them.



WorldWatcher said:


> There's no telling that Zimmerman was "out of the fight", that is speculation on your part.  Zimmerman may have been been actively engaging Martin.  At least one witness reports that it was Zimmerman on top at the time of the shot.  If Zimmerman was on top it would be kind of hard for Martin to run.
> 
> Of the two, the only one that was ever described as "running away" from the situation was Martin (in Zimmerman's words).  The only one described as following the other was Zimmerman (again his own words in response to the dispatchers question).
> 
> ...



Again, in order for your scenario to make sense you would have to demonstrate that Zimmerman, the guy with a gun, chose to engage Martin by beating him to death with the back of his head. You would then have to prove he was so good at it that he didn't leave a mark on Martin.

Either that, or you would have to prove that the funeral home director who examined Martin's body was lying about its condition.

Feel free to explain how that scenario actually corresponds with the facts that we are aware of, instead of the imaginary facts you keep trying to invent.


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 24, 2012)

Ravi said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Trayvon. the Nigga. on his tweets. Am I allowed to quote his last tweets?
> ...



You are really starting to piss me off Ravi. I have nothing against you. I never neg rep anyone.

But if you want to fuck me over daily? Life could get interesting. Because I don't care about rep. I don't care about shit. But if you want to lay down a war, game on. I'll play.

Game on.


----------



## tinydancer (Apr 24, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > I've not said once that Zimmerman attacked Martin with the back of his head.
> ...


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 24, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Interesting.  I assume you got the 18 seconds from the tape of the 911 call, but how far was Zimmerman from his truck when the confrontation occurred and how far do you imagine he could have been in 18 seconds?


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 25, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > The gf has given no testimony we know of, but from Zimmerman's 911 call, we know he had stopped following Martin before the confrontation took place so Martin must have turned back and come after Zimmerman and forced the confrontation.  We don't know if Martin had a criminal history for violence because he was a minor and his records would be sealed, but by his violent response to Zimmerman following him for a while, it seems likely he did.
> ...



No, Zimmerman made statements to the police, but the gf made her statements to Crump, the Martins' lawyer for the sake of the press when they were still trying to force an arrest.  



WorldWatcher said:


> 2.  We know from the dispatcher call that Zimmerman says he lost sight of Martin, we don't know if he stopped.  In fact, we know that Zimmerman was following Martin (he said so).  We also know that 18 seconds after exiting the truck he acknowledged the dispatchers instructions that he need no follow the unknown individual.  Yet the Zimmerman did not return to his truck, which he'd been traveling away from for 18 second up to 2:30-3:30 later (in other words he had 10 times more time to return to the truck then he'd been moving away from the truck).



When Zimmerman was following Martin after leaving his truck, he was running, but when he stopped following Martin, it is unlikely he ran back to his truck so it would take him much longer to get back to his truck.



WorldWatcher said:


> 3.  There is no evidence that Martin turned back anywhere, although he may have.  It is also possible that Zimmerman continued to look for Martin.  It's also possible that they took different routes and ran into each other.



What evidence there is suggests Zimmerman turned back towards his truck.  First, we have the 911 tape in which he agrees not to continue following Martin.  Second, we have Zimmerman's statement that he had turned back to his truck.  Third, it would be out of character for him to disregard the dispatcher's statement that he didn't have to follow Martin.  This is a guy who is studying criminal justice, who takes his responsibilities as a town watch captain very seriously, who immediately called the police when he thought he saw something suspicious instead of approaching Martin and asking him what he was doing.  



WorldWatcher said:


> 4.  There is no evidence that Martin initiated any violent response.  He could have or it may have been Zimmerman that initiated hostilities.  If it was, then Martin would be justified under Stand Your Ground to defend himself.



Since there is no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's statement to the dispatcher that he would stop following Martin, the only way the confrontation could have taken place would have been if Martin had turned back to confront Zimmerman, and if Martin had run away because he had been afraid, it is likely that he turned back to confront Zimmerman because that fear had turned to anger.  So unless there is physical evidence or credible eye witness testimony to the contrary the most plausible scenario is that Zimmerman stopped following Martin after the dispatcher suggested he do so and that Martin's fear had turned to anger and led him to turn back to confront Zimmerman.  Given that Zimmerman had been calmed down by talking to the dispatcher and that Martin's anger had been rising, it makes more sense that Martin initiated the violence that led to his death.





WorldWatcher said:


> At this point we don't know how it actually went down in those critical seconds between the end of the gf's call and when the shot was fired.  We do know that the state will have a heavy burden to provide evidence to support it's claims, without such evidence then Zimmerman cannot be found guilty of a crime.  Lack of evidence is not evidence for either scenario.



The evidence is not conclusive but what there is of it supports Zimmerman's account of events.  It is easy to see why the first prosecutor decided against an arrest because there was no incriminating evidence.  A terrible thing happened and the only thing that is driving this case is the need some people have to find explanations, true or not, and actions, just or not, that are commensurate to their emotional responses to this young man's death.  


>>>>


>>>>[/QUOTE]


----------



## Ravi (Apr 25, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...


Why did you avoid my question with a deflection?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > I've not said once that Zimmerman attacked Martin with the back of his head.
> ...




Again, you change what I said, and then argue against the change.  I've said the evidence supports both scenerio's and we will have to wait for full disclosure.  At this time we don't have access to Zimmerman's statements, those are sealed.  All that has been in the press are third party declarations from family members.

If the gf testifies that Martin and Zimmerman spoke before the hostilities and Zimmerman's statement does say that Martin hit him from behind, then that would be conflicting evidence.  Then it would be up to the jury to weigh credibility.



Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Try again.  I didn't say Zimmerman's explanation didn't make sense.  Do you always put words in peoples mouth and then argue against things they didn't say?
> ...




Actually I've presented 3 that meet the known facts of the situation.  Statements are not necessarily "facts".  For example you claim that Zimmerman's statement says he was hit from behind, yet the girlfriend's statement was that Zimmerman and Martin spoke to each other - that conflicts with Zimmerman's statement.  Another example is that a witness reports watching at the time of the firearm discharge and that Zimmerman was on top while supposedly Zimmerman's statement is that he was on the bottom.  Another inconsistency in statements.




Quantum Windbag said:


> So you admit that the Neighborhood Watch handbook is only advisory and  not actually binding. Which, again, begs the question, why do you keep mentioning it?



His training by police was not to physically inject himself into a situation.  It will be up to the jury to apply what weight they wish to that if it is presented at trial.



Quantum Windbag said:


> I hate to point out the obvious here, but neither person involved in the fight had a criminal record of any type. Martin has a couple of expulsions from school, which hardly rise to the level of a criminal record, even in this day and age, and Zimmerman has no record at all that I know of.



I believe of the two, only Zimmerman was ever arrested for a violent crime.  Being arrested is a criminal record.  The charges may have been dropped, but it is still a criminal record.  I run background checks for employment purposes and we get back state and FBI criminal records all the time that show arrests and dispositions.




Quantum Windbag said:


> Funny how the guy who claims to have an open mind keeps making up facts to support his untenable position.



I haven't made up any facts.




Quantum Windbag said:


> You keep saying that you keep saying things, yet you never actually say them.



I've repeatedly identified that I've provided that there are at least 3 scenerio's that fit the facts.  Martin assaults Zimmerman.  Zimmerman assaults Martin.  Zimmerman assaults Martin and attempts unlawful detention.  In the first two Zimmerman retains his self defense immunity and should be found not quilty.  In the third Zimmerman is committing a forcible felony under Florida Statute 776.041 and his self defense immunity could be negated.

That's what I've said consistently.  Seems pretty clear that I've actually said things that I've actually said.



Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > No, what it means is that some in these threads want to apply SYG only to Zimmerman and refuse to acknowledge that if Zimmerman were the aggressor, then Martin would have been within his rights to apply SYG in defense of his person.
> ...



If it doesn't apply to you.  Then don't get worked up about it.  This is an open message board, not a discussion conducted by PM.  I post for the audience at large.  If you don't like my posting style, then just bypass my posts.



Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > There's no telling that Zimmerman was "out of the fight", that is speculation on your part.  Zimmerman may have been been actively engaging Martin.  At least one witness reports that it was Zimmerman on top at the time of the shot.  If Zimmerman was on top it would be kind of hard for Martin to run.
> ...



I have no obligation to present any evidence that Zimmerman attempted to beat Martin to death with the back of his head.  That seems to be something that occurred in your mind not mine.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Either that, or you would have to prove that the funeral home director who examined Martin's body was lying about its condition.



1.  We will have to wait for the autopsy report.

2.  In 20-years I stood Shore Patrol many times and saw the results of fights.  The injuries incurred during a fight are not necessary indicators of who started a fight.  All they show is that someone was losing after it stated.  We responded to incidents more than once where the person that started the fight had injuries, the one defending himself had no injuries at all.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Feel free to explain how that scenario actually corresponds with the facts that we are aware of, instead of the imaginary facts you keep trying to invent.



The flight of imagination about Zimmerman attacking Martin with the back of his head is yours, not mine.


>>>>


----------



## Liability (Apr 25, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



Actually it was "datniggytb" which evidently alluded to what OTHERS used to call Zimmerman.  He didn't object to the nickname and apparently chose to use it as his "My Space" account username/handle.  The TB evidently stood for "tug boat" a reference to his then heavy weight.

George Zimmerman MySpace Nickname | Datniggy | Family Explanation | The Daily Caller


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > toomuchtime_ said:
> ...



I believe the gf has provided statements to the state investigators.  Otherwise they would not have included her in the Probable Cause Affidavit.




toomuchtime_ said:


> When Zimmerman was following Martin after leaving his truck, he was running, but when he stopped following Martin, it is unlikely he ran back to his truck so it would take him much longer to get back to his truck.



"Running" is an assumption on your part.  The fact is that he continued the conversation with the dispatcher and there were wind noises that could be heard.  Speed is unknown.

The fact is that even if running, he ended up father from the truck then he was likely to have traveled in 18 seconds.  Placement of the truck was just past the left turn on Twin Trees Lane, the site of the shooting was (IIRC) 150-200 yards away.  It would have been impossible for him to travel that distance unless he was at an all out sprint and the continued conversation with the dispatcher does not support that.



toomuchtime_ said:


> What evidence there is suggests Zimmerman turned back towards his truck.  First, we have the 911 tape in which he agrees not to continue following Martin.  Second, we have Zimmerman's statement that he had turned back to his truck.  Third, it would be out of character for him to disregard the dispatcher's statement that he didn't have to follow Martin.  This is a guy who is studying criminal justice, who takes his responsibilities as a town watch captain very seriously, who immediately called the police when he thought he saw something suspicious instead of approaching Martin and asking him what he was doing.



1.  Martin never agreed to not continue following Martin, his response to the dispatcher was "OK".  He acknowledged the statement, he didn't agree to hit.  If he had agreed to hit and begun returning to his truck, which he'd only been traveling away from for 18 seconds he would have been closer to the truck then the event site.  As it was he was farther away.

2.  Martin had already disregarded police training on not injecting themselves physically into a situation they called into the police.  It's very possible he disregarded the dispatcher also.



toomuchtime_ said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > 4.  There is no evidence that Martin initiated any violent response.  He could have or it may have been Zimmerman that initiated hostilities.  If it was, then Martin would be justified under Stand Your Ground to defend himself.
> ...



Zimmerman didn't indicate to the dispatcher he would stop following.  The evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Martin is based on the physical locations within the scene.  Zimmerman was farther away from the truck then he could have gotten in 18-seconds.

There is no evidence to support Martin turned back.  (He could have, but there is no evidence to support it at this time.)



toomuchtime_ said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > At this point we don't know how it actually went down in those critical seconds between the end of the gf's call and when the shot was fired.  We do know that the state will have a heavy burden to provide evidence to support it's claims, without such evidence then Zimmerman cannot be found guilty of a crime.  Lack of evidence is not evidence for either scenario.
> ...



I agree, there is no conclusive evidence that has been made public at this time that supports all of Zimmerman's story and that barring conclusive evidence that Zimmerman initiated hostilities to a degree where he no longer qualified for immunity based on self defense - then a "not guilty" verdict would be appropriate.


>>>>


----------



## toomuchtime_ (Apr 25, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> toomuchtime_ said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...





> Martin never agreed to not continue following Martin, his response to the dispatcher was "OK".  He acknowledged the statement, he didn't agree to hit.  If he had agreed to hit and begun returning to his truck, which he'd only been traveling away from for 18 seconds he would have been closer to the truck then the event site.  As it was he was farther away.



Again, how did you decide where he was and where he should have been?  I haven't seen any information to support your statements.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2012)

toomuchtime_ said:


> Again, how did you decide where he was and where he should have been?  I haven't seen any information to support your statements.



On another board I&#8217;m on there is a Zimmerman/Martin thread with over 21,000 posts and distance discussions were one of the stubs.

1230 Twin Trees Lane Sanford Florida - Google Maps
Google Map Pedometer​
The first link above will take you to a Google Map of the area.  The second link will take you to a distance measuring site.  On the second site search for &#8220;1230 Twin Trees Lane Sanford Florida&#8221;.  Switch both sites to Satellite view.  Zoom in to explode the area.

At first we were using vehicle size as a measuring tool.  So for instance a Mazda 3 is 15 feet (3 yards), my Chevy Equinox is 15&#8217;8&#8221; (just over 3 yards) as was my Subaru Outback.  We used the pickup truck at the right turn of Twin Trees Lane (TTL) for scale and then tried to image how many vehicles could be laid end to end between certain points.  Once we found the distance measuring site (tips hat to &#8220;Who&#8221. We used measurements - duh.

You have the gate in the upper left, across Retreat View Circle.  The clubhouse is on the right as well as the mail boxes as you follow TTL to the left turn.  TTL continues left to right until you reach the right turn if you were to continue straight, that is the building behind which the shooting (which I refer to as &#8220;the event&#8221 occurred.

Zimmerman said in the dispatch tape that the guy was on Retreat View Circle at the clubhouse (it faces Retreat View Circle) so that places Martin at the intersection just through the security gate (how Zimmerman could claim &#8220;He&#8217;s just walking around&#8221; when Martin was just at the intersection inside the gate is a different topic). When the dispatcher asked if the individual was at the clubhouse right now, Zimmerman replied in the affirmative.  Zimmerman than talks about Martin coming toward him, ummm, Zimmerman&#8217;s truck was parked between Martin&#8217;s current location and the residence he was traveling to, of course he walked towards him.  Zimmerman then goes on to describe the location of his truck &#8220;If they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the club house, and uh, straight past the club house and make a left, and then they go past the mailboxes, that's my truck...&#8221;.  We can now place Zimmerman&#8217;s truck as just after the left hand turn on TTL.


Premise:

Mile = 5280 feet | 1760 yards
Event location up the side walk to the curb of TTL = 0.04 mi (221.2 feet | 70.4 yards)
Event location up the side walk to the center of TTL between the curves = 0.06 mi (316.8 feet | 105.6 yards)
Event location up the sidewalk to the mailboxes by the clubhouse = 0.09 mi (475.2 feet | 158.4 yards)
The average person walks about 3 MPH (1 mi = 20 minutes) = 5280 feet / 20 minutes / 60 seconds = 4.4 feet per second.
From the time Zimmerman exits the truck to acknowledging the dispatchers not to follow comment = 18 seconds.

At walking speed Zimmerman would have covered 79.2 feet | 26.4 yards.  We know he did not sprint at full speed because he continued a conversation with the dispatcher and there was some wind noise, but no background noise evidence of heavy breathing or the jerkiness of speech that would result in running.  So let&#8217;s say he moved at light jog of double normal average speed.  That would be 158.4 feet | 52.8 yards.

Taking a measurement from halfway of the length of TTL (which is generous to the Zimmerman side as he says in the directions he was closer to the left turn) we have a distance of 316.8 feet | 105.6 yards.  At the time that Zimmerman acknowledged the dispatcher instruction not to follow he traveled between 79.2 feet | 26.4 yards and 158.4 feet | 52.8 yards away from the truck.  If he started returning to the truck at the point of acknowledging the dispatcher with &#8220;OK&#8221;, he would have had 2:30-3:30 (minutes:seconds) to return to the truck.  That would be 150-210 seconds of travel time.  At a walk (not jog, to again give him the advantage) he could have traveled 660 feet | 220 yards to 924 feet | 308 yards.  When you look at the distance outbound at a jog compared to the distances that could be covered in the return walk Zimmerman would have been able to return to the truck long before the event with Martin, if he&#8217;d traveled toward the truck.

However, the event occurred at a FARTHER distance from the truck then Zimmerman could have traveled in those 18-seconds.  Unless someone proposes a theory that Martin knocked Zimmerman unconscious and tagged him around behind the building, to then wake him up so that the hostilities could continue, then we have to assume that Zimmerman traveled the additional distance under his own power.

Hence the assumption that Zimmerman did not return to the truck at the point where he acknowledged the dispatchers instructions not to follow the unknown individual and continued on a path away from the truck during the 2:30-3:30 period between the end of the dispatcher call and the firearm discharge at the event.


>>>>


----------



## paperview (Apr 25, 2012)

Hi WW.

Another location, I saw this, using a Google maps program to measure feet.

Can't certify, but I have seen other evidence from the source who made this to consider it relatively reliable. 

I wouldn't stake rep on it, but I think its close.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2012)

paperview said:


> Hi WW.
> 
> Another location, I saw this, using a Google maps program to measure feet.
> 
> ...




1.  For purpose of illustration, I attempted to use measurements that were most advantageous to Zimmerman.  But still, looks like the numbers are pretty close, my position is closer to the truck then the one in the image and accounting for that they seem to be in the same range.  Glad to see some confirmation.


2.  Was the program web based or was is client side software, if web based do you have a link - that looks like a real neat one to have.


>>>>


----------



## paperview (Apr 25, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Hi WW.
> ...


I'll email the dude later and find out.  Kay?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2012)

paperview said:


> I'll email the dude later and find out.  Kay?



Kewl, looks like it would be more precise then the pedometer site someone recommended before and provides a direct readout in feet instead of having to to the math conversions.


Thanks.


>>>>


----------



## paperview (Apr 25, 2012)

Answered:  Google Earth has the measurement scale in the tool bar at the top of their screen.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 25, 2012)

Can anyone explain how one gets vertical/diagonal cuts on the back of your head in the yard?  From your head being slammed?  Wouldn't that be lateral head movement?  Wouldn't the wounds be more puncture?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2012)

paperview said:


> Answered:  Google Earth has the measurement scale in the tool bar at the top of their screen.




Thanks


>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 25, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Again, you change what I said, and then argue against the change.  I've said the evidence supports both scenerio's and we will have to wait for full disclosure.  At this time we don't have access to Zimmerman's statements, those are sealed.  All that has been in the press are third party declarations from family members.



You didn't say that the evidence doesn't support Zimmerman's story? Who was that that is using your account to post?



WorldWatcher said:


> If the gf testifies that Martin and Zimmerman spoke before the hostilities and Zimmerman's statement does say that Martin hit him from behind, then that would be conflicting evidence.  Then it would be up to the jury to weigh credibility.



A teenager who is under tremendous pressure to lie in order to make a boyfriend look good v a guy who shot, and killed, said bf. Sounds pretty easy to me.



WorldWatcher said:


> Actually I've presented 3 that meet the known facts of the situation.  Statements are not necessarily "facts".  For example you claim that Zimmerman's statement says he was hit from behind, yet the girlfriend's statement was that Zimmerman and Martin spoke to each other - that conflicts with Zimmerman's statement.  Another example is that a witness reports watching at the time of the firearm discharge and that Zimmerman was on top while supposedly Zimmerman's statement is that he was on the bottom.  Another inconsistency in statements.



Are you saying that it is impossible for Martin to asked Zimmerman anything after he hit him? Or are you just desperate to prove how stupid your position is? 

By the way, that witness you are referring to did not say Zimmerman was on top, he, or she, said that it was dark, and that he, or she, thought it looked like the bigger person was on top. Until someone explains how someone can judge relative size in the dark with one person laying on his back and the other on top of him, I will regard that statement as worthless, just like anyone else who actually has an open mind will.



WorldWatcher said:


> His training by police was not to physically inject himself into a situation.  It will be up to the jury to apply what weight they wish to that if it is presented at trial.



He was trained? When? Please do not try to equate a single meeting with a police liaison with training, that will just make you look idiotic.



WorldWatcher said:


> I believe of the two, only Zimmerman was ever arrested for a violent crime.  Being arrested is a criminal record.  The charges may have been dropped, but it is still a criminal record.  I run background checks for employment purposes and we get back state and FBI criminal records all the time that show arrests and dispositions.



Being arrested is only a criminal record if you believe people are guilty until proven innocent. The official position of Florida, and every other state in this country, is that you do not have a criminal record unless you have a conviction on your record. 



WorldWatcher said:


> I haven't made up any facts.



Are you saying that you actually believe the stupid stuff you are saying is true, or that you are stealing the made up facts from other people?



WorldWatcher said:


> I've repeatedly identified that I've provided that there are at least 3 scenerio's that fit the facts.  Martin assaults Zimmerman.  Zimmerman assaults Martin.  Zimmerman assaults Martin and attempts unlawful detention.  In the first two Zimmerman retains his self defense immunity and should be found not quilty.  In the third Zimmerman is committing a forcible felony under Florida Statute 776.041 and his self defense immunity could be negated.



You have repeatedly tried to make up a situation in which Zimmerman is a felon, even though the state is not charging him with a felony, and thus has no right to self defense. I remember asking you to prove that any prosecutor in Florida had ever argued that successfully, and you just ignored me. now you are trying to say that is a possible explanation. Until you can prove that it is actually possible to argue that under Florida law, not just in your pretend world where ghosts are real, you have not actually presented it as a possible scenario. It would be easier to argue that Zimmerman was being controlled by aliens that a scenario that is as ridiculous as the one you keep insisting proves you are the one with an open mind. 



WorldWatcher said:


> That's what I've said consistently.  Seems pretty clear that I've actually said things that I've actually said.



Yet you keep denying you actually said what you said.



WorldWatcher said:


> If it doesn't apply to you.  Then don't get worked up about it.  This is an open message board, not a discussion conducted by PM.  I post for the audience at large.  If you don't like my posting style, then just bypass my posts.



It doesn't apply to anyone, because no one has said it. Mocking you is not getting upset. I actually enjoy mocking you, just like I enjoy mocking all idiots, I have no reason to bypass your posts.



WorldWatcher said:


> I have no obligation to present any evidence that Zimmerman attempted to beat Martin to death with the back of his head.  That seems to be something that occurred in your mind not mine.



It must have occurred to you, you saw the picture, yet you insist that the evidence is ambiguous enough to justify your assertion that it is possible that Zimmerman attacked Martin. I will ask you again, since you keep ignoring the question, why would a man with a gun attack a kid who he thought was acting suspicious?



WorldWatcher said:


> 1.  We will have to wait for the autopsy report.
> 
> 2.  In 20-years I stood Shore Patrol many times and saw the results of fights.  The injuries incurred during a fight are not necessary indicators of who started a fight.  All they show is that someone was losing after it stated.  We responded to incidents more than once where the person that started the fight had injuries, the one defending himself had no injuries at all.



How many times did you respond to a fight where the only person that was injured was the one with a gun?



WorldWatcher said:


> The flight of imagination about Zimmerman attacking Martin with the back of his head is yours, not mine.
> 
> 
> >>>>



It is not, it is me mocking your scenario that Zimmerman, who we know had a gun, started a fist fight.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 25, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



Oh shut up. You have nothing.


----------



## Liability (Apr 25, 2012)

We interrupt this thread for another whining splutter from cowboi.  Again.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 26, 2012)

I seem to have done my job getting under your skin, since I've driven you to hypocrisy. It's just kind of sad that your nickname for me is cowboi. I dunno... it just, lacks something.



Liability said:


> We interrupt this thread for another whining splutter from cowboi.  Again.



Really? Really Liability?


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 26, 2012)

> "Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."



There had been several break-ins and Zimmerman was not the only one calling the police to report them. Many of the neighborhood's residents had been calling the police because many blacks had been seen casing houses and were being reported. 

Martin had been suspended from school for possessing women's jewelry and a screw driver that the police said was a burglary tool. When questioned Martian claimed that the women's jewelry belonged to a friend but he could not remember who the friend was. 

So we have a guy who is going to college and is one credit shy of his Criminal Justice degree. Who at one time had also owned a business with a BLACK man as a partner keeping an eye on a black guy until the police arrived who very likely had committed a break-in or more.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 26, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> > "Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## KissMy (Apr 26, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> > "Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Martin left the 7-11 an hour before he met Zimmerman. It was only a 15 minute walk from the 7-11 to the home Martin was staying at. Martin was certainly doing something besides just walking home. It took him 4 times to long & he still was not home.

Straight out of a Florida Neighborhood Watch Book.


> *Suspicious Activities Include:*
> 
> - A person with seemingly no purpose, wandering around or loitering in the neighborhood.
> 
> ...


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 26, 2012)

Dr Grump said:


> Looks like he's lost weight..prolly not eating too well at the mo'....



No, a murder wrap, and a sizable chunk of a city calling for your death tends to kill the appetite I guess. One thing I missed was who diagnosed hit broken nose and took the picture of his cut up head ? And I have not seen any pictures of his broken nose. You would think those would have come out with the ones of his head.


----------



## Liability (Apr 26, 2012)

Cowman said:


> I seem to have done my job getting under your skin, since I've driven you to hypocrisy. It's just kind of sad that your nickname for me is cowboi. I dunno... it just, lacks something.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yeah.  You really really are spluttering.  You're making even more of a damn fool of yourself.   

But, that's your business.  I just like to make note of it.   It serves to either educate you (unlikely) or it has just the marginal utility of rubbing your nose in your own ineffectual efforts.

Hurry back.


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 26, 2012)

Here is some photos that I assume are from his booking.






I dont see any blood on his shirt. Maybe he got a change of clothes, or this was taken at a later date.

Doing an image search does nothing to help at all.

He looks like he has the same jacket in the bloody head picture here.


----------



## paperview (Apr 26, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> Here is some photos that I assume are from his booking.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That image was taken* a little over a half an hour *after he killed Trayvon.


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 26, 2012)

paperview said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > Here is some photos that I assume are from his booking.
> ...



Noses bleed pretty good when there not broken. I would expect more blood, and for it to be on his shirt.


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 26, 2012)

this is the one from when he was arrested.






Has anyone ever said when they took this one ?






And why no booking information ? I dont think this one was from that night either. Why no pictures of his face from that night ?


----------



## paperview (Apr 26, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...


...Even holding his head up, jarring, discomfort. We see none of that in the 6 minute video of Z walking through the myriad of halls and such at the PD.

His gait, his composure, his presentation is absolutely sparkling.

Pretty remarkable for a guy who had been so brutally clobbered, fearing for his life, eh?

Heck, he even wipes his feet on the mat as he walks into the first main room.


----------



## paperview (Apr 26, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> this is the one from when he was arrested.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That was from his 2005 arrest for a felony with violence for getting into an altercation with a police officer.

The reason no booking info from that night is - he wasn't arrested.  They let him go.


----------



## paperview (Apr 26, 2012)

I would certainly think the Sanford PD took good digital pictures of him that night. Unless they fucked that part up too.


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 26, 2012)

KissMy said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > > "Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."
> ...



Also from the same book-

"Neighborhood watch is NOT a vigilante group. Participants, as private citizens are only to report there observations to; not to take action them selves."

Zimmerman went a step further.

http://a.scpr.org/i/85420689259fa04716724ab6fb3cf2f0/36492-wide.jpg


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 26, 2012)

paperview said:


> I would certainly think the Sanford PD took good digital pictures of him that night. Unless they fucked that part up too.



The lack of photos is disturbing.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 26, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> You didn't say that the evidence doesn't support Zimmerman's story? Who was that that is using your account to post?



No, as I've said repeatedly, I've provided at least three scenario's that conform to evidence not based on Zimmerman's story, the shooter.  In each of those scenario's it was then shown that the jury should return a verdict of *'not guilty"* unless the state were to provide direct evidence that show Zimmerman was in the commission of a forcible felony.  Barring such evidence, which it appears unlikely at this point, then Zimmerman would be *'not guilty"*.


*******************

I enjoy adult conversations with people that actually appear enjoy the exchange of information, not with those who lie about what someones posts have said and then argue against their lies own like a petulant child.

If you wish to engage in a meaningful discussion.  Let me know.


>>>>


----------



## paperview (Apr 26, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


KissM  keeps placing that random NW item, even though he's been shown plenty of times the *ACTUAL* one used by the community we are discussing, published by the Sanford Police Department. 

Here, I'll place it here again, just in case he missed it,  again....and further details for other readers to view.


*Sanford Police Department Neighborhood Watch Handbook
* 


> You will add your &#8220;eyes and ears&#8221; to
> those of the Police Department which
> cannot be everywhere, all the time, by
> keeping a watchful eye and open ear to
> ...


^^^^ Emphasis THEIRS.

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigati...amHandbook.pdf

    In big bolded font the above words there  INSIST people are not to     "* get physically involved with any activity you report or       apprehen[d] of any suspicious persons."*

    They do that in not only one area of the NW Guidelines, *but twice.      
    In BOLD letters.*

    We KNOW Zimmerman was told by police this, as *Z was the one who     helped facilitate the NW meeting with the* *Sanford Police Chief*     for guidelines, and as* contact and Captain* would necessarily     need to be informed of the rules:

    Twin Lakes at Retreat news letter -*Sept 2011*:
*George Zimmerman's name listed as contact & that Chief Lee       was coming to next meeting:* RTL Newsletter September 2011 FINAL

*Feb 2012* Twin Lakes at Retreat news letter - *George       Zimmerman identified as Captain: *RTL February 2012 Newsletter

    SFP -meeting with residents after shooting - Relaying Zimmerman *was       acting as NW at the time of the shooting:* Sanford PD Meeting

In addition:




> In September, the Sanford police helped the Retreat start a     neighborhood watch program.
> 
> "Some residents called me wanting to do a startup," said Dorival, a        civilian police employee. About 30 people came to the clubhouse   for      that first session, she said. "Everyone was enthusiastic." *Zimmerman     volunteered to be captain.*
> 
> "I told them, this is not about being a vigilante police force,"     Dorival said.* "You're not even supposed to patrol on neighborhood     watch. And you're certainly not supposed to carry a gun.*"


 Trayvon Martin's killing shatters safety within Retreat at Twin Lakes in Sanford - Tampa Bay Times


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 26, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> > "Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."
> 
> 
> 
> There had been several break-ins and Zimmerman was not the only one calling the police to report them. Many of the neighborhood's residents had been calling the police because many blacks had been seen casing houses and were being reported.



Exactly, was Zimmerman profiling Martin?  Probably, he was profiling based on the history of break-ins and NOT simply based on race, he was profiling based on known events and descriptions of individuals known to have been involved in burglaries in the recent past.



Bigfoot said:


> Martin had been suspended from school for possessing women's jewelry and a screw driver that the police said was a burglary tool. When questioned Martian claimed that the women's jewelry belonged to a friend but he could not remember who the friend was.



This I will point out a few corrections about...

1.  He as not suspended from school for possession of women's jewelry and a screwdriver, he was suspended for "tagging" (graffiti) school property.

2.  During the course of searching his backpack for the tagging implements the jewelry was discovered.  Police ran the jewelry and determined it was not stolen.

3.  When questioned he declined to identify who gave it to, and since it was not stolen he was under no obligation to provide, the individual that gave him the jewelry.

Police investigated Trayvon Martin over jewelry - Boston.com
Multiple suspensions paint complicated portrait of Trayvon Martin - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com



Bigfoot said:


> So we have a guy who is going to college and is one credit shy of his Criminal Justice degree. Who at one time had also owned a business with a BLACK man as a partner keeping an eye on a black guy until the police arrived who very likely had committed a break-in or more.



1.  I agree, race does not appear to be a motivating factor for the actions of Zimmerman.

2.  There is no evidence that Martin ever committed any type of break-in.  If you want to use that logic, then you would also need to claim that Zimmerman has a history of violence since he was actually charged with assaulting a police officer.  If you are going to base classifications on history then, logically speaking, you should be willing to apply the history of both parties involved equally.


>>>>


----------



## Cowman (Apr 26, 2012)

Liability said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > I seem to have done my job getting under your skin, since I've driven you to hypocrisy. It's just kind of sad that your nickname for me is cowboi. I dunno... it just, lacks something.
> ...



 My god... you really are pathetic.



			
				KissMy said:
			
		

> Martin left the 7-11 an hour before he met Zimmerman. It was only a 15 minute walk from the 7-11 to the home Martin was staying at. Martin was certainly doing something besides just walking home. It took him 4 times to long & he still was not home.



Black people shouldn't dilly dally I guess, is the moral of the story. You know, I oftentimes work slowly to get from point A to point B, and people don't seem to question it in the least. I guess because I'm not black.

This whole story has been a big whole playbook for black people on what they should and shouldn't do to avoid a bullet from somebody. Don't dress casually, go directly from point A to point B, don't be young, don't defend yourself, don't get shot by a white male, don't expect average America to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Race didn't seem to be a factor for Zimmerman, but it most certainly seems to be a factor in the defense of Zimmerman.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 26, 2012)

KissMy said:


> Martin left the 7-11 an hour before he met Zimmerman. It was only a 15 minute walk from the 7-11 to the home Martin was staying at. Martin was certainly doing something besides just walking home. It took him 4 times to long & he still was not home.



It appears he was on the phone


18:30 Phone call to North Dade, FL
18:41 Incoming Phone Call
18:45 Phone call to North Dade, FL
18:46 Phone call to North Dade, FL
18:49 Incoming Phone Call
18:53 Phone call to North Dade, FL
18:54 Phone call to North Dade, FL
18:54 Incoming
19:04 Incoming
19:12 Incoming

I would comment that it looks like T-mobile gets lousy reception in that area.

http://media.nbcbayarea.com/documents/call+log.pdf


>>>>


----------



## Liability (Apr 26, 2012)

Cowman said:


> * * * *
> 
> My god... you really are pathetic.



That could be the epigraph on your tombstone, cowboi.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







Cowman said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It appears to have been a factor in the accusations against Zimmerman.  But addressing that aspect of the story is the only thing that gets your partisan mindless attention.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 26, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



 Oh! - So you were there! Please tell us how Zimmerman attacked Martin.


----------



## paperview (Apr 26, 2012)

Cowman said:
			
		

> Black people shouldn't dilly dally I guess, is the moral of the story.  You know, I oftentimes work slowly to get from point A to point B, and  people don't seem to question it in the least. I guess because I'm not  black.



Who does that boy think he is...walking to the store on an early evening Sunday night taking more than the 15 minutes he was allotted?

damn ****ing punks.


----------



## paperview (Apr 26, 2012)

> Quote: Originally Posted by *Cowman*
> _Black people  shouldn't dilly dally I guess, is the moral of the story.  You know, I  oftentimes work slowly to get from point A to point B, and  people don't  seem to question it in the least. I guess because I'm not  black._



BTW: I love the phrase _dilly dally._


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 26, 2012)

KissMy said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Oh, so you were there! Pleas tell us how martin attacked Zimmerman


----------



## KissMy (Apr 26, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



The moral of the story is Zimmerman had every right to suspect & follow martin. He can even legally ask what are you doing here. The take away from the shooting is you should not continue to beat anyone who is flat on their back, not fighting back & screaming for help 20 times. That is against the law everywhere & will get you legally shot in any state. The rest of your post is noise.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 26, 2012)

KissMy said:


> The moral of the story is Zimmerman had every right to suspect & follow martin. He can even legally ask what are you doing here. The take away from the shooting is you should not continue to beat anyone who is flat on their back, not fighting back & screaming for help 20 times. That is against the law everywhere & will get you legally shot in any state. The rest of your post is noise.




Or the moral of the story might be that Zimmerman had every right to follow Martin but he did not have the right to assault and attempt to detain him starting the fight where he got his ass kicked and then shot someone.  That is against the law.

At this point either scenario is possible as there is no evidence to show who started the fight, however, if the state fails to prove that - then Zimmerman should be found not guilty.


>>>>


----------



## KissMy (Apr 26, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



 EPIC FAIL LOSER!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 26, 2012)

KissMy said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



How so meat puppet ? Show what you got or go back to world of war craft mamas boy.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 26, 2012)

The real story seems to be shoot first and ask questions later.  Thanks for making the streets safer George.  Even George can't walk them now.


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 26, 2012)

KissMy said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



And Martin had every right to STAND his ground and defend him self. Zimmerman may have the right to follow the boy, he had the right to question the boy, but to flip it around, Martin had the right to ask this guy why he was following him, and Martin was under NO obligation to offer ANY explanation to Zimmerman what so ever. Zimmerman was acting outside the guidelines of his neighborhood watch guidebook. He got himself into an avoidable situation and when he was receiving the consequences of his actions he shot his way out of it.


----------



## Liability (Apr 26, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



But we don't know that young Trayvon Martin DID defend himself or that he ever needed to.

Your whole argument requires acceptance of a premise (which is really kind of also your conclusion) and we don't know if the premise is "true."

There is a name for the fallacy of assuming one's desired conclusion AS one's premise and then "arriving at" one's conclusion.  You have engaged in *begging the question.* Begging the question - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 26, 2012)

Liability, to accept what you believe is true one also have to accept a certain premise. I believe the premise that Martin was the instigator and attacked Zimmerman. There is no evidence that that is true, however you and others have been taking that premise as gospel truth.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 26, 2012)

It is easy enough to tell by these photos of Martin and Zimmerman that Martin was the guy who created his own problems. 







.
.


----------



## Liability (Apr 26, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Liability, to accept what you believe is true one also have to accept a certain premise. I believe the premise that Martin was the instigator and attacked Zimmerman. There is no evidence that that is true, however you and others have been taking that premise as gospel truth.



Wrong.  Quote a single post of mine to support your assumption of what I suppoedly "believe."

I don't have *any* opinion of what is or isn't true in the matter of the incident involving Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman.

*I have consistently maintained that WE don't know.*

And we don't.  Not me.  Not you.

I stand by that completely.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 26, 2012)

Liability said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Liability, to accept what you believe is true one also have to accept a certain premise. I believe the premise that Martin was the instigator and attacked Zimmerman. There is no evidence that that is true, however you and others have been taking that premise as gospel truth.
> ...


OK, Ok, okay...I got it, I got it.

However, I don't see you correcting those statements by those that express the sentiment that Martin was the aggressor. It's understandable to deduct that you'd be in agreement with that considering you don't correct those, but correct the others.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 26, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> It is easy enough to tell by these photos of Martin and Zimmerman that Martin was the guy who created his own problems.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


LOL!!!!

This is actually funny.


lol


----------



## Liability (Apr 26, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...




Well then, by all means, go back and read more fully.

I *have* maintained this to *BOTH* sides.

You are wrong again.  You presume things and then use your presumptions as the premise of your arguments and complaints.  It's pretty lame of you.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 26, 2012)

Liability said:


> Well then, by all means, go back and read more fully.
> 
> I *have* maintained this to *BOTH* sides.
> 
> You are wrong again.  You presume things and then use your presumptions as the premise of your arguments and complaints.  It's pretty lame of you.


My bad then Liability...I give it to you.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 26, 2012)

Thank you for your opinion Marc but I can look at those two pictures and tell who the bad guy is...or in Trayvon (the aggressor) was. Anyway, if I had another son he would look like George.


----------



## MarcATL (Apr 26, 2012)

Another one! Two in a row...!!! 

You're on a roll BigFoot.


lol


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 26, 2012)

Liability said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Not so. I attend a class that teaches people how to legally shoot other people when they have bad intentions towards you. Two cops and one judge (the instructors) point out that Zimmerman could have avoided the whole thing by staying in his car, and staying on the phone. I assumed nothing. I am forming an opinion on the commentary of three law enforcement professionals, not the evening news. The shooting was 100% avoidable if only Zimmerman had not followed. Strangely, all three figure Zimmerman will walk because he was overcharged.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 26, 2012)

Bloody head equals innocent.

Fatal bullet wound to the chest equals guilt.

The only partially good news I see, is that there are people so out of touch with what is going on around them, that an impartial jury is a possibility.


----------



## paperview (Apr 26, 2012)

Hey, WW. This is another image from that guy who did the Google Earth measurements of the distance from the truck tot he crime scene. 

Something about where "John" the still anonymous witness, was situated has been nagging me.

This lays it out.  I'm not sure he had as great a view as he said he did, then again, I can't be certain. 

But look:


----------



## Ravi (Apr 26, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...


I read somewhere that the prosecutor in this case always brings the highest charge she can bring that she thinks she can prove. And if she can't prove it, the court will go for a lessor sentence.

IMO, it is troubling that he got out of his car. I think he could realistically be guilty of manslaughter because of that.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 26, 2012)

Pretty tpyical of prosecutors to go high on the charge or bring multiple charges or both.


----------



## Liability (Apr 26, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...


Your class does not address what happened.  It couldn't since neither you nor your instructors know what happened.

Zimmerman coulda stayed in bed that morning, not gotten out of it except maybe to hit the head, too.

What he might have done is not the test.

Zimmerman was absolutely entitled to "follow."  Doing what he was entitled to do cannot form a valid basis of any act of violence against him.  

Assuming that he followed a person of whom he was suspicious (as indicated by the 9-1-1 call), it would be fascinating to know what publicly available "evidence" informs you that Trayvon had any valid basis to pound on Zimmerman (if that is what happened).

IF (and again, I don't know either), but IF Trayvon objected to Zimmerman following him and took it upon himself to beat the shit out of Zimmerman on that "basis," then Zimmerman was clearly entitled at that point to defend himself.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 26, 2012)

...and if Zimmerman pulls a gun, Martin is justified.  Anyone dizzy yet?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 26, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> It is easy enough to tell by these photos of Martin and Zimmerman that Martin was the guy who created his own problems.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Or not.













[Basically posted to show that looking at old pictures is a waste of time in terms of what actually happened that night.]


>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 26, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't say that the evidence doesn't support Zimmerman's story? Who was that that is using your account to post?
> ...



No you haven't. One of the scenarios only works if I believe in fairies, which I don't. the other two are not actually scenarios. All the honest person in this thread admit they don't know who started the fight, and point out that, under Florida law, it doesn't matter, all that matters is whether Zimmerman felt he was in danger at the time he shot Martin. 

Sp, once again, given that that is actually what Florida law says, what evidence do you have that contradicts Martin's statement? The testiminy of a witness who admits it was dark, and that they couldn't see well enough to see who was doing what?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 26, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > > "Let's talk about the elephant in the room. I'm black, OK?" the woman said, declining to be identified because she anticipated backlash due to her race. She leaned in to look a reporter directly in the eyes. "There were black boys robbing houses in this neighborhood," she said. "That's why George was suspicious of Trayvon Martin."
> ...



You almost got that right, which is an improvement.



This is what you got right.
They determined no such thing, all they determined is that it matched no reports of stolen jewelry. That is all they can determine unless Martin provides evidence of how he got it. Which brings us to
He is under no obligation to explain how he got the jewelry even if the police have a report that matches its description.
For a guy that claims to have spent 20 years in shore Patrol you are remarkably ignorant about the law.


Come to think of it, nothing remarkable about it at all, most cops are ignorant about what the law actually is, which is why they end up arresting people they shouldn't for doing things that are legal.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 26, 2012)

Ravi said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



If he is guilty of manslaughter it is not because he got out of his car.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 26, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



That's not true at all. This law, as bad as it is, does not give protection to someone that starts a fight and then gets their ass beat as a result. In fact, it protects the person that is attacked for no legitimate reason.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 26, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



*don't get shot by a white male*

You forgot don't get shot by a Hispanic Democrat.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 26, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



For the umpteenth time, stand your ground is not the law I am talking about, I am talking about self defense under Florida law. If Zimmerman reasonably felt his life was in danger he had ever right to defend himself, even if he started the fight. If I am wrong, feel free to provide links to actual laws and court cases to prove it. Be aware that, if you try that, I will pull out the law in California, which allows a person that reasonably feels threatened to actually chase someone down the street to kill them. which is not possible under Florida law.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 26, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



*He got himself into an avoidable situation and when he was receiving the consequences of his actions he shot his way out of it. *

Consequences? You mean a beating?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 26, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> For the umpteenth time, stand your ground is not the law I am talking about, I am talking about self defense under Florida law. If Zimmerman reasonably felt his life was in danger he had ever right to defend himself, even if he started the fight. If I am wrong, feel free to provide links to actual laws and court cases to prove it.



Florida Statutes
776.041&#8195;Use of force by aggressor.&#8212;The justification described in the preceding sections [WW NOTE: the preceding sections are the self defense and SYG sections] of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)&#8195;Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)&#8195;In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

776.041 - Use of force by aggressor. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate​
If Zimmerman was the aggressor and and was shown to be committing a forcible felony (assault and unlawful detention qualify as a forcible felony), then he loses self defense immunity, *OR* if Zimmerman was the aggressor and at the point in the conflict where he feared for his live or great bodily injury a means of escape presented itself and (as judged by a reasonable person) he failed to take advantage of that escape and continued hostilities, then he would loose the self defense immunity.

Now is it likely that the state could prove either of those two possibilities?  With the information generally available to the public, it does not appear likely which means the jury should return a "not guilty" verdict.




Quantum Windbag said:


> Be aware that, if you try that, I will pull out the law in California, which allows a person that reasonably feels threatened to actually chase someone down the street to kill them. which is not possible under Florida law.




The case is in Florida under state law, whatever may have happened in California would be irrelevant to the findings of a Florida court.


>>>>


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 26, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > It is easy enough to tell by these photos of Martin and Zimmerman that Martin was the guy who created his own problems.
> ...



LOL, no kidding Pal. Gawd, some of you guys take yourselves so seriously. Can't you recognize sarcasm when you see it? And I thought it was only Marc and Cowman


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 26, 2012)

If I had another son he would look like George.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 26, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > For the umpteenth time, stand your ground is not the law I am talking about, I am talking about self defense under Florida law. If Zimmerman reasonably felt his life was in danger he had ever right to defend himself, even if he started the fight. If I am wrong, feel free to provide links to actual laws and court cases to prove it.
> ...



If the moon is made of green cheese we will never go hungry again.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 26, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> It is easy enough to tell by these photos of Martin and Zimmerman that Martin was the guy who created his own problems.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You get ridiculed for posting the truth. The media blasted the airwaves with photos of big criminal Zimmerman killed the young child Martin.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 26, 2012)

The parents of all these teens believe they are good kids headed for college to be a benefit to society.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 26, 2012)

KissMy said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > It is easy enough to tell by these photos of Martin and Zimmerman that Martin was the guy who created his own problems.
> ...



Yeah, I can't believe a couple of these guys take themselves so seriously that they couldn't understand what I had posted.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 26, 2012)

KissMy said:


> The parents of all these teens believe they are good kids headed for college to be a benefit to society.



Excellent post!  Tomorrow those guys will be on the corner slingin' books for highr lurnin, dawg!


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 26, 2012)

> ORLANDO, Florida &#8211;  George Zimmerman's website seeking money for his legal defense may have been shut down, but apparently not before pulling in quite a haul for the high-profile Florida murder defendant.
> 
> The attorney for Zimmerman, charged in the February shooting of unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, says in a TV interview Thursday that his client's website has raised more than *$200,000*.



Read more: Attorney says Zimmerman had $200G from Web donations 


Good for him!


----------



## KissMy (Apr 27, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> > ORLANDO, Florida   George Zimmerman's website seeking money for his legal defense may have been shut down, but apparently not before pulling in quite a haul for the high-profile Florida murder defendant.
> >
> > The attorney for Zimmerman, charged in the February shooting of unarmed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, says in a TV interview Thursday that his client's website has raised more than *$200,000*.
> 
> ...



That money is the only way he will come close to getting a fair trial. The state will likely parade 40 bullshit forensic experts through the witness stand to try & railroad him just like they did with Casey Anthony.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 27, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > The parents of all these teens believe they are good kids headed for college to be a benefit to society.
> ...



And yet people still deny...


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



The class addresses the situation, and how not to be charged with a felony after the incident. From what is available on the news, Zimmerman did everything one would need to do to collect a charge. Zimmerman had no reason or obligation to follow marten. If Martin was justifiably shot, then Zimmerman got his ass justifiably whipped. He had no business being where he was. His actions led to an avoidable shooting. Meh, quibble if you want. If I remember Ill post an "I told you so", if im wrong then you can.


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 28, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



Yes. I mean the beating.


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 28, 2012)

KissMy said:


> The parents of all these teens believe they are good kids headed for college to be a benefit to society.



Better shoot them all then. While we are at it, lets shoot the white kids with skate boards to. And the OWS morons to. Mexicans to, better shoot them as well.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 28, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



If he was getting a beating and feared for his life, the shooting is justifiable.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 28, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > The parents of all these teens believe they are good kids headed for college to be a benefit to society.
> ...



No need, they're doing that themselves.


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 28, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Sure, if he was walking along sniffing the flowers and all of a sudden out of the blue a guy descends on him and proceeds to whip his ass. But if he knowingly puts him self in danger against the advice the authorities as well as the training of who ever signed his CCW ticket and outside the rules of his neighborhood watch hand book then he must answer for the killing.


----------



## Liability (Apr 28, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...




Nonsense.  First off -- again -- nothing he did was against any "advice" of any authorities.

Secondly, walking around is perfectly legal and proper behavior.

Following a person who you deem suspicious is also legal and proper behavior.

If Trayvon took exception to it, his legal options did not include physically assaulting George.  (And again, I don't know that this is what happened, but you don't know that it isn't.  And there is some reason to believe it might have happened.)

And if it is what happened, and George was put in reasonable fear for his life or in fear of receiving great bodily harm, then your "analysis" is complete bullshit.  At that point, George, having done nothing wrong, would be legally entitled to use even deadly physical force to protect himself.


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That just is not so. Read back a few post where the rules for his neighborhood watch were posted. Zimmerman was acting outside of those. He was advised by the 911 operator to not follow Trayvon. He did not. Zimmerman was not just walking around, he was persuading a suspect. Again, that is forbidden in the rules of his neighborhood watch, and diametrically opposed to any training he would have received in a CCW class. George put himself in a situation where he found him self in grave danger against the advice of all his training the the rules of the organization he was serving . Stand your ground does not protect a shooter from that. George did everything wrong. And because of that, he picked up a charge.


----------



## Liability (Apr 28, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



What you claim is simply false.

Zimmerman was perfectly entitled to follow.  What he was not properly entitled to do was to try to become an arresting "officer."  There is no evidence that he did any such thing.

He was NOT advised by the 9-1-1 operator not to follow Trayvon.  That too is just you being sloppy, careless or dishonest.  He WAS told that he didn't HAVE to do so.  But that's a different proposition.  

He did not put himself in ANY danger that anybody walking around there that night might not have been exposed to.  He was ALLOWED to be there and that did not entitle anybody to attack him.  IF that is what happened after Trayvon objected to being followed, then the confrontation would be at the initiation of Trayvon.  HIS misbehavior does not deprive Zimmerman of his right to self defense.

"Stand your ground" is entirely irrelevant to the whole discussion.   Simple "justification" also known as "self defense" are the actual principles of law involved.

There is not a scintilla of evidence that George did ANYTHING wrong, much less that he did everything wrong.

*YOU* are completely wrong.


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Ok bubba. what ever you say, but you know not of what you speak. Ill take the advice of my guys when they say he was wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 28, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



*But if he knowingly puts him self in danger*

LOL! If I knowingly walk thru a bad neighborhood and put myself in danger, I don't get to defend myself? I don't care who you are, that's funny right there.


----------



## saveliberty (Apr 28, 2012)

Not disclosing to the judge he had access to a large sum of money before the bail hearing may cost him a year he could have spent out of jail.  This is getting closer and closer to a plea every day.


----------



## Liability (Apr 28, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



Between the two of us, I am the only one who knows whereof he speaks.  You, being a bit of an idiot, cannot even grasp the undeniable FACT that the 9-1-1 operator told Zimmerman that he didn't have to follow -- and that saying that is NOT a *direction* NOT to follow.  

I don't care what advise you take or who "your guys" are.  You are the one spouting off and you were dead wrong in EVERY single respect.


----------



## Againsheila (Apr 28, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Not disclosing to the judge he had access to a large sum of money before the bail hearing may cost him a year he could have spent out of jail.  This is getting closer and closer to a plea every day.



Considering that goes to Zimmerman's character, it could be a nail in his coffin.  It was a BIG mistake on his part.


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



If I am an idiot, then you are not much more then a pompous wind bag, and an ignorant one at that. Ill take my guys word for it. They have years of experience in dealing with, and advising in such matters. You ? just a rep whore who only matters here. Now fuck off and run along. Fox is on.


----------



## Liability (Apr 28, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



Wrong agin, latecuyler.  I am no more pompous or arrogant than you or almost anyone who states their opinions.   But at least -- unlike you -- I use actual facts in my arguments.    I still don't give a shit whose word you'll take or who your guys are.

They appear to be dumb asses like you.

And I have qualifications to discuss these things which you and your moron buddies could never grasp.  So fuck yourself, eat more shit, choke on it and get to a hospital where ObamaCare is all that can save you.

Poor you.

Go watch CNN, read the NY Slimes and talk with your ignorant asshole pals some more. 

But you're still entirely wrong.


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 28, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



That depends. Are you buying crack ? or headed to the store to get something ? Your question is stupid and has nothing to do with Zimmerman case. He was not just walking along minding his business, he was actively pursuing Trayvon.  He admitted that he was. He was moving into the situation. That was a stupid question.


----------



## Liability (Apr 28, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



He was following a person he suspected and whom he had reported.

He was allowed to.

So, you and your ignorant pals are only highlighting your general stupidity some more.


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Yeah whatever, its always the same. You are a lawyer, black belt in tai quan juitsu, have a 24 inch cock and know it all. You are just a pompous twerp. And you just cant stand it when its pointed out. Say what you will. It only matters to you, and maybe just a little bit here. Poor little fella.


----------



## Liability (Apr 28, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



Poor poor butthurt you.  

Yeah, I am a lawyer.   Idiots like you can never believe it because "anybody can say anything on the internet."  (And your pitiable form of "logic" then leads you to the conclusion that anybody who claims it must be lying.   )

Nevertheless, neither you nor your moron "guys" have the first fucking clue about the legal issues involved -- and YOU don't even grasp the basic facts.

Morons like you always substitute their preconceived (idiot) notions for "facts.

However, despite your blissful ignorance and prejudgment, the reality is:  you weren't there.  Thus, you can't tell anybody what actually went down.

Meanwhile I can tell you that Zimmerman's behavior of following young Trayvon was lawful.  I can tell you that if Zimmerman didn't try to physically detain Trayvon or otherwise start the physical altercation, then Trayvon had no right to engage in any act of physical violence against Zimmerman.

I can also tell you -- beyond a doubt -- that if Trayvon did initiate the physical altercation, and Zimmerman ended up on the ground, on his back, getting his head slammed into the concrete, then he could very reasonably fear for his life (or at least fear great bodily harm).  If that's what happened, Zimmerman could resort to self defense.  If that's what happened, Zimmerman committed no crime.  

Go have yourself another good cry, latecuyler.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 28, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



Actively pursuing Trayvon doesn't mean he can't defend himself.  You're silly.


----------



## MaryL (Apr 28, 2012)

What skin color is INNOCENCE again? I forget.


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 28, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Meh. Your ignorant. Not a bad thing unless you do it deliberately.


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



You are still posting ? Thought you were above it all. Hm.


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yep. So ignorant that they built a business teaching folks how not to get in the same bind as Mr. Zimmerman. Actual professionals in there fields. Something you wish you could be, but are not. All you have is what O'Rilley hands you on twitter. Poor little fella.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 28, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Not disclosing to the judge he had access to a large sum of money before the bail hearing may cost him a year he could have spent out of jail.  This is getting closer and closer to a plea every day.



There are a lot of fucking idiots around here, aren't there? Can anyone show me any requirement for a defendant to disclose his finances? If not, stop pretending one exists.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 28, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Not disclosing to the judge he had access to a large sum of money before the bail hearing may cost him a year he could have spent out of jail.  This is getting closer and closer to a plea every day.
> ...



Stop being stupid. Was he asked? If not, it doesn't say anything about him, does it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 28, 2012)

MaryL said:


> What skin color is INNOCENCE again? I forget.



I have never met a orange person who was guilty of anything, is it orange?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 28, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



It says thatmaybe he did not have access to his PayPal account while sitting in lock up.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 29, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



But it does apparently mean Trayvon can't defend himself.

Fight breaks out between a black guy and any other dude. Black guy started it!

Fight breaks out between a black guy and any other dude. Other dude says black guy started it. Black guy started it!

Can't wait for the "statistics confirm our racial prejudices" people.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 29, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



Yeah, understanding self defense makes ME ignorant.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 29, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



Yeah, if Zimmerman attacked him, Trayvon can defend himself. 
It's always sad when a Hispanic Democrat shoots a black kid.


----------



## Cowman (Apr 29, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Who the fuck cares what political ideology he is of... he murdered that kid. And last time I checked, he's being defended by die hard conservatives because he was rightful in shooting that "no limit nigga" as they like to claim. Like it's worthy of him being murdered.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Not disclosing to the judge he had access to a large sum of money before the bail hearing may cost him a year he could have spent out of jail.  This is getting closer and closer to a plea every day.
> ...



There's no requirement but Zimmerman let the lie be told to the court that he was penniless. And lying to the court IS illegal. Bond is usually set to discourage people from fleeing. His bond is something he can currently pay out of pocket and skip the country without leaving his family in a financial bind.

The judge better hope he is still in the country.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 29, 2012)

I would bet that Zimmerman followed his Lawyer's advice and that advice is a lot more knowledgeable then the posters here.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Not disclosing to the judge he had access to a large sum of money before the bail hearing may cost him a year he could have spent out of jail.  This is getting closer and closer to a plea every day.
> ...



Florida Statutes:

903.035 - Applications for bail information provided hearing on application for modification penalty for providing false or misleading information or omitting material information. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate
903.046 - Purpose of and criteria for bail determination. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

903.035&#8195;Applications for bail; information provided; hearing on application for modification; penalty for providing false or misleading information or omitting material information.&#8212;
(1)(a)&#8195;All information provided by a defendant, in connection with any application for or attempt to secure bail, to any court, court personnel, or individual soliciting or recording such information for the purpose of evaluating eligibility for, or securing, bail for the defendant, under circumstances such that the defendant knew or should have known that the information was to be used in connection with an application for bail, *shall be accurate, truthful, and complete without omissions to the best knowledge of the defendant.*
(b)&#8195;The failure to comply with the provisions of paragraph (a) may result in the revocation or modification of bail.
(2)&#8195;An application for modification of bail on any felony charge must be heard by a court in person, at a hearing with the defendant present, and with at least 3 hours&#8217; notice to the state attorney.
(3)&#8195;Any person who intentionally provides false or misleading material information or intentionally omits material information in connection with an application for bail or for modification of bail is guilty of a misdemeanor or felony which is one degree less than that of the crime charged for which bail is sought, but which in no event is greater than a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

903.046&#8195;Purpose of and criteria for bail determination.&#8212;
(1)&#8195;The purpose of a bail determination in criminal proceedings is to ensure the appearance of the criminal defendant at subsequent proceedings and to protect the community against unreasonable danger from the criminal defendant.
(2)&#8195;When determining whether to release a defendant on bail or other conditions, and what that bail or those conditions may be, the court shall consider:
(a)&#8195;The nature and circumstances of the offense charged.
(b)&#8195;The weight of the evidence against the defendant.
(c)&#8195;The defendant&#8217;s family ties, length of residence in the community, employment history, *financial resources*, and mental condition.
<<SNIP>>​

The Judge could choose to just basically say "meh" it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the bond hearing and let it go.  He could also reopen the bond hearing and and require submission of records from the paypal accounts documenting balances over time.  If the balances were low and spiked after Zimmerman was in jail, probably no big deal as Zimmerman may not have had access to the records especially since it appears the brother-in-law was involved with the site and he was never called to the stand during the original bond hearing.  If on the other hand there was a significant amount of money before Zimmerman was arrested, then the judge might have issues with it.  We'll have to wait and see.

>>>>


----------



## LilOlLady (Apr 29, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A broken nose will cause a black eye.
Angela Corey has not played a full hand. When time comes she will.
The fact as we know it is enough to convict him.
Head bashed on concrete do not leave clean cuts with drips of blood and no concussion. and would leave permanent scare I got a pimple on my scap and hair will not grow on the site of the pimple.


----------



## LilOlLady (Apr 29, 2012)

I notice something wierd about the people of Sanford. Lots of men look just like Zimmerman. one of his friends, a neighbor and the office beside him in court. Too much of an incident.


----------



## Liability (Apr 29, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> I notice something wierd about the people of Sanford. Lots of men look just like Zimmerman. one of his friends, a neighbor and the office beside him in court. Too much of an incident.



Cue the music from The Twilight Zone.


----------



## Liability (Apr 29, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Police report said bloody nose, not broken nose.

And as far as I know, Zimmerman's medical records haven't been released, anyway.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 29, 2012)

Zimmermans medical records will show hehad a broken nose and lacerations or else his lawyers have all been driveling idiots.


----------



## Liability (Apr 29, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Zimmermans medical records will show hehad a broken nose and lacerations or else his lawyers have all been driveling idiots.



I see that one of Zimmerman's prior lawyers told some news guy (Anderson Cooper) that Zimmerman had suffered a broken nose.  But I don't see where his new attorney said that.  Zimmerman's father may have said it at the bail hearing, but that's not clear to me.   That would be pretty close to his new lawyer adopting it, I suppose.

Can you link me up?


----------



## earlycuyler (Apr 29, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



If he skipped, where could he go that would not ship him back ? $200,000 is not allot of money if you are on the run. There is also the fact that a bunch of folks would like to see him dead.


----------



## Againsheila (Apr 29, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



If the eyewitness is right, Zimmerman's head was being pounded into the ground by Trayvon.  Zimmerman was crying for help.  Zimmerman finally shot the kid.  The alternative was possible death from blunt force trauma to the head.  It's called self defense.  It doesn't matter who started the fight at the point that Zimmerman was yelling for help, believing his life was in danger, the kid should have stopped.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 29, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> If the eyewitness is right, Zimmerman's head was being pounded into the ground by Trayvon.  Zimmerman was crying for help.  Zimmerman finally shot the kid.  The alternative was possible death from blunt force trauma to the head.  It's called self defense.



And there is a different witness that says that the person on top at the time of the shooting rose and stepped way from the body on the ground.  We know that was Zimmerman.




Againsheila said:


> It doesn't matter who started the fight at the point that Zimmerman was yelling for help, believing his life was in danger, the kid should have stopped.



First, that's false.  Under Florida Statutes 776.041 a person looses their self defense immunity if they were the initial aggressor and if they were committing a forcible felony (such as aggravated assault) *OR* they were presented with an opportunity of escape and proceeded with the hostilities.

Secondly, it has not been determined that it was Zimmerman yelling for help.  Some witnesses say Zimmerman, some say the boy, the Zimmerman family claims it was him, the Martin family claims it was him.  Independent audio analysis excluded Zimmerman (but would not be conclusive), we have not heard any results from police or FBI audio forensic analysis yet.


>>>>


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 29, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



Who cares what race he is either?
Murder? I don't think that word means what you think it means.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 29, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Not if the black kid is a Republican.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 29, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



"Let the lie be told?"

Can you point to testimony that said he was penniless? Of course you can't, but you like to believe it because you want Zimmerman to be guilty.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 29, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



FYI, idiot, the defense fund was public knowledge before the bail hearing. Also, the defense fund is not part of his assets vis a vis bail, since it is intended to be used to pay for his defense, not his bail. The judge, if he is honest, will ignore any attempt to bring the existence of the fund up as a violation of the bail, because it isn't.

I will, however, admit that, under Florida law, he does have to provide some type of evidence of his financial resources. My guess is that is satisfied by a simple about home ownership, or business ties. It does not require him to bring in tax records or a pay stub.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 29, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> ...



Broken noses usually, but not always, cause black eyes. Black eyes usually go away within a week or tow. That photo is over a month after the fight, and all it proves is that Zimmerman was not hit in the face with a baseball bat.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



O'MARA: Other major assets that you have which you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond?

S. ZIMMERMAN: None that I know of.

O'MARA: I discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband, George, *declared indigent for cost*, have I not?

S. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, you have.

O'MARA: Are you of any financial means where you could assist in those costs?

S. ZIMMERMAN: Not that I'm aware of.

O'MARA: I understand that you do have other family members present with you and I'll ask them questions of them but have you had discussions with them of at least trying to pool together some funds to accomplish a bond?

S. ZIMMERMAN: We have discussed that, trying to pull together the numbers of the family to scrape up anything that we possibly can.

Zimmerman's defense fund was public knowledge before the bond hearing, as you say.

In case you don't know what being declared indigent for cost means, in Florida it means you can pretend you're broke and have the State of Florida pay for your fancy private lawyer.


----------



## percysunshine (Apr 29, 2012)

Has anyone else noticed that Zimmerman looks alot like Ravi?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 29, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Yes, the defense fund was public knowledge before the bail hearing. In fact, Zimmerman set it up through his website before he was arrested. Since those funds, by law, are earmarked for his defense, they are not an asset under any law in this country. In fact, none of those funds were used for his bail, though it is alleged he did use some of those funds for living expenses. They are currently under the control of his lawyer, who is setting up a trust that Zimmerman cannot access.

If you have any evidence other than your desire to prove Zimmerman is a bad person that shows he is using those funds to finance a lifestyle of caviar and wine feel free to sent it to Corey's office, I am sure would be happy to hire you as an instigator, since the ones she has available to her through the State of Florida are so incompetent they missed it.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



It doesn't look good for people that lie to the court. And that is what it sounds like happened. Kind of like Zimmerman telling the court that he thought Martin was his age when on the 9/11 tape he called him a kid in his late teens.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 29, 2012)

btw, Windbag, his website asked for money for both living expenses and legal defense and the wording "living expenses" makes that money an asset he should have declared at his bond hearing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 29, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



What was the lie? Are you trying to say that the defense fund is an asset they can use for bail? Is the state paying for his lawyer and the defense fund going to something else? You really need to let Corey's office know about your incredible ability to find things trained investigators keep missing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 29, 2012)

Ravi said:


> btw, Windbag, his website asked for money for both living expenses and legal defense and the wording "living expenses" makes that money an asset he should have declared at his bond hearing.



It did? The stories I have seen don't mention that, do you have a wayback link to that, or are we just supposed to believe you because it makes him look bad?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Apr 29, 2012)

Liability said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > I notice something wierd about the people of Sanford. Lots of men look just like Zimmerman. one of his friends, a neighbor and the office beside him in court. Too much of an incident.
> ...



Basically, Lil Ol Bitch is saying that all Hispanic men look alike to her.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > btw, Windbag, his website asked for money for both living expenses and legal defense and the wording "living expenses" makes that money an asset he should have declared at his bond hearing.
> ...


I'm sure you are intelligent enough to google zimmerman website screenshot.

Loser.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > btw, Windbag, his website asked for money for both living expenses and legal defense and the wording "living expenses" makes that money an asset he should have declared at his bond hearing.
> ...











Last paragraph.  It wasn't setup as a proper legal defense trust fund which is why O'Mara got it shut down and is in the process of setting up a new one at gzlegalcase.com.  Once a proper trust has been setup, it will start taking donations.




>>>>


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 29, 2012)

This might be as close to Bonfire of the Vanities as real can get.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 29, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Why should I? I am not making the claim. I prefer to assume that, in the absence of evidence to contradict me, that the stories I have read from multiple sources are accurate.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 29, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



See, that was pretty easy, you should show Ravi how to do it.

I do wonder why all the sources that are willing to hang Zimmerman didn't mention this. Maybe NBC felt burned by their editing of the tape, and decided to err the other way. 

I doubt that it will actually make a difference in the bail myself, unless the judge takes it personally. The site was public knowledge before the hearing, so it isn't like he was hiding assets. and it is quite possible that his wife didn't know exactly what the site said.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 29, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




He heard his wife's testimony. That's why I said he didn't correct the lie....and even if she didn't personally lie, he apparently did by omission.

Loser.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 29, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> Has anyone else noticed that Zimmerman looks alot like Ravi?



Damn!

You're right!

Should 'ave known!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 29, 2012)

Ravi said:


> He heard his wife's testimony. That's why I said he didn't correct the lie....and even if she didn't personally lie, he apparently did by omission.
> 
> Loser.



So now Zimmerman is a liar because he failed to correct his wifes lie?

ROFLMAO!


----------



## Liability (Apr 29, 2012)

It's worse.  Zimmerman MUST have murdered Trayvon because a witness failed to reveal that a website had collected money to defend him.


----------



## MeBelle (Apr 29, 2012)

"Zimmerman had to put up 10 percent, or $15,000, to make bail. *His father has indicated he would take out a second mortgage to pay the fee*

Read more: WATCH: Trayvon shooter Zimmerman walks out of jail on $150K bond - NYPOST.com


9:40 -- Robert Zimmerman Sr., George's father, calls in via phone. He vouches for his son, saying he will fulfill the conditions of bond, if granted. He says he is a disabled veteran, and does not have great income, and plans to put his home up for sale to help pay for his son's release.

George Zimmerman gets $150,000 bond, apologized to Martin family


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 29, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



You ever been in court? You don't speak unless you are spoken to. By the way, his wife didn't lie. When asked how they were getting the bail she said the family was trying to collect enough money to pay it. Apparently, it took them a couple of days to raise it because they did not have access to the account you keep saying they lied about.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Are you sure? I thought everyone in prison had access to a PayPal account!

/s


----------



## Ravi (Apr 30, 2012)

Liability said:


> It's worse.  Zimmerman MUST have murdered Trayvon because a witness failed to reveal that a website had collected money to defend him.



I didn't realize you were this stupid.

It shows that Zimmerman is lying or a very sloppy thinker. Either would cover failing to disclose his assets and shooting an innocent person.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Maybe Zimmerman was hiding the money from his wife. He damn well can speak to his attorney and ask to be heard in court.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Apr 30, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > It's worse.  Zimmerman MUST have murdered Trayvon because a witness failed to reveal that a website had collected money to defend him.
> ...



Maybe he was still confused from having his head bashed against the concrete?


----------



## paperview (Apr 30, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



I think this part makes it pretty clear:

"(1)(a)&#8195;All information provided by a defendant, in connection with any   application for or attempt to secure bail, to any court, court   personnel, or individual soliciting or recording such information for   the purpose of evaluating eligibility for, or securing, bail for the   defendant, under circumstances such *that the  defendant  knew or should have known that the information was to be used  in  connection with an application for bail, shall be accurate,  truthful,  and complete without omissions to the best knowledge of the  defendant.*(b)&#8195;The failure to comply with the provisions of paragraph (a) may result in the revocation or modification of bail."

903.035 - Applications for bail information provided hearing on application for modification penalty for providing false or misleading information or omitting material information. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate


----------



## paperview (Apr 30, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


1. He'd already spent some 50K of that money.
2. O'Mara stated Zimm knew 150K was there at the hearing. I heard him say it.
Then after he said this:

&#8220;*He absolutely knew there was money in that account. I am not     suggesting  he didn&#8217;t know it was there,&#8221; O&#8217;Mara told reporters after a     court  hearing Friday where the issue was disclosed to the court.  &#8220;The    question  is whether he felt that needed to be disclosed.&#8230; It  was an    oversight.&#8221;*

Judge: Zimmerman to remain free on bail - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

3. It was Zimmermans responsibility to disclose it in his bond application.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


That's quite an oversight. Doesn't make the attorney look good either.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 30, 2012)

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...




I disagree, O'Mara came off just fine - professional, competent, forthright.  

Remember he came on-board just a day or two before the bond hearing and was still in the process of getting up to speed.  He saw an error and brought it before the court.  Remember the application for bond and the associated paperwork as part of the preparatory process would have been done by the two - ahem - "legal consultants" prior to O'Mara accepting the case.

When he found about about the money, he shut down the site had the money transferred to a trust, and notified the court.  Don't see a problem.



>>>>


----------



## paperview (Apr 30, 2012)

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


How do you _oversight_ to the tune of $200,000.00 when a motion is pending to declare you indigent?

Things that make you go hmmmmmm.

From the bond hearing:



> O'MARA:  Another condition or another concern the court would have is a   bond amount.  I would ask you then realizing that one option is for  the  court to grant a monetary bond, if you could advise the court of  your  financial circumstances so I'll ask you a couple of questions.
> 
> Are you working presently?
> 
> ...



CNN.com - Transcripts


----------



## Ravi (Apr 30, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


Fair enough. He did say Zimmerman knew about the money but that doesn't mean O'Mara did.


----------



## paperview (Apr 30, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


April 11th was when O'Mara became Zimmerman's attorney of record.

April 20th was the date of the bond hearing.

That's not "a day or two."


----------



## Ravi (Apr 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



There's always the chance that Zimmerman didn't tell his wife about the money....more things that make you go hmmmmmmm.............


----------



## paperview (Apr 30, 2012)

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


About as much chance as me being the Queen of Neptune.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


There's always the possibility that he planned on dumping her and fleeing to Costa Rica or somewhere.....good thing they put that ankle bracelet on him.


----------



## paperview (Apr 30, 2012)

From the crime scene.

It is believed Travon's body is to the right under the yellow tarp.


----------



## paperview (Apr 30, 2012)

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


The very first thing the Atty did in court during the Bond hearing was surrender Zimmerman's passport.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 30, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> And there is a different witness that says that the person on top at the time of the shooting rose and stepped way from the body on the ground.  We know that was Zimmerman.
> 
> Secondly, it has not been determined that it was Zimmerman yelling for help.  Some witnesses say Zimmerman, some say the boy, the Zimmerman family claims it was him, the Martin family claims it was him.  Independent audio analysis excluded Zimmerman (but would not be conclusive), we have not heard any results from police or FBI audio forensic analysis yet.



First - That different witness has no credibility. Listen to her 911 call & her statements to the press. She will be laughed out of the court room. The fact that you or anyone would even use her statement as proof of anything reeks of desperation.

Voice print absolutely does not work on one word. Must also have the same control word screamed by same person to compare. The fact that the shitty comparison gives Zimmerman a 48% match is actually a decent match.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 30, 2012)

This is Florida. For $150 you can get a fake passport. LOL, you just don't read enough crime novels.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> From the crime scene.
> 
> It is believed Travon's body is to the right under the yellow tarp.


If so, _not_ on the sidewalk. I would imagine it would be pretty difficult to wiggle your way that far from the sidewalk while being beaten senseless with someone sitting on top of you.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> From the crime scene.
> 
> It is believed Travon's body is to the right under the yellow tarp.




Interesting...


If that is the body, then it places it much closer to the "T" intersection of the walkways then some have thought.

1.  Using Google Earth/Maps you can look for the placement of two trees in the photo.

2.  Secondly you can look to the slope of the ground in the background to orient the sidewalk to the Video by the 13 year old at time stamp 1:03 to the slop seen in that picture. (, "T" intersection is in the back ground.)

3.  On the down-slope side of the sidewalk, there are no places farther then the "T" intersection where there are two trees in that arrangement.​


>>>>


----------



## paperview (Apr 30, 2012)

A little better orientation for where it was WW, from the   news coverage the following day after the incident:




You can see the cops there at the first arrow, and the yellow tarp of what appears to be the body  at the 2nd one.

From this clip:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w47eL_jTieI"]Witness Says Trayvon Wan On Top of Zimmerman Beating Him - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 30, 2012)

>


Looks like it's definitely closer to the "T" intersection of the walkway then the address the police have in their report.


>>>>


----------



## KissMy (Apr 30, 2012)

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > From the crime scene.
> ...



Zimmerman said in police statement that Trayvon Martin &#8220;fell back&#8221; saying &#8220;you got me&#8221;. He also landed face down. He is only one body length away from the sidewalk even after being rolled over for CPR & everything else.

Martin's body is also located next to the eye witness "John's" house which makes John's eye witness statements the most credible.


----------



## Bigfoot (Apr 30, 2012)

KissMy said:


> (snipped)
> 
> Trayvon Martin fell back saying you got me.



LOL< thanks for that this morning


----------



## Againsheila (Apr 30, 2012)

Ravi said:


> This is Florida. For $150 you can get a fake passport. LOL, you just don't read enough crime novels.



You know, I wouldn't take those novels at their word, Ravi, there's a reason they are called "fiction".


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



He was on the stand for how long again? Did the prosecutor ask about eh website? Are you trying to argue that the state prosecutor in charge of this case is so incompetent she did not know about a website that was covered on the national news a week before they arrested Zimmerman? 

You can't win this one Ravi, either the prosecution knew about the website, and didn't mention it because they thought it was irrelevant, or they are so stupid they didn't know about it, in which case they are going to lose the case from missing something else that everybody in the world knows.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Next question, does anyone have any evidence that a) this is actually relevant to the bail hearing and/or b) that it wasn't mentioned in the reams of documents that were filed in this case?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Ankle bracelets only stop honest people, or idiots. The others simply cut it off and disappear.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

Ravi said:


> This is Florida. For $150 you can get a fake passport. LOL, you just don't read enough crime novels.



If you think a $150 fake passport will get you through customs anywhere in the world you are dumber than the idiot who actually buys one to go clubbing.


----------



## paperview (Apr 30, 2012)

The State did inquire about the website.  Here is the small portion where De Le Rionda asked the wife about it and if she knew how much money was there.  

She relays Zimmerman's brother set it and he would know.  They ask is he was there.  She says no. "but we could probably get him on the phone." 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iaq2QsLzVXM&feature=player_embedded#They also asked the father about it. 



> Beginning at the [46:20] mark:
> 
> *DE LA RIONDA:* Are you aware that a website has been created for your son?
> 
> ...


----------



## paperview (Apr 30, 2012)

Comments made in the media by Uhrig about the account & Website:

*MSNBC Manuscript, April 10, 2012*
UHRIG: Mr. Sonner was accompanied to the bank by Mr. Zimmerman`s
father, for the purpose of setting up a Web site by which people might make
donations. *We went to great lengths to make sure the Web site was set up in way to which the PayPal account paid directly to an account *on which for his father has the control on the signature rights.

*Anderson Cooper Transcript, April 10, 2012*
COOPER: So, Mr. Uhrig, were you ever officially his attorneys? Had he  signed a document saying you were his attorneys? Had you met with family  members? His family members?

UHRIG: *We had been in communication with family members. In fact, the  father went to the bank with Mr. Sonner to set up the bank account which  the Web site we put up for his benefit was going to take so that we  didn't touch the money. *The money would go to a bank account with only  his father's name on it. His father was communicative with us. He was  communicative with us.


----------



## KissMy (Apr 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ankle bracelets only stop honest people, or idiots. The others simply cut it off and disappear.



[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-s2cWaO1KtE"]How to beat the house arrest bracelet[/ame]


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> The State did inquire about the website.  Here is the small portion where De Le Rionda asked the wife about it and if she knew how much money was there.
> 
> She relays Zimmerman's brother set it and he would know.  They ask is he was there.  She says no. "but we could probably get him on the phone."
> 
> ...



Then there is nothing for anyone to whine about.

The state knew about the website, asked, and was told who to call if they needed specifics. Why do I think that this isn't going to make any difference to anyone?


----------



## Ravi (Apr 30, 2012)

KissMy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


How do you fall backwards and land face down all at the same time?


----------



## Ravi (Apr 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> Comments made in the media by Uhrig about the account & Website:
> 
> *MSNBC Manuscript, April 10, 2012*
> UHRIG: Mr. Sonner was accompanied to the bank by Mr. Zimmerman`s
> ...



Does this mean that the father is the one that withheld the information? Did anyone ask Zimmerman how much money was in the account?


----------



## paperview (Apr 30, 2012)

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Comments made in the media by Uhrig about the account & Website:
> ...


It obvious people are lying.

The State could not question Zimmerman on the account.  That would not be allowed in the cross examination portion when he was on the stand.

The person who responsible for not disclosing the monetary information was most certainly George Zimmerman, and the Florida statue makes it clear: 

"(1)(a)&#8195;All information provided by a defendant, in connection with any    application for or attempt to secure bail, to any court, court    personnel, or individual soliciting or recording such information for    the purpose of evaluating eligibility for, or securing, bail for the    defendant, under circumstances such *that the   defendant  knew or should have known that the information was to be used   in  connection with an application for bail, shall be accurate,   truthful,  and complete without omissions to the best knowledge of the   defendant.*(b)&#8195;The failure to comply with the provisions of paragraph (a) may result in the revocation or modification of bail.

(2)&#8195;An  application for modification of bail on any felony charge must be heard  by a court in person, at a hearing with the defendant present, and with  at least 3 hours&#8217; notice to the state attorney.
(3)&#8195;*Any  person* *who intentionally provides false or misleading material  information or intentionally omits material information in connection  with an application for bail or for modification of bail is guilty of a  misdemeanor or felony* which is one degree less than that of the crime  charged for which bail is sought, but which in no event is greater than a  felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.




903.035  - Applications for bail information provided hearing on application for  modification penalty for providing false or misleading information or  omitting material information. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida  Senate


----------



## Ravi (Apr 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


That is pretty clear. Like I said before, it sounds as if Zimmerman lied by omission.


----------



## Liability (Apr 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Do you folks imagine you have access to the application for the bail bond?

Can you tell us what was included or allegedly "omitted?"  

Do you know what part or parts (if any) were filled in by George Zimmerman?

Is there a chance that some of you are confusing testimony at a bail bond hearing with the application for a bail bond?


----------



## Ravi (Apr 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> Comments made in the media by Uhrig about the account & Website:
> 
> *MSNBC Manuscript, April 10, 2012*
> UHRIG: Mr. Sonner was accompanied to the bank by Mr. Zimmerman`s
> ...



This is odd. According to Zimmerman's new website (run by his lawyer):



> As I was ending any Internet presence George had, we removed any Facebook accounts, Twitter accounts and websites. As we shut down the web site entitled therealgeorgezimmerman.com my client asked what we should do about the outstanding fee monies in the PayPal account or that had been taken out of the PayPal account since its inception. George immediately gathered the funds that were in either his or his wifes account, or the PayPal account, and has forwarded those funds to me presently. We are still awaiting a check from the PayPal company which takes several days.



Home

If his father had control of it, how did Zimmerman "gather up the funds"?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 30, 2012)

Ravi said:


> 903.035  - Applications for bail information provided hearing on application for  modification penalty for providing false or misleading information or  omitting material information. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida  Senate


That is pretty clear. Like I said before, it sounds as if Zimmerman lied by omission.[/QUOTE]


No necessarily, that will be for Judge Lester to evaluate.  At the media access hearing he said he wanted more information to include who created the account, who had access, who had access to the PayPal accounts, when were deposits made, and when were withdrawals made.

Factual information is needed to make a determination.  The internet is a strange beast, sites can exist for days, weeks, months and have a very low response rate, then suddenly go viral.  

**IF** Zimmmerman had access to the PayPal acount and at the time that Zimmerman completed and signed the documents which detailed for the courts his financial resources for the bond applicatoin, there was only a few hundred dollars in the account, "meh" probably no big deal.

**IF** deposits went viral AFTER the application for bond paperwork was complete, again probably no big deal.  The paperwork would have been completed in good faith.

**IF** the account had accumulated a large amount of money (large being open to interpretation from 10's of thousands to over 100 thousand), then the Judge will make a decision and examine the evidence.  Go "meh" no big deal, we are already working a murder charge case and leave everything as is.  Go "meh" on the omission, but modify the conditions of bond.  Go "this is serious" and revoke bond and then decide to or not to issue charges for a felony omission.​


>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Why couldn't the state question him, he was on the stand. Hearings do not require that the other side say something first before they can be asked about it.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 30, 2012)

Liability said:


> Do you folks imagine you have access to the application for the bail bond?
> 
> Can you tell us what was included or allegedly "omitted?"
> 
> ...




Liability,

I have no problem indicating that I'm ignorant on a subject because ignorance is temporary (while stupidity is permanent and I've never considered my self stupid)...


Would it correct to assume that a bond hearing is not automatic?  That if someone doesn't want bond they don't have to apply for it.

Secondly, what is the process like?  Is it a motion written up by the attorney?  Does the accused have to sign it?  Or on the other hand to courts have forms that are used and the accused fills in the blanks?  In either case, can is it signed by the Attorney?  The Accused?  Both?


How does that work from arrest through conclusion of the bond hearing?



>>>>


----------



## Ravi (Apr 30, 2012)

I don't think he's a criminal lawyer so perhaps he doesn't know.

The way I understand it, everyone is entitled to pre-trial release. In the case of non-violent crimes, on their own word. 2nd degree felony charges and above, they are usually required to post bond to prove they aren't a flight risk, among meeting other requirements.

I'm pretty sure you could elect to stay in jail until your trial.


----------



## paperview (Apr 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Er, They must be within the scope of direct examination.

That is why when the State asked Zimmerman a question about his inconsistencies on the stand his atty objected with "Outside the scope of direct examination.  I  object your honor!"

The objection was sustained.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

Ravi said:


> I don't think he's a criminal lawyer so perhaps he doesn't know.
> 
> The way I understand it, everyone is entitled to pre-trial release. In the case of non-violent crimes, on their own word. 2nd degree felony charges and above, they are usually required to post bond to prove they aren't a flight risk, among meeting other requirements.
> 
> I'm pretty sure you could elect to stay in jail until your trial.



What state do you live in?

Despite the theoretical right to bail that exists everywhere, most people sit in jail for months awaiting trial on non violent offenses. This increases the number of plea bargains because, for some unknown reason, people are actually willing to plead guilty to crimes they did not commit just to get out of jail.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > The State did inquire about the website.  Here is the small portion where De Le Rionda asked the wife about it and if she knew how much money was there.
> ...



Because facts and reason have never slowed down a lynch mob?

Just a guess....


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think he's a criminal lawyer so perhaps he doesn't know.
> ...



Yeah, I know several people that went through that. The DA makes a laundry list of every conceivable charge and does it solely to pressure the acused into confessing to a crime.

Once you confess to a felony, you have a lot of problems getting hired in the future, except for the most menial or illegal work..


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Only in a trial, not a hearing. The purpose of the hearing was to determine bail eligibility, questions about finance are permissible, just like questions about intent to run for the hills are, even if they are carefully avoided on direct examination.

If you want an explanation for the question you asked provide context. I know that, if I were a judge, and someone asked about money during a bail hearing, I would permit the question. On the other hand, if someone asked about why the police think that the evidence does not match his statements, and the defense did not bring it up on direct, I wouldn't permit it.

For the record, I think the defense would be really stupid to ask Zimmerman about inconsistencies in the evidence.


----------



## paperview (Apr 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


The only reason the State was allowed to ask Zimmerman ANY questions was becasue the Defense let him go on the stand.

Then, it opened up the opportunity for the State to cross exam, but they are *only allowed to address what was brought up on the stand*.  That's why the State went to the part about how sorry Z might have really felt, and something cryptic about some text message Z wrote about TM's father after the incident -- which we will likely hear more about as discovery docs start pumping out and/or the trial starts.


----------



## Ravi (Apr 30, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think he's a criminal lawyer so perhaps he doesn't know.
> ...


Floriduh. And yeah, those that sit in jail do so because they don't have the money to hire an attorney, unlike Zimmerman.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



At approximate 1:57 you can hear O'Mara objecting to a question that was out of scope to the direct.

George Zimmerman bond hearing :: WRAL.com


>>>>


----------



## Liability (Apr 30, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Do you folks imagine you have access to the application for the bail bond?
> ...



I honestly don't know how it works in other states -- including Florida.

But I do know that there's a difference between lying in a bond application (i.e., the paperwork requesting that a bail bond company give you a bond for bail) and lying in a bond hearing.

I am curious how anybody thinks that just because he testified at his own bond hearing he could be responsible for any lie or lies which MAY (theoretically) have been told by any other witness at the hearing or in the bond application.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Apr 30, 2012)

Liability said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Because it fits their story line, which is the only thing that matters; Big Lie first, Big Lie last and Big Lie to the bitter embarrasing end.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 30, 2012)

Liability said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Personally, I don't think he would (or should) be held responsible for the testimony of others, that's why Judge Lester was unwilling to make a snap decision during the Media Motion Hearing when O'Mara informed the court about the amount that had been collected in the PayPal accounts.

The judge wanted more information and specifics on who setup the site, who had access to the PayPal accounts, and what monies had been collected when.  I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) that part of the paperwork to apply for bond would be a summary of financial resources so that IF the judge decided to grant bond, he would have that information as a factor to determine the bond amount.  If Zimmerman was the owner of the PayPal account and deposits had gone "viral" after he was arrested, I don't think that would be a big deal.  Zimmerman was already in jail and probably didn't have access.  However, if he'd collected $100-$150K before he was arrested, then the judge might have some questions.

I looked up the law, since he's currently charged with a felony, then purposeful omission of known financial resources could also be charged as a felony.

>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Let's try this again.

The state can ask about finances during a bail hearing. It would be ridiculous to argue that they can't, and I refuse to believe any judge would sustain an objection about that. Feel free to prove me wrong by putting the quote into context. I still think the inconsistencies the question that was asked were referring to were the ones the police claim exist between Zimmerman's statement and what they supposedly found at the scene of the shooting.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Apr 30, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Everyone gets an attorney, not everyone gets bail. One is a right, the other you have to pay for. If it really worked the way you claimed no one would be in jail until after they are found guilty.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 1, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



That was the defense asking the cop a question.


----------



## paperview (May 1, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


the defense asking the cop a question??  What the hell??

NO.  That was THE STATE asking Zimmerman a question that goes beyond the scope...exactly as I said.  The second the prosecution goes outside the scope, the defense objects: "Outside the scope of direct examination.  I  object your honor!"

The objection is sustained.


----------



## paperview (May 1, 2012)

Just generally speaking, I found this to be an interesting analysis:

The Statutory Basis of the Murder Charge Against George Zimmerman and His Available Defenses Under Florida Law | The View From LL2


----------



## paperview (May 1, 2012)

OK, now this is a curiosity.

Apparently someone found an old MySpace page of George Zimmerman.  The pictures there looks like it, still, skeptical.

Joe G. on Myspace

www.myspace.com/onlytobekingagain/blog/45086227

Only to be king again. Hmm.  

I looked further, and read this post about the similarities:

"
In his About Me talks about Manassas, he graduated from Osbourn HS  at the same time as GZ, born same year/month, same height, same  background (catholic and latino in his bio on the page) and his  Insurance company  is Zimmerman, Tamayo & Associates (GZ's  grandmothers name).  He went to FL at the same time as GZ, then got the  same charges at the same time as GZ, then got those charges reduced the  same as GZ, and then yes there is the pictures.  So he either has a evil  identical twin we don't know about, or it is him.  The items on that  page all fit GZ."

This is his AboutMe section:



> * About me:
> 
> Moved out of Manassas VA (d.c. suburb) about 4 years ago, alot  of people say they hate it but i cant ever say i hate home.
> 
> ...


This comment right after the time he came out of his court ordered anger management:



> Aug 30, 2005         *Good news???? Bout Damn time!!!!!!!*
> 
> Aug 30, 2005 -- 2 felonies dropped to 1 misdemeanor!!!!!!!!!!! The man knows he  was wrong but still got this hump, Thanks to everyone friends and fam, G  baby you know your my rock!


The pic on there with his g/f (?)






No big whoop if it is, just, as I said, an interesting curiosity.


----------



## paperview (May 1, 2012)

Within 2 days the above site will be disappeared from the net.

Bank on it.


----------



## Ravi (May 1, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



There's a huge difference between hiring an attorney and using a court appointed one that doesn't have the time and many times the motivation to advise his or her client properly.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 1, 2012)

paperview said:


> I dont miss driving around scared to hit mexicans walkin on the side of the street, soft ass wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) dont make you a man in my book. Workin 96 hours to get a decent pay check, gettin knifes pulled on you by every mexican you run into!



Why did you highlight the above text in red?


----------



## Ravi (May 1, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > I dont miss driving around scared to hit mexicans walkin on the side of the street, soft ass wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) dont make you a man in my book. Workin 96 hours to get a decent pay check, gettin knifes pulled on you by every mexican you run into!
> ...


Shows that he makes generalizations based on his stereotypical thinking.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 1, 2012)

Ravi said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



OMG, so that proves he wanted to shoot a black kid!

Godammed racist!

ROFLMAO


----------



## Ravi (May 1, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


No, it "proves" that he makes generalizations based on his stereotypical thinking.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 1, 2012)

Ravi said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



So what?

EVERYONE makes generalizations based on stereotypical thinking.

Only liars or idiots say that they dont.


----------



## Ravi (May 1, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Not everyone acts on it. Most don't kill people over it.

Didn't you admit in another thread that you don't like black people because you think they smell funny?

I wouldn't want you on neighborhood watch.


----------



## paperview (May 1, 2012)

Ravi said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


I thought this was also interesting:

"*They do a year and dont ever open thier mouth to get my  ass pinched."

*...his boys kept their mouth shut so he did not get pinched.  Hmm.
Some of his friends there have done some time.

Another curiosity: The name he picked "Only to be King Again" - comes from rapper group Fugees. Sort of hinky, in hindsight._Now that I escape, sleepwalker awake _
_ Those who could relate know the world ain't cake _
_ Jail bars ain't golden gates _
_ Those who fake, they break, _
_ When they meet their 400 pound mate _
_ If I could rule the world _
_ Everyone would have a gun in the ghetto of course _
_ When giddyupin' on their horse _
_ I Kick a rhyme drinkin' moonshine _
_ I pour a sip on the concrete, for the deceased _
_ But no don't weep, Wyclef's in a state of sleep _
_ Thinkin' 'bout the robbery that I did last week. _
_ Money in the bag, banker looked like a drag _
_ I want to play with pelicans from here to Baghdad _
_ Gun blast, think fast, I think I'm hit _
_ My girl pinched my hips to see if I still exist. _
_ *I think not, I'll send a letter to my friends, *_
_* A born again hooligan only to be king again.
*_​Annnd, curiously enough, The Fugees musician has just done a song about Trayvon.

Wyclef Jean drops free &#8216;Justice&#8217; track dedicated to Trayvon Martin | The Raw Story


----------



## Ravi (May 1, 2012)

Did you see this blog post at that myspace page?

Out come of the first case...........


> Im still free! The exhoe tried her hardest, but the judge saw through it! Big Mike, reppin the Dverse security makin me look look a million bucks, broke her down! Thans to everyone for checkin up on me! *Stay tuned for the A.T.F. charges.....*



Out come of first case...... by Joe G. on Myspace

I wonder what the ATF charges were.


----------



## paperview (May 1, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Did you see this blog post at that myspace page?
> 
> Out come of the first case...........
> 
> ...


ATF = Alcohol Tobacco Firearms. 

That was his bust for hitting a cop = Felony with Violence, in 2005, and where we all first saw his big doof-ball mug shot - from that arrest.  He interfered with a cop who was arresting underage drinkers at a bar.


----------



## paperview (May 1, 2012)

Funny he should chose this pic as well. Meaningless, but  it goes along with the thread title. Using _bloody_ in the English vernacular.  lol





Beer on my head, but dont call me a beer head!

http://www.myspace.com/onlytobekingagain/photos/505979


----------



## Ravi (May 1, 2012)

paperview said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Did you see this blog post at that myspace page?
> ...


right, I had forgotten it was ATF he assaulted.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 1, 2012)

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




Just a technical clarification "ATF" is normally associated with the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.  Zimmerman did not assault a federal agent, the incident involved a State law enforcement officer from the Florida Bureau of Business Professional Regulation in their Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco.

AB&T - About the Bureau of Law Enforcement


>>>>


----------



## paperview (May 1, 2012)

paperview said:


> OK, now this is a curiosity.
> 
> Apparently someone found an old MySpace page of George Zimmerman.  The pictures there looks like it, still, skeptical.
> 
> ...


LOL.

 I emailed the link and some of the above post to Global Grind's editor early this morning.

Looks like they picked it up.

George Zimmerman MySpace Page Revealed (DETAILS) | Global Grind


----------



## frazzledgear (May 1, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Shit-for-brains racist lynch mob thinks there should be scratches on his face all this time later.   No one even said his face was scratched, in the first place.
> ...



And that is the problem I have with this entire thing.  The real race mongers actually don't give a shit what really happened here, they NEED this guy to be the WORST of the worst, they NEED to believe he killed Martin in cold blood and they NEED to believe he did so for no reason but the color of Martin's skin.  Just like they NEED to believe Trayvon Martin looked just like the picture the media has and still uses of him at the age of 12 in order to manipulate and help whip up mindless rage and anger that increasingly will be satisfied with nothing but Zimmerman's own murder.  Because the picture of Trayvon Martin at 17 is clearly NOT one of a child and he he doesn't look so sweet and innocent as he flashes a gang sign in his most recent photo.  So who cares if it manipulates people to use one that is 5 years out of date and one of a small child when he wasn't when this happened.

Don't get me wrong-this event was initiated by Zimmerman following him.  But it was two people suspicious of the motive of the other.  When the operator tells Zimmerman they don't need him to follow Martin-you can hear him say "OK" on the tape.  He claims he headed back to his car at that point and had already lost sight of Martin.  There are witnesses who saw Zimmerman on his back on the ground, he has head wounds on the back of his head and grass stains on the back of his shirt.  A knocked out person is helpless-so if someone is getting their head smashed repeatedly into cement, at what point are they allowed to defend themselves EVEN IF THIS ENTIRE SITUATION WOULD NEVER HAVE HAPPENED IF ZIMMERMAN HAD NOT FOLLOWED HIM?

That's the question-even though most can agree Zimmerman should have just called police and let them handle the situation and should not have followed him and should not have gotten out of his car-once the confrontation took place and Zimmerman is on his back getting his smashed into the cement-is he EVER allowed to defend himself?  Or is he legally obligated even once he is being held down and unable to escape-to risk being beaten into unconsciousness and hope the beating doesn't continue until he is permanently brain damaged or dead?

If he isn't required to risk his death or permanent brain damage even though he made an error in judgment by following him, then he cannot save himself from that if the repeated head smashing knocks him out.  It doesn't take massive wounds to be knocked out.  One hit can and has knocked people out without even breaking the skin! Like it or not Zimmerman really did have head wounds, he really did have grass stains on the back of his shirt and Martin did not have grass stains on the back of his shirt, indicating who really was on their back during the confrontation. 

No matter how the media deliberately tried to portray him and race baiters NEED to believe Zimmerman is a raging, hatefilled monster of a racist -I don't believe that at all.  AT ALL.  This didn't happen BECAUSE Zimmerman HATES blacks but because Martin appeared to Zimmerman to be wandering around with no clear destination.  Another fact the media failed to report is that 1 in 5 residents of this gated community is black and also victims of some of the recent burglaries.  As one of the black victims who spoke up defending Zimmerman said, they all knew the people committing these burglaries were a small group of black teens who had been seen fleeing the scene several times with the stolen property in their arms. So yeah, it makes a bit more more sense why Zimmerman noticed him walking around the rain.

But a hardcore racist just ITCHING to put a bullet into a black person?  No.  Turns out the reason he was carrying a gun had nothing to do with human beings whatsoever, confirmed by others. Turns out this "racist" was raised with black children who are considered family by Zimmerman and who consider Zimmerman as their family as well. Turns out this "racist" went into business with a black partner, a man who claims to be one of Zimmerman's best friends to this day and in fear for his own life for speaking out in his defense-as is one of Zimmerman's black neighbors who also spoke out in his defense.  But it doesn't play well to portray Zimmerman in any light but the very worst, does it?  Can't allow people to view him as anything abut a raging, hatefilled monster.  Never as a compassionate, caring human being other black people actually like and care about and a flawed person, just as everyone else is and one who made an error in judgment that had tragic consequences.

So again, the real question is once Zimmerman was on the ground unable to get up and getting his head repeatedly smashed into cement hard enough to break the skin and knowing it actually doesn't take having the skin broken to knock someone out this way- was Zimmerman legally obligated to allow Martin to beat him unconscious and HOPE the beating would stop at that point and not continue, HOPE it didn't leave him with brain damage and supposed to just  trust an angry Martin would not continue beating him even after he was unconscious?  If he is legally allowed to defend himself against that possibility EVEN THOUGH he committed an error in judgment by following him, he would have to do it BEFORE he was rendered incapable of doing so, BEFORE he was too dazed to help himsel -and that means it really isn't quite the cut-and-dried situation the race baiters and hate mongers would have us believe.


----------



## Liability (May 1, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



That ^ is not an answer.

First off, we don't know that anybody lied in any application.

Secondly, we don't know that anybody lied at the hearing.

Thirdly, _he_ cannot be responsible for some lie allegedly told by someone else if he either didn't know about it or doesn't get an adequate opportunity to answer a question about it.

One can be responsible for a sin of omission with regard to one's OWN answers.  But that doesn't make you responsible for something said or left unsaid by any other witnesses unless you are directly ASKED about the substance of their statements.


----------



## paperview (May 1, 2012)

While someone is in the process of declaring you indigent, and parents and wife are talking about practically rummaging through the sofa cushions to find money to raise the bond -- you don't mention 200K, that is a sin of omission.

His lawyer verified Zimmerman knew about that money at the time of the Bond hearing.


----------



## Liability (May 1, 2012)

paperview said:


> While someone is in the process of declaring you indigent, and parents and wife are talking about practically rummaging through the sofa cushions to find money to raise the bond -- you don't mention 200K, that is a sin of omission.
> 
> His lawyer verified Zimmerman knew about that money at the time of the Bond hearing.



The bond hearing is not the application.

Knowing that someone set up a site begging for money does not mean you know that it has succeeded in "raising" even one thin dime.

Raising money to pay for legal fees is also not the same thing as assuming you have any claim to any such money for other purposes, such as posting some bail.


----------



## Ravi (May 1, 2012)

Liability said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > While someone is in the process of declaring you indigent, and parents and wife are talking about practically rummaging through the sofa cushions to find money to raise the bond -- you don't mention 200K, that is a sin of omission.
> ...


He asked for money for legal fees AND living expenses. That makes any money an asset. An asset he didn't report.


----------



## paperview (May 1, 2012)

*MSNBC Manuscript, April 10, 2012*
 UHRIG: Mr. Sonner was accompanied to the bank by Mr. Zimmerman`s
 father, for the purpose of setting up a Web site by which people might make
 donations. *We went to great lengths to make sure the Web site was set up in way to which the PayPal account paid directly to an account *on which for his father has the control on the signature rights.

*Anderson Cooper Transcript, April 10, 2012*
 COOPER: So, Mr. Uhrig, were you ever officially his attorneys? Had he   signed a document saying you were his attorneys? Had you met with family   members? His family members?

 UHRIG: *We had been in communication with family  members. In fact, the  father went to the bank with Mr. Sonner to set up  the bank account which  the Web site we put up for his benefit was  going to take so that we  didn't touch the money. *The money  would go to a bank account with only  his father's name on it. His  father was communicative with us. He was  communicative with us.
===========================

1. He'd already spent some 50K of that money on 'living expenses.'
 2. O'Mara stated Zimm knew 150K was there at the hearing.

 &#8220;*He absolutely knew there was money in that account. I am not      suggesting  he didn&#8217;t know it was there,&#8221; O&#8217;Mara told reporters after a      court  hearing Friday where the issue was disclosed to the court.   &#8220;The    question  is whether he felt that needed to be disclosed.&#8230; It   was an    oversight.&#8221;*

Judge: Zimmerman to remain free on bail - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com
============================

"(1)(a)&#8195;All information provided by a defendant, in connection with any    application for or attempt to secure bail, to any court, court    personnel, or individual soliciting or recording such information for    the purpose of evaluating eligibility for, or securing, bail for the    defendant, under circumstances such *that the   defendant  knew or should have known that the information was to be used   in  connection with an application for bail, shall be accurate,   truthful,  and complete without omissions to the best knowledge of the   defendant.*(b)&#8195;The failure to comply with the provisions of paragraph (a) may result in the revocation or modification of bail."

903.035  - Applications for bail information provided hearing on application for  modification penalty for providing false or misleading information or  omitting material information. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida  Senate


----------



## Ravi (May 1, 2012)

Wonder what he spent $50,000 dollars on in such a short time.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 1, 2012)

Liability said:


> Raising money to pay for legal fees is also not the same thing as assuming you have any claim to any such money for other purposes, such as posting some bail.




O'Mara said in court that Zimmerman had already used part of the $204,000 collected and that about $150,000 was remaining.  He indicated that Zimmerman used part of the difference for living expenses and $5,000 as part of the money for the bond.


>>>>


----------



## saveliberty (May 1, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Wonder what he spent $50,000 dollars on in such a short time.



Bodyguards and a down payment on a house in Mexico.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 1, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Wonder what he spent $50,000 dollars on in such a short time.
> ...



I think that Zimmerman has to good of a case to flee. And Mexico sure wouldn't be the place if he did.


----------



## saveliberty (May 1, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



I don't know.  Doubtful The Dog would try to get him.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 1, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Excuse me, genius, I am specifically referring to the video that World Watcher posted, not the imaginary one in your head. The man on the stand is old, fat, has a gray beard, and has a badge clipped to his suit pocket. If you think that is Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman's attorney now works for the state, you are in worst shape than I thought.

By the way, the defense in that video clearly had medical records that indicate Zimmerman had a broken nose.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 1, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Never said there wasn't. The initial post that started this conversation was your statement that you thought most people get out of jail on OR. Not sure why you keep trying to make it about attorneys, is it because you realized you were wrong and want to change the subject?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 1, 2012)

Ravi said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I thought it was OK for Mexicans to say that crap about Mexicans. Did that change when Zimmerman shot a black kid? Do you have a guidebook for all this, or just make it up as you go along?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 1, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Wonder what he spent $50,000 dollars on in such a short time.



It wasn't used until after the bail hearing, unless you want to argue his attorney is lying about it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 1, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Raising money to pay for legal fees is also not the same thing as assuming you have any claim to any such money for other purposes, such as posting some bail.
> ...



How did Zimmerman access his PayPal account from inside jail? Just because some of the money was used for bail does not mean Zimmerman himself used it.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 1, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



1 Hour and 57 Minutes into the linked video it's Zimmerman on the stand.



Quantum Windbag said:


> By the way, the defense in that video clearly had medical records that indicate Zimmerman had a broken nose.




No they didn't, if you watch the video the State says they don't have the medical records and the Defense offers to provide them to the prosecution.


>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 1, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



And the question was asking about something in a text message, not his finances.



WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > By the way, the defense in that video clearly had medical records that indicate Zimmerman had a broken nose.
> ...



How does you pointing out that the defense is offering to provide medical records to the prosecution contradict my statement that the defense said they have the medical records?


----------



## paperview (May 1, 2012)

Just when you thought Quantum Windbag couldn't get any stupider...


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 1, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Didn't say he did.  

I said, O'Mara said (which he did in court) was that some of the money taken out of the account was used for the bail.  

That does not say Zimmerman took it out - another relative (such as the Brother or Brother-In-Law) who helped him setup the site may have taken it out after Zimmerman was arrested.  It's not that uncommon for multiple people to be joint owners of an account.  On the other hand, Zimmerman could have taken the $50,000 well before he was arrested so that he just had to instruct someone where to get the cash once the bond hearing results were known.


>>>>


----------



## paperview (May 1, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...





			
				Worldwatcher said:
			
		

> At approximate 1:57 you can hear O'Mara objecting to a question that was out of scope to the direct.
> 
> George Zimmerman bond hearing :: WRAL.com



Er, who is on the stand there at approximate 1:57..."genius?"  It's Zimmernman.  "Genius."

I'll remind readers just how this portion of the debate with Windbag started:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...ge-zimmermans-bloody-head-84.html#post5204608

It had to do with the bond hearing and questions they could ask Z on the stand.  Not the medical records. 

I've dealt with some idiots on message boards, but the Windbag takes the cake.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 1, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Didn't say it was.  The response was to the premise that the prosecution had unlimited authority to question anything it wanted in cross.  Not true, the prosecution started to go outside the area of direct, the defense objected on the basis of exceeding scope and Judge Lester sustained the objection. 



Quantum Windbag said:


> How does you pointing out that the defense is offering to provide medical records to the prosecution contradict my statement that the defense said they have the medical records?




My bad, totally misread what was said.


>>>>


----------



## Ravi (May 1, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Not with his record of not liking Mexicans.


----------



## Ravi (May 1, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Zimmerman is a Mexican? Now who's making things up.


----------



## Ravi (May 1, 2012)

paperview said:


> Just when you thought Quantum Windbag couldn't get any stupider...


Please, he can always get stupider. He proves it every day.


----------



## Liability (May 1, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> * * * *
> 
> 
> My bad, totally misread what was said.
> ...



Sucks when that happens.  But it happens to everyone, I expect.

The good news is:  you just stepped right up and admitted it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 1, 2012)

paperview said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



And the objection had nothing to do with finances, did it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 1, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I owe you rep for admitting you made a mistake.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 1, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



He is Hispanic. Since Mexican is not a race, and Hispanic is, for whatever reason, he is talking about people of the same race he is.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 1, 2012)

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Just when you thought Quantum Windbag couldn't get any stupider...
> ...



Lol, like you two have any room to call someone stupid, lololol.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 1, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Dear God I wish more posters were like you.

You do have some class, Worldatcher, unlike me. 

I am trailer trash, but I try to rise above it occasionally, lol.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 1, 2012)

paperview said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Wow! What a racist scumbag!

We should get a rope and just hang him now. Why wait?

/sarcasm


The things that libtards facinate themselves with is in itself fascinating in a sick kind of way.

Any honest person following this story should know that GZ is not a racist vigilante who chased down and shot and killed TM, which was the original story from the MSM and is revealed to be a total lie.

All the fraudulent liars trying to persist in slandering the man are douche bags.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 1, 2012)

paperview said:


> Funny he should chose this pic as well. Meaningless, but  it goes along with the thread title. Using _bloody_ in the English vernacular.  lol
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Man that guys needs to HANG from a high Oak tree! Cant wait to see justice doen for putting a godamned beer on his head! What a racist!

/sarcasm


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 1, 2012)

Liability said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Lol, I wasnt talking about the court shenannigans so much as the MSM shenanigans.

But I can see how I gave a misimpression.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 1, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Wonder what he spent $50,000 dollars on in such a short time.



Guns to shoot more black children wearing hoodies, obviously.

/s


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 1, 2012)

<







Ya'll keep this up and someone is going to suggest we all hold hands and sing Kumbaya.


....................... Not really my thing.



>>>>


----------



## Ravi (May 1, 2012)

Liability said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...


heh, I thought this would lead in to you admitting you were wrong. But guess what? I was wrong.


----------



## Ravi (May 1, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Hispanic isn't a race, dope fiend.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 1, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Didn't I just point that out? That does not change the fact that it is a race according to the US government considers Hispanic to be either a racial or ethnic category depending on what year it is.

Regardless, if this was Zimmerman's page, and he actually said this, he was still talking about people the same race he is.


----------



## Ravi (May 1, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



No, actually you said it is. And no, the US government doesn't consider it to be a race.

But whatever, you obviously see an Hispanic and see "Mexican."

So funny.


----------



## Againsheila (May 1, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> The Gadfly said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



You don't want him killed without justice, you just want him killed?

Death is not an option for second degree murder which are the current charges.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 1, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Here is what I said, with added emphasis on me pointing out my skepticism about the classification, which you obviously missed.



Quantum Windbag said:


> He is Hispanic. Since Mexican is not a  race, and Hispanic is, *for whatever reason*, he is talking about people  of the same race he is.



As for me equating Hispanic and Mexican, I grew up on the border with Mexico, everyone in that part of the country does that.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 1, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> <
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No way.

Who knows where Ravi has had its hands lately?


----------



## Supposn (May 2, 2012)

If youre confronted by someone with a gun who doesnt identify themselves a police officer with jurisdiction where youre legally standing whats your legal options?

Whats the difference if:

The gun is or isnt concealed?
The confronter deliberately or accidently permits you see the concealed gun?

Ive been given to understand Zimmerman was carrying a side arm and he followed Martin after police advised him to stand down.
A girl claims she was speaking to Martin on the phone; Martin told her he was being stalked; Im not certain but I think she claims to have heard the struggle.
Martins cell phone and telephone company records indicate Martins phone was calling the girls phone at the approximate time of the confrontation.

Zimmerman claims that Martin confronted him and during the struggle Martin tried to get the gun. Zimmerman claims to have fired the gun in defense of his life.

Im considering that due to this Floorida law  if Zimmerman confronted Martin while armed, Martin had legal right to kill Zimmerman.
Zimmerman is now in superior condition; Martin certainly cannot be revived to life.  But Zimmerman is certainly in a very poor legal position.

Under circumstances that are not extremely extraordinary, this law could leagalize the murder of any armed person who's not a police officer.

Respectfully, Supposn


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 2, 2012)

Supposn said:


> If you&#8217;re confronted by someone with a gun who doesn&#8217;t identify themselves a police officer with jurisdiction where you&#8217;re legally standing what&#8217;s your legal options?
> 
> What&#8217;s the difference if:
> 
> ...




Carrying a weapon whether it is concealed or if it becomes visible is not a crime and Zimmerman would have done nothing wrong.

Things change if Zimmerman displayed the weapon and threatened Martin...


Florida Statute 784.011 (Assault) exists when one person threatens (verbally or by act) another person and appears to have the ability to do so.
Florida Statute 784.021 (Aggravated Assault) exists when a person commits assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill or commit a felony.
Florida Statute 787.02 (False Imprisonment) makes it a felony to unlawfully try to restrain another person from leaving without lawful authority.
Florida Statute 776.041 (Use of force by an aggressor) - Removes an individuals self defense immunity from prosecution if the individual was in the commission of a forcible felony.

**IF** (BIG IF) the state were to show that Martin attempted to leave the confrontation and Zimmerman grabbed (assault) Martin and attempted to keep him from leaving (unlawful detention) then Zimmerman would have been committing a forcible felony under 776.041.  If Martin assaulted Zimmerman then none of that would apply and Zimmerman's self defense claim would be intact.

At this point we don't know exactly what happened and of critical importance are those seconds between the end of the girlfriends call (known by phone records) and the discharge of the firearm (time stamped on the 911 calls).  At this point no witness has come forward into the public arena who can undermine or corroborate Zimmerman's version of the story.  (Remember, the fact that someone has injuries from a fight is not indicative of who started a fight.)


>>>>


----------



## Supposn (May 3, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Carrying a weapon whether it is concealed or if it becomes visible is not a crime and Zimmerman would have done nothing wrong.
> 
> Things change if Zimmerman displayed the weapon and threatened Martin...
> 
> ...



World Watcher, If a jury believe Zimmerman (who was armed), physically confronted Martin, (regardless of whatever Zimmerman should claim without confirming evidence), they are likely to determine (under this Florida law) that Martin might legally murder Zimmerman; but since they believe Zimmerman initiated the confrontation and he s the only survivor, they are very likely to find him guilty of murder.

Due to this Florida law, any armed civilian that initiates a confrontation becomes in effect fair game to be murdered and likely to be subject to criminal prosecution for any injury they cause upon others not behaving illegally.

Respectfully, Supposn


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 3, 2012)

Supposn said:


> World Watcher, If a jury believe Zimmerman (who was armed), physically confronted Martin, (regardless of whatever Zimmerman should claim without confirming evidence), they are likely to determine (under this Florida law) that *Martin might legally murder Zimmerman*; but since they believe Zimmerman initiated the confrontation and he s the only survivor, they are very likely to find him guilty of murder.



1. There is no such thing as legal murder. Are you showing your bias to presume it was murder whether legal or not?

2. GZ does not need the Stand Your Ground law if his testimony and that of coroborating witnesses and the physical evidence as we now have it is not contradicted by strong contrary evidence. All he need appeal to are laws regarding self-defense. If person A starts a fist fight with person B and person B gets on top of person A and starts beating person A mercilessly and not letting person A go when person A gives up, person A is merely defending themselves at that point and can use deadly force.

3. And the evidence as far as we now know it points to Martin initiating the confrontation, not GZ. The only reason GZ was arrested was to placate black mobs in the hopes of avoiding more riots. Is ay fuck them and let them riot.



Supposn said:


> Due to this Florida law, any armed civilian that initiates a confrontation becomes in effect fair game to be murdered and likely to be subject to criminal prosecution for any injury they cause upon others not behaving illegally.



They are not fair game to be murdered. The law protects a person if their life is endangered, which includes someone pounding your head into the pavement.

If you cant get this much of the law straight maybe it is pointless to discuss it.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 3, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> 3. And the evidence as far as we now know it points to Martin initiating the confrontation, not GZ.



Right now there is no evidence that indicates who started the fight.




JimBowie1958 said:


> They are not fair game to be murdered. The law protects a person if their life is endangered, which includes someone pounding your head into the pavement.
> 
> If you cant get this much of the law straight maybe it is pointless to discuss it.




Losing a fight is not indicative of who started a fight.

Under Florida Law 776.012 a person is authorized the use of deadly force if they fear the other person is going to cause their death or great bodily harm - at that point they can use lethal force in self defense, unless that person is the aggressor in which case there are two conditions under which they lose the self defense claim under 776.041.  First if they were committing a forcible felony.  Secondly if, as measured by a reasonable person they had a opportunity to escape and did not take it and continued with the fight.

******************************

[DISCLAIMER: Not defending Martin and not trying to say Zimmerman is guilty of anything, simply pointing out that right now claims of "who started the fight" are indicative of bias and not being made on the evidence publicly available.]


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 3, 2012)

Supposn said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Carrying a weapon whether it is concealed or if it becomes visible is not a crime and Zimmerman would have done nothing wrong.
> ...



You don't "legally murder" someone since murder by definition is against the law, it would be more appropriate to refer to justifiable (legal) homicide (taking a human life).

It's possible, but then in my opinion the Jury will not have done it's duty correctly.  For them to find Zimmerman guilty of a crime, they would first have to show that Zimmerman acted in a criminal manner.  At this point there is no evidence that he did.



Supposn said:


> Due to this Florida law, any armed civilian that initiates a confrontation becomes in effect fair game to be murdered and likely to be subject to criminal prosecution for any injury they cause upon others not behaving illegally.
> 
> Respectfully, Supposn



That's incorrect, the individual under 776.041 loses self defense immunity **ONLY** if they are in the act of committing a forcible felony or fail to take an escape route if presented.

To turn your statement around and look at it from the other side then.  Any armed civilian can initiate a confrontation, have the person respond, then shoot them and call it justified under self defense and be immune from prosecution.

Self defense laws are intended to protect the VICTIMs of crimes from being prosecuted, they were not intended to protect the initiator of crimes.

************************

Edit to clarify.

Scenario #1:
Zimmerman and Martin come together; Zimmerman is not the aggressor and Martin is.  The fight escalates and Zimmerman discharges his firearm and kills Martin.  Fully justified self defense, Zimmerman "not guilty".

Scenario #2:
Zimmerman and Martin come together; Zimmerman is the aggressor and assaults Martin.  The fight escalates and Zimmerman discharges his firearm and kills Martin.  Fully justified self defense, Zimmerman "not guilty".  Under Florida law (784..011) simple assault is a misdemeanor and even if Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, if the fight escalated he would not lose his self defense immunity under 776.041.

Scenario #3:
Zimmerman and Martin come together; Zimmerman is the aggressor and assaults with action of attempting to unlawfully detain Martin.  The fight escalates and Zimmerman discharges his firearm and kills Martin.  If this were true, Zimmerman loses self defense immunity under Florida Law (776.041) because Zimmerman is in the act of committing a forcible felony.  ***BUT** the state would have the burden of proof to establish that Zimmerman's conduct was unlawful, if such conclusive evidence were not to exist, then Zimmerman would still be found "not guilty" based on presumption of innocence for lack of evidence.


>>>>


----------



## Supposn (May 3, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> zzz1.
> They are not fair game to be murdered. The law protects a person if their life is endangered, which includes someone pounding your head into the pavement.
> 
> If you cant get this much of the law straight maybe it is pointless to discuss it.



Jim Bowie 1158, my message stated If a jury believes the girl.

Zimmerman telephoned the police regarding a suspicious character he spotted while driving his car.  Zimmerman exited the car and followed Martin on foot.  The police advised Zimmerman not to continue following Martin.

A girl claims Martin called and during their conversation she heard Martin being confronted.
Zimmerman claims he lost sight of Martin until Martin came from behind and confronted Zimmerman.

If a jury believes Zimmerman was confronted, hes less legally, but to some extent still remains legally vulnerable.  If the jury believes the girl, Zimmerman is very much more legally vulnerable.

The critical point is if a jury believes the girl or Zimmerman. 
Respectfully, Supposn


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 3, 2012)

Supposn said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > zzz1.
> ...




Just a technical correction, phone records show that Martin did not call the girlfriend.  Phone records show that Martin had been on and off the phone with the girlfriend frequently during the day.  At approximately 19:11 Zimmerman calls the dispatcher, at approximately 19:12 the girlfriend called Martin which is the phone call that continued to approximately 19:16.  It's interesting to note that when you compare time-lines of calls, the girlfriend's inbound phone call would have been arriving right at the time Zimmerman claims Martin reached into his waistband (implying a threatening action).



BTW - It appears (opinion) that T-mobile reception in that area sucks.


>>>>


----------



## Katzndogz (May 3, 2012)

To my knowledge and I have followed this case pretty closely.  There has been no claim that Martin reached into his waistband.  It's a claim that liberal race baiters claim Zimmerman said, but he never actually said it.  I have heard that after Martin struck Zimmerman to the ground, he saw the gun and reached toward the gun that Zimmerman had.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 3, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> To my knowledge and I have followed this case pretty closely.  There has been no claim that Martin reached into his waistband.  It's a claim that liberal race baiters claim Zimmerman said, but he never actually said it.  I have heard that after Martin struck Zimmerman to the ground, he saw the gun and reached toward the gun that Zimmerman had.



You can listen to the dispatcher call and the waistband comment occurs just after 1-minuted into the tape.  The call is listed as being placed at approximately 19:11, the girlfriends inbound call is about 1 minute later (19:12) which places it at the same time as the waistband comment.

For ease of location you can listen to the audio from the wiki site if you need to confirm.



Katzndogz said:


> I have heard that after Martin struck Zimmerman to the ground, he saw the gun and reached toward the gun that Zimmerman had.



What witness has stated the say the initiation of hostilities?

My understanding is that all witness that have come forward and made public statements have indicated that hostilities were already occurring when they first saw the scene of the event.



>>>>


----------



## KissMy (May 3, 2012)

Just for the arguement sake lets just suppose that Zimmerman could have attacked Martin.

Martin should have quit beating Zimmerman after he was down & yelling for help. Just like in the video below when 2 women attacked a guy. Once the women retreated or he took them down he should have stopped the beating. since he did not stop, all 3 of them went to jail. These rules are clearly stated in Florida Statute 776.041.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8y2DMdNpAY"]Severely Beaten After Attacking[/ame]

It is not the "Stand Your Ground Law" that protects Zimmerman if he did start or provoke the confrontation. Martin was beating Zimmerman whom had already been knocked flat on his back, not fighting back & screaming for help 20 times. That is illegal in any state. Here is the law in Florida. Note: *this is not the SYG law.*

*Florida Statute 776.041 - Use of force by aggressor. *- The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

- (a)&#8195;Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

- (b)&#8195;In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 3, 2012)

KissMy said:


> Just for the arguement sake lets just suppose that Zimmerman could have attacked Martin.
> 
> Martin should have quit beating Zimmerman after he was down & yelling for help. Just like in the video below when 2 women attacked a guy. Once the women retreated or he took them down he should have stopped the beating. since he did not stop, all 3 of them went to jail. These rules are clearly stated in Florida Statute 776.041.
> 
> ...




That would apply to Martin's actions, maybe, but he's dead so I don't see the relevance.

The question at this point applies to Zimmerman.  As you point out in the law, **IF** Zimmerman was shown to be the aggressor HE would not have been justified in using lethal force as he initiated hostilities with a forcible felony or had a chance to escape and failed to use it.  The state would have the burden of proof the make that case.  On the other hand if evidence were to show Martin was the aggressor, then Zimmerman's self defense immunity remains intact under 776.041 (since he would not have been the aggressor, it wouldn't apply).



>>>>


----------



## KissMy (May 3, 2012)

Even police are not justified in using excessive force against a subdued man.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jagvYIMJyzU"]Beating a subdued man angers crowd[/ame]


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 3, 2012)

KissMy said:


> Even police are not justified in using excessive force against a subdued man.




Listening to the audio and since it was a soccer riot can we assume it was a foreign country where laws might be different then Florida?

Secondly, were the police arrested?


>>>>


----------



## KissMy (May 3, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Even police are not justified in using excessive force against a subdued man.
> ...



Beating a subdued person is reprehensible in most civilized societies.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 3, 2012)

KissMy said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



True.  But was Zimmerman subdued or was he continuing to struggle?  Was Zimmerman clinging to Martin attempting to prevent him from escaping?  At least one witness reports that it was Zimmerman on top of Martin at the time the shot was fire.

We don't know that was the case here.  If Martin attacked Zimmerman, then Zimmerman was fully justified in his actions.  On the other hand if Zimmerman attacked Martin then Martin was fully justified in defending himself.  During the struggle if Zimmerman and Martin dragged each other to the ground then Martin was fully justified in defending himself - including hitting Zimmerman's head against the ground - in an attempt to render him unconscious so that Martin could escape.

You appear to be making assumptions about a struggle that no witness has come forward to indicate they saw started it or how it progressed.  You appear to be trying to justify actions based on the outcome, not how a certain situation evolved.

As I said Martin may have attacked Zimmerman, in which case Zimmerman was totally justified in his actions.  However if Zimmerman threatened Martin and or initiated hostilities (which is assault) and Zimmerman either displayed the gun (in hand or in the holster) or if during the struggle on the ground Zimmerman clung to Martin preventing his escape - then Martin was totally justified in attempting to knock Zimmerman unconscious impacting his head on the ground.


Are you saying that if someone jumps me and they have a holstered weapon and I see it (or feel it during a struggle), then I have to stop defending myself if we are in close combat or can I attempt to prevent them from shooting me?


>>>>


----------



## KissMy (May 3, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> At least one witness reports that it was Zimmerman on top of Martin at the time the shot was fire.



Which shot did she think she heard when she is unsure if it was Zimmerman on top of Martin at the time the shot was fired. She said there was no flash when she heard it. She said there were multiple shots fired. She contradicts every statements she makes. She also admits she could not see well enough to tell what happened. She is !!!


----------



## paperview (May 3, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> To my knowledge and I have followed this case pretty closely.  There has been no claim that Martin reached into his waistband.  It's a claim that liberal race baiters claim Zimmerman said, but he never actually said it.  I have heard that after Martin struck Zimmerman to the ground, he saw the gun and reached toward the gun that Zimmerman had.


Gee...it's like you never even heard Z's not911 call.

He said it in the first minute.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (May 3, 2012)

This is still going 

sorry..........


----------



## Supposn (May 3, 2012)

KissMy, youre missing the point.

If youre confronted by an armed man, and prior or during a struggle you become aware that your opponent is packing, YOUR perception of  being in mortal danger provides you with  legal right (if you can), to take control of that gun or kill your opponent while attempting to do so.
An unarmed person has much less (than an armed persons opportunity) to escape to safety.

Possession of gun has extremely serious responsibilities attached to that privilege.

If Zimmerman initiated the confrontation, he has lost all legal protection until he's able to withdraw from the conflict.

Under such circumstances Zimmerman's injury or death would have been due to his own recklessness and similarly he's now charged with murder due to his own recklessness.

Respectfully, Supposn


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 3, 2012)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74kyUhRsLBc&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1&safe=active]Eye Witness: "Police REFUSED to see Crime Scene in Trayvon Martin Case".mp4 - YouTube[/ame]




KissMy said:


> Which shot did she think she heard when she is unsure if it was Zimmerman on top of Martin at the time the shot was fired.



She didn't claim to hear multiple shots and she didn't say she was unsure that the larger man that was on top was the one that got up after the firearm was discharged.



KissMy said:


> She said there was no flash when she heard it.



No she didn't, she didn't say anything about a flash.



KissMy said:


> She said there were multiple shots fired.



No she didn't.

She referred to a "popping noise" and "gunshot" in singular terms.  Then she said "I heard popping noises and I think it's a gun shot".  Again, gun shot is singular, the popping noises would have been the echos of the shot between the buildings.



KissMy said:


> She contradicts every statements she makes.



No she doesn't.



KissMy said:


> She also admits she could not see well enough to tell what happened. She is !!!



No she didn't, she clearly said that even though it was dark it was the larger person on top and that after the gun shot the larger person is the one that stood up.  We know Martin didn't stand up.


>>>>


----------



## Liability (May 3, 2012)

KissMy said:


> Even police are not justified in using excessive force against a subdued man.
> 
> Beating a subdued man angers crowd



I saw what looked like one  cop using the stick.  It looked pretty harsh.  But I couldn't make out what the guy on the bottom of the pile was doing at that time.  Could it be that he was resisting being cuffed?  What's the guard/cop supposed to do.  Just mindlessly struggle with the guy until he tires and THEN cuff him?

The incident might well be an example of excessive force.  Then again, I suggest there is insufficient evidence of it to be able to tell conclusively.

Maybe if we all look again?


----------



## KissMy (May 3, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Eye Witness: "Police REFUSED to see Crime Scene in Trayvon Martin Case".mp4 - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> ...



She gave more interviews. Her story changes daily.


----------



## Ravi (May 3, 2012)

KissMy said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Eye Witness: "Police REFUSED to see Crime Scene in Trayvon Martin Case".mp4 - YouTube
> ...


Can you link to her saying any of the things you claim she said?


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 3, 2012)

KissMy said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Eye Witness: "Police REFUSED to see Crime Scene in Trayvon Martin Case".mp4 - YouTube
> ...




I notice you don't link to those interviews to show that (a) her story changed or (b) even if it was the same person.  Interesting that you can hunt up fast food videos and foreign soccer videos though.



OK, We'll have to compare her statements with what the Jury hears and it will be for them to decide.


What I find interesting though is that any witness who appears to support Zimmerman's account - their word is gospel.  Yet witnesses that discredit Zimmerman's account there are always a million excuses why they should be discounted and called .


The fact is that the jury will hear them all and will decide on their own.


BTW - Have you followed the Edwards trail?  Notice that Young's wife testified as to what went on with a phone conversation.  Some think the girlfriends testimony will to excluded, I don't think so.



>>>>


----------



## KissMy (May 3, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> What I find interesting though is that any witness who appears to support Zimmerman's account - their word is gospel.  Yet witnesses that discredit Zimmerman's account there are always a million excuses why they should be discounted and called .



That is bullshit. I discount the ear-witness assumptions, the ones who say my feeling is this or that & the ones who change their stories depending on the interviewer. There are only 2 eye-witness who were outside & saw the fight. John's house was the closest. That lady is  !!!

The screams numerous screams for help on the 911 tape & the only 2 eye-witness & they said it was GZ screaming. That is what I give the most credibility. The rest are just feelings from some scared women.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 3, 2012)

KissMy said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > *What I find interesting though is that any witness who appears to support Zimmerman's account - their word is gospel.  Yet witnesses that discredit Zimmerman's account there are always a million excuses why they should be discounted and called .*
> ...




Thank you for confirming my statement.


Still not link to where THIS woman changed her statement?


>>>>


----------



## Ravi (May 3, 2012)

Ravi said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Still looking?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (May 3, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...




looks like KissMy pulled a Ravi on you Ravi


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 3, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Supposn said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Why do you keep coming up with all these scenarios? Under Florida law it doesn't matter who started the fight, all that matters is a single question, was Zimmerman's belief that he was in danger reasonable? There is zip, zero, nada, no, zilch evidence that Zimmerman was committing a felony, or trying to escape capture for one, at the time the confrontation occurred, so your imaginary insistence that it is a viable scenario only makes you look stupid. .

By the way, it is not illegal to make a citizen's arrest in Florida if the person making the arrest has a reasonable belief the other person committed a felony. that makes your argument that, if this is what happened, even more absurd.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 3, 2012)

Supposn said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Carrying a weapon whether it is concealed or if it becomes visible is not a crime and Zimmerman would have done nothing wrong.
> ...



*If a jury believe Zimmerman (who was armed), physically confronted Martin*

Physically confronted? You mean if he asked what he was doing walking around the neighborhood?


----------



## KissMy (May 3, 2012)

Ravi said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Did you hear her on the 911 call???  - She is fucking whacked!!!! 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eYf2xTvJpzU"]Trayvon Martin Witness speaks to CNN[/ame]


----------



## Ravi (May 3, 2012)

KissMy said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



None of that interview contradicts what she's said. I asked you to link to her contradictions.....


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 3, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Supposn said:
> ...



Why?  Probably a couple of different reasons.

1.  First, unlike some other people I seem to use a different thought process.  Some people decide guilty or innocence and then then cherry pick the facts they like that conform to their preconceived bias, then ignore facts they don't like.  On there other hand some of us research and determine a wide range of facts and or statements then try to develop multiple possible scenarios that conform to the majority of the known information.  Then as more information becomes available then the scenarios are modified or rejected depending on whether the information is corroborative or contradictory.

2.  Secondly, is an ability to remove emotion from the examination.  That comes from 20-years of being an Aviation Electronics Technician and systems analyst and as a Naval Aircrewman working as a Systems Operator and Electronic Warfare Operator.  If you don't learn to evaluate information in a non-emotional way then people could die.  I've carried that ability to analyze into the civilian world as an Information Systems Administrator and Database designer which often requires the systems analysis mindset coupled developing to project what possible ways users will use the system which might produce unexpected results.  Then designing the system to minimize, or error trap, those actions and lead users down the desired operational path.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Under Florida law it doesn't matter who started the fight, all that matters is a single question, was Zimmerman's belief that he was in danger reasonable?



The is absolutely wrong and repeating it doesn't change it and make it go away.  Florida Statute 776.041 (Use of Force by an Aggressor) specifically deals with the conditions under which an aggressor loses immunity from prosecution under the self defense statutes.

776.041 - Use of force by aggressor. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate



Quantum Windbag said:


> There is zip, zero, nada, no, zilch evidence that Zimmerman was committing a felony, or trying to escape capture for one, at the time the confrontation occurred,



I have never claimed that there was any evidence that proved one way or the other as to whether Zimmerman or Martin was the initiator of aggression.  In each one of the scenarios presented I've clearly indicated what the likely outcome would/should be under the known information and in each case a logical analysis would return a "not guilty" verdict for Zimmerman unless the state presents new evidence showing that Zimmerman's actions removed his self defense immunity under 776.041.



Quantum Windbag said:


> By the way, it is not illegal to make a citizen's arrest in Florida if the person making the arrest has a reasonable belief the other person committed a felony...



That may be true or not in Florida, feel free to research it and report on the relative Florida Statutes.  One thing that should be apparently obvious though is that if Zimmerman were to try to claim (under scenario #3) that he was attempting to detain Martin because Martin was committing a felony, then it would be the defenses responsibility to provide as an affirmative defense that Martin was in the process of committing a felony.  Nothing in the dispatcher tape would indicate that he (Martin) was taking any such actions that qualify as a felony such as rape, murder, grand theft, kidnapping, Aggravated Assault and Battery, multiple offense DUI, omitting financial resources during a bond application in a felony case (sorry, couldn't resist the humor), etc.



Quantum Windbag said:


> so your imaginary insistence that it is a viable scenario only makes you look stupid.





Quantum Windbag said:


> that makes your argument that, if this is what happened, even more absurd.



Actually I'm discussing possibilities in a logical and reasonable manner, name calling is what makes someone look stupid and their posts look absurd.

>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 3, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Supposn said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...




"Physically confronting" Martin is a null statement as it does not describe the conditions of that confrontation.  If Zimmerman walked up to Martin and asked "Who are you?" or "I'm the Neighborhood Watch Captain and I don't recognize you as living here, what is your business in our community?"  If that happened and then Martin attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman would be fully justified in defending himself including the use of lethal force at the point where he felt his life was in danger or he would suffer great bodily injury.  On the other hand if Zimmerman walked up and said "You better tell me who you are or I'm going to kick your ass?" and through tone and inflection Martin had a reasonable fear that Zimmerman would follow through on his threat, then Zimmerman was committing assault and Martin had a right under Stand Your Ground to defend himself.


>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 4, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



You keep posting the same law, and I keep pointing out you are misreading it. If you don't believe me, ask a fracking lawyer, then come back and apologize for being stupid.


----------



## Supposn (May 4, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> "Physically confronting" Martin is a null statement as it does not describe the conditions of that confrontation.  If Zimmerman walked up to Martin and asked "Who are you?" or "I'm the Neighborhood Watch Captain and I don't recognize you as living here, what is your business in our community?"  If that happened and then Martin attacked Zimmerman, Zimmerman would be fully justified in defending himself including the use of lethal force at the point where he felt his life was in danger or he would suffer great bodily injury.  On the other hand if Zimmerman walked up and said "You better tell me who you are or I'm going to kick your ass?" and through tone and inflection Martin had a reasonable fear that Zimmerman would follow through on his threat, then Zimmerman was committing assault and Martin had a right under Stand Your Ground to defend himself.



World Watche, youre supposing you have described a conversation; its actually an explicit threat.  The extent of extortion is dependent upon the words and tone of the delivered threat.

Within every police affiliated civic watch organization Ive ever heard of has some basic guide lines if not formal training.  They are not supposed to be armed.  They are supposed to be polite and non-threatening.  Its extremely unusual, (if not contrary to explicit police advice or instructions) to stop and question anyone.

Zimmerman was a man in plain clothes from an unmarked car.  If he attempted to stop and/or pretend any official stratus and additionally seemed obviously acting contrary to any police procedures or advice, thats threatening.  And all of this supposes that Zimmerman only approached Martin and spoke politely.

Zimmerman didnt sound in a polite and conciliatory tone when he so to the police on the phone.  He didnt comply when told by the police to not attempt following Martin. 

It will be up to a jury to decide to believe Zimmerman or the girl who claims she heard the confrontation on the phone.

Respectfully, Supposn


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 4, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> You keep posting the same law, and I keep pointing out you are misreading it. If you don't believe me, ask a fracking lawyer, then come back and apologize for being stupid.



Good Afternoon...

.....................<<knuckle crack>> Let's have a discussion.

You keep claiming that I've misread it so let's discuss this as adults without the normal ad hominem barbs that some try to insert.  I don't need a lawyer as I can read and comprehend the written word quite well.  If you feel that my understanding of the law is in error, please provide the details.  If you would like a lawyers review of the law, feel free to PM Liability (who is a lawyer) and ask him to post a review of my analysis.  I've asked him a few questions here and there and he's been most helpful in expanding our understanding of points of law.

All references to Florida Statutes can be found through the following links were there are Chapter sections with links to the specific law:

- 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate
- Chapter 776 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate


In the past, as you've quoted previously, I've provided three possible scenarios and my opinion of how the law applies to those scenarios.  First we have Martin as the aggressor, in such a case Zimmerman is fully justified in the use of self defense at the point where he feared for his life or great bodily injury (from here on referring to self defense, the lethal force in cases of possible death of great bodily injury will be an implied understanding).  The second scenario involved Zimmerman as what I will refer to as a simple aggressor.  That would be the case if Zimmerman was the aggressor but his aggressive actions did not rise to a felony, for example if his actions were simple assault.  In such a case, Zimmerman would retrain his self defense immunity as simple assault under Florida law is a misdemeanor and not a felony, unless he was shown to have an opportunity to escape and declined the opportunity (as defined under Florida Law 776.041).  The third scenario involved Zimmerman as an aggressor, but in this case his actions rose to the level of a forcible felony, in such cases Florida Law 776.041 kicks in which removes the self defense immunity.  Florida Law 776.08 (Forcible Felony) defines what conditions are counted as a forcible felony - aggravated assault is one of those conditions.  Just as an example off the top of my head, Zimmerman could have committed a forcible felony by simple assault and/or battery (threatening Martin or grabbing him, a misdemeanor) [Florida Law 784.011] coupled with unlawful detention (See END NOTE) (Florida Law 787.02, a felony) - the combination of simple assault with a felony makes it aggravated assault (784.02), a forcible felony.  On the other hand Zimmerman could have committed a forcible felony through threatening Martin and the display of his firearm (either out of or in the holster) which again would rise to the level of aggravated assault. 

Under both the second and third conditions, Zimmerman would be required to make an affirmative defense on his self defense claims.  One can assume that such a defense would be built around his statements alone as to who initiated hostilities since there are no witnesses to the beginning of the struggle and the evidence of his injuries (which could be a bloody nose or broken nose and the lacerations on the back of his head) and at that time he feared for his life.  Which is a very reasonable self defense claim since he had the injuries.  However the burden of proof would then shift to the prosecution to show that regardless of his injuries obtained during the fight, that Zimmerman lost his self defense immunity because he started the fight and: (a) started it with the commission of a forcible felony, or (b) was presented with a chance of escape that a reasonable man would have taken and choose to pursue hostilities.  My understanding is that this would actually be a pretrial hearing before Judge Lester, but I could be wrong on that.  If Zimmerman makes a good case and the prosecution makes a bad case, then Judge Lester can dismiss the charges.

So now let's review the law and you can respond by showing me where my analysis is faulty.

**************************************************************

*776.041&#8195;Use of force by aggressor*.&#8212;The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:​(a)&#8195;Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)&#8195;In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.​


> 776.041&#8195;Use of force by aggressor



I think this is pretty self explainitory in that this section of the law applies to those individuals who are using force and they are the aggressor.  A little ambigious in terms of verbage, I think something a little clearer would have been warranted, such as "Loss of self defense immunity by an aggressor", but hey - I didn't write the law.​


> The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:



This is an important part, it defines that this section of the law REMOVES the immunity status for self defense as defined in the applicable previous sections of the law which is Chapter 776 (Justifiable Use of Force).  The preceding sections of the law that this part nullifies for the aggressor are:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.
776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.


So this section of the law removes the previously defined self defense immunity from prosecution for someone who meets the conditions that will be described in the next sections.  

What part am I missing?​


> (1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony;



Section (1) defines the first of two conditions under which a person who is the aggressor can lose their immunity from prosecution in a situation where they claim self defense.

If the person is attempting to commit, is committing, or is attempting to escape from the commission of a forcible felony and claims self defense, that claim is nullified because of the felonious actions of the aggressor.

What part am I missing or not understanding here?​



> *OR* (emphasis added)



"Or" is actually a very important component of the law for being only two letters long.  It designates that the boolean logic function of "or" here is to be applied when interpreting the construction of the law.  The "or" functions says that the meeting of either of the two (or more) conditions described satisfies the logic for truth (boolean truth) and the requirements for that outcome are met.  Simply, it means that if an individual satisfies the condition of Section (1), then self defense immunity is removed.  Also, if an individual satisfies the condition of Section (2), then self defense immunity is removed.  Use of the "or" function *does not* mean that the individual must meet the conditions of both sections before self defense immunity is nullified.

What part am I missing or not understanding here?​



> (2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:



Section (2) provides that a person does lose immunity from a self defense claim if they are the initial aggressor, however it adds an "unless" which are conditions under which the self defense immunity is retained.  Those conditions then are outline in the next two sub-sections.  The idea is that self defense immunity is lost, however it can be restored.

What part am I missing or not understanding here?​


> (a)&#8195;Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;



Section (2)(a) provides that if a person is the initial aggressor and has lost immunity from prosecution under the self defense statutes that they can regain the lost self defense immunity if the altercation escalates to the point where they fear great bodily injury or death.  For example, I grab someone (I'm the initial aggressor with simple assault).  The individual pulls a knife escalating the hostilities and now I fear death or great bodily injury, self defense is an option and can be restored if I have not been presented with a means escape and have attempted to take advantage of it or if no means of escape presented itself.

Section (2)(a) does not restore immunity lost under Section (1) because of the "or" function, loss of immunity still is in force if forcible felony applies.

What part am I missing or not understanding here?​


> or



Again the "or" function applies between Sections (2)(a) and (2)(b) as either can restore self defense immunity as long as immunity wasn't lost under Section (1).  If Section (1) is satisfied then the conditions required are "true" (boolean logic "true") and self defense is lost.​


> (b)&#8195;In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.;



Section (2)(b) provides that if the person subject to the original aggression by the assailant (person A) attempts to withdraw and makes it known to the original aggressor (person B) that they are trying to withdraw and the original assailant (person B) continues to prosecute the hostilities - that person B does not regain a self defense immunity if person A then gains the upper hand and using force (including lethal force) to defend them self.  For example I mug someone, that someone is able to push me away and tries to run or backs away.  I ignore their attempt to end hostilities and reengage the attack.  The person I've attempted to mug ends up defending against my re-engagement and proceeds to start kicking my butt to the point where I fear death or great bodily injury.  Since they attempted to withdraw, if I were to pull a knife and stab the person to death, I could not claim self defense immunity even though they were winning the fight.

However, Section (2)(b) does not restore immunity lost under Section (1) because of the "or" function, loss of immunity still is in force if forcible felony applies.

What part am I missing or not understanding here?​

**********************

END NOTE:

When I mentioned unlawful detention as a possible contributing factor towards establishing a forcible felony, the the claim was made - basically - that "Oh, he can just claim Citizen's Arrest".  As was pointed out, Citizen's Arrest provides for the detention of felons so that the police can be called and arrive on scene and take possession of the individual.  **IF** the state were to try to remove self defense immunity under 776.041 (which they would have a high burden of proving and public information suggests they don't have the proof) and then the defense were to attempt to counter with a Citizen's Arrest claim, then - IMHO - that would be a disaster.  Why?  Nothing in the dispatcher call indicated that Martin was in the process of committing a felony.  Zimmerman's own words on tape would come back to haunt him.  If detailed statements, as of yet not released, to the police that night did not include descriptions of felonious activity by Martin prior to hostilities and later Zimmerman claimed there were, then that would be a huge contradiction.  The prosecution would jump on that.


[DISCLAIMER: The above post in no way is trying to impugn Zimmerman; it is simply intended as a discussion of possible scenarios and discussion on the construct of the law.]



>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 4, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > You keep posting the same law, and I keep pointing out you are misreading it. If you don't believe me, ask a fracking lawyer, then come back and apologize for being stupid.
> ...



Fine, I will try this one more time.



WorldWatcher said:


> You keep claiming that I've misread it so let's discuss this as adults without the normal ad hominem barbs that some try to insert.  I don't need a lawyer as I can read and comprehend the written word quite well.  If you feel that my understanding of the law is in error, please provide the details.  If you would like a lawyers review of the law, feel free to PM Liability (who is a lawyer) and ask him to post a review of my analysis.  I've asked him a few questions here and there and he's been most helpful in expanding our understanding of points of law.



Actually, I said misinterpret, not misread. The reason I told you to ask a lawyer is that lawyers approach language differently than doctors, who approach it differently than teachers. Every profession puts their own spin on language, it is an offshoot of the human desire to be part of an exclusive group. The only exception I am aware of to that rule is writers, who, by the nature of their work, have to learn to use language to approach many different groups at different times.



WorldWatcher said:


> All references to Florida Statutes can be found through the following links were there are Chapter sections with links to the specific law:
> 
> - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate
> - Chapter 776 - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate
> In the past, as you've quoted previously, I've provided three possible scenarios and my opinion of how the law applies to those scenarios.  First we have Martin as the aggressor, in such a case Zimmerman is fully justified in the use of self defense at the point where he feared for his life or great bodily injury (from here on referring to self defense, the lethal force in cases of possible death of great bodily injury will be an implied understanding).  The second scenario involved Zimmerman as what I will refer to as a simple aggressor.  That would be the case if Zimmerman was the aggressor but his aggressive actions did not rise to a felony, for example if his actions were simple assault.  In such a case, Zimmerman would retrain his self defense immunity as simple assault under Florida law is a misdemeanor and not a felony, unless he was shown to have an opportunity to escape and declined the opportunity (as defined under Florida Law 776.041).  The third scenario involved Zimmerman as an aggressor, but in this case his actions rose to the level of a forcible felony, in such cases Florida Law 776.041 kicks in which removes the self defense immunity.  Florida Law 776.08 (Forcible Felony) defines what conditions are counted as a forcible felony - aggravated assault is one of those conditions.  Just as an example off the top of my head, Zimmerman could have committed a forcible felony by simple assault and/or battery (threatening Martin or grabbing him, a misdemeanor) [Florida Law 784.011] coupled with unlawful detention (See END NOTE) (Florida Law 787.02, a felony) - the combination of simple assault with a felony makes it aggravated assault (784.02), a forcible felony.  On the other hand Zimmerman could have committed a forcible felony through threatening Martin and the display of his firearm (either out of or in the holster) which again would rise to the level of aggravated assault.



No, you provided two alternative explanations to the beginning of the conflict between Martin and Zimmerman, and a fantasy that involves Zimmerman committing a felony and Martin trying to detain him until police arrive. That is the only way your fantasy scenario would apply, and I have specifically challenged you to tell me what felony Zimmerman is being charged with to make that a viable option. You have not yet mentioned one, because none exist, yet you insist your fantasy scenario is viable because the prosecution might amend the indictment.

Funny thing, there is not an indictment in this case because Corey chose to file an affidavit with the court rather than go to the grand jury and get an indictment. There are a number of possible explanations for this, but none of them include her amending the indictment because she is investigating him for bank robbery.

You have postulated that Zimmerman was illegally detaining Martin, and that this gave Martin the right to resist, but the fact is that, under Florida law, anyone who tries to detain a suspect for the police is acting as a ex facto law enforcement officer. Their actions are subject to strict scrutiny in the court after the fact, but it is actually legal, so that makes that argument null and void.



WorldWatcher said:


> Under both the second and third conditions, Zimmerman would be required to make an affirmative defense on his self defense claims.  One can assume that such a defense would be built around his statements alone as to who initiated hostilities since there are no witnesses to the beginning of the struggle and the evidence of his injuries (which could be a bloody nose or broken nose and the lacerations on the back of his head) and at that time he feared for his life.  Which is a very reasonable self defense claim since he had the injuries.  However the burden of proof would then shift to the prosecution to show that regardless of his injuries obtained during the fight, that Zimmerman lost his self defense immunity because he started the fight and: (a) started it with the commission of a forcible felony, or (b) was presented with a chance of escape that a reasonable man would have taken and choose to pursue hostilities.  My understanding is that this would actually be a pretrial hearing before Judge Lester, but I could be wrong on that.  If Zimmerman makes a good case and the prosecution makes a bad case, then Judge Lester can dismiss the charges.



Wrong.

Under no scenario is Zimmerman required to do anything. Florida law on self defense is requires that the state prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person accused of murder, or assault, was not reasonably afraid of death or serious injury. this is something I have pointed out numerous times. The applicable laws are 776.013 sections 1 and 3.



WorldWatcher said:


> So now let's review the law and you can respond by showing me where my analysis is faulty.
> 
> ***************************************************************776.041&#8195;Use of force by aggressor*.&#8212;The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:(1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
> (2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:​(a)&#8195;Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
> ...



The very first sentence in the law that points out that 776.041  is an exception to the entire justifiable use of force law. In order for  776.041 to apply the state has to first prove that (1) the person they  are charging was committing a felony at the time of the fight, or (2)  that the person they are charging actually started the fight and that  his response to the use of force that he initiated was unreasonable  because he was not actually in danger. In other words, even if the state  can prove that Zimmerman started the fight, which even you admit they  cannot, they would still have to prove that Zimmerman belief that he was  in danger was unreasonable. 

This, I believe, goes back to what I have said all along, it doesn't  matter who started the fight, all that matters was is what Zimmerman  believed, and whether it is reasonable.

There is a nor function that occurs before the or. That nor excludes everything  that follows it, which is why you are working so hard to invent a  fantasy scenario where Zimmerman was involved in a felony. The state has  to prove the felony first, then they can apply 776.041 and argue that  Zimmerman is not entitled to argue self defense. Alternatively, they  could provide a bunch of new witnesses that will testify that Zimmerman  started the actual use of force, not a verbal confrontation. To do that  they would have to come up with people who had a clear view of the  entire incident and that will testify in their favor. My guess is that  if they had someone like that they would have trotted them out at the  bond hearing to show that Zimmerman, as the aggressor, is a danger.

Apply the nor, then you can apply the or that is built into 776.041.



WorldWatcher said:


> END NOTE
> 
> When I mentioned unlawful detention as a possible contributing factor towards establishing a forcible felony, the the claim was made - basically - that "Oh, he can just claim Citizen's Arrest".  As was pointed out, Citizen's Arrest provides for the detention of felons so that the police can be called and arrive on scene and take possession of the individual.  **IF** the state were to try to remove self defense immunity under 776.041 (which they would have a high burden of proving and public information suggests they don't have the proof) and then the defense were to attempt to counter with a Citizen's Arrest claim, then - IMHO - that would be a disaster.  Why?  Nothing in the dispatcher call indicated that Martin was in the process of committing a felony.  Zimmerman's own words on tape would come back to haunt him.  If detailed statements, as of yet not released, to the police that night did not include descriptions of felonious activity by Martin prior to hostilities and later Zimmerman claimed there were, then that would be a huge contradiction.  The prosecution would jump on that.
> 
> ...



Actually, all that is required for a citizen's arrest is a reasonable belief that someone did something. This does not require that the person who is attempting the arrest actually have witnessed anything.


----------



## Ravi (May 4, 2012)

> Actually, all that is required for a citizen's arrest is a reasonable belief that someone did something. This does not require that the person who is attempting the arrest actually have witnessed anything.


No, they must have a reasonable belief that the person committed a felony. Nothing about Martin points to a conclusion that he had just committed a felony before his death.

Not to mention that a citizen's arrest forbids deadly force.


----------



## Liability (May 4, 2012)

Ravi said:


> > Actually, all that is required for a citizen's arrest is a reasonable belief that someone did something. This does not require that the person who is attempting the arrest actually have witnessed anything.
> 
> 
> No, they must have a reasonable belief that the person committed a felony. Nothing about Martin points to a conclusion that he had just committed a felony before his death.
> ...



Citizen's arrest does NOT necessarily forbid the use of deadly physical force.

It *does* forbid the use of unreasonable force. So the actual issue will be how much force is reasonable under all of the circumstances.

It *is* simply the case that sometimes it may be reasonable to resort to the use of deadly physical force.  It depends on the fact-specific circumstances.


----------



## KissMy (May 4, 2012)

Zimmerman was not making a citizens arrest. He did not witness Martin commit a crime & his statements do not say that was his intent. Martin was likewise not making a citizens arrest by breaking Zimmerman's nose or bashing head on the ground. Someone got physical first & we will never know for certain who that was. This was self defense from the continued beating of a subdued person.

I was on Martins side until I heard the screams for help on the 911 tapes & witness saying it was Zimmerman screaming. No matter what lead up to the first blows, no-one is justified in beating a subdued person screaming for his life.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 4, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> No, you provided two alternative explanations to the beginning of the conflict between Martin and Zimmerman, and a fantasy that involves Zimmerman committing a felony and Martin trying to detain him until police arrive.



Nope, never made such an argument, please dont attribute to me things I didnt argue.

Ive suggest Martin as the initiator and Zimmerman as the initiator as two scenarios and then expanded that to three to differentiate the difference between simple assault and aggravated assault.  Ive never proposed a scenario where Martin was trying to conduct a citizens arrest on Zimmerman.




Quantum Windbag said:


> <<peronsal insult remove>> and I have specifically challenged you to tell me what felony Zimmerman is being charged with to make that a viable option. You have not yet mentioned one, because none exist, yet you insist your fantasy scenario is viable because the prosecution might amend the indictment.



The same answer as last time, I havent provided one because at this point Zimmerman hasnt been charged with any other crime than Murder 2.

We are talking scenarios here, we arent talking what has actually been charged.




Quantum Windbag said:


> You have postulated that Zimmerman was illegally detaining Martin, and that this gave Martin the right to resist, but the fact is that, under Florida law, anyone who tries to detain a suspect for the police is acting as a ex facto law enforcement officer. Their actions are subject to strict scrutiny in the court after the fact, but it is actually legal, so that makes that argument null and void.



First of false, Ive postulated no such thing.  To postulate is to to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary (Merriam-Webster).  I have never claimed that Zimmerman was detaining Zimmerman as a mater of truth, Ive always, ALWAYS said that it was a possible scenario which is a sequence of events especially when imagined; especially : an account or synopsis of a possible course of action or events (Merriam-Webster). 

As to ex facto law enforcement officer, only in the case of an individual committing a felony, it would be Zimmermans responsibility to show that he thought Martin was committing a felony.  Nothing in the dispatcher call indicates that Martin was in the process of doing anything felonious.  Walking down the street is not a felony, walking down the street and acting suspicious is not a felony.




Quantum Windbag said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Under no scenario is Zimmerman required to do anything. Florida law on self defense is requires that the state prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the person accused of murder, or assault, was not reasonably afraid of death or serious injury. this is something I have pointed out numerous times. The applicable laws are 776.013 sections 1 and 3.



Sorry, you are incorrect.  776.041 specifically says The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who  One of the preceding sections that 776.041 nullifies is 776,013.




Quantum Windbag said:


> The very first sentence in the law that points out that 776.041  is an exception to the entire justifiable use of force law. In order for  776.041 to apply the state has to first prove that (1) the person they  are charging was committing a felony at the time of the fight, or (2)  that the person they are charging actually started the fight and that  his response to the use of force that he initiated was unreasonable  because he was not actually in danger. In other words, even if the state  can prove that Zimmerman started the fight, which even you admit they  cannot, they would still have to prove that Zimmerman belief that he was  in danger was unreasonable.



1.  Thank you for agreeing with me that 776.041 is an exception to the entire justifiable use of force law.  Thats what Ive simply pointing out.  776.041 is an exception to the immunity of 776.013.

2.  Secondly I dont disagree with your reasoning at all.  The state would have a heavy burden to apply 776.041 and as Ive repeatedly said, the information that is available to public does not support such a claim by the state if they were to make one.  There would have to be additional evidence that we have not seen or heard of yet to validate such an approach.

3.  Where I disagree, is that **IF** Zimmerman was the aggressor and would lose is self defense immunity under 776.041 his belief that the danger he was unreasonable is irrelevant.  It doesnt mater what his belief was.  If (again **IF**) he was the aggressor and lost immunity under 776.041 then a state of mind that he entered into **AFTER** losing immunity is irrelevant to the results of his actions that led to the situation.  Now again, can the state prove it?  Probably not.




Quantum Windbag said:


> This, I believe, goes back to what I have said all along, it doesn't  matter who started the fight, all that matters was is what Zimmerman  believed, and whether it is reasonable.



That is the core of our disagreement.  776.041 does not re-allow self defense for an attacker just because they are losing a fight they started.  There are specific physical behaviors that are required before self defense is regained (if they can be regained at all).  If they started hostilities with a forcible felony, then no belief provides them with immunity from the results of their actions.  ONLY if they change their mind and attempt escape (behavior) do they regain self defense.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Apply the nor, then you can apply the or that is built into 776.041.



Please quote in 776.041 where this nor function exists in 776.041.  



Quantum Windbag said:


> Actually, all that is required for a citizen's arrest is a reasonable belief that someone did something. This does not require that the person who is attempting the arrest actually have witnessed anything.



I wont be spending a lot of time on it as nothing in the dispatch call indicates Zimmerman was attempting a citizens arrest for a felony and nothing that has come out about his stories to the police or through the father and brother who gave extensive interviews did they say anything about Zimmerman attempting a citizens arrest.

What corroborative evidence is there that conforms to what has been released to the public would support Martin was in the process of committing a felony?  What third party did Martin commit aggravated assault/battery against?  Who did he attempt to murder?  Attempted rape victim?  What 3rd party was Martin attempting to unlawfully detain?  Was he committing multiple DUIs while walking?  Was he omitting financial resources from a bond application while on charges for a felony 2 or above?

>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 4, 2012)

KissMy said:


> Zimmerman was not making a citizens arrest. He did not witness Martin commit a crime & his statements do not say that was his intent. Martin was likewise not making a citizens arrest by breaking Zimmerman's nose or bashing head on the ground. Someone got physical first & we will never know for certain who that was. This was self defense from the continued beating of a subdued person.
> 
> I was on Martins side until I heard the screams for help on the 911 tapes & witness saying it was Zimmerman screaming. No matter what lead up to the first blows, no-one is justified in beating a subdued person screaming for his life.




I disagree for a couple of reasons:

First, it absolutley matters who initiated hostilities and Florida Law recognizes it because if you are the attacker you lose self defense immunity if your aggression was in a felonious manner.

Secondly, **IF** Zimmerman was the initiator of hostilities and attempted to pull his weapon, then you have Zimmerman armed with a deadly weapon and Martin would have been absolutley justified under that scenario to defend himself from Zimmerman using deadly force against him.  Information has been leaked that Zimmerman told the police that he and Martin were struggling for his gun.  If we are struggling for a gun and I'm afraid you are going to shoot me, then yes I have the right to beat your head against the ground and attempt to render you unable to shoot me.  Just because Zimmerman or Martin was yelling for help does not mean either was "subdued".​

>>>>


----------



## ginscpy (May 4, 2012)

2 testoserone-fuled idiots


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 4, 2012)

KissMy said:


> Zimmerman was not making a citizens arrest. He did not witness Martin commit a crime & his statements do not say that was his intent. Martin was likewise not making a citizens arrest by breaking Zimmerman's nose or bashing head on the ground. Someone got physical first & we will never know for certain who that was. This was self defense from the continued beating of a subdued person.
> 
> I was on Martins side until I heard the screams for help on the 911 tapes & witness saying it was Zimmerman screaming. No matter what lead up to the first blows, no-one is justified in beating a subdued person screaming for his life.



That is the best and most concise summary of why this is a self defense issue that I have read thus far.

Kudos.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 4, 2012)

Ravi said:


> > Actually, all that is required for a citizen's arrest is a reasonable belief that someone did something. This does not require that the person who is attempting the arrest actually have witnessed anything.
> 
> 
> No, they must have a reasonable belief that the person committed a felony. Nothing about Martin points to a conclusion that he had just committed a felony before his death.



Yep, I did misquote that. thanks for the correction.



Ravi said:


> Not to mention that a citizen's arrest forbids deadly force.



So does the law about police arresting people, yet they kill people all the time. Do you honestly have a point?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 4, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Nope, never made such an argument, please dont attribute to me things I didnt argue.



You did argue it, you just don't realize that is what you were saying.



WorldWatcher said:


> Ive suggest Martin as the initiator and Zimmerman as the initiator as two scenarios and then expanded that to three to differentiate the difference between simple assault and aggravated assault.  Ive never proposed a scenario where Martin was trying to conduct a citizens arrest on Zimmerman.



So, how does the third "scenario" reasonably end as anything other than Martin trying to detain Zimmerman until the police arrive? Why else would he have continued to attack someone who was on the ground. Do you honestly expect me to believe that a man who was carrying a gun entered into a citizen's arrest with his gun holstered, initiated the physical confrontation needed to detain Martin, who was willing to resort to force to escape, and didn't use his gun until after he had Martin pinned to the ground? I find that so absurd that I am forced to conclude that you are saying Martin was the one making the citizen's arrest.



WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > <<peronsal insult remove>>
> ...



Which makes my point that 776.041 does not apply.



WorldWatcher said:


> We are talking scenarios here, we arent talking what has actually been charged.



No, we are talking about why your "scenario" is not a reasonable interpretation of the law. That was the question you asked, and it is the question I am answering. If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.



WorldWatcher said:


> First of false, Ive postulated no such thing.  To postulate is to to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary (Merriam-Webster).  I have never claimed that Zimmerman was detaining Zimmerman as a mater of truth, Ive always, ALWAYS said that it was a possible scenario which is a sequence of events especially when imagined; especially : an account or synopsis of a possible course of action or events (Merriam-Webster).



Are you saying that you are not arguing that, as a necessary precondition or prerequisite, aka postulate, that, if Zimmerman was attempting to detain Martin unlawfully Martin was entitled to the tight to defend himself? Are you now saying you weren't saying that?



WorldWatcher said:


> As to ex facto law enforcement officer, only in the case of an individual committing a felony, it would be Zimmermans responsibility to show that he thought Martin was committing a felony.  Nothing in the dispatcher call indicates that Martin was in the process of doing anything felonious.  Walking down the street is not a felony, walking down the street and acting suspicious is not a felony.



Which, as I have continually pointed out, makes your assertion that Zimmerman initiated an illegal detention, and then had the presence of mind to lie to the police, absurd.



WorldWatcher said:


> Sorry, you are incorrect.  776.041 specifically says The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who  One of the preceding sections that 776.041 nullifies is 776,013.



Do you not know what a nor function is? Aren't you the one that brought Boolean Algebra into the discussion in the first place?



WorldWatcher said:


> 1.  Thank you for agreeing with me that 776.041 is an exception to the entire justifiable use of force law.  Thats what Ive simply pointing out.  776.041 is an exception to the immunity of 776.013.



Yet you keep arguing that it is the part of the law that applies, despite the fact that, in order for it to apply, the state has to prove things you admit they cannot prove. 

I am confused.



WorldWatcher said:


> 2.  Secondly I dont disagree with your reasoning at all.  The state would have a heavy burden to apply 776.041 and as Ive repeatedly said, the information that is available to public does not support such a claim by the state if they were to make one.  There would have to be additional evidence that we have not seen or heard of yet to validate such an approach.



Then why do you keep trying to shoe the law into the evidence?



WorldWatcher said:


> 3.  Where I disagree, is that **IF** Zimmerman was the aggressor and would lose is self defense immunity under 776.041 his belief that the danger he was unreasonable is irrelevant.  It doesnt mater what his belief was.  If (again **IF**) he was the aggressor and lost immunity under 776.041 then a state of mind that he entered into **AFTER** losing immunity is irrelevant to the results of his actions that led to the situation.  Now again, can the state prove it?  Probably not.



Let me get this straight, you think the law applies, except when it doesn't.

Got it.

I already asked you to provide case law that supports your interpretation, you haven't done so. So, I will ask again, how does the requirement in Section (2) subsection (a) doesn't apply.



WorldWatcher said:


> That is the core of our disagreement.  776.041 does not re-allow self defense for an attacker just because they are losing a fight they started.  There are specific physical behaviors that are required before self defense is regained (if they can be regained at all).  If they started hostilities with a forcible felony, then no belief provides them with immunity from the results of their actions.  ONLY if they change their mind and attempt escape (behavior) do they regain self defense.



That is only true if a person has a chance to retreat or break off the engagement. If Zimmerman's account is true, and Martin had him on the ground, he had no opportunity to escape. That reinstates his right to self defense.

Feel free to continue in your insisting you have the answers, even though you don't.




WorldWatcher said:


> Please quote in 776.041 where this nor function exists in 776.041.



You can't read? You posted it numerous times in multiple threads. You even posted it in the post that started this renewed attempt to educate you.



WorldWatcher said:


> I wont be spending a lot of time on it as nothing in the dispatch call indicates Zimmerman was attempting a citizens arrest for a felony and nothing that has come out about his stories to the police or through the father and brother who gave extensive interviews did they say anything about Zimmerman attempting a citizens arrest.
> 
> What corroborative evidence is there that conforms to what has been released to the public would support Martin was in the process of committing a felony?  What third party did Martin commit aggravated assault/battery against?  Who did he attempt to murder?  Attempted rape victim?  What 3rd party was Martin attempting to unlawfully detain?  Was he committing multiple DUIs while walking?  Was he omitting financial resources from a bond application while on charges for a felony 2 or above?
> 
> >>>>



Please point out where I ever said that Zimmerman was making a citizen's arrest? All I did was correct your assertion that Zimmerman actually had to see Martin committing a crime in order to arrest him. I know you can admit you are wrong, try it this time.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 4, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Nope, never made such an argument, please don&#8217;t attribute to me things I didn&#8217;t argue.
> ...



No, I didn&#8217;t.  In early discussion provided scenarios where Martin was the aggressor and Zimmerman was the aggressor.  After further researching the law, the Zimmerman scenario was split into Zimmerman with simple assault and Zimmerman with felonious assault.  I never proposed a scenario where Martin attempted to detain Zimmerman since (from a self defense standpoint) it is the same as the Martin as aggressor scenario.  Since Martin is dead the difference between initial simple assault or initial felonious assault is irrelevant since he can&#8217;t be charged either way.



Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > I&#8217;ve suggest Martin as the initiator and Zimmerman as the initiator as two scenarios and then expanded that to three to differentiate the difference between simple assault and aggravated assault.  I&#8217;ve never proposed a scenario where Martin was trying to conduct a citizen&#8217;s arrest on Zimmerman.
> ...



The third scenario hypothesized that Zimmerman was attempting to unlawfully detain Martin and Martin then was justified in using force against his attacker.  There is no indication that Martin was attempting to detain Martin.

I don&#8217;t expect you to believe that Zimmerman attempted to enter into a citizen&#8217;s arrest as there is no indication from the dispatchers call that he intended to do so and any attempt by him to perform a citizen&#8217;s arrest would actually be unlawful unless you have evidence that Martin was committing a felony.

What&#8217;s happening is that  you appear to be hung up on this &#8220;citizen&#8217;s arrest&#8221; thing which is irrelevant based on what it publicly known.  Nothing indicates Martin committed any felony and nothing from Zimmerman indicates he even thought a felony had been committed.  He called a &#8220;suspicious&#8221; person into a non-emergency number.




Quantum Windbag said:


> Which makes my point that 776.041 does not apply.



Actually under a Zimmerman as an aggressor, 776.041 would apply.  However the state has a burden of proof that it appears the state would be unable to meet.



Quantum Windbag said:


> No, we are talking about why your "scenario" is not a reasonable interpretation of the law. That was the question you asked, and it is the question I am answering. If you don't like the answer, don't ask the question.



Actually my scenario is quite reasonable as a hypothesis, the fact that it seems like the state would be unable to prove it if it did happen does not change the validity of the hypothesis until new evidence is made public which invalidates the scenario.  Which of course may happen in the future.




Quantum Windbag said:


> Are you saying that you are not arguing that, as a necessary precondition or prerequisite, aka postulate, that, if Zimmerman was attempting to detain Martin unlawfully Martin was entitled to the tight to defend himself? Are you now saying you weren't saying that?



I&#8217;ve provided a possible scenario (i.e. hypothesis) which could exist under the facts known to the public.  I HAVE NOT POSTULATED it as truth.




Quantum Windbag said:


> Which, as I have continually pointed out, makes your assertion that Zimmerman initiated an illegal detention, and then had the presence of mind to lie to the police, absurd.



Postulate: a : to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/postulate




Quantum Windbag said:


> Do you not know what a nor function is? Aren't you the one that brought Boolean Algebra into the discussion in the first place?



Absolutely I know what a NOR function is.

AND = For the output to be true both (or all) inputs must be true.
OR = For the output to be true only one of any inputs must be true.
NOR (Not OR) = For the output to be true all inputs must be false.

776.041 Sections 1 and 2 operate on the logical &#8220;OR&#8221; function.  If either one is satisfied then the output is true (in this case that means the opening paragraph becomes operative).  This is a correct interpretation of the law as writing.

For 776.041 to be a logical NOR function then the description of the operation would be that Section 1 and Section 2 must be false for the opening paragraph to be true.  Which makes no sense what-so-ever.




Quantum Windbag said:


> Yet you keep arguing that it is the part of the law that applies, despite the fact that, in order for it to apply, the state has to prove things you admit they cannot prove.



No, I provide three scenarios that currently meet the known facts.  I&#8217;m not arguing one is more correct than they other two at this point.



Quantum Windbag said:


> I am confused.



I know, but I&#8217;m trying to help.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Then why do you keep trying to shoe the law into the evidence?



I&#8217;m not &#8220;shoeing&#8221; the evidence into the law, I&#8217;ve posited three scenarios that meet the known facts available to the public and applied the law as it&#8217;s written.




Quantum Windbag said:


> I already asked you to provide case law that supports your interpretation, you haven't done so. So, I will ask again, how does the requirement in Section (2) subsection (a) doesn't apply.



I haven&#8217;t attempted to apply case law, and I don&#8217;t plan to.  If you would like to research that &#8211; feel free.  I&#8217;ve researched the statutes themselves and provided an interpretation of what is clearly written.  If you think there is applicable Florida case law out there that disagrees with my position and supports your position, then you are clearly welcome to present it.  I&#8217;m not here to do the research in support of your arguments.




Quantum Windbag said:


> That is only true if a person has a chance to retreat or break off the engagement. If Zimmerman's account is true, and Martin had him on the ground, he had no opportunity to escape. That reinstates his right to self defense.



As previously pointed out there were three scenarios presented Martin Assaults, Zimmerman Simple Assault, and Zimmerman Felonious Assault.  For the two Zimmerman scenarios I absolutely agreed that if Zimmerman initiated hostilities under simple assault, which under Florida Law (IIRC 784.011) he could have regained his self defense immunity if Martin didn&#8217;t let him escape or if there was no time for an escape.

However under scenario #3 Zimmerman would have committed a felony assault and would not have regained his self defense, and would be responsible for his actions.




Quantum Windbag said:


> Feel free to continue in your insisting you have the answers, even though you don't.



I&#8217;m not the one insisting I have the answers.  All though these threads I&#8217;ve provided multiple scenarios that fit the facts known to the public.  I have not said I have the answer.  I have said we don&#8217;t know at this point and need more information.  Maybe Zimmerman&#8217;s statements will clear things up.  Maybe forensics my undermine Zimmerman&#8217;s statements.  At this point I don&#8217;t know, you don&#8217;t know, and the public does not know.




Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Please quote in 776.041 where this &#8220;nor&#8221; function exists in 776.041.
> ...



Nope never posted 776.041 as a &#8220;NOR&#8221; function.  It is clearly an &#8220;OR&#8221; function as described.



Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > I won&#8217;t be spending a lot of time on it as nothing in the dispatch call indicates Zimmerman was attempting a citizen&#8217;s arrest for a felony and nothing that has come out about his stories to the police or through the father and brother who gave extensive interviews did they say anything about Zimmerman attempting a citizens arrest.
> ...



No Zimmerman, to be able to perform a citizen arrest, did not just have to see Martin commit a crime.  Zimmerman would have had to see Martin commiting a felony because as  you pointed out in Florida (and I&#8217;m assuming you are correct) to perform a citizens arrest the felony must have been committed.  Citizens&#8217; arrest is not authorized for misdemeanors.  If Zimmerman tried to unlawfully detain Martin for a misdemeanor, then Zimmerman would be committing a felony. 

As already pointed out Zimmerman called the non-emergency number and made no indication during the entire dispatcher call that Martin had done anything that was a felony.  The call was based on Martin (a) acting suspicious in reality, or (b) based on Martin fitting the profile of previous burglary reports and Zimmerman trumping up the &#8220;suspicious&#8221; language simply to ensure police responded.  


************************

Going to bed and I&#8217;m not re-reading for typos.

You have a good night.

>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 5, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> No Zimmerman, to be able to perform a citizen arrest, did not just have to see Martin commit a crime.  Zimmerman would have had to see Martin commiting a felony because as  you pointed out in Florida (and I&#8217;m assuming you are correct) to perform a citizens arrest the felony must have been committed.  Citizens&#8217; arrest is not authorized for misdemeanors.  If Zimmerman tried to unlawfully detain Martin for a misdemeanor, then Zimmerman would be committing a felony.
> 
> As already pointed out Zimmerman called the non-emergency number and made no indication during the entire dispatcher call that Martin had done anything that was a felony.  The call was based on Martin (a) acting suspicious in reality, or (b) based on Martin fitting the profile of previous burglary reports and Zimmerman trumping up the &#8220;suspicious&#8221; language simply to ensure police responded.
> 
> ...



This is the crux of your problem.

Tell me something, how do you jump from a reasonable belief that a felony was committed, which is the standard for a citizen's arrest in Florida, to there actually having to be a felony before there is an arrest? If I see someone breaking into a car and hot wiring it, I would be entirely justified in reasonably concluding that the person doing that was committing a felony, and I could execute a citizen's arrest under Florida law. If it later turned out that the person I arrested was the legal owner of the car, or an authorized representative of the person who legally owned the car, that would not negate the fact that, under the circumstances I witnessed, my belief that a felony occurred. even though later investigation would clear the person I arrested.

The same thing applies to Zimmerman, all that matters is that, under the circumstances, his belief was reasonable. None of the scenarios, theories, wild guesses, or prosecutorial accusations matter. All that matters is, was what Zimmerman did reasonable.


----------



## Ravi (May 5, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > > Actually, all that is required for a citizen's arrest is a reasonable belief that someone did something. This does not require that the person who is attempting the arrest actually have witnessed anything.
> ...


In Florida, excessive force cannot be used when making a citizen's arrest. Killing someone because you can't detain them is certainly excessive force.


----------



## syrenn (May 5, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



How do you know he was trying to detain him?


----------



## Ravi (May 5, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > > Actually, all that is required for a citizen's arrest is a reasonable belief that someone did something. This does not require that the person who is attempting the arrest actually have witnessed anything.
> ...


AND they get investigated when they kill someone, as they should. And cases that appear to be murder or manslaughter should be brought before the court. That IS the point.


----------



## Ravi (May 5, 2012)

syrenn said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


I don't. In fact I don't think that is what he was trying to do....just correcting the mistaken thinking of other posters.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 5, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > No Zimmerman, to be able to perform a citizen arrest, did not just have to see Martin commit a crime.  Zimmerman would have had to see Martin commiting a felony because as  you pointed out in Florida (and Im assuming you are correct) to perform a citizens arrest the felony must have been committed.  Citizens arrest is not authorized for misdemeanors.  If Zimmerman tried to unlawfully detain Martin for a misdemeanor, then Zimmerman would be committing a felony.
> ...



When you think about the hypothesis that you are presenting in a general application you end up with something along these lines: "One person can lawfully detain another unknown person who the detainer observes committing a felony.  In addition a person can detain an unknown person who is not committing a felony simply by claiming that they believe that the person may have committed a felony at some point in the past and that they would have immunity from their actions by claiming they thought it was possible the person committed a felony."

That is my understanding of what you position appears to be, that all Zimmerman has to do is claim that he thought Martin was committing a felony without any actual justification and that the police and a "reasonable person" would then accept that.  Well speaking as a reasonable person I would not accept that.  If you are going to claim citizens arrest which is only authorized for felony actions, then you would have the responsibility of defining the actions the unknown person was doing that would describe a felonious situation.

At this point the only information available to the public is Zimmerman's dispatcher call.  A call he made to a non-emergency number which right there indicates that Zimmerman was not observing a serious crime.  If Zimmerman was observing a felony, a reasonable person would assume that Zimmerman would have called 911 - the emergency number to be called when a crime is in the process of being committed.  Then we have the contents of the dispatcher where Zimmerman uses vague generality to describe Martin's actions such as: "suspicious", "looks like he's up to no good", "on drugs or something".  Zimmerman goes on to say "he's walking around the area".  That description alone means that Martin was not in the process of hot-wiring a car, was not attempting to rape someone, was not attempting to kidnap someone, was not in the process of burglarizing a home.  That according to Zimmerman he was walking around and that in Zimmerman's mind he was "suspicious", but was not exhibiting a behavior that was felonious.

The example you provide above "someone breaking into a car and hot wiring it" is an example of felonious behavior that the police and a reasonable person would accept as felonious behavior even if it was later shown that the unknown person was the legal owner or their representative.  You yourself provide an example of where the observed BEHAVIOR is felonious as justification, and a logical one at that.  Zimmerman's description of Martin just ""he's walking around the area" is not a felonious act.

If Zimmerman said Martin looked like he was attempting to hot-wire a car, to use your example, then it would be an entirely different matter.  What this situation is though that we have Zimmerman attempting to follow Martin for nothing more that he was "he's walking around the area" and Zimmerman thinking he was "suspicious".



>>>>


----------



## Katzndogz (May 5, 2012)

This takes a brand new assumption.  Another what IF.

What IF Zimmerman was making a citizen's arrest?

He wasn't.  This is more mucking up the issue.


----------



## Liability (May 5, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> This takes a brand new assumption.  Another what IF.
> 
> What IF Zimmerman was making a citizen's arrest?
> 
> He wasn't.  This is more mucking up the issue.



Well, yeah.  Maybe.  But still.  What *if* Kal-el had landed in Nazi Germany instead of Smallville?

It amazes me to the core that nobody is ever willing to address that one.


----------



## Liability (May 5, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



You correctly stated the rule in Florida in that first sentence.  You jumped to an erroneous conclusion in your second sentence.

If you are making an arrest in Florida and, instead of submitting, the apprehended individual elects to try to kill you, you are nevertheless permitted to employ the use of force necessary under the circumstances.  Your purpose stops being to make an arrest, though, under such circumstances.  I grant you that.

But still, if you used only reasonable force (or no force at all) to initially make the citizen's arrest, the fact that it turned deadly does not necessarily mean you have broken any law.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 5, 2012)

Liability said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > This takes a brand new assumption.  Another what IF.
> ...




Dann natürlich würden wir alle bezahlen tributue an das Vaterland und sprechen Deutsch.



Then of course we would all be paying tribute to the fatherland and speak german.

>>>>


----------



## Liability (May 5, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



And what impact would that have had on the Zimmerman/Martin case?


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 5, 2012)

Liability said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




None.

But then on the other hand the butterfly effect would mean that it was such a large disruption to the time line that the Zimmerman/Martin case would likely have never occurred since it is likely that if Kal-el had been raised a Nazi then the Axis Powers would have lost WWII.





>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 5, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



They get investigated, and they routinely get cleared of any wrongdoing.

Again, what is your point?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 5, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> When you think about the hypothesis that you are presenting in a general application you end up with something along these lines: "One person can lawfully detain another unknown person who the detainer observes committing a felony.  In addition a person can detain an unknown person who is not committing a felony simply by claiming that they believe that the person may have committed a felony at some point in the past and that they would have immunity from their actions by claiming they thought it was possible the person committed a felony."



There you go jumping to a false conclusion again, is this how you get your exercise?

Do you understand the term "reasonable belief?" That does not allow you to make up stories and detain people, that is not a reasonable belief by any stretch of the imagination. Try it and the police will happily cart you off to jail for kidnapping, and the prosecutor won't have any trouble winning a conviction.



WorldWatcher said:


> That is my understanding of what you position appears to be, that all Zimmerman has to do is claim that he thought Martin was committing a felony without any actual justification and that the police and a "reasonable person" would then accept that.  Well speaking as a reasonable person I would not accept that.  If you are going to claim citizens arrest which is only authorized for felony actions, then you would have the responsibility of defining the actions the unknown person was doing that would describe a felonious situation.



If that is truly your understanding of my position you are a fracking idiot. I don't believe that, so my only alternative is to conclude you are trying to troll me, and failing miserably.



WorldWatcher said:


> At this point the only information available to the public is Zimmerman's dispatcher call.  A call he made to a non-emergency number which right there indicates that Zimmerman was not observing a serious crime.  If Zimmerman was observing a felony, a reasonable person would assume that Zimmerman would have called 911 - the emergency number to be called when a crime is in the process of being committed.  Then we have the contents of the dispatcher where Zimmerman uses vague generality to describe Martin's actions such as: "suspicious", "looks like he's up to no good", "on drugs or something".  Zimmerman goes on to say "he's walking around the area".  That description alone means that Martin was not in the process of hot-wiring a car, was not attempting to rape someone, was not attempting to kidnap someone, was not in the process of burglarizing a home.  That according to Zimmerman he was walking around and that in Zimmerman's mind he was "suspicious", but was not exhibiting a behavior that was felonious.



Yet you want to argue that, based on the fact that no information has come out that Zimmerman did not try to detain Martin, he might have tried to detain Martin, and this will allow the state to argue that he does not have a right to claim self defense. Then you want to get all faux intelligent and point out that you are only presenting scenarios, when you are actually attempting to manufacture evidence.

If the evidence does not support your theory, the theory is wrong, don't you watch CSI?



WorldWatcher said:


> The example you provide above "someone breaking into a car and hot wiring it" is an example of felonious behavior that the police and a reasonable person would accept as felonious behavior even if it was later shown that the unknown person was the legal owner or their representative.  You yourself provide an example of where the observed BEHAVIOR is felonious as justification, and a logical one at that.  Zimmerman's description of Martin just ""he's walking around the area" is not a felonious act.



Never said it was. What I am arguing is that your insistence that you understand the law is absurd. Your initial claim was that someone had to observe a felony in order to be able to justify a citizen's arrest, I described a situation where no one actually observed a felony, yet a citizen's arrest was justified. Now I will further prove your assertion that someone has to actually observe felonious behavior in order to justify one is still absurd.

You get a call from someone you know to be a law enforcement official that a certain person is wanted for murder. When you later come across that person you detain that person, even though he insists he didn't do anything. The police show up and investigate, and they determiner that the officer who called you had a personal beef with the person, and that he lied to you. You did not know this, no one committed any felony, no one actually saw any felonious behavior, yet, under Florida law, you would still be justified in detaining him because your belief was reasonable.



WorldWatcher said:


> If Zimmerman said Martin looked like he was attempting to hot-wire a car, to use your example, then it would be an entirely different matter.  What this situation is though that we have Zimmerman attempting to follow Martin for nothing more that he was "he's walking around the area" and Zimmerman thinking he was "suspicious".



Zimmerman had every right to think Martin was suspicious. Since no evidence exist that indicates Zimmerman attempted to detain Martin, I have no idea why you keep trying to bring the discussion back to them. My point is still the same, you misinterpreted the law about citizen's arrests in Florida, just like you misinterpreted the law about use of force.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 5, 2012)

Liability said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > This takes a brand new assumption.  Another what IF.
> ...



You would be surprised what has been addressed in the Superman mythos.

Superman: Red Son - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Liability (May 5, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



None?  If Ubermensch had landed in Nazi Germany, obviously the Axis Powers vould have von the war.  And if zat happened, ze Joooooz vould be no more!

Zimmerman therefore vould never have exeeested since his forebears vould haff been eeeliminated.

Landings have consequences.


----------



## KissMy (May 5, 2012)

So much for the size advantage myth in a fight.

600lbs Sumo Vs 169lbs MMA Fighter = 483lb weight advantage.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWxlZ52O0rI"]600lbs Sumo Vs 169lbs MMA Fighter[/ame]


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 5, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > When you think about the hypothesis that you are presenting in a general application you end up with something along these lines: "One person can lawfully detain another unknown person who the detainer observes committing a felony.  In addition a person can detain an unknown person who is not committing a felony simply by claiming that they believe that the person may have committed a felony at some point in the past and that they would have immunity from their actions by claiming they thought it was possible the person committed a felony."
> ...



Yes I understand reasonable belief which is why I agree that a person cannot attempt to unlawfully detain someone unless they have a "reasonable belief" that a felony has been committed.

Nothing in the information we have at t his point is that Zimmerman had ANY belief that Martin was committing a felony.  Nothing in the dispatch call would lead a reasonable person to believe that Zimmerman had observed a felony, nothing in what has been released/leaked about his 5-6 hours with the police that night lead us to believe that he observed Martin committing a felony.



Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > That is my understanding of what you position appears to be, that all Zimmerman has to do is claim that he thought Martin was committing a felony without any actual justification and that the police and a "reasonable person" would then accept that.  Well speaking as a reasonable person I would not accept that.  If you are gong to claim citizens arrest which is only authorized for felony actions, then you would have the responsibility of defining the actions the unknown person was doing that would describe a felonious situation.
> ...



Are not you the one that said all that Zimmerman has to do is "believe"?  How do we determine what Zimmerman "believes"?

Would there not have to be some type of corroboration?  For example, in the example you previously proposed there would be evidence of someone hot-wiring a car.  In the example later in this post you will proposed that a law enforcement officer identified someone as a felon.

Both examples you provide demonstrate behavior which a reasonable person can then conclude that the individual had a justifiable belief that the individual to be detained had or was committing a felony.  Nothing Zimmerman indicated in the dispatcher call indicated Martin was doing anything felonious.  Walking through a housing development is not a felony and Zimmerman described no actions which would qualify.



Quantum Windbag said:


> Yet you want to argue that, based on the fact that no information has come out that Zimmerman did not try to detain Martin, he might have tried to detain Martin, and this will allow the state to argue that he does not have a right to claim self defense. Then you want to get all faux intelligent and point out that you are only presenting scenarios, when you are actually attempting to manufacture evidence.



Presenting multiple possibilities that meet the known facts is what a scenario is.  I've not attempted to manufacture any evidence, I've described possibilities that fit the evidence.

Very different.




Quantum Windbag said:


> If the evidence does not support your theory, the theory is wrong, don't you watch CSI?



Life is not a TV show where all the answers are arrived at in 44-minutes.

Presently the known evidence fits (not supports, fits) multiple theories, when new evidence is revealed then there are at least 3 possibilities: (a) one theory is confirmed, (b) all theories are rejected, (c) an existing theory is modified to account for the new evidence, (d) the evidence requires the creation of a totally new theory.

Although I like CSI when Bill Peterson was on, I prefer Sherlock Holmes when he said "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains--however improbable--must be the truth."  I always liked that turn of phrase because it implies that you take the opposite approach from most people.  Instead of examining evidence to come to a conclusion, examine the possibilities and use the evidence to exclude them.  




Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > The example you provide above "someone breaking into a car and hot wiring it" is an example of felonious behavior that the police and a reasonable person would accept as felonious behavior even if it was later shown that the unknown person was the legal owner or their representative.  You yourself provide an example of where the observed BEHAVIOR is felonious as justification, and a logical one at that.  Zimmerman's description of Martin just ""he's walking around the area" is not a felonious act.
> ...



In the example you provided (hot wiring a car) and individual was exhibiting a behavior consistent with a felonious act; hot wiring a car to steal it.  Zimmerman, to our knowledge, ever indicated that Martin was performing a felonious act.



Quantum Windbag said:


> You get a call from someone you know to be a law enforcement official that a certain person is wanted for murder. When you later come across that person you detain that person, even though he insists he didn't do anything. The police show up and investigate, and they determiner that the officer who called you had a personal beef with the person, and that he lied to you. You did not know this, no one committed any felony, no one actually saw any felonious behavior, yet, under Florida law, you would still be justified in detaining him because your belief was reasonable.



A reasonable person would believe, based on the word of a known law enforcement officer that, that the individual had committed a felony.

I assumed, which I know I probably should have done, that you understood the context would have applied to Zimmerman observing Martin.  Guess I shouldn't have made that assumption.



Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > If Zimmerman said Martin looked like he was attempting to hot-wire a car, to use your example, then it would be an entirely different matter.  What this situation is though that we have Zimmerman attempting to follow Martin for nothing more that he was "he's walking around the area" and Zimmerman thinking he was "suspicious".
> ...



1.  You wonder why I bring the discussion back to Zimmerman and Martin in a thread about Zimmerman and Martin?  That seems a little odd.

2.  I've said multiple times, MULTIPLE TIMES - that there is no evidence available to the public of Zimmerman attempting to detain Martin.

3.  Since Zimmerman has made no indication during the dispatcher call that Martin's actions were in anyway felonious, there is no reason to assume he was attempting a lawful detention of Martin.  Unless Martin was committing a felony, citizens arrest wouldn't apply, so if Zimmerman had tried to detain Martin it would have been unlawful.

4.  I've not misinterpreted the law in Florida pertaining to citizen's arrest because I didn't bring up the law about citizens arrest.  Since it was you that seems to be obsessing, as pointed out earlier, it's your responsibility to post the law that applies.  To date I have not seen you link to the Florida Statues about citizen's arrest and so how can I misinterpret a law to which you've provided no link?


>>>>


----------



## Ravi (May 5, 2012)

There are no real laws in Florida about a citizen's arrest. A citizen's arrest is treated like a police officer's arrest out of his/her jurisdiction. And police officers are not allowed to use unjustifiable force.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 5, 2012)

KissMy said:


> So much for the size advantage myth in a fight.
> 
> 600lbs Sumo Vs 169lbs MMA Fighter = 431lb weight advantage.
> 
> 600lbs Sumo Vs 169lbs MMA Fighter




I must agree with this.  A 6'3" compared to a 5'8" size advantage doesn't really tell you that Martin didn't accost Zimmerman.  On the other hand an adavantage of 200 lbs over a 160 lbs person doesn't really tell you that Zimmerman didn't accost Martin either.

You are correct.

Size advantage is not indicative of who starts a fight.  Still could have been Martin or Zimmerman.


>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 5, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I stopped reading your post when you mentioned Zimmerman.

Guess what, not everything in the universe revolves around Zimmerman, If you cannot have a simple discussion about something that does not revolve around him without mentioning him, how can you possibly have a discussion about anything that does involve him.

Try this again, this time without mentioning Zimmerman.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 5, 2012)

Ravi said:


> There are no real laws in Florida about a citizen's arrest. A citizen's arrest is treated like a police officer's arrest out of his/her jurisdiction. And police officers are not allowed to use unjustifiable force.



Except when they are, because no police officer, prosecutor, or judge wants to upset the police by holding them accountable for breaking a law. 

Do you have a fracking point, or are you just going to repeat absurdities until I stop asking if you have a point?


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 5, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> I stopped reading your post when you mentioned Zimmerman.
> 
> Guess what, not everything in the universe revolves around Zimmerman, If you cannot have a simple discussion about something that does not revolve around him without mentioning him, how can you possibly have a discussion about anything that does involve him.
> 
> Try this again, this time without mentioning Zimmerman.




If you don't want to discuss Zimmerman and Martin in the "George Zimmerman's bloody head" thread, well I guess that's your choice.  Have a nice day.

BTW - If you decide to start a new thread on a more generalized topic, please PM me a link.  I might choose to participate.


>>>>


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 5, 2012)

Liability said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Honestly, even if he had landed in Nazi Germany, the whole thing would still depend on the kind of people who found and raised him.  There was an entire "alternate world" miniseries called "The Nail" that posited that Ma and Pa Kent got a flat tire the day they would have found him, and so he was found and raised by Amish people instead.

Germany under the Nazis was still full of good people, many of whom risked their lives to help the Jews.  So . . .


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 5, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > I stopped reading your post when you mentioned Zimmerman.
> ...



Do you have something new to say about Zimmerman that you have not already said?

Didn't think so, yet you keep talking about him. We are talking about something that is not even tangential to what happened, yet you want to keep tying it to it. That just makes you look stupid.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 5, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I loved that series.


----------



## Ravi (May 6, 2012)

at QW. Gets his ass handed to him and pretends he didn't start down the garden path.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 6, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Not particularly.

There is now leaked information that Zimmerman in his after action statements said ((LINK):

1.  Martin circled the truck three times,

Interesting because Zimmerman while on the phone and being recorded never made such a discription to the dispatcher.​
2.  That Martin was attempting to get Zimmerman's gun,

Interesting because one has to wonder where was Zimmerman's gun?  Did he GZ pull his gun early?  Was it in a belt holster at the hip (and if so was GZ's jacket zipped or open making it visible)?  Was it in a belt holster at the small of the back (meaning it was probably been hidden from Martin's view until GZ attempted to pull it)?​
3.  Zimmerman claims Martin had his hands over his mouth.

Some may think this is proof that Zimmerman couldn't have been calling for help.  Personally, IMHO, that isn't necessarily true.  Fights are not a static moment in time, they flow so that different things can occur at different times.​



Quantum Windbag said:


> Didn't think so, yet you keep talking about him.



Talking about Zimmerman in the "George Zimmerman's bloody head" thread.  Shocking.



Quantum Windbag said:


> We are talking about something that is not even tangential to what happened, yet you want to keep tying it to it. That just makes you look stupid.



I didn't claim Zimmerman was making a citizens arrest.

................I discuss citizens arrest as it would pertain to Zimmerman in the "George Zimmerman's bloody head".

.........................This makes me look stupid?

..................................Don't think so.



>>>>


----------



## paperview (May 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Not particularly.
> 
> There is now leaked information that Zimmerman in his after action statements said ((LINK):
> 
> ...


1. Zimmerman, according to the statement he gave to the police that night, did say TM circled his vehicle.  There was no three times though.

2. The police report notes he carried the gun in a holster in the front.

3. Z stated TM had both of his hands on Z's mouth and nose, and it was at that time TM was also trying to grab his gun, he was then able to scoot away and shoot.
 Two things:
I have heard that 911 tape of screams at least 50 times now. The cries at the end (and a good portion through) are of the same person, to my ears, and AT the end, supposedly immediately after said suffocating, was not a muffled cry.  That was full-throated.

Also, how many hands does it take to cover both hands over mouth and nose, *while* slamming a head into concrete, *while* trying to grab for a gun?  

Answer: more than two.


----------



## Ravi (May 6, 2012)

paperview said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Not particularly.
> ...


Do you have a link to that....he certainly didn't mention it to the person he spoke to during his non911  call.


----------



## paperview (May 6, 2012)

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


I posted it earlier.

      It was not transcribed anywhere, because this is a portion in     the CNN transcription where they broke away to commercial. 

     I transcribed it myself._*DE LA RIONDA:* __*Did he,  Mr.         Zimmerman, the defendant, at one point claim to the police that         he was scared because Mr. Martin started circling his car?*
*
          GILBREATH:* Yes.__*

DE LA RIONDA:  *According to Mr. Zimmerman he         was so scared he still got out of the car and chased Mr.         Martin?  Correct?
*
          GILBREATH: *He went after him,Yes.__*

DE LA RIONDA:  *_And isn't it true, based       on the evidence,  Mr. Zimmerman had two flashlights with him?
_*
GILBREATH: *Yes.*
          <snip /tactical flashlight description>

*__*DE LA RIONDA:* Mr. Zimmerman never claimed that         he chased - in terms of 'ran after' - Mr. Martin, is that         correct?_

_ *GILBREATH:* No._

_ *DE LA RIONDA:* But you still have, is it not true, a         witness who describes someone chasing another person from the         area where they ended up... in other words, from where, near         where Mr. Martin lived to the area where the murder happened?_

_ *GILBREATH:* Yes._
_ ... ..._
_ *O'MARA*; You had mentioned, the prosecutor had         questioned you about Mr. Zimmerman saying that he was having his         head hit on the back, correct?_

_ *GILBREATH:*Yes._

_ *O'MARA*; I thought you said the evidence was         inconsistent with that?_

_ *GILBREATH: *No, I don't believe that was his question._

_ *O'MARA*; Oh, then let me ask you. Is the evidence         inconstant with the suggestion by Mr. Zimmerman that he was his         having his head hit or bashed on the ground?_

_ *GILBREATH: *His injuries are consistent with trauma to         the back of his head, yes._

_ *O'MARA*;Ok. What are those injuries?_

_* GILBREATH: *There's two lacerations to the back of his         head_

_* O'MARA*; OK*. *Did you identify what caused those         lacerations?_

_* GILBREATH: *No._

_* O'MARA*: Could it have been having his head bashed on         the ground as he testified to?_

_ *GILBREATH: *He suggested, I don't know about testified         to, he mentioned that his head was being physically bashed         against the concrete sidewalk, and that he...this was just prior         to him firing the shot, and that he managed to scoot away from         the concrete sidewalk, and that is at that point is when the         shooting subsequently followed. *That is not consistent with           the evidence we found."*_​_ From the video testimony here: George Zimmerman bond hearing         :: WRAL.com_ - Starts at about 1:45 (this portion)


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 6, 2012)

paperview said:


> 3. Z stated TM had both of his hands on Z's mouth and nose, and it was at that time TM was also trying to grab his gun, he was then able to scoot away and shoot.
> Two things:
> I have heard that 911 tape of screams at least 50 times now. The cries at the end (and a good portion through) are of the same person, to my ears, and AT the end, supposedly immediately after said suffocating, was not a muffled cry.  That was full-throated.
> 
> ...




Without more information it would be hard to say.  As I said, fights are not static they flow over time.  Would have to see the raw statements from Zimmerman, if the implication is that hands (plural) over mouth occurred while hands (plural) were beating head against the ground while hands (plural) were struggling for the gun - that would be in issue.

However if it was hands over mouth - struggle, struggle - then head beating - struggle, struggle - then wrestle for gun - struggle, struggle, shot.  That is believable.



>>>>


----------



## paperview (May 6, 2012)

Also, I'd like to bring your attention to one part of what I quoted above:


_ *DE LA RIONDA:* But you still have, is it not true, *a          witness who describes someone chasing another person from the          area where they ended up... in other words, from where, near          where Mr. Martin lived to the area where the murder happened?*_

This was mentioned in another portion of the bond hearing as well.

Here's what I'm thinking.  what if a witness places Zimmerman closer to TM's house than we had originally thought and *going back* up to where TM's body was found?

If that witness who saw the "figures" are on the side closer to Brandy Greene's residence, then that really could muck things up for George.

Maybe that's why the SA doesn't seem to think who threw the first blow was as significant as the Defense does.


----------



## paperview (May 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > 3. Z stated TM had both of his hands on Z's mouth and nose, and it was at that time TM was also trying to grab his gun, he was then able to scoot away and shoot.
> ...


Possible.  

One other thing I was reminded of as I was reviewing some older stories on it.

Here (April 19):



> The source familiar with the case said that the Florida Department of  Law Enforcement investigators had Zimmerman lie on his back in another  location in an effort to recreate the position he said he had been in  during the shooting. *Then, the source said, investigators recorded  Zimmerman as he shouted what had been heard on the 911 calls: cries such  as, &#8220;Help me!&#8221;*


New Account: Zimmerman Told Cops Trayvon  <-well worth the full read.

Now true, this is an anonymous LEO source "familiar with Zimmerman's account" - but the fact he was one of the first to note the smothering, and it was confirmed later at the bond hearing that it *was* part of Zimmerman's account, lends  me to give credence to this LEO source. 

(A side note: that source also said Zimmerman was so paralyzed with fear, he initially "forgot he had a gun." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.  Who *forgets* they have a gun?? Give me a break.)

But to my first point.  The police HAD ZIMMERMAN CRY FOR HELP AND THEY RECORDED IT!  So there IS a voice example of Zimmerman's voice to compare with.  

That may very well prove to be devastating to the defense, and likely *part *of why Corey charged Murder 2.

In this day and age where recordings of voices are abundant, (answering machines, people singing/talking into public mics [I'm thinking school plays, or commenting after a football game, for ex.] and all the other places voices get recorded),  I 'd be willing to bet good money they have a voice example of Trayvon somewhere. 

And if that's the case, it may very well be a slam dunk, in that regard.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 6, 2012)

paperview said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...




Two scenarios:

1.  If they have a second recording to compare to the 911 tapes with Zimmerman shouting, then if the voices match.  That is good for Zimmerman.

2.  If they have a second recording to compare to the 911 tapes with Zimmerman shouting, then if the voices don't match.  That is bad for Zimmerman.​

But didn't Gilbreath testify that voice analysis proved inconclusive?


>>>>


----------



## paperview (May 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


If you review his testimony, and the way the question was asked and answered, I think Gilbreath was being a bit coy with the answer, though truthful.  

Also, he noted earlier he and the other investigator split up portions of the investigation.  It's likely he may not have been privy to all the other investigator had, and/or it was still in the process of being worked on to a scientific certainty.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 6, 2012)

Ravi said:


> at QW. Gets his ass handed to him and pretends he didn't start down the garden path.



One of us is seriously deluded, and it isn't the one who wrote this post you are reading.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Leaked by whom? Does any of this indicate that either Zimmerman or Martin were attempting a citizen's arrest? If not, why do you continuously shoehorn a conversation about citizen's arrest and how you, as usual, are misinterpreting the law, into what happened that night? 

That is what makes you look stupid. I have had millions of conversations in my life, the vast majority of them start on one subject and end on another one.The ones I remember most because I actually managed to learn from them started as conversations about one thing and ended up discussing a wide range of topics. Only anal retentive assholes insist that every conversation stick to the original outline, which only they have.

By the way, I actually started posting in a thread that was named something other than "Zimmerman's bloody head." the threads were merged by the mods, and I followed it into this, merged, thread. Just because you are incapable of realizing that simple fact of forum life does not mean I am. If the mods think my comments are inappropriate to the thread, they can step in and say so, and I will either stop talking about it, or ignore them. I am quite willing to argue with them if I think I am right, why the frack would I let you force me to talk about something that is irrelevant to the point I am making?

There is no way a discussion about citizen's arrest pertains to George Zimmerman because he did not try to detain Trayvon Martin. You admit that, yet constantly try to create circumstances and what ifs that show how you think it wouldn' apply to him.

That is what makes you look stupid, obsessive compulsive, and anal retentive, all of which I despise, which explains why I did not make a career out of the Navy.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 6, 2012)

paperview said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Not particularly.
> ...



Ever been in a fight, an accident, or any other situation where something extremely intense and emotional happened? If so, have you ever tried to describe what happened and gotten the details confused? Why shouldn't Zimmerman be allowed to be confused, and why do the police get to argue that said confusion proves he is guilty?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > 3. Z stated TM had both of his hands on Z's mouth and nose, and it was at that time TM was also trying to grab his gun, he was then able to scoot away and shoot.
> ...



Of course it would be an issue for you, because it is absolutely impossible for anyone to grab someone with both hands by the front of the head, ie. the face, and still bash their head against the ground. Nor is it possible for anyone to ever get confused by just being in a fight for their lives, getting a mild concussion and a broken nose, killing someone, and then being questioned for hours by the police who are deliberately trying to find tiny details you get wrong and use them to prove you actually murdered someone. 

That is why no one who understands the police and how they work ever answers their questions without a lawyer. In fact, police don't answer questions about shootings they are involved in until they have had time to sleep, think through what happened, talk to a lawyer and a doctor, and get the timeline in line with what the evidence shows. Why don't non police officers get the same consideration?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 6, 2012)

paperview said:


> Also, I'd like to bring your attention to one part of what I quoted above:
> 
> 
> _ *DE LA RIONDA:* But you still have, is it not true, *a          witness who describes someone chasing another person from the          area where they ended up... in other words, from where, near          where Mr. Martin lived to the area where the murder happened?*_
> ...



Let me get this straight, assuming that there is actually a witness that says that, you want me to assume that Martin was running away from where he was staying toward Zimmerman's car? Wouldn't it make more sense for me to assume that, if this actually happened, it was Zimmerman that was running, and he was trying to get back to his car?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 6, 2012)

paperview said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Who forgets they have a gun? Almost everyone who is not trained to use one.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Voice analysis is not an exact science, despite what you see in the movies. You can record someone saying something, then have them say it again 5 minutes later, and the two comparisons will not line up exactly. At best you get a 95% match, it is usually much lower. Add in stress, the fact that Zimmerman was struggling in one recording and sitting in a room in the other, and they will be even further apart. Anything less than 100% would be grounds to call it inconclusive. I see this as evidence that both voices were Zimmerman's because it is a lot easier to believe that they don't match perfectly than to believe that a grown man and a 17 year old boy would sound enough alike to confuse experts.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 6, 2012)

paperview said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Cops lie. You swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on a witness stand, being coy is lying.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 6, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Leaked by whom?



Don't know, the article didn't say.

George Zimmerman Trayvon Martin new details: Source says Zimmerman told police that Trayvon circled his SUV, frightened him - Orlando Sentinel




Quantum Windbag said:


> Does any of this indicate that either Zimmerman or Martin were attempting a citizen's arrest?



Not that I've been able to determine from the public evidence and statements.



Quantum Windbag said:


> If not, why do you continuously shoehorn a conversation about citizen's arrest and how you, as usual, are misinterpreting the law, into what happened that night?



I don't.

I didn't bring up citizen's arrest, I've only responded to post directed at me.  Like you just did.



Quantum Windbag said:


> as usual, are misinterpreting the law, into what happened that night?




In post #1783 I provided a detailed section by section analysis of my opinion of Florida Statute 776.041.  (LINK)

In post #1784 you came back basically agreeing with what I'd been saying; that 776.041 provided an exception to the self defense laws and under that exception it would be the states responsibility to prove that Zimmerman was the aggressor and did not withdraw or that Zimmerman was the aggressor under the forcible felony law.  

But then you went on to say "it doesn't matter who started the fight, all that matters was is what Zimmerman believed, and whether it is reasonable." 

Then you went on about a non-existant "NOR" function.




Quantum Windbag said:


> That is what makes you look stupid.



Actually it doesn't.  The desire not to degrade into personal attacks and quite logic actually makes me come out quite well.




Quantum Windbag said:


> By the way, I actually started posting in a thread that was named something other than "Zimmerman's bloody head." the threads were merged by the mods, and I followed it into this, merged, thread. Just because you are incapable of realizing that simple fact of forum life does not mean I am. If the mods think my comments are inappropriate to the thread, they can step in and say so, and I will either stop talking about it, or ignore them. I am quite willing to argue with them if I think I am right, why the frack would I let you force me to talk about something that is irrelevant to the point I am making?



I'm not trying to force you not to talk about any point you which to make what-so-ever.  Feel free to post as you wish, just don't be suprised if the post is directed at me that I respond in the context of what the thread is actually about which is the Zimmerman/Martin case instead of some deflective topic.




Quantum Windbag said:


> There is no way a discussion about citizen's arrest pertains to George Zimmerman because he did not try to detain Trayvon Martin. You admit that,...



I never brought up citizens arrest.  I have ONLY responded citizens arrest posts make by others and that seems to be predominantly you that just can't seem to let it go.



Quantum Windbag said:


> yet constantly try to create circumstances and what ifs that show how you think it wouldn' apply to him.



When asked I respond, true - I don't believe any of the information we have at this point indicates Zimmerman was attempting a citizens arrest.  Said it multiple times.

Yet you keep bringing it up.



Quantum Windbag said:


> That is what makes you look stupid, obsessive compulsive, and anal retentive,...



And you continued need to respond shows a certain degree of obsessive compulsive and anal behavior on your part - or do you fail to see that to continue to attempt to discuss a topic with me (citizens arrest) that I never brought up to begin with.



Quantum Windbag said:


> ...all of which I despise, which explains why I did not make a career out of the Navy.



Well, the military is not for everyone.  Some people get booted, some people serve honorably and leave when their obligated service is up.  I truly hope you fell into the second category and respect that you made a good go of it.  Thanks.


>>>>


----------



## bripat9643 (May 6, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> I don't want him killed w/o justice.
> 
> However, if he's found guilty of the highest charge, I wouldn't mind if he were put to death.
> 
> Electric chair would be my preference.




2nd degree murder doesn't allow the death penalty.  He won't even be convicted of that because the evidence doesn't support the charge.  They might have been able to convict on a manslaughter charge, but they chose to appease the left-wing lynch mob instead.

BTW, I wouldn't mind if you were put to death.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Leaked by whom?
> ...



Did I say you brought it up? I say you keep trying to tie it to what happened that night, which is incredibly stupid. The idiot who tried to argue that Zimmerman was making a citizen's arrest is just as whacked as you are when you argue that Zimmerman was committing a felony so he cannot claim self defense.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 6, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



For like the 500th time, No I'm not trying to say that Zimmerman was trying to make a citizens arrest that night.




Quantum Windbag said:


> The idiot who tried to argue that Zimmerman was making a citizen's arrest is just  Zas whacked as you are when you argue that Zimmerman was committing a felony so he cannot claim self defense.



I have not claimed Zimmerman was committing a felony. I have provided 3 alternative scenarios that fit the known evidences - one of the possibilities is that Zimmerman initiated hostilities in a felonious manner.  

I would appreciate it if you are to speak correctly about what I've said.

If it were to be shown that Zimmerman was the aggressor and was committing a forcible felony against Martin, then he would lose his self defense immunity.  From the evidence we have publicly available though, it does not appear that the state has that kind of evidence.


>>>>


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> For like the 500th time, No I'm not trying to say that Zimmerman was trying to make a citizens arrest that night.



For, like, the 500th time, why do you keep mentioning Zimmerman if you are n't trying to say he, or Martin, were trying to make a citizen's arrest? All I did in response to your post about the subject was point out that a person does not have to witness a felony in order to make an arrest. You keep trying to argue that, if Zimmerman was making an arrest, he never mentioned in any of the calls that he saw Martin doing anything illegal.

Frankly, that confuses me. Since we both agree that didn't happen, why bring it up repeatedly?



WorldWatcher said:


> I have not claimed Zimmerman was committing a felony. I have provided 3 alternative scenarios that fit the known evidences - one of the possibilities is that Zimmerman initiated hostilities in a felonious manner.
> 
> I would appreciate it if you are to speak correctly about what I've said.
> 
> ...



There you go with your "3 alternative scenarios" again. One of those so called scenarios is Zimmerman committing a felony that there is no evidence he committed. That makes you as whacked as the people that argue Zimmerman was making a citizen's arrest when there is no evidence he was making one. The difference is you admit the idea is whacked, yet you keep throwing it out.

That makes you look stupid and anal retentive.


----------



## paperview (May 6, 2012)

I just gotta say:  There are some royal dickheads on this thread.

You know who you are.

That is all.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 6, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> For, like, the 500th time, why do you keep mentioning Zimmerman if you are n't trying to say he, or Martin, were trying to make a citizen's arrest?



I'm responding to a post directed at me.

For the 501st time, I've not claimed Zimmerman was making a citizens arrest, never been my position.




Quantum Windbag said:


> Frankly, that confuses me. Since we both agree that didn't happen, why bring it up repeatedly?



I'm sorry for your confusion that (a) I did not bring up citizen's arrest, (b) I've not claimed Zimmerman was attempting a ctizen's arrest, and (c) I don't keep bringing it up - I respond to posts directed at me like this one that asks me a question.

If you would stop making posts about citizens arrest directed to me, like this one asking me  questions, guess what, I wouldn't respond.




Quantum Windbag said:


> That makes you look stupid and anal retentive.



No, being able to have an open mind and not a preconceived bia toward guilt or innocence until all the facts, evidence, and statements are available to the public does not make me appear stupid.




Quantum Windbag said:


> That makes you look stupid and anal retentive.




There is a whole lot of irony in that statement right there.




>>>>


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 6, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > at QW. Gets his ass handed to him and pretends he didn't start down the garden path.
> ...



I vote Ravi is seriously deluded....or just wacked out, drooling, googoo-headed.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 6, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Voice analysis is not an exact science, despite what you see in the movies. You can record someone saying something, then have them say it again 5 minutes later, and the two comparisons will not line up exactly. At best you get a 95% match, it is usually much lower. Add in stress, the fact that Zimmerman was struggling in one recording and sitting in a room in the other, and they will be even further apart. Anything less than 100% would be grounds to call it inconclusive. I see this as evidence that both voices were Zimmerman's because it is a lot easier to believe that they don't match perfectly than to believe that a grown man and a 17 year old boy would sound enough alike to confuse experts.



And they will say that since there is not an exact match for Zimmerman, the voice pleading for help must therefore be Martin.

This is too easy to call. Nothing describes the left if 'utterly predictable' doesnt.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 6, 2012)

paperview said:


> I just gotta say:  There are some royal dickheads on this thread.
> 
> You know who you are.
> 
> That is all.



So do you.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > For, like, the 500th time, why do you keep mentioning Zimmerman if you are n't trying to say he, or Martin, were trying to make a citizen's arrest?
> ...



I was wrong, you don't look stupid, you are stupid.


----------



## paperview (May 8, 2012)

*Update: * Zimmerman is waiving his right to a speedy trial.

His arraignment is scheduled to take place right now.      		

==========
The two motions filed:

05-08-12       |       Waiver of Speedy Trial
 05-08-12       |       Motion to Continue

Eighteenth Judicial Circuit Courts - Brevard and Seminole Counties Florida​


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 8, 2012)

paperview said:


> Zimmerman is waiving his right to a speedy trial.



Doesnt just about everyone do that as a formality?

If I refused to wave my right to a speedy trial, what would likely be different than if I did?


----------



## tinydancer (May 15, 2012)

Just heard it on the news. Will get link ASAP.

I've got this one.

*ABC News Reports Medical Records Support George Zimmermans Account Of Broken Nose And Scalp Injuries | Mediaite

    When the tragic story of the shooting death of Trayvon Martin consumed the nation over the past few months, a number of questions were raised about racism, vigilantism, and self defense laws. However, the most important question was always the first one; what exactly happened that fateful night? The shooter, George Zimmerman, has always claimed that he fired his gun in self defense, something many found hard to believe considering the young boy he killed was unarmed. However, tonight, ABC World News broke information about the injuries Zimmerman received that may shed more light on just how that night went down. *

* The document describes Zimmerman as having suffered two black eyes, wounds to the back of the head, as well as a broken nose but that he declined both hospitalization after the encounter as well as a follow up with an ENT doctor. 

The doctor who wrote the document also writes that Zimmerman suffers from stress and nausea when thinking about the night and was strongly advised to see a psychologist.

It also states that, prior to the shooting, Zimmerman had been prescribed the drugs Adderall and Temazepam, medication that ABC points out can cause side effects such as agitation and mood swings, but in fewer than 10 percent of patients.*

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/abc-news...ns-account-of-broken-nose-and-scalp-injuries/


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2012)

More bad news for the DA. They of course are claiming with no evidence to support it that Zimmerman started the altercation.

ABC News Exclusive: Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations After Trayvon Martin Shooting - Yahoo! News

Where are all those liberals on this board that have insisted his nose wasn't broken and that his head was not injured?


----------



## hortysir (May 15, 2012)

But they still couldn't help but shift the blame back to Zimmerman in the closing sentence in the OP!!


----------



## tinydancer (May 15, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> More bad news for the DA. They of course are claiming with no evidence to support it that Zimmerman started the altercation.
> 
> ABC News Exclusive: Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations After Trayvon Martin Shooting - Yahoo! News
> 
> Where are all those liberals on this board that have insisted his nose wasn't broken and that his head was not injured?



I hear crickets.


----------



## hjmick (May 15, 2012)

Zimmerman? I thought he'd been tried, convicted, and executed already...


----------



## hortysir (May 15, 2012)

hjmick said:


> Zimmerman? I thought he'd been tried, convicted, and executed already...


,,,and buried and pissed on


----------



## tinydancer (May 15, 2012)

hortysir said:


> But they still couldn't help but shift the blame back to Zimmerman in the closing sentence in the OP!!



Oh I have no doubt they will now try to prove that he was a "druggie".

Sheesh. His great grandfather is black / Afro Peruvian (I put up pictures). He grew up in a multi racial household and community.

Neighborhood blacks speak well of George. His injuries are confirmed.

But I have no doubt that the Prosecutor is now so invested in this trial, they will still try to smear this young man into a jail sentence.

Thank goodness he's got a great attorney.


----------



## hortysir (May 15, 2012)

No sign of Marc, or Ravi, or TDM.....

*shrug*


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 15, 2012)

I don't know why it no longer says I started the thread after weeks in which it did. A merge? I think the smaller thread shouldn't wipe out the bigger OP if so. That's nonsense. Especially when the OP was pro Zimmerman and now it's anit-Zimmerman. What kind of f'ing merge is that?


----------



## Peach (May 15, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Just heard it on the news. Will get link ASAP.
> 
> I've got this one.
> 
> ...



Speed AND downers; this guy was DRUGGED. I think this could help the State.


----------



## hortysir (May 15, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Oh I have no doubt they will now try to prove that he was a "druggie".
> 
> Sheesh. His great grandfather is black / Afro Peruvian (I put up pictures). He grew up in a multi racial household and community.
> 
> ...





Peach said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Just heard it on the news. Will get link ASAP.
> ...





I think that was a new Internet-Speed record!!


----------



## hortysir (May 15, 2012)

Orlando's ABC News 9 reports that Treyvon had scraped knuckles at his autopsy.


----------



## hortysir (May 15, 2012)

Autopsy results show Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles | www.wftv.com



> WFTV has confirmed that autopsy results show 17-year-old Trayvon Martin had injuries to his knuckles when he died


----------



## rdean (May 15, 2012)

Zimmerman had broken nose and injuries

That's what happens when you chase down an innocent person who did nothing wrong and threaten them with a gun.  It's called "stand your ground". Oh wait.  Killing a black person, according to right wingers is another definition of "stand your ground".  It's like "magical creation" is the alternative to "evolution".


----------



## hortysir (May 15, 2012)

rdean said:


> Zimmerman had broken nose and injuries
> 
> That's what happens when you chase down an innocent person who did nothing wrong and threaten them with a gun.  It's called "stand your ground". Oh wait.  Killing a black person, according to right wingers is another definition of "stand your ground".  It's like "magical creation" is the alternative to "evolution".



Who tries to start punching someone that is pointing a gun at them??


----------



## Peach (May 15, 2012)

hortysir said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Oh I have no doubt they will now try to prove that he was a "druggie".
> ...



Adderall is speed.  Restoril is a benzodiazepine. A pill freak with a gun, sickening. No "speed" records for me. The right's new hero is a drugged up killer.  I note the NRA sponsors classes advising against drinking, and drug use,  while handling firearms. More disgusting negligence by the Sanford PD it appears. A druggie killer isn't tested for squat.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 15, 2012)

Peach said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Just heard it on the news. Will get link ASAP.
> ...



Actually, it won't. In order to prove the murder charge the state has to prove that this was intentional, drugs make that harder.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 15, 2012)

*This is the OP that was here for weeks!* 

What are you doing USMB? This is totally different from that feel good nonsense that you forged for the new OP.



TheGreatGatsby said:


> We told you racists for weeks that Zimmerman was attacked, that he was yelling for help and that he had cuts to his head. But you racists wanted to demonize the white guy (who is actually half Argentine and half Jewish).
> 
> Ya'll wanted to make this about the poor black guy. Poor black guy can't even thug w/o someone daring to ask what he's up to. Screw ya'll. This is what Trayvon Martin is about and this is why he got popped.


----------



## tigerbob (May 15, 2012)

Peach said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



Is there some particular ax that you have to grind that would cause you to leap from "had been prescribed" to "was a pill freak drugged up killer"?


----------



## Peach (May 15, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > But they still couldn't help but shift the blame back to Zimmerman in the closing sentence in the OP!!
> ...



In Florida, possession of benzodiazepines without a prescription is a felony. A SERIOUS felony. As is the speed the killer was popping:

Adderall abuse common among studying students - Lifestyles - The Famuan - The Student Voice of Florida A&M University

Driving while hopped up on these drugs is also a crime.


----------



## tigerbob (May 15, 2012)

rdean said:


> Zimmerman had broken nose and injuries
> 
> That's what happens when you chase down an innocent person who did nothing wrong and threaten them with a gun.  It's called "stand your ground". Oh wait.  Killing a black person, according to right wingers is another definition of "stand your ground".  It's like "magical creation" is the alternative to "evolution".



He turned and confronted the man with the gun, giving him two black eyes, injuries to the back of his head and a broken nose.  Then he was shot.

Oh-kay.


----------



## tigerbob (May 15, 2012)

Peach said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



Wow, well it's a good job he appears to have been prescribed them then, otherwise he'd probably be in big trouble.


----------



## MrLiberty (May 15, 2012)

NO matter what the defense has the verdict is already a given.  GUILTY!  And, if the state fails to get a conviction you can bet the farm that Holder will step in with federal charges, just like they did in the rodney king case.  Either way Zimmerman is going to prison.


----------



## Peach (May 15, 2012)

rdean said:


> Zimmerman had broken nose and injuries
> 
> That's what happens when you chase down an innocent person who did nothing wrong and threaten them with a gun.  It's called "stand your ground". Oh wait.  Killing a black person, according to right wingers is another definition of "stand your ground".  It's like "magical creation" is the alternative to "evolution".



The guy was so drugged up it is no surprise he didn't feel any pain until the next day. Now the drunk driver lovers can cheer for another reason. And he was handling a firearm; at least we know why it was 2nd degree murder in the State's eyes.


----------



## geauxtohell (May 15, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Just heard it on the news. Will get link ASAP.
> 
> I've got this one.
> 
> ...



Shit heel vigilantes can corner unarmed teens and gun them down while popping legal speed and downers?  

Gee, who in their right mind could claim that Stand Your Ground was flawed law?


----------



## Againsheila (May 15, 2012)

rdean said:


> Zimmerman had broken nose and injuries
> 
> That's what happens when you chase down an innocent person who did nothing wrong and threaten them with a gun.  It's called "stand your ground". Oh wait.  Killing a black person, according to right wingers is another definition of "stand your ground".  It's like "magical creation" is the alternative to "evolution".



Yeah, he *chased* down a taller, younger, slimmer, more athletic man.


----------



## Peach (May 15, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > But they still couldn't help but shift the blame back to Zimmerman in the closing sentence in the OP!!
> ...



He is a druggie. I was prescribed Restoril ONCE in my life, and given instructions not to drive within twelve hours of taking it. There is no telling what other drugs he was using, the police didn't even get a blood sample. Oh, by the way druggies, operation of a motor vehicle is consent to drug & alcohol testing in Florida. No "probable cause" needed.


----------



## tinydancer (May 15, 2012)

Peach said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman had broken nose and injuries
> ...



Prove that he had taken his prescribed medication that night. You can't.
Prescribed medications do not make anyone a drug addict. You have no proof of anything.

But keep your "lynch mob posts" rolling along.  You obviously get off on it.


----------



## tigerbob (May 15, 2012)

Peach said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



Does anyone know when he took it?  Does anyone know what was in his system, if anything?


----------



## Againsheila (May 15, 2012)

tigerbob said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



Unless they tested him that night, I doubt we'll ever know.


----------



## MrLiberty (May 15, 2012)

> Shit heel vigilantes can corner unarmed teens and gun them down while popping legal speed and downers?
> 
> Gee, who in their right mind could claim that Stand Your Ground was flawed law?



No where in the report does it state that those drugs were in his system, only that they were prescribed.


----------



## Peach (May 15, 2012)

tigerbob said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



Thees are controlled substances, strictly regulated in Florida. I've known five people in my county who died of amphetamine and benzodiazepine ODs. Your state may treat these dangerous drugs like aspirin, I am glad Florida does not.* Prescribed or not, this guy should not have been driving, or dear God, with a firearm near him.* Some people snort the bennies to get high, mixing them increases the risks:

Drug Aware - Benzodiazepines - Using in conjunction with Stimulants


----------



## geauxtohell (May 15, 2012)

tigerbob said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman had broken nose and injuries
> ...



You are right.  Trayvon's big misstake was being unarmed.  If he was packing, he could have stood his ground and blown his stalker, Zimmerman away, legally under SYG.

I am beginning to see the logic in the NRA writing these laws.......


----------



## Salt Jones (May 15, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> More bad news for the DA. They of course are claiming with no evidence to support it that Zimmerman started the altercation.
> 
> ABC News Exclusive: Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations After Trayvon Martin Shooting - Yahoo! News
> 
> Where are all those liberals on this board that have insisted his nose wasn't broken and that his head was not injured?



Right here.


----------



## geauxtohell (May 15, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> prescribed medications do not make anyone a drug addict.



lmfao.......


----------



## Salt Jones (May 15, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



He was never drug tested, so it can't be proven. But as long as he killed a ******, you'll defend him with your dying breath. 

God bless America.


----------



## Trajan (May 15, 2012)

hortysir said:


> No sign of Marc, or Ravi, or TDM.....
> 
> *shrug*



its been 30  minutes....relax don't do that,  you just empower them to do same


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2012)

Peach said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Just heard it on the news. Will get link ASAP.
> ...



Ya cause he fell and broke his nose blackened his eyes and then pounded his own head on the side walk right?


----------



## Trajan (May 15, 2012)

Peach said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



you've gone completely off the deep end?...this is just the internet, you know that right? try to sue some circumspection. you have nothing to back up what you are saying.


----------



## Salt Jones (May 15, 2012)

hortysir said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman had broken nose and injuries
> ...



Someone who probably ends up dead.


----------



## Peach (May 15, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > More bad news for the DA. They of course are claiming with no evidence to support it that Zimmerman started the altercation.
> ...



The pro killer crowd now applauds druggies with guns. The killer was mixing speed with downers. Pills are the "respectable" drugs to the addicted; mixing the two is a recipe for death:

Drug Aware - Benzodiazepines - Using in conjunction with Stimulants

He was so drugged up he probably slammed his face into something. Benzodiazepines and amphetamines are no longer in the closet as the biggest drug problems in the US, along with alcohol.


----------



## Salt Jones (May 15, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



He confronted someone, got his ass beat and then pulled his gun and killed the kid who was beating his ass.

How well do you think he's going to do against the grown ass black man that runs into him in the next couple of years?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2012)

Peach said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



What part of PRESCRIBED do you NOT understand? Be specific.


----------



## Salt Jones (May 15, 2012)

Peach said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



They will continue to applaud as long as he killed a ******.


----------



## Salt Jones (May 15, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...



So you can drive on any drug as long as it is prescribed?


----------



## Peach (May 15, 2012)

geauxtohell said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > prescribed medications do not make anyone a drug addict.
> ...



Yes, prescription drugs are killing more in the US now than cocaine & heroin. Alcohol may still be number 1, but pills are most abused after booze. Pharmacies are robbed, and when the drugs wear off, the junkies get mean.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2012)

Peach said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Given up all pretense of impartial now haven't you? He was PRESCRIBED the medication. The State would have to prove he took it, he took to much and that it had any effect what so ever on the actions he took DEFENDING himself.
\
The broken nose, the black eyes, the lacerations to his head ALL back up HIS version of the incident. As do EYE WITNESS testimony.

You do not know what his prescription was and yet you have labeled him a druggy. God you are stupid.

I guess since I take 7 different prescriptions I am a druggy too RIGHT?


----------



## tinydancer (May 15, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Oh bite me.  His great grandfather is Afro Peruvian. Why would George hate any black person?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



You and peach have made a claim. Now back it up with applicable law and his prescription.


----------



## tigerbob (May 15, 2012)

Peach said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



In my state you can buy aspirin over the counter.  I've just checked and neither of these drug can be bought like aspirin.  All of which is beside the point.

You have no idea whether they were in his system.  You are just assuming they were, and posting as if they were, because if people accept that this is the case then potentially there is an argument to be made.

Unless you have facts, in which case I'm sure everyone would love to read them.


----------



## Peach (May 15, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Looks like the junkie lobby is out in full force. Mixing speed and bennies; if he'd been on crack, we would see the same pro killer crowd want to lynch him.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2012)

Peach said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



You have made a claim. Now provide evidence that A) 2 different doctors prescribed the medication. B) he was abusing it. C) Florida law restricts his ability to drive with the prescription he had. D) it played any part in his defense of himself?


----------



## tigerbob (May 15, 2012)

geauxtohell said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



If you're beginning to see logic, then does it seem logical that an older guy chased a younger guy down, then stood his ground until he had been given two black eyes, a broken nose and injuries to the back of his head before finally shooting him?  Assuming of course that these media reports are true.


----------



## tinydancer (May 15, 2012)

Peach said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Wow. Just wow.


----------



## Salt Jones (May 15, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



So by your logic, since Obama's mother and grandparents are white he could never hate white people.


----------



## tinydancer (May 15, 2012)

Peach said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



ROTF!!!!

So now we, who want to see all the evidence, are "pro killer" and now "pro junky"?

Hey Kreskin! Put down the bong.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Salt Jones said:
> ...



Who is claiming he hates white people, He has in his own books admitted he is prejudice.


----------



## Salt Jones (May 15, 2012)

tigerbob said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...



Just as others assume Trayvon attacked Zimmerman. Did you offer your addendum to their comments?


----------



## Salt Jones (May 15, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



That must be a lie, since your refutation to my Zimmerman claim was:

"His great grandfather is Afro Peruvian. Why would George hate any black person"?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



I did not assume anything. I looked at the known facts, the actual investigation and the statements of the witnesses and Zimmerman. His known injuries and the state of Martin's body. All facts are consistent with Zimmerman's statement. Consistent with eye witness testimony, consistent with police and EMS personal observations. Consistent with the Doctors report.


----------



## Ariux (May 15, 2012)

"The young boy he killed was unarmed"

The media is still pushing the image of Trayvon being a harmless, little 12yr old.  Trayvon was a 6'3" no-limit-nigga.  I'd love to beat the shit out of one of these desk potato reporters and ask if they want to constantly describe me as unarmed.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Salt Jones said:
> ...



You have your posters mixed up you racist piece of dog shit. So not only are you racist you can not rad.


----------



## uscitizen (May 15, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Just heard it on the news. Will get link ASAP.
> 
> I've got this one.
> 
> ...



So NOW we are supposed to believe the liberal media?


----------



## Salt Jones (May 15, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



You are right I did mix you up with tinydancer, a common mistake. 

P.S. I do know how to rad, but sometimes I misread.


----------



## Salt Jones (May 15, 2012)

Ariux said:


> "The young boy he killed was unarmed"
> 
> The media is still pushing the image of Trayvon being a harmless, little 12yr old.  Trayvon was a 6'3" no-limit-nigga.  I'd love to beat the shit out of one of these desk potato reporters and ask if they want to constantly describe me as unarmed.



What's stopping you?


----------



## Peach (May 15, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...



I started a thread with the facts, these drugs now account for more fatalities than traffic accidents. I knew FIVE "nice, no criminal record" individuals* that died of prescription pill overdoses in the last two years; the drugs were prescribed for them. Prescribed does not mean "safe"; I find it hard to believe so many are innocent of this scourge.  Bennies are crushed &  snorted, amphetamines like Adderall popped. Florida has very tough laws for  prescription pill abusers. It is saving lives. Pharmacies in Jax, Florida have been robbed at gunpoint. In my county homes of those known to have pain killers and bennies, robbed and burglarized. Many addicts start taking the drugs for valid reasons, then get hooked. Some, if not all gun shops question buyers about their prescription drug usage. More on the legal drugs creating addicts daily, from CBN:


Pill Popping Nation? America
. 

* One was a relative by marriage, the others I knew from my work.


----------



## Liability (May 15, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > "The young boy he killed was unarmed"
> ...



Salt Peter goes into a steel cage death match against Ariyeechs.

Question.

Does one of them come out injured first or do the "fans" die of boredom first?

Ariyuchs and Salt Peter have a lot in common.  Big mouth racists with tiny brains wrapped around a quivering pile of shit in their pants pussies.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2012)

Peach said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Now provide a single shred of evidence that Zimmerman abused prescription drugs. And while you are at it provide the law and his prescription that would make it illegal for him to drive.


----------



## Peach (May 15, 2012)

geauxtohell said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Just heard it on the news. Will get link ASAP.
> ...



His drug use may explain WHY it was 2nd degree, addicts coming down from a amphetamine/benzodiazepine mix can get enraged easily. Note, John Belushi died from a "speedball"; today junkies get them from doctors.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2012)

Peach said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence he abused drugs. As a matter of fact IF the prosecution were making that claim that too would be disclosed today with all the other documents.


----------



## tigerbob (May 15, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



I have no issue with people assuming T attacked Z, or indeed vice versa.  We have no idea what happened, and people love to speculate.

What I find interesting is that some people will read "he has been prescribed drugs" and then start posting that he is a pill popping, gun toting maniac who drove round the streets in a drug induced haze, despite there being no apparent physical evidence whatsoever to support it.  At the same time, the fact that there may be evidence that Z had been severely beaten is not even mentioned.

I could go on but I'm not sure, based on the last 4 or so pages, that there is any point.


----------



## tigerbob (May 15, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



BTW, whose / what comments am I supposed to be adding addenda to?  Let me know and I'll happily and honestly respond.


----------



## tigerbob (May 15, 2012)

Peach said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



If everyone agrees with you that prescription drugs can be dangerous, will you admit you have no evidence that he had them in his system?


----------



## tinydancer (May 15, 2012)

uscitizen said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Just heard it on the news. Will get link ASAP.
> ...





 What in hells name does a document obtained by a media outlet written  by a doctor have to do with which way a media outlet leans?


----------



## tinydancer (May 15, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



This is sheer insanity for anyone to make the leap that because someone is prescribed medication that immediately they are a junkie.

It's unreal.


----------



## tinydancer (May 15, 2012)

tigerbob said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



EMT's treated him on the scene. They did not report that Zimmerman was stoned out of his gourd.

The police were there. No reports of Zimmerman being baked. None. Nada.

Two sets of trained professionals on the scene. No report listing George as being FUBAR'd on drugs. Zippo. Zilch. Not a word.

(for those of you in Rio Linda FUBAR means "fucked up beyond all recognition")


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 15, 2012)

geauxtohell said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > prescribed medications do not make anyone a drug addict.
> ...



Why is that funny?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 15, 2012)

Peach said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



You are full of shit.


----------



## tigerbob (May 15, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Yeah, but we can throw all that out.  He was given a prescription.


----------



## Peach (May 15, 2012)

tigerbob said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...



These dangerous drugs do not wear off like alcohol, and taking both does not leave any time in the day unaffected by the drugs. I posted Florida law, if you want to drive, carry firearms, and take CONTROLLED substances, Florida isn't your state. And his drug use has been disclosed, several articles have noted the fact. The behavior of those taking these CONTROLLED substances can be impacted even after their highs are gone. 

*I'll leave this topic for the drug users and their cheerleaders. *


----------



## tigerbob (May 15, 2012)

Peach said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Salt Jones said:
> ...



Pfffft.  Don't let the door hit you, and thanks for repeating the same stuff time after time after time while not once showing relevance.


----------



## rdean (May 15, 2012)

hortysir said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman had broken nose and injuries
> ...



So Zimmerman didn't chase down that poor child?  How many times has someone chased you down?


----------



## hortysir (May 15, 2012)

Peach said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Just heard it on the news. Will get link ASAP.
> ...




Liar




Peach said:


> Thees are controlled substances, strictly regulated in Florida. I've known five people in my county who died of amphetamine and benzodiazepine ODs. *Your state may treat these dangerous drugs like aspirin, I am glad Florida does not*.* Prescribed or not, this guy should not have been driving, or dear God, with a firearm near him.* Some people snort the bennies to get high, mixing them increases the risks:
> 
> Drug Aware - Benzodiazepines - Using in conjunction with Stimulants



Bullshit, bitch.
You forget I live here in Florida too?
The "Oxycontin Capital of the World"???

Leave the 'holier than thou' shit at the door of the Pain Clinic, skank.

You have zero proof that there was a trace of any of these substances in his system. Only that he had a prescription for them.
Did he ever fill the script?
Proof? Link?

Then STFU and go find somebody else to lynch.


----------



## geauxtohell (May 15, 2012)

MrLiberty said:


> > Shit heel vigilantes can corner unarmed teens and gun them down while popping legal speed and downers?
> >
> > Gee, who in their right mind could claim that Stand Your Ground was flawed law?
> 
> ...



Well, that just makes all the difference now, doesn't it?


----------



## tigerbob (May 15, 2012)

geauxtohell said:


> MrLiberty said:
> 
> 
> > > Shit heel vigilantes can corner unarmed teens and gun them down while popping legal speed and downers?
> ...



Only in the eyes of the law, admittedly.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 15, 2012)

geauxtohell said:


> MrLiberty said:
> 
> 
> > > Shit heel vigilantes can corner unarmed teens and gun them down while popping legal speed and downers?
> ...



It doesn't matter whether he took them or not. What there is, is not one shred of evidence he was abusing prescription drugs. Not one shred of evidence these prescription drugs had anything to do with the shooting. Not one shred of evidence he could not legally drive. Peach made it all up as have you, Salt and any others that claim he was a drug addict or that he abused prescription drugs.

You three have taken the simple fact we now have incontestable evidence he was attacked and tried to make spurious claims based on no evidence or facts.


----------



## tinydancer (May 15, 2012)

Peach said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Salt Jones said:
> ...



You are insane. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever that Zimmerman was a drug abuser. 

None.


----------



## EmoBasher (May 15, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Just heard it on the news. Will get link ASAP.
> 
> I've got this one.
> 
> ...




More evidence will undoubtably come forth over the course of the trial. The broken nose and blackened eyes indicate that he was clearly attacked. Still, there's the issue that he approached the subject, Treyvon Martin, against the dispatcher's directives, so the claim of self-defense when Zimmerman made the approach seems questionable.

I'm still trying to figure out who took the first swing, what Treyvon did immediately upon spotting Zimmerman, and how exactly did the shooting occur. Again, I think the trial will attempt to answer that, and until then, all we know is that the prosecutors decided a second-degree murder charge was appropriate, even though, curiously, they skipped the grand jury indictment in this case.


----------



## Againsheila (May 16, 2012)

EmoBasher said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Just heard it on the news. Will get link ASAP.
> ...



Considering that there are no bruises on Trayvon's body, we must conclude that either Zimmerman never hit him, or he's got a very whimpy punch.  We do know that Zimmerman was beaten BEFORE he fired off the shot, giving evidence to his claim of self defense.  Abrasions on Trayvons fists, seem to bear out that story as well.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 16, 2012)

geauxtohell said:


> MrLiberty said:
> 
> 
> > > Shit heel vigilantes can corner unarmed teens and gun them down while popping legal speed and downers?
> ...



Unless he admits to taking them, yes, it does. My guess is you are perfectly aware that, just because a doctor prescribes something, it does not mean that people actually take it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 16, 2012)

EmoBasher said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Just heard it on the news. Will get link ASAP.
> ...



First, there is no evidence he approached anyone. Second, he was not directed to do anything by the dispatcher. The reason for the second is pretty clear to anyone who can think, the police cannot tell people not to do something just because it makes their life easier.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2012)

geauxtohell said:


> MrLiberty said:
> 
> 
> > > Shit heel vigilantes can corner unarmed teens and gun them down while popping legal speed and downers?
> ...


Does anyone know why he was prescribed these drugs?


----------



## tigerbob (May 16, 2012)

Ravi said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > MrLiberty said:
> ...



Not that I have yet seen.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2012)

Typically, one is prescribed to someone that has difficulty controlling their behavior and/or focusing. The other to ward off insomnia, which may be a side affect of the adderal.

I think the emt report is more pertinent to this case that a doctor's report from the next day.  Who knows what Zimmerman did after he was released from the police station.

And yeah, for RetardGSgt, dui is dui.


----------



## tigerbob (May 16, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Typically, one is prescribed to someone that has difficulty controlling their behavior and/or focusing. The other to ward off insomnia, which may be a side affect of the adderal.
> 
> I think the emt report is more pertinent to this case that a doctor's report from the next day.  Who knows what Zimmerman did after he was released from the police station.
> 
> And yeah, for RetardGSgt, dui is dui.



There's a lot still to come out in this case, particularly when so much of the issue is politically or racially loaded.  I often wonder how it can be possible to select an impartial jury for a case like this where so much effort is put into supporting or discrediting the stories as they emerge and the media profile is so high.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Typically, one is prescribed to someone that has difficulty controlling their behavior and/or focusing. The other to ward off insomnia, which may be a side affect of the adderal.
> 
> I think the emt report is more pertinent to this case that a doctor's report from the next day.  Who knows what Zimmerman did after he was released from the police station.
> 
> And yeah, for RetardGSgt, dui is dui.



What we have is absolute evidence that Zimmerman was attacked and zero evidence that Martin was attacked. Absolute evidence that Zimmerman was struck and zero evidence that martin was struck.

But you spin it any way you want,


----------



## geauxtohell (May 16, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



Because we have an epidemic of substance abuse/dependence of prescription narcotics in this country.


----------



## geauxtohell (May 16, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > MrLiberty said:
> ...



It's more informative to me that Zimmermann had two prescriptions for two drugs that have a high potential for abuse.

Though, I am sure he really needed to treat that Adult ADHD.

He was probably working on quantum physics when he wasn't staring into a mirror saying: "you talking to me"?


----------



## geauxtohell (May 16, 2012)

Ravi said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > MrLiberty said:
> ...



No, but I would guess Adult ADHD and anxiety as that is what those drugs treat.


----------



## Katzndogz (May 16, 2012)

hjmick said:


> Zimmerman? I thought he'd been tried, convicted, and executed already...



He has, it's only a matter of time before the reality catches up with the precreated facts.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 16, 2012)

What a thread. Peach WTF are you on?


----------



## NLT (May 16, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Just like you are defending a thug with your last breath.


----------



## Liability (May 16, 2012)

geauxtohell said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Rush got addicted to PRESCRIBED pain meds.  So, yeah.  I agree.


----------



## GHook93 (May 16, 2012)

There obvious answers:
(1) "Yet the 911 operator told him not to follow him" (they ignore the fact that Zimmerman did just that and was approach by Martin when he was going back to his car).
(2) "A blood thristy racist Zimmerman was looking for a fight and got one, then got his ass-kicked" (again they ignore fact he was attacked by Martin, when Zimmerman was heading back to his car; also ignore the fact that Martin was walking through a gated community that was hit by a wave of burgarlies).
(3) "Zimmerman self-inflicted the wounds or he had the police do it" (No rebuttel needed)

Liberals will ignore everything and will convict Zimmerman no matter what!


----------



## Bigfoot (May 16, 2012)

Salt Jones said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



If Trayvon couldn't run with the big dogs, he should have stayed on the porch. If Zimmerman runs into a bigger thug in the future I would suggest he upgrades to carrying a .45 cal.


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 16, 2012)

hortysir said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman had broken nose and injuries
> ...


People with rdean's brainpower.


----------



## Liability (May 16, 2012)

GHook93 said:


> There obvious answers:
> (1) "Yet the 911 operator told him not to follow him" (they ignore the fact that Zimmerman did just that and was approach by Martin when he was going back to his car).
> (2) "A blood thristy racist Zimmerman was looking for a fight and got one, then got his ass-kicked" (again they ignore fact he was attacked by Martin, when Zimmerman was heading back to his car; also ignore the fact that Martin was walking through a gated community that was hit by a wave of burgarlies).
> (3) "Zimmerman self-inflicted the wounds or he had the police do it" (No rebuttel needed)
> ...



Except, of course, the 9-1-1 operator did NOT tell Zimmerman not to follow.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Typically, one is prescribed to someone that has difficulty controlling their behavior and/or focusing. The other to ward off insomnia, which may be a side affect of the adderal.
> ...



Actually, we have evidence that a fight occurred, but as of yet, we don't have evidence as to who started it.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2012)

geauxtohell said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



I have to say here, putting someone with control issues that walked around with a loaded gun in a neighborhood watch program was a pretty fucking stupid thing to do.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 16, 2012)

geauxtohell said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Actually, we don't. Unless, of course, you think that the government is telling the truth about the drug war, and not lying to justify ever more invasive powers and the ability to monitor every aspect of our lives.


​


----------



## Ariux (May 16, 2012)

Ravi said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



You personally know of a mom who made a fucking stupid decision to not get an abortion.

Zimmerman hasn't been convicted of any crimes that he should have his second-amendment rights denied him.  And, thank God, else he couldn't have plugged that African-American piece-of-shit to save his life.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 16, 2012)

geauxtohell said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



What is really informative is how people jump to the conclusion that he was abusing the drugs. If we discovered that Martin was taking the drugs would you think he was abusing them, and that he was actually casing the neighborhood to support his habit?
​


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 16, 2012)

Liability said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Actually, statistics prove that the abuse of all drugs, including prescription drugs, is pretty stable over time with a slight downward trend. That is not what I would call an epidemic.
​


----------



## Ariux (May 16, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> What is really informative is how people jump to the conclusion that he was abusing the drugs. If we discovered that Martin was taking the drugs would you think he was abusing them, and that he was actually casing the neighborhood to support his habit?



I notice that the Prosecutor hasn't released Trayvon's toxicology report.  Most likely, it's because Travyon tested positive for illegal drugs.   And, no, the racist shitheads who point to a little ADHD medicine to condemn Zimmerman won't condemn Trayvon for any amount of drugs in his system (or for Trayvon's undeniable history of drug abuse).  

ADHD medicine is slow released, designed to ease mental restlessness.  It normally doesn't in the least cause aggressiveness.


----------



## Liability (May 16, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



I didn't suggest that it was an epidemic.  But I do agree that one CAN get addicted to prescribed medication.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 16, 2012)

Bottom line: this earth shattering news comes from the FAMILY doctor, and NOT from an official hospital report FROM THAT NIGHT that corroborates with the EMT report.

The video FROM THAT NIGHT DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS LATEST STATEMENT.

And the band played on.


----------



## Peach (May 16, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



In my state, tough sentencing has put many of the dealers in prison. Physicians have had their licenses yanked, and many of the "pain clinics" have been shut down. The "clinics" also advertised about the dangers of "stress". Still, Florida is not without pill mills. And prescription drug abuse remains the most serious substance abuse problem in the country; I would put alcohol right beside pills myself. 

A 26 year old man taking amphetamines and tranquilizers, LEGALLY, remains a drug user. the unusual defense of this man, and the heated defense of his drug use, is yet another sign of a nationwide drug problem.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


How does any of your rant negate what I said?


----------



## Liability (May 16, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Ravi, you know I wouldn't normally interject myself on your behalf, but just for the novelty of it let me point out that --

you are actually attempting to have a rational conversation with Ariux?  With ARIUX?

Really?


----------



## Peach (May 16, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



There was quite a bit of discussion about marijuana residue in a plastic bag that resulted in the victim being suspended from school. RGS gets angry when the killer's drug use is noted.  I live in an area where prescription drug use is a significant problem. Had the killer drank a few shots of liquor, and snorted cocaine, I doubt those firm in their defense of the killer would be so adamant.


----------



## Ariux (May 16, 2012)

Liability said:


> you are actually attempting to have a rational conversation with Ariux?  With ARIUX?



Good point.  It's like that stupid piece-of-shit Trayvon attempting to fight someone with a gun.


----------



## Katzndogz (May 16, 2012)

Zimmerman's error was in not laying there and taking his beating like he was expected to do.  Trayvon Martin would then have had a gun and even more victims. who might have been white so that's okay.


----------



## tinydancer (May 16, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Bottom line: this earth shattering news comes from the FAMILY doctor, and NOT from an official hospital report FROM THAT NIGHT that corroborates with the EMT report.
> 
> The video FROM THAT NIGHT DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS LATEST STATEMENT.
> 
> And the band played on.








He was injured. Deal with it. 

Are you going to dispute Trayvon's autopsy results as well? Obviously the truth doesn't fit your narrative.

Broken skin on his knuckles. The funeral director was lying. 

*

KFTV in Orland also reported on Tuesday that Trayvon had broken skin on his knuckles when his body underwent an autopsy.

The new report contradicts a previous claim by Richard Kurtz, the funeral director who handled the teen's remains, there was no damage on his knuckles.

Zimmerman's doctor found a 'closed fracture' in Zimmerman's nose, meaning his nose was broken but the skin had not ruptured to expose the nasal bones. He also discovered two cuts on the back of his head, one was one-inch long and the other was a quarter-inch.

Read more: Trayvon Martin killing: George Zimmerman treated for broken nose and cuts on his head | Mail Online
*


----------



## Otter_Creek (May 16, 2012)

Did Jillian turn into a peach?, You know...twinkle twat?


----------



## Ariux (May 16, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> Are you going to dispute Trayvon's autopsy results as well? Obviously the truth doesn't fit your narrative.
> 
> Broken skin on his knuckles. The funeral director was lying.



The funeral director is an Afro (which no doubt why the Martin family chose him).  19 out of 20 Afros are liberal degenerates, worthless at best.  They make up whatever they want to believe.   And, Trayvon defenders will continue to take the word of that Afro funeral director over:

Over the autopsy report.
Over the paramedics at the scene who treated Zimmerman.
Over the police at the scene.
Over the doctor who examined Zimmerman later.
Over the pictures of Zimmerman's head bleeding.
Over the witnesses who saw Trayvon hitting Zimmerman.
And, over Zimmerman's own word (which he had almost no time to fabricate).


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 16, 2012)

Liability said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I won't argue that people can get addicted, I just object to redefining addiction so that it includes things that aren't addiction, and using that to argue there is an epidemic.



> In what could prove to be one of their most far-reaching decisions,  psychiatrists and other specialists who are rewriting the manual that  serves as the nations arbiter of mental illness have agreed to revise  the definition of addiction, which could result in millions more people  being diagnosed as addicts and pose huge consequences for health  insurers and taxpayers.
> The revision to the manual, known as the Diagnostic and Statistical  Manual of Mental Disorders, or D.S.M., would expand the list of  recognized symptoms for drug and alcohol addiction, while also reducing  the number of symptoms required for a diagnosis, according to proposed  changes posted on the Web site of the American Psychiatric Association,  which produces the book.
> In addition, the manual for the first time would include gambling as an  addiction, and it might introduce a catchall category  behavioral  addiction  not otherwise specified  that some public health experts  warn would be too readily used by doctors, despite a dearth of research,  to diagnose addictions to shopping, sex, using the Internet or playing  video games.



http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/12/u...e-addiction-diagnoses.html?_r=1&smid=go-share
​


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 16, 2012)

Peach said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



None of that excuses you making a fool out of yourself, does it?
​


----------



## Againsheila (May 16, 2012)

Peach said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I take pain relievers when I need them, and sedatives.  I do not drive when I take them, I do not take them unless I need them.  Our government is so worried about pain relievers that you can no longer get them at the local clinics, you must go through a more expensive primary care physician some of whom will not see new clients at all.  Due to that, pain relievers are at a premium and we have been robbed of our pain relievers, having to refill the prescription at our own cost because the insurance company doesn't accept "they were stolen" as an excuse.  No, I didn't file a police report, they wouldn't have done anything anyway.  I was surprised to find the doctor wasn't surprised that the pain killers were stolen out of our house and nothing else was missing.  He said it was common and that the pharmacy that filled our prescriptions had been fined for tossing them (the paper prescriptions which are required for our painkillers, the doctors can't just call those in) without shredding them and people had picked them out of the trash to find addresses and where to get certain drugs.  I do not think prescription drugs are a problem unless someone is taking them illegally, not if they are taking them AS PRESCRIBED!!!!

You'll find there are people with disabilities that ca become violent without their medications, would you advise them not to take them because YOU think they are a problem?

I would be more concerned about any illegal drugs involved rather than those that are prescribed.


----------



## Ravi (May 16, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


So you think Zimmerman would become violent without his meds?


----------



## Intense (May 16, 2012)

rdean said:


> Zimmerman had broken nose and injuries
> 
> That's what happens when you chase down an innocent person who did nothing wrong and threaten them with a gun.  It's called "stand your ground". Oh wait.  Killing a black person, according to right wingers is another definition of "stand your ground".  It's like "magical creation" is the alternative to "evolution".



What is important here, is Are you willing to lie in Court, I mean testify that Zimmerman was pointing the gun at Trevon before he was attacked, or just make shit up here?


----------



## Intense (May 16, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Let's set up our foundation on a false premise, and just build on it, in hopes no one notices the false presumption.


----------



## Againsheila (May 16, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



I did not say that.  I said SOME people.  I said medications are prescribed for a reason.  To wreck someone's character because of the medications prescribed by their doctor is despicable.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 16, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



You also have to prove he was on them at the time of the altercation.

Just because he was prescribed them doesn't means he had taken them at the time of the shooting.


----------



## hortysir (May 16, 2012)

Liability said:


> GHook93 said:
> 
> 
> > There obvious answers:
> ...



Nevermind the abrasions on Martin's fists


----------



## hortysir (May 16, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Hell, no one has even established he was Taking them.
Only that he was prescribed them.

They haven't even proved that he ever Filled the script.


----------



## MarcATL (May 16, 2012)

Can someone point out/circle the actual cut on his head?






I see no wound.

This picture looks faker than a 60s horror b-movie.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 16, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Can someone point out/circle the actual cut on his head?



Yes. It's the thing the blood is coming out of.


----------



## Ariux (May 16, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> I see no wound.
> 
> This picture looks faker than a 60s horror b-movie.



Yeah, brother.  If I saw a picture of an Afro with his skull bashed open and his brains spilled out on the ground.  I'd say it looks fake and then I'd challenge others to show me the brains on the ground. 

Oh wait, I wouldn't do this because I'm better than a piece of shit.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 16, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman is waiving his right to a speedy trial.
> ...



As I understand it, in order to accommodate the Constitutional right to a speedy trial, every state has a legally codified time limit during which the case must be tried, unless the defendant waives his Constitutional right in that regard.  I think I read that Florida's time limit is six months, but I won't swear to it.

Sometimes, it is in the defendant's best interests to insist on getting the trial over and done with.  For example, if he actually did it, but knew the prosecution had very little evidence to work with, but might turn up more evidence given more time, then he would want to get the case over and done with before they had that chance.  That way, double jeopardy would kick in, and they wouldn't be able to try him for that same crime again.

In Zimmerman's case, it's unlikely that any shocking new evidence is going to turn up, but his case might be hurt simply by all the media furor going on around it right now.  He stands to benefit greatly from letting the whole thing die down so that the jury pool is less likely to be inflamed against him.  Right now, the only way I can see them finding this poor guy an unbiased, untainted jury is if they start trolling nursing homes and monasteries with a strict prohibition against technology.


----------



## tinydancer (May 16, 2012)

The only theory the left hasn't presented at this point in time is that Zimmerman was stoned out of his gourd on prescription medication and had the munchies and killed Trayvon for his freaking skittles.

Sheesh. 

I swear half the liberal posters at USMB are posting from Bellevue these days.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2012)

hortysir said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Unimportant, Peach fabricated from whole cloth that he is a busing drugs simply because he has a prescription. No evidence he took them, no evidence he abuses them, it is a none story. The simple fact someone is prescribed a medication can not instantly lead one to proclaim they are addicted and abusing drugs. That people let her get away with it is troubling in the extreme.

SHE FABRICATED a claim. She has announced that because he has a prescription he is in fact a drug addict and abusing drugs. No middle steps. No evidence of doctor farming, no evidence of abuse hell no evidence he even took the meds at the time.

We know he has the prescriptions because of court room disclosure. IF he were accused of abusing them that too would have been disclosed. It was not. She FABRICATED the claim. It is a best a mistake at worst a purposeful lie to obfuscate from the fact he has injuries consistent with his story and Martin has injuries consistent with the same story.


----------



## Ariux (May 16, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> The only theory the left hasn't presented at this point in time is that Zimmerman was stoned out of his gourd on prescription medication and had the munchies and killed Trayvon for his freaking skittles.



Liberals don't need you giving them ideas.  I don't want to have to point out to them that ADHD medicine actually decreases appetite, not that it would do any good.  Liberals are dumber than dirt, by choice.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 16, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> More bad news for the DA. They of course are claiming with no evidence to support it that Zimmerman started the altercation.
> 
> ABC News Exclusive: Zimmerman Medical Report Shows Broken Nose, Lacerations After Trayvon Martin Shooting - Yahoo! News
> 
> Where are all those liberals on this board that have insisted his nose wasn't broken and that his head was not injured?



The DA - or, in this case, the "special prosecutor" - can claim any damned thing she likes.  Doesn't mean squat unless she can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.  And as far as I can see from the currently available evidence, at this point she'd have just as much luck proving that space aliens mind-controlled Zimmerman into shooting Martin as she will proving that Zimmerman started the fight.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 16, 2012)

Peach said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Just heard it on the news. Will get link ASAP.
> ...



Yeah?  Prove he was drugged.  All the doctor said was that he was PRESCRIBED the two medications.  There's no hard evidence he was actually on them, let alone that he was one of the 10% of patients who react badly to them.

You can speculate until your saggy tits become perky again, but speculation ain't proof, and proof is something that, once again, you don't have.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 16, 2012)

hortysir said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Oh I have no doubt they will now try to prove that he was a "druggie".
> ...



I'd bet the defense has a good shot at suppressing anything about Zimmerman's prescriptions at trial, given that there's no evidence that he was actually on them at the time, much less that he had any sort of negative reaction to them.


----------



## MarcATL (May 16, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone point out/circle the actual cut on his head?
> ...



There is a piece of software called "Paint" on every Windows PC , use that tool to point out the wound you're alluding too.

Thanks.


----------



## hortysir (May 16, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




I have 4 prescriptions.

Guess I'm a veritable freekin' Pill Mill


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 16, 2012)

Peach said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



Sorry, Sparkles, but you're just as "brilliant" all the way around as you always are, ie. you're still an embarrassment to women everywhere.

1)  You have no proof whatsoever that Zimmerman was on any medications at all, much less that he was "drugged out".

2)  There's no "negligence" involved.  Had you bothered to research, rather than getting your twat all in an uproar and rushing out to spew judgements based solely on your "feewings", you would know that the law prohibits drug tests by the police, except in the case of DUIs, unless the accused demands it, consents to it, or the police get a warrant for it.  With absolutely no probable cause to believe Zimmerman was under the influence - and there WAS no probable cause to believe such a thing at that time - there was no way in the world they'd have gotten a warrant, and no reason for Zimmerman to have consented to the test, much less have asked for one.

Don't you get tired of setting women back fifty years every time you open your flapping gob?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 16, 2012)

tigerbob said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



She's an idiot liberal broad who thinks the decisions of the world should be made based on whichever hormone is currently gushing through her bloodstream, rather than any sort of logic, written law, or evidence.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 16, 2012)

Peach said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



Which has exactly WHAT to do with the case at hand?

Zimmerman had a prescription for the medication, there's no evidence available that he had any in his possession OR in his system at the time, nor was he arrested for anything having to do with the two medications.

So did you have anything to say that ISN'T going to make large numbers of people re-evaluate the 19th Amendment?


----------



## asterism (May 16, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



If you are typical of the jury and basing your opinion of this case on what you think is a faked picture then Zimmerman will be a free man.

Really?  You're contesting the injuries based on a screenshot?  That's the best you have?


----------



## Sallow (May 16, 2012)

hortysir said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > GHook93 said:
> ...



There were abrasions on Ronald Goldman's fists too. And I've never heard anyone, anywhere say he was responsible for his own death because he fought his killer.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2012)

hortysir said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



I have 9 prescription medications I take either daily or as needed, including celexa and geodon, both psychiatric medications. not only can I drive on them I do not abuse them nor am I addicted to them.

Peach jumped from " he has 2 prescriptions" straight to " he is a drug addict and abuses prescription medications" No facts, no evidence , in fact no attempt to even provide context as to how she got from point A to point Z without passing through the other 24 points.

And people on this board are letting her, Ravi and a couple other people keep making the claim he is a known drug addict and abuser.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 16, 2012)

Peach said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman had broken nose and injuries
> ...



Oh?  You know that he was "so drugged up", do you?  May I ask why you haven't submitted the drug test on George Zimmerman which you obviously have in your possession to make such a statement to the prosecution?


----------



## Sallow (May 16, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Bottom line: this earth shattering news comes from the FAMILY doctor, and NOT from an official hospital report FROM THAT NIGHT that corroborates with the EMT report.
> 
> The video FROM THAT NIGHT DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS LATEST STATEMENT.
> 
> And the band played on.



That..and it seems that the police didn't even bother to check whether or not Zimmerman was using Alcohol or Drugs that night.

They didn't seem the least bit curious.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (May 16, 2012)

Sallow said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



No one claimed Goldman attacked them, threatened to kill them, grabbed for their gun or was in the process of pounding their head into the ground either. Further there was no evidence Goldman did any of those things. There is however plenty of evidence in this case that Martin did all the above.


----------



## Ariux (May 16, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> In Zimmerman's case, it's unlikely that any shocking new evidence is going to turn up, but his case might be hurt simply by all the media furor going on around it right now.  He stands to benefit greatly from letting the whole thing die down so that the jury pool is less likely to be inflamed against him.  Right now, the only way I can see them finding this poor guy an unbiased, untainted jury is if they start trolling nursing homes and monasteries with a strict prohibition against technology.



I think Zimmerman is showing more integrity than any of his critics and waived his right to a speedy trial not for himself but to reduce the afro-rioting response to the acquittal.  As more time passes, the Sharptons of the world will have to work harder to whip the Afro community into violence. 

I think if the trial were held today, there is zero chance of a conviction.   

Although, a hung jury (resulting from letting Afro shit on the jury) would be bad, resulting in either a retrial (unlikely) or federal charges.  Acquittal by an Afro-free jury would be used as an excuse for federal charges (unconstitutional and immoral, no matter what the liberal courts say).  The media would entertain us with irrelevant half-truths (leaving out the part about a lack of evidence) about white juries refusing to convict whites charged with crimes against Afros.

I think it would be easier for Zimmerman to get a fair jury now than later.  The Afros, high on emotion, would be easier to dismiss with cause, "I hate that cracker."  Many/most whites stick by the story "We don't know what happened."


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 16, 2012)

Peach said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Good lord, woman, can you BE any more of a stereotypical hysterically emotional dame?  Switch to decaf or something.  Grab a Midol.  If you're going through menopause, they have hormone treatments to ease you through these hot flashes.  Get a frigging grip and at least TRY to pretend you have one of those brains you liberal feminists like to keep insisting men should pay attention to.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 16, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Can someone point out/circle the actual cut on his head?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Here. Right under that red stuff. Can't miss it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 16, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Salt Jones said:
> ...



She's going to need a fainting couch and some smelling salts any minute now.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 16, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



And the police didn't make any attempt to give him a drug test when they brought him in for questioning, which would certainly indicate no probable cause to think he was under the influence of anything.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 16, 2012)

tigerbob said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...



So what?  I have a valid prescription for Paxil, but I'm not actually taking any at the moment.


----------



## Sallow (May 16, 2012)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



In General..one has the right to defend themselves against a person that would do them harm. Martin, given the ciricumstances, a strange man not in uniform, who is stalking him first in a vehicle..then on foot..had enough cause to believe that Zimmerman meant to do him harm. And Zimmerman created that situation.

Florida..it seems..has some strange ideas about the "Stand Your Ground" law as well.

Florida woman sentenced to 20 years in controversial warning shot case - CNN

That..woman..killed no one.

And..she had every reason to believe that her husband..who later admitted to wanting to do her harm..was going to do her harm.

It's a very strange application of that law..to say the least.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 16, 2012)

Peach said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Salt Jones said:
> ...



I wish you'd just leave EVERY topic for the intelligent and rational, because you really do make me ashamed to have a uterus.

If we ever start a thread on why it took so much longer for women to get the vote than it did for blacks, we'll call you in as Exhibit A.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 16, 2012)

EmoBasher said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Just heard it on the news. Will get link ASAP.
> ...



BEEEP!!

Sorry, Sparkles, but wrong answer.  Thanks for playing.

There is no "issue" that Zimmerman approached Martin, against "directives" or not, because there is no evidence that he did so.  Or, for that matter, that there were any "directives".

If you want to state definitively that Zimmerman approached Martin, then prove that he did so.



EmoBasher said:


> I'm still trying to figure out who took the first swing, what Treyvon did immediately upon spotting Zimmerman, and how exactly did the shooting occur. Again, I think the trial will attempt to answer that, and until then, all we know is that the prosecutors decided a second-degree murder charge was appropriate, even though, curiously, they skipped the grand jury indictment in this case.



Well, let me just help you out there, EmoBoy, since you clearly aren't up on all the currently available evidence.

Who took the first swing?  Let's think about that.  Martin's autopsy showed two pieces of damage:  the fatal gunshot wound, and broken skin on his knuckles.  Zimmerman showed two bloody cuts to the back of his head, a contusion on the back of his head, a fractured nose, and a cut and swollen upper lip.

Based on that, who do you think is likely to have done the hitting, and who to have been hit?

As to what Trayvon did immediately upon seeing Zimmerman, we know this from Zimmerman's conversation with the police dispatcher:  he stared at Zimmerman, walked toward his truck, and then ran away.  Had he done anything else "immediately upon spotting Zimmerman", it would have been heard on that recording.

How did the shooting occur?  Well, the official reports tell us that Martin was shot in the chest.  If he had been on the ground, the autopsy would have been able to tell that, as well as if he'd been shot at a distance, rather than at close range.  No such indications have currently been made public, leaving us to believe - at least for the moment - that Zimmerman shot him while they were close together, and while Martin was standing.  Since all the witnesses - except the two crazy-lady roommates - tell us that there was a fight of some sort, it is unlikely that Zimmerman was simply standing next to Martin and shot him, lending credence to the idea that Martin was on top of Zimmerman.

As to charging him with second-degree murder, as well as skipping over the grand jury, I suspect both were because the prosecution is more about the public furor than about any real evidence indicating such a charge.  I certainly have not seen the prosecution reveal anything that even remotely makes me think such a charge is justified - or even that the prosecution itself is justified - and I wonder why that is.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 16, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > MrLiberty said:
> ...



It's also notable that the article conspicuously does not tell us WHEN those medications were prescribed, in what amounts, or why.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 16, 2012)

Sallow said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line: this earth shattering news comes from the FAMILY doctor, and NOT from an official hospital report FROM THAT NIGHT that corroborates with the EMT report.
> ...



Who says they weren't curious?  The law doesn't allow them to do drug tests based on "curiosity".  There is no reason to believe that Zimmerman gave them any probable cause to suspect impairment from alcohol or drugs, nor is there any reason to believe that if he had, they would not have gotten a warrant and given him a drug test.


----------



## Ariux (May 16, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Florida..it seems..has some strange ideas about the "Stand Your Ground" law as well.
> 
> Florida woman sentenced to 20 years in controversial warning shot case - CNN
> 
> That..woman..killed no one.



Luckily for you, bodily functions required to keep you alive don't depend on any measurable level of intelligence.  In the above case, the woman picked up a gun, entered the house, and shot at someone.  There's absolutely zero evidence that she shot in self-defense.  No witnesses saw the man on top of her.  Her head wasn't bleeding.  Her victim says it wasn't self-defense.  For all the jury knew, she picked up that gun with premeditated murder in mind.  When she missed, the Defense spun it as a warning shot in self-defense.  Because of your shit-filled skull, you believe the woman was tried and convicted just because her skin is the color of shit.  If she were allowed to walk, you and your shithead ilk would ignore her race and insist she wasn't charged because her intended victim was an Afro.

The account given by the man [Gray] the woman shot at:


> She said, I got something for your  , and walked away, Gray said. I knew exactly what she was going to do.
> 
> Gray said she went to the garage, to her truck, to get her gun and then returned back inside the home. He said the garage door that she claimed to have been inoperable worked for him earlier that morning and later that day with no trouble.
> 
> ...



You're an embarrassment to your race of ape-like reptiles.


----------



## Sallow (May 16, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Florida..it seems..has some strange ideas about the "Stand Your Ground" law as well.
> ...



Ya mad bro?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 16, 2012)

asterism said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Apparently, the left believes that the guy who took that picture just happens to carry a tube of fake blood in his pocket all the time, and when he saw the crowd forming, he ran up, squirted the fake blood all over Zimmerman's head, and photographed it.

Never mind the fact that the first officer on the scene noted that Zimmerman's head was injured, or that his doctor diagnosed head injuries when he saw him the next day.


----------



## asterism (May 16, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



This case has Tawana Brawley and the Duke Lacrosse team written all over it.


----------



## Ariux (May 16, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Apparently, the left believes that the guy who took that picture just happens to carry a tube of fake blood in his pocket all the time, and when he saw the crowd forming, he ran up, squirted the fake blood all over Zimmerman's head, and photographed it.
> 
> Never mind the fact that the first officer on the scene noted that Zimmerman's head was injured, or that his doctor diagnosed head injuries when he saw him the next day.



I sometimes wish I could look into the shit-filled skull of a liberal and see how they imagine events unfolding.  But, then I remember that their skulls are full of shit and they're not burdened with imagining how events unfold that they claim happened.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 17, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Actually, at least one state doesn't have a codified time limit for a speedy trial. Texas had one once, but it was declared unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (May 17, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Can someone point out/circle the actual cut on his head?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'll bet I could flip you and dick you before you could roll me and blow me.


----------



## Liability (May 17, 2012)

Rat in the Hat said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone point out/circle the actual cut on his head?
> ...



There are some wagers which are not worth placing money down on.


----------



## MarcATL (May 17, 2012)

asterism said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Actually, it seems that there's no CONCRETE evidence of an actual wound. One CANNOT determine or ascertain a specific wound from that pic. All that seems to be certain is what appears to be blood. I know you're not seeing a wound, or you would have described exactly where it is.

It's as if they're just trying to put everything as it should. The questions were "where's a picture of the bloody head?" Months later this appears. The questions were "where's the evidence of a broken nose and/or black eye?" Now all of a sudden a REPORT, no pics from Zimmerman's OWN family-doctor no less stating that he had a fractured nose and two bloody eyes. Remember when I was posting on and on for weeks and weeks about black eyes and you righties were here talking about how "you don't know anything about a broken nose if you're looking for black eyes a week after and yada, yada, yada" even excusing the fact that a black eye is the least that HAS to be present in the case of a broken nose. Now you're lapping it up. An ubiased, fair and/or honest person would, at the very least, see how all this..."evidence" seems fishy. No pics of the broken nose nor black eye, just a report. Things that make me go hmmmm....

I'm not buying it, the general public is not buying it and I highly doubt the jury is going to buy their claptrap either. I know you're falling for it hook, line and sinker though. Carry on.


----------



## MarcATL (May 17, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone point out/circle the actual cut on his head?
> ...


Oh boy, oh boy, OH BOY!! 

Cons are steadfast in maintaining their position...






*ROTFLMBAO!!!!!*


----------



## Katzndogz (May 17, 2012)

Liberals are busy claiming that an article in the media is correct, but the medical reports are wrong.


----------



## mudwhistle (May 17, 2012)

Sallow said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Trayvan's knuckles were being repeatedly pummeled by Zimmerman's face. 

That's self-defense in a nut-shell.


----------



## geauxtohell (May 17, 2012)

Liability said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Or just look at the data.

Prescribed =\=. Completely benevolent.

People get prescribed morphine, for fuck's sake.


----------



## geauxtohell (May 17, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/policy-and-research/rx_abuse_plan.pdf

Next time you want to pull facts out of your ass, do it on someone who doesn't know better.


----------



## geauxtohell (May 17, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I didn't say he was abusing anything.  The fact that he had Rx's for the drugs speaks to a type of person I have dealt with a lot.

It's anecdotal.  Deal with it.

Though, I think there should be a consideration for carrying a weapon for people that are on mind altering substances.


----------



## geauxtohell (May 17, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Yeah.

Because there is an epidemic of prescription drug abuse in this nation.....

Sorry to break this too you, but "they were stolen" is a well known tactic of diversion and most doctors won't refill without a police report.

Though, I am not sure why they think a person who is willing to committ a felony to get their legal smack would mind lying to the cops.

I also hate to break it to you that if withdrawal prompts you to violence, you are addicted to narcotics.


----------



## Againsheila (May 17, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> The only theory the left hasn't presented at this point in time is that Zimmerman was stoned out of his gourd on prescription medication and had the munchies and killed Trayvon for his freaking skittles.
> 
> Sheesh.
> 
> I swear half the liberal posters at USMB are posting from Bellevue these days.



Careful, some people think I'm a liberal, some think I'm a conservative.  The truth is I think for myself and I'm more of a moderate than anything else.  I don't see why everyone is turning this into a political issue.  IMO it's pure common sense.  Zimmerman was trying to protect his neighborhood, that's why he followed a strange kid.  There is no way that Zimmerman could have "chased down" said kid.  Nor could he have hit the kid without there being some sort of evidence (like bruises).  I think with the damage to the kids fists and no other wounds on his body except the gunshot, that the kid was beating the hell out of somebody and the witness "John" makes that somebody Zimmerman.

I don't buy the whole "innocent kid" routine either.  He was suspended from school no less that 3 times this year alone.  What trouble did he get into where he wasn't caught?


----------



## Againsheila (May 17, 2012)

geauxtohell said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Well, thankfully, I've been seeing the same doctor for more than 30 years, he was there when both my kids were born.  And in all those years, our drugs were stolen ONCE.  I still have my refill and it's been several months since I got it.  I've had the same back problems since a bicycle accident at 16.  I was even hospitalized for it back when my oldest was in first grade.  Arthritis, muscle spasms and swollen discs fan be very painful.  The reason I ended up in the hospital is because I didn't have the painkillers or the sedatives and they are what keeps me out of the hospital when my back acts up.  We no longer leave our medication in the open.  

The cops around here do diddly squat, unless you count hassling the homeless.

Unless you have proof someone is abusing their prescribed drugs, its despicable to slander them based on their medication.


----------



## Againsheila (May 17, 2012)

Sallow said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



One of the many reasons I no longer trust our cops or our justice system.


----------



## Againsheila (May 17, 2012)

geauxtohell said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



And for good reasons, what's your point?


----------



## Katzndogz (May 17, 2012)

Libs will do ANYTHING to make it not so that Trayvon Martin went street thug.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 17, 2012)

Martin's autopsy report has been leaked. He was shot at intermediate range which in coroner's speak means from one to eighteen inches.


----------



## MikeK (May 17, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...


Do you think the fluid is "fake blood" or antiseptic fluid, such as iodine, mercurochrome, etc., applied by responding EMTs?  

Which would you suppose it is?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 17, 2012)

MikeK said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



I suppose that it's actual blood, Mensa Boy.  I don't have any vested interest in trying to make the facts fit my own personal narrative and making Zimmerman be guilty whether he is or not.

Way to read for comprehension.


----------



## Liability (May 17, 2012)

A timely recap to date:

The actual EVIDENCE is coming out rather slowly.  But so far, it LOOKS like GZ did get conked on the back of his head.  He did bleed.  He also did have a busted nose.  Trayvon DID get some abrasion on his knuckle.  And he WAS shot at rather close range.

The rush to judgment AGAINST GZ is revealed, so far, to be quite ridiculous and very premature.

It is, nevertheless, still premature to declare GZ innocent.

I suspect it was rather political and premature to even charge him yet.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 17, 2012)

Liability said:


> A timely recap to date:
> 
> The actual EVIDENCE is coming out rather slowly.  But so far, it LOOKS like GZ did get conked on the back of his head.  He did bleed.  He also did have a busted nose.  Trayvon DID get some abrasion on his knuckle.  And he WAS shot at rather close range.
> 
> ...



I posted a fairly comprehensive recap of the actual evidence currently known by the public in another thread on this topic.  I'll be happy to cross-post it here if it will help clear up all this "Well, I heard THIS" and "There's a rumor about that" and "some anonymous source has said [fill in the blank]".

Way too much speculation is being argued as settled fact at this point.


----------



## Liability (May 17, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > A timely recap to date:
> ...



Sure.  Cross post it.  A handy reference is just as handy in two threads!

I see an awful lot of rank speculation from both sides although (maybe it's just because it's a pet peeve) I DO see significantly more of it from the "he's guilty" crew.


----------



## Ariux (May 17, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> I know you're not seeing a wound, or you would have described exactly where it is.



Even if the blood weren't obscuring the wound, even if the small and fuzzy photo didn't lack the detail to capture the wound, you'd still be too full of shit to see the wound.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 17, 2012)

Okay, how about we cut through all the talking-past-each-other, I'm-sure-I-heard-this-somewhere bullshit and lay out what the public actually knows about this case, so that we're all more-or-less on the same page?

George Zimmerman is a member of his local neighborhood watch. That evening, he was going to the grocery store - NOT patrolling for the watch. He was carrying a gun, which he is licensed to do. He observed Trayvon Martin, who was returning to his father's fiancee's townhome after a trip to the store, walking behind the townhomes rather slowly and apparently looking at the houses, despite the fact that it was raining. Finding this suspicious, he dialed the police non-emergency number.

During the 4-minute, 11-second recording, he identified the suspicious person as a black male, late teens, when asked by the dispatcher, said that Martin was now looking at him and then coming toward him (although he was still sitting in his vehicle at this time), and then said that Martin was running. At that point, the sounds on the recording indicate that Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and was walking. Apparently because of this, the dispatcher asked him if he was following, and Zimmerman said he was. The dispatcher told him that they didn't need him to do that, and Zimmerman agreed. He and the dispatcher discuss where he should meet the officer being sent out, and Zimmerman starts to give his address, but says he doesn't want to give it all, because he doesn't know where Martin is. He then asks the dispatcher to have the officers call him when they arrive, and he will tell them where he is at that time. They confirm that the dispatcher has his correct number, and the call ends.

For time clarification, Zimmerman's call to the police began at 7:09 pm, and as I have said, lasted 4 minutes and 11 seconds (this according to their recording and time stamps). 

Trayvon Martin's girlfriend was on the phone with him beginning at 7:12 pm, according to the phone company records. I am not sure how long her call lasted. She claims that Martin told her "some man" was following him, and she advised him to run. She also says that she heard Martin ask someone, "What are you following me for?" and another voice saying, "What are you doing here?" She says she then "heard the sound of pushing", whatever that might be, and Martin's headset went silent, leading her to believe he'd been pushed. She tried to call him back, but got no answer. There is no recording of her conversation with Martin to confirm or dispute her account of what was said.

Timothy Smith, the first police officer on the scene, reported finding Martin on the ground, face-down and unresponsive, and Zimmerman standing near him. He also observed that Zimmerman's back was wet and covered with grass and that he was bleeding from the nose and the back of the head. Smith took Zimmerman's gun and handcuffed him.

The second and third officers on the scene began CPR on Martin, which was continued by paramedics when they arrived until Martin was declared dead at 7:30 pm. Other officers arrived, secured the scene, and collected witness statements. Zimmerman was treated by the paramedics at the scene, declined to go to the hospital, and was placed in Officer Smith's vehicle. At that time, he said, "I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me." He was then taken to the police station and questioned.

Martin's body was taken to the morgue and marked as a "John Doe". His father called to file a missing person's report the next day, and officers quickly arrived at his fiancee's townhome with photographs for him to identify.

A witness to the confrontation, identified as "John", said that "the guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling 'Help! Help!', and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911." He then says that when he looked back, "the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

Another witness, a 13-year-old boy, said he saw a man on the ground shortly before the shooting and that he was wearing red. His mother later disputed her son's story.

Mary Cutcher and her roommate, Selma Lamilla, admit that they did not see the shooting or the confrontation before it, but nevertheless have stated that they believe there was "no punching, no hitting, no wrestling" before the shooting. They say they heard the two men in their backyard, and "a very young voice" whining, with no sounds of a fight. They say they heard a gunshot, the crying stopped, and they saw Zimmerman on his knees, straddling Martin. Mary Cutcher phoned the police after the shooting and told them that the black man was standing over another man, although Martin was already dead. Police spokesman Sgt. Dave Morgenstern issued a statement disputing the statements Cutcher made on television, calling them "inconsistent" with their sworn testimony to the police.

A male witness said he saw two men on the ground scuffling, then heard the shooting, and saw Zimmerman walk away with no blood on him.

A witness identified as female said that she heard an argument between a younger and an older voice. The whole time she witnessed the incident the scuffling happened on the grass. She said that the larger man, who walked away after the gunshot, was on top, and that it was too dark to see blood on his face.

A witness who arrived just after the shooting took pictures of the back of Zimmerman's head, showing two cuts, blood, and a developing contusion. He said he heard the scuffle, but didn't see it.

Some of the recordings of the various 911 calls include the sound of someone shouting for help. Martin's mother insists it is his voice, and Zimmerman's father and other relatives insist it is his. It should be noted the Special Prosecuter Corey's Affidavit of Probable Cause mentions only Martin's mother's perspective, and not the Zimmerman family's. The FBI has been unable to determine which it was.

The lead homicide investigator on the case, Chris Serino, allegedly filed an affidavit the night of the incident claiming to be unconvinced by Zimmerman's account and recommending manslaughter charges. He was - also allegedly - told by the state attorney's office that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction. 

George Zimmerman was questioned by investigator D. Singleton, and released without charges. He told investigators that after his call to the police ended, he was returning to his vehicle, and Martin approached him from behind. 

According to statements made by Zimmerman's father, Martin asked Zimmerman, "Do you have a problem?" Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, at which point Martin punched him in the face, knocked him down, and began beating his head against the sidewalk. 

Zimmerman stated that he called out for help, and that at one point, Martin covered his mouth to muffle him.

Also according to Zimmerman's father's statements, Martin saw Zimmerman's gun while he was on top of him, they struggled for it, and Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense.

Early press reports mistakenly said that there were two gunshots, but in fact the gun was fired only once.

Zimmerman claimed self-defense, and investigators and the State Attorney's office both said that there was insufficient evidence to dispute that, and no probable cause to arrest him.

State Attorney Wolfinger initially announced, after public outcry, that a grand jury would be convened to investigate Martin's death, but Special Prosecutor Angela Corey announced that her office, not the grand jury, would decide whether to press charges.

Medical records by Zimmerman's doctor indicate that he was seen the day after the shooting, and was diagnosed with a "closed fracture" of his nose, two black eyes, lacerations to the back of his head, a minor back injury, and bruising in his upper lip and cheek.

Autopsy results on Martin show a fatal gunshot wound and broken skin on his knuckles.

Zimmerman was taken into custody on April 11, almost two months after the incident, and charged with 2nd-degree murder.

Zimmerman's bail was set at $150,000 on April 20, and he took the stand to express his sorrow over Martin's death. He was released on bail on April 23, fitted with an electronic monitoring device, and has entered a "not guilty" plea.

This what we KNOW, from the evidence that has been currently released to the public. There is clearly more evidence that has not been released to the public as yet.


----------



## Ravi (May 17, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Autopsy results on Martin show a fatal gunshot wound and broken skin on his knuckles.


So much for factual, eh nasty bitch?

The autopsy report said:

also found that the 17-year-old Martin had one other fresh injury &#8211; a small abrasion, no more than a quarter-inch in size &#8211; on his left ring finger below the knuckle

http://www.eurweb.com/2012/05/trayvon-martin-autopsy-single-gunshot-wound-cut-on-knuckle/


----------



## Liability (May 17, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Autopsy results on Martin show a fatal gunshot wound and broken skin on his knuckles.
> ...



Singular, not plural.  Check.

And, as one of the television legal experts wisely noted, that could also come from defending himself rather than being an aggressor.

OR, I might add, it could (maybe?) have come from slapping his hand down on the ground -- knuckle side down -- upon being shot?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 17, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Autopsy results on Martin show a fatal gunshot wound and broken skin on his knuckles.
> ...



As usual, you jmissed the fucking point, because you're an ignorant, brainless twat.

The point of the recap is to lay out what we KNOW, from actual evidence and real sources, so that we can separate them from bullshit rumors being peddled by halfwits with an axe to grind.  Therefore, posting a link to fucking "Eurweb" just takes us right back into the realm of "unreliable bullshit rumors".

Furthermore, asswipe, "a small abrasion" would qualify as "broken skin", anyway.

Be very careful.  If you lose any more brain cells, biologists are going to have to classify you as a sea sponge.


----------



## Ravi (May 17, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Like I said, so much for factual.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 17, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



It is possible that the broken skin came from something other than hitting Zimmerman, although that would leave us with two men scuffling and NEITHER of them showing any offensive damage, and one of them showing essentially no defensive damage.

Probability would suggest, I think, that the one with skinned knuckles and no other abrasions or contusions (other than having been shot, of course) was beating up the one with all the defensive injuries.

Consider, for a second, that Martin had NOT been shot, and you happened upon the two of them standing there, Martin with a skinned knuckle and Zimmerman with a fractured nose, swollen lip, and bloody head.  What would you think had happened?


----------



## taichiliberal (May 17, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Bottom line: this earth shattering news comes from the FAMILY doctor, and NOT from an official hospital report FROM THAT NIGHT that corroborates with the EMT report.
> ...



Again, were is the "gash" that required stitches?  That's what Zimmerman's camp was claiming initially...but the video from the police dept. THAT NIGHT when Zimmerman was being led into detainment DID NOT SHOW SUCH A WOUND.  Nor was there ANY evidence of a broken nose, etc., etc.  At best, he shows evidence of a having been in a scuffle with a few bruises, but not being nearly beaten to death:

George Zimmerman Jail Surveillance Night Of Trayvon Murder: No Nose Broken, Blood, Or Bruises [Video] | Bossip

And as far as Martin's wounds....yeah, some yahoo is following you at night in a car, then gets out the car to bother you, and he's NOT a cop! Sure as hell Martin is going to think he's being attacked! All those wounds signify is that there was a struggle......that Zimmerman initiated by pursuing the guy AFTER he was told it wasn't necessary because the cops were on the way.

Sorry if I don't buy the family doc's objectivity....I'll wait for the report filed by the EMT's that treated Zimmerman at the scene....and will still ask why Zimmerman wasn't taken to a nearby hospital for emergency treatment if his wounds were so severe, and how did the EMT's do such a magical clean up just a few hours before his police precinct video.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 17, 2012)

Ariux said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > Are you going to dispute Trayvon's autopsy results as well? Obviously the truth doesn't fit your narrative.
> ...



Nice to see the pointy hooded wearers are predictable as ever.

The autopsy just show a struggle ensued....Zimmerman follows the man and gets out of his car AFTER being told the cops are on the way and there is NO NEED to continue to follow martin.

To date, there has been NO official report from EMT that treated Zimmerman at the scene that corroborate his tale of a broken nose and a severe gash on the back of his head that needed stitches....nor has there been a report from the local hospital emergency that does this.

The cops at the scene only corroborate that Zimmerman was in a scuffle that resulted in a fatal shooting...they DO NOT state that he was a bloody mess as his lawyers stated, and of which the video of that night does not as well  George Zimmerman Jail Surveillance Night Of Trayvon Murder: No Nose Broken, Blood, Or Bruises [Video] | Bossip

Zimmerman's family doctor THE DAY AFTER.....excuse me if I find his objectivity dubious at best.

Zimmerman's "bleeding head" pic that differs from the initial video that showed AT BEST a scrape..,...NOT a bleeding gash that needed stitches.

Witnesses that also saw Zimmerman acting and reacting NOT like he was attacked, who heard Trayvon screaming for help.

Zimmersman's own words....yeah right, he has no reason to lie, and dead men tell no tails.

Give me a fucking break, you David Duke ass kisser.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 17, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



Sorry, asshole, but you're citing unreliable "sources", and babbling of lot of shit not in evidence at all.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 17, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Newsflash for ya, sweetie....the local cops did a piss poor job regarding police procedure with how they handled Zimmerman

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/trayvon-martin-case-shadowed-by-police-missteps.html


----------



## taichiliberal (May 17, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...




Your sheet wearing buddy didn't provide ONE document to support his racist tainted diatribe....yet a willfully ignorant little troll like YOU Cecilie, IGNORE my link and then bullhorn your way past my points.

AND WHERE IS THE REPORT TO THE AFFILIATED HOSPITAL FROM THE EMT'S WHO TREATED ZIMMERMAN?

Your full of it just like the klan clown you defend, sweet pea.


----------



## Sallow (May 17, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



It's still a top flight justice system..and our LEOs are reasonably trustworthy.

But quality various state to state.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 17, 2012)

Sallow said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



I think it's very necessary to keep a close eye on how law enforcement and the legal system are operating in your area, to keep them behaving reasonably well.  But I don't see any reason to automatically distrust them, overall.  (I say "overall" because I think there might be some places I'm less trusting than others.)


----------



## Peach (May 17, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



I know people who are dependent on painkillers to function; one of my close friends is. That friend uses patches; still, if one must use painkillers, tranquilizers, or amphetamines to function, being on a "neighborhood watch" team, carrying loaded gun, isn't wise. I have read of no physical impairment that the killer was suffering from. His drug use is relevant, it may actually assist in his defense.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



His doctor must be in on it too! LOL!.
How can you breathe with your head all up in there?
That could explain your confusion.


----------



## TheGreatGatsby (May 17, 2012)

Buried deep in this huff post article:



> New witness accounts also emerged Thursday. A witness, whose name is redacted, told investigators he saw "a black male, wearing a dark colored hoodie," on top of a white or Hispanic male who was yelling for help.



Like I said, the prosecutor Angela Corey is a manipulative hag who had no business charging Zimmerman with murder. This is a perversion of law.

Source: Trayvon Martin Case: Evidence Of Marijuana Found In Martin's Blood


----------



## Ariux (May 17, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Consider, for a second, that Martin had NOT been shot, and you happened upon the two of them standing there, Martin with a skinned knuckle and Zimmerman with a fractured nose, swollen lip, and bloody head.  What would you think had happened?



I still haven't found the actual autopsy report posted on line, to know whether the report claims singular or plural knuckle injuries.  Regardless, it's very possible to beat someone up without breaking the skin on the knuckles, just as it's possible (and happens every day) to kill someone without a weapon.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 17, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Can someone point out/circle the actual cut on his head?
> 
> 
> 
> ...








Can you see it now?


----------



## tinydancer (May 17, 2012)

TheGreatGatsby said:


> Buried deep in this huff post article:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just put up a new thread with more data coming out with cops and witnesses supporting Zimmerman's story.

Cripes, this is all political bullshit.


----------



## hortysir (May 17, 2012)

No drug USE has been proven, dumbass


----------



## asterism (May 17, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



I guess you'll have to wait for the trial, when evidence such as these pictures and reports from Zimmerman's Physician will be admitted and accepted without challenge.



MarcATL said:


> It's as if they're just trying to put everything as it should. The questions were "where's a picture of the bloody head?" Months later this appears. The questions were "where's the evidence of a broken nose and/or black eye?" Now all of a sudden a REPORT, no pics from Zimmerman's OWN family-doctor no less stating that he had a fractured nose and two bloody eyes. Remember when I was posting on and on for weeks and weeks about black eyes and you righties



I think this is the first time you and I have ever engaged each other on this topic.  Do refrain from being a hack and assuming my position based on my political preference and please don't expect me to own and defend the points and positions of others. 



MarcATL said:


> were here talking about how "you don't know anything about a broken nose if you're looking for black eyes a week after and yada, yada, yada" even excusing the fact that a black eye is the least that HAS to be present in the case of a broken nose.



That's not true.  I broke my nose on a bad parachute landing and didn't get a black eye.  I didn't even have that much pain.  3 weeks later when it looked funny and the swelling went down I was told it had broken and healed crooked.  It's still crooked today.



MarcATL said:


> Now you're lapping it up. An ubiased, fair and/or honest person would, at the very least, see how all this..."evidence" seems fishy. No pics of the broken nose nor black eye, just a report. Things that make me go hmmmm....



I'm not lapping anything up.  I've said since the beginning that Zimmerman should have been arrested simply because he shot a minor after following him.  That doesn't mean he's guilty and the speculation by a mom who was hundreds of miles away, a lawyer who is grandstanding, and a father who was at best negligent means nothing.



MarcATL said:


> I'm not buying it, the general public is not buying it and I highly doubt the jury is going to buy their claptrap either. I know you're falling for it hook, line and sinker though. Carry on.



I'm not falling for anything.  I'll wait for the trial and let the jury decide.


----------



## asterism (May 17, 2012)

Liability said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Yup.

I especially enjoy the "he's guilty" lynch mob taking their assumptions and projecting them onto others without any background whatsoever.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 17, 2012)

hortysir said:


> No drug USE has been proven, dumbass



Actually, it's the dumbass cops who DIDN'T test Zimmerman for drugs or do a decent investigation.  Had they done so, they would have found out the following;

_According to the report, prior to the shooting Zimmerman had been prescribed Adderall and Temazepam, medications that can cause side effects such as agitation and mood swings, but in fewer than 10 percent of patients.  ABC News Exclusive_


Funny how the Zimmerman zombies are all jerking off to the report that Martin had some THC in his system, but are either ignorant or indifferent to Zimmerman's condition at the time.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 18, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



CNN has a much better photo of Zimmerman's head injuries up on their site now.

Police: Trayvon Martin's death 'ultimately avoidable' - CNN.com


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 18, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Consider, for a second, that Martin had NOT been shot, and you happened upon the two of them standing there, Martin with a skinned knuckle and Zimmerman with a fractured nose, swollen lip, and bloody head.  What would you think had happened?
> ...



Try CNN.com.  They have a link to the actual, scanned-in report itself.  And it was one knuckle, not that it matters.

For the record, pictures were taken of George Zimmerman's hands when he was at the police station that night, and there was no damage to his hands whatsoever.  There WERE, however, pictures taken that night of the injuries to his head and his nose.  Whoops! for the people who kept screeching, "See?  Look at the video of him being brought in!  No injuries!"


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 18, 2012)

tinydancer said:


> TheGreatGatsby said:
> 
> 
> > Buried deep in this huff post article:
> ...



I love how CNN jumped up and posted a story about how "this was all ultimately avoidable.  If Zimmerman had just stayed in his car . . ."  Yeah, well, if Martin had just gone inside his father's fiancee's townhouse after he ran away, instead of coming back.  Why is the liberal solution always, "Live in fear of thugs instead of standing up to them?  Don't defend yourself, don't care about your neighbors or your neighborhood, just huddle terrified inside your houses"?


----------



## earlycuyler (May 18, 2012)

In the end, it doesn't matter. An investigator recommended Zimmerman should be taken in, that the shooting was avoidable.  Geroge Zimmerman has done more damage to peoples right to carry then any gun control group ever could. I


----------



## iamwhatiseem (May 18, 2012)

What about this one Marc?


----------



## iamwhatiseem (May 18, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



It is easy to predict what is going to happen.
He will be found not guilty based on his injuries, and Trayvon's injuries.
Then there will be riots down there much like there was with Rodney King. 100's of people will break into area stores and loot them in memory of Martin.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 18, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> In the end, it doesn't matter. An investigator recommended Zimmerman should be taken in, that the shooting was avoidable.  Geroge Zimmerman has done more damage to peoples right to carry then any gun control group ever could. I



Dude, you are being so gullible.

Do you think it merely an accident that this story exploded into national news about a month after it happened?

No, the race baiting 'civil rights' community and the gun grabbing whores got together and decided they needed a PR campaign to roll back the 'stand your ground' laws that were becoming very popular. They chose to use this Zimmerman case as the show case for their PR campaign because it looked like a case of a white guy who hunted down and shot to death an innocent black kid. Well, they fucked up and this thing is blowing up in their face in almost every aspect of it.

Zimmerman defended his life, no more and no less. He did not break the law and was acting in his own defense and that of his community by watching a person who he did not recognise and who was wandering around in the rain in his neighborhood, a typical device used by criminals when scouting out targets. Using kids is increasingly popular as they do not get tried as adults if caught.

The gun grabbers and race baiters have largely failed with this little show trial, but it would appear that Lincoln was right, some people can be fooled all the time.


----------



## Liability (May 18, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Can someone point out/circle the actual cut on his head?
> ...



I know that I can.


----------



## Liability (May 18, 2012)

asterism said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...




* I'll wait for the trial and let the jury decide.*

What a NOVEL idea!


----------



## Cowman (May 18, 2012)

Looks like he hit himself with his gun.

If I was bashing his head into the ground, he'd have a shitload more damage than that. And he'd be concussed.

A lot of you don't know how head injuries work.


----------



## hortysir (May 18, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > No drug USE has been proven, dumbass
> ...



The responding officers must not have had sufficient probable cause to suspect Zimmerman was under the influence of any controlled substances.
They know what to look for.

Hell, I was DUI tested one night because my cold medicine made my pupils act like I was inebriated....when the deputy shined his light at me, my pupils didn't dilate with the light.

You DO realize that 'being prescribed' a drug and being 'under the influence' of a drug is 2 different things, right?!


----------



## earlycuyler (May 18, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > In the end, it doesn't matter. An investigator recommended Zimmerman should be taken in, that the shooting was avoidable.  Geroge Zimmerman has done more damage to peoples right to carry then any gun control group ever could. I
> ...



You dont know what you are talking about. After defending your self, you have to answer up to the act. Cops have to do it to. Cops from one end of the country to are in the same situation fatso was in everyday, yet they manage not to shoot anyone. Zimmerman is a prime example of who should not be allowed to carry. He is one of the retards who makes it hard for the rest of us. The race baiting does not help. I dont like that a bit, and it will get in the way of justice being served.


----------



## Ariux (May 18, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Actually, it's the dumbass cops who DIDN'T test Zimmerman for drugs or do a decent investigation.  Had they done so, they would have found out the following;



How about the dumbass shitheads who think the cops should have tested Zimmerman for drugs, when Zimmerman displayed no signs of being under the influence and when his story was completely consistent with the evidence and the witnesses?

Hey, taichiliberal, how would you like to get the biggest award in your life?  What you do is remove the windshield from your car, and without a seatbelt, drive into a tree at high speed.  You should fly through the open window and land safely.   Record it.  With any luck, you can win a Darwin Award for the stunt, and believe me, the world will be a better place.  Even if you don't win the Darwin Award, you'll have the most impressive video and can sell it to the media for a lot of money.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 18, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> In the end, it doesn't matter. An investigator recommended Zimmerman should be taken in, that the shooting was avoidable.  Geroge Zimmerman has done more damage to peoples right to carry then any gun control group ever could. I



And in the end, THAT doesn't matter, because the State Attorney office told that investigator - the only one out of several who wanted an arrest - that there wasn't enough evidence to convict him of anything.

"Ultimately avoidable" does NOT mean "criminally liable".  Nowhere in any law is it codified that citizens are obligated to avoid all possible confrontation or conflict at all costs.

George Zimmerman has done no damage to any rights, but fools like you sure are trying to.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 18, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



"Answering up for the act" does NOT require that he be convicted of anything.  He already "answered up" as much as this case would have required under any normal circumstances when he was taken in, questioned, and released because there was no evidence to charge him with a crime.  He is now "answering up" more than he should be required with this politically-based railroad attempt.

Cops are NOT "in the same situation every day without shooting someone".  Most cops go their entire careers without having a physical confrontation with anyone.


----------



## Meister (May 18, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



No agenda on your behalf, you just want the facts, right?


----------



## taichiliberal (May 18, 2012)

hortysir said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



Sure do, bunky....which is why Zimmerman should have been TESTED to see if he was under the influence of ANY drug.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 18, 2012)

Ariux said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, it's the dumbass cops who DIDN'T test Zimmerman for drugs or do a decent investigation.  Had they done so, they would have found out the following;
> ...



Your last paragraph is just useless and absurd babbling....deal with ALL the facts of this case, and NOT your worthless supposition and conjecture.


----------



## Ariux (May 18, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Who says he didn't?  And his story was NOT consistent with the evidence, as the chief detective concluded when filed an affidavit for an arrest.  Bottom line: the local cops were incompetent in their reaction and initial investigation.  Check this out:   http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/trayvon-martin-case-shadowed-by-police-missteps.html



Hey shithead, why would I care about the opinion of a f-ing J- on how the cops performed?

It's routine in self-defense cases for the police to defer to the Persecutor about filing charges.  It doesn't mean the police think that Zimmerman should have been charged.  Please provide a link to this Chief Detective saying that Zimmerman should have been charged in the first place.  Otherwise, remind yourself of what an idiot you are.



> Your last paragraph is just useless and absurd babbling....deal with ALL the facts of this case, and NOT your worthless supposition and conjecture.



I just thought winning a Darwin Award would be something you'd be good at.


----------



## Peach (May 18, 2012)

hortysir said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



He killed someone, that isn't probable cause? Operating a motor vehicle in Florida is consent to BAC/drug testing also.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Looks like he hit himself with his gun.
> 
> If I was bashing his head into the ground, he'd have a shitload more damage than that. And he'd be concussed.
> 
> A lot of you don't know how head injuries work.



They seem to have left you confused.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 18, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



Zimmerman DID answer when he was taken in for questioning in handcuffs.

The facts are obvious that he got sucker punched by a fucktartd who got shot for being such a dick.

Guess your just defending your own.


----------



## Peach (May 18, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> > TheGreatGatsby said:
> ...



A scratch on his nose, some scratches on his head. This does not look like someone whose head was "pounded on concrete".


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2012)

Peach said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



If his head wasn't pounded, how did his head get cut?


----------



## freedombecki (May 18, 2012)

Peach said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...


His wounds are consistent with blows to the head on account of their location on the convex of the skull area. Bruising does not show up immediately. That picture shows a grisly occurrence.


----------



## Meister (May 18, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Bush II


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2012)

meister said:


> toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > peach said:
> ...



lol!


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 18, 2012)

hortysir said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



Liberals seem to think the cops are allowed to do drug tests on people they bring in for questioning "just because", or that it's a standard part of the questioning procedure, or something.

Of course, if that were true, THEN the liberals would be screeching about the violation of the "privacy rights" of all those poor, abused criminals out there.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 18, 2012)

Peach said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



No, Mensa Girl, it's not, and I'm so very sure that your warm, fuzzy little liberal self would just LOVE to live in a country where "you're suspected of a crime, so that's probable cause to drug test you" was legal police procedure.  You'd be screaming your little guts out with outrage.

You dumbass, glandular-thinking leftists always want the law tilted as much as possible to favor the accused . . . until the accused is someone you want to crucify to suit your liberal worldview.  Hypocritical twit.

By the way, no, simply driving a car does not automatically make it okay for you to be drug tested.  The cop has to have a reason to stop you AND some reason to believe that you're under the influence (like failing a field sobriety test, although often the reason you're stopped IS the reason to believe you're under the influence, ie. swerving all over the road).


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 18, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > In the end, it doesn't matter. An investigator recommended Zimmerman should be taken in, that the shooting was avoidable.  Geroge Zimmerman has done more damage to peoples right to carry then any gun control group ever could. I
> ...



I thought it was PT Barnum who said that.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 18, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> In the end, it doesn't matter. An investigator recommended Zimmerman should be taken in, that the shooting was avoidable.  Geroge Zimmerman has done more damage to peoples right to carry then any gun control group ever could. I



In the end, cops always want to take people in because they think it is part of their job. All shootings are avoidable. for instance, if Martin hadn't gone out for Skittles that night he would never have been shot. That is why the whole issue of avoidable or not avoidable is legally irrelevant, and only legal neophytes mention it in the first place..Believe it or not, people would still have a right to carry even if everyone in the country carried a gun and randomly shot people on the street for no reason at all. Rights don't go away simply because you don't like them.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 18, 2012)

Peach said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > tinydancer said:
> ...



A "scratch on his nose"?  What color is the sky on Planet DumbBroad, anyway?  If you bothered to think with something other than your ovaries for five seconds, you would know that that "scratch on his nose" was a closed fracture, you embarrassment to humanity.

And what the fuck do YOU know about what having your head "pounded on the concrete" - whoever the fuck THAT'S supposed to be a quote of - looks like?  When did YOU become a medical expert, or even capable of applying a Bandaid right-side-out, for that matter?

Why don't you take your oh-so-knowledgeable, "I just FEEL this is the way it is" self down to Florida and tell all those paramedics and doctors and other professionals how wrong they are about Zimmerman's injuries, because YOUR omniscient glands told you that he was barely hurt, and just lying about it?  Not only would it be amusing when they laugh your fluffbrained ass out the door, but it would save all of us from having to read your ignorant posts for a few days.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 18, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Looks like he hit himself with his gun.
> 
> If I was bashing his head into the ground, he'd have a shitload more damage than that. And he'd be concussed.
> 
> A lot of you don't know how head injuries work.



Maybe Martin was a wuss.


----------



## Ariux (May 18, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Liberals seem to think the cops are allowed to do drug tests on people they bring in for questioning "just because", or that it's a standard part of the questioning procedure, or something.



Not only do Liberals think police should be allowed to drug test people as a standard part of questioning, they think police should be required to.



> Of course, if that were true, THEN the liberals would be screeching about the violation of the "privacy rights" of all those poor, abused criminals out there.



Indeed.

Liberals are shitheads.


----------



## Peach (May 18, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Recoil when he shot the victim, perhaps. He was checked by EMTs at the scene. No significant injuries.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2012)

Peach said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Recoil caused him to fall backwards and hit the ground with the back of his head?


----------



## Meister (May 18, 2012)

Peach said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Peach, I swear you are just making up scenarios to fit your agenda on the fly.
Usually, the most logical explanation is one of fact.
You're better than this, Peach.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 18, 2012)

Peach said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Wrong, cow.  Not that I expect you to bother to actually read any of the evidence that's been released, probably because dumb broads like you can't read.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 18, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



She's not only better able to diagnose over the Internet than the doctors on the scene, but now she's a ballistics expert.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 18, 2012)

Meister said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No, she's really not.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 18, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



And a physics expert too. LOL!


----------



## freedombecki (May 18, 2012)

Meister said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


I agree with you. Peach usually is better.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 18, 2012)

Peach said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Yeah, Zimmerman was so whacked out of his mind on prescription drugs that he hit himself in the face so hard with the gun when he fired it at Martin that he fell backwards and hit his head on the sidewalk. Peach wtf are you on?


----------



## Cowman (May 18, 2012)

Question.

Why does Zimmerman have a wound so high on his head, supposedly caused by his head being bashed on the flat ground? He has an injury in the red area, but in all likely hood having your head bashed into the ground while on your back will cause damage in the green area... unless his head was tilted back for some unusual reason. He'd have to be looking at somebody behind him while lying on the ground, all while being bashed at the same time.







And that chunk of flesh missing from his head... what caused that? Surely it wasn't the flat concrete? Maybe it was rough and gravely asphalt? That seems pretty likely... but if his head was being bashed, there would be far more lacerations than those visible.

And what about the concussion? Why did he have no concussion?

I'm sorry, but if I was bashing your head against the ground, you would be concussed. This isn't the fucking movies, where the human body can withstand such punishment without serious internal consequences.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 18, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Estrogen.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 18, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Question.
> 
> Why does Zimmerman have a wound so high on his head, supposedly caused by his head being bashed on the flat ground? He has an injury in the red area, but in all likely hood having your head bashed into the ground while on your back will cause damage in the green area... unless his head was tilted back for some unusual reason. He'd have to be looking at somebody behind him while lying on the ground, all while being bashed at the same time.
> 
> ...



How do you know he didn't have a concussion?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 18, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Question.
> 
> Why does Zimmerman have a wound so high on his head, supposedly caused by his head being bashed on the flat ground? He has an injury in the red area, but in all likely hood having your head bashed into the ground while on your back will cause damage in the green area... unless his head was tilted back for some unusual reason. He'd have to be looking at somebody behind him while lying on the ground, all while being bashed at the same time.
> 
> ...



Yes, people NEVER get hit in the head without sustaining a concussion.  

Shut the fuck up, you medical moron.

When my older brother was three, he fell down and hit his head on a big rock.  Tore a huge gash in his head that required stitches and bled like a sonofabitch.  My mom thought at first that he'd broken his skull.  Forty years later, he's still got a huge, jagged scar.  He didn't get a concussion, though.  (I maintain that it's because his head is made of solid rock, but that's probably not true.)

A concussion is a traumatic brain injury, and it does NOT always occur whenever someone is struck in the head, even if they are struck hard.  Maybe Zimmerman just has an especially tough skull.  Head injuries are tricky things.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 18, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > Question.
> ...



Because it wasn't listed among the diagnosed injuries in either the report from the fire department or the doctor he saw the next day.


----------



## Cowman (May 18, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > Question.
> ...



If he had a fucking concussion, it would be in his three page medical report. It was not.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 18, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



All that proves is the doctor the next day didn't see any evidence of a concussion, it doesn't mean he didn't have one.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 18, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



Last week you were arguing that he didn't have a broken nose because it didn't show up in the pictures. How did that work out again?


----------



## Cowman (May 18, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > Question.
> ...



It doesn't take much to make the scalp bleed like crazy. It's loaded with more blood than the rest of your skin. And your brother hit his head on a rock. Possible concussion scenario, possibly not. He wasn't getting his head supposedly pounded brutally into the pavement like you fools are claiming.

Judging by the curvature of Zimmerman's head, why is that one wound so high up on his head? That's not where his head would strike if he was flat on his back with his head against the ground.


----------



## Cowman (May 18, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Show me where I was talking about Zimmerman's broken nose.


----------



## syrenn (May 18, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Question.
> 
> Why does Zimmerman have a wound so high on his head, supposedly caused by his head being bashed on the flat ground? He has an injury in the red area, but in all likely hood having your head bashed into the ground while on your back will cause damage in the green area... unless his head was tilted back for some unusual reason. He'd have to be looking at somebody behind him while lying on the ground, all while being bashed at the same time.
> 
> ...



You are assuming normal position of a head hitting the ground.....  Generally when someone is bashing your head into the ground... you are not the one in control of your head. The one doing the bashing is the one positioning the head... ie... head tilted in strange positions. 

Does every football player get a concussion when hit? No... they don't.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 18, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Question.
> 
> Why does Zimmerman have a wound so high on his head, supposedly caused by his head being bashed on the flat ground? He has an injury in the red area, but in all likely hood having your head bashed into the ground while on your back will cause damage in the green area... unless his head was tilted back for some unusual reason. He'd have to be looking at somebody behind him while lying on the ground, all while being bashed at the same time.
> 
> ...



Lol, you sound like an Old Earth Creationist, lololol, only more stubborn.

No offense to any OEC's out there.


----------



## Trajan (May 18, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



I am pretty sure you have suffered concussions, 20-30 of them.....yet you're still posting....


----------



## Cowman (May 18, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > Question.
> ...



what is this I don't even


----------



## theunbubba (May 18, 2012)




----------



## taichiliberal (May 19, 2012)

Ariux said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Who says he didn't?  And his story was NOT consistent with the evidence, as the chief detective concluded when filed an affidavit for an arrest.  Bottom line: the local cops were incompetent in their reaction and initial investigation.  Check this out:   http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/trayvon-martin-case-shadowed-by-police-missteps.html
> ...



And as I just educated your dumbass above, your attempt at an insult is a joke considering the source.


----------



## Ariux (May 19, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Who says he didn't?  And his story was NOT consistent with the evidence, as the chief detective concluded when filed an affidavit for an arrest.  Bottom line: the local cops were incompetent in their reaction and initial investigation.  Check this out:   http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/trayvon-martin-case-shadowed-by-police-missteps.html



What an incredibly stupid shithead you are, Tachiliberal.  In the same breath that you accuse the police of incompetence, you appeal to their judgement that Zimmerman should have been charged/arrested.

Nevermind that the Chief Detective in the case never said Zimmerman should be charged with anything.


----------



## Trajan (May 19, 2012)

-merged-


----------



## percysunshine (May 19, 2012)

It appears that the Zimmerman story is going to be another media shark jump. Just like the Duke Lacross Team story.

Maybe Obama should invite him over for a beer in the Rose Garden with machine gun Joe Biden.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 19, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Nevermind that the Chief Detective in the case never said Zimmerman should be charged with anything.




Ahhh...


............ Ya, the Sanford PD did request charges.


Page 25 -->> State v. Zimmerman: Evidence released by prosecutor

Capias Request by Sanford PD for arrest and charges.



>>>>


----------



## Ariux (May 19, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> It appears that the Zimmerman story is going to be another media shark jump. Just like the Duke Lacross Team story.
> 
> Maybe Obama should invite him over for a beer in the Rose Garden with machine gun Joe Biden.



That shithead president, BO, always lets his racism make a fool of him.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I sincerely doubt he got a concussion without showing a single sign or symptom of it, even by the next day.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



Spare me the "This is different, he HAS to be GUILTY!" excuses.  You know fuck-all about medicine, and we both know it.  You just want to believe Zimmerman's guilty, so you're making a bunch of hypothetical bullshit up and trying to project it onto the case to suit your agenda.

The people who wrote the reports admitted into evidence are medical experts; you're a dipshit on the Internet. Case closed.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 19, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



You should learn a bit more about concussions. The NFL just changed their rules so that anyone who has any blow to the head during a game has to sit out the rest of the game and get an MRI the next day because concussions are so hard to diagnose that doctors on the side line often miss them. It turns out that the only way to accurately diagnose a concussion is an MRI because most concussions don't show symptoms that can be detected any other way.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 19, 2012)

Dude.
Zimmerman followed Martin, then Martin began running away so Zimmerman ran after him(Martin was talking with a chick while this happened so thats why we know this). The end result was Zimmerman with some blood on his head and Martin dead.
Is it self defense if I see someone walking on the sidewalk begin following them then chase them down get in a struggle and then blow their heart out?


----------



## Liability (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Dude.
> Zimmerman followed Martin, then Martin began running away so Zimmerman ran after him(Martin was talking with a chick while this happened so thats why we know this). The end result was Zimmerman with some blood on his head and Martin dead.
> Is it self defense if I see someone walking on the sidewalk begin following them then chase them down get in a struggle and then blow their heart out?



^ Idiotic and mostly baseless speculation.

starjizz is dumber than usual these days.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Dude.
> Zimmerman followed Martin, then Martin began running away so Zimmerman ran after him(Martin was talking with a chick while this happened so thats why we know this). The end result was Zimmerman with some blood on his head and Martin dead.
> Is it self defense if I see someone walking on the sidewalk begin following them then chase them down get in a struggle and then blow their heart out?



Dude.

Unless you were there, no one is interested in hearing you tell us "this happened, and then that happened".  The "chick" Martin was talking to has nothing but her own word for what was said, and YOU have nothing but your diseased imagination and an agenda of what you want to believe to help you decide which testimony to believe, and which to totally ignore the existence of.

Your hypothetical question deserves no answer, because it requires someone to be stupid enough to accept your drivel as fact.  Oh, and because it comes from you.


----------



## BDBoop (May 19, 2012)




----------



## Liability (May 19, 2012)

BDBoop said:


>



You and/or your "chart" left off the part about the possibility that Trayvon initiated the physical confrontation with Zimmerman.

And you left out the part where possibly Trayvon did so by punching Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground, getting ON top of Zimmerman and pounding his skull into the concrete.

And you left out how, IF that had not happened, Trayvon might be alive and fine today.


----------



## BDBoop (May 19, 2012)

Liability said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Sorry, my perceptions have always followed the flowchart. You'll have to bring your own flowchart.

We both have public knowledge. I'm certainly not going to substitute your perceptions for my own.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Dude.
> Zimmerman followed Martin, then Martin began running away so Zimmerman ran after him(Martin was talking with a chick while this happened so thats why we know this). The end result was Zimmerman with some blood on his head and Martin dead.
> Is it self defense if I see someone walking on the sidewalk begin following them then chase them down get in a struggle and then blow their heart out?



Actually, self defense would be anyone who sees you on the street blowing your head off. In fact, that would increase the average IQ of the planet by 10 points and probably get the person who does it a Nobel Peace Prize.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 19, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



The flowchart has a serious flaw, it assumes Martin is actually innocent.


----------



## Liability (May 19, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I don't need a chart.

Yours left important factors out.

Apparently by design.

Ergo, your chart is of zero value.

But we all know that, already.


----------



## BDBoop (May 19, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



"Innocent until proven guilty" is a flaw?


----------



## McBain (May 19, 2012)

Is there any proof Zimmerman punched or assaulted Martin?  There seems to be physical evidence and eyewitness testimony that Martin punched Zimmerman.  I keep hearing people say Zimmerman confronted Martin but I'm not sure what that means?


----------



## BDBoop (May 19, 2012)

McBain said:


> Is there any proof Zimmerman punched or assaulted Martin?  There seems to be physical evidence and eyewitness testimony that Martin punched Zimmerman.  I keep hearing people say Zimmerman confronted Martin but I'm not sure what that means?



There's no way of knowing what happened, but given that Zimmerman had a broken nose, I'd say Trayvon definitely threw at least one good punch.

If he'd gotten in more than one, I think he (Martin) would have had more than an abrasion below a knuckle.


----------



## McBain (May 19, 2012)

There's no way of knowing what happened, but given that Zimmerman had a broken nose, I'd say Trayvon definitely threw at least one good punch.

If he'd gotten in more than one, I think he (Martin) would have had more than an abrasion below a knuckle.[/QUOTE]

It looks like Zimmerman's injuries took more than one good punch.  There's at least one witness who saw a black man in a dark shirt punching "MMA style" while on top of a white or hispanic man.  The punch to the nose might not have left any abrasions on Martin because the nose is a mostly soft part of the face.  

Without any evidence of Zimmerman assaulting Martin I don't see how this is a murder charge?  Maybe it's a manslaughter charge but it looks more like regular self defense... not even the stand your ground type.


----------



## BDBoop (May 19, 2012)

Nobody will know until there is a trial.


----------



## Liability (May 19, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



But it's "ok" to PRESUME that Zimmerman is guilty?  Because the "flowchart" pretty much does that, too.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 19, 2012)

Liability said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Dude.
> ...



Wait so according to you someone being on the phone and hearing all this happen is speculation...
Do you know what speculation is?
Speculation would be if I said that the above scenario happened with out knowing it, but since we have a phone call and a girl who HEARD it happen we know it happened.
Notice how ally ou said wasw "you stupid" its good bets that the stupid person is the person who can only call people stupid but can't actually say sometihng intellgent or add to the discussion


----------



## Cowman (May 19, 2012)

Liability said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



Oh you fucking idiots crack me up. Always with the hyperbolic shit about Zimmerman getting his head brutally pounded into the concrete... and yet claiming it's not surprising he doesn't have a concussion and didn't require any medical attention at all... not even a bandaid or stitches for his wounds.

Where is Zimmerman's DNA on Martin's hands or fingernails, if martin was pounding his head into the ground? Surely there'd be something.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 19, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Dude.
> ...



Um can you not read? We have a phone call with a girl who heard all this happen. So no I was not there but someone else was and what I posted is her story.
But go on bealviing that girl who was on the phone with the kid who died while he was killed is full of shit but a racist with a gun who chased down some black kid who had candy and a soda and killed him is telling the truth


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Zimmermann's injuries look a lot more serious than Trayvon's, except for the bullet wound.
Sounds like self-defense. I guess Trayvon should have run home, instead of confronting Zimmermann.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 19, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


Dont you get it. If you chase some random person down with some blood on your head and you end up killing him that it is automatically self defense because you know blood on head


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 19, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


Plz show us a picture of Trayvon so we can compare FOR OURSELFS 
the extent of his injuries, considering you've made an opinion you must
have a picture unless you're just making shit up.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



*But go on bealviing that girl who was on the phone with the kid who died while he was killed is full of shit *

Unless it was a videophone, she didn't see what happened. She may very well be full of shit.

*but a racist with a gun who chased down some black kid who had candy and a soda and killed him is telling the truth*

Racist? How do you figure?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



*Plz show us a picture of Trayvon so we can compare FOR OURSELFS 
the extent of his injuries*

Didn't you read the autopsy report?
Are you able to read? LOL!


----------



## rdean (May 19, 2012)

George Zimmerman's bloody head

It needed more blood


----------



## Liability (May 19, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Starjizz am verry literrate!

But, he beddar with pixchures!


----------



## Againsheila (May 19, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



So, then, Zimmerman is innocent?


----------



## Ravi (May 19, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Dude.
> ...



Stupid. And negged. But now I see why you unquestionably champion Zimmerman. Because you want to kill someone without consequence.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 19, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Yes, it sure seems so at this point as Zimmerman had every right to defend himself from Martin's dangerous armed attack. The sidewalk Martin was using to attempt to severely injure Zimmerman is a deadly weapon.


----------



## Ravi (May 19, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


He wasn't doing anything wrong, so yeah, he was innocent.


----------



## Againsheila (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



So the 5'6" older, overweight Zimmerman chased down the 6'2" younger, more athletic, underweight Trayvon, and then beat his Trayvon's fists with his face?


----------



## Bigfoot (May 19, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Martin was attacking Zimmerman and trying to cause great bodily harm. That is wrong, wrong enough in this instance to get him killed for good reason.


----------



## Ravi (May 19, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


Except for the bullet wound. Asswipe.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 19, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



Which certainly was well placed.


----------



## Ravi (May 19, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


You don't know that at all. It really is more likely that since Zimmerman was suspicious of Martin, Zimmerman was armed, and Zimmerman got out of his car to follow Martin that Zimmerman was the aggressor. 

We won't even bring up that Zimmerman was a wannabee cop with a history of violence.


----------



## hortysir (May 19, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Totally different?
How?
Police officers have no skill-set available to them to identify when some one may be under the influence of drugs or alcohol?

Without probable cause, wouldn't that be illegal search and seizure?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Up until he started beating on Zimmermann, he probably wasn't doing anything wrong.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 19, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



From what evidence is now available it appears that Martin was the aggressor and physically assaulted the smaller man. Zimmerman's first choice in defending himself was not deadly force. He hollered for help as his head was being slammed into the concrete sidewalk, which is of course a deadly weapon. When help did not arrive before he became fearful for his life he did what anyone fortunate to have a gun within reach at such a moment would do and fired on his attacker. That is what the evidence at this point seems to support, we all will not know until more of the evidence becomes available.


----------



## hortysir (May 19, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



He was punching a man's face


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



Well, I figure Zimmermann got beat before the bullet wound, don't you?
Asswipe.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



One shot, one kill.


----------



## Ravi (May 19, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...


What evidence is that? The conflicting witness accounts? Oh, right, you only believe the witnesses that agree with you and not the ones that don't.


----------



## Ravi (May 19, 2012)

hortysir said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Was he? And if he was, why? I'd punch your face if you were stalking me and it turned out you were armed and intent on shooting me.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 19, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



There are a couple people who were there and said that they saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and that Martin was pounding Zimmerman's head into the concrete as he yelled for help. That is a powerful statement and should be enough to exonerate Zimmerman.  I haven't seen any other eye witness testimony that disputes that fact.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2012)

Ravi said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Punching someone who is following you is against the law.

Intent on shooting? Wow!

You should use those psychic powers to do the world some good. You knew I was going to say that, didn't you?


----------



## Bigfoot (May 19, 2012)

Ravi said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



So you would physically attack somebody for asking you questions while you walked through their neighborhood. That sure seems unreasonable to me.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 19, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...


According to the autopsy Trayson was 5'11 150lbs
And furthermore according to the police Zimmerman is 5'8
So clearly you have the wrong facts and when you have 
the wrong facts you make the wrong conclusions.
Also you are speculation you are telling us
"Nope its impossible for some one 3inches taller to be out run
by someone 3 inches shorter that is just impossible it NEVER happens NEVER EVER "
While I am stating what happened according to a phone call and a girl who happened to hear it as it happened.
Are you seriously going to play politics with a dead kids life, his mourning family, and a potential murderer, are you really that fucking pathetic?


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 19, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



No according to the phone call and girl who heard the situation as it happened
Martin was being chased by Zimmerman.
Basically you are just making shit up based on no facts.
Why is it that you will make shit up when someone is dead, with
a mourning family and a potential murder? Are you that deranged?


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 19, 2012)

hortysir said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...


So killing someone isn't probable cause... Seriously?


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 19, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...




Yes if someone was stalking me and running after me and caught up and he had a gun
Id try to beat the shit out of him ass well.
The problem here is that you think if someone randomly starts fighting another person it means that
if they kill the person they are fighting after they start losing it is self defense.


----------



## Liability (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...





> The [police] report listed Trayvon at 6 foot and 160 pounds, though his family said he was actually 6-foot-3 and weighed at most 150 pounds.


 -- Nation & World | At heart of Trayvon Martin death, a one-minute mystery | Seattle Times Newspaper

The pdf of the autopsy report says 71 inches (i.e., 5' 11") and 15*8* pounds. http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/05/17/trayvon.martin.autopsy.pdf?hpt=hp_t2

Try to be factually accurate, stupid, when you are attempting to chastise others for not being as accurate as you demand.


----------



## Againsheila (May 19, 2012)

Ravi said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



 If someone is stalking you with a gun, you get out of there, your fist is no match for a gun.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 19, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



Yes I try to get out of there which is what Trayson tried to do according to the phone call
but clearly it didnt work out that way.
Furthermore you dont go around chasing "people who look like they are dooing crime" (IE walking/being black)
with a gun and confront them and then when you get in a fight kill them.
Seriosuly if you're walking and some one si chasing you and they catch up to you and the end result is you're dead are you seriously telling me its self defense? Like seriously a stalker kills the preson he is stalking and it is self defense. Jesus this is news to me.


----------



## hortysir (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



You're the first ass-clown I've heard say that word in here.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

BDBoop said:


>



Your flow chart forgets "Trayvon runs away.  Does he come back to confront the guy?  No = Trayvon lives."


----------



## hortysir (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




Following =/= Chasing or Running


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



In other words, "Sorry, but I am incapable of considering anything that might lead to Zimmerman being anything but guilty.  Please take your fairmindedness elsewhere, because it does not compute with me."


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



"Innocent and can never be proven guilty" is.

So is "Guilty and can never be proven innocent", which is how you view Zimmerman.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



No, jizzwad, someone being on the phone and SAYING she heard all this, with no way to prove it either way, and you accepting it as gospel truth, is speculation.

And the good bet is that the stupid person is the one who's so incoherent, he can't even post a sensible return insult.  Way to prove to everyone that you're not stupid, Einstein.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 19, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Your chart is arguing that Zimmerman is guilty. Since you seem to think that people are innocent until proven guilty you must have serious problems with the chart you posted. My problem with it is that it assumes that Martin did not do anything but walk home from the store. If that was true there would not have been a confrontation.

Let me illustrate.

You are walking home from the store and you see someone following you. does this frighten you?

No: You live.

Yes:
Do you call the police? 

Yes: You live.

No:
Do you run back to your father's girlfriend's apartment?

Yes: You live.

No:
You see him walking away from you. Do you confront him?

No: You live.

Yes:
Do you beat the crap out of him?

No: You live.

Yes:
Does he have a gun?

No: You live.

Yes: You die.

This flow chart is just as valid as yours, which is not at all. Flow charts only work if they accurately track all the options. Limited decision points and simple yes/no answers don't work in the real world, which is why they are only applied in computer programming.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



You sound like ELIZA.

Eliza, Computer Therapist


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 19, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Insulting a chatbot is not defending Zimmerman. But I do thank you for the neg rep, coming from you it is a massive compliment.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 19, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Neither was Zimmerman, does that make him innocent too?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Um. YOU obviously CAN'T read.  Go back, find the bolded words, and get someone to tell you what they mean, shitstain.

But go on believing that all of the evidence is wrong, EXCEPT what supports what you want to believe.  Go on  believing that you KNOW Zimmerman is a racist . . . with no evidence to support it.  Go on believing Zimmerman "chased him down" . . . with no evidence to support it.  Go on believing that every piece of evidence that contradicts what you want to believe is crap, but that "chick's" hearsay is gospel goddamn truth.

I won't even bother to ask you where the proof is of the content of that conversation, because asking for proof is something I do with REAL posters, and you're just a pathetic little dribble of comedy relief for everyone to mock.  You might as well put on a jester costume and hit yourself in the face with pies.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Cowman said:
> ...



Yeah, I'm sure he had ALL KINDS of terrible injuries that the autopsy report just didn't bother to mention.  I'll bet the pictures of him would show us LOTS of stuff the coroner just left out.

Fucking moron.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

hortysir said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



Yes, it would, but liberals are suddenly very much in favor of the police violating people's rights . . . so long as it's just the people that liberals have decided don't deserve any rights.

Oh, wait, that's not sudden.  Liberals have ALWAYS been in favor of violating the rights of people they don't like.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



That's the sad thing.  Neither one of them was doing anything wrong, up until the point that someone decided to get needlessly aggressive.  And despite the liberal Miss Cleos in the audience who want to make definitive statements about that night, we'll probably never know for certain which one of them it was.  All we'll ever know is the inference drawn on the available evidence by the jury.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



It would be extremely hard to miss at a range of 18 inches or less, one would think.


----------



## Liability (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



YOU, poor dope, have not the first fucking clue about precisely WHAT the girl heard.  YOU seek to interpret what she THINKS she heard (maybe) based on however she manages to articulate it.

*You* jump to preconceived conclusions and imagine yourself clever.  Erroneously.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure they call that "felony assault", which indicates to me that it's a not-good thing to do.


----------



## Liability (May 19, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Cowpaddy:

You don't know whether or not Zimmerman had a concussion.  And getting a concussion is not a prerequisite to believing that the guy doing such things to you (if that is what happened) is in the process of killing you or getting to the point where your life or health are at grave risk.  

And no.  There is no requirement, either, that Martin would have any dug his fingers into Zimmerman sufficiently to dig up any skin cells.   There is ZERO factual basis for your silly contention that IF Martin had banged Zimmerman's head onto the sidewalk Zimmerman's DNA WOULD be found on Martin's fingers, either.  

In short, to nobody's great surprise, you are merely spouting off without the first hint on the subject matter.

You may not appreciate it, but others see it.  YOU are engaging in pure speculation.

You are indeed the idiot.


----------



## Liability (May 19, 2012)

rdean said:


> George Zimmerman's bloody head
> 
> It needed more blood



Even by the always pathetically irrational "standards" of an rderp post, that ^ was fucking stupid.


----------



## Liability (May 19, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



You have NO idea what he was or wasn't doing.   If he attacked Zimmerman for the "offense" of being followed by Zimmerman, he WAS doing something wrong, for example.


----------



## hortysir (May 19, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



I wonder if Tachi was against drug testing welfare recipients.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 19, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Actually Trayson was on the phone so we know what he was doing, he was walking and saw some one following him so he walked faster then the guy kept following him so he began to run then the phone drops and the end result is Trayson dead.
If your being stalked and you try to get away and you can't what do you do and when you do it what is it?


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 19, 2012)

hortysir said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



Oh I see so following and then running after someone is not chasing or running... Get a clue


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 19, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I see so there is nothing to back Zimmerman being attack but theirs a phone call from Trayson and a Phone call from Zimmerman that show he was not attacked so according to you it means he was attacked. Jesus how many logical jumps are you going to make?


----------



## hortysir (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Where has it been stated Zimmerman ran after Martin?


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 19, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



So following someone and then running after them with a gun after being told by the cops  and the end result is a dead person isn't wrong. Seriously? Seriously?


----------



## Liability (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...




There really is no evidence, much less "proof," that Zimmerman "ran."

But, let's not quibble.

Let's pretend that the proof is there.

Ok.

So, in following a guy he found suspicious who was getting away -- after the neighborhood watch guy had called the police about him --  Zimmerman chose to "run."

And?

In your twisted little mind, does this justify Martin turning around on Zimmerman and attacking him (if Zimmerman didn't touch Martin first)?

I'm pretty sure you aren't going to try to claim that there's ANY evidence that Zimmerman touched Martin before Martin struck Zimmerman.  Are you?

Did you realize that being followed (even by a guy who is "running") is NOT a crime and does not constitute an "attack?"


----------



## Liability (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



If I am running behind you (for some unimaginable reason) and I have a gun securely tucked into its holster and out of your view, then the fact tht I have a gun at all means ZERO to you at that moment.

Now, please.  Don't pretend that you have ANY evidence that the gun was out.  Because you don't.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 19, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Except there is no evidence that shows Zimmerman is innocent. Its hard to believe in something that isnt' really unless of course you're Cecilie.
I'm pretty sure that being on a phone and hearing the whole thing happen as it occurred isn't hearsay but then again I know what hearsay means.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 19, 2012)

Liability said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I see so you think jogging is the same as purposelessly following someone and then running after them. Zimmerman wasn't some random runner he was someone who followed another person for a while and then ran after them when they began running away. When you have to make shit up about what happened its apparent you're full of shit.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 19, 2012)

Liability said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



Jesus who knewe that a  phone call with a girl witness on the phone is no evidence.
When you have to ignore/deny evidence its apparent your full of shit


----------



## Liability (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Don't say "you see" when you clearly don't.  Lying is a sin, child.

If I am PURPOSEFULLY and WILLFULLY and INTENTIONALLY following you -- and running with all kinds of alacrity and shit -- while I am busy following you, are you pretending that I may be attacked by you?    

I realize you are a pitiable fool and quite dishonest, but  that has to be too stupid even for you.


----------



## hortysir (May 19, 2012)

Fuck all these idiots

Zimmerman is guilty and Martin coincidentally sounds alot like martyr 

*unsubscribe*


----------



## Liability (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Dipshit (and I use a  term of unwarranted respect for you, frankly):

A phone call happened.  It was between young Mr. Martin and his g/f.  THOSE are "facts."

What was SAID may or may not even be admissible.  But let's say that it ultimately permitted.  And let's go further.  Even though the law may not allow it, let's SAY that the Court even permits the witness (i.e., the g/f) to testify about how Martin sounded and what she interpreted the sounds to be.

Could she be mistaken?  Who knows?  Might she have some -- oh, I don't know  -- bias?

Might she have been "pressured?"

Can her account and her interpretations be corroborated?

Can we "play back" that phone call?

Are you STARTING to get a glimmer of the complexities of what's ACTUALLY involved -- as opposed to you jumping to your preconceived conclusions stated as though they were "facts?"  

I don't ignore facts.  Unlike YOU, however, I don't make them up and I don't pretend that I know what happened and then STATE those suppositions AS "facts."

You _are_ full of  shit.

That's ok.  I have read enough of your posts to know that you *ARE* shit, too.


----------



## rdean (May 19, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...



He just got tired of running.  It's called "Stand Your Ground".


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Ooh, a one-inch difference in height (which could easily be caused by the fact that he was dead when the coroner measured him).  That makes Again MUCH more wrong than you, who got his weight wrong by 8 pounds.  The autopsy listed Martin as weighing 158.

I'll just leave out all the other pesky evidence that invalidates the idea that Zimmerman chased Martin down, since I know you don't want to be bothered with anything that contradicts your chosen view.

You're SUCH a champion of facts over speculation . . . in your own delusional head.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



No, dipshit.  Being questioned about a possible crime is not probable cause, no matter what the crime is (other than DUI), since anyone with more than a teaspoon of brains - not you, in other words - can see that that would mean drug-testing EVERY SUSPECT, which would sort of defeat the requirement of probable cause.

Seriously, could you BE a bigger cumstain?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



I can certainly see why you felt justified in telling someone else about facts over speculation earlier.  

My cat vomits hairballs with better thinking skills than you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

Liability said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



And let's not forget that it was Trayvon Martin's own family who told us he was over 6 feet tall.


----------



## Liability (May 19, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Yeah but, WTF do THEY know, eh?


----------



## Liability (May 19, 2012)

rdean said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



He *was* allowed to stand his ground, too.

According to *your* idiotic theory, though, that becomes, "And preemptively begin a fight!"


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Liberals consider any attempt to protect yourself or your neighborhood, rather than huddling behind locked doors and praying the police handle things, to be wrong.


----------



## rdean (May 19, 2012)

Liability said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



How do you know?  You weren't there.  What we do know is Trayvon was "stalked".  We have recorded evidence of that.  


You guys whirl and twirl and spin and spin again.  Stick to the facts.  We have that on tape.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



*If your being stalked and you try to get away and you can't *

Zimmermann lost track of him. Trayvon had already gotten away.

*what do you do*

Apparently, you circle back, assault the guy legally following you and catch a bullet.
what do you do


----------



## rdean (May 19, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Why would you say something so stupid?  To me, it looks like the neighborhood needs to be protected from Zimmerman.  He's the one who shot some random kid walking down the street minding his own business.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

Liability said:


> Cowman said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



DNA on his hands or not, no one is disputing that the two men struggled, so Cowpie's apparent plan of proving that Martin and Zimmerman never came into physical contact is fairly stupid at the outset.  I don't know that the autopsy would even have looked that hard for DNA, considering that that struggle is not in question.


----------



## rdean (May 19, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Or you get tired of being chased and you stand your ground not knowing your stalker had a concealed weapon.  Remember, Trayvon was just a kid.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Actually, Martin was on the phone, so we know WHAT SOME UNKNOWN WOMAN SAYS HE WAS DOING.  Amazingly enough, her word for it is not only NOT the only evidence we have of that night, it's also NOT stand-alone proof of anything.

Keep proclaiming your one treasured bit of testimony as THE only piece of evidence so I can keep laughing at you.  I'm sure you're used to that from women by now.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



How about you "clue" us in to any proof that Zimmerman ran anywhere that night?

Your posts are a joke, YOU are a joke, your entire existence is like God one day told the world, "April Fools!" and there you were.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Pathetic loser.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Do you believe everything women tell you, shitforbrains?  Because I have a story for you about how you need to clean out your bank account and turn that $4.32 over to me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



*I see so there is nothing to back Zimmerman being attack *

Except his bloody head wounds and facial injuries.
And the winesses who said they saw Trayvon hitting him.
Other than that, nothing.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



In the world of Starcrap, where the ONLY evidence in this case is the hearsay of a woman who claims to be Trayvon's girlfriend (Yeah, no motivation to lie THERE), then no, there's no evidence that Zimmerman is innocent.

In the world of REAL human beings with functioning brains, there's ALL KINDS of evidence that Zimmerman is innocent, which would be why the State Attorney's office declined to charge him until liberal idiots who are only marginally more intelligent than Starcrap - because, after all, my dog's turds are smarter than Starcrap - whipped up a racial witch hunt.

You know what hearsay means, do you?  Then why don't you explain to us how Martin's girlfriend's testimony doesn't qualify as hearsay?  I could use a good laugh, and I really don't want you posting any pictures of yourself naked, so we'll go with another lame-ass attempt to explain why you're not a drooling mouthbreather.

Lay it on us.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Every cop, lawyer, and reasonably intelligent adult in the country knew it.  Also most of the people who know how to spell "knew".  Which explains why YOU didn't, because "ignorant, fly-riddled piles of cow vomit" are not on that list.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 19, 2012)

Liability said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Well, apparently they don't know his height and weight.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 19, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Did he do that? Do you have any evidence of that?


----------



## LilOlLady (May 19, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Tray punched him and he fell onto the grass and pebbles in the grass making contact with his head cause the cuts. These kids of cuts would not have been make if Trayvon had bashed his head into concrete. His head would not been busted and fractured. Mark consistant with a pebble. Do you know what concrete is?
Scratches on on his face from punched?
*He did nothing *while this kid was punching him and pounding his head in the ground and him squealing like a little punk ass bitch?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2012)

rdean said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Standing your ground doesn't mean you can start beating someone's head on the sidewalk.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Pebbles on top of soft grass did all that damage? 

He did something after the thug punched him, knocked him down and banged his head on the concrete. He pulled out his weapon and stopped the attack.


----------



## LilOlLady (May 19, 2012)

Trayvon Martin Shooter George Zimmerman On Video &#8211; *NO BLOOD, NO BRUISES*

Trayvon Martin Shooter George Zimmerman On Video - NO BLOOD, NO BRUISES


When brought into the jail he had on cuts on his head and no bandages on head or nose and parmedics could not have diagnosed a broken nose. I don't doubt if the injuries happen in the jail. This is the biggest conspiracy ever. He assaults an officer and not charged? Who the fuck is they guy and who does he know? Even a self defense killling is investigated? When cops kill anyone there is an investigation and they suspended with pay until.


----------



## LilOlLady (May 19, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You can shoot someone even if there is not confrontation if you fell threatened. The man in the park looking for a skate boarder shot a father who was there with his daughter and no punches were ever thrown. And the stand your ground law stood.

"My dad got on top of him, so he could keep him down so he could get the answer," the young girl said. 

"Where were your dad's hands?" prosecutors asked. 

"On his arms." 



Iraq War veteran killed; widow says Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law is free pass for murder | ksdk.com

Florida needs a  "mind you business law."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> Trayvon Martin Shooter George Zimmerman On Video  *NO BLOOD, NO BRUISES*
> 
> Trayvon Martin Shooter George Zimmerman On Video - NO BLOOD, NO BRUISES
> 
> ...



He had blood and bruises.
It was under the ABC icon. Nice placement by the way.
Maybe you should post the raw footage?


----------



## Peach (May 19, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Facial injuries? I have seen worse from shaving cuts. And the blood from the boos  boos on his head were visible, because he had a skinhead haircut. Be realistic, the killer wasn't injured enough to need more than a once over from the EMTs. What Martin may have said might matter, just as the victim didn't know an armed and ready to kill man was prowling his father's neighborhood, we don't know what Martin said. For the newly immigrated to America, criminal defendants often "shade" events in their favor.....SURPRISE!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2012)

Peach said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



You don't have to wait until you've been beaten to death before you can defend yourself.

The legally armed man didn't know a young felony assaulter was prowling his neighborhood.


----------



## BDBoop (May 19, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



"Felony assaulter." You'll need to prove that assertion.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 19, 2012)

Ariux said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Who says he didn't?  And his story was NOT consistent with the evidence, as the chief detective concluded when filed an affidavit for an arrest.  Bottom line: the local cops were incompetent in their reaction and initial investigation.  Check this out:   http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/trayvon-martin-case-shadowed-by-police-missteps.html
> ...



It's truly sad when dimwitted little sheet wearers like Ariux try their hand at debating a subject based on the facts, and instead rely on their biased myopia to discern all information.

Case in point:  Ariux confuses the Chief of Police with the Chief of Detectives....the chief of Detectives who was in charge of the case was the one who filed an affidavit for arrest.  

Compounding his ignorance, Ariux then asserts that if you criticize the police for not doing a proper job of securing the crime scene, then you cannot point out that the chief detective determined their was grounds for an arrest based on his interview with Zimmerman.

Someone needs to educate our dear pointy hooded Ariux that many a criminal case has been lost because the foresnics were botched, or someone wasn't Mirandized properly.  Zimmerman may NOT even get to trial if a judge goes for the Stand Your Ground defense.  But if he does, the case may again fall apart due to poor police work, as the NY Times article I cited shows.

The discussion on this thread however, is about what evidence is available and how that relates to the credibility of Zimmerman's claims of self defense.  To date, Zimmerman's story just doesn't play well, as the damning 911 dispatch call record shows.  This combined with Zimmerman's own personal police run-ins and other information does not bode well as to his mindset and actions on that night.

I refer to jokers like Ariux as "Zimmerman Zombies" because their brains effectively go dead the second facts and logic contradict their beliefs.  And as the chronology of the posts shows, Ariux is indeed dead from the neck up on this issue.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 19, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> It appears that the Zimmerman story is going to be another media shark jump. Just like the Duke Lacross Team story.
> 
> Maybe Obama should invite him over for a beer in the Rose Garden with machine gun Joe Biden.



It appears another Zimmerman Zombie is grunting out yet another biased mantra that is short on facts but long on venom....not surprising.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 19, 2012)

Liability said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...




So Zimmerman states that Martin attacked him, and yet another Zimmerman zombie takes it as gospel, because Zimmerman has no reason to lie and dead men tell no tales.  

Give me a fucking break!

Zimmerman had ALREADY given enough location to the 911 dispatch for them to send the cops....that's why the dispatch told him it was NOT necessary to continue following Martin, to which Zimmerman replied, "OKAY". 

Zimmerman PURSUED a man that he stated was "running away", and there was no need to get out of his car to check street signs.  So once again, Zimmerman's own words and actions cast doubt on his story.

Martin was being stalked by a STRANGER with a GUN first by car and then on foot......so why doesn't he have the right to STAND his GROUND and fight for his life?

Had Zimmerman stayed in the car, Martin would be alive.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 19, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



No I don't.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 19, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



An EXCELLENT POINT!  A proper autopsy would reveal any traces of skin, hair or blood under the fingernails.  However, this has to go to trial first.  And secondly, that type of examination may be beyond the costs of the Martin family.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



*Martin was being stalked by a STRANGER with a GUN first by car and then on foot......so why doesn't he have the right to STAND his GROUND and fight for his life?*

If Zimmerman had knocked down Trayvon and beat his head against the sidewalk, Trayvon would have every right to fight back. Is that what you think happened? 
Unfortunately, for your side, being followed by a guy who lives in the area didn't give  Trayvon the right to assault the guy following him.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 20, 2012)

hortysir said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



YOU were DUI tested....which means you were either speeding, driving erratically or acting in a manner that gave the cop suspicions enough to test. If you were just walking down the street minding your own business, then the cops had no reason to test you.


Zimmerman was INVOLVED IN A HOMICIDE.  This means EVERYTHING is on the table.....state of mind, physical condition, the works.  So yeah, people get tested for drugs, booze etc. if the cops are doing their job right.


----------



## BDBoop (May 20, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Then you lied. Good to know.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



No I didn't. Glad to clear up your confusion.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 20, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...




Once again our Zimmerman zombie Cecilie tries to pass off her own version of reality as fact.

Pay attention sweetpea....Zimmerman was INVOLVED in a homicide.....HIS GUN was the murder weapon.....HE was involved in an altercation with the deceased that lead to the killing.  That means that EVERYTHING is on the table.....your history, state of mind, physical condition....so yeah, you're tested for drugs, alcohol...IF the cops are doing their job right.

Suspects  is a word that covers a plethora of charges.....but when you have a MURDER under these particular circumstances, drugs & alcohol most certainly do factor in, whether YOU like it, believe it, or not.


----------



## Cowman (May 20, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes. You did.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2012)

Cowman said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Trayvon didn't assault Zimmermann? How do you know?


----------



## BDBoop (May 20, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



No confusion involved. You made an assertion you are unable to prove. In other words - lied.


----------



## Annie (May 20, 2012)

All of this brings up a post a made a month or so ago. Zimmerman has been charged, let the courts decide. Shut up about it already, at least until it's tried.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



I actually have no trouble believing that a stupid bitch like you knows people who give themselves closed fractures of the nose while shaving.  Idiots tend to stick together in herds, so I'm told.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



YOU demanding proof of an assertion is just about the funniest thing I've seen today.  I knew you were a hypocritical imbecile, but you must actually be taking lessons and practicing at it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Lying is making an assertion you know is not true, not an assertion you can't prove.


----------



## MeBelle (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Facial injuries? I have seen worse from *1)* shaving cuts. And the blood from the boos  boos on his head were visible, because he had a *skinhead* haircut. *2)* Be realistic, the killer wasn't injured enough to need more than a once over from the EMTs. What Martin may have said might matter, just as the victim didn't know an armed and ready to kill man was prowling his father's neighborhood, we don't know what Martin said. For the newly immigrated to America, criminal defendants often*"shade"* events in their favor.....SURPRISE!



1) I would suggest using a moisturizing shave cream, in addition to actual moisturizing lotion after shaving, so as to not cut yourself while shaving.

2) Let's not forget that Zimmerman was seen by a Doctor the next day.

3) Your words that I have bolded indicate a racist undertone.

Respectfully,
~Belle


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I made an assertion. If you can disprove it, go ahead.
No lie involved, even if I was wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Thanks for trying to clear up her confusion.
It takes a village.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Just an FYI, Zimmerman can't possibly be a skinhead, he is black.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...mmermans-afro-peruvian-great-grandfather.html


----------



## Ravi (May 20, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...


There is not one witness that stated Zimmerman's head was pounded into the concrete.

There is one witness that said it was Zimmerman that was crying for help, but now he has recanted that statement in public.

There is at least one witness that believed it was Zimmerman on top.

It's fascinating how strong confirmation bias is with you.


----------



## Ravi (May 20, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...


Not if you feel threatened. In Florida.


----------



## Ravi (May 20, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...


Not if he felt threatened. That's what the SYG law is all about.


----------



## Ravi (May 20, 2012)

Liability said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...


If your scenario is true, and if Martin felt Zimmerman was a threat, yes, under SYG, Martin would be justified in doing so.


----------



## rdean (May 20, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



It is if Zimmerman attacked first.  You don't know if he did or didn't.   And you still haven't explained why it's OK to stalk someone.  Don't you know how scary that is?


----------



## rdean (May 20, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Say it was one of your sons being stalked.  What would you tell him to do?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 20, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



No it isn't. the stand your ground law is all about not having to run away just because some asshole is making noise. That duty to retreat stuff you love doesn't protect anyone but the criminals. Yes, Martin had a right to stand his ground if Zimmerman attacked him. That right actually ended once Zimmerman was on the ground, so that makes Martin the one that was wrong if the witness that identified him on top is accurate, even under the stand your ground law.


----------



## Liability (May 20, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



No.  It isn't.


----------



## Liability (May 20, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Wrong.   He would simply be under no lawful duty to "retreat" prior to defending himself.  But he would STILL have to be actually under some direct attack of legitimate and *reasonably* consider himself to be under immediate threat BEFORE he could lawfully resort to physical force himself.

The TWO statutes which combined spell it out are:  





> The 2011 Florida Statutes
> 
> Title XLVI
> CRIMES
> ...


  and 



> The 2011 Florida Statutes
> 
> Title XLVI
> CRIMES
> ...



And I don't think these statutes apply to him under any circumstances.  It is not claimed that he has a defense to charges.  There are no charges.  He's dead.  The QUESTION is whether (or not) Trayvon was permitted by Florida Law to use FORCE (not even deadly force) to protect himself.

To answer that we'd all need a lot more information than any of us have.

But even if the statute were applicable to him, before he could rely on it, it would have to be a REASONABLE belief by him, under all the circumstances, that his use of force was reasonably necessary.  That is he would have had to "reasonably believe[] that such conduct [was] necessary to defend himself . . .  against the other&#8217;s imminent use of unlawful force."  And he would have no duty to retreat IF -- but ONLY IF -- he REASONABLY perceived a threat of imminent deadly physical force or great bodily harm against him. 

Once again, nobody alive today (except Zimmerman) can say what those "circumstances" were.  SO, nobody can say that Trayvon had ANY knowledge of Zimmerman's gun.  Nobody can say, for instance, that the gun had ever been pulled or exposed before the moment it got used.  Nobody can therefore say that the circumstances were such that Trayvon had any reasonable reason to fear any physical attack (however minor), much less the threat of great bodily harm or death.  Thus, NOBODY can say Trayvon could have invoked the justification law of Florida.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 20, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


Yes because what a racist stalker who killed someone who is facing possibly death penalty says is 100% true but what the recorded evidence and witness say is totally bogus. Jesus.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 20, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Are you stupid? Seriously if you think hearing the situation as it happen is hearsay you are either illiterate or a hack whose taken a side and found that he was wrong and is now defending a potential murdered because he is too afraid to admit he was wrong


----------



## Ravi (May 20, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Yes. It is. You might want to read it before you make yourself look any more foolish.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 20, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Yea the fucking recording and phone call. Of which has been mention 100 times so either you are too lazy to read or you are choosing to ignore evidence.


----------



## Peach (May 20, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



I referenced the photo & the fact he was not forced to be taken to a hospital. I agree with Annie at this point, all is conjecture until the case continues. I *see* no serious injuries the killer sustained, and the lack of medial care remains an outstanding question. As you indicate he sustained a "closed fracture", I gather you are in possession of his medial records.


----------



## The Infidel (May 20, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Trayvon could have walked the other direction.
He chose to confront instead... that's is not 'standing your ground'. That's going on the offense.

Had Zimmerman confronted Trayvon, then you would be correct.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 20, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Bump not because Ariux is a retard but because a poTiental murder might get away scot free because conservates pased a law that makes murder legal and because some police officers are less component then a  fucking 5 year old. I mean seriously the guy kills someone and you don&#8217;t take him into custody.


----------



## Ravi (May 20, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...





> A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the others imminent use of unlawful force.



If someone twice my build was following me, in a place where I was allowed to be, I could reasonably believe that the person meant me harm and defend myself.

That is basically SYG in a nutshell. The problem with the law that the word "reasonably" is subjective.


----------



## The Infidel (May 20, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Your a damn liar


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 20, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Jesus plz stop making shit up. You have 0 evidence that Trayvon confronted Zimmerman infact you have a phone call that shows that Trayvon was trying to run away but couldnt
Come back and join the discussion when you&#8217;ve actually reads something about it.


----------



## Ravi (May 20, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


He was following him. That is enough of a confrontation. Trayvon walking in the other direction would be retreating, something he no longer has a duty to do under this law.


----------



## The Infidel (May 20, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Are you going to stand there and let said "stalker" walk up to ya?
Or are you going to confront said "stalker" and beat the shit out of said "stalker"?

Stand your ground is intended for someone with NO other way out but to stand up for yourself or get your ass whipped or worse.


"in a nutshell" wont cut it in court.


----------



## The Infidel (May 20, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Bullshit... STFU dummy.


----------



## The Infidel (May 20, 2012)

Ravi said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...





"Retreating" until he decided to confront Zimmerman?

He could have kept walking... Zimmerman did not stop him from continuing to go home. 
Its a tragedy that he didnt make it home, but he also didn't need to confront Zimmerman and beat the fuck out of him.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 20, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...


infact you have a phone call that shows that Trayvon was trying to run away but couldnt
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/us/trayvon-martins-friend-tells-what-she-heard-on-phone.html
^
Forensic experts conclude that it is not Zimmerman calling for help
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-911
So come back when you have a clue


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 20, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...


Again you have 0 evidence that Trayvon confronted Zimmerman. Why the hell do you keep making shit up? This is potential murder not some fucking political game


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 20, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


So Zimmerman following a random kid because said kid was walking and then runs after said kid means Zimmerman defended himself. ROTLF Seriously if you stalk someone and then run up to them its not defense


----------



## Ravi (May 20, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


That is incorrect. You really should read up on different cases it has been applied to. Recently a man got off under SYG for killing someone that stole some radios from his car. He chased him down and killed him, while the burglar was running away. The man was under no danger whatsoever.

No duty to retreat is no duty to retreat, not something that you wish it to mean.


----------



## Ravi (May 20, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...


Now you're just making things up.

Ciao.


----------



## BDBoop (May 20, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Well, if you insist. It is kind of a slow day today. And lord knows you could use some sweetening up.

Original Recipe Yield 3 -1/2 dozen  
Ingredients

1 (16 ounce) package OREO Chocolate Sandwich Cookies, divided
1 (8 ounce) package PHILADELPHIA Cream Cheese, softened
2 (8 ounce) packages BAKER'S Semi-Sweet Baking Chocolate, melted
Directions

Crush 9 of the cookies to fine crumbs in food processor; reserve for later use. (Cookies can also be finely crushed in a resealable plastic bag using a rolling pin.) Crush remaining 36 cookies to fine crumbs; place in medium bowl. Add cream cheese; mix until well blended. Roll cookie mixture into 42 balls, about 1-inch in diameter.
Dip balls in chocolate; place on wax paper-covered baking sheet. (Any leftover chocolate can be stored at room temperature for another use.) Sprinkle with reserved cookie crumbs.

Refrigerate until firm, about 1 hour. Store leftover truffles, covered, in refrigerator.
Footnotes

How to How to Easily Dip Truffles

Place truffle ball in melted chocolate to coat; roll if necessary. Lift truffle from chocolate using 2 forks (this will allow excess chocolate to run off) before placing on wax paper.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



If you feel threatened by someone legally walking through his own neighborhood, you can throw the first punch?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the others imminent use of unlawful force.

Was Trayvon under the impression that Martin's questions were unlawful force?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2012)

rdean said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



You bet, if Zimmermann attacked first, that changes everything.

Stalk? Perhaps you should post the legal definition?


----------



## Peach (May 20, 2012)

MeBelle60 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Facial injuries? I have seen worse from *1)* shaving cuts. And the blood from the boos  boos on his head were visible, because he had a *skinhead* haircut. *2)* Be realistic, the killer wasn't injured enough to need more than a once over from the EMTs. What Martin may have said might matter, just as the victim didn't know an armed and ready to kill man was prowling his father's neighborhood, we don't know what Martin said. For the newly immigrated to America, criminal defendants often*"shade"* events in their favor.....SURPRISE!
> ...



Not intended, Zimmerman's hair is always very short n the photos I have seen; I'll change "shade" to "emphasize". When someone's hair is so closely shaved, any bruise or scrape will be visible.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2012)

rdean said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



I'd probably ask my son,  "why was he casing the houses between the store and home"?

And then I'd ask, "once you lost the stalker, why did you go back and hit him"?


----------



## Katzndogz (May 20, 2012)

Once Zimmerman abadoned his surveillance and went back to his car, Martin's right was to continue on going home.  Trayvon Lives.   Trayvon decides to administer some hood justice, Trayvon Dies.


----------



## BDBoop (May 20, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



So, obviously you're not a parent.

Because the first think I'd say is "Are you okay?" followed by "Is the door locked" and "call 911."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Stalker? What's that?


----------



## Peach (May 20, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



"casing the houses", from what source is that conclusion derived?


----------



## Liability (May 20, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Since we have *no evidence* that Zimmerman *DID anything* other than follow ("run after"??) Trayvon, we are confronted with NO WAY of knowing what it was that (allegedly) persuaded Trayvon to assault Zimmerman.  (Frankly, we don't know who initiated the physical altercation, for that matter.)

*IF* all that Zimmerman did was follow Martin to keep an eye on him (in order to point him out when the police whom Zimmerman had already called got there), then it would be flatly correct to say that Zimmerman did nothing illegal at all.  Under such circumstances, Trayvon would have zero lawful right to strike Zimmerman. 

And here's the thing.  I'm not claiming that Zimmerman is innocent.  I AM claiming that given what we know and what we don't know, there is no honest, valid BASIS to say that he did ANYTHING illegal, either.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



*Trayvon was trying to run away but couldnt*

Couldn't? Please explain further.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 20, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



In other words, you can't explain it, because you have no fucking clue what hearsay is.

Consider yourself my charitable deed for the day, you illiterate pile of pig feces.

SHE knows what was and wasn't said.  WE don't know.  All we have is her word for it, with no way to prove or disprove whether she's telling the truth.  That would be hearsay.  

Furthermore, she's less than believable, since her account doesn't coincide with the timeline as laid out by other witnesses AND the phone calls we actually CAN verify, ie. the ones to the cops (like the one Trayvon Martin SHOULD have made, and didn't).

Fucktard.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



My son would have already used his phone to call 911.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 20, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



And what recording of Zimmerman "running after Martin" do you have?

Also, shitforbrains, "a dead person" does not automatically mean anyone committed a crime, no matter how much you want to keep parroting that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



From Zimmermann. 
From the time it took Trayvon to get from the store to the site of the confrontation.


----------



## Liability (May 20, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



No.  It that absolutely is NOT what the so-called "stand your ground" law is -- not in a nutshell and not at all.

But yes, the "test" does involve the subjective one of "reasonableness."  That becomes a jury question -- the determination of which is founded upon the EVIDENCE.

Since we do not HAVE actual evidence -- even *if* the justification law were applicable as to Trayvon -- we could not render any *valid* conclusion as to the "reasonableness" of his alleged "belief."


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



The paramedics don't "force" anyone to go to the hospital, you imbecile.  Zimmerman declined to go to the hospital, which is certainly his right to do, and went to his own doctor the next day, ALSO his right to do.

Why don't you try referencing the actual fucking medical reports?  Too much reading?  "His pictures look to me like he just had a scratch on his nose."  Never mind the fact that HIS DOCTOR - you know, a REAL doctor, as opposed to stupid twats like you who just play doctors on the Internet - says he had a closed fracture, or the fact that internal injuries (you know, like to bones and shit) often don't show much externally.

Let me just say once more, because I know you're too big of a dimwit to have picked it up the first six or seven times:  no one gives a fuck what YOU see.  You don't know your ass from your elbow, so why would we expect you to know a fractured nose in a photograph?

Last thing:  why would you have to "gather" that I'm "in possession of the medical records", sow?  The report has been released to the media, so anyone who can read - ie. not you - is perfectly capable of knowing that his doctor diagnosed him with a closed fracture.  Here, let me reference you the news story, so that you can have someone intelligent - assumimg any such person would associate with you - read it for you.

George Zimmerman Medical Report Sheds Light on Injuries After Trayvon Martin Shooting - ABC News

Sources: Report Says Zimmerman Had Broken Nose, Other Injuries After Fight | FOX8.com

George Zimmerman had a broken nose, two cuts and two black eyes: ABC News report - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

Pick your news site and your story, dumbass.  I can reference even more of them for you, if those don't suit or if you want to continue your _bravura _performance as an uninformed, blithering halfwit.  

Have I ever mentioned that every time I read a line in a historical novel about "Women's brains are too delicate to handle education and heavy thought", I immediately picture you?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I didn't know it was possible for you to babble any more than you normally do, but I now stand corrected.


----------



## BDBoop (May 20, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> I didn't know it was possible for you to babble any more than you normally do, but I now stand corrected.



I get attacked, I post recipes. Very simple cause and effect. You stay on topic, so do I. You get bitchy, I post recipes. And since you appear to be mentally ill, undiagnosed and untreated, compounded by PMS during the full moon, I need lots of recipes. 

Or you can just back the fuck off. 

Red Flannel Hash

Ingredients
1 medium onion, chopped
2 tablespoons vegetable oil
1 (12-ounce) can SPAM® Classic, diced
4 medium potatoes, cooked and diced
1 (16-ounce) can beets, drained and diced
Pepper, to taste

1In large skillet, sauté onion in oil, stirring frequently, until lightly browned. Add SPAM® Classic and potatoes; sauté, stirring frequently, 5 minutes. Sprinkle with pepper. Add beets; stir to mix. Cover; reduce heat to low. Cook 10 minutes longer. Uncover; cook 5 minutes more.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 20, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



In all fairness, I doubt he was casing the houses.  I don't doubt that's probably what it looked like to Zimmerman, but I have no trouble believing he was just taking a slow walk and looking around an unfamiliar neighborhood (since, of course, he WAS only visiting and may never have been there before).  It's a little strange in the rain, I'll grant you, but some people like rain.


----------



## Peach (May 20, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Thank you, obviously Zimmerman says what will assist in his defense. The reported phone calls the victim made, IF true,  explain the time frame. He was hiding at one point, trying to evade Zimmerman. I read the recent statement by the victim's friend that he was yelling "get off, get off". The defendant will dispute that of course. Again, if Zimmerman was seriously injured, he would have been forced to go a hospital; no photos posted here show more than minor lacerations.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



*The reported phone calls the victim made, IF true, explain the time frame.*

The time frame between the video at the store and the time he got back? 

*Again, if Zimmerman was seriously injured, he would have been forced to go a hospital;*

Again, you don't have to wait until you've been beaten to death before you can defend yourself.


----------



## Peach (May 20, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



C1200, paramedics most certainly can restrain the injured, As for the rest of your obscenities, and citations of media reports; enjoy them.  Go ahead & write the word f _ _ _  1200 times. Such an activity would be the most worthwhile contribution you can add to a this board.


----------



## Liability (May 20, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> * * * *
> 
> Again, you don't have to wait until you've been beaten to death before you can defend yourself.



It's the zombie stand your ground and self-protection act!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 20, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Do you know about a phone call no one else on the planet has heard of? The 911 call that Zimmerman made was recorded, and not once was he told not to follow anyone, so that can't be the one you are referring to. He was advised that the police did not need him to follow Martin, but he was under no obligation, either legally or morally, to follow that advice.

Since you are obviously implying that Martin was the one that was followed, I am sure you aren't going to try and claim he called the police and that they told him not to follow Zimmerman. That means you are talking about another phone call Zimmerman had with the police that has not been released, mentioned, implied, or even alluded to anywhere outside the feeble mass of cells that passes for your brain.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Do you know what giving someone medical treatment against their will (if they're awake to refuse it) is called?  Battery.  It's a crime.  Do you know what "forcing" someone to go the hospital against their will (if they're awake to refuse it) is called?  Kidnapping.  It's also a crime.

Please stop with this "they would have forced him to go to the hospital" crap, because it sounds about twice as stupid as any of the stuff that normally emanates from your flapping piehole, and that almost requires a rethinking of the laws of physics to achieve.

No one gives a good goddamn what YOU think "the photos show".  We KNOW what they are actually showing, whether two-brain-cell twats playing Internet doctor like you think so or not.  You can definitively state that he "just had some scratches" until your ignorant face turns blue and falls off, and it still won't mean jack shit, both because the medical report from the REAL doctors has been released, and because it's YOU saying it, which would tend to invalidate a claim that the sky was blue.

Keep posting "he wasn't really hurt".  The reply every time will be "The doctor says he was, and you're Peach, aka a fucking moron on the Internet."


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Writing "fuck" 1200 times would constitute more of a contribution than anything you've ever said in your entire lifetime.  Holding my finger down on one key and letting it repeat 1200 times would constitute more of a contribution than anything you've ever said in your lifetime.

Paramedics are not allowed to "force" people to go to the hospital against their will.  No amount of you asserting that they can will make you any less of an ignorant laughingstock.

As for the rest of your speculations:  enjoy them.  The doctor says he was injured, and you're just Peach, aka a fucking moron on the Internet.


----------



## Peach (May 20, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



C1200, king or queen of obscenity. The Z zombies claim the killer's head was "bashed on concrete" yet the photos show minor cuts, AND there was police questioning the night of the killing. He WALKED in the videos, and appeared to be in no pain. Keep trying, those boo boos are your justification for taking a human life.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



The REAL doctor says he was injured:  you're NOT a doctor.  You're just Peach, a fucking moron on the Internet.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



*yet the photos show minor cuts*

Minor cuts inflicted by that nice young man? How?
Is there a minimum number of times your head must be bashed on something 
before you can respond? A minimum number of cuts of a certain size?
Must the victim count and measure these cuts before he can defend himself?

How many boo boos can I inflict on you with no fear of repurcussion? Spell it out.


----------



## Peach (May 20, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I am not concluding Zimmerman did not act in self defense. His injuries however appear  minor. Those who are injured & refuse to go to a hospital to be checked over for,* IF* law enforcement is present & deem it necessary, can be held for 72 hours. 


Governor Rick Scott has worked withe the Florida Legislature to introduce a bill requiring every person involved in a car accident to be transported to a medical facility, there is strong opposition.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 20, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



And a guy who lives in the area and has family in the area doesn't deserve to be stalked, accosted and killed by some asshole with a history of temper related encounters with the cops, a wanna-be citizens watch attitude, and a documented bent about (falslely) reporting on black folk as suspects.  Unfortunately for you Zimmerman zombies, the FACTS have a habit to thwarting your beliefs.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 20, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




The FAMILY doctor.....bit of a conflict of interest, wouldn't you say?  And Zimmerman went to him THE NEXT DAY TO GET PERMISSION TO GO BACK TO WORK!  Hardly the actions of a man who had his head "bashed" in, or suffered wounds from a life and death struggle.

But no concussion, no prescription for pain killers (which would be interesting being that Zimmerman is ALREADY on mood altering prescription drugs).  The paramedics that treated him at the scene do not corroborate the "severity" take that the family doctor does.  And Zimmerman NEVER  went to the hospital.

Curiouser and curiouser...unless you're a Zimmerman zombie.  Carry on.


----------



## Liability (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



I would not recommend that you actually try it, but if you are ever in the position of having the back of your head bashed into the concrete (suffering ONLY gashes to your skull), I'm sure IN THAT MOMENT you will be calm and objective and "see" that nobody is trying to kill you or in the process of trying to cause you great bodily harm.  Nah.

Yes.  Now that I think about it, I'm SURE that's how it works.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Gee, you mean that, in fact, paramedics CAN'T force you to go to the hospital?  Hmm, where have I heard THAT before?

The REAL doctor says he was injured: you're NOT a doctor. You're just Peach, a fucking moron on the Internet.


----------



## Peach (May 20, 2012)

Liability said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



The gashes do not appear when he walked in the police station; perhaps some will be manufactured. The lack of serious injuries does not negate self defense. But the constant drone of the Z zombies about how seriously injured he was raises questions.


----------



## Peach (May 20, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You are repeating yourself. 

Florida Statutes 394.463. Have someone read it to you. 

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



"The gashes do not appear"?  In what, the low-quality surveillance tape?  Where were you when an enhanced-quality version of the tape was released to the media, showing that the head injuries WERE on the tape?  And where do you think those pictures you're gassing on about came from?  They were taken by the police when he was brought in for questioning.  What's your new story?  That the police roughed him up for the pictures?  Or that he had someone break his nose after he left the police station, so that he could go show it to the doctor the next day?

The REAL doctor says he was injured: you're NOT a doctor. You're just Peach, a fucking moron on the Internet.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Actually, YOU repeated me.  But let's just examine which one of us can read, and which one of us is the personification of "women's brains are too weak to handle education", shall we?

_394.463&#8195;Involuntary examination.
(1)&#8195;CRITERIA.A person may be taken to a receiving facility for involuntary examination *if there is reason to believe that the person has a mental illness and because of his or her mental illness*:
(a)1.&#8195;The person has refused voluntary examination after conscientious explanation and disclosure of the purpose of the examination; or
2.&#8195;The person is unable to determine for himself or herself whether examination is necessary; and
(b)1.&#8195;Without care or treatment, the person is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself or herself; such neglect or refusal poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his or her well-being; and it is not apparent that such harm may be avoided through the help of willing family members or friends or the provision of other services; or
2.&#8195;There is a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm to himself or herself or others in the near future, as evidenced by recent behavior._

Okay, well, George Zimmerman has never been diagnosed with mental illness, nor is there any reason to believe that he exhibited any signs or symptoms of mental illness that night, so not a word of the above applies to his case.

_(2)&#8195;INVOLUNTARY EXAMINATION.
(a)&#8195;An involuntary examination may be initiated by any one of the following means:
1.&#8195;*A court may enter an ex parte order stating that a person appears to meet the criteria for involuntary examination, giving the findings on which that conclusion is based. The ex parte order for involuntary examination must be based on sworn testimony, written or oral.* If other less restrictive means are not available, such as voluntary appearance for outpatient evaluation, a law enforcement officer, or other designated agent of the court, shall take the person into custody and deliver him or her to the nearest receiving facility for involuntary examination. The order of the court shall be made a part of the patients clinical record. No fee shall be charged for the filing of an order under this subsection. Any receiving facility accepting the patient based on this order must send a copy of the order to the Agency for Health Care Administration on the next working day. The order shall be valid only until executed or, if not executed, for the period specified in the order itself. If no time limit is specified in the order, the order shall be valid for 7 days after the date that the order was signed.
2.&#8195;A law enforcement officer shall take a person who appears to meet the criteria for involuntary examination into custody and deliver the person or have him or her delivered to the nearest receiving facility for examination. The officer shall execute a written report detailing the circumstances under which the person was taken into custody, and the report shall be made a part of the patients clinical record. Any receiving facility accepting the patient based on this report must send a copy of the report to the Agency for Health Care Administration on the next working day.
3.&#8195;A physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatric nurse, mental health counselor, marriage and family therapist, or clinical social worker may execute a certificate stating that he or she has examined a person within the preceding 48 hours and finds that the person appears to meet the criteria for involuntary examination and stating the observations upon which that conclusion is based. If other less restrictive means are not available, such as voluntary appearance for outpatient evaluation, a law enforcement officer shall take the person named in the certificate into custody and deliver him or her to the nearest receiving facility for involuntary examination. The law enforcement officer shall execute a written report detailing the circumstances under which the person was taken into custody. The report and certificate shall be made a part of the patients clinical record. Any receiving facility accepting the patient based on this certificate must send a copy of the certificate to the Agency for Health Care Administration on the next working day.
(b)&#8195;A person shall not be removed from any program or residential placement licensed under chapter 400 or chapter 429 and transported to a receiving facility for involuntary examination unless an ex parte order, a professional certificate, or a law enforcement officers report is first prepared. If the condition of the person is such that preparation of a law enforcement officers report is not practicable before removal, the report shall be completed as soon as possible after removal, but in any case before the person is transported to a receiving facility. A receiving facility admitting a person for involuntary examination who is not accompanied by the required ex parte order, professional certificate, or law enforcement officers report shall notify the Agency for Health Care Administration of such admission by certified mail no later than the next working day. The provisions of this paragraph do not apply when transportation is provided by the patients family or guardian.
(c)&#8195;A law enforcement officer acting in accordance with an ex parte order issued pursuant to this subsection may serve and execute such order on any day of the week, at any time of the day or night.
(d)&#8195;A law enforcement officer acting in accordance with an ex parte order issued pursuant to this subsection may use such reasonable physical force as is necessary to gain entry to the premises, and any dwellings, buildings, or other structures located on the premises, and to take custody of the person who is the subject of the ex parte order.
(e)&#8195;The Agency for Health Care Administration shall receive and maintain the copies of ex parte orders, involuntary outpatient placement orders issued pursuant to s. 394.4655, involuntary inpatient placement orders issued pursuant to s. 394.467, professional certificates, and law enforcement officers reports. These documents shall be considered part of the clinical record, governed by the provisions of s. 394.4615. The agency shall prepare annual reports analyzing the data obtained from these documents, without information identifying patients, and shall provide copies of reports to the department, the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the minority leaders of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
(f)&#8195;A patient shall be examined by a physician or clinical psychologist at a receiving facility without unnecessary delay and may, upon the order of a physician, be given emergency treatment if it is determined that such treatment is necessary for the safety of the patient or others. The patient may not be released by the receiving facility or its contractor without the documented approval of a psychiatrist, a clinical psychologist, or, if the receiving facility is a hospital, the release may also be approved by an attending emergency department physician with experience in the diagnosis and treatment of mental and nervous disorders and after completion of an involuntary examination pursuant to this subsection. However, a patient may not be held in a receiving facility for involuntary examination longer than 72 hours.
(g)&#8195;A person for whom an involuntary examination has been initiated who is being evaluated or treated at a hospital for an emergency medical condition specified in s. 395.002 must be examined by a receiving facility within 72 hours. The 72-hour period begins when the patient arrives at the hospital and ceases when the attending physician documents that the patient has an emergency medical condition. If the patient is examined at a hospital providing emergency medical services by a professional qualified to perform an involuntary examination and is found as a result of that examination not to meet the criteria for involuntary outpatient placement pursuant to s. 394.4655(1) or involuntary inpatient placement pursuant to s. 394.467(1), the patient may be offered voluntary placement, if appropriate, or released directly from the hospital providing emergency medical services. The finding by the professional that the patient has been examined and does not meet the criteria for involuntary inpatient placement or involuntary outpatient placement must be entered into the patients clinical record. Nothing in this paragraph is intended to prevent a hospital providing emergency medical services from appropriately transferring a patient to another hospital prior to stabilization, provided the requirements of s. 395.1041(3)(c) have been met.
(h)&#8195;One of the following must occur within 12 hours after the patients attending physician documents that the patients medical condition has stabilized or that an emergency medical condition does not exist:
1.&#8195;The patient must be examined by a designated receiving facility and released; or
2.&#8195;The patient must be transferred to a designated receiving facility in which appropriate medical treatment is available. However, the receiving facility must be notified of the transfer within 2 hours after the patients condition has been stabilized or after determination that an emergency medical condition does not exist.
(i)&#8195;Within the 72-hour examination period or, if the 72 hours ends on a weekend or holiday, no later than the next working day thereafter, one of the following actions must be taken, based on the individual needs of the patient:
1.&#8195;The patient shall be released, unless he or she is charged with a crime, in which case the patient shall be returned to the custody of a law enforcement officer;
2.&#8195;The patient shall be released, subject to the provisions of subparagraph 1., for voluntary outpatient treatment;
3.&#8195;The patient, unless he or she is charged with a crime, shall be asked to give express and informed consent to placement as a voluntary patient, and, if such consent is given, the patient shall be admitted as a voluntary patient; or
4.&#8195;A petition for involuntary placement shall be filed in the circuit court when outpatient or inpatient treatment is deemed necessary. When inpatient treatment is deemed necessary, the least restrictive treatment consistent with the optimum improvement of the patients condition shall be made available. When a petition is to be filed for involuntary outpatient placement, it shall be filed by one of the petitioners specified in s. 394.4655(3)(a). A petition for involuntary inpatient placement shall be filed by the facility administrator.
(3)&#8195;NOTICE OF RELEASE.Notice of the release shall be given to the patients guardian or representative, to any person who executed a certificate admitting the patient to the receiving facility, and to any court which ordered the patients evaluation._

All of this refers to a court-ordered examination for purposes of evidence in a case already in progress, so it ALSO has nothing to do with George Zimmerman the night he shot Trayvon Martin.

So, as we have seen, there is no provision in the law for paramedics to force anyone - barring evidence of mental illness - to go to the hospital against his will . . . just like I said.

Way to publicly make a fool of yourself.  _Brava_!


----------



## Ariux (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> I am not concluding Zimmerman did not act in self defense. His injuries however appear  minor. Those who are injured & refuse to go to a hospital to be checked over for,* IF* law enforcement is present & deem it necessary, can be held for 72 hours.



Your defense of Trayvon is disgusting and hateful.   At the very least, you're suggesting that Zimmerman may not have acted in self-defense.  Zimmerman had numerous wounds on his face (take a look at the pictures most recently released).  When someone is on the ground being beaten, any blow could render the victim unconscious.

Adrenaline is probably the only reason Zimmerman turned down a visit to the hospital the night of the attack.

The people on your side of the debate are bunch of lying, racist shitheads.  Trayvon was a big mutha fucker.  He wasn't the least bit skinny.  His family lied about his weight.  Zimmerman was absolutely no match for him, and that piece of shit wasn't satisfied with a simple punch to the gut to teach Zimmerman a lesson.  He wanted to put Zimmerman in fear of his life, if not wanting to kill Zimmerman.


----------



## jillian (May 20, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > I am not concluding Zimmerman did not act in self defense. His injuries however appear  minor. Those who are injured & refuse to go to a hospital to be checked over for,* IF* law enforcement is present & deem it necessary, can be held for 72 hours.
> ...



your racism is disgusting and hateful. 

go figure.


----------



## Peach (May 20, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



Refusing medical treatment is grounds for a 72 hour old(.)


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



NOW what the hell are you babbling about?


----------



## Peach (May 20, 2012)

I am "babbling", or as it actually termed, writing the facts, about your repeated errors: If a LEO believes someone is injured, and they refuse the LEO request to go to a hospital, the LEO can make them through this statute. I was present when the statute was brought up a car accident years ago; the police wanted someone "checked out" at a hospital, the injured person said "no". The police responded, "if you do not lie on the stretcher, we will have to Baker Act you" (.)


----------



## Peach (May 20, 2012)

From the Florida Department of Children & Families Services, an explanation as to 72 holds for emergency MEDICAL treatment:

http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/samh/MentalHealth/laws/EmergencyMedicalConditions.pdf


----------



## Liability (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



(A) Wasn't Zimmerman treated by EMTs *before* being taken into the police precinct?  Why yes.  Yes he was:  





> Later in the recorded interview with investigators, the responder said it appeared that the nose was swollen and that there were abrasions on his cheeks and face.
> 
> The responders differ on the wound or wounds to the back of the head, but both agreed there was at least one laceration. Zimmerman told police he scuffled with Martin, who banged Zimmerman's head on the ground.
> 
> ...


 excerpted from George Zimmerman was bloody after confrontation with Trayvon Martin, evidence shows - latimes.com

And (B) he was observed when the police responded to the scene.  I'm sure you can't be claiming that their observations of the injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head were untrue.

(C) you can't see the injuries in SOME of the images (crappy images) from the precinct, but in some you see more than in others.

(D) if he really had no injuries to the back of his noggin when he got to the police precinct, are you suggesting tht maybe the cops provided those injuries for his benefit?  This would be the SAME cops who had suggested he ought to be summarily arrested?

(E) You dodged the point.  I don't give a crap HOW serious his injuries "were."  The POINT I made -- which you ignored -- is that he could very reasonably have felt that he was facing death or great bodily harm AS THE INCIDENT was HAPPENING* even if* it later turned out to be worth less concern.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> I am "babbling", or as it actually termed, writing the facts, about your repeated errors: If a LEO believes someone is injured, and they refuse the LEO request to go to a hospital, the LEO can make them through this statute. I was present when the statute was brought up a car accident years ago; the police wanted someone "checked out" at a hospital, the injured person said "no". The police responded, "if you do not lie on the stretcher, we will have to Baker Act you" (.)



By all means, feel free to point out where in your statute, which deals exclusively with people with mental illnesses and people whose court cases are already in progress, ANYONE had the right to force George Zimmerman to go to the hospital that night.  Let's see the quote highlighted, please, because even YOU are not stupid enough to think I'm going to accept it just because you say it's there.  And I don't care fuck-all for your little anecdote, so cite the law, or shut your hole.


----------



## beagle9 (May 20, 2012)

BDBoop said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...


Funny, I ve seen this recipe used on another site called E-The-People...Hmmmmmmm could it be a coincedence maybe ?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> From the Florida Department of Children & Families Services, an explanation as to 72 holds for emergency MEDICAL treatment:
> 
> http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/samh/MentalHealth/laws/EmergencyMedicalConditions.pdf



The Baker Act, you buffoon, refers to people with or exhibiting signs of mental illness, and as I already pointed out, that doesn't apply to George Zimmerman.  And no, refusing to go to the ER does NOT constitute evidence of mental illness.

Congratulations!  You're still a brainless twat!  Just how often DO men pat you on the head and say, "Oh, don't worry your little mind about that, honey.  Just go make me a sandwich and let me handle it"?


----------



## beagle9 (May 20, 2012)

Liability said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


Sounds like what was attempted to be pulled on Bush, with all the conspiricy theories and so forth, and shockingly suggesting that his team orchastarted 9-11 and so on and so forth, and I bet these are the same types who would have levied those claims against Bush, just as they are attempting to spin this against Zimmerman to their own ends also. They will just pop up anywhere won't they (?), and it seems that they are gaining in numbers more and more, because this nation is getting more and more ignorant by each passing day.


----------



## Peach (May 20, 2012)

Liability said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Actually Liabilty, I posted twice that the lack of serious injuries does not prove it wasn't self defense; we know not what the victim said, or did. He may have had a sturdy tree branch, rock, or even threatened with the can of ice tea.


----------



## Liability (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



We DON'T know what WHICH victim said or did?  By "victim" are you referring to the guy who got shot to death, Trayvon Martin?  OR are you referring to the victim of the various head wounds, George Zimmerman.

None of US will EVER "know" what did or did not happen prior to the shooting with any degree of precision, since the only witness who survived the incident may or may not be honest in his account.  And we won't know which for sure.

NONETHELESS, we can and do know that much of what the surviving victim claimed from the very outset appears to have support in the physical evidence.  

Based on that which we do know and the reasonable inferences which can be derived from those things, it SEEMS probable to me that George Zimmerman has a strong case of a justification defense. 

Still, it is advisable to wait for the evidence before coming to any "conclusions."  Hopefully, the jury (if the case ever makes it to trial) will do just that.

I suspect that the case will be getting tossed before that day ever comes.


----------



## Peach (May 20, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > I am "babbling", or as it actually termed, writing the facts, about your repeated errors: If a LEO believes someone is injured, and they refuse the LEO request to go to a hospital, the LEO can make them through this statute. I was present when the statute was brought up a car accident years ago; the police wanted someone "checked out" at a hospital, the injured person said "no". The police responded, "if you do not lie on the stretcher, we will have to Baker Act you" (.)
> ...



I already did, here it is yet again, from DCF:


http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/samh/MentalHealth/laws/EmergencyMedicalConditions.pdf


----------



## Peach (May 20, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > From the Florida Department of Children & Families Services, an explanation as to 72 holds for emergency MEDICAL treatment:
> ...



Learn to read things other than porno, it might increase you verbal skills. I have posted both the law & DCF admin. code. You are appear mentally impaired at this point.


----------



## Liability (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Being held against one's will under the "baker Act" exposes the hospital and staff to pleasant prospect of being sued -- successfully -- if the hold 





> Q. I am the Medical Director of a hospital group. There is a common scenario we encounter on general hospital units. The patient wants to leave, but their medical condition dictates that they stay in hospital. They may be a bit confused, or not; usually theyre disagreeable. There is no clear indication of mental illness and definitely no indication for inpatient psychiatric care. These patients are often placed under BA-52 because the medical attendings think this is the only way to hold these patients against their will. I have discussed this with them many times, taking the position that the Baker Act has no bearing because they are on a medical unit and the Baker Act only serves to get them to a psych unit once they are cleared, and that the Baker Act is inappropriate if they dont meet the definition of mental illness. If inpatient psych care is not in the plan, why use a Baker Act? I suppose that delirium could meet the legal definition for mental illness, but I see that as a loose use of the term.
> [Answer:] Youre correct in all aspects regarding the issue you raise in your message  it is indeed a most difficult one and one without an easy answer. As you point out,the use of the Baker Act to prevent the release of a person who may be refusing or unable to determine the need for medical treatment would be inappropriate and could expose the physician and the hospital to liability.


  -- From the VERY document you linked.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 20, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



If he didn't get hurt why did he need to go to the doctor to return to work?


----------



## Peach (May 20, 2012)

Liability said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Could be, though the victim's girlfriend has spoken recently. I refer to the victim & killer at times yes. The teenager that was shot & killed is the victim.  I am thinking now a plea seal, but it could be dismissal. The SP filed 2nd degree, thus she seems confident in her case. The 4th Circuit is very conservative, Clay & Duval have big majorities-Republican. I doubt Corey charged to please anyone. The CPC is a tough set of laws. CPC stands for CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT CODE.


----------



## Peach (May 20, 2012)

One LAST time for C1200:

Emergency Medical Condition (EMC) Defined

Q. How is an emergency medical condition defined in the Baker Act?
The Baker Act has no separate definition for an emergency medical condition; it refers to the hospital 
licensure law for this definition, as follows. 

395.002 Definitions.-- As used in this chapter: 
(*8)  "Emergency medical condition" means: 
(a) A medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity, which may 
include severe pain, such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably 
be expected to result in any of the following: 
1.  Serious jeopardy to patient health, including a pregnant woman or fetus. 
2.  Serious impairment to bodily functions. *
3. Serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part. 
*(b)  With respect to a pregnant woman: 
1.  That there is inadequate time to effect safe transfer to another hospital prior to delivery; 
2.  That a transfer may pose a threat to the health and safety of the patient or fetus; or 
3. That there is evidence of the onset and persistence of uterine contractions or rupture of the *
*membranes. 
(9)  "Emergency services and care" means medical screening, examination, and evaluation by 
a physician, or, to the extent permitted by applicable law, by other appropriate personnel under 
the supervision of a physician, to determine if an emergency medical condition exists and, if it *
*does, the care, treatment, or surgery by a physician necessary to relieve or eliminate the 
emergency medical condition, within the service capability of the facility.*


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> From the Florida Department of Children & Families Services, an explanation as to 72 holds for emergency MEDICAL treatment:
> 
> http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/samh/MentalHealth/laws/EmergencyMedicalConditions.pdf



Being in a fight is not considered a mental health or drug abuse emergency. If any police officer ever tried to hold me for involuntary medical treatment you can bet he wouldn't get very far because a) it only applies if the patient is mentally incompetent and b) I know how to cite a religious objection to it to prove I am not mentally incompetent.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



*IF law enforcement is present & deem it necessary, can be held for 72 hours.*

Link?


----------



## Annie (May 20, 2012)

Peach said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



I'm unsure what you are referring to in area I've bolded. My response is to refusal of medical care. He'd just shot someone. Ever hear of shock? Remorse? Guilt? Even if self-defense? Ever hear of police officers having similar problems? Military members? PTSD? Think of rape victims that hit the showers with scalding water, before reporting or not.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 20, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



*THAT is why he was told it was no longer necessary to follow a suspect WHO WAS RUNNING AWAY. *

Poor Trayvon, he ran away and made the mistake of coming back.

*And a guy who lives in the area and has family in the area doesn't deserve to be stalked, *

Stalked? Care to post the legal definition?


----------



## asterism (May 20, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...



They did take him into custody.  There's even a video to prove it.  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-_Qn9ZEj9Q]George Zimmerman in handcuffs night of shooting - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## asterism (May 21, 2012)

Peach said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Law Enforcement has no say in the matter.  If someone is conscious, it's their choice if they wish to go to the hospital or refuse treatment.  You see "minor cuts?"  I see head injuries.  There are very few head injuries that are minor.


----------



## asterism (May 21, 2012)

Peach said:


> I am "babbling", or as it actually termed, writing the facts, about your repeated errors: If a LEO believes someone is injured, and they refuse the LEO request to go to a hospital, the LEO can make them through this statute. I was present when the statute was brought up a car accident years ago; the police wanted someone "checked out" at a hospital, the injured person said "no". The police responded, "if you do not lie on the stretcher, we will have to Baker Act you" (.)



That's not proof that this is standard procedure, nor is it proof that it would have happened in this case.


----------



## asterism (May 21, 2012)

Peach said:


> From the Florida Department of Children & Families Services, an explanation as to 72 holds for emergency MEDICAL treatment:
> 
> http://www.dcf.state.fl.us/programs/samh/MentalHealth/laws/EmergencyMedicalConditions.pdf



DCF was not at this scene, therefore their policies do not apply.


----------



## earlycuyler (May 21, 2012)

Liability said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > * * * *
> ...



No, its the "you dont get to shoot people because you do stupid thing act".


----------



## earlycuyler (May 21, 2012)

Liability said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



Getting away after having done what ?


----------



## earlycuyler (May 21, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > In the end, it doesn't matter. An investigator recommended Zimmerman should be taken in, that the shooting was avoidable.  Geroge Zimmerman has done more damage to peoples right to carry then any gun control group ever could. I
> ...



See, this is where you come off like a pompous wind bag just like liability. If I am a fool for saying Zimmerman screwed up, then you are a fool for saying he was good to go for shooting Trayvon. And yes you dolts, Zimmerman had done plenty to put MY rights to carry concealed in danger. Because he wanted to play cop, and decided to shoot his way out of an ass whooping, the stand your ground, make my day laws will all be questioned. Already are here. You, liability and the rest are only defending Zimmerman because to you twerps, its a political issue. Ill be sure to include you in my "I told you so" I had planned for a few others.


----------



## rdean (May 21, 2012)

rdean said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



The question stands.


----------



## Peach (May 21, 2012)

Annie said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



All possible, but the fact remains he could held for medical observation against his will.


----------



## Peach (May 21, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Posted above.


----------



## Ravi (May 21, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


If you feel threatened, yes.


----------



## Ravi (May 21, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Once Zimmerman abadoned his surveillance and went back to his car, Martin's right was to continue on going home.  Trayvon Lives.   Trayvon decides to administer some hood justice, Trayvon Dies.


If that is what happened. The girlfriends testimony has Zimmerman confronting Martin and the last words that Martin said, according to the girlfriend, were, "get off, get off."


----------



## Ravi (May 21, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


Yes, it is actually.

And in many cases a jury doesn't define "reasonableness" as a judge can define it before the case ever goes to trial or allows charges to be filed to begin with. In some cases, the police themselves or the prosecuting attorney don't even bother ASKING for a judge's ruling because they believe charges will get thrown out under SYG. And no arrest is made.


----------



## Liability (May 21, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



No, it isn't actually.



Ravi said:


> And in many cases a jury doesn't define "reasonableness" as a judge can define it before the case ever goes to trial or allows charges to be filed to begin with. In some cases, the police themselves or the prosecuting attorney don't even bother ASKING for a judge's ruling because they believe charges will get thrown out under SYG. And no arrest is made.



Holy shit.  You are very confused.  OF COURSE a cop or prosecutor can elect not to make an arrest or to lodge formal charges before a judge gets a crack at what might otherwise be a case.

And yes, some cops DO conclude that it would be improper to make an arrest where the circumstances suggest that justification (that's the proper term; you keep using "stand your ground" which doesn't even apply here) is a complete defense.

Further, even if the cops make the arrest, the prosecutors have "prosecutorial discretion" to refuse to file criminal charges.  They can dismiss the case before charges are ever filed in court, thus obviating the need for a judge to pass any such judgment.

But if the police choose to make the arrest and the prosecutors lodge the criminal charges in court, in a case like the Trayvon Martin shooting, the prosecutor can do so by going to a Grand Jury (which is what OUGHT TO HAVE HAPPENED HERE) or just file a prosecutor's information.  In either case, the Court might very well have to DEFINE the term for a jury (if the case goes to trial).  

Stand your ground -- properly understood (which is not the way YOU comprehend it) -- is a PART of the law of "justification" or "self defense."  Basically all it says and means is that if you are under attack and have  REASONABLE fear of death or serious physical injury, you are not required to run away.  There is, in other words, no duty under those circumstances to retreat before you can use force yourself.

Nevertheless, one is still not entitled to use force to defend one's self from an attack that has not even taken  place.  MERELY being followed (or run-after) is NOT the same as a basis for reasonable fear of imminent death or grave bodily harm which might warrant your use of force (or deadly physical force).


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 21, 2012)

The Latest on the Trayvon Martin Case | ThinkProgress
1)	Zimmerman bullied a co-worker due to his race
2)	1 eyewitness says there was no fighting at time of gun shot
3)	A police call from a women says that Zimmerman has violent tendencies and is capable of starting a fight

Zimmerman wasn
^Forensic experts conclude that Zimmerman was not the person calling for help on 911 call.

Zimmerman's MySpace Page Shows Disparaging Remarks Towards Mexicans
^Zimmer posts racist/sexist post on his myspace.

BREAKING: George Zimmerman Launches Website, Features Vandalized Black Cultural Center | ThinkProgress
^Zimmerman creates website with picture of vandalism asking people to send him money

Daily Kos: Was the fighting over when Zimmerman shot Trayvon?
^More on Girl witness. Says she heard Martin tell someone to get off

Trayvon Martin's Phone Call Undermines Killer Account | ThinkProgress
^Before/during the start of the incident Trayvon was on the phone with a girl. She notes that he notices someone following him so he begins walking faster; a bit later he confirms that hes being followed so she convinces him to start running; he starts runny then she hears, Trayvon said, What, are you following me for, and the man said, What are you doing here. And she hears Trayvons head set fall.
This makes it clear that Zimmerman lied when he said he was walking back to his truck

What Everyone Should Know About Trayvon Martin (1995-2012) | ThinkProgress
^1) Zimmerman describes to the police that Trayvon is suspicious because hes walking 
2) Zimmerman followed Trayvon after the police told him not to
3) Martins teachers describe him as an A-B student
4) Martin has no criminal record
5) Zimmerman was charged in 2005 with resisting arrest and with violence/battery on an officer.
6) According to neighbors Zimmerman was fixated on young black males committing crime
7) Neighbors complained about Zimmermans aggressiveness
8) Zimmerman was not a member of Neighborhood watch and did violated their guidelines.
9) One witness reports that what she saw was not what Zimmerman said happened 
10) Police reports do not mention any physical damage done to Zimmerman after the killing
11) Zimmerman in 2011 calls the police saying there is a suspicious black male around 8 years old.
12) Eyewitness and EMS records show that the night of the shooting Zimmerman sustained no serious injuries


----------



## Liability (May 21, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



False.

Ravi is now dispensing legal "advice."  But worse yet, her advice is flatly wrong.


----------



## Liability (May 21, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Irrelevant.  Zimmerman wasn't trying to arrest him, apparently.  

He was FOLLOWING the young guy to prevent that guy -- whom he had called the cops about --  from getting away at all before the cops could arrive.  In other words, he wanted to be able to tell the responding cops where the suspicious guy could be located. 

So what?

He's allowed to do that.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 21, 2012)

Liability said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


So someone is allowed to stalk another person and then kill them. Shit, that sucks for people being stalked


----------



## Ariux (May 21, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> So someone is allowed to stalk another person and then kill them. Shit, that sucks for people being stalked



It's not stalking a person.  It's coon hunting.


----------



## MuadDib (May 21, 2012)

Liability said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I agree. There was nothing illegal or immoral in trying to follow Martin and report to the police where he was and what he was doing.

If you read this article, you get a better understanding about what had been going on in that community and Zimmerman's motivations.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 21, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



Stalk? What's that?


----------



## Peach (May 21, 2012)

MuadDib said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



He like carrying a loaded weapon and pretending he was a police officer(.)


----------



## Rozman (May 21, 2012)

Randi Rhodes had an audio tape of Travon Martin's GF that she was playing.
It sounded like a deposition.
Wonder where she got this from?
Anyway I can't share anything here about it.
I could not understand most of what the young lady was saying.
Maybe they had a microphone issue.

Although the person asking the questions sounded like HD audio...
The quality of the sound was perfect...


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Dispensing legal advice? Such a liar. I am merely telling you what the law says.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 22, 2012)

Peach said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Yeah we all know you want to just hang George now; you are so self-righteous and judgemental it is disgusting.

Were someone talking about a black person like that in similar circumstnaces you would be hysterical about how racist everyone was.

People like you are a freaking joke on humanity.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



So what law is that and in what state?

Another good reason to not live there if you are correct, but my bet is that you are exagerating because you are too stupid and stubborn to admit when you are wrong.


----------



## Liability (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



No.  You're not.  You're "telling" us what the law absolutely does NOT say.

And the shit you spewed is not just wrong, but does constitute the offering of legal opinion and advice, you idiot.


----------



## Liability (May 22, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



There was no "stalking" you stupid twat.


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




776.012&#8195;Use of force in defense of person.A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the others imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1)&#8195;He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2)&#8195;Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.


----------



## Liability (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Yes.  I know what the law actually says, since I already quoted it.

And none of that -- not even one little tiny speck of it -- says that if you feel threatened by someone legally walking through his own neighborhood, you can throw the first punch.

And THAT is the sub-moronic claim YOU had made.  You were wrong then and you remain totally fucked up.

Muddle on.


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


You are right in that it doesn't say anything about someone legally walking through his own neighborhood.

It says if you feel threatened you can defend yourself.

You must be a poor attorney to not grasp that point.


----------



## Liability (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Thankfully I am vastly more logical and a better attorney than you could ever be with your severely limited grasp of basic English.

No, you imbecile.  It does NOT say that if you feel threatened you can "defend" yourself.

You are clearly in danger of suffocation.  You are too stupid to breathe.  

What the law DOES say (and you should know it since I even got YOU to quote it) is "A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another *when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes* that *such conduct is necessary* to defend himself or herself or another *against the others imminent use of unlawful force.*"


Another person running is not a basis for anyone to have a REASONABLE belief of any NECESSITY to resort to force to "defend" against an IMMINENT use of force being used against him.  

Damn.  You libs are one contradictory dopey lot.  When it suits your irrationally partisan purposes, suddenly you are ALL FOR a pre-emptive attacks.


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Again, if you feel threatened, you may use pre-emptive force. That is what this law is all about.

And again, I do not like this law so blow it out your ass, dummy.


----------



## Liability (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...





No.  Again, you say utterly stupid shit devoid of logic or meaning, and again you are flatly wrong.

That is absolutely NOT what the law says, you imbecile.  

You LOVE this law although your devotion to it is premised on your completely fucked-up misunderstanding of what it says.  So eat the corn out of my shit you dishonest hack idiot.


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




I hope you practice corporate and not criminal law. You certainly shouldn't be let near anything other than a file cabinet.


----------



## Liability (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



What you hope  is as irrelevant and ignorant as your "grasp" of some pretty basic justification law.

I don't care that it hurts your petty feelings, you imbecile, but you simply (and clearly) do NOT grasp what the law says.  Every time you compose a post on the topic, you merely underscore your own ignorance, arrogance and stupidity.

You remain entirely wrong, you  idiot cockroach.

Muddle on.


----------



## The Infidel (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




You were wrong... why cant you admit it?


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I would if I were, but I am certainly not wrong. This law makes it legal to kill someone if you reasonably find them a threat. Reasonably is too subjective a term: and that is why this is a bad law.


----------



## Liability (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



She can't admit she's wrong because she's fundamentally both dishonest and stupid.

And she's such a delusional dip shit that she imagines others may be convinced of her position based on the sheer repetition of her idiotic claim.


----------



## Ariux (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> I would if I were, but I am certainly not wrong. This law makes it legal to kill someone if you reasonably find them a threat. Reasonably is too subjective a term: and that is why this is a bad law.



Hey shithead, "reasonable" is the standard of the all law.  Many laws, out of necessity, use reasonableness as a standard.  But, you're right, reason can be a bad standard when shitheads are involved, because shitheads are not reasonable.  

The cops had no reasonable (aka probable) cause to drug test Zimmerman.  Zimmerman had reasonable cause to suspect Trayvon might be up to no good.

Zimmerman's jury will decide if Zimmerman was reasonable in suspecting Trayvon was a criminal. The jury will decide if Zimmerman was reasonable in fearing for his life.  And, then the jury will decide if Zimmerman is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > I would if I were, but I am certainly not wrong. This law makes it legal to kill someone if you reasonably find them a threat. Reasonably is too subjective a term: and that is why this is a bad law.
> ...


Under the law, Martin had to reasonably believe that Zimmerman was a threat. That is ALL Martin had to believe to be justified in attacking Zimmerman.

You may pretend otherwise as you wish. But the law is poorly written and needs to be fixed.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Lord Almighty, dont you get the difference between 'feeling threatened' vrs 'reasonably believe' you are threatened?

A guy pulling a gun on me is being reasonably threatened, but some guy walking behind me for a few hundred feet is NOT reasonably being believed to be threatened.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Only an idiot would think a guy asking him questions about why he was walking around in the rain snooping into peoples homes is threatending him, unless by 'threatened' you mean he was afraid he was about to get caught for casing peoples homes.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



You think its a clinical condition?


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


And yet Martin is dead.

This is why I've repeatedly stated that "reasonable" it too subjective for this law.


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...




There is no evidence that he was snooping into people's homes. Do you lie for recreation or because you're an idiot?


----------



## The Infidel (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




I would say that if a dude is on top of me (which is what EYEwitnesses say) beating the living shit out of me, thats reason enough for me to shoot. 

Resonable? Yes... yes indeed it is.


----------



## Againsheila (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Except that's not what the law says.


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


There's also an eyewitness that says Martin was on the bottom.

That almost doesn't matter, though. Being followed in the dark would give many people a reasonable fear for their life.


----------



## Ariux (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> And yet Martin is dead.



Okay, okay, I'll do my Happy Dance again.


----------



## manifold (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




Did it ever occur to you that maybe he's just buying into stereotypes.


----------



## Ariux (May 22, 2012)

manifold said:


> Did it ever occur to you that maybe he's just buying into stereotypes.



Do you mean that Zimmerman was playing odds?  Because Trayvon fits the profile of a piece of shit, you assume Zimmerman concluded Trayvon was a piece of shit?

And, yet, Zimmerman explains to the police operator that he called because of Travyon's behavior.  And, Zimmerman apparently didn't know that Trayvon was a black piece of shit until after he got on the phone to police.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



As he should be since he tried to KILL a PERSON with his fists, idjit.



Ravi said:


> This is why I've repeatedly stated that "reasonable" it too subjective for this law.



Only a leftwingnut cant see the resonableness in defending oneself when being pummeled lying on the ground vrs assaulting someone simply because you think that they were following you.

How can you be this stupid?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



I am not lying shit-for-brains.

Zimmerman said that, in effect, Martin was snooping.

Zimmerman 911 Call Transcript &#8211; Trayvon Martin | Phoebe's Detention Room

This guy looks like hes up to no good or hes on drugs or something. Its raining and hes just walking around looking about. [00:25]

Yeah, a dark hoodie like a gray hoodie. He wore jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes. Hes here now  hes just staring. [00:42]

Now hes staring at me. [00:48]

Summary; Martin was SNOOPING, douche bag.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 22, 2012)

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



And did it ever occur to you that you have you head up your twat?


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Walking around talking on the phone. Zimmerman had an active imagination. And of course he'd look at Zimmerman since Zimmerman was following him.

Dope.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Bullshit. What 'eye' witness. There is a woman who claims to have heard the incident and she thinks it was Martin yelling for help, but the physical evidence shows she was being delusional.




Ravi said:


> That almost doesn't matter, though. Being followed in the dark would give many people a reasonable fear for their life.



Until they stop and ask you why you are walking around in the rain in their neighborhood.

Why are you such a freaking moron? You really do seem to be an anti-white, cracker hating POS.

But maybe I am wrong about you; maybe your just stupid beyond rational belief.


----------



## manifold (May 22, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



and then some

But don't worry, even if it wasn't an inside joke I'm sure you still wouldn't have got it.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



And what about casing houses prevents you from talking on the phone dumbass?

Liability has you nailed to a T. You are just an ignorant racist piece of stinky stupidass.


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Bullshit. What 'eye' witness. There is a woman who claims to have heard the incident and she thinks it was Martin yelling for help, but the physical evidence shows she was being delusional.


 Goodbye, liar. I understand now your aim.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 22, 2012)

manifold said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



ROFLMAO!
At least you are honest about it.



manifold said:


> But don't worry, ...



I never worry about what what people do with their nether regions.



manifold said:


> ...even if it wasn't an inside joke I'm sure you still wouldn't have got it.



Yeah, because you are just too smart for us redneck hill-billies to ever understand, right?

Fuck off.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Bullshit. What 'eye' witness. There is a woman who claims to have heard the incident and she thinks it was Martin yelling for help, but the physical evidence shows she was being delusional.
> ...



Cry me a river.

How about answering the fucking question?


----------



## Liability (May 22, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Actually, it appears that it  was a fairly *inside baseball* kind of reference to one of Ravi's dumber pronouncements.


----------



## manifold (May 22, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I didn't even know you were a shit kicker.  Although if I'd given it even the slightest bit of thought I'm sure I could've sussed it out.  But thanks all the same.


----------



## Conservative (May 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Zimmerman: (hmmm...there's a black guy... walking... I FEEL THREATENED!)

BAM!


----------



## Liability (May 22, 2012)

Conservative said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



*Ravi for the Defense*:  "Yes, the law CLEARLY allows for that!  Why?  Well, it requires you to contemplate something subjective. Uhm.  Anyway, it HAS to be 'not guilty!' "


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



If Martin had been following him he might have reasonably been fearful. But he wasn't, so no, the analogy does not compute.


----------



## Liability (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Conservative said:
> ...



According to your imbecile logic, all that is required is fear.

So don't quibble.  Stick to your idiotic position.


----------



## beagle9 (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Uh Oh Ravi, I don't see anywhere where it could be interpreted or even construed to mean what you had written earlier that this law possibly would mean or does mean in your words.  I'm real good at comprehending when reading (maybe not so good at spelling etc. I will admit), but pretty good at having a common since ability to decifer most of what people are saying and/or what they are up to doing, along with knowing the meaning of many things when I come across them.  This is either by their words spoken or by their actions in which sometimes speak louder than their words in which are spoken.

I guess you just went for it when posting this in defense or respect to what you may have thought about it, but I think you are in with some pretty smart people here, and you may be getting deep into it, that's if you try and pull the wool over their eyes for to many times ... B )


----------



## Ravi (May 22, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



uh, okay, but I don't really see how this can be misinterpreted.


> against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the others imminent use of unlawful force



Unless you mean that being followed by someone that ends up killing you isn't actually grounds for a pre-emptive strike.


----------



## beagle9 (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Not going to work, otherwise by taking what you have taken from the written material out of context, you attempt to either add or take away from it by this tactic... To keep the meaning straight and not tampered with, it must remain always within it's proper context, in so that it doesn't become distorted or confused in these ways that which you are mistaken about my friend.


----------



## Ariux (May 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Unless you mean that being followed by someone that ends up killing you isn't actually grounds for a pre-emptive strike.







"Little" Trayvon, 5 minutes from home, 20 minutes from brutally assaulting someone.

You keep forgetting the part about Travon brutally assaulting a good man.  Now, the shit is dead.  BTW, he really does look like a turd.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 22, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



That is indeed a question of merit given that he DID NOT go to the hospital that night.  It just adds to the dubious nature of Zimmerman's scenario.  Curiouser and curiouser...unless you're a Zimmerman zombie.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 22, 2012)

Peach said:


> One LAST time for C1200:
> 
> Emergency Medical Condition (EMC) Defined
> 
> ...


*

Don't hold your breath waiting for her to concede a point despite the facts.*


----------



## taichiliberal (May 22, 2012)

asterism said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...




He was detained....held for questioning, NOT formally arrested.  Had he been arrested, he would have been put in jail to await a hearing and bail setting.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 22, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



The question isn't "how can she be this stupid", but "how can she be this stupid, and still be able to turn the computer on?"


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 22, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



He also wasn't talking on the phone when Zimmerman initially spotted him and called the police.  We know this, because the phone records tell us Zimmerman called the police at 7:09 pm, and Martin's call with his girlfriend started at 7:12 pm.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 22, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Nothing curious about it at all, unless you have your head up your ass.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



As a woman, I am automatically concerned and a bit fearful when a man is walking behind me at night.  That still doesn't give me the right to turn around and beat the holy bejesus out of him, despite the fact that any male at all is more of a potential physical threat to me than Zimmerman was to Martin (_sans _the gun, which Martin didn't know he was carrying).

The right to defend yourself through violence requires more than just the other person's mere physical presence.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 22, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Lots of people opt out of getting an ambulance ride to the ER, instead opting to visit their own doctor the next day, because they're concerned about the huge co-pay associated with ambulances and ERs.  Not saying that was Zimmerman's reasoning; just suggesting a possible, very reasonable explanation for him to choose not to have the paramedics take him to the hospital.  Another good reason would be not thinking clearly due to shock, and a third could have been that he didn't really realize how badly he might have been hurt.  My daughter fractured her wrist, and we didn't realize it for almost two weeks, because it wasn't causing her any more pain than wrenching it really hard would have done.  These things happen.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 22, 2012)

Rozman said:


> Randi Rhodes had an audio tape of Travon Martin's GF that she was playing.
> It sounded like a deposition.
> Wonder where she got this from?
> Anyway I can't share anything here about it.
> ...




It was part of the information package released to the public by the prosecution.  It was the cops interviewing the girlfriend, albeit LONG after the incident took place.  I could understand what was being said, although the local station that carries her program is subject to occasional bad reception.

"I Know He Was Scared": Trayvon Martin


----------



## taichiliberal (May 22, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



A person who intentionally and repeatedly follows or harasses another person and who makes a credible threat, either expressed or implied, with the intent to place that person in reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm is guilty of the crime of stalking. A person may be charged with aggravated stalking if they commit the crime of stalking while subject to a temporary restraining order, injunction against trespass, or similar order.

Stalking Law & Legal Definition


----------



## taichiliberal (May 22, 2012)

Quantum Windbag said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



A childish response from a childish mentality that is a-typical of a Quantum Windbag.

Like I said, Zimmerman zombies are incapable of dealing with any fact that contradicts their beliefs, let alone applying objective analysis to all information available to comprehend the true scope of a situation.  Babble on, my silly little Windbag.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 22, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



An amazing display of supposition and conjecture in a desperate attempt to excuse the questionable actions of Zimmerman.

If your scenario was indeed true, then why would Zimmerman need a doctor's permit to go work?  If his injuries were that severe, then why didn't the paramedics report state so?  Shock would require hospitalization.  And why didn't his family doctor's diagnosis reveal more severe injuries that would coincide with the initial description of the fight that Zimmerman told, let alone your "might have, could have, maybe" scenario.

The FACTS don't support your guesswork, kid.

Strike two, Cecilie.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 22, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



*And beyond your supposition and conjecture, where is the EVIDENCE to support your claim?* 

Zimmermann said he lost track of him. Was he lying?

If Trayvon had continued toward home, he'd still be alive today.

*A person who intentionally and repeatedly follows or harasses another person *

Repeatedly? Does once qualify? 
Thanks for disproving your claim.


----------



## Againsheila (May 22, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Considering his head injury, the cops should have taken him to the hospital for an MRI.  You never know with head injuries.  When I was in highschool, one of the kids was hit by a car on the way home.  He hit his head on the cement, but got up and walked away, saying he was fine, he died that night in his sleep.

I don't think it's Zimmerman's fault he wasn't taken to the hospital right away.  He was upset as anyone would have been under the circumstances, but the cops should have insisted.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 22, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Strike two?  I haven't even been speaking to you, so when would I have gotten strike one in this ridiculous game of "win the approval of someone I think is dumber than a puddle of spit"?

Who says his injuries had to be "that severe" - whatever _that _means - for his boss to require a doctor's note?  I know lots of employers who require a doctor's note for ANY injury, just to cover their asses against later Workmen's Comp claims.  The US Postal Service, for example, would have insisted on a doctor's release when I worked for them.  Hell, part of their hiring process was to have me get a back X-ray.

As to the rest of your bullshit response, the facts don't support YOUR guesswork, ass.  All this liberal pooh-poohing about "his injuries weren't bad enough" is the rankest sort of desperation play.  First it was "He has no injuries!  He's guilty!"  Then - OOPS! - he has injuries after all and it turns out you dipshits ran your gums a little too soon, so now all you armchair Albert Schweitzers want to diagnose from home and bitch about how he didn't sustain enough damage to suit you.

You'll excuse me if I don't require Mr. Zimmerman to apologize to you for being too sturdy and healthy for your tastes.

That's Strike One for the doctor's note, Strike Two for the Internet doctor routine, and Strike Three for existing without sufficient brain cells to suit me.

You're out, shitforbrains!  Back on ignore for you!

Better luck next time.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 22, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yes, REPEATEDLY....as by Zimmerman's own words, Martin ran away....yet Zimmerman CONTINUED to hunt for him AFTER BEING TOLD THE COPS WERE ON THEIR WAY AND IT WAS NO LONGER NECESSARY.  And as Martin's girlfriend states, Martin had thought he lost Zimmerman at one point.

Got that now, Toddles?  Or are you going to now repeat the supposition and conjecture necessary to paing Zimmerman as a victim and NOT an instigator?


----------



## taichiliberal (May 22, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



And as the chronology of the posts shows, ladies and gents, Cecilie will continue to hound each and every response to my posts and replies by her like minded compadres and spew her ignorance and venom with abandon.....contrary to her claims of indifference here....and so much more to pity her.  Carry on.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 23, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...




If Zimmerman's head was such the bloody mess as his lawyers initially claimed, then the EMT's would have taken him to the hospital....Period.

Evidently, it wasn't.


----------



## KissMy (May 23, 2012)

Witness #6 said Martin was on top of Zimmerman & beating him. Martin was "throwing down blows on the guy (GZ) MMA (Mixed Martial Arts) style"

Martins father said the screams for help were not from his son Trayvon.


----------



## Ravi (May 23, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Please explain how you think I am taking it out of context.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 23, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> No stupid, I pointing out the FACTS from the 911 dispatch call....Zimmerman had given enough location for the cops to be dispatched.....he was told this. THAT is why he was told it was no longer necessary to follow a suspect WHO WAS RUNNING AWAY. But when asked where he wanted to meet the cops, Zimmerman suddenly becomes all confused and was reluctant to give out his home address, babbling about he can't locate Martin and doesn't want to give out his address (WTF? How is Martin tapping into the 911 call?).



GZ was concerned that Martin might be near enough to HEAR his address being told to 911 since GZ couldnt see him and had no idea where Martin was.

Dude you are dumber than a sack of rusty hammers. 



taichiliberal said:


> A person who intentionally and _*repeatedly *_follows or harasses another person and who makes a *credible threat*, either expressed or implied, with the *intent *to place that person in *reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm* is guilty of the crime of stalking. A person may be charged with aggravated stalking if they commit the crime of stalking while subject to a temporary restraining order, injunction against trespass, or similar order.



Yeah, walking up to someone and asking them what they are doing in the neighborhood is a deadly threat in your mind?

You are a sad little troll.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 23, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> If Zimmerman's head was such the bloody mess as his lawyers initially claimed, then the EMT's would have taken him to the hospital....Period.
> 
> Evidently, it wasn't.



Now you are a medical expert too?

Jesus! Please shut up and go play in a busy street somewhere.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 23, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> And as the chronology of the posts shows, ladies and gents, Cecilie will continue to hound each and every response to my posts and replies by her like minded compadres and spew her ignorance and venom with abandon.....contrary to her claims of indifference here....and so much more to pity her.  Carry on.



Asswipe, you are one of the biggest idiots on the thread.

It is one thing to be ignorant, but wuite another level of stupidity to be so stubborn you engage in the bullshit rhetorical games you do, failing miserable, to try to lynch Zimmerman.

Whoever is paying you to astroturf this subject is not getting their money's worth.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 23, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Please explain how you think I am taking it out of context.



Yeah out of context?

It is plain that you are just being flat-out STUPID.


----------



## KissMy (May 23, 2012)

Autopsy of Martin's body found that his knuckles were injured, hands were bloody, bruised & skin was broken. Zimmerman suffered a battered, bruised, swollen & bloody back of his head as a result of Martin beating it against the sidewalk. Zimmerman also suffered a battered, bruised, swollen & bloody nose & lip as a result of Martin beating him in the face MMA style as one eyewitness stated it.

Martins body is near the sidewalk that he repeatedly bashed Zimmerman's head onto.






Zimmerman's keys & light are also found near the sidewalk where the struggle took place.






There is also blood on the sidewalk.


----------



## saveliberty (May 23, 2012)

Four witnesses have recanted parts of their stories.  Some even suggest Zimmerman was on top now.


----------



## tigerbob (May 23, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Four witnesses have recanted parts of their stories.  Some even suggest Zimmerman was on top now.



And so the rumor mill grinds on, and on, and on.....


----------



## KissMy (May 23, 2012)

tigerbob said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Four witnesses have recanted parts of their stories.  Some even suggest Zimmerman was on top now.
> ...



Exactly - The Martin apologist lier's had Martin's mortician say that Martins body had no marks indicating he was beating Zimmerman. That was clearly a lie. The autopsy proved once again just how desperate these lier's are & to what lengths they will go to manufacture a hate crime.


----------



## Katzndogz (May 23, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Four witnesses have recanted parts of their stories.  Some even suggest Zimmerman was on top now.



Threats work!   Scare witnesses enough and they'll say anything you want.


----------



## tigerbob (May 23, 2012)

KissMy said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...



And so the rumor mill grinds on, and on, and on...


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 23, 2012)

KissMy said:


> Autopsy of Martin's body found that his knuckles were injured, hands were bloody, bruised & skin was broken.



State v. Zimmerman: Evidence released by prosecutor

Autopsy report on page 125.

*EVIDENCE OF INJURY: *

Pentetrating Gunshot Wound of the Checst:

<<SNIP>>

Other Injuries: This is a 1/4 x 1/8 inch small abrasion on the left fourth finger.​

So much for the autopsy showing that Martin's knuckles and his hands were bruised and bloody.






KissMy said:


> Zimmerman suffered a battered, bruised, swollen & bloody back of his head as a result of Martin beating it against the sidewalk.









scrapes and minor lacerations.




KissMy said:


> Zimmerman also suffered a battered, bruised, swollen & bloody nose & lip as a result of Martin beating him in the face MMA style as one eyewitness stated it.








Funny thing is that his face looks like it only took a minor scratch to the nose, pretty good for an MMA style face beating which didn't leave any damage to Martin's knuckes (as per the autopsy report).


>>>>


----------



## earlycuyler (May 23, 2012)

The thing is this, George Zimmerman did everything wrong. He was operating outside of what is outlined in his neighborhood watch guidelines, he was operating outside the of what he would have been taught by who ever provided his required training to obtain a CCW in Florida. Did he set out to shoot some one that night ? no, probably not, but his not so smart actions that night led to a shooting. That will be pointed out in court, and those very things are what you are warned about (other then civil litigation) in a CCW class. The stupidity started on Zimmermans end of this, and Martins was the catalyst that blew it all up, but in the end, its on Zimmermans head.


----------



## Ariux (May 23, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Four witnesses have recanted parts of their stories.  Some even suggest Zimmerman was on top now.



I think the claims that any witness recanted is greatly exaggerated.   Also, you'd have to have shit for brains (and you do) to think later statements by witnesses are as reliable as earlier statements.  

One bimbo witness says Trayvon was "scrawny".  She didn't say this when police first asked for descriptions of the men involved.   But, she said it weeks later.  That claim is not based on what she witnessed.  It's based on the image the liberal media has painted of Trayvon.  But, the fact is, the autopsy shows that Trayvon was at his optimal weight for his height.  

I trust that Zimmerman's lawyer will help keep these stupid witnesses from passing off their idiotic speculation as what they actually witnessed.


----------



## saveliberty (May 23, 2012)

tigerbob said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Four witnesses have recanted parts of their stories.  Some even suggest Zimmerman was on top now.
> ...



What rumor?  It was reported from new statements issued by the state, after the witnesses were reinterviewed by the state.  Four separate people.


----------



## saveliberty (May 23, 2012)

Ariux said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Four witnesses have recanted parts of their stories.  Some even suggest Zimmerman was on top now.
> ...



So you think all witnesses should be discounted?  Unreliable.  Just go on the timeline, instructions given to Zimmerman about Neighborhood Watch procedures, Concealed weapons training and the 911 dispatcher?  Maybe throw in self inflicted wounds to cover his actions?


----------



## earlycuyler (May 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Autopsy of Martin's body found that his knuckles were injured, hands were bloody, bruised & skin was broken.
> ...



To bad no one will read that. They would find the part that says the shooting was ultimate avoidable had he only waited for the cops to get there. Bummer you cant copy and past that document.


----------



## Ariux (May 23, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> So you think all witnesses should be discounted?  Unreliable.  Just go on the timeline, instructions given to Zimmerman about Neighborhood Watch procedures, Concealed weapons training and the 911 dispatcher?  Maybe throw in self inflicted wounds to cover his actions?



I'm saying you're a shithead.  I'm saying any changes to the witnesses stories should be discounted.  The timeline shows that Trayvon would have been far away, if he hadn't decided to attack Zimmerman.  And, it's ludicrous to think that in the seconds before the police arrived, that Zimmerman had the presence of mind to inflict a number of wounds on his head.  If he were that calculating, he would have handled the police call better.

You are full hate and bigotry, and short on intelligence.


----------



## Liability (May 23, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



I did read it.  It is quite the unimpressive and irrelevant post.

  The fact that there is even one scrape on Martin's hand undercuts the whimpering that took place when the funeral shop guy with the big bow tie declared that Martin's hands showed no injury at all.

The minor APPEARANCE of the wounds on Zimmerman's face does not tell the story.  The broken nose, however, does.

The appearance of the wounds on the back of Zimmerman's head also doesn't serve to undercut HIS claim that Martin had been knocking his skull onto the concrete.  

The physical evidence, in short, tends to serve to corroborate Zimmerman and does little to help the prosecutor's case against Zimmerman.  Indeed, objectively, the physical evidence undercuts the prosecutor's case.


----------



## saveliberty (May 23, 2012)

Ariux said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > So you think all witnesses should be discounted?  Unreliable.  Just go on the timeline, instructions given to Zimmerman about Neighborhood Watch procedures, Concealed weapons training and the 911 dispatcher?  Maybe throw in self inflicted wounds to cover his actions?
> ...



Coming from you, its a compliment.  What race do you think I am?


----------



## Againsheila (May 23, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Then explain the picture of the back of his head that night?


----------



## Againsheila (May 23, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Four witnesses have recanted parts of their stories.  Some even suggest Zimmerman was on top now.



So, if you have a witness that changes their story, which story are you going to believe?  The one they first told, or the one they told later?


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 23, 2012)

Ariux said:


> saveliberty said:
> 
> 
> > Four witnesses have recanted parts of their stories.  Some even suggest Zimmerman was on top now.
> ...





Witnesses changing accounts of Trayvon Martin shooting?



>>>>


----------



## Againsheila (May 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > Autopsy of Martin's body found that his knuckles were injured, hands were bloody, bruised & skin was broken.
> ...



It looks like his nose is swelling and the eye on the left is already turning black.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 23, 2012)

Liability said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...




The point of the post was to respond to factual inaccuracies and the hyperbolic nature of the post to which I responded.

No the autopsy did not find - "Autopsy of Martin's body found that his knuckles were injured, hands were bloody, bruised & skin was broken."

No Zimmerman didn't have "a battered, bruised, swollen & bloody back of his head as a result of Martin beating it against the sidewalk.", he has some minor cuts and abrasions as shown by police photos.

No Zimmerman did have "a battered, bruised, swollen & bloody nose & lip as a result of Martin beating him in the face MMA style as one eyewitness stated it." as shown by police photos.


>>>>


----------



## Liability (May 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



The purpose of your post is dubious.  Zimmerman clearly was on the receiving end of an assault.  If you were merely correcting the OVER-statement of the nature of the attack (or apparent injuries) that does not make the FACT of the attack go away.  PLUS, getting your nose busted and having the back of your head banged onto concrete is no insignificant thing EVEN though SOME of the specifics of the attack or ensuing injuries are a bit over wrought.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 23, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > If Zimmerman's head was such the bloody mess as his lawyers initially claimed, then the EMT's would have taken him to the hospital....Period.
> ...



I love how all these liberals think the paramedics can just ignore someone saying, "I don't want to go to the hospital" and throw them in the ambulance and take 'em against their will.

They're paramedics, not kidnappers.


----------



## Ravi (May 23, 2012)

This is pretty interesting.

Just how chummy with the police in Sanford was Zimmerman?

Zimmerman rode with cops, ripped department


----------



## The Infidel (May 23, 2012)

Ravi said:


> This is pretty interesting.
> 
> Just how chummy with the police in Sanford was Zimmerman?
> 
> Zimmerman rode with cops, ripped department





Desperate much?


----------



## Katzndogz (May 23, 2012)

The bottom line, after all these months is that George Zimmerman is not black.  He should have permitted the black boy to beat him to death to prove he wasn't a racist.


----------



## KissMy (May 23, 2012)

Tracy Martin sent his son Trayvon Martin to Juvenile Detention Officer Brandy Green's care "due to having been suspended for 10 days from his high school in Miami Gardens for possession of cannabis." He had been at the Juvenile Detention Officer's address for 7 days prior to the event of his death. Trayvon had a lighter from the 7-11 store on his possession at the time of his death.

All witness statements were recorded. Media attention, payments & fear motivating witnesses to alter their story will not fly in court. Their statements were all recorded at the time of the incident.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 23, 2012)

Liability said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




The purpose of the post was to counter hyperbolic rhetoric which claimed facts not supported by either the autopsy or police photographs taken that night.  Nothing "dubious" intended and I think you've seen my posts long enough to know that.

I fully agree, none of the hyperbole or the evidence make the FACT of an attack go away.  *What isn't known at this point*, is actually who did the attacking - no physical evidence (released to date) and no witness testimony to date provide insight as to who started the "attack" and under what conditions.  The fact that Zimmerman was getting his ass kicked and shot Martin I think we can all agree are pretty well supported.  But the question remains as to who would be classified as the initial aggressor and what were the conditions of the initial aggression.

If Martin was the initial aggressor, than Zimmerman retains self defense immunity under the law.  However if Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, under Florida Law (776.041 User of force by an aggressor), it is possible that he could loose that immunity which would make him responsible for the unlawful killing of another person.


>>>>


----------



## earlycuyler (May 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



We were told in our CCW class that events leading up to the event are considered as well. Reading what you posted was exactly how the instructor said it would go. Even seizing the clothing we would have on at the time. If I was in traffic and shot a guy the bird, and he jumped out of the car and began to whip my ass and I glocked him, I would be in the same boat as Zimmerman.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



*Again, Martin WAS GOING HOME until some creep in a car started stalking him...he ran to try and elude Zimmerman*

He eluded, you heard the 911 call.
But then he realized he'd been dissed.....and came back.

*Yes, REPEATEDLY....as by Zimmerman's own words, Martin ran away....yet Zimmerman CONTINUED to hunt for him *

Yeah, following a guy twice in 5 minutes isn't going to get you a stalking conviction, despite your whining.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> The thing is this, George Zimmerman did everything wrong. He was operating outside of what is outlined in his neighborhood watch guidelines, he was operating outside the of what he would have been taught by who ever provided his required training to obtain a CCW in Florida. Did he set out to shoot some one that night ? no, probably not, but his not so smart actions that night led to a shooting. That will be pointed out in court, and those very things are what you are warned about (other then civil litigation) in a CCW class. The stupidity started on Zimmermans end of this, and Martins was the catalyst that blew it all up, but in the end, its on Zimmermans head.



*He was operating outside of what is outlined in his neighborhood watch guidelines,*

I didn't think he was on duty when he saw Trayvon.


----------



## earlycuyler (May 23, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is this, George Zimmerman did everything wrong. He was operating outside of what is outlined in his neighborhood watch guidelines, he was operating outside the of what he would have been taught by who ever provided his required training to obtain a CCW in Florida. Did he set out to shoot some one that night ? no, probably not, but his not so smart actions that night led to a shooting. That will be pointed out in court, and those very things are what you are warned about (other then civil litigation) in a CCW class. The stupidity started on Zimmermans end of this, and Martins was the catalyst that blew it all up, but in the end, its on Zimmermans head.
> ...



Maybe not. Didn't he say he was neighborhood watch on the 911 call?  Even so, his actions were contrary to what he would have been taught by a CCW instructor. Not saying he is the evil klan member the media attempted to make him out to be. Just a guy who made a very bad decision.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



*Didn't he say he was neighborhood watch on the 911 call? *

An off duty cop would say he was a cop. So what?


----------



## freedombecki (May 23, 2012)

Liability said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


I think you are right on, Liability.

This whole case is starting to take on the aura of the Duke LaCrosse fiasco in which 1 lying witness tried to smear the entire state of North Carolina. I'm so glad her lie was exposed. She should still be doing some serious time in a prison for butchering the truth and destroying lives, and at least two legal careers.


----------



## earlycuyler (May 23, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Zimmerman is not a cop, and has no police powers. It even says in the evidence that the whole thing could have been avoided had Zimmerman just waited for the police, or even introduced him self and asked the guy what he was doing. There is zero comparison here.


----------



## earlycuyler (May 23, 2012)

freedombecki said:


> I think you are right on, Liability.
> 
> This whole case is starting to take on the aura of the Duke LaCrosse fiasco in which 1 lying witness tried to smear the entire state of North Carolina. I'm so glad her lie was exposed. She should still be doing some serious time in a prison for butchering the truth and destroying lives, and at least two legal careers.



The DA to. I think she did go to prison, but not for that . This is a diffrent situation. Read the stuff worldwatcher posted.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



I know he wasn't a cop.
He also wasn't on "duty" for the neighborhood watch when he saw Trayvon.
It could have been avoided if Trayvon didn't get kicked out of school.
Again, so what?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 23, 2012)

manifold said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



I apologize for misreading your comment and ignorantly throwing pejoratives your way. 

Seems I had my head up my ass, instead.

Pardon me now, while I go and kick my cat a few times.

Metaphorically only, of course.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 23, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Any citizen can make a citizens arrest and doesnt need to have police powers to ask someone what they hell they are doing in their neighborhood.


----------



## Ravi (May 23, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > The thing is this, George Zimmerman did everything wrong. He was operating outside of what is outlined in his neighborhood watch guidelines, he was operating outside the of what he would have been taught by who ever provided his required training to obtain a CCW in Florida. Did he set out to shoot some one that night ? no, probably not, but his not so smart actions that night led to a shooting. That will be pointed out in court, and those very things are what you are warned about (other then civil litigation) in a CCW class. The stupidity started on Zimmermans end of this, and Martins was the catalyst that blew it all up, but in the end, its on Zimmermans head.
> ...


There is no on duty or off duty.


----------



## Ravi (May 23, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Right. It's Trayvon's fault that he's dead. Typical "conservative."


----------



## Ravi (May 23, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...


You can't make a citizen's arrest if no crime is being committed.


----------



## earlycuyler (May 23, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You forgot to say "Neah!". That last sentence was the stupidest thing you have said in this entire thread.


----------



## earlycuyler (May 23, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



I guess thats true. And if you hit the link in Worlwatchers post you will see where the cops say that Had Zimmerman done that, or stayed in his car and waited for the police the shooting would never have happened.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



He's on neighborhood watch 24/7?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 23, 2012)

Ravi said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Of course, Miss Duh.

And you also dont have to be a cop to ask someone what the hell they are doing in your neighborhood.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 23, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



I blame the school for kicking out the hoodlum just for having a baggie.
And I blame Trayvon for beating on a guy who had a gun.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 23, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Yeah and if Zimmerman had let Martin beat him to death the shooting never would have happened either.

Your observation makes no freaking sense.

What are us law-abiding citizens supposed to never get our of our vehicles lest we get jumped on by thugs like Martin? I guess we should all huddle in corners of our homes and hope the big bullies arent around so we can go piddle once in a while?

Zimmerman had EVERY RIGHT to ask Martin ANY damned question he wanted to and it would not justify Martin assaulting him with a sucker punch, the little bitch.


----------



## earlycuyler (May 23, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Oookay.


----------



## earlycuyler (May 23, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


----------



## Huey (May 23, 2012)

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## paperview (May 24, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...


Of course.  You think he punched a clock or something?

He was the NE Captain even.  






Twin Lakes at Retreat news letter -*Sept 2011*:
*George Zimmerman's name listed as contact & that Chief Lee       was coming to next meeting:* RTL Newsletter September 2011 FINAL

*Feb 2012* Twin Lakes at Retreat news letter - *George       Zimmerman identified as Captain: *RTL February 2012 Newsletter

    SFP -meeting with residents after shooting - Relaying Zimmerman *was       acting as NW at the time of the shooting:* Sanford PD Meeting

You will also note this:

*Sanford Police Department Neighborhood Watch Handbook
* 
   Quote:
 You will add your &#8220;eyes and ears&#8221; to
    those of the Police Department which
    cannot be everywhere, all the time, by
    keeping a watchful eye and open ear to
    what is happening in your
    neighborhood. You will extend their
    ability to provide security by reporting
    anything unusual or suspicious, 24 hours
    a day, seven days a week, so they can
    follow up on your leads.* What you will
      not do is get physically involved with
      any activity you report or
      apprehension of any suspicious
      persons. This is the job of the law
      enforcement agency.*


^^^^ Emphasis THEIRS.  
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 24, 2012)

paperview said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



That's awful! The captain getting beat up by a punk.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 24, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



Lol, hide behind ad hominem, coward, but you cant face the simple fact that my summary is EXACTLY WHAT YOU LIBTARDS ARE DEMANDING OF US.

If you cant use lethal force when a thug is pounding your brains out then you in effect HAVE NO RIGHT to self defense.

You fucking communists simply plan to control all the thugs.

I got news for you shit-head; it aint gonna work. The only reason the thugs are around is because the feds hold the rest of us back. If the government would get the hell out of our way we would put the godamned thugs where they belong.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 24, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Why is that awful? The captain eventually took care of bidness.


----------



## earlycuyler (May 24, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



You sound like a thug. An emotional thug.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 24, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



Go fuck yourself, commie.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 24, 2012)

KissMy said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > saveliberty said:
> ...




Are you referring to the mark on his ring finger?  That mark was hardly an indication of the alleged thrashing Martin was administering to Zimmerman.  Why don't you share with everyone EXACTLY what the autopsy report revealed about those marks?  We'll wait.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 24, 2012)

Liability said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...




Your convoluted logic would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.

First you save evidence is irrelevent, then you present your supposition and conjecture as to why anything that doesn't corroborate Zimmerman's story is irrelevent because EVIDENCE that does support his story is the ONLY evidence that should be considered viable.

So the Zimmerman Zombie's new spin is that evidence of a struggle PROVES Zimmerman correct....FORGET any evidence to indicate just HOW that struggle came to be, and to whom was the initial instigator.   

Like I said before, some creep stalks you while you're walking HOME, and you're not going to fight for you life when he comes up on you?


----------



## earlycuyler (May 24, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...



The one he invented.


----------



## earlycuyler (May 24, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



No, not that.


----------



## Liability (May 24, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



My logic is not the convoluted logic, dumb ass.  

I have NEVER said that evidence is irrelevant.

I did suggest that the thread you praised is not worth much.

Zimmerman had injuries consistent with HIS account.  IF the bullshit tripe being spewed by morons like you had any validity to it, there should not be such significant corroboration from the evidence.

There is also no evidence of "stalking."  It's a nice buzz word, but not a valid word choice in this discussion.

Your argument (like you) is still just an empty bit of fluff.  Call yourself and your contentions a "fail" and move on.

Your rancid, biased, mindless conjecture is worthless.


----------



## KissMy (May 24, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Like I said before, some creep stalks you while you're walking HOME, and you're not going to fight for you life when he comes up on you?



You are not allowed to strike someone because they are following you or asking you a question. You are also not allowed to continue to beat a subdued person screaming for help even if they hit you first.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 24, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Minor scrapes and cuts.....indicating a fight, but NOT the blood gushing GASH from from having your head bashed against hard ground for a minute that his lawyers initially indicated.  Nor was his nose "busted" severly.  In other words, the initial statements by the Zimmerman camp would indicate a far worse for wear Zimmerman than the police videos THAT NIGHT showed.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 24, 2012)

KissMy said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said before, some creep stalks you while you're walking HOME, and you're not going to fight for you life when he comes up on you?
> ...



Correct.

However you are allowed to strike someone if they assault you.

Right now there is no indication of who started the hostilities.




KissMy said:


> You are also not allowed to continue to beat a subdued person screaming for help even if they hit you first.



Actually you are if they attacked you and are proceeding with hostilities even through they are calling out.  Under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law an individual is allowed to respond with force when threatened or assaulted.

Right now there is no indication of who started the hostilities and there are conflicting witness accounts about just who (or is whom) was calling for help.



>>>>


----------



## Liability (May 24, 2012)

Try the experiment tackylib.  Have some guy who is bigger than you smack you a few times and throw you to the ground, while you are on your back on the concrete, accept having your head slammed a couple or a few times into the concrete.  Sure it might hurt and you might bleed, but as long as it's "minor" (as determined later on) I'm SURE you won't feel the slightest tiniest littlest eensy eensie bit of fear or panic or pain.  And OF COURSE, you wouldn't CONSIDER the possibility that you might be on the verge of having your skull fractured.

Oh, and of course, that busted nose you suffered, that won't add any pain or discomfort to you -- nor will it cloud your analysis of how grave the risk to your life may be or degree of risk you might be facing of serious  bodily harm.  After all, YOU have pre-concluded that the busted nose isn't "seriously" busted.

/sarcasm

You are full of shit.

Assuming that Martin did bust Zimmerman's nose and did get on top of Zimmerman's prone body and bash Zimmerman's head onto the concrete walkway, then Zimmerman could CERTAINLY (in the moment, as measured by his subjective assessment at that very instant) have considered himself to be facing the imminent risk of death or great bodily harm.

Your AFTER THE FACT analysis of the degree of relative injury he actually suffered is no substitute.

Yep.  You are simply full of shit.


----------



## KissMy (May 24, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



A subdued person screaming for help is not proceeding with hostilities. Zimmerman only fired to save his life after screaming for help 20 times.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 24, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Jim Bowie is a moron of whom I have on IA.

YOU, Cecilie, have already had your dopey ass handed to you by me on more than one occasion....that's why you keep joining these maudlin slams by others EVEN THOUGH you swore that I was not worth responding to or commenting on.  

And once again, NO ONE HAS STATED WHAT YOU ASSERT HERE....you're just doing what all willfully ignorant folk do....bullhorn your own opinion, supposition and conjecture as fact.  To put it in terms that you'll comprehend, Cecilie, you're a fucking liar....and a piss poor one at that unless you can provide QUOTES where I or anyone else has asserted EXACTLY what you state here.  We'll wait.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 24, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> The bottom line, after all these months is that George Zimmerman is not black.  He should have permitted the black boy to beat him to death to prove he wasn't a racist.




Bottom line: after all these months, Zimmerman STILL cannot explain why he pursued Martin AFTER he acknowledged that it wasn't necessary.....EXPECIALLY when he STATED that Martin was "running away".

When I was a kid, if someone picked a fight and then bitched when his target fought back, he was labled a wussy.  But in Zimmerman's case, you shoot the guy and tell everyone you were the innocent victim, because DEAD MEN TELL NO TALES!  

Carry on, my Zimmerman Zombie.


----------



## MuadDib (May 24, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



I don't know the history between you two, but as a former firefighter/paramedic and EMT instructor myself, who worked firetrucks, ambulances, and helicopter medivac, search and rescue and cave and high angle rescue, I may be somewhat qualified to say that Cecilie is correct. If the patient refuses treatment or transport, you can't treat or transport unless the patient goes unconscious. Then applied consent kicks in.


----------



## earlycuyler (May 24, 2012)

Liability said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



He was not stalking the kid. And I dont think a confrontation was on his mind at all. He was not a beered up red neck out looking for a colored folk to airhole either, BUT, his actions put him in the spot that he had to shoot himself out of. Its even in the evidence that the shooting was avoidable by Zimmerman had he just waited for the police. That is why Zimmerman was charged. There is no law that protects what he did. First rule of concealed carry, be where the trouble is not.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 24, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



You're projecting again, Toddles....YOU wanted a definition, and I gave it to you with HIGHLIGHTS THAT ARE APROPO TO THE ZOMMERMAN/MARTIN CASE.  TFB if you don't like it.

Zimmerman sees a black guy at night, and IMMEDIATELY CALLS 911 DESCRIBING SOME DRUG OUT THUG UP TO NO GOOD (although there is NO evidence to support his description).....so Zimmerman, who is ARMED, starts following the guy.  When he's spotted by Martin, who then runs away, Zimmerman pursues him.  According to the girlfriend, Martin had thought he lost the creep who was following him at least once.

Anyway you slice it, Zimmerman was the instigator, and had he stayed his paunchy ass in the car, Martin would still be alive.  Deal with it.

But like I said, this may not even get to trial if the judge goes for the "Stand Your Ground" defense....which is interesting because no one seems to think that Martin had the right to stand his ground against a creepy stranger that night.

And the band plays on.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 24, 2012)

Liability said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



See above responses.  Unless you've got something other than schoolyard taunts, bunky....I'm done humiliating you.


----------



## MuadDib (May 24, 2012)

I'll post these once again for your reading enjoyment.

George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting | Reuters

Evidence that Trayvon Martin Doubled Back


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 24, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



*Zimmerman sees a black guy at night, and IMMEDIATELY CALLS 911 DESCRIBING SOME DRUG OUT THUG UP TO NO GOOD *

Pretty good call, considering his school suspension.......and autopsy blood test.

*had he stayed his paunchy ass in the car, Martin would still be alive.  Deal with it.*

Yup. And if Trayvon had continued running home after he evaded Zimmermann's paunchy ass, Martin would still be alive. Instead, he returned and began beating on Martin's paunchy ass. 
Now Trayvon's punk ass is dead. Deal with it.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 24, 2012)

KissMy said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said before, some creep stalks you while you're walking HOME, and you're not going to fight for you life when he comes up on you?
> ...



Just as you're not allowed to shoot and kill someone who asks "why are you following me"...nor are you allowed to stalk and confront someone with your gun at night who is IN THEIR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL simply because they fit your preconceived idea of a criminal in the act.  That's what the police are for,  of whom were notified, given directions and were on their way.

Oh wait!  I forgot....this is Florida, and Stand Your Ground does allow the latter!  How silly of me! 

Of course, no one asks if Martin had the right to stand his ground....but then again, dead men tell no tales.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 24, 2012)

Liability said:


> Try the experiment tackylib.  Have some guy who is bigger than you smack you a few times and throw you to the ground, while you are on your back on the concrete, accept having your head slammed a couple or a few times into the concrete.  Sure it might hurt and you might bleed, but as long as it's "minor" (as determined later on) I'm SURE you won't feel the slightest tiniest littlest eensy eensie bit of fear or panic or pain.  And OF COURSE, you wouldn't CONSIDER the possibility that you might be on the verge of having your skull fractured.
> 
> Oh, and of course, that busted nose you suffered, that won't add any pain or discomfort to you -- nor will it cloud your analysis of how grave the risk to your life may be or degree of risk you might be facing of serious  bodily harm.  After all, YOU have pre-concluded that the busted nose isn't "seriously" busted.
> 
> ...



How many times do I have to school you Zimmerman Zombies?  No one gives a damn about your silly assed hypothetical scenarios......the FACTS of this case....ALL the FACTS are what's being discussed.  So spare us all this constant parroting of "could haves, might of, should be, blathering.

The cops initially determined in the latest released report that had Zimmerman kept his dopey ass in the car, none of this would have gotten out of hand.  Zimmerman had already given location to the cops, was told they were on their way and he didn't have to keep following Martin.  Zimmerman said, "okay".....but when asked his home address, Zimmerman starts babbling some BS about how he doesn't know where Martin is and doesn't want to give out his location!   Then suddenly he's all confused as to where to meet the cops.  Really?  Mr. self appointed Neighborhood Watch guy doesn't know his own neighborhood?  Hell, Martin did....he was WALKING HOME.

Keep lumbering along, my little Zimmerman Zombie....unless you've got something of worth other than schoolyard taunts, and bogus scenarios, I'll just sit back and watch you make a fool of yourself.


----------



## KissMy (May 24, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Are you saying Martin was standing his ground when he was on top of the subdued Zimmerman who was begging for his life no less than 20 times as Martin continued to beat him???

Why was Martin in this neighborhood in the first place. Why did Martin obtain a lighter from the 7-11 that night.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 24, 2012)

MuadDib said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



If the patient is beaten within an inch of their life and has sustained serious, possibly life threatening injuries, then they go to the hospital whether they want to or not.  That's the law in any state, unless the EMT and the cops want their asses sued off should said patient die due to said injuries.

Zimmerman's initial story was far more terrible than his injuries indicate.  And then there's the question as to why he would need to go to his family doctor the next day if he was alright enough to refuse hospitalization (no matter how brief).

Zimmerman's stories and actions just don't add up.


----------



## MuadDib (May 24, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



No it's not the law in any state. You have the right to refuse treatment or the patient can charge you with assault and battery.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 24, 2012)

KissMy said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



(1) Martin was with Dad, in a 5 block radius or less from Dad's girlfriends house, of whom which he visited.  HIS I.D., which the local cops had, told that he was not from out of town or state.

(2)  What are you insinuating regarding the lighter?

(3)  DO YOUR FUCKING HOMEWORK AND GET UP TO SPEED AS TO THE DETAILS OF THIS CASE...IT'S BEEN IN THE NEWS FOR NEARLY A MONTH NOW.  I won't do your homework for you again.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 24, 2012)

MuadDib said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > MuadDib said:
> ...



from *Refusal of Medical Aid by Benjamin Katz MD*
ems.aanet.org/info/RMA.ppt


Capacity
Presumptive determination of competence
If a patient refuses and evidence exists indicating an impairment of the patient&#8217;s capacities, it is appropriate to conclude the patient may be found incompetent in a court of law.
Impairment may be determined by;
Patients own actions
Information from caregivers and/or relatives


Determining comprehension&#8220;Sliding Scale&#8221; standard
The more serious the risk posed by the patient&#8217;s decision the more stringent the standard of comprehension (capacity) required.
Refusal of EMS transport to hospital typically considered &#8220;high risk&#8221;.


*2007 EMT Basic Protocols*

http://www.naems.org/vertical/sites...ds/{5C009415-C07D-4048-8431-FB2FA0C74229}.PDF

5. The patient has rights. You can only consider transporting the patient against his/her
will if you can determine that the patient is unable to make an informed decision, such
as a minor whose parent or guardian is not present or a person who cannot understand
why treatment is necessary or the risks of not accepting treatment. Such factors as
mental illness, serious injury or illness, drugs and alcohol are examples of factors
which could impair a person's ability to understand the nature and consequences of
accepting or rejecting medical help. Have the police at the scene assist you.


----------



## KissMy (May 24, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> If the patient is beaten within an inch of their life and has sustained serious, possibly life threatening injuries, then they go to the hospital whether they want to or not.  That's the law in any state, unless the EMT and the cops want their asses sued off should said patient die due to said injuries.
> 
> Zimmerman's initial story was far more terrible than his injuries indicate.  And then there's the question as to why he would need to go to his family doctor the next day if he was alright enough to refuse hospitalization (no matter how brief).
> 
> Zimmerman's stories and actions just don't add up.



How long or how many times must your head be pounded against the concrete by an irrational person who has not let up as you scream for your life 20 times before you pull your gun???

When is it you know that the irrational person who has failed to respond to reason will poke your eye out or slam your head hard enough to where you will not be able to use your gun???

Real life does not involve a Hollywood make-up artist who makes nothing look like a shocking injury. I gurantee those injuries hurt Zimmerman a whole lot more than you are willing to admit. They hurt him for worse than they hurt you by looking at them.

I double dare you to let someone pound your head on the concrete one time hard enough to leave one of those many marks on the back of Zimmermans head.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 25, 2012)

MuadDib said:


> I'll post these once again for your reading enjoyment.
> 
> George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting | Reuters
> 
> Evidence that Trayvon Martin Doubled Back




What you need to do is read a transcript of the un-edited 911 tape, and then compare it to the Wagist version of the time table and what's being said.

the Wagist leaves out a few things that when re-instated does NOT support his theory.


----------



## KissMy (May 25, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



I can't help it if you are to stupid to read the police report & not listen to Al Sharpton.

Tracy Martin sent his son Trayvon Martin to Juvenile Detention Officer Brandy Green's care *"due to having been suspended for 10 days from his high school in Miami Gardens for possession of cannabis."* quoted from Tracy Martin in the police report.

Trayvon Martin had been at the Juvenile Detention Officer's address in this neighborhood for 7 days prior to the event of his death. The police report states that Trayvon had a lighter from the 7-11 store on his possession at the time of his death.  So in the middle of being disciplined for his drugs at school Trayvon gets a lighter to do what???  Trayvon had THC drugs in his blood & urine at the event of his death.

Are you sure Trayvon did not snap from being scolded by his father & a Juvenile Detention Officer for 7 days straight while being separated from his girlfriend & other friends at his school & neighborhood???  Do you think that his Father & juvenile detention officer Brandy Green were going to praise him for smoking a joint & getting detained by police in the community while serving detention???  No - Martin was extremely pissed that police were on the way. He knew his ass was grass once his Father & Brandy Green found out.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 25, 2012)

KissMy said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > If the patient is beaten within an inch of their life and has sustained serious, possibly life threatening injuries, then they go to the hospital whether they want to or not.  That's the law in any state, unless the EMT and the cops want their asses sued off should said patient die due to said injuries.
> ...



Are you drunk or 12 years old?  Deal with the evidence and stop trying to create a scenario that makes Zimmerman's story seem irrefutable on all levels.  ALL the evidence just won't do that, bunky...deal with it.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 25, 2012)

KissMy said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



So Zimmerman stalked, confronted and killed Martin because he had a minor JD record for marijuana, and was on the prowl that night to score more marijuana?

Zimmerman knew this because he's psychic.

And although NO drugs was found on Martin, traces of THC were found in his bloodstream indicating that he (GASP!) must have smoked a joint within a 24 hour period prior to the homicide.

Again, Zimmerman must have been psychic.

Aand although the store video tape shows Martin NOT acting incoherent or disoriented or "weird", Zimmerman just knew he was and was up to no good.

Again, Zimmerman must have been psychic.



Bottom line: You and Zimmerman's story does not bare up to scrutiny.  And the newspapers told me that, bunky.....not Al Sharpton.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 25, 2012)

KissMy said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...




Kid lived in the area and was visiting his Dad's fiance, you willfully ignorant fool!  Try getting up to speed by getting your head out of Limbaugh's ass.

Sorry to inform you, but walking at night while being black is not grounds for being stalked and shot.


----------



## KissMy (May 25, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Bullshit! - Martin was acting wierd on the 7-11 video. After his transaction was complete he headed one way & then reversed. He went back & picked up something from the floor & then went back again to the drink refrigerators. Then he turned back around & went the other way. He also never took off his hood while in the store. But his girlfriend said he put on his hoodie & put up his hood after seeing Zimmerman. He was out in the cold rain with no hoodie on & taking 4 times longer than he should have to walk back from the 7-11. But inside he wears the hoodie hood up.  Trayvon was defiantly acting weird.


----------



## idb (May 25, 2012)

Just so I get this straight...if Martin had had a gun, and simply shot Zimmerman, then he would have been allowed to go free under the Stand Your Ground law and no more would have been said about it.
But, if he doesn't have a gun, and beats up on Zimmerman he is the master of his own fate, deserves to be shot and suffer criticism for his actions.

Is that right?


----------



## Ravi (May 25, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


So you're a vigilante. That explains a lot.


----------



## Ravi (May 25, 2012)

Liability said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


And Martin has injuries consistent with his account, or the only account we have of his, through his girlfriend. He said some creepy guy was following him and the last words the girlfriend heard from Martin was "get off, get off." 

Creepy guy + get of get off + dead of gunshot wound.


----------



## Ravi (May 25, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...


The paramedics obviously didn't think Zimmerman had anything but minor cuts otherwise they would have provided transport to the hospital. It's pretty dicey for them in these cases because they can be sued either way.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 25, 2012)

Martin was shot while on top of Zimmerman and beating Zimmerman. Now he's dead and with good reason, deal with it.


----------



## Liability (May 25, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Done?  Dimwit, you haven't started because you don't have the tools for the job.  My logic is not the convoluted logic -- not JUST because I say so any more than it _was_ allegedly the convoluted logic on *your* baseless, stupid, sub-moron say so.  Damn.  That wasn't hard.

You've got nothing.  It shows.

And you are such a pindick little flea brain fly fucker, you can't even handle the quote function.

The evidence that was "pointed to" wasn't "pointed to by you" and evidence CAN be irrelevant to a discussion or a particular point.  That does not make it generally irrelevant, you shit for brain mofo.  Learn how to use the quote function rather than trying to restate what others have said or not said.  Among your many vast defects, an accurate reporter you aint.

You are reduced to repeating your previously refuted blather, you embarrassment to the human race, because you remain a void.

Do you know why everybody tends to laugh AT you?  It's because for all your pompous arrogance, you usually expose yourself as the simpleton you are quite quickly.  It is almost impossible to take any of your bullshit seriously.

Truth!


----------



## Liability (May 25, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Martin doesn't have an account.  He's dead.   And his girlfriend wasn't there, so her "account" of whatever she imagines might have been Martin's account is meaningless.  And no.  The physical evidence does not really support the prosecution's "theory of the case."  

We also don't KNOW what his last words were.  We have AN account of his alleged last words from a not particularly reliable source.  

Once again, therefore, it should be repeated:  it is pretty silly to declare Zimmerman's guilt oR probable guilt when so much of what actually happened is simply not known, generally.  And what is known does seem to make the prosecutor's case a pretty weak one -- at least so far.


----------



## Inthemiddle (May 25, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Weren't you just complaining about ad hominems?


----------



## Inthemiddle (May 25, 2012)

Liability said:


> Zimmerman had injuries consistent with HIS account.  IF the bullshit tripe being spewed by morons like you had any validity to it, there should not be such significant corroboration from the evidence.



This is the problem, and that you claim to be a lawyer and don't get this is pathetic.....Zimmerman's injuries are "consistent" with his story just as much as they are consistent with him being the aggressor.


----------



## Inthemiddle (May 25, 2012)

KissMy said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Like I said before, some creep stalks you while you're walking HOME, and you're not going to fight for you life when he comes up on you?
> ...



But you're allowed to physically detain someone who refuses to answer your questions, and to shoot dead a person who defends their self when you do so, even if it's not necessary to kill them in order to "save" yourself.


----------



## Inthemiddle (May 25, 2012)

Liability said:


> Try the experiment tackylib.  Have some guy who is bigger than you smack you a few times and throw you to the ground, while you are on your back on the concrete, accept having your head slammed a couple or a few times into the concrete.



How about you try that, and come back and tell us how successful you are at being able to shout for help at the top of your lungs as Zimmerman claims he did, as heard on the 911 tapes.  Also tell us how successful you are at pulling out a gun that is tucked into your waist, right where an assailant who is on top of you would be sitting.  Please, oh please, conduct this experiment and come back to us, so that you can tell us for yourself just how full of shit you are.


----------



## KissMy (May 25, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Oh, excuse me, I did not know you were there.  The prosecution would like to hear about how you saw GZ detaining TM.  They would also be interested in how gingerly TM was tapping GZ's head onto the concrete.  IDIOT!!!!!!!


----------



## Liability (May 25, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman had injuries consistent with HIS account.  IF the bullshit tripe being spewed by morons like you had any validity to it, there should not be such significant corroboration from the evidence.
> ...



Wrong, inthemuddle.  Once again, you prove yourself to be just plain stupid.

Zimmerman's injuries are consistent with HIS account, but they are NOT consistent with him being the alleged aggressor.  And there is no evidence that he was the aggressor, either, you imbecile.

It's amazing that a person of your intellectual capacity can even swallow.


----------



## Liability (May 25, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Try the experiment tackylib.  Have some guy who is bigger than you smack you a few times and throw you to the ground, while you are on your back on the concrete, accept having your head slammed a couple or a few times into the concrete.
> ...



First off, asshole, I have no reason to try any such thing, you fuckwit.

Secondly, if one is in the middle of a traumatizing event, adrenaline is a powerful tool for human reaction. If I am not being strangled, you bet you idiot ass I could yell out loudly for help if I thought my life was in danger.  What kind of drooling moron ARE you, exactly?

But more importantly, douche, don't imagine that your sophistry succeeded.  You are far too clumsy at it.  You evaded nothing.  We all see that you are simply too much of a puss to address the actual point.

And if I have a gun on me while I'm having my noggin being dribbled, you can also bet your entirely worthless carcass that I would manage to get to it.  

There are truly no words to describe the miniscule nature of your brain power, you pathetic maggot.


----------



## Ravi (May 25, 2012)

Liability said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Talk about a meltdown.

Zimmerman's injuries, such as they were, were consistent with him having been in a fight recently.

That is all.


----------



## Ariux (May 25, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> How about you try that, and come back and tell us how successful you are at being able to shout for help at the top of your lungs as Zimmerman claims he did, as heard on the 911 tapes.  Also tell us how successful you are at pulling out a gun that is tucked into your waist, right where an assailant who is on top of you would be sitting.  Please, oh please, conduct this experiment and come back to us, so that you can tell us for yourself just how full of shit you are.



Trayvon was bigger than Zimmerman, and all the physical evidence shows that Trayvon was doing all the pounding and Zimmerman doing all the receiving, yet you imply that you don't believe it was Zimmerman doing the squealing.   You are so f-ing incredibly stupid.

As for the experiment you propose, let's you and I do it.  I'll lay down and you get on top of  me and we'll see if you can prevent me from blowing a hole in your chest, using a gun from my waistband.

How the fuck is it that you haven't killed yourself already, through incredible stupidity?  Are you kept in a rubber room?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 25, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



My God, you're pontificating about this, and you haven't even bothered to listen to Zimmerman's police call (which was NOT to 911)?  What could you POSSIBLY think you have to say that's of any value to anyone?


----------



## candycorn (May 25, 2012)

Liability said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Sure there is evidence; he got out of his car against police advice.  That can be seen as aggression right there.  

Where I come down in the case is that the unarmed guy is dead, the armed guy was in no danger and was only in perceived danger because he put himself into perceived danger against the advice of the police.


----------



## Liability (May 25, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...



*Wrong*.  

The comment made by the police dispatcher was that Zimmerman didn't "HAVE to."  That doesn't mean he wasn't *permitted* to. He WAS permitted to .  Welcome to America.  And no, what Zimmerman did (as far as we know) cannot validly or logically be seen as "aggression."  That's ridiculous on its face.

And, no.  The guy who survived didn't "put himself" into danger.  He apparently was behaving in a perfectly legal fashion when the dead guy took exception to it.  Ok.  Take exception, but keep your hands to yourself.  It APPEARS that the dead guy didn't.  His mistake.  That doesn't make the survivor a criminal.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 25, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...



*the armed guy was in no danger *

You're right, because getting your head bashed into concrete isn't dangerous.
Happens to you all the time, and you're okay.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 25, 2012)

Liability said:


> And, no.  The guy who survived didn't "put himself" into danger.  He apparently was behaving in a perfectly legal fashion when the dead guy took exception to it.  Ok.  Take exception, but keep your hands to yourself.  It APPEARS that the dead guy didn't.  His mistake.  That doesn't make the survivor a criminal.




Liability,

I know you left yourself an out with "APPEARS" and "apparently", but have you seen any evidence of actually who started the hostilities?



>>>>


----------



## Liability (May 25, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > And, no.  The guy who survived didn't "put himself" into danger.  He apparently was behaving in a perfectly legal fashion when the dead guy took exception to it.  Ok.  Take exception, but keep your hands to yourself.  It APPEARS that the dead guy didn't.  His mistake.  That doesn't make the survivor a criminal.
> ...



I did leave myself outs because (like the rest of "us") I have not seen all of the evidence.  This is why my watchword has been "wait."

I *am* willing to speculate, to a minor extent, though, based on what is known so far:

  The only mark on Trayvon Martin (other than the bullet wound, sadly enough) is a single scrape on one knuckle.  It would thus appear that Trayvon must not have been on the receiving end of any fight.  The same cannot be said of Zimmerman's physical condition.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 25, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



And you only applaud the physical kind, is that it?


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 25, 2012)

Liability said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Actually the autopsy report says the small abrasion was on the left ring finger, not the knuckle.  

But I agree, we have seen for months that Martin was "bashing Zimmerman's face in" and one report (since retracted) that it was "MMA" style.  Seems odd though that someone pounding in the face of another with repeated blows would have: (a) no damage to their knuckles, and (b) the recipient would have very little damage to their face.  What damage there was being consistent with a single good shot to the face.



>>>>


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 25, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



What's in the evidence is that some dipshit cop with 20/20 hindsight felt the need to state a blindingly obvious - and ultimately meaningless - tautology to put himself on the correct, PC side of the debate so the screeching, slavering racist wolves out there don't bite him in the ass.  "If he'd just not been there, nothing would have happened."  Well, so what?  What the fuck difference does that make?  If Martin hadn't been there, nothing would have happened.  If Martin hadn't gone to the store, or had gone to stay with someone else during his suspension, or Zimmerman had bought a house in a different neighborhood, if, if, if . . . none of this would have happened.  But since none of those things were criminal acts, or even BAD acts in and of themselves - including Zimmerman getting out of his truck to see where Martin had gone - talking about how they could have been made differently is an empty waste of time and breath, serving no purpose whatsoever except to cover the speaker's ass when the race-baiters and ignoramuses come hunting for heads.


----------



## Liability (May 25, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I couldn't give a shit where on Martin's finger the one abrasion was.  The *lack* of other signs of injury STILL suggest that HE was not the one on the receiving end of any assault.  

The various signs of injury on Zimmerman suggest that HE had taken some kind of a beating.  Minor scrapes on face, forehead, nose.   BUT, the more significant signs of injury on the back of his head.  They suggest that maybe he did have his cracked against the sidewalk -- more than once.  AND, lest we forget, the busted nose.  Yeah.  It does add up to a pretty convincing showing that HE, not Trayvon, took the beating.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 25, 2012)

idb said:


> Just so I get this straight...if Martin had had a gun, and simply shot Zimmerman, then he would have been allowed to go free under the Stand Your Ground law and no more would have been said about it.
> But, if he doesn't have a gun, and beats up on Zimmerman he is the master of his own fate, deserves to be shot and suffer criticism for his actions.
> 
> Is that right?



He'd be where Zimmerman is now, trying to make a case for self-defense out of the existing evidence.  And likely having a worse time of it.


----------



## Ariux (May 25, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Sure there is evidence; he got out of his car against police advice.  That can be seen as aggression right there.



That advice was for his own safety, shit-for-brains liberal.



> Where I come down in the case is that the unarmed guy is dead, the armed guy was in no danger and was only in perceived danger because he put himself into perceived danger against the advice of the police.



Being on the ground with thug pounding your face is only a perceived danger?  Even though you have a ball of shit in your skull for brains, it's a small ball of shit.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 25, 2012)

candycorn said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...



The police did not advise him not to get out of the car, so spare us the misinformation.  Either you don't know what you're talking about, or you're a liar.  Whichever, you have nothing to say that anyone needs to hear.

I sincerely doubt you know jack OR shit about how the law works "where you come from", so you can spare us THAT, too.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 25, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



ACTUALLY, it DOES say the knuckle.


----------



## KissMy (May 25, 2012)

No jury is going to say Zimmermans head could have taken a few more hits before he had to use his weapon to defend his life from a crazed drug adict who would not stop trying to kill a subdued person screaming for his life.

These videos below shows a couple dudes heads hit concrete just 1 time & their head is not even bleading. But after that 1 hit he was unable to pull a weapon to defend themselves.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIPWJMKZWKo&feature=related"]Head hits concrete[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RLlcrMc2f0"]Head hits concrete seizure[/ame]


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 25, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




State v. Zimmerman: Evidence released by prosecutor

PDF Page 127 begins the Medical Examiners Report which ends on Page 130.

"Other Injuries: There is a 1/4 x 1/8 small abrasion on the left fourth finger."

I see no mention of any other description of injuries.



>>>>


----------



## percysunshine (May 25, 2012)

I hope nobody inspects my body this carefully after I die.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 25, 2012)

KissMy said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



She did? Could you produce the transcript where she said so? And if so, wouldn't that have been AFTER HE LEFT THE WELL LIT CONVENIENCE STORE TO GO OUTSIDE IN THE NIGHT WHEN IT WAS RAINING OFF AND ON?  I mean, he would have to take down the hood to see what the hell was going on WITH SOME CREEP FOLLOWING HIM, wouldn't he (peripheral vision and all)?  And of course it took him longer to walk home....as he stopped to get a drink and junk food, and was trying to elude some creep who was following him.  Again  YOU'RE GRASPING AT STRAWS THAT ARE NOT THERE IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY ZIMMERMAN ON ALL COUNTS.  Carry on, my Zimmerman zombie.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 25, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Martin was shot while on top of Zimmerman and beating Zimmerman. Now he's dead and with good reason, deal with it.



And when you have the foresnic report sighting the ballistics that back up EXACTLY when you say here, then we won't view your assertion as just another Zimmerman Zombie with a Bigfoot wishful thinking.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 25, 2012)

Liability said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Lack of damage to the hands though does and the police pictures from that night indicate that Martin was not pummeling the face "MMA" style as previously reported.




Liability said:


> The various signs of injury on Zimmerman suggest that HE had taken some kind of a beating.  Minor scrapes on face, forehead, nose.   BUT, the more significant signs of injury on the back of his head.  They suggest that maybe he did have his cracked against the sidewalk -- more than once.  AND, lest we forget, the busted nose.  Yeah.  It does add up to a pretty convincing showing that HE, not Trayvon, took the beating.




Of course Zimmerman took the worst of the beating, never said he didn't.

The fundamental question that the Judge will address in the Stand Your Ground Hearing, and which the Jury will first have to decide it "Who started the hostilities?"  If at either of those two stages the decision is "Martin", then Zimmerman's self defense claim is accepted.  However if he is viewed as the aggressor and initiator of the hostilities - then that is a different ball game.

While it would still be understandable for Zimmerman to resort to using the firearm to kill the person - that no longer means he has automatic immunity for his actions that precipitated the event.


For example.  The state may try to show that Zimmerman initiated hostilities with a forcible felony (assault + unlawful detention or assault with a firearm by threatening Martin with his gun).  On the other hand the state could try to show that as the aggressor Zimmerman had achieved separation between himself and Martin.  (Zimmerman and Martin were supposedly in close contact when the shot was fired, yet there is was no GSR found on laboratory examination of Zimmerman's jacket and shirt - which implies and extended arm, not one jammed between two struggling bodies.)


>>>>


----------



## taichiliberal (May 25, 2012)

Liability said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



See folks, once you take these Zimmerman Zombies to task, they just have a meltdown and start babbling their wishful thinking, opinions, supposition and conjecture as fact.  And note how Liability has IGNORED THE FACT that I provided a definition that he cannot dispute, and instead just keeps stamping his widdle feet while screaming schoolyard diatribes about me personally.

As the chronology of the posts shows, Liability cannot logically or factually defend his assertions when ALL THE FACTS of the case are scrutinized.  So instead, he just parrots his drivel ad nauseum in various forms.  Someone needs to explain to Liability that it's one thing to make a claim, but it's a whole other smoke to PROVE OR SUBSTANTIATE a claim with ALL THE FACTS pertaining to that claim.

Liability fails to do so, and attempts to cover his folly with the nonsense you read here.  And that is the truth!  So unless he's going to debate like a rational adult, I leave Liability to spew his predictable collection of accusations, self aggrandizing bravado, lies and repetitions.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 25, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > How about you try that, and come back and tell us how successful you are at being able to shout for help at the top of your lungs as Zimmerman claims he did, as heard on the 911 tapes.  Also tell us how successful you are at pulling out a gun that is tucked into your waist, right where an assailant who is on top of you would be sitting.  Please, oh please, conduct this experiment and come back to us, so that you can tell us for yourself just how full of shit you are.
> ...



Like it or not, you Zimmerman zombies were all a flutter over the initial tale told by Zimmerman's lawyers that this superior athelete Martin was beating Zimmerman to death, and Zimmerman managed to shoot him in self defense.

So why are there not any ballistics of Martin being shot while on top of Zimmerman?   There would be blood splatter on Zimmerman, wouldn't you think?

But hey, I don't expect a pointy hood wearing cretin like YOU to analyze that carefully what YOU propose.  Carry on.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 26, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Ahhh, the Zimmerman Zombie reveals his true nature.  Martin is a "punk" because he was walking home IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE HE LIVES WITH HIS DAD, VISITING A NEARBY HOUSE OF HIS DAD'S GIRLFRIEND.  Martin is a "punk" because some armed wanna be Neighborhood Watch clown with a history of temper related run in's with the cops and numerous FALSE ALARM calls to 911 about suspicious black guys starts tailing him at night first in a car, and then on foot.  Martin is a "punk" for fighting for his life when Zimmerman confronts him.  And Martin is a "punk" for being a dead man who cannot tell his side of the story, but the evidence does not bode well for Zimmerman as being wholly innocent victim.

Seems like YOU are the "punk", Toddles.  And I don't have to waste anymore time reading parroted failed BS by punks.  You're done.


----------



## Ravi (May 26, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


No, it doesn't. It says below the knuckle.

And the police told Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that" which to most logical people would mean stop doing it.


----------



## Liability (May 26, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Boy Scout:  Let me help you with that bag, it looks heavy.

Little Old Lady:  Oh, dear boy.   You're so kind.  But you don't have to do that.

Boy Scout:  [Does it anyway.]


----------



## Ariux (May 26, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> So why are there not any ballistics of Martin being shot while on top of Zimmerman?   There would be blood splatter on Zimmerman, wouldn't you think?
> 
> But hey, I don't expect a pointy hood wearing cretin like YOU to analyze that carefully what YOU propose.  Carry on.



Shithead, try to keep up with the news, the autopsy report about the shooting is consistent with Zimmerman's story.  And, why are you concerned about imaginary pointy hoods and not the real hood warn by Trayvon?   Go evolve a brain.


----------



## paperview (May 26, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Oh Jesus Christ.

What a colossally stupid comparison to make to the situation of a police department telling you "we don't need you to do that."


----------



## Liability (May 26, 2012)

paperview said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




The point, as even a dimwit like you (if you were capable of being honest) is that Ravi had made a claim.  There are absolutely examples where saying "you don't have to" or "you don't need to do that" does NOT mean (contrary to her contention) that you are being told to stop.

In the Zimmerman case, the dispatcher had no authority to tell a citizen not to keep an eye on a suspect.  And Zimmerman had no obligation to take the advice as any kind of a directive.  

Ravi was wrong.  As are you.

But you sit tight.  Somebody will be by in a while with those  tissues you need.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 26, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



*Ahhh, the Zimmerman Zombie reveals his true nature. Martin is a "punk" because he was walking home IN A NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE HE LIVES WITH HIS DAD, *

No, Trayvon is a punk because instead of running home, he came back and started beating on Zimmermann. Now he's a dead punk.

*Martin is a "punk" for fighting for his life when Zimmerman confronts him.  *

Trayvon had to fight for his life when Zimmermann asked him what he was doing? 

* And I don't have to waste anymore time reading parroted failed BS by punks.*

Run away, maybe you'll survive.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 26, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> I hope nobody inspects my body this carefully after I die.



ol, you and me too

at least I wont have to essplain anything since I'll be dead anyway


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 26, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> (Zimmerman and Martin were supposedly in close contact when the shot was fired, yet there is was no GSR found on laboratory examination of Zimmerman's jacket and shirt - which implies and extended arm, not one jammed between two struggling bodies.)
> >>>>



Or maybe a gun that got entangled inside Martins outer grament perhaps, so all the GSR was there?


----------



## KissMy (May 26, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > (Zimmerman and Martin were supposedly in close contact when the shot was fired, yet there is was no GSR found on laboratory examination of Zimmerman's jacket and shirt - which implies and extended arm, not one jammed between two struggling bodies.)
> ...



The crazy lady witness who saw the struggle said one was on top of the other when the shot was fired. So close in fact that she could not tell who was on top. She also saw no flash indicating the gun was covered. Martin had a hoodie on over a sweat shirt. Both thick garments likely trapped all the GSR.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 26, 2012)

Ariux said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > So why are there not any ballistics of Martin being shot while on top of Zimmerman?   There would be blood splatter on Zimmerman, wouldn't you think?
> ...




1.  First of all "Zimmerman's story" hasn't been released yet.  His statements to police and his video reenactment from the next day were not part of the evidence that was released and both the prosecution and the defense are moving to keep them sealed prior to the SYG hearing and (if it goes that far) the trial before the jury.

2.  Secondly, if what we "hear" in the media is consistent with the story that has been withheld then there are a couple of glaring holes that will have to be explained.

a.  Lack of damage to Martin's hands if the story is that Martin was raining blows on his face (besides one small abrasion on a finger with no knuckle damage).  Yet the autopsy shows only a small abrasion on one finger.

b.  The bullet path resulting in a straight shot through the chest left of center of the sternum through the heart.  If Martin was on top of Zimmerman at the time of the shot, it would be unnatural to bring the gun between them.  An entrance to the side would have been more natural.  If Martin was on top of Zimmerman, then Zimmerman was in a horizontal place, Martin was in a vertical plane - shooting upward implies that a bullet path from lower to higher in Martin's body would be expected.

c.  Now, Martin is supposed to be on top of Zimmerman, the gun fired between them (required for the straight chest shot).  However, forensic analysis of Zimmerman's clothes show no GSR (exempt for one particle of lead chemically identified on the BACK of Zimmerman high right sleeve).  If the bodies were that close, and with Zimmerman were on the bottom - then blowback and gravity would have worked to have GSR on Zimmerman's cloths.  Lack of GSR on Zimmerman's cloths is more indicative of a straight arm shot where the arm is extended away from the body.

d.  FInally, and I don't know how this fits into the events, evidence shows that Martin was wearing a shirt under the hoodie - Zimmerman's DNA was found on the shirt **UNDER** the hoodie.  How did it get there.​


Forensic Rerpots and Autopsy -->> State v. Zimmerman: Evidence released by prosecutor


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 26, 2012)

KissMy said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...




Now you are citing the lady that said it was Zimmerman on top because she didn't see a muzzle flash?

OK, that's rich.


>>>>


----------



## Liability (May 26, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Once again:  the so-called "Stand Your Ground" aspect of the justification law is not even relevant to this discussion.  It may never be.

Whether or not the circumstances warranted the invocation of the law of justification (self defense) is the issue.


----------



## percysunshine (May 26, 2012)

Every one on the USmessage board uses 'self defense' when posting.

This is not rocket science.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 26, 2012)

Liability said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Very true, if Martin was shown to have attacked Zimmerman - then SYG isn't really an issue, it's purely a case of self defense.  It may or it may not, depending on preceding actions by Martin and/or Zimmerman.



Liability said:


> Whether or not the circumstances warranted the invocation of the law of justification (self defense) is the issue.



If I'm understanding you correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong - I think you are saying that at the point Martin supposedly was beating Zimmerman's head on the ground - that self defense immunity applies.

I disagree.  Florida Statute 776.041 holds that an aggressor loses self defense immunity if a fight escalates under certain circumstances.  Prior to that point in time the state (is expected) to make a case that Zimmerman was the aggressor and acted in unlawful manner nullifying his self defense immunity later in time for when they were on the ground and Zimmerman shot Martin and so is legally liable because of his preceding actions for the results that occurred.

I'm not saying they can do it, I'm saying that it appears that that will be the avenue they take.  Until the self defense hearing and later trial, we won't know.  At that point we should see a clearer picture of all the evidence including Zimmerman's statements to the police that night and his video reenactment.  Then they can be compared with the forensic and autopsy evidence to see if they either support or refute Zimmerman's story(ies).



>>>>


----------



## Liability (May 26, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



If Martin is on top of Zimmerman, cracking Z's noggin into the concrete, placing Z in reasonable fear of imminent great bodily harm, Z is entitled to defend himself.  Period.

And *if* the "State" does wish to make the case that Z was the supposed "initial aggressor," the evidence for that position has not yet been revealed.

But even if Z HAD been some kind of initial aggressor, his right of self defense would not necessarily terminate forever just because of that.   If an initial aggressor has ceased his alleged aggression, then there would be no zero "justification" for the other person to continue to pummel him.  If the pummeling nonetheless continues, guess what?  The supposed "initial" aggressor can proceed to defend himself.  The law of justification kind of mirrors the human instinct for survival.


----------



## KissMy (May 26, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



She is crazy. She admits she could not see & says she feels like the broad man was on top because he got up.  Bottom line is it was dark & a muzzle flash would have been clearly visible. It would have light up their bodies & surroundings. She was either not actually looking when the shot was fired or it was not at arms length.


----------



## Ravi (May 26, 2012)

Liability said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


What dispatcher? It was more than likely a police officer he spoke to as he called the non-emergency number and probably got the officer on duty.

And yes, your "example" was retarded.


----------



## Liability (May 26, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



When one calls 9-1-1 one gets a dispatcher, dopey.

And no.  Your comment was retarded.  My rejoinder simply highlighted your vapidity.

Muddle on.


----------



## Ravi (May 26, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...


He didn't call 9-1-1. And you call yourself an attorney.


----------



## percysunshine (May 26, 2012)

Ravi still looks like Barak Obama all dolled up.


----------



## Inthemiddle (May 26, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Trayvon was bigger than Zimmerman



No, Trayvon was taller than Zimmerman.  Zimmerman was bigger than Trayvon.



> and all the physical evidence shows that Trayvon was doing all the pounding and Zimmerman doing all the receiving



You are an outright liar.



> yet you imply that you don't believe it was Zimmerman doing the squealing.



No, what I am saying is that Zimmerman's story doesn't add up.  If that is Zimmerman we hear on the tapes, then I cannot believe that he was getting his head pounded into the pavement like he claims, on the verge of unconsciousness.  Just to present one example of the contradictions in what Zimmerman has been claiming.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 26, 2012)

Liability said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Sorry, it's not "Period".

Under Florida Law, the event's leading up to that point are a factor to be considered.



Liability said:


> And *if* the "State" does wish to make the case that Z was the supposed "initial aggressor," the evidence for that position has not yet been revealed.



I agree, to a degree.  No "smoking gun" evidence has been released.  However some of the evidence that has been released can be used by the state to undermine Zimmerman's story.  For example, the 7-11 video shows no signs of "suspicious" or "drug induced behavior".  The bullet path isn't consistent with Zimmerman shoting "up" into Martin.  And lack of GSR could be indicative of a greater distance between the two based on an extended arm discharge of the firearm.  Then of course we haven't seen the "clubhouse video" listed on the evidence list.  If from security cameras and it shows no suspicious activity by Martin, then the very basis of Zimmerman's initial call and his description of events becomes suspect (and on the other hand if it does show suspicious behavior, it adds credibility to Zimmerman's story).



Liability said:


> But even if Z HAD been some kind of initial aggressor, his right of self defense would not necessarily terminate forever just because of that.   If an initial aggressor has ceased his alleged aggression, then there would be no zero "justification" for the other person to continue to pummel him.  If the pummeling nonetheless continues, guess what?  The supposed "initial" aggressor can proceed to defend himself.  The law of justification kind of mirrors the human instinct for survival.



776.041&#8195;Use of force by aggressor.&#8212;The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
(1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or
(2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a)&#8195;Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b)&#8195;In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.​
Not the way I read it.

The opening paragraph clearly indicates that the provisions of 776.041 allow for loss of self defense immunity (the preceding paragraphs in the law).

Paragraph "(1)" says the immunity is permanently lost if the individual was in the act of a forcible felony.  Aggravated Assault under Florida Law is a forcible felony and would result either by : (a) simple assault coupled with attempted unlawful detention, OR (b) assault coupled with the use of a weapon.  Assault need not be physical violence, assault can be conveyed through word or intent, which is different than battery which requires a physical action.

Paragraph "(2)" notes that if the initial aggressor had an opportunity to retreat once hostilities are started and fails to do so, then they also lose self defense immunity.  This is were the state could attempt to use the forensic lack of GSR on Zimmerman's jacket and/or shirt to indicate that a straight arm extension was present at the time of firing the weapon which would indicate a greater distance between the two.  If Zimmerman had pushed Martin off, then pulled his gun and fired - he would have not have taken advantage of an avenue to disengage.

Paragraph "(1)" and "(2)" are joined by an "or", which means loss of the self defense immunities present in the preceding paragraphs can be lost under either paragraph.


Again though, those are scenario's which don't apply **IF** the defense were to show Martin was the initial aggressor.


>>>>


----------



## Inthemiddle (May 26, 2012)

paperview said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Well, I think that we can all conclude that we never want to go on a date with Liability.  Seems to be one of those "no means yes" guys.

Liability:  How about I take you back to my place, take off all your clothes, and have my way with you.

Date:  Oh, you don't need to do that.

Liability:  *does it anyway*


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 26, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Trayvon was bigger than Zimmerman
> ...



Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


> The autopsy report says (Trayvon) was 5 feet 11 inches and 158 pounds.[35]...
> Zimmerman's height is shown as 5'8" and his weight as 185 pounds on his Seminole County Sheriff's Office Inmate Booking Information dated 4/11/2012.





Inthemiddle said:


> > and all the physical evidence shows that Trayvon was doing all the pounding and Zimmerman doing all the receiving
> 
> 
> 
> You are an outright liar.





> In looking at the entrance wound, the examiner assessed the gunshot as one fired from "intermediate range", which can mean from 1 to 18 inches, according to a forensics expert.[169] The examiner noted "soot, ring abrasion, and a 2 x 2 inch area of stippling".
> 
> Besides the fatal gunshot wound, the examiner also noted a "1/4 by 1/8 inch small abrasion on the left fourth finger".
> 
> The autopsy report stated that Martin had trace levels of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, in his blood and urine.[170][171] The toxicology report found the levels to be 1.5 nanograms/ml of THC and 7.3 nanograms/ml of THC-COOH, a metabolite of THC that can stay in the system for weeks after cannabis has been smoked.



The evidence clearly demonstrates that Zimmerman was attacked by a dope-smoking thug who got what he had comming.

You are either a liar or just stupid as shit.



Inthemiddle said:


> > yet you imply that you don't believe it was Zimmerman doing the squealing.
> 
> 
> 
> No, what I am saying is that Zimmerman's story doesn't add up.  If that is Zimmerman we hear on the tapes, then I cannot believe that he was getting his head pounded into the pavement like he claims, on the verge of unconsciousness.  Just to present one example of the contradictions in what Zimmerman has been claiming.



Who the fuck said that Zimemrman was on the verge of unconsciousness?

Why do libtards think they can just make shit up and pretend it to be fact?

More bizzare behavior from the leftwing ideologues for whom Truth is that which advances their cause and nothing else.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 26, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Hey, dumbass, liability was demonstrating that 'you dont need to do that' *can* mean something other than a command to stop. He was not asserting that ALL uses of the phrase are not commands.

Dear God you are stupid.

How do you walk on this Earth and be so damned assinine?


----------



## Liability (May 26, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Even by your debased "standards," that was moronic.


----------



## beagle9 (May 26, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Good job as I read this piece by you... You apear to have a level head on your shoulders, in which is what is needed when speaking on this issue as it should be...

Now lets here a good rebuttal, because this was good work and/or good reasoning..


----------



## idb (May 26, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Just so I get this straight...if Martin had had a gun, and simply shot Zimmerman, then he would have been allowed to go free under the Stand Your Ground law and no more would have been said about it.
> ...



So, because he didn't have a gun, he couldn't claim justifiable action under the Stand Your Ground law?
Remember that Zimmerman wasn't going to be prosecuted originally - presumably because he used a gun and not his fists.
Does it have to be a gun or are other weapons permissible?


----------



## Ariux (May 26, 2012)

idb said:


> So, because he didn't have a gun, he couldn't claim justifiable action under the Stand Your Ground law?
> Remember that Zimmerman wasn't going to be prosecuted originally - presumably because he used a gun and not his fists.
> Does it have to be a gun or are other weapons permissible?



You sound like someone who has a skull full of shit, making you unable to understand even simple things.

Afro Trayvon did not assault Zimmerman in self-defense, it makes no difference whether he had a gun or not.  

Even if, suppose that one of the racist shitheads is right, and that Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon.  The only one getting hurt in this fight was Zimmerman.  It's hard to claim self-defense in a sustained one-sided beating.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 26, 2012)

Ariux said:


> ... and that Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon.  The only one getting hurt in this fight was Zimmerman.  It's hard to claim self-defense in a sustained one-sided beating.




Not really, see in Florida they have this law called "Stand Your Ground", if Zimmerman had assaulted Martin, then Martin was under no obligation to retreat and was authorized the use of force.  It wouldn't matter if Martin was hurt or not, he was allowed to respond with force.


[Disclaimer: Right now we have hard evidence either way on exactly who started hostilities - just replying to the scenario presented.]


>>>>


----------



## Ariux (May 26, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Not really, see in Florida they have this law called "Stand Your Ground", if Zimmerman had assaulted Martin, then Martin was under no obligation to retreat and was authorized the use of force.  It wouldn't matter if Martin was hurt or not, he was allowed to respond with force.
> 
> 
> [Disclaimer: Right now we have hard evidence either way on exactly who started hostilities - just replying to the scenario presented.]



Don't be a f-ing idiot.  "Use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm."  Someone easily winning a fist fight loses a presumption of a fear of death or bodily harm.  The only thing Trayvon had to worry about were more gashes on his knuckles.  Continuing a fight against helpless Zimmerman could no longer be self-defense, even if Zimmerman started the fight.

And, your Disclaimer is also stupid.  The timeline proves that Trayvon chose to confront Zimmerman.  Even the unreliable and hostile witness, Trayvon's ho, gives an account that suggests that Trayvon confronted Zimmerman.  Zimmerman claims Trayon started the fight.  Only Trayvon had motive to start a fight.   Also, Zimmerman the accused gets the presumption of innocence.  You are so f-ing stupid.  I'm embarrassed for you.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 26, 2012)

Ariux said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Not really, see in Florida they have this law called "Stand Your Ground", if Zimmerman had assaulted Martin, then Martin was under no obligation to retreat and was authorized the use of force.  It wouldn't matter if Martin was hurt or not, he was allowed to respond with force.
> ...



1.  We don't know if Zimmerman flashed his gun.

2.  Obviously Zimmerman was not helpless as Zimmerman is alive and Martin is dead.



Ariux said:


> And, your Disclaimer is also stupid.  The timeline proves that Trayvon chose to confront Zimmerman.  Even the unreliable and hostile witness, Trayvon's ho, gives an account that suggests that Trayvon confronted Zimmerman.  Zimmerman claims Trayon started the fight.  Only Trayvon had motive to start a fight.   Also, Zimmerman the accused gets the presumption of innocence.  You are so f-ing stupid.  I'm embarrassed for you.




No, the timeline proves no such thing.  Actually the girlfriends statements indicate that Zimmerman approached Martin and the audio of her statement says she heard Martin calling for Zimmerman to get off him.

Looking at each perspective they both had motive.  Martin: Some weird guy in a truck was following him at night in the rain.  He'd already shown a willingness to run away, but the weird guy in the truck jumped out and started pursuing him.  Martins motive?  Self Defense, and remember under Florida's Stand Your Ground Law he had no requirement to retreat if he felt threatened.  Zimmerman:  He was frustrated that the burglaries had not been solved to his satisfaction.  He'd previously reported another youth that got away before the police arrived.  Due to frustration he was going to ensure that didn't happen again.

Without all the evidence that will be presented in court, we can't know if either scenario is true or if both are false.


One thing you did get right though, in court there is a presumption of innocence and if the prosecution fails to make a case beyond a reasonable doubt Zimmerman should be found not guilty.


>>>>


----------



## Ariux (May 26, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> 1.  We don't know if Zimmerman flashed his gun.



Stop thinking your ignorance means something.  Several lines of evidence of evidence is against Zimmerman flashing his gun.



> 2.  Obviously Zimmerman was not helpless as Zimmerman is alive and Martin is dead.



You are so incredibly f-ing stupid.  A sustained one-sided fist fight is not any kind of defense against a gun.  



> No, the timeline proves no such thing.  Actually the girlfriends statements indicate that Zimmerman approached Martin and the audio of her statement says she heard Martin calling for Zimmerman to get off him.



The timeline shows that Trayvon could have been far away if he hadn't chosen to confront Zimmerman.   And, I haven't heard anything about the ho saying she heard Trayvon tell someone to get off of him.  So, I'm certain that is just a figment of your shitty imagination.



> Zimmerman:  He was frustrated that the burglaries had not been solved to his satisfaction.



You have a perfect record of perfect stupidity.   Zimmerman's frustration is not motive to attack Trayvon.  Zimmerman's frustration is only motive to keep an eye on Trayvon, until police arrived.



> Without all the evidence that will be presented in court, we can't know if either scenario is true or if both are false.



We know enough evidence to know beyond a reasonable doubt that the Afro piece of shit assaulted Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman shot in self-defense.  However, I understand why you don't see this, given nothing but a shit-filled skull to work with.

The core of the Prosecution's case will be to use Bullshit to attack Zimmerman's credibility with his own words, and to emphases that Zimmerman could have avoided [being brutally assaulted] by staying in his car.  The jury will then quickly acquit Zimmerman.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 26, 2012)

Ariux said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > So why are there not any ballistics of Martin being shot while on top of Zimmerman?   There would be blood splatter on Zimmerman, wouldn't you think?
> ...



There's nothing imaginary about your personal bigotry and racism, my sheet wearing Ariux....that was self evident in your first post on this thread.

And please provide the source of your claim....as I grow tired of doing your homework proper for you, and having to endure your consistent attempts to pass off your supposition and conjecture as fact also.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 26, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Toddsterpatriot said:
> ...



Once again, Toddles just repeats his lies and wishful thinking as if they are fact.  Pity our intellectually impotent Todd's version of reality just doesn't cut it:

Trayvon's killer said to make self-incriminating statements - Yahoo! News


No one runs from liars like you, Todd....we just expose you for the clowns you are then ignore you.  Adios.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 26, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...




And of course, your logical approach to evidence given will be immediately rejected because of it's conclusion...most likely one or more Zimmerman Zombie will say, "you're not a foresnic specialist or ballistics expert".  Yet they are more than willing to say Zimmerman is justified by evidence given on nothing more than supposition and conjecture.

And the band played on.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 26, 2012)

Ariux said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > 1.  We don't know if Zimmerman flashed his gun.
> ...




the only thing you have to counter WorldWatcher's systematic breakdown of ALL the evidence is your persistent effort to inject your supposition and conjecture into the evidence as fact.  Hint: failed ploy on your part.

But then again, an irrational and emotional meltdown is all one can expect from an Ariux who refers to a victim of a homicide as an "Afro piece of shit".....once again, your sheet is slipping out from under your shirt there, bunky.

Oh, and FYI

Trayvon's killer said to make self-incriminating statements - Yahoo! News


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (May 26, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Wow.....said.....that sounds serious.


----------



## idb (May 27, 2012)

Ariux said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > So, because he didn't have a gun, he couldn't claim justifiable action under the Stand Your Ground law?
> ...


Zimmerman was stalking him with a gun and you're saying that Martin had no right to defend himself?
Not having been there - maybe Martin  decided to conceal himself until Zimmerman came near and then jump him - after all only one of them was armed.


----------



## Ravi (May 27, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Does it matter if Zimmerman flashed his gun or not? I say no, because IMO it was reasonable for Martin to feel threatened by a stranger, a stranger that appears more muscular, following him with or without the gun. But yes, flashing the gun would be icing on the cake and no one could doubt that in that case Martin had every right to fear for his life.

If Zimmerman is to claim self-defense doesn't he have to prove it WAS self-defense? Testimony and evidence so far makes that proof doubtful.


----------



## Inthemiddle (May 27, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> The evidence clearly demonstrates that Zimmerman was attacked by a dope-smoking thug who got what he had comming.
> 
> You are either a liar or just stupid as shit.



  No it doesn't.  Nothing that you've provided there supports your claim.  Your source also affirms what I said about the comparative size of the two.  Martin was taller, but Zimmerman was bigger.



> Who the fuck said that Zimemrman was on the verge of unconsciousness?



Zimmerman did, you idiot, and so has his brother.


----------



## Inthemiddle (May 27, 2012)

Liability said:


> Even by your debased "standards," that was moronic.



Actually, I wasn't applying my standards, I was applying your own.  I'll agree, it's moronic.


----------



## Inthemiddle (May 27, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Does it matter if Zimmerman flashed his gun or not? I say no, because IMO it was reasonable for Martin to feel threatened by a stranger, a stranger that appears more muscular, following him with or without the gun. But yes, flashing the gun would be icing on the cake and no one could doubt that in that case Martin had every right to fear for his life.
> 
> If Zimmerman is to claim self-defense doesn't he have to prove it WAS self-defense? Testimony and evidence so far makes that proof doubtful.



Actually, it does matter.  Florida statute explicitly preempts a right to use deadly force when the person using such force first brandished his weapon before hand.  If Zimmerman flashed his pistol, hoping to scare Martin, and if _that_ lead to Martin "throwing the first punch," the law places guilt upon Zimmerman, and grants the right of self defense upon Martin.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 27, 2012)

Ariux said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > 1.  We don't know if Zimmerman flashed his gun.
> ...



The jury will make their decision based on logic and evidence not internet chest thumping and personal insults.

So show us the evidence against Zimmerman flashing his gun - the forensics?  The witness statements?  Evidence, not something Zimmerman may or may not have said.




Ariux said:


> > 2.  Obviously Zimmerman was not helpless as Zimmerman is alive and Martin is dead.
> 
> 
> 
> You are so incredibly f-ing stupid.  A sustained one-sided fist fight is not any kind of defense against a gun.



The jury will make their decision based on logic and evidence not internet chest thumping and personal insults.

Of course it isn't, which is why Zimmerman wasn't helpless.



Ariux said:


> > No, the timeline proves no such thing. Actually the girlfriends statements indicate that Zimmerman approached Martin and the audio of her statement says she heard Martin calling for Zimmerman to get off him.
> 
> 
> The timeline shows that Trayvon could have been far away if he hadn't chosen to confront Zimmerman.   And, I haven't heard anything about the ho saying she heard Trayvon tell someone to get off of him.  So, I'm certain that is just a figment of your shitty imagination.



The jury will make their decision based on logic and evidence not internet chest thumping and personal insults.

"Trayvon Martin's girlfriend, talking to him on the telephone, heard the teenager saying "get off, get off," in the moments before his cell phone cut off and he was shot dead, according to a recording released Friday of the girl's interview with a prosecutor." More details emerge in Trayvon Martin investigation - CNN​

You shouldn't be certain, I have history of being able to backup the things I say.



Ariux said:


> > Zimmerman:  He was frustrated that the burglaries had not been solved to his satisfaction.
> 
> 
> 
> You have a perfect record of perfect stupidity.   Zimmerman's frustration is not motive to attack Trayvon.  Zimmerman's frustration is only motive to keep an eye on Trayvon, until police arrived.



The jury will make their decision based on logic and evidence not internet chest thumping and personal insults.

Yes it would be a motive, and one indicated during the dispatcher call when Zimmerman commented that "these assholes always get away" if Zimmerman acted on that frustration and attempted to unlawfully retrain and detain Martin.  Frucstration, agitation, and mood swings which are possible from the prescriptions for Adderall and Temazepam that Zimmerman had.




Ariux said:


> > Without all the evidence that will be presented in court, we can't know if either scenario is true or if both are false.
> 
> 
> 
> We know enough evidence to know beyond a reasonable doubt that the Afro piece of shit assaulted Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman shot in self-defense.  However, I understand why you don't see this, given nothing but a shit-filled skull to work with.



Sorry, prejudice is not evidence.

The good news is that the jury will consist of people that will use logic and reason in examining the case and not people that refer to Martin as an "Afro piece of shit".




Ariux said:


> The core of the Prosecution's case will be to use Bullshit to attack Zimmerman's credibility with his own words, and to emphases that Zimmerman could have avoided [being brutally assaulted] by staying in his car.  The jury will then quickly acquit Zimmerman.



I don't predict what the jury will do, don't now - haven't seen all the evidence or the expert (from the defense and the prosecution) as to how the evidence could be applied.

I find it hilarious though that you fear Zimmerman's credibility will be undermined by his own words.  Ohhhh the horrors of pointing out that he told different stories at different times (if that is what he did) and where his story(ies) are inconsistent with the physical evidence (such as autopsy examination, photographs of Zimmerman himself, and forensic DNA/GSR evidence).



>>>>


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 27, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > The evidence clearly demonstrates that Zimmerman was attacked by a dope-smoking thug who got what he had comming.
> ...



Zimmerman was fatter. Martin was in much better condition than GZ.



Inthemiddle said:


> > Who the fuck said that Zimemrman was on the verge of unconsciousness?
> 
> 
> 
> Zimmerman did, you idiot, and so has his brother.



He was not about to black out at the time he was yelling for help, but at the time he shot.

Again, it would seem you are BOTH, stupid and a liar.


----------



## Liability (May 27, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Even by your debased "standards," that was moronic.
> ...



And now you are just lying to complete your backpeddle.  

Everyone saw what you posted and it was indeed YOUR notion of standards.  You are a moron _*and*_ you are a cowardly liar.  

You -- and the dumb ass things you post -- are worthless.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 27, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> So show us the evidence against Zimmerman flashing his gun - the forensics?  The witness statements?  Evidence, not something Zimmerman may or may not have said.



The best evidence that GZ did not flash his gun was the fact that Martin attacked him. Had he known GZ had a gun it is extremely unlikely that a thug like him would have attacked.



WorldWatcher said:


> Of course it isn't, which is why Zimmerman wasn't helpless.



To Martins knowledge GZ was apparently helpless which is why the POS was not letting GZ 'tap out'. He thought he had a helpless victim whom he could beat as much as he pleased.



WorldWatcher said:


> "Trayvon Martin's girlfriend, talking to him on the telephone, heard the teenager saying "get off, get off," in the moments before his cell phone cut off and he was shot dead, according to a recording released Friday of the girl's interview with a prosecutor." More details emerge in Trayvon Martin investigation - CNN​



Yeah, like MArtins girlfriend has no bias or motive to lie about her account. Eye witnesses say GZ was taken down by MArtin, not the opposite.



WorldWatcher said:


> Yes it would be a motive, and one indicated during the dispatcher call when Zimmerman commented that "these assholes always get away" if Zimmerman acted on that frustration and attempted to unlawfully retrain and detain Martin.  Frucstration, agitation, and mood swings which are possible from the prescriptions for Adderall and Temazepam that Zimmerman had.



Woulda, coulda, shoulda dont prove jack shit.




WorldWatcher said:


> I find it hilarious though that you fear Zimmerman's credibility will be undermined by his own words.  Ohhhh the horrors of pointing out that he told different stories at different times (if that is what he did) and where his story(ies) are inconsistent with the physical evidence (such as autopsy examination, photographs of Zimmerman himself, and forensic DNA/GSR evidence).



Usually honest unrehearsed eye wtiness accounts have contradictions over time and between each other as each person has a different perspective and their memory of the event will change slightly over time as they remember details that alter their accounts.

This is more evidence that GZ is telling the truth and did not make a story up.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 27, 2012)

Liability said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I think he is playing to the other dumbasses ont he thread.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 27, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > So show us the evidence against Zimmerman flashing his gun - the forensics?  The witness statements?  Evidence, not something Zimmerman may or may not have said.
> ...




That's not evidence, that's opinion.

There is no independent evidence either way.




JimBowie1958 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it isn't, which is why Zimmerman wasn't helpless.
> ...



Couple of different possibilities...

1.  Supposedly Zimmerman's story is that he and Martin struggled for the gun.  You going to let someone trying to pull a gun "tap out"?

2.  Lack of GSR on Zimmerman's cloths and the bullet path would be indicative of a shot not being fired when Zimmerman was underneath Martin.  It may be that Zimmerman did "tap out" either by pushing Martin away or by Martin moving away on his own.



JimBowie1958 said:


> Yeah, like MArtins girlfriend has no bias or motive to lie about her account.



So for consistancy, I'm sure you will discount Zimmerman's account because he would have a bias correct?



JimBowie1958 said:


> Eye witnesses say GZ was taken down by MArtin, not the opposite.



False, no eyewitness account indicate who was taken down by whom.  All eyewitness accounts begin AFTER hostilities had already started.




JimBowie1958 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Yes it would be a motive, and one indicated during the dispatcher call when Zimmerman commented that "these assholes always get away" if Zimmerman acted on that frustration and attempted to unlawfully retrain and detain Martin.  Frucstration, agitation, and mood swings which are possible from the prescriptions for Adderall and Temazepam that Zimmerman had.
> ...




Funny how you now call for proof now, yet have made claims not supported by any evidence.

We are discussing possible scenarios and the question to me was what motivation did Zimmerman have - I presented one frustration with the burglaries heightened by prescription drugs.  Possible?  Yes.  But we will not know for sure since the Sanford police failed to run a toxicology panel on Zimmerman. 




JimBowie1958 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > I find it hilarious though that you fear Zimmerman's credibility will be undermined by his own words.  Ohhhh the horrors of pointing out that he told different stories at different times (if that is what he did) and where his story(ies) are inconsistent with the physical evidence (such as autopsy examination, photographs of Zimmerman himself, and forensic DNA/GSR evidence).
> ...




The above has nothing to do with eyewitness accounts.  

It would be comparing various versions of Zimmerman's story(ies) given that night on scene, when first arriving at the police station, 5-hours later, and the next day when he supposedly did a reenactment on video at the scene for the police and then comparing it to the forensic evidence available.


>>>>


----------



## Liability (May 27, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I am opposed to a wall of words.  So I limit my reply to JUST the final section of your post, which I have highlighted in bold and some hideous green color.

Taken sequentially:  





> 776.041&#8195;Use of force by aggressor.&#8212;The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
> (1)&#8195;Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; . . . .


  Section 1 by its own terms does not apply at all since nobody has said that Zimmerman had committed was committing or escaping after the commission of any felony.  Accordingly, if he had any right to the justification defense, section one does not remove it.

Next:  





> 776.041&#8195;Use of force by aggressor.&#8212;The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:
> * * * *
> (2)&#8195;Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, *unless*:
> (a)&#8195;*Such force is so great* that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; * * * *



As to 2(a), that's the whole point.  That's the nub of it.  *If* it can even be shown by the government (a giant "if," at that) Zimmerman "provoked" the use of force against him, the justification defense would not be available to him UNLESS the force being used against him was so great that he reasonably believed that he was confronted with the imminent danger of death OR great bodily harm.  

_I exclude 2(b) since there is no evidence known to us at this point that Zimmerman "withdrew" (anymore than there's any actual proof that he was ever the initial aggressor, anyway).  _

2(a) seems to say that *EVEN IF* you *are* the initial aggressor, then if the force then used against you is so out of bounds as to put YOU in reasonable fear for your life or of facing imminent great bodily harm, you may STILL resort to the use of the justification defense.

That you read the statute differently than that is simply not in keeping with what the law itself actually says.

Statutory construction is not as complicated as some people seem to believe -- even though the gibberish passed by legislatures often is needlessly convoluted.

By the way, in that regard, your analysis of the statute is incorrect.  Since sections 1 and 2 were written in the disjunctive [i.e., the use of the "or"], the commission of a felony (section 1) does *NOT* permanently deprive a person of the justification defense (as you suggest it does)  under the conditions described in the statute following the "unless."


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 27, 2012)

>

Thanks Liabiltiy.

I've got some stuff to do and I don't want to reply from the hip and wish to give you post some serious consideration.

I will come back to it later after some thought.


WW


>>>>


----------



## KissMy (May 27, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Actually, it does matter.  Florida statute explicitly preempts a right to use deadly force when the person using such force first brandished his weapon before hand.  If Zimmerman flashed his pistol, hoping to scare Martin, and if _that_ lead to Martin "throwing the first punch," the law places guilt upon Zimmerman, and grants the right of self defense upon Martin.



Yeah - Attacking a man pointing a gun at you is the first thing every 17 year old does.  Even the girlfriend did not hear the word GUN!


----------



## Ariux (May 27, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > The best evidence that GZ did not flash his gun was the fact that Martin attacked him. Had he known GZ had a gun it is extremely unlikely that a thug like him would have attacked.
> ...



Are their any functioning brain cells in that ball of shit in your racist skull?  Being attacked is evidence that the gun wasn't flashed.   Both Zimmerman and Travyon's ho didn't report a gun being flashed.  That's also evidence.  If the Afro shit wasn't killed, Zimmerman would be stuck explaining why he flashed a gun to tops.  That's evidence he didn't do it.  Add to that the burden of proof is on you to show Zimmerman flashed a gun.  But, the only evidence a shithead understands is a bullet to their chest.



> So for consistancy, I'm sure you will discount Zimmerman's account because he would have a bias correct?



Zimmerman talked extensively, without time to reherse and without being in a mental state to be very calculating.  For you to compare Zimmerman's statements to the Travyon's ho's statement, a girl who refused to talk to police for weeks, and then only talked with a lawyer is... Oh fuck it... you can't understand shit except maybe your mamma telling you that she wishes she aborted you.


----------



## Inthemiddle (May 27, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Zimmerman was fatter. Martin was in much better condition than GZ.



  You obviously haven't seen the relatively recent pictures of what Zimmerman looks like nowadays, nor did you even hear your own description of him.  






George Zimmerman is not a fat and out of shape man.  He's pretty fit.



> He was not about to black out at the time he was yelling for help, but at the time he shot.
> 
> Again, it would seem you are BOTH, stupid and a liar.



  He was yelling at the time he shot.  Of course, the fact that he was able to shoot contradicts with the very notion that he was on the verge of blacking out.  You're a moron.


----------



## Inthemiddle (May 27, 2012)

KissMy said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, it does matter.  Florida statute explicitly preempts a right to use deadly force when the person using such force first brandished his weapon before hand.  If Zimmerman flashed his pistol, hoping to scare Martin, and if _that_ lead to Martin "throwing the first punch," the law places guilt upon Zimmerman, and grants the right of self defense upon Martin.
> ...



Where did I say that it even happened?  I said that Ravi's suggestion, that flashing the gun was irrelevant, was actually incorrect.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 27, 2012)

I find it very amusing that there are all these people blithering along about "Zimmerman might have flashed his gun at Martin", and trying so hard to sound intelligent and judicious about 'the evidence", and yet they appear to have no idea that Zimmerman doesn't NEED any evidence to "prove that he didn't flash the gun", because ZIMMERMAN doesn't have to prove jack shit in our legal system.  It's the PROSECUTION who has to prove he DID flash the gun, or he DID do anything else to negate self-defense.  Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.  All his lawyer has to do is show reasonable doubt - and there sure seems to be shitloads of THAT.

The idea that George Zimmerman is somehow obligated to disprove every dipshit fantasy scenario your diseased imaginations come up with is laughable.


----------



## Ariux (May 27, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> George Zimmerman is not a fat and out of shape man.  He's pretty fit.



Hey racist shithead, police booked Zimmerman as 5'7" 200 pounds.  That makes Zimmerman obese, not just overweight.  Compare to Travyon, who was significantly taller and at his prime weight (BMI 22, according to the autopsy).  



> He was yelling at the time he shot.  Of course, the fact that he was able to shoot contradicts with the very notion that he was on the verge of blacking out.  You're a moron.


 
Anyone having their head pounded against the ground is on the verge of blacking out.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 27, 2012)

Liability said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I havent said that anyone else has said it.

The first indication of this track may be at the self defense hearing.  Or it may not.  Well have to wait and see.

***********************************************



Liability said:


> Next:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Agreed, including the point that the none of the evidence at this point supports EITHER Zimmerman or Martin as the initial aggressor and yet many on these boards have expressed as an absolute certainty one way or the other.

A very few of us understand that the hostilities were initiate by one or the other PRIOR to the first witness viewing the scene.  Many want to base the determination of self defense solely on what happened later, but the nub of it as you correctly say is what the precipitating events were.  If Martin initiated hostilities, then Zimmermans self defense immunity remains intact during the entire time cycle of the event.  However **IF** Zimmerman acted as the aggressor, then it is possible for him to lose such immunity.



Liability said:


> _I exclude 2(b) since there is no evidence known to us at this point that Zimmerman "withdrew" (anymore than there's any actual proof that he was ever the initial aggressor, anyway).  _



On this point we need to wait and see, we have seen the raw data from the forensic reports.  What was not included was the expert evaluation of what that raw data means.

Physical evidence that may indicate Zimmerman and Martin had a achieved a degree of separation may (speculation) be indicated by (a) the angle of the bullet path through Martins body as a straight chest shot is unnatural when two bodies are close together and the gun must be inserted between them and then angled to achieve a shot , and (b) the negative GSR on Zimmermans cloths which also would indicate that he wasnt underneath Martin when the shot was fired.  Lack of GSR would indicate that Zimmermans arm was extended away from him instead of inches above his own chest (because Martin was on top).




Liability said:


> 2(a) seems to say that *EVEN IF* you *are* the initial aggressor, then if the force then used against you is so out of bounds as to put YOU in reasonable fear for your life or of facing imminent great bodily harm, you may STILL resort to the use of the justification defense.



I agree.




Liability said:


> That you read the statute differently than that is simply not in keeping with what the law itself actually says.



Seems as if I havent read the statute differently then that, we however may be applying it differently.




Liability said:


> Statutory construction is not as complicated as some people seem to believe -- even though the gibberish passed by legislatures often is needlessly convoluted.



Thats the truth.



Liability said:


> By the way, in that regard, your analysis of the statute is incorrect.  Since sections 1 and 2 were written in the disjunctive [i.e., the use of the "or"], the commission of a felony (section 1) does *NOT* permanently deprive a person of the justification defense (as you suggest it does)  under the conditions described in the statute following the "unless."



Paragraph (1) does remove self defense immunity; however it can regained under specific actions outlined in 2(a) and 2(b).  2(a) requires that the aggressor must have availed themselves of escape if possible and 2(b) says that if the victim withdraws the assailant must accept such withdrawal and not continue or resume the use of force.

Under either provision for the loss of self defense immunity, the state will have an uphill battle making a case that meets the beyond reasonable doubt.  To make Murder 2 (or even the less charge of Manslaughter though) they will have to nullify the self defense immunity claimed by Zimmerman and 776.041 is the only means to do that.

Not saying they are going to win, but if will be part of their strategy.

>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 27, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > George Zimmerman is not a fat and out of shape man.  He's pretty fit.
> ...




Zimmerman's booking stats were Height = 5'8" @185 lbs.

Martins autopsy stats were Height = 5'11 @158 lbs.



>>>>


----------



## KissMy (May 27, 2012)

idb said:


> Zimmerman was stalking him with a gun and you're saying that Martin had no right to defend himself?  Not having been there - maybe Martin  decided to conceal himself until Zimmerman came near and then jump him - after all only one of them was armed.



Again - You are stupid beyond words.  You would have to be a complete idiot to come out of concealment & jump someone who was hunting you with a gun.  That never happened, Martin never mentioned gun to his girlfriend.


----------



## Ariux (May 27, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Zimmerman's booking stats were Height = 5'8" @185 lbs.
> 
> Martins autopsy stats were Height = 5'11 @158 lbs.



Okay, it was the police report that put Z at 5'7 200#.  But, point still stands.  Trayvon was significantly taller and Trayvon was neither fat nor thin.  Add to that the fact that the traits of the Afro species gave Travon another advantage in a short fight.  It's obvious why the fight was one-sided.

Indeed, by the time Zimmerman showed up in court, in cuffs and suit, he had probably lost a lot of weight due to stress.


----------



## Liability (May 27, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



The Government will have a very tough row to hoe.  But who knows what other evidence might exist to which we are not yet privy? That's why ALL of the speculation so far is quite premature.  

Still, those who have reached the premature conclusion that Zimmerman "is guilty" are particularly wrong.  It is possible that he might yet be shown to be guilty.  But not yet.  If anything, the evidence, *so far*, suggests that he is probably innocent (at least in the eyes of the law) due to the law of justification.


----------



## idb (May 28, 2012)

KissMy said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman was stalking him with a gun and you're saying that Martin had no right to defend himself?  Not having been there - maybe Martin  decided to conceal himself until Zimmerman came near and then jump him - after all only one of them was armed.
> ...



Your detailed knowledge of the situation is impressive.
You should call the investigating cops and explain to them how it all happened, including what each man was thinking and the exact reasons for their actions.
It would save them a lot of time and money.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 28, 2012)

idb said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Well, someone needs to.


----------



## Inthemiddle (May 28, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Hey racist shithead, police booked Zimmerman as 5'7" 200 pounds.  That makes Zimmerman obese, not just overweight.  Compare to Travyon, who was significantly taller and at his prime weight (BMI 22, according to the autopsy).



Booked him when?  Years ago?    Jim's own sources place Zimmerman at 5'8" and 185 lbs, which is pretty decent, overall.  



> Anyone having their head pounded against the ground is on the verge of blacking out.



In other words, you are going to insist that it's true, but produce no evidence.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 28, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Hey racist shithead, police booked Zimmerman as 5'7" 200 pounds.  That makes Zimmerman obese, not just overweight.  Compare to Travyon, who was significantly taller and at his prime weight (BMI 22, according to the autopsy).
> ...



Lol, you are such an obvious fraud. I could explain how you have twisted the facts yet again, but I dont have the time.

Anyone with a brain knows that GZ probably lost a lot of weight while in hiding and being the subject of intense hatred across the country by fools like you.

And trying to build a case on the phrase 'verge of blacking out' is simply assinine.


----------



## Inthemiddle (May 28, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Anyone with a brain knows that GZ probably lost a lot of weight while in hiding and being the subject of intense hatred across the country by fools like you.



First of all, that's complete and unadulterated speculation, coming out of nowhere.  Second, it contradicts with your claim.  If he lost weight while in hiding, then his weight at the time of booking should reflect that loss, not his weight before the loss.  Third, it conflicts with the picture that was circulated of him before his arrest, in which he appears virtually identical in regards to weight as those pictures seen of him after arrest.








> And trying to build a case on the phrase 'verge of blacking out' is simply assinine.



Uh, I'm not trying to "build a case" on a phrase.  I'm pointing out that his story is full of contradictions.  I'm sure you think you're cleaver for now abandoning your own claims after they've been shot to shit, while trying to maintain the same conclusion they were foolishly meant to establish, but in fact you're merely making yourself out to be an even bigger fool.


----------



## Liability (May 28, 2012)

Dear inthemuddle:

Yes.  There ARE some contradictions in the stor*ies*.

So why not shut the fuck up until the EVIDENCE is in, you douche nozzle?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 28, 2012)

Liability said:


> Dear inthemuddle:
> 
> Yes.  There ARE some contradictions in the stor*ies*.
> 
> So why not shut the fuck up until the EVIDENCE is in, you douche nozzle?



He has fallen in love with the sound of his own keyboard, lol.


----------



## LilOlLady (May 29, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Shit-for-brains racist lynch mob thinks there should be scratches on his face all this time later.   No one even said his face was scratched, in the first place.



Scars don't disappear over a month. Cuts leaves scars that remain for years. Dumb ass. I have scars that are 60 years old. Dumb ass.


----------



## LilOlLady (May 29, 2012)

Liability said:


> Dear inthemuddle:
> 
> Yes.  There ARE some contradictions in the stor*ies*.
> 
> So why not shut the fuck up until the EVIDENCE is in, you douche nozzle?



Zimmerman the "wanna be super hero" cannot get his lie straight. He had his head bashed on concrete and had a wet back and grass stains and two clean cuts dripping a few drops of blood on a head that was "bashed into concrete"? If anyone buys Zimmerman's account they are either stupid or trying awfully hard to convince themselves of a preposterous scenario which is completely out of character with the established behavior and personality of *George 46-Calls Zimmerman*.
The more I hear of this guy, he is one screwed up in the head man. Adderal and Lorazapam? Four feet tall and trying to be six feet tall?



> Americans around the country immediately responded with great emotion to Zimmerman&#8217;s actions because they made a judgment based on the *color of Zimmerman&#8217;s skin -- and Martin&#8217;s *-- while failing to understand the context, *psychological background and history *of George Zimmerman.
> 
> What they failed to see was* not a man motivated by racism* but a man who was instead, clearly motivated by *anger, ego and a desire for power and control*.
> 
> ...


----------



## KissMy (May 29, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Shit-for-brains racist lynch mob thinks there should be scratches on his face all this time later.   No one even said his face was scratched, in the first place.
> ...



60 years ago they did not have the quality wound dressing we have today. Heck Neosporin alone heals wounds 3 times faster with little to no scaring. In the old days they poured alcohol on it & let it burn like fire. That dried out the skin & did little to prevent infection. Now with peroxide & Neosporin things heal fast without a trace.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 29, 2012)

KissMy said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman was stalking him with a gun and you're saying that Martin had no right to defend himself?  Not having been there - maybe Martin  decided to conceal himself until Zimmerman came near and then jump him - after all only one of them was armed.
> ...


That is because Martin was attacked by Zimmerman before the gun was known. But only people who ignore the evidence dont know that


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 29, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...



Yes you making shit up and being proven wrong a dozen times means others are a fraud.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 29, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



What "evidence" exists that proves in any way that George Zimmerman attacked Trayvon Martin?

The fact is that as George Zimmerman walks back from the back gate of that complex, he's talking on his cell phone to the police, arranging to meet them back by the front gate of the complex.  Why is he doing so?  Because he's lost Trayvon Martin.  Several minutes have passed since Martin ran around the corner of a building and out of Zimmerman's view...ample time for Martin to make it to Brandy Green's townhouse...yet when Zimmerman starts walking back to his SUV...there is Trayvon Martin...coming from his left and behind to confront the man who had earlier questioned him.  That isn't Zimmerman attacking Martin...it's clearly the other way around.  But people who "ignore the evidence" don't see that...like yourself.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 29, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Shit-for-brains racist lynch mob thinks there should be scratches on his face all this time later.   No one even said his face was scratched, in the first place.
> ...



Minor abrasions do disappear over a month, Lil...they actually disappear much sooner than that and they seldom leave scars.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 29, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...


The phone call martin was having with a chick during the incident.



Oldstyle said:


> The fact is that as George Zimmerman walks back from the back gate of that complex, he's talking on his cell phone to the police, arranging to meet them back by the front gate of the complex.  Why is he doing so?


No did not happen that call took place BEFORE the incident occured



Oldstyle said:


> Because he's lost Trayvon Martin.


If by lost you mean chasing him down and running into him then you;d be correct



Oldstyle said:


> Several minutes have passed since Martin ran around the corner of a building and out of Zimmerman's view...ample time for Martin to make it to Brandy Green's townhouse...


plz stop making shit up


Oldstyle said:


> yet when Zimmerman starts walking back to his SUV...


again stop making shit up. This is the problem zimmerman defenders ignore the evidence and then make shit up and speculate to what happened.



Oldstyle said:


> there is Trayvon Martin...coming from his left and behind to confront the man who had earlier questioned him.  That isn't Zimmerman attacking Martin...it's clearly the other way around.  But people who "ignore the evidence" don't see that...like yourself.


You making up what happened does not mean it is what actually happened. The problem here is that you make shit up whiule I state actual evidence


----------



## Oldstyle (May 29, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



How am I making anything up?  You can look at the timeline of the phone calls.  You can look at the layout of the complex.  You can listen to the transcript of Zimmerman's call to the police.

None of what I've put forward is "speculation" on my part.  I'm simply pointing out what we KNOW happened and then asking how you get from "that" to the premise of Zimmerman confronting Martin.  The answer to that is you can't.  The only way that confrontation takes place is if Martin wants it to.  If he REALLY wants to get away from George Zimmerman, he has every opportunity to.

I honestly don't think you've ever looked at the real facts of this case, Star.  You're content to believe what you've been told.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 29, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Yeah?  What "evidence" do you have of Zimmerman attacking Martin that we're "ignoring"?  Just FYI, the fact that your dumb ass keeps saying isn't proof of anything except that you're an ignorant racist moron.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 29, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...



I rarely get scars from cuts and abrasions.  They usually have to need stitches for them to form scars.

Of course, just as everyone heals at different rates, and some people bruise easily and some hardly at all, people also form scars differently from each other.


----------



## Inthemiddle (May 29, 2012)

Liability said:


> Dear inthemuddle:
> 
> Yes.  There ARE some contradictions in the stor*ies*.
> 
> So why not shut the fuck up until the EVIDENCE is in, you douche nozzle?



Uh, why should I be quiet?  This is a discussion board.  You, yourself, are discussing the topic.  What makes me so special that I should have to be quiet, but you can talk all you want?


----------



## Inthemiddle (May 29, 2012)

KissMy said:


> Heck Neosporin alone heals wounds 3 times faster with little to no scaring



  Only the most minor of wounds.  Try putting neosporin on a major wound, let's say a major dog bite as an example, and see how fast it heals and whether there's a scar left.


----------



## Liability (May 29, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Dear inthemuddle:
> ...



Because, you idiot, you are saying shit based on rabid speculation rather than on what the actual evidence may end up showing.

Focus, you pin head.  Focus.

Nobody said you have to be quiet.  Stop wetting yourself.  The suggestion is that where, as here, so much is simply not yet known, it is unwise and premature at best to reach firm conclusions, yet.

Damn, boy.  Have some humility.  Acknowledge the fact that YOU don't know diddly dog about what happened.  And if you want to engage in rank speculation, at least acknowledge that speculation is all you're doing.


----------



## bobgnote (May 29, 2012)

I hope I don't get in trouble, for similar posts, at similar threads!

1. Zimmy was instructed to remain in his car and refrain from contacting Martin;
2. Zimmy exited the car, with his auto-gat, and contacted Martin;
3. A confrontation occurred, with controversial accounts, complicated by Sanford PD failure to secure the crime scene or evenly test Zimmy, the way they tested Martin, deceased, and SPD refused to contact Martin's father or his girlfriend, whose numbers were in Martin's phone;
4. Zimmy shot Martin, to kill him, rather than wound or subdue Martin.

Since no way did Zimmerman chamber a round, release the safety, and perfectly shoot Martin, while taking a beating, we may assume Zimmy intended to use the gun to commit a crime, justifiably charged, as murder-2.  Did we notice the Feds watching, so no more trend, to fail due process will serve State of Florida or Zimmy?


----------



## California Girl (May 29, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> I hope I don't get in trouble, for similar posts, at similar threads!
> 
> 1. Zimmy was instructed to remain in his car and refrain from contacting Martin;
> 2. Zimmy exited the car, with his auto-gat, and contacted Martin;
> ...



Trouble no... but mocked for posting bullshit that has already been proved wrong... yea.  Fucking idiot.


----------



## Liability (May 29, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> I hope I don't get in trouble, for similar posts, at similar threads!
> 
> *1. Zimmy was instructed to remain in his car and refrain from contacting Martin;*



False.  He was given no such "instruction," you dolt. 



bobgnote said:


> 2. Zimmy exited the car, with his auto-gat, and contacted Martin;



This appears to be the case, but the gun was not an auto"gat."  But kudos to you on being so WOW, NOW and *in the hood*.  Ya hapless douche.



bobgnote said:


> 3. A confrontation occurred, with controversial accounts, complicated by Sanford PD failure to secure the crime scene or *evenly* test Zimmy, the way they tested Martin, deceased, and SPD refused to contact Martin's father or his girlfriend, whose numbers were in Martin's phone;



The crime scene was secured, nimrod.  What the fuck is "evenly" test?  How would contacting the relatives of the deceased have changed anything at the crime scene, you twit?



bobgnote said:


> 4. Zimmy shot Martin, to kill him, rather than wound or subdue Martin.



Gee.  He pulled a gun in order -- he maintains -- to save his own life or avoid the risk of serious bodily harm, but YOU imagine he needs to aim more carefully to avoid doing -- any damage?  You might be a bigger asshole, but it's not easy to see how.



bobgnote said:


> Since no way did Zimmerman chamber a round, release the safety, and perfectly shoot Martin, while taking a beating, we may assume Zimmy intended to use the gun to commit a crime, justifiably charged, as murder-2.



None of that follows.  He carried a legal gun.  _He could EASILY have flipped the safety to the "off" position with a thumb as soon as he managed to pull it out._  Presumably it was carried with one in the chamber.  There is no requirement to carry a gun with no round chambered and that might kinda defeat the very purpose of carrying a gun for self protection.

EDIT:  *the gun carried by Zimmerman was a Kel-Tec PF-9 semi automatic pistol with an automatic hammer block safety. http://www.chuckhawks.com/kel-tec_PF-9.htm  That means the gun cannot be fired UNLESS the trigger is pulled, but pulling the trigger itself is what releases the safety.* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_(firearms)   So that whole "no way could Zimmerman have done it" *speculation* is shot to shit just on the bare bone facts.  



bobgnote said:


> Did we notice the Feds watching, so no more trend, to fail due process will serve State of Florida or Zimmy?



WTF did that last random collection of keystrokes even mean, you idiot?  Earth to bogbloat:  English used in THESE parts.


----------



## Bigfoot (May 29, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> I hope I don't get in trouble, for similar posts, at similar threads!
> 
> 1. Zimmy was instructed to remain in his car and refrain from contacting Martin;
> 2. Zimmy exited the car, with his auto-gat, and contacted Martin;
> ...



LOL, this isn't television. Zimmerman made the only move he had by pointing and shooting. I sure get a kick out of you guys who have never been in a similar situation and you come with all of this shoot to wound and flash your gun crap.


----------



## Ariux (May 29, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> 3. A confrontation occurred, with controversial accounts, complicated by Sanford PD failure to secure the crime scene or evenly test Zimmy, the way they tested Martin, deceased, and SPD refused to contact Martin's father or his girlfriend, whose numbers were in Martin's phone;



The Afro thug had no ID.  And, because the thug's presumed daddy presumably expected Travyon to be out at all hours, causing trouble, the daddy didn't bother contacting police, in spite of the screaming, the gunshot, and the armada of emergency vehicles just a few buildings away.

The phone was password protected.  Why did that Afro ho of Trayvon's refuse to talk to police for so long, and then only by tape recording with a Martin-family lawyer?  (Given that you're a shithead, I know my questions to you might as well be rhetorical.)

Is there any evidence that you're not a complete shithead and racist?  (I don't mind you being a racist, just don't be a hypocrite about it, shithead.)


----------



## bobgnote (May 29, 2012)

"At 2:07 minutes into his call to the police, Zimmerman says, "he's running.". At 2:37 minutes, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher, "he ran." The sound of an "open door" chime, a change in Zimmerman's voice and the sound of wind indicate that Zimmerman has left his vehicle, prompting the dispatcher to ask if Zimmerman is following Martin. When Zimmerman confirms that he is, the dispatcher says, "We don't need you to do that."[108] Zimmerman says "OK". Asked if he "want(s) to meet with the officer," Zimmerman says "yeah" and gives directions to where his vehicle is parked but is unable to provide an address. He also tells the dispatcher the numbers of his street address, and then at 3:35 adds, "Oh crap, I don't want to give it all out. I don't know where this kid is." The dispatcher asks him if he wants to meet the police at the mailboxes,[Note 3, 4th picture] and he at first agrees but then says, "Actually, could you have him call me, and I'll tell him where I'm at?", to which the dispatcher replies, "no problem".[109] Zimmerman appears to hang up at the 4:05 mark. The recording ends at the 4:11 mark, approximately 7:13:41 PM."

Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If Zimmerman had followed the implied instructions, "We don't need you to do that," he wouldn't have taken his pistol out, to commit a crime, as he clearly intended.  He did NOT wait for police, he had a gun, ready, and he used the gun, with intent to kill.

Zimmerman had a round in the chamber, by the time he made the decision, to use deadly force, without cause.  He exceeded his office, and his intent to use a gun to commit a crime is clearly shown, by the circumstances of that weapon's abuse.  No way could he chamber a round, release the safety, and fire one, perfect, fatal shot, with Martin beating up on him, the whole time.  Guilty people do this sort of thing, and sometimes, they get away with it.


----------



## Ariux (May 29, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> If Zimmerman had followed the implied instructions, "We don't need you to do that," he wouldn't have taken his pistol out, to commit a crime, as he clearly intended.  He did NOT wait for police, he had a gun, ready, and he used the gun, with intent to kill.



Why U so StuPid?  U an Afro?  

Zimmerman was following instructions when he got out of his car.  The dispatcher asked Zimmerman to tell him where the Afro was going, and Zimmerman had to get out of the car to comply.   But, Zimmerman stopped and lost the Afro.   



> Zimmerman had a round in the chamber, by the time he made the decision, to use deadly force, without cause.



Except for the beating, part.


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > LilOlLady said:
> ...


Of course you don't get scars. All your injuries are on your ass, and no one wants to see that.


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > George Zimmerman is not a fat and out of shape man.  He's pretty fit.
> ...



Zimmerman was about 10 pounds over his optimal weight for his size. That 10 pounds could have been muscle. He is not obese in the perp walk video taken right after he killed Martin.

Martin was underweight for his height. A thin, gangly teen.

In a fist fight it is hard to imagine that Martin would get the upper hand.


----------



## Rat in the Hat (May 29, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> "At 2:07 minutes into his call to the police, Zimmerman says, "he's running.". At 2:37 minutes, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher, "he ran." *The sound of an "open door" chime, a change in Zimmerman's voice and the sound of wind indicate that Zimmerman has left his vehicle, prompting the dispatcher to ask if Zimmerman is following Martin. When Zimmerman confirms that he is, the dispatcher says, "We don't need you to do that."*[108] Zimmerman says "OK". Asked if he "want(s) to meet with the officer," Zimmerman says "yeah" and gives directions to where his vehicle is parked but is unable to provide an address. He also tells the dispatcher the numbers of his street address, and then at 3:35 adds, "Oh crap, I don't want to give it all out. I don't know where this kid is." The dispatcher asks him if he wants to meet the police at the mailboxes,[Note 3, 4th picture] and he at first agrees but then says, "Actually, could you have him call me, and I'll tell him where I'm at?", to which the dispatcher replies, "no problem".[109] Zimmerman appears to hang up at the 4:05 mark. The recording ends at the 4:11 mark, approximately 7:13:41 PM."
> 
> Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



Hey, didn't you say earlier that the dispatcher told him not to get out of the car.

I think that's what you said.

Isn't it?

Why, yes, that's exactly what you said.



bobgnote said:


> I hope I don't get in trouble, for similar posts, at similar threads!
> 
> *1. Zimmy was instructed to remain in his car and refrain from contacting Martin;*
> 2. Zimmy exited the car, with his auto-gat, and contacted Martin;
> ...



Can't keep your story straight, can you? 

Sad bastard.


----------



## Ariux (May 29, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Zimmerman was about 10 pounds over his optimal weight for his size. That 10 pounds could have been muscle. He is not obese in the perp walk video taken right after he killed Martin.
> 
> Martin was underweight for his height. A thin, gangly teen.
> 
> In a fist fight it is hard to imagine that Martin would get the upper hand.



Going by the information on the police report, Zimmerman was about 50 pounds overweight.

Going by the information on the autopsy report, Trayvon was his ideal weight, as well as several inches taller than Zimmerman.

Going by the fact that Zimmerman has numerous wounds and Trayvon had none, except on his knuckles, you're a f-ing idiot.


----------



## Ravi (May 29, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman was about 10 pounds over his optimal weight for his size. That 10 pounds could have been muscle. He is not obese in the perp walk video taken right after he killed Martin.
> ...


I keep finding amazing that your lies are swallowed by the other righties and that they keep thanking you for your racist posts.

Well, not really.


----------



## Liability (May 29, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Where has Ariyuchs been thanked by any noticeable number of conservatives?

Oh, that's right.  It's Ravi.  When the facts and reality aren't on her side, she just lies.

Simple.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 29, 2012)

Liability said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > I hope I don't get in trouble, for similar posts, at similar threads!
> ...


If you ignore the polcie call from Zimmerman then yes you;d be correct but most of us aren't retards who ignore reality


Liability said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Gee.  He pulled a gun in order -- he maintains -- to save his own life or avoid the risk of serious bodily harm, but YOU imagine he needs to aim more carefully to avoid doing -- any damage?  You might be a bigger asshole, but it's not easy to see how.
> ...


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 29, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > I hope I don't get in trouble, for similar posts, at similar threads!
> ...



Well most of us dont stalk random people when told not to be the cops then run after them and confront them.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 29, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> "At 2:07 minutes into his call to the police, Zimmerman says, "he's running.". At 2:37 minutes, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher, "he ran." The sound of an "open door" chime, a change in Zimmerman's voice and the sound of wind indicate that Zimmerman has left his vehicle, prompting the dispatcher to ask if Zimmerman is following Martin. When Zimmerman confirms that he is, the dispatcher says, "We don't need you to do that."[108] Zimmerman says "OK". Asked if he "want(s) to meet with the officer," Zimmerman says "yeah" and gives directions to where his vehicle is parked but is unable to provide an address. He also tells the dispatcher the numbers of his street address, and then at 3:35 adds, "Oh crap, I don't want to give it all out. I don't know where this kid is." The dispatcher asks him if he wants to meet the police at the mailboxes,[Note 3, 4th picture] and he at first agrees but then says, "Actually, could you have him call me, and I'll tell him where I'm at?", to which the dispatcher replies, "no problem".[109] Zimmerman appears to hang up at the 4:05 mark. The recording ends at the 4:11 mark, approximately 7:13:41 PM."
> 
> Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



Here's what's purely absurd....folk are implying that unless the dispatch said, "George Zimmerman, you are ordered by the the Sanford Police dept. to cease following the suspect you described and remain in your vehicle", Zimmerman was free to continue his stalking of Martin.  Also, folks are telling me that I must ASSUME that Zimmerman gave up trying to find Martin and was returning to his car when Martin essentially doubles back to attack him.

To do all this, all you have to do is IGNORE ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS THE SCENARIO, and assume that Zimmerman is a complete idiot prone to bouts of mental uncomprehension.  

But what's REALLY scary is this defense that under Florida law, even if you've provoked a fight and are armed, if the person you're fighting turns the tables and kicks your ass, you can justifiably kill them because you feel YOUR life is threatened and NOT be prosecuted for manslaughter. 

Man, between the voter suppression and this, I'm steering clear of Florida.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 29, 2012)

Ariux said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > If Zimmerman had followed the implied instructions, "We don't need you to do that," he wouldn't have taken his pistol out, to commit a crime, as he clearly intended.  He did NOT wait for police, he had a gun, ready, and he used the gun, with intent to kill.
> ...



Don't you just love it when David Duke wanna-be's like Ariux think using their racial slurs and race baiting terms someone accenuates the validity of their assertions?


----------



## Oldstyle (May 30, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > "At 2:07 minutes into his call to the police, Zimmerman says, "he's running.". At 2:37 minutes, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher, "he ran." The sound of an "open door" chime, a change in Zimmerman's voice and the sound of wind indicate that Zimmerman has left his vehicle, prompting the dispatcher to ask if Zimmerman is following Martin. When Zimmerman confirms that he is, the dispatcher says, "We don't need you to do that."[108] Zimmerman says "OK". Asked if he "want(s) to meet with the officer," Zimmerman says "yeah" and gives directions to where his vehicle is parked but is unable to provide an address. He also tells the dispatcher the numbers of his street address, and then at 3:35 adds, "Oh crap, I don't want to give it all out. I don't know where this kid is." The dispatcher asks him if he wants to meet the police at the mailboxes,[Note 3, 4th picture] and he at first agrees but then says, "Actually, could you have him call me, and I'll tell him where I'm at?", to which the dispatcher replies, "no problem".[109] Zimmerman appears to hang up at the 4:05 mark. The recording ends at the 4:11 mark, approximately 7:13:41 PM."
> ...



So what exactly is it that Trayvon Martin is DOING between the 2:00 mark of that call and the 4:00 mark of that call?  When last seen he was running.  Now how far do you think a fit 17 year old can run in two minutes, Thai?  For your scenario of Zimmerman "doubling back" to assault Trayvon to work you're asking us to believe that in the two minutes that have gone by Martin has only gone a few yards.  Are you seriously buying that?

As for someone provoking a fight?  I'm not quite following your logic here, Thai  What is it that George Zimmerman did exactly that provoked a fight...asking Trayvon Martin questions?  I'm sorry but that's not grounds to assault someone.  Neither is following someone.  Trayvon Martin was doing nothing wrong that night UNTIL he apparently took exception to being asked questions and being followed and decided that the best response to that was to give George Zimmerman a good old fashioned beat down.  This whole concept that Zimmerman provoked a fight with his actions I find rather laughable.  You don't assault someone who asks you what you're doing in a neighborhood that you don't live in and they do.  You answer their question.  "I'm Trayvon Martin and I'm visiting my dad's fiancee Brandy Green who lives in townhouse B-3."  See how easy that is?  So why didn't Martin do that?  Why did he decide that fists were the solution to his problem with Zimmerman?  That's the sign of a kid with "issues"...the kind of issues that get you kicked out of school three times.  But you keep on blaming George Zimmerman for simply trying to keep his neighborhood from being vandalized.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 30, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > "At 2:07 minutes into his call to the police, Zimmerman says, "he's running.". At 2:37 minutes, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher, "he ran." The sound of an "open door" chime, a change in Zimmerman's voice and the sound of wind indicate that Zimmerman has left his vehicle, prompting the dispatcher to ask if Zimmerman is following Martin. When Zimmerman confirms that he is, the dispatcher says, "We don't need you to do that."[108] Zimmerman says "OK". Asked if he "want(s) to meet with the officer," Zimmerman says "yeah" and gives directions to where his vehicle is parked but is unable to provide an address. He also tells the dispatcher the numbers of his street address, and then at 3:35 adds, "Oh crap, I don't want to give it all out. I don't know where this kid is." The dispatcher asks him if he wants to meet the police at the mailboxes,[Note 3, 4th picture] and he at first agrees but then says, "Actually, could you have him call me, and I'll tell him where I'm at?", to which the dispatcher replies, "no problem".[109] Zimmerman appears to hang up at the 4:05 mark. The recording ends at the 4:11 mark, approximately 7:13:41 PM."
> ...



Wow, you should go into gambling for a living because with your awesome psychic powers that can chanel Zimmermans thoughts to you months after the deeds were done and over hundreds of miles of distance you would have no problem with a roulette wheel or tumbling dice, lol.

Many you libtards want to string GZ up for the outrage of defending his own life so bad yo uwill jsut make shit up, convince yourself its all true (easy since you appear to be a blithering moron anyway) and then arguethat these are FACTS! ROFLMAO.

Decioding to shoot a guy who is pounding your head into the pavement is NOT 'cause'? You are really so 10 generations of inbred stupid that you cant fathom how he could shoot a guy with his gun while the thug is sitting on him pounding him? It never occured to you that he might have carried with a chambered round like MOST CCL holders do?




taichiliberal said:


> Here's what's purely absurd....folk are implying that unless the dispatch said, "George Zimmerman, you are ordered by the the Sanford Police dept. to cease following the suspect you described and remain in your vehicle", Zimmerman was free to continue his stalking of Martin.



No, stupid ass, we are telling you that this is a free country and the 911 operator had no AUTHORITY to tell GZ jack shit. And what GZ did was not stalking him, you fucking liar.




taichiliberal said:


> Also, folks are telling me that I must ASSUME that Zimmerman gave up trying to find Martin and was returning to his car when Martin essentially doubles back to attack him.



No one is saying that, as there is no reason to assume what the evidence clearly suggests.

If you were an honest person, which you plainly are not, your lack of comprehension of what your opponents are asserting should give you pause to reconsider your assertions and conclusions. But since you are a lying peace of dogshit, you wont ever do that and will continue to slander a man far your superior because you are too stupid and stubborn to realize that you are wrong and make yourself look like the stupid lying, fucktard that you really are.



taichiliberal said:


> To do all this, all you have to do is IGNORE ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT CONTRADICTS THE SCENARIO, and assume that Zimmerman is a complete idiot prone to bouts of mental uncomprehension.



No, we simply look at the evidence and draw oour conclusions from that.

You and the rest of the racist lynch mob are the only complete idiots involved in this...and the dead one too of course.



taichiliberal said:


> But what's REALLY scary is this defense that under Florida law, even if you've provoked a fight and are armed, if the person you're fighting turns the tables and kicks your ass, you can justifiably kill them because you feel YOUR life is threatened and NOT be prosecuted for manslaughter.



Yeah defending your own life because some thug is trying to beat you to death and wont stop when you 'tap out' or even plead for your life is just so outrageous. 

Obviously anyone who shoots a black criminal is a racist who should be lynched, right? 

/s

For those on the left, this is not about what is right and fair. This is about defending to the last breath and shred of credibility a PR campaign against 'Stand Your Ground' laws that has blown up in their faces because they didnt do good research and picked a really bad case to make their cnetral showcase. 

They thought they had a white racist who chased down and shot a black child, but they got a white hispanic that shot a violent thug who was trying to beat the hispanic to death.

Cant waste all that money and time though can we? Just have to hang GZ anyway; the better world that will result totally justifies sacrificing the life of one innocent man, as history demonstrates they have a habit of doing from the Jacobin Reign of Terror to the Khmer Rogue.



taichiliberal said:


> Man, between the voter suppression...



Yeah because making sure that people are who they say they are is just so unconstiutional and unfair to the Democrat political machines.



taichiliberal said:


> ....I'm steering clear of Florida.



I am sure the law-abiding citizenry of Florida are thankful for that.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 30, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...


Yep it is impossible for a 28 year old to outrun a 17 year old. Impossible its cant happen never ever never ever....



Oldstyle said:


> As for someone provoking a fight?  I'm not quite following your logic here, Thai  What is it that George Zimmerman did exactly that provoked a fight...asking Trayvon Martin questions?


Stalked him and than ran into him. That is what the evidence shows he did



Oldstyle said:


> I'm sorry but that's not grounds to assault someone.  Neither is following someone.  Trayvon Martin was doing nothing wrong that night UNTIL he apparently took exception to being asked questions and being followed and decided that the best response to that was to give George Zimmerman a good old fashioned beat down.


Yes Martin being attacked by Zimmerman means martin was doing something wrong.


Oldstyle said:


> This whole concept that Zimmerman provoked a fight with his actions I find rather laughable.



Not surprised that you find reality laughable



Oldstyle said:


> You don't assault someone who asks you what you're doing in a neighborhood that you don't live in and they do.  You answer their question.  "I'm Trayvon Martin and I'm visiting my dad's fiancee Brandy Green who lives in townhouse B-3."  See how easy that is?  So why didn't Martin do that?  Why did he decide that fists were the solution to his problem with Zimmerman?  That's the sign of a kid with "issues"...the kind of issues that get you kicked out of school three times.  But you keep on blaming George Zimmerman for simply trying to keep his neighborhood from being vandalized.


According to witnesses Zimmerman attacked Martin and Martin told him to get off and was yelling for help


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 30, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> [
> Many you libtards want to string GZ up for the outrage of defending his own life so bad yo uwill jsut make shit up, convince yourself its all true (easy since you appear to be a blithering moron anyway) and then arguethat these are FACTS! ROFLMAO.[/quote[
> See this is the problem to you this isn't about justice, putting a murderer away or finding truth to you this is a political game you must win.
> 
> ...


----------



## bobgnote (May 30, 2012)

So amidst all the vitriol and wingnutski KGB rants, I don't see too much retro-analysis, of SPD dispatch instruction, to Watch-Captain Zimmerman: "We don't need you to do that."

It seems George is not what the dispatcher was prepared to wrangle, since he went out of his car, with his gun, looking to use it, which he did, killing Martin with a single shot, rather than wound or warn Martin.  When Captain George went out of his car, the dispatcher had to take action, right then, no matter what other calls were going on, to say something.

That the dispatcher had to say anything at all under the circumstances is significant; George was a loose cannon, but instead of getting back in his car, to drive to meet police, he went after Martin, on foot, to approach him.  Zimmerman intended to use the gun, however he could, he shot to kill, and that is murder-2.

The Feds are watching THAT, the NSA watches THIS FORUM and all like it, and you can use your own judgment, as to what a hate crime actually is, but I can see, how those get going, from reading all the circular-logic with vitriol, from wingnuts, which is supposed to get Zimmerman off, somehow.  The Feds watch, and wait, for now.  Let's see what happens.

As for the NSA, we don't need THEM to do us, but hey.  They have a new house going up, in Bluffdale, Utah, capable of housing terabytes, plus.  They are THE Bad Co., four times bigger, than the CIA.  They can hook up with corporations, or other agencies, whatever they want.  Unlike Zimmerman, they do crime, and never mind the time.  I wonder what Feds make of all this.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 30, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> So amidst all the vitriol and wingnutski KGB rants, I don't see too much retro-analysis, of SPD dispatch instruction, to Watch-Captain Zimmerman: "We don't need you to do that."
> 
> It seems George is not what the dispatcher was prepared to wrangle, since he went out of his car, with his gun, looking to use it, which he did, killing Martin with a single shot, rather than wound or warn Martin.  When Captain George went out of his car, the dispatcher had to take action, right then, no matter what other calls were going on, to say something.
> 
> ...



With all due respect, Bob...you're clueless when it comes to the Zimmerman/Martin killing.  At the time the fight took place, Zimmerman was walking back to his SUV to meet the police.  He'd lost Martin because the teenager had gone right after going around behind the row of townhouses and Zimmerman thought he had gone straight to the rear gate of the complex.  The police dispatcher tells Zimmerman he doesn't need to be following the suspicious man when Martin is AT the rear gate.  Then they discuss where Zimmerman is going to meet the police cruiser that's responding.  Zimmerman isn't stalking anyone at this point...he's lost the "suspicious man" and he's walking back to his SUV to meet the police.  Two full minutes have passed in the meantime giving Martin plenty of time to be back at Brandy Green's townhouse a hundred yards down the sidewalk.  But he's not there, Bob because he's come back to confront Zimmerman as Zimmerman walks back to his SUV.

My question to you is this...if you REALLY believe that George Zimmerman exited his SUV with the intent of shooting Trayvon Martin...stalked him and then shot him then why did he let  Martin beat the living tar out of him before doing so?  You honestly think that Zimmerman allowed Martin to break his nose and bash his head against the sidewalk so that he could claim self defense?  Just THINK ABOUT THAT...your scenario makes ZERO sense.

What DOES make sense is that George Zimmerman exited his vehicle with the intention of keeping Martin in sight until the police arrived.  He's obviously frustrated by the inability of the police to catch the people who are breaking into homes in the complex and despite his nervousness about Martin (rolling up his SUV window when Martin approaches him) he gets out of his truck and does attempt to follow.  Why?  Because he's the Captain of the Neighborhood Watch group.  He's the guy who's supposed to be keeping that neighborhood safe.  He's never tried to physically detain anyone that he's called about in the past even though he's made numerous calls.  He didn't try to get physical with Martin during the first confrontation on the complex street...instead rolling up the window when Martin approached the vehicle.  But you want me to believe that he DID provoke a fight with Martin in a more secluded area where he was less likely to receive assistance?  And that scenario makes sense to you?

What makes sense to me is that Martin sees the man who questioned him back on the street now walking around on the sidewalk...stops and goes back to confront him...just as he did when Zimmerman was in his truck.  Only now George can't roll up the window to prevent a confrontation.  His testimony is that Martin approached him from the rear and to the left as he's walking back towards his SUV.  An eyewitness looking out his rear window hears cries for help and sees a man in a dark hooded sweatshirt on top of a man on the ground raining blows down on his head in what he describes as like a MMA bout.  Since Zimmerman is the only person with any damage to his head (and it's quite obvious from the police photos that he took a great deal of damage to his head...consistent with what the eyewitness described) it's logical to assume that the man on the bottom screaming for help is George Zimmerman (and since Martin's own father told police the recorded voice he heard was not that of his son there's even MORE reason to believe that's the case!).  The man on top throwing punches down is Martin.  This is an assault that goes on for quite some time.  It's not like Martin is throwing one sucker shot and then walking away having made his point.  He's got Zimmerman down on the ground, straddling him and is repeatedly punching him in the head and smacking his head against the sidewalk.


----------



## Inthemiddle (May 30, 2012)

Liability said:


> Because, you idiot, you are saying shit based on rabid speculation rather than on what the actual evidence may end up showing.



Er, no.  I'm addressing Zimmerman's claims, and the lack of consistency therein. Focus, you pin head.  Focus.



> The suggestion is that where, as here, so much is simply not yet known, it is unwise and premature at best to reach firm conclusions, yet.



And that's what a trial is for.  I'm not putting Zimmerman on trial.  I'm pointing out that his story does not add up.



> Damn, boy.  Have some humility.  Acknowledge the fact that YOU don't know diddly dog about what happened.  And if you want to engage in rank speculation, at least acknowledge that speculation is all you're doing.



No.  I'm not speculating.  I'm addressing Zimmerman's claims, and the lack of consistency therein.  If you want to accuse my of hypothesizing, then you'd be accurate.  But you make it sound like there is something wrong with hypothesizing based on the information known thus far.


----------



## Inthemiddle (May 30, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Going by the information on the police report, Zimmerman was about 50 pounds overweight.
> 
> Going by the information on the autopsy report, Trayvon was his ideal weight, as well as several inches taller than Zimmerman.








At 6'2" and 340 lbs, defensive end Ryan Pickett of the Green Bay Packers is severely obese and well beyond the ideal weight range for even a large framed man of his height.






At 6'6" and 205 lbs San Antonio shooting guard Manu Ginobili lands squarely within his ideal weight range for a man of his height.  Manu may be several inches taller than Pickett, but I'm not inclined to believe that Manu would one-up Pickett in a brawl.


----------



## Inthemiddle (May 30, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> At the time the fight took place, Zimmerman was walking back to his SUV to meet the police



Prove it.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 30, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> "At 2:07 minutes into his call to the police, Zimmerman says, "he's running.". At 2:37 minutes, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher, "he ran." The sound of an "open door" chime, a change in Zimmerman's voice and the sound of wind indicate that Zimmerman has left his vehicle, prompting the dispatcher to ask if Zimmerman is following Martin. When Zimmerman confirms that he is, the dispatcher says, "We don't need you to do that."[108] Zimmerman says "OK". Asked if he "want(s) to meet with the officer," Zimmerman says "yeah" and gives directions to where his vehicle is parked but is unable to provide an address. He also tells the dispatcher the numbers of his street address, and then at 3:35 adds, "Oh crap, I don't want to give it all out. I don't know where this kid is." The dispatcher asks him if he wants to meet the police at the mailboxes,[Note 3, 4th picture] and he at first agrees but then says, "Actually, could you have him call me, and I'll tell him where I'm at?", to which the dispatcher replies, "no problem".[109] Zimmerman appears to hang up at the 4:05 mark. The recording ends at the 4:11 mark, approximately 7:13:41 PM."
> 
> Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...



What evidence do you have that Zimmerman took his gun out at any time before the fight?  What evidence do you have that he "chambered a round", as you keep claiming?  You keep assuming a lot of shit not in evidence, and you apparently know even less about handguns than I do, because a lot of your assumptions about what "must" have happened are just dead wrong.


----------



## Ravi (May 30, 2012)

> The dispatcher asks him if he wants to meet the police at the mailboxes,[Note 3, 4th picture] and he at first agrees but then says, *"Actually, could you have him call me, and I'll tell him where I'm at?"*


This is the biggest tell that Zimmerman went looking for trouble. Otherwise, there would be no question as to where he was....he would have been sitting in his vehicle waiting for the police.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 30, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > So amidst all the vitriol and wingnutski KGB rants, I don't see too much retro-analysis, of SPD dispatch instruction, to Watch-Captain Zimmerman: "We don't need you to do that."
> ...


You know this how? Oh you dont your just speculating and making shit up like usually. I ask again why are you making shit up to defend a violent racist bully who murdered a kid?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 30, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...



What a coincidence:  neither did George Zimmerman.


----------



## asterism (May 30, 2012)

Ravi said:


> > The dispatcher asks him if he wants to meet the police at the mailboxes,[Note 3, 4th picture] and he at first agrees but then says, *"Actually, could you have him call me, and I'll tell him where I'm at?"*
> 
> 
> This is the biggest tell that Zimmerman went looking for trouble. Otherwise, there would be no question as to where he was....he would have been sitting in his vehicle waiting for the police.



How does watching where Martin was going equate to looking for trouble?


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 30, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



Yep and water isnt wet its dry. Go get a face lift or something


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 30, 2012)

asterism said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > > The dispatcher asks him if he wants to meet the police at the mailboxes,[Note 3, 4th picture] and he at first agrees but then says, *"Actually, could you have him call me, and I'll tell him where I'm at?"*
> ...



It doesnt but following him and then chasing him down and confronting him is


----------



## Ravi (May 30, 2012)

asterism said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > > The dispatcher asks him if he wants to meet the police at the mailboxes,[Note 3, 4th picture] and he at first agrees but then says, *"Actually, could you have him call me, and I'll tell him where I'm at?"*
> ...


It shows his intent to "get" Martin after the police told him they didn't need Zimmerman following. Coupled with his statement to the effect that "these assholes always get away."

Zimmerman wasn't going to let Martin get away even though Martin had done nothing wrong.


----------



## asterism (May 30, 2012)

Ravi said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



I think it shows his intent to keep track of Martin despite the advice given by a dispatcher who has no legal authority.  I also agree with his sentiment that merely dialing 911 and letting the police handle it from there hasn't worked in the past.  I'm not sure what I would have done and I don't know what happened beyond the limited facts that have come out, but I have followed people in my neighborhood.

You have no idea of Zimmerman's intentions.  You were not in his head.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 30, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...



Nobody knows exactly what happened that night except for Zimmerman and Martin...and Martin won't be telling his side of the story anytime soon so all we have to work with is the phone calls...maps of the location so we can judge the distances from different points and where they are in relation to each other and George Zimmerman's testimony.

What I've done is examine what George Zimmerman SAID happened and then compared that testimony to the time line on the phone call and the different locations of his SUV, the back gate and Brandy Green's townhouse.  The rest is simply asking what is plausible and what is not.  To be quite blunt...I find no holes in George Zimmerman's account of what took place that night.  The time line fits his story...the schematic of the complex fits his story...the injuries to him and Trayvon Martin fit his story...and the story that he told has remained consistent despite giving the initial testimony after being beaten rather badly and having to repeat that testimony to both State Police and Federal agents.  Liars tend to slip up when they're forced to tell the same lie over and over.  Zimmerman's testimony remains the same.  Why?  Probably because he's telling the truth.

You my video game besotted friend have gotten most of your information about this incident from Think Progress articles that are so blatantly anti-Zimmerman as to be laughable.

You've STILL never explained why George Zimmerman was passing out fliers asking for justice in the beating of a homeless black man by the white son of a Sandford police officer.  Why is that?  Because you can't fit THAT George Zimmerman into the narrative that Think Progress has given you about him?  That he's a racist thug that stalked an innocent teen and shot him down like a dog while poor Trayvon fought for his life?

You've also failed to account for Trayvon Martin's whereabouts during the two minutes after he runs out of sight behind the building and the end of George Zimmerman's phone call with police as Zimmerman is headed back from the gate to meet police.  It's obvious that he didn't try and go to Brandy Green's townhouse because he would have made it there EASILY in that amount of time.  So how is it that when George Zimmerman is walking back that Trayvon Martin is there to confront him if he's REALLY attempted to get away from the man who is allegedly "stalking" him?

And while you're explaining that, Star explain to me why someone who WAS stalking another person with the intent of using a firearm to kill them...allowed that person to approach them, knock them on their ass and then sit on their torso and punch them silly BEFORE pulling that firearm and shooting them?  Show me the logic in THAT!


----------



## paperview (May 30, 2012)

asterism said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...


He gave us a piece of his "head" when he said "these assholes always get away" and "fucking punks."

Those mindless babbled 'excited utterances' tell us a whole lot about where his head was at.


----------



## paperview (May 30, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> ...
> To be quite blunt...I find no holes in George Zimmerman's account of what took place that night.  The time line fits his story...the schematic of the complex fits his story...the injuries to him and Trayvon Martin fit his story...and the story that he told has remained consistent despite giving the initial testimony after being beaten rather badly and having to repeat that testimony to both State Police and Federal agents.*  Liars tend to slip up when they're forced to tell the same lie over and over.  Zimmerman's testimony remains the same.  Why?  Probably because he's telling the truth*.
> 
> ....


Is that why the lead homicide detective wanted to charge him with manslaughter?

Is that why the States Attorney said his statements are "not consistent with the evidence?"

Is that why they said he kept changing his story?

Tell us - since you seem to be citing Zimmerman's statements of his account - WHERE THE HELL DID YOU SEE HIS FIVE STATEMENTS TO POLICE? Did you see his reenactment video too?  

If you could post either one, it would help us out greatly, as no one here has seen it.

Thanks in advance!


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 30, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> Nobody knows exactly what happened that night except for Zimmerman and Martin..


Just because you ignore witness and evidence doesn't meant he rest of us are clueless like yourself



Oldstyle said:


> What I've done is examine what George Zimmerman SAID happened and then compared that testimony to the time line on the phone call and the different locations of his SUV, the back gate and Brandy Green's townhouse.  The rest is simply asking what is plausible and what is not.  To be quite blunt...I find no holes in George Zimmerman's account of what took place that night.


Really? Him saying he was on concrete when he was really on grass isn't a hole?
Really him telling the cops that the age of Martin was somehwere in his late teens and then later saying he had no clue what the guys age was isnt a hole?
Perhaps you should look for holes before you tell us there are non. Liar.

  So coem back when you are reality to face reality instead of defend a violent racist bully whose been charged with assault before who just stalked and killed a kid


----------



## paperview (May 30, 2012)

> Quote: Originally Posted by *Oldstyle
> ...*And while you're explaining that, Star explain to me why someone who WAS  stalking another person with the intent of using a firearm to kill  them...allowed that person to approach them, knock them on their ass and  then sit on their torso and punch them silly BEFORE pulling that  firearm and shooting them?  Show me the logic in THAT!


Where is the logic in the reality this "beating victim" suffered no defensive wounds? 

Show me the logic that says someone who "punched someone silly" could incur only a single scratch 1/8 to 1/4 inch on his finger.


----------



## Meister (May 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> > Quote: Originally Posted by *Oldstyle
> > ...*And while you're explaining that, Star explain to me why someone who WAS  stalking another person with the intent of using a firearm to kill  them...allowed that person to approach them, knock them on their ass and  then sit on their torso and punch them silly BEFORE pulling that  firearm and shooting them?  Show me the logic in THAT!
> 
> 
> ...



You might want to look in other sources than MSNBC and Huffo.  There were more injuries, but some of the media doesn't know what the term integrity actually means.  Like when MSNBC spliced and diced the 911 tape.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 30, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody knows exactly what happened that night except for Zimmerman and Martin..
> ...



The fight took place on or near the side walk between the two rows of townhouses...a sidewalk which is surrounded on either side by grass.  Zimmerman had lacerations on the back of his head which would be consistent with it being banged down onto something hard not grass.  How do YOU explain those injuries to the back of his head, Star?

How exactly is Zimmerman's estimation of Martin's age relevant?  Seriously, Dude...THAT is the big "lie" that you've caught George Zimmerman in after hours of testimony?  That he thought the man he saw was in his late teens and then that he didn't know the age of the man?  That's the "lie" that you think shows George Zimmerman's testimony is false?  You just get more and more ridiculous...

I notice that you STILL don't want to explain why a "racist" was handing out fliers to protest the beating of a black man by a white man.  Can't do it...can you?  You know why you can't, Star?  Because despite repeated attempts by the main stream media to frame Zimmerman as a racist he really isn't one and his handing out those fliers PROVES it.


----------



## paperview (May 30, 2012)

Meister said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > > Quote: Originally Posted by *Oldstyle
> ...


That information came from the evidence document dump, not MSNBC or "Huffo".

Nice try to discredit me.  You failed. 

I guess  you yourself failed to actually read the Medical Examiners report.  Give a shot. It won't hurtcha.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> > Quote: Originally Posted by *Oldstyle
> > ...*And while you're explaining that, Star explain to me why someone who WAS  stalking another person with the intent of using a firearm to kill  them...allowed that person to approach them, knock them on their ass and  then sit on their torso and punch them silly BEFORE pulling that  firearm and shooting them?  Show me the logic in THAT!
> 
> 
> ...



It would depend on how Martin was striking the man that he was straddling.  If he's using hammer fists to Martin's skull then he's going to have little to no damage to his hands.  What I find amusing, Paper...is that you want me to explain why Martin does not have more damage to his hands (something which could be determined by how and where he was striking Zimmerman) yet you have no explanation for the multiple and serious injuries that Zimmerman sustained which an eyewitness has stated were administered by Trayvon Martin.  Why the double standard?


----------



## paperview (May 30, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


It's not an either / or. 

Just because someone has a few minor wounds on his head does not mean it *had* have come from concrete.

The SA stated that his explanation does not corroborate with the physical evidence. 

Hell, I can look at that minor boo-boo and see right off the bat, that's not from repeated concrete slamming.  Heads look like hamburg after being pounded into concrete.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 30, 2012)

People that have gotten in a few fights are less apt to punch another person's skull.  It's a great way to bust your knuckles and incapacitate yourself.


----------



## paperview (May 30, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > > Quote: Originally Posted by *Oldstyle
> ...


You mean the "john" witness?

The guy who retracted his "MMA style punches" and went from saying  he could tell who was screaming and that the  teenager was belting down  punches like a crazed jiu-jitsu   to ...

...he didn't know who was screaming now (he had just been assuming) - and he* didn't even know how close they were, if he was even hitting him, **"or if he was trying to hold him down in that position until  cops got there."

*That witness?


----------



## Ravi (May 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> asterism said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


Also, he wasn't speaking to a 911 dispatcher. He was likely speaking to a police officer on desk duty that night as he called the non-emergency number.


----------



## Ravi (May 30, 2012)

Meister said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > > Quote: Originally Posted by *Oldstyle
> ...



According to the autopsy, the only other injury Martin had was the gunshot wound. I'm curious to know what you are talking about.


----------



## paperview (May 30, 2012)

Listen to it here >>Listen to the interview of witness "John" (W#6)  <<

He goes from saying the guy was bashing him _MMA style_ (mixed martial  arts), now he doesn't even know how close they were or even if TM was  the aggressor.

*"But in  follow-up interviews with the state  attorney's office and Florida  Department of Law Enforcement, his  statement changed.*   In re-telling his  story, he remained  consistent by saying Martin was  on top, in control,  and had the  advantage, but now, he wasn't sure if  Martin was the  aggressor.

W6: Did not hear a punch sound.
SAO: Did ever hear a sound like a head or another part of a body hitting concrete hard where it made a noise?
W6: No, I did not.
SAO: Did you hear it at all, like any...?
W6: Just the struggle sound.

Witness  6 went on to say, *"I can't truly see how close they were to   each other;  if he was hitting him, or if he was trying to hold him  down  in that  position until cops got there."*


----------



## Oldstyle (May 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



I don't think you know much about the injuries that result from most fights, Paper.  The cuts on the back of George Zimmerman's head look like "concussive lacerations" to me...which is an blunt object slamming into the body causing a cut or the body itself being slammed into something blunt (like the ground) causing a a cut.  The reason why I find it hard to believe that grass caused Zimmerman's injury is that most Florida grass is very thick and matted, like a Floratam or St. Augustine.  It would be difficult to cause a concussive laceration such as those on the back of Zimmerman's head by smacking it down on something like either of those strains of grass.  It would be rather easy to do so if you were trying to smack someone's head down on a paved surface.  As for his head looking like "hamburg"?  If Zimmerman had hair that Martin could have grabbed then he might have been able to repeatedly slam his head into the ground making it look like "hamburg".  Doing so with a man who has a shaved head on a rainy night however would be rather difficult and as a result I wouldn't expect even close to the same amount of damage.


----------



## paperview (May 30, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


Meister obviously hasn't read the autopsy report. 

Amusing, since he castigates others for reading biased sources. 

Here it is Meister.   Is this the first time you've seen it?

http://docs.docstoc.com/pdf/12816778/0f9a1354-4b3d-45bc-8379-2b3b74c9a1e9.pdf

Commit the portion in red to memory now, lest you bespeak false information again.


----------



## Ravi (May 30, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



His injuries look like scratches, not bashes.
But coming from a guy that makes claims that have no factual basis I can tell why you'd think otherwise.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 30, 2012)

earlycuyler said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > I would certainly think the Sanford PD took good digital pictures of him that night. Unless they fucked that part up too.
> ...



Are you folks kidding?  Have you REALLY not seen the photos that were taken by the police that night?

Why do I even bother to argue this with people this ignorant?


----------



## paperview (May 30, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Listen up chump:  He was treated by paramedics who called his injuries _minor, _and didn''t even require a bandage at the scene_.  _Read the EMT report.  Listen to the paramedic interview.  Dude had a few minor lacerations and that's it. No concussion, and spritely George was looking his Sunday best traipsing through the police station some 35 minutes later. 

Try pushing that bullcrap on someone else who' is willing to buy it.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Where did the witness who testified he saw someone sitting astride another man hitting him with blows like it was MMA "retract" his statement?


----------



## paperview (May 30, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


Wow.  You dug up a month old post that was made before the document dump.

How fucking disingenuous can you get?


----------



## Ravi (May 30, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Now this is funny. You just called another poster ignorant without even checking to see that he asked about the pictures long before they were released. Check your dates in the future!

And the retraction has been reported several times. But probably not on FAUX.

Ignorant, indeedy!


----------



## Oldstyle (May 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Yeah, looking his "Sunday best" on a grainy video feed that was so bad you couldn't even see the cuts on the back of Zimmerman's head.  I've seen the photos of Zimmerman that were taken by police that night.  It's obvious that the man was in a fight and didn't fare very well.  You folks showing the Zimmerman photo from several weeks later to "prove" that he wasn't injured that night is laughable.  I wrestled and took part in Karate tournaments in which I took some shots that swelled my face up worse than Zimmerman that night and I looked completely normal a week later.


----------



## paperview (May 30, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You've got to be shitting me!

You're here complaining about people not knowing the information, and you didn't even know THAT??

First, let's start you off here:  http://www.usmessageboard.com/5366610-post2721.html

Then, you can hear anonymous witness "John's" fiance here:

http://www.axiomamnesia.com/Audio/T...atements-Audio-Witness17-Female-HeardShot.mp3

From her account, "John" was watching TV when the scuffle happened, and   she gives indication of just how long he witnessed the event (sounds   like literally a few seconds). Then they both huddled in the safety of   the stairwell, as he reached for the phone to call 911.

And if you really want to get deep in the muck, listen to "John" (witness #6) who was interviewed by FDLE for a looooooooong time, again, after that first link I gave you.  

*This interview takes almost an hour of asking John just what he  saw and heard (didn't see the how it started, didn't see how it ended  and he looked out the sliding glass door for a mere ten seconds (his  calculation))*

Most people won't bother with devoting almost an hour to listen to this,  but there can be no doubt the investigators were very thorough on  having him recall every millisecond of those ten seconds. [I was  listening to it in a lawn chair and almost fell asleep.]

But for those who are, hear the primary witness describe just how little he was actually able to see, and how he just _assumed_  it was the guy on the bottom yelling for help. He had nothing to base  it on, other than he figured: guy on bottom = the one in stress.

*He saw no punches, heard no smacking, and they were vertical to him in  position.*  That is, from the distance, in the dark, the heads and bodies  were in alignment with him standing up ...it wasn't a 'side' view of  the scuffle, it was back & feet.

I recommend listening if you have the time:

  [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dx6GS61UCxQ]Witness #6 "John" Investigator Interviews - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## paperview (May 30, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Where the hell are you getting "weeks later" from my post.  Read the damn EMT report.

Read my posts!

Ferchissakes.


----------



## paperview (May 30, 2012)

This map showing where the witnesses are helps A LOT.  A LOT.

For those who are familiar with the statements made, it gives indication of just what direction they were moving in


----------



## Oldstyle (May 30, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Then I assume if it's been reported several times then you should have no problem providing a link to that?  Or are you another Star, who gets his info from Think Progress and takes it as gospel?


----------



## paperview (May 30, 2012)

Here are some of the interviews with those on the witness list:



 Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-Witness-Statements-Audio-MiddleEaster-Co-Worker-TerroristJokes-ComedyShow.mp3
 Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-Witness-Statements-Audio-Paramedic.mp3
 Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-Witness-Statements-Audio-RobertZimmerman-SonYelling.mp3
 Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-Witness-Statements-Audio-TrayvonMartins-Girlfriend-Interview.mp3
 Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-Witness-Statements-Audio-Witness1-Cooking.mp3
 Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-Witness-Statements-Audio-Witness12-ZimmermanOnTop.mp3
 Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-Witness-Statements-Audio-Witness13-CalledZimmermanWife.mp3
 Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-Witness-Statements-Audio-Witness14-ZimmermanOnGroundAlone.mp3
 Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-Witness-Statements-Audio-Witness16AndUnknown-TwoShots-NotFighting.mp3
 Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-Witness-Statements-Audio-Witness17-Female-HeardShot.mp3
 Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-Witness-Statements-Audio-Witness18-two-pops-heavier-man.mp3
 Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-Witness-Statements-Audio-Witness19-Female-MoaningAfterShooting.mp3
 Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-Witness-Statements-Audio-Witness20-HeardScuffle.mp3
 Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-Witness-Statements-Audio-Witness21-NeighborhoodWatchPresident.mp3
 Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-Witness-Statements-Audio-Witness3-Female-White-Shirt.mp3
 Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-Witness-Statements-Audio-Witness6-Altercation-Yelling.mp3
 Trayvon-Martin-George-Zimmerman-Witness-Statements-Audio-Witness6-BlackGuyOnTop.mp3


----------



## Oldstyle (May 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



The booking photo of George Zimmerman is what I'm referring to.  The one that was taken weeks after the killing.  I'm simply pointing out the fact that THAT photo does nothing to prove that Zimmerman didn't sustain injuries that night.


----------



## paperview (May 30, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Gawd Almighty.  You can't be serious.  No one could   be this ignorant about the witnesses who changed their story and pretend like you know this case. 

Is it just a nervous tic that belts out "liberal media" anytime you think someone has information you haven't read yet?


----------



## paperview (May 30, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Whoop de fucking do.

NO ONE is talking about that photo except YOU.

FOCUS!


----------



## Ravi (May 30, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


uh, it was 35 minutes later and he looked perfectly unharmed.

But interesting you've brought up Karate. Did Zimmerman practice martial arts?


----------



## Ravi (May 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> This map showing where the witnesses are helps A LOT.  A LOT.
> 
> For those who are familiar with the statements made, it gives indication of just what direction they were moving in


Not sure if you saw this one, it's interesting.

Trayvon Martin | MiamiHerald.com

It has several subsequent pages detailing the timeline and locations.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 30, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> earlycuyler said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


The reason everyone here says you are a retard is not because you are smart its because you are a retard


----------



## paperview (May 30, 2012)




----------



## Oldstyle (May 30, 2012)

I just wasted a half hour listening to all of your witness statements that supposedly were going to convince me that something happened OTHER than what I've proposed and I've got to be honest with you...I'm still not seeing how any of that testimony contradicts what Zimmerman has stated happened.

Where is the testimony of the witness that you say has recanted his earlier statement regarding seeing Martin on top of Zimmerman?


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 30, 2012)

Meister said:


> Perhaps, if you would listen to the paramedic audio which you so kindly provided
> it would give you a better clue to Zimmerman's injuries other than that 1/8 to 1/4 inch scratch on his finger,




Meister,

The 1/4 x 1/8 scratch to a finger was on Martin's left ring finger per the autopsy report, not on Zimmerman's hand.


>>>>


----------



## Oldstyle (May 30, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



You say that "I'm" a retard, Star but when I ask you several times to explain why the man you've accused of being a racist spent time handing out fliers calling for justice for a homeless black man who was beaten by the son of a white Sanford police officer...you don't have a reply.

When I ask you to explain why Martin doesn't get away from Zimmerman despite having a thirty yard head start and Zimmerman going the wrong way when he tries to follow him and you don't have a reply for that either.  This is pretty simple stuff, little guy...just explain to me what Trayvon Martin is doing during the two minutes between when Zimmerman exits his SUV and when he ends his phone call with the police after agreeing to meet them back by his vehicle?


----------



## Meister (May 30, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps, if you would listen to the paramedic audio which you so kindly provided
> ...



My bad...I was talking about the one still alive.  I concede the point


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Listen up, chump:  "Sunday best"?  Now who's pushing bullcrap?  Those photos you Internet Albert Schweitzers like to poo-poo and diagnose from your desk chairs were taken by the police, so how is that "looking his Sunday best"?

And speaking of "pushing bullcrap", how about all of you dismissing the report from his own doctor, who had the time and equipment to do a more thorough examination - not to mention more medical training - than the paramedics, in favor of pretending the EMT report is the only one?  Or better yet, dismissing the report from his doctor in favor of your OWN diagnoses?

Only bullcrap I see being pushed around here is your half-assed personal opinion masquerading as evidence.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 30, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > earlycuyler said:
> ...



"Everyone here"?  Which "everyone" would that be?  You and the gerbil up your ass?

Before you drown in your delusion that you're some lofty, respected VIP around here, Sparkles, you might want to compare your rep rate to Oldstyle's, and ask yourself who "everyone" REALLY thinks is a retard.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 30, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Why is it that the only thing you can do is insult people? Is it because forming intelligent thoughts is impossible for you? When all you can say is "your a retard" and suck Oldsytles dick tis apparent you are a retard and a whore


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 30, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...



Insulting people isn't the only thing I do.  It's just all whining little toddlers like you can see and hear.  Of course, your thin-skinned, juvenile fixation also has the handy side effect of you never having to hear any facts that might upset your chosen worldview.

By the way, Mensa Boy, take a gander at YOUR post to which I was responding, and contemplate the words "Pot. Kettle.  Black."  What sort of response did you THINK you were going to get?  Or are you just mad because my insults are better than yours?

"Retard.  Whore."  Gee, you think those original little gems up all by yourself?  Don't strain anything with all that heavy creativity.


----------



## paperview (May 30, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You see...that's where you fuck up...again.  Zimmerman didn't "agree to meet him at his vehicle" - he implicitly stated he would not be there, at his vehicle and told the Not911 dispatcher to "have them call me:" - clearly stating his intentions to 'not be at his vehicle.'


----------



## Liability (May 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > starcraftzzz said:
> ...




Mind reading 101, for the unenlightened.

Prof. Paperview will fail you no matter what you post.

She sucks at it too, though.  So it's casual.


----------



## paperview (May 30, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


You mean the equipment he didn't check to see if he had a broken nose...the report where he said "_we discussed it was *likely* broken..._"  the one where it mentions he Zimmerman;s psychotropic drug prescription, and that states it is imperative Zimmerman see his psychologist? 

That one?


----------



## taichiliberal (May 30, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...



What's laughable are these constant attempts by Zimmerman Zombies to push these supposition and conjecture scenarios as reality in order to justify Zimmerman's actions.  WHO LIVES IN THE AREA AND IS WHO IS TO SAY THAT ZIMMERMAN DID NOT PROVOKE THE INCIDENT?  Let's look at your what your overlooking:  a young man VISITING A FAMILY FRIEND finds he's being shadowed by some creep in a car that he doesn't no.....AT NIGHT IN THE RAIN.  He tries to evade the creep, and then finds himself confronted by this creep (who is armed by the way)...a creep who IS NOT A MEMBER OF NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH, OR A COP.  Now we KNOW that Zimmerman had already tagged Martin as some drug out thug up to no good, and he PURSUED Martin.  What we don't know is what was exactly said during the confrontation (even the girlfriend's story gives little detail).  Sorry, but if some yahoo is tailing me for no reason and then gets out of his car to confront me, IN MY OWN NEIGHBORHOOD, BY THE WAY. I'm damned sure not going to react like I'm talking to a cop....especially when that creep is armed with an attitude. 
Zimmerman screwed up because of his wanna-be attitude, and it cost a young man his life.


----------



## Ariux (May 30, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Zimmerman screwed up because of his wanna-be attitude, and it cost a young man his life.



That was't a young man.  That was an Afro.  I understand why you wouldn't accuse a wild animal of screwing up.  They're just animals doing what animals do.  It's the job of the white man to protect animals and avoid situations where the animals would have to be shot.


----------



## paperview (May 30, 2012)

Liability said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...


Nobody gives a a shit what you post - 90% of it is high school pimply-boy ejaculations.

You are 100% dismissible.

No doubt this will be followed by the porcine poster known as Liability with turgid bouts of splattering insults.  No matter.  The readers will see your usual inadequacies bellowed as you cobble a defense, all hat, all bark, as all your usual impotent squeals. 

Get ready boys and girls.  He''s been insulted.  The 500 pound man with cheeto-stained  fingers and hard-on for Zimmerman will *not* be provoked!  lollolololol.


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 30, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> starcraftzzz said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...


Yes you can insult people and say stupid shit very impressive


----------



## starcraftzzz (May 30, 2012)

Liability said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



YOu must be a zombie


----------



## Liability (May 30, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



^ Another witless meaningless shit for brain "post" from starjizz.


----------



## taichiliberal (May 30, 2012)

Ariux said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman screwed up because of his wanna-be attitude, and it cost a young man his life.
> ...



Ahhh, our pointy hooded peon finally has his racist meltdown!

So long chump.....don't forget to floss after sucking off David Duke!


----------



## asterism (May 30, 2012)

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > asterism said:
> ...



What's the basis for that claim?  Please document any instance of a Sanford Police Officer answering the general non-emergency line.  Also, EVERY Police Officer I have ever spoken with has identified him/herself.


----------



## Ravi (May 31, 2012)

paperview said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


 I didn't know you had met him in real life. That description of him is just as I imagined.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (May 31, 2012)

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



And your response, Ravi, is what passes for  a witty come back to you?

lol, so, you *are *more stupid than I had imagined.


----------



## Inthemiddle (May 31, 2012)

asterism said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > > The dispatcher asks him if he wants to meet the police at the mailboxes,[Note 3, 4th picture] and he at first agrees but then says, *"Actually, could you have him call me, and I'll tell him where I'm at?"*
> ...



Because if you believe someone to be "up to no good" and you take it upon yourself to confront them on the matter, you're quite literally seeking out what you, by your own accord, must believe to be trouble.  If you can't comprehend that, then you need to seriously get your head out of Boy George's ass.


----------



## Inthemiddle (May 31, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> People that have gotten in a few fights are less apt to punch another person's skull.  It's a great way to bust your knuckles and incapacitate yourself.



Ah, this is an excellent point!!  There is a great deal of discussion regarding the ability of Martin to overtake Zimmerman and gain the upper hand.  As has been pointed out, Zimmerman was the overall larger man, with Martin being taller, but much thinner and probably overall less powerful.  But we must remember that size is not always everything, and a skilled and capable combatant can get the better of a lesser skilled but more powerful opponent.

So, as you point out Oldstyle, based on Zimmerman's account, we can expect that Martin was not an experienced or skilled fighter.  Which explains why he was able to overcome a more powerful opponent.





































































Wait....


----------



## Inthemiddle (May 31, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps, if you would listen to the paramedic audio which you so kindly provided
> ...



Anyone hear anything about whether Martin was left handed or right handed?  Most people don't throw many punches with their inferior hand, and when they do they don't throw very hard.  I would suspect that that tiny scratch had nothing to do with the altercation.


----------



## Liability (May 31, 2012)

paperview said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Wrong.  For example, despite your present spew of protest, you seem to care quite a bit what I post.

As for your imaginings (well, lies really, but let's be charitable, after all you are having a mental health crisis at the moment) about my appearance: the verdict is projection.

It's understandable that you feel wholly inadequate.  You are.  

Anyway, to get back to the point, your post DID offer your rank and baseless speculation about what the discussion between the dispatcher and Zimmerman "indicated."  Sorry, Nostradumbass, but your theory is not actual evidence.

Back off topic for a second.  You will notice that your rooting section includes Ravi.  This constitutes a conclusive tip-off that you are on the wrong track.  She's a nitwit like you.  True story!

Post some more of your babbling bullshit if you're feeling better later.


----------



## Inthemiddle (May 31, 2012)

Liability said:


> For example, despite your present spew of protest, you seem to care quite a bit what I post.



Liability the mind reader.....


----------



## Liability (May 31, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > For example, despite your present spew of protest, you seem to care quite a bit what I post.
> ...



That's not reading minds, you hapless poor simple-minded dimwit.  [You really are in the muddle.]

It was noting the fact that there is amusing irony in announcing to the world -- in a labored post --  that one allegedly  doesn't care.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (May 31, 2012)

This is STILL going.

C'mon people the doctors said Zimmerman had a broken nose and there are photos of his bloody head.

At the very least we know he was attacked, shit or get off the pot already.    


he might still be guilty of murder but you can't ignore this evidence of Zimmerman being physically assulted out of a blind allegiance to the position that he is guilty and the stand your ground law is bad.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 31, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> This is STILL going.
> 
> C'mon people the doctors said Zimmerman had a broken nose and there are photos of his bloody head.
> 
> ...




Zimmerman's physical injuries do not tell us that Zimmerman was "attacked".  What they show is that a fight ensued and that Zimmerman was likely on the loosing end which resulted in his use of the firearm.

However those injuries don't tell us who started the hostilities which will be an important factor in determining if Zimmerman can be held responsible for the outcome.  If Martin attacked Zimmerman - then self defense holds.  If Zimmerman attacked Martin - then things get more complex.


>>>>


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (May 31, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > This is STILL going.
> ...



Yeah "attacked" was the wrong word....physically harmed by Martin would have been a better choice.

And like I said Zimmerman might still be guilty of murder, I do not claim to know if he is guilty of murder or if it was a legit self defense move.


----------



## saveliberty (May 31, 2012)

Zimmerman could have inflicted those wounds on himself as a cover story as well.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (May 31, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Zimmerman could have inflicted those wounds on himself as a cover story as well.



and martin could have grabbed zimmmerman's gun and shot himself while we are at it


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 31, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...




That's cool.  Just pointing out that many want to focus on the instant in time of the shooting, when from a legal perspective determining what led up to that point is just as important.  If TM initiated hostilities, then GZ's self defense immunity remains in tack.  However if GZ initiated hostilities, then GZ could lose that immunity under Florida law and THAT question would have to be answered first.  

The "murder" charge though seems to be extreme overreach on the part of the prosecution as it requires for GZ to have departed his truck with the intended purpose of hunting down TM to kill him, something that the evidence doesn't really support.  A Manslaughter case based on heat of the moment of confrontation?  Maybe.  Planned murder?  Doesn't look like it.



>>>>


----------



## Ravi (May 31, 2012)

saveliberty said:


> Zimmerman could have inflicted those wounds on himself as a cover story as well.


Or he could have been in a fight with his wife immediately before he went after Martin.

Far-fetched but credible enough knowing his history of violence.


----------



## Ravi (May 31, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Planned would have brought a charge of 1st degree murder, not second. The prosecution apparently doesn't believe the murder was planned.


----------



## Ariux (May 31, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Planned would have brought a charge of 1st degree murder, not second. The prosecution apparently doesn't believe the murder was planned.



What the Probable Cause affidavit describes is First Degree Murder.   It says Zimmerman profiled the Afro and chased him down and killed him, while the Afro was squealing like a bitch and trying to run home.

But, maybe the 2nd-degree charge is because an Afro is only a 2nd-rate human.  You know animals rights has gone to far when putting down a dangerous pest animal is considered any sort of crime.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 31, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > People that have gotten in a few fights are less apt to punch another person's skull.  It's a great way to bust your knuckles and incapacitate yourself.
> ...



I have absolutely no idea whether either Zimmerman or Martin were skilled fighters.  I tend to doubt that Zimmerman was only because he ended up on his back getting his ass kicked but that's a total guess on my part.  The truth is...even a skilled fighter can take a beating if someone hits them with a sucker shot or they slip on a wet surface and go down.

As for who was the strongest or most powerful?  Weight in and of itself is of value in a fight only if you're on top of your opponent.  Trust me...there are some bad ass 160 pound individuals running around out there that would eat out of shape 200 pounders for lunch.  When I fought in Karate tournaments, typically 160 pounds was the weight limit for middleweights and if you were heavier than that you fought as a heavy.  Anyone that thinks a 160 pound person who is in good shape is somehow "weaker" than a 200 pound person who is flabby and out of shape hasn't much experience fighting.


----------



## Oldstyle (May 31, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Planned would have brought a charge of 1st degree murder, not second. The prosecution apparently doesn't believe the murder was planned.
> ...



You know what, Ariux?  I REALLY dislike racists.  Why don't you peddle your shit elsewhere...


----------



## Ariux (May 31, 2012)

Oldstyle said:


> You know what, Ariux?  I REALLY dislike racists.  Why don't you peddle your shit elsewhere...



I forgive your bigotry, thinking you're better than racists... Also, don't blame the messenger, blame Mother Nature.


----------



## Liability (May 31, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > You know what, Ariux?  I REALLY dislike racists.  Why don't you peddle your shit elsewhere...
> ...



Almost everyone IS better than almost any racist.

You for example are a lame-ass ignorant piece of shit.

We do blame you.

Rightfully so.

You REFUSE to get educated.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 31, 2012)

>


Well it's good to know we can all agree on something.


......................................................................Ariux.


) )



>>>>


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 31, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > You know what, Ariux?  I REALLY dislike racists.  Why don't you peddle your shit elsewhere...
> ...



We do blame Mother Nature for making some people so pig-stupid that they're racists.  It's very, very sad when someone is such a pathetic waste of oxygen that their biggest, proudest accomplishment in life is a low melanin count.

Nevertheless, we do still also blame you for simply sitting back and allowing yourself to continue being an ignorant, racist pusbag, rather than trying to improve into something recognizably human.

Fat, racist, and ugly is no way to go through life, son.  And expecting people to respect your choice to be slime will get you nowhere.


----------



## idb (May 31, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Oldstyle said:
> ...



Come on guys, he's trying *really* hard to be provocative to get attention.
He's actually too clumsy to be good at it.

He's clearly not bright enough to hold a real conversation so the easiest way to get replies is to be "shocking".


----------



## Ariux (May 31, 2012)

idb said:


> He's clearly not bright enough to hold a real conversation so the easiest way to get replies is to be "shocking".



Anyone defending an Afro piece-of-shit like Trayvon is racist, and it would be shocking if it weren't so common.  Anyway, being "shocking" only gets low quality replies... which means it doesn't really make a difference.


----------



## WorldWatcher (May 31, 2012)

idb said:


> Come on guys, he's trying *really* hard to be provocative to get attention.
> He's actually too clumsy to be good at it.
> 
> He's clearly not bright enough to hold a real conversation so the easiest way to get replies is to be "shocking".




Personally I think that account is a sock puppet of a more liberal poster who is in fact trying to make extreme right wingers look bad.



>>>>


----------



## Ariux (May 31, 2012)

Liability said:


> Almost everyone IS better than almost any racist.



Oooh, right in the gut of the Afro and Jewish populations.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 31, 2012)

idb said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...



I think you're giving him too much credit.  Sometimes, a two-toothed redneck loser is just a two-toothed redneck loser.


----------



## Liability (May 31, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Almost everyone IS better than almost any racist.
> ...



What the fuck shot you right in your cerebellum?

It was a remarkable shit, that I have to admit.

I mean, SUCH a microscopic target.


----------



## idb (May 31, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Come on guys, he's trying *really* hard to be provocative to get attention.
> ...



Well, that's another theory


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 1, 2012)

Liability said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Blind spot bias.


----------



## Oldstyle (Jun 1, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> > You know what, Ariux?  I REALLY dislike racists.  Why don't you peddle your shit elsewhere...
> ...



Here's the thing, Ariux...I've always found racism to be the product of ignorance.  Ignorant people fear what they don't know.  Mother Nature has little to do with it.  My thinking I'm "better" than racists is the direct result of knowing that I AM better than them.  Racism is stupid.  There are bad people of all description.  I judge people by their actions...not their skin pigmentation.


----------



## Liability (Jun 1, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...



Nope.  I recognize real differences and distinctions.  And in your partisan stupidity, you blur the lines.  Or try to.

Words have actual meaning despite your ignorance.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 1, 2012)

>


*Judge Orders Zimmerman to Turn Himself In*



*Breaking...*


>>>>


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jun 1, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> >
> 
> 
> *Judge Orders Zimmerman to Turn Himself In*
> ...



What prompted this?   Doesn't sound good for zimmerman


----------



## Ravi (Jun 1, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > >
> ...


Lying to the court.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jun 1, 2012)

Ravi said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Aww you made me click the link LOL



> The move came after prosecutors asked the judge to revoke George Zimmerman's bond because they said he misled them about his finances and his passport when testifying during a bail hearing that allowed him to be released from jail on a $150,000 bond.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 1, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > >
> ...





Looks like lying to the court about the money that was raised.  I caught just a snippet of the prosecutor after the hearing on live feed and now O'Mara is on.  Seems he and the wife new about it and spoke about it in a recorded conversation while he was in jail - supposedly they used some type of "code".



>>>>


----------



## Liability (Jun 1, 2012)

This too will be subject to a prompt review possibly via a _habeas_ writ.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 1, 2012)

Liability said:


> This too will be subject to a prompt review possibly via a _habeas_ writ.




Could you try that again in English for the peanut gallery.





>>>>


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 1, 2012)

Wow, if Zimmerman turns out to be a slime ball after-all, can you all believe the amount of coverage this case has gotten on here, and the hours people have put in trying to solve it somehow ?....YIKES !

Waisted Days and Waisted Nights, bom bom bom ba bom ba bom, many figure they are right, bom bom bom ba bom bom bom, and if we all go our seperate ways, we might finally say, thank yooooooou all for seeking the light, bom bom bom bom bom ba bommmmmmmm.........In the style of Freddie Fender......  B )


----------



## taichiliberal (Jun 1, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> This is STILL going.
> 
> C'mon people the doctors said Zimmerman had a broken nose and there are photos of his bloody head.
> 
> ...




Actually, all YOU'VE read is the report from the Zimmerman family doctor.  

No one denies there was a fight, or that Zimmerman got bruised up with some lumps....but the ACTUAL wounds were FAR from the devastating "GASHES" that the Zimmerman camp initially attested to.  His "busted nose" was not that severe, nor were the head wounds, which were quickly treated and settled WITHOUT STITCHES  by the time the police station surveillance pics were released.

Again, this DOES NOT PROVE THAT MARTIN WAS THE AGGRESSOR.


----------



## Peach (Jun 1, 2012)

Liability said:


> This too will be subject to a prompt review possibly via a _habeas_ writ.



As well it should; the Defendant will need to be both remorseful, and honest, this time.  The false claim of a  lost passport, and claim of indigent status, while having $130,000 in the bank, cannot be explained away with "it slipped my mind".

Habeas corpus: you have the body.


----------



## Liability (Jun 1, 2012)

Peach said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > This too will be subject to a prompt review possibly via a _habeas_ writ.
> ...



The Great Writ requires the production of the individual -- which isn't even required anymore.  Instead, it just mandates that the Court HEAR a dispute.  Like a dispute over a change in bail status which may or may not even warrant revocation.

I don't know how it will turn out.  But I do know the Court's action today was a bit on the precipitous side.


----------



## Liability (Jun 1, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > This too will be subject to a prompt review possibly via a _habeas_ writ.
> ...



It was in English.  The GREAT Writ of _Habeas Corpus_ is called the GREAT Writ for a reason.  It's mentioned specifically, in fact, in the Constitution.  It's history is legendary.

In the context of a bail matter, all it means is that the change in Z's bail status is not necessarily a done deal.  It might be.  But first (if the accused files the right bail review application),  the aggrieved defendant could compel a court to address the action of the bail setting court.


----------



## Peach (Jun 1, 2012)

Liability said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Yes, and Habeas Corpus means, "you have the body". He should be entitled to another bond hearing, and if he has learned his lesson, bond will be set. but withholding relevant information, or LYING as it is known, is not the way to impress a Court. Along with the $130,000 he had, his TWO passports are also a matter to be addressed.


----------



## Peach (Jun 1, 2012)

The sooner the Defendant appears at the county DC, the better his chances of another bond being set. I have heard nor read anything indicating he is reacting to the Court's order.


----------



## paperview (Jun 1, 2012)

*BOND IS REVOKED!*
*
Zimmerman is headed back to the Slammer.

*


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 2, 2012)

paperview said:


> *BOND IS REVOKED!*
> *
> Zimmerman is headed back to the Slammer.
> 
> *



I pray that one day God teaches you why the right of self-defense is so precious.

Fucktard.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 2, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > This is STILL going.
> ...



Lol, his broken nose and gashes to his head werent that severe, lololol.

So how badly does a thug have to pound you into the ground before you can shoot the peice of shit?

Fuck you and your commie bastard soul; WE ALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO DFEFEND OUR OWN LIVES.

If GZ gets prison, you havent seen the shit that will come from that one, bitch.


----------



## Peach (Jun 2, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



He WILL receive another bond hearing, dear soul.


----------



## Peach (Jun 2, 2012)

Liability said:


> This too will be subject to a prompt review possibly via a _habeas_ writ.



I've read the Court has stated there WILL be another bond hearing. No need for a an application for a writ, unless the Court does not follow through.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 2, 2012)

Peach said:


> He WILL receive another bond hearing, dear soul.



He should not have been charged to start with, so dont yell for GZ to swing from a rope and then act like he is getting a fair shake.


----------



## Peach (Jun 2, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > He WILL receive another bond hearing, dear soul.
> ...



You are Wolfinger? If not, you do not have access to all the evidence that led to the very conservative A. Corey filing 2nd degree murder.* The pro killer crowd must have cried when Rolling, Wournos, and Bundy were executed. Do you have pictures of them on your walls? 

*The Criminal Punishment Code in Florida might be termed draconian; passed by a Republican legislature, and supported 100% by Jeb! Bush. More executions, longer sentences, and more crimes classified as felonies. There used to be guidelines for minimums and maximums. NOW, one can get the MAXIMUM for every crime. First time offenders can get the same 5 years for a 3rd degree felony, as can an individual committing their fifth 3rd degree burglary.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Jun 2, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> > This is STILL going.
> ...



Where did I say that martin was the aggressor? that is a red herring statement.

re-read my post.


----------



## Liability (Jun 2, 2012)

Peach said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



As for the passports, if he had two he most definitely should have revealed that fact.  

As for the money, the way it was being collected and the use to which it was to be put could explain why he did not include it as his own available assets.  AGain, though, the Court might be able to sort that out.

My guess is that at his next hearing he is indeed going to have a thorny time 'splainin' himself.  But if a new bail is set, assuming the amount is within the bounds of reason, all those yahoos cheering that the man is about to be incarcerated will end up disappointed.   Because it is very likely that Zimmerman will once again be out on bail.  

It is fascinating to watch all the yahoos hackle and cackle over the incarceration of a person who is entitled, in the eyes of the law, to a presumption of innocence.  They have already convicted him in their churlish little minds.  And while they are free to presume him guilty, it would certainly make mores sense to withhold judgment until ALL of the evidence is available and considered -- possibly even with a fair,open and objective mind.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 2, 2012)

Liability said:


> As for the passports, if he had two he most definitely should have revealed that fact.



World Watcher related in another thread that O'MAra had the other passport and had simply overlooked it.

One way or the other the judge doesnt seem too concerned about it and it seems that it is the additional cash that has the judges ire.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 2, 2012)

Peach said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Oh, puhlease forgives me, Princess. Uahs juss an ole hippy dat tinks we have a rool of lah and oakazionally ahs foeget dat ahs shudnt tahk out of my plaese.

Please dont pull your appeal to authority bullshit with me. I know just as well as you do that we dont have ALL the evidence, but when there is so much existing CONTRARY evidence that makes GZ's innocense quite plain, the prosecutor had better damn well have some fucking godamned good evidence or I pray to God she gets heapin helpins of Karma.




Peach said:


> *The Criminal Punishment Code in Florida might be termed draconian; passed by a Republican legislature, and supported 100% by Jeb! Bush. More executions, longer sentences, and more crimes classified as felonies. There used to be guidelines for minimums and maximums. NOW, one can get the MAXIMUM for every crime. First time offenders can get the same 5 years for a 3rd degree felony, as can an individual committing their fifth 3rd degree burglary.



Yeah, blah blah blah, just another Bush to blame.

I am all for murderers to be fried well done and buried at sea in a lead coffin.

This guy isnt a murderer and anyone with a lick of sense can see that.

For Christs Sake, even Dershowitz can see this a bunch of bullshit politics.

But hang in there, maybe you libtards might get lucky and GZ hang himself in jail or something then there wont be anyoen to counter all the lies you fiends are telling about him.


----------



## starcraftzzz (Jun 2, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > *BOND IS REVOKED!*
> ...



 Yes because stalking a kid then confronting him and killing him is self-defense. Fucktard


----------



## Peach (Jun 2, 2012)

Liability said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



2nd degree, no prior convictions, though he has an FDLE history of course. He is entitled to bail unless the Court finds his previous conduct..uh...not encouraging. The question now however is: "Will he turn himself in by tomorrow ?" He may have split the country, he suckered in $135,000 actually. And that could carry him elsewhere. I think he will show but he is a loose cannon. 

Claiming indigent status, under oath, with $135,000 in the bank, is not a wise course of action. Discussing his haul of money with his wife on a DC phone isn't too swift either.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 2, 2012)

If he did take flight, would it be for reasons of guilt, otherwise knowing that he may be found guilty somehow in it all, and this because he may have been alledgedly lying from the beginning of this thing (or) would it be for reasons that he feels he won't get a fair trial now, and this no matter what he says or does anymore, especially in such a political circus atmosphere, that has been created around this case by those who figured this man was a racist stalker from the get go, who was out looking to kill a black guy that night because of him (Zimmerman) being an alledged racist stalker ?

Has it been established that this man Zimmerman is or was a racist yet, who was somehow out targetting and wanting to kill a blackman in evidence there of ? Very important to the case that has been built up around him, in which many are trying to claim was his motive in all of this. 

If racism cannot be substantiated against Zimmerman as a motive, then the case becomes very weak at that point, where as it then goes back to Zimmerman being a neighborhood watch person, that saw something suspicious that night, in which due to his investigation of the suspect he found walking in the area, and the events that spiraled out of control next, a young man is then found dead by a single gunshot wound after a struggle of some kind, while the other (Zimmerman) is injured by the encounter also, who is claiming self defence in the case.


----------



## taichiliberal (Jun 2, 2012)

Peach said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



As you've deduced from reading his response, JimBowie is a complete fool...which is why I have him on IA...the only way I see his drivel is if someone responds to him and I'm part of that postal response thread.   Ignore him.


----------



## taichiliberal (Jun 2, 2012)

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> ...



I did, and what you are doing is the usual gutless attempt by Zimmerman Zombies to imply something without actually saying it.

You said Zimmerman was "assaulted", implying that he was attacked without provocation.

As I said before, no one is denying there was a fight, but there is no proof that Martin was the aggressor.


----------



## Liability (Jun 2, 2012)

Prejudging the case before the evidence is all in is also foolish.

And lots of folks are not only prejudging the entire case, they are also prejudging the bail revocation matter.


----------



## taichiliberal (Jun 2, 2012)

Liability said:


> Prejudging the case before the evidence is all in is also foolish.
> 
> And lots of folks are not only prejudging the entire case, they are also prejudging the bail revocation matter.




Not everyone.


----------



## Liability (Jun 2, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Prejudging the case before the evidence is all in is also foolish.
> ...



Which is why I said "lots of folks" rather than "everyone."


----------



## tererun (Jun 3, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> If he did take flight, would it be for reasons of guilt, otherwise knowing that he may be found guilty somehow in it all, and this because he may have been alledgedly lying from the beginning of this thing (or) would it be for reasons that he feels he won't get a fair trial now, and this no matter what he says or does anymore, especially in such a political circus atmosphere, that has been created around this case by those who figured this man was a racist stalker from the get go, who was out looking to kill a black guy that night because of him (Zimmerman) being an alledged racist stalker ?
> 
> Has it been established that this man Zimmerman is or was a racist yet, who was somehow out targetting and wanting to kill a blackman in evidence there of ? Very important to the case that has been built up around him, in which many are trying to claim was his motive in all of this.
> 
> If racism cannot be substantiated against Zimmerman as a motive, then the case becomes very weak at that point, where as it then goes back to Zimmerman being a neighborhood watch person, that saw something suspicious that night, in which due to his investigation of the suspect he found walking in the area, and the events that spiraled out of control next, a young man is then found dead by a single gunshot wound after a struggle of some kind, while the other (Zimmerman) is injured by the encounter also, who is claiming self defence in the case.




Zinmmerman's motive he set forth for watching treyvon was an actual string of crimes performed by a black suspect. Zimmerman had actually seen the black suspect either entering or leaving a home and called the police only to have the kid get away before the police arrived. this could explain his desire to go chase treyvon so he would not get away like what had happened to him previously, except for the fact the suspect that got away from him was captured days before he saw treyvon with stolen items from zimmerman's neighborhood, and was in police custody at the time which zimmerman was well aware of. 

So yes there was a black suspect zimmerman and his neighborhood watch people were chasing, and yes it was a black kid. but the kid was caught, and the robberies had stopped as far as he knew. It also does not excuse the use of the word coon, and him following an unknown kid who he knew nothing about aside from him being black, who had not done anything suspicious until he noticed he was being followed by some guy in a truck. That is unless you think a teenager buying candy and iced tea is suspicious. 

What is racial profiling aside from hearing a certain type of person has committed crimes before and then focussing on people with those characteristics? Unless he was going around harassing white teenagers for being in the neighborhood he does seem to have done some profiling that might have actually made sense had the crimes not stopped.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 3, 2012)

tererun said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > If he did take flight, would it be for reasons of guilt, otherwise knowing that he may be found guilty somehow in it all, and this because he may have been alledgedly lying from the beginning of this thing (or) would it be for reasons that he feels he won't get a fair trial now, and this no matter what he says or does anymore, especially in such a political circus atmosphere, that has been created around this case by those who figured this man was a racist stalker from the get go, who was out looking to kill a black guy that night because of him (Zimmerman) being an alledged racist stalker ?
> ...




I'll leave this one to those who have done their homework on this case from the get go, because this post is seemingly full of insinuations and accusations that may not or do not fit the case at all upon review, especially in light of the information that is known fact in this case already, and is out there for all to review quite honestly between each other now. 

This post is like the ones that were already settled long ago by many here, but I guess some have their opinions, and those opinions will remain no matter what the facts are in the case so far. Hmmm, maybe I am the one who is missing alot here. Is this person enlightening me somehow I wonder (or) is it just more wild biased accusations in the case, that is being vented through frustration maybe by a biased person ?  Hopefully soon this case will be vetted properly by the right people upon judging this case properly (or) then again maybe it won't ever be judged properly by the right people in such a case. We can only hope so and pray so, but it is yet to be seen what will happen next on such a rollercoaster ride as this has become for so many debating it now.


----------



## KissMy (Jun 3, 2012)

tererun said:


> Zinmmerman's motive he set forth for watching treyvon was an actual string of crimes performed by a black suspect. Zimmerman had actually seen the black suspect either entering or leaving a home and called the police only to have the kid get away before the police arrived. this could explain his desire to go chase treyvon so he would not get away like what had happened to him previously, except for the fact the suspect that got away from him was captured days before he saw treyvon with stolen items from zimmerman's neighborhood, and was in police custody at the time which zimmerman was well aware of.
> 
> So yes there was a black suspect zimmerman and his neighborhood watch people were chasing, and yes it was a black kid. but the kid was caught, and the robberies had stopped as far as he knew. It also does not excuse the use of the word coon, and him following an unknown kid who he knew nothing about aside from him being black, who had not done anything suspicious until he noticed he was being followed by some guy in a truck. That is unless you think a teenager buying candy and iced tea is suspicious.
> 
> What is racial profiling aside from hearing a certain type of person has committed crimes before and then focussing on people with those characteristics? Unless he was going around harassing white teenagers for being in the neighborhood he does seem to have done some profiling that might have actually made sense had the crimes not stopped.



Zimmerman did not say "Fucking Coon"!

You conveniently left out the fact that Trayvon also acquired a cigarette lighter from that 7-11 & only refer to candy & tea.

Tracy Martin sent his son Trayvon Martin to Juvenile Detention Officer Brandy Green's care "due to having been suspended for 10 days from his high school in Miami Gardens for possession of cannabis." He had been at the Juvenile Detention Officer's address for 7 days prior to the event of his death. Trayvon had a lighter from the 7-11 store on his possession at the time of his death. Trayvon also had cannabis in his blood stream when Zimmerman was following him. Trayvon knew his ass was in trouble if his father or the Juvenile Detention Officer he was staying with discovered that he was questioned by police. Trayvon had a major motive to not let Zimmerman lead police to him.


----------



## taichiliberal (Jun 3, 2012)

KissMy said:


> tererun said:
> 
> 
> > Zinmmerman's motive he set forth for watching treyvon was an actual string of crimes performed by a black suspect. Zimmerman had actually seen the black suspect either entering or leaving a home and called the police only to have the kid get away before the police arrived. this could explain his desire to go chase treyvon so he would not get away like what had happened to him previously, except for the fact the suspect that got away from him was captured days before he saw treyvon with stolen items from zimmerman's neighborhood, and was in police custody at the time which zimmerman was well aware of.
> ...



Beyond your correction of the 911 tape and Zimmerman NOT saying "fucking coon", the rest of your reponse is just a rehash of supposition and conjecture that has already been addressed and thrown in the trash heap.  But then, repeating BS is about all you Zimmerman Zombies have.


----------



## KissMy (Jun 3, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > tererun said:
> ...



Non of that is BS nor has been thrown in trash heap.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 3, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Easier to say than to demonstrate by argument and evidence.

But then again, you are a fucktard.

Thank you for putting me on ignore, shit-for-brains. Hopefully someone will respond and you'll get to read this...

There is no coward like a doctrinare liberal ideologue.

ROFLMAO.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 3, 2012)

KissMy said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



The only trash here is Taichilibtard's thinking process.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 3, 2012)

Peach said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Peach said:
> ...



Yes, he turned himself in.

Zimmerman in police custody in Florida, attorney says | Fox News


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 3, 2012)

starcraftzzz said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



But GZ did not stalk Martin, ass-hat. 

Jeez Louise, get  a brain.


----------



## taichiliberal (Jun 3, 2012)

KissMy said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > KissMy said:
> ...



The chronology of the posts would disagree with you....but I agree with the icon that you are crazy if you think otherwise.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 4, 2012)

paperview said:


> *BOND IS REVOKED!*
> *
> Zimmerman is headed back to the Slammer.
> 
> *



Zimmerman is a shithead Jew-Hispanic Democrat.  He couldn't just say "BTW, Judge, I have a website to raise funds..."  Yet, he couldn't keep his mouth shut the night the cold (coon/Afro) attacked him.   But, I forgive him for a life of sin because one night he made the world a better place by taking out a piece of shit.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 4, 2012)

Liability said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



You have a very wide acceptance of persons actions at times.  "We don't need you to do that" is what the officer said.  That tells 99.9 percent of the world to stop but since you're on Zimmerman's side in this, you'll be the 0.1 percent for sure.

The unarmed guy is dead. The armed guy is alive after shooting the unarmed guy.  There wasn't a threat to the armed invader who was stalking the unarmed man.  

Sorry.  Welcome to reality.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 4, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Zimmerman sounded fine when he was talking to the Police Officer on the 911 tape.


----------



## idb (Jun 4, 2012)

Ariux said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > *BOND IS REVOKED!*
> ...



Like I said, clumsy.


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 4, 2012)

Peach said:


> *Claiming indigent status, under oath*, with $135,000 in the bank, is not a wise course of action. Discussing his haul of money with his wife on a DC phone isn't too swift either.



*George Zimmerman and his lawyer*

In my opinion, accused murderer George Zimmerman has entered into an explosive relationship with his defense attorney, Mark OMara. My best analogy is a teacher having an intimate relationship with his/her under aged student and hopes he/she will never tell.

*It is hard for me to understand an old and experienced lawyer as Mr. OMara did not know from the very beginning his client George Zimmerman had $200,000, paid his rent, secured a place to hide after his bond was set and contributed a meaningful amount towards his own bond.*

I note how quickly Mr. Zimmermans supporters have nothing to say and media pundits have turned their attention elsewhere since this information was exposed. Even Nancy Grace and others at CNN HL are not touching this story.

As always, 

BB

.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 5, 2012)

Liability said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



The fact that you would label me a partisan is proof positive that your perception is horribly inaccurate.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 5, 2012)

(CNN) -- Although George Zimmerman's lawyers plan to file a motion asking for a new bail hearing for the murder suspect, the filing has been delayed, defense attorneys said Tuesday.

"Mr. Zimmerman's legal defense team has decided to delay filing a motion for bond," the defense team said Tuesday on its website, GZLegalcase.com. "A hearing will not be scheduled for a couple of weeks, and we will file a motion well in advance of the hearing."

The filing was delayed for several reasons, lead defense attorney Mark O'Mara said but did not elaborate.

Attorney: Zimmerman's bail request delayed - CNN.com

What would be the point of letting your client sit in jail for a couple of weeks if you were confident of getting him released at a new hearing?


----------



## Liability (Jun 5, 2012)

Ravi said:


> (CNN) -- Although George Zimmerman's lawyers plan to file a motion asking for a new bail hearing for the murder suspect, the filing has been delayed, defense attorneys said Tuesday.
> 
> "Mr. Zimmerman's legal defense team has decided to delay filing a motion for bond," the defense team said Tuesday on its website, GZLegalcase.com. "A hearing will not be scheduled for a couple of weeks, and we will file a motion well in advance of the hearing."
> 
> ...



Possibly a need to gather additional evidence together which might take some time and maybe the issuance of some subpoenas?


----------



## Liability (Jun 5, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...



The fact that you say partisan and trite things is all the evidence that's needed to demonstrate that your last post was -- disingenuous.  

Words still have actual meaning.


----------



## Liability (Jun 5, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> > *Claiming indigent status, under oath*, with $135,000 in the bank, is not a wise course of action. Discussing his haul of money with his wife on a DC phone isn't too swift either.
> ...



That you remain unpersuasive, silly and confused goes without saying, confusedatious.

,

;

,


----------



## Hollybaere (Jun 5, 2012)

KissMy said:


> tererun said:
> 
> 
> > Zinmmerman's motive he set forth for watching treyvon was an actual string of crimes performed by a black suspect. Zimmerman had actually seen the black suspect either entering or leaving a home and called the police only to have the kid get away before the police arrived. this could explain his desire to go chase treyvon so he would not get away like what had happened to him previously, except for the fact the suspect that got away from him was captured days before he saw treyvon with stolen items from zimmerman's neighborhood, and was in police custody at the time which zimmerman was well aware of.
> ...



Just because robberies had been done previously by a "black kid', Zimmerman can not assume that every black kid is a robber. That is Racial Profiling.

Trayvon was on 10 day suspension because a baggie with TRACES of marijuana, was found in his back pack. NO marijuana was found on Trayvon's body. THC was found in his blood, which can be present in body fat for up to 30 days.

And also, how would Trayvon know that George Zimmerman was contacting the police? 

Anything else you chose to leave out?


----------



## Ariux (Jun 5, 2012)

Hollybaere said:


> Just because robberies had been done previously by a "black kid', Zimmerman can not assume that every black kid is a robber. That is Racial Profiling.



Only total morons don't racial profile.  Only total liars deny racial profiling.  

Zimmerman didn't just assume that Afro shit was a robber just because he was black like most robbers.  Trayvon was dressed like a burglar and looked like he was casing the neighborhood.



> Trayvon was on 10 day suspension because a baggie with TRACES of marijuana,



That is an argument that only proves you're dumber than shit.  Where there is a bad with traces, there had been a bag FULL of marijuana.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 5, 2012)

candycorn said:


> You have a very wide acceptance of persons actions at times.  "We don't need you to do that" is what the officer said.  That tells 99.9 percent of the world to stop but since you're on Zimmerman's side in this, you'll be the 0.1 percent for sure.
> 
> The unarmed guy is dead. The armed guy is alive after shooting the unarmed guy.  There wasn't a threat to the armed invader who was stalking the unarmed man.
> 
> Sorry.  Welcome to reality.



Reality is that you have shit for brains!  As far as Zimmerman is concerned, the dispatcher TOLD ZIMMERMAN TO FOLLOW TRAYVON.  And, by all appearances ZIMMERMAN STOPPED when he was told he didn't need to follow Trayvon.  Why is it we're months into this case but you don't know the first thing about the case?  Are you really so f-ing stupid?

That Afro was armed, he had two fists, and he used them, shithead.  The timeline proves that the Afro did the stalking, not Zimmerman, shithead.  If Travyon wasn't planning to attack Zimmerman, he would have been long gone by the time the shooting happened.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 5, 2012)

Ariux said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > You have a very wide acceptance of persons actions at times.  "We don't need you to do that" is what the officer said.  That tells 99.9 percent of the world to stop but since you're on Zimmerman's side in this, you'll be the 0.1 percent for sure.
> ...



Wrong.

The dispatcher asked Zimmerman which way he (Martin) was running, he never told Zimmerman to follow.




Ariux said:


> And, by all appearances ZIMMERMAN STOPPED when he was told he didn't need to follow Trayvon.



Wrong again.

From the time Zimmerman left the truck to the time he acknowledges the dispatchers instructions that he didn't need to follow was 18-seconds.  Zimmerman couldn't have traveled from the truck to the shooting site in 18-seconds, which was a distance of a little over 100 yards.




Ariux said:


> Why is it we're months into this case but you don't know the first thing about the case?  Are you really so f-ing stupid?




Irony anyone?



>>>>


----------



## Ariux (Jun 5, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> The dispatcher asked Zimmerman which way he (Martin) was running, he never told Zimmerman to follow.



I said as far as Zimmerman is concerned...  The dispatcher asked which way Trayvon was running.  If Trayvon had gotten out of sight, Zimmerman would no longer be able to provide that information.  That means Zimmerman would have to follow Trayvon.

Moments later, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher that he doesn't know where Trayvon is.   He wouldn't know because he had stopped following Trayvon.   Now, Trayvon had a choice, leave the area or turn around and stalk Zimmerman.  That Afro punk chose what a punk would choose.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 5, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > (CNN) -- Although George Zimmerman's lawyers plan to file a motion asking for a new bail hearing for the murder suspect, the filing has been delayed, defense attorneys said Tuesday.
> ...



And maybe it's the safest place for him until they can arrange a new hiding place?  In case we've all forgotten, the poor man keeps receiving death threats, thanks to the screaming hordes of racially-charged protesters.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 5, 2012)

Hollybaere said:


> KissMy said:
> 
> 
> > tererun said:
> ...



He didn't "assume every black kid is a robber".  He assumed - quite reasonably - that any STRANGER (since he lives in a gated community and is the Neighborhood Watch captain) wandering slowly through the rain at night is suspicious.



Hollybaere said:


> Trayvon was on 10 day suspension because a baggie with TRACES of marijuana, was found in his back pack. NO marijuana was found on Trayvon's body. THC was found in his blood, which can be present in body fat for up to 30 days.



At what levels?



Hollybaere said:


> And also, how would Trayvon know that George Zimmerman was contacting the police?



Reasonable assumption?  That's kinda what people do in situations like that.  And since Martin apparently did walk toward Zimmerman's truck while he was in it before taking off running, one could assume also that he saw Zimmerman talking on the phone while watching him.

It's also possible he heard the very last of Zimmerman's conversation with the dispatcher right before confronting him.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 5, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > Just because robberies had been done previously by a "black kid', Zimmerman can not assume that every black kid is a robber. That is Racial Profiling.
> ...



Sorry, Sparkles, but I don't racially profile.  I will age-profile, clothing-profile, and social-class profile, but I honestly couldn't care less what race someone is.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 5, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Hollybaere said:
> 
> 
> > Trayvon was on 10 day suspension because a baggie with TRACES of marijuana, was found in his back pack. NO marijuana was found on Trayvon's body. THC was found in his blood, which can be present in body fat for up to 30 days.
> ...




From the autopsy = 1.5 ng/mL (nanograms/milliliter)


IIRC one joint contains 5,000,000 to 30,000,000 ng of THC.


>>>>


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 5, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollybaere said:
> ...



No, you misunderstand.  I wasn't asking what the levels were in Trayvon's system at the time of the autopsy.  I was asking at what levels THC remains in the system over 30 days.


----------



## bayoubill (Jun 5, 2012)

so what that Trayvon might have smoked dope before he was killed...?

it in no way exonerates Zimmerman for his actions...


----------



## bayoubill (Jun 5, 2012)

I've been in similar situations...

where either myself or the other guy or both were impeded by certain substances... and squared off to settle some sort of dispute...

killin' the other guy was never a proper alternative...


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 5, 2012)

bayoubill said:


> so what that Trayvon might have smoked dope before he was killed...?
> 
> it in no way exonerates Zimmerman for his actions...



Well, for one thing, it lends credence to the idea that Martin wasn't making the best judgement calls in the world that night . . . you know, such as confronting Zimmerman, rather than just going home.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 5, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




If I remember correctly THC is metabolized, what is detected out to 30-days is TCH-COOH.  That's what the Navy used to actually test for in our periodic/random urinalysis exams.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 5, 2012)

bayoubill said:


> so what that Trayvon might have smoked dope before he was killed...?
> 
> it in no way exonerates Zimmerman for his actions...





bayoubill said:


> I've been in similar situations...
> 
> where either myself or the other guy or both were impeded by certain substances... and squared off to settle some sort of dispute...
> 
> killin' the other guy was never a proper alternative...




1.5 ng/mL would be about the same as a joint 10-12 hours prior.  Kind of like having a beer with breakfast and thinking someone was still under the influence after dinner.


>>>>


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 5, 2012)

Ravi said:


> (CNN) -- Although George Zimmerman's lawyers plan to file a motion asking for a new bail hearing for the murder suspect, the filing has been delayed, defense attorneys said Tuesday.
> 
> "Mr. Zimmerman's legal defense team has decided to delay filing a motion for bond," the defense team said Tuesday on its website, GZLegalcase.com. "A hearing will not be scheduled for a couple of weeks, and we will file a motion well in advance of the hearing."
> 
> ...




Buy time to get some of that Pay Pal payola to the judge?

lol


----------



## JamesInFlorida (Jun 5, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> bayoubill said:
> 
> 
> > so what that Trayvon might have smoked dope before he was killed...?
> ...




Not only this, but pot doesn't really make people violent.

Not to mention the facts are that Zimmerman approached Martin. He was told not to follow Martin. He do so anyways. It has nothing to do with the case at hand. If Zimmerman didn't think he was a badass and try to take the law into his own hands (the police HATE this)-there wouldn't have been an issue at all. We all know one of these people in our neighborhoods who can't mind their own damned business and hastle everybody. If you don't-you may just be that person.


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 5, 2012)

JamesInFlorida said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > bayoubill said:
> ...



Yo Vern, what is the duty of a  neighborhood watch captain?

.


----------



## JamesInFlorida (Jun 5, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



To call the police if they see something suspicious. NOT to act like the police.

Unless he was a LEO (on active duty) he had NO business approaching Zimmerman-especially after being told not to.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 5, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Sorry, Sparkles, but I don't racially profile.  I will age-profile, clothing-profile, and social-class profile, but I honestly couldn't care less what race someone is.



If you see two men on the sidewalk, both dressed in similar suits and both of similar age, one black, one white, you wouldn't venture a guess on which one is a Democrat?  Do you see how stupid your boasting sounds to me?  

Afro shit Jesse Jackson commented that if he hears footsteps behind him, he's relieved to turn around and see someone white.  Do you think he meant to say that he's relieved to see someone 40 instead of 20?


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 5, 2012)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > JamesInFlorida said:
> ...



And how the fucketh does he see something suspicious without observing?



> NOT to act like the police.



And you have obtained evidence that he "acted like the police" from where?



> Unless he was a LEO (on active duty) he had NO business approaching Zimmerman-especially after being told not to.



And you have obtained evidence that he approached Martin how?

.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 5, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, Sparkles, but I don't racially profile.  I will age-profile, clothing-profile, and social-class profile, but I honestly couldn't care less what race someone is.
> ...



What does "Democrat" have to do with anything?  I don't usually profile people on the street as to political party _at all_, because I don't care.

There's also no boasting involved.  It's a simple fact.  YOU are not the norm in this country, and haven't been for a long time, thank God.  The more families in this country come to be interracial, the less race matters to anyone.

You also might want to check yourself before assuming I'm lily-white from a lily-white family myself.

What Jesse Jackson, who most certainly and obviously IS a racist, has to say has nothing whatsoever to do with what anyone else thinks.


----------



## JamesInFlorida (Jun 5, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...




-
Dispatcher: "Are you following him?"
zimmerman: "yeah"

That's evidence that Zimmerman approached/followed him. That's enough probable cause to say ok he probably was following him-he admitted to doing so.


-He acted like the police by a) following somebody he thought was suspicious, b)not listening to the dispatcher (and deciding to take the law into his own hands). Anybody who think he didn't act like a cop, or that the police would be ok with this action has no clue what they're talking about.

-I never said he shouldn't observe anybody suspicious. If he called the police-and left it at that-this whole situation would have been avoided. That's what you're supposed to do-yes even CIVILIAN neighborhood watch "captains".


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 6, 2012)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > JamesInFlorida said:
> ...



Mr Z was doing what watchmen are supposed to do : conduct surveillance and monitor in order to ascertain that crimes will not be committed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 6, 2012)

Liability said:


> The fact that you say partisan and trite things is all the evidence that's needed to demonstrate that your last post was -- disingenuous.



Except that I don't.  Just because I say something that happens to agree with one partisan side's position does not mean that I am making "partisan" statements.  For example:

The United States needs to adopt a stronger immigration policy, and ferociously enforce new and existing immigration policies and laws, in order to better protect the interests of its own citizens.

I guess I'm now a right wing partisan.


----------



## JamesInFlorida (Jun 6, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



-What crime did Zimmerman witness Martin committing?

-If he stopped after making the 911 call than you would 100% correct. But he didn't.

-"Mr Z" took being a neighborhood watch captain a few steps further-and didn't follow what he was supposed to do. Ne

-Zimmerman IS a wannabe cop. In 2008 he applied to become a LEO-and stated that was his goal. He obviously didn't get the job (most likely to having a criminal history of assaulting a LEO).

-You also completely ignored my proof that Zimmerman followed Martin (his words-not mine).

-Zimmerman has been caught in several lies-and that damages his story:

-Zimmernan lied about having a criminal history

-Zimmerman lied about how old he suspected Martin was at the time of the shooting.

-Zimmerman lied about his personal finances.


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 6, 2012)

JamesInFlorida said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > JamesInFlorida said:
> ...



I dunno, neither do you.

A watchman will monitor - if the individual enters someone premises through the door and appears to have the owners permission then that settles that.

.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 6, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...




Unless of course Zimmerman confronted Martin and initiated hostilities.



>>>>


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > JamesInFlorida said:
> ...



That's the $64,000 question.

No EVIDENCE beyond a reasonable doubt.

So a corrupt prosecutor and a friendly judge will unconstitutionally incarcerate a defendant and force him to plead out.

.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 6, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...




Nope, that would be up to a jury to decide if the evidence supports Murder 2.

Which I personally don't believe it does - at this point.  But we haven't seen all the testimony by witnesses presented, nor Zimmerman's story to the police, nor the analysis of the forensic evidence.  However, from the girlfriends statement it appears that Zimmerman went beyond "observation" at the point he approached Martin and the forensics may be in contradiction to the story we were told was Zimmerman's side of the story.

Maybe Manslaughter, because of lack of prior intent, but that is still "iffy".



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 6, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> JamesInFlorida said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...




Observe and report.  Not to physically interject themselves into a situation.


>>>>


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > JamesInFlorida said:
> ...



No EVIDENCE that he physically interjected himmself into the situation.

Reason Scumbag prosecutor is sensitive about criticism








*Dershowitz: Zimmerman Prosecutor Threatening to Sue Harvard for My Criticism*

Alan M. Dershowitz&#8217;s Perspective: State Attorney Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the George Zimmerman case, recently called the Dean of Harvard Law School to complain about my criticism of some of her actions. 

She was transferred to the Office of Communications and proceeded to engage in a 40-minute rant, during which she threatened to sue Harvard Law School, to try to get me disciplined by the Bar Association and to file charges against me for libel and slander."

.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 6, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...




The girlfriends statement about the conversation with Martin indicated Zimmerman was approaching him and getting closer.  If it gets to trial, not dismissed at the Self-defense hearing, the those statements and her testimony will be evidence before the jury.

Now, there have been reports (through the father I believe) that Zimmerman said that Martin was hiding and jumped him.

Now there is a direct contradiction of Zimmerman's story and the witness, the problem Zimmerman may have had is he may not have realized until after speaking the police that Martin was on the phone describing what was happening to the girlfriend.



>>>>


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > JamesInFlorida said:
> ...



And good luck proving that.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Is there any particular reason we should believe the girlfriend?  She can't prove she actually heard any of what she says she did, and it's not like she's unbiased.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 6, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Is there any particular reason we should believe the girlfriend?  She can't prove she actually heard any of what she says she did, and it's not like she's unbiased.



Any particular reason we should believe Zimmerman?


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



*The witness, identified only as John,* says those cries were made by Zimmerman who was on the ground being beaten by Martin.

The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: help, help  and I told him to stop and I was calling 911, he said.

Martin was wearing a gray hoodie, while Zimmerman was wearing red."


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 6, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



The witness identified as "John" has since retracted his statements, saying that he has no idea who was on the ground and who was shouting.


----------



## Liability (Jun 6, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Is there any particular reason we should believe the girlfriend?  She can't prove she actually heard any of what she says she did, and it's not like she's unbiased.
> ...



The evidence, at least so far, seems more supportive of his position by and large.

The injuries (regardless of how minor you might deem them to be) and his broken nose and the marks on his face -- plus the _near_ absence of any scrapes on Trayvon Martin -- would seem to suggest at least that *Zimmerman* was the victim of some kind of beating/attack/assault.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 6, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...




Do some checking, you will find the witness identified only as John has changed his initial statement.

"A third witness, "Witness 6," told police on the night of the shooting that he saw a black man on top of a lighter-skinned man "just throwing down blows on the guy, MMA-style." He said the lighter-skinned man was calling for help. Interviewed later by investigators, he said he was not sure who was calling for help, and was not sure any punches were thrown."  (LINK)​

Witness "John" is witness #6 identified by the "MMA" style initial comment.



[DISCLAIMER: BTW - Not saying there wasn't a fight and that Zimmerman was losing it.  However, an important factor the Judge (as part of the Self Defense Hearing) and the Jury (if it gets to trial) will establish is who is the aggressor.  If it is Martin, then Zimmerman's self defense immunity remains intact.  If it is Zimmerman, then under Florida Statute 776.041 there are provisions where Zimmerman can lose that immunity.)


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 6, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Is there any particular reason we should believe the girlfriend?  She can't prove she actually heard any of what she says she did, and it's not like she's unbiased.




Is there an particular reason we should believe Zimmerman, he's only charged with Murder so it's not like he's unbiased?  

Add to that his credibility has already been damaged by the fact that he failed to disclose his financial assets as part of the bail process as required under Florida Statute 903.046 which could be charged as a felony 3 under Florida Statute 903.035.

Add to that appears to be forensic inconsistencies between, what we have been led to believe since his statements have not been released, that will need further examination.


>>>>


----------



## Ravi (Jun 6, 2012)

I wonder why he hasn't been charged with a felony for lying about his assets yet. Since it appears that he did.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 6, 2012)

Liability said:


> The evidence, at least so far, seems more supportive of his position by and large.



No it doesn't.



> The injuries (regardless of how minor you might deem them to be) and his broken nose and the marks on his face -- plus the _near_ absence of any scrapes on Trayvon Martin -- would seem to suggest at least that *Zimmerman* was the victim of some kind of beating/attack/assault.



No they don't.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 6, 2012)

Liability said:


> The injuries (regardless of how minor you might deem them to be) and his broken nose and the marks on his face -- plus the _near_ absence of any scrapes on Trayvon Martin -- would seem to suggest at least that *Zimmerman* was the victim of some kind of beating/attack/assault.




"Attack" and "Assault" imply the Zimmerman was not the initial aggressor in terms of hostilities.

That is unknown at that time.  Zimmerman's injuries imply only that he took a "beating" not necessarily who initiated the initial "assault" or "attack".



>>>>


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



*The witness stuck to his account that he saw Martin, 17, straddling Zimmerman and pinning him to the ground before Martin was shot.*

.


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 6, 2012)

ravi said:


> i wonder why he hasn't been charged with a felony for lying about his assets yet.* since it appears that he did.[/*



*how so?*


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 6, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...




Which is what I said, "John's" story has changed.  The jury will have to evaluate his account.


>>>>


----------



## Liability (Jun 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > The injuries (regardless of how minor you might deem them to be) and his broken nose and the marks on his face -- plus the _near_ absence of any scrapes on Trayvon Martin -- would seem to suggest at least that *Zimmerman* was the victim of some kind of beating/attack/assault.
> ...



No.  It doesn't.  Attack and assault are words that have their standard meaning.  If I walk up to you to "confront" you verbally and you, offended, punch me in my nose, I have not assaulted you in ANY way.  You have assaulted me.

Where is there ANY evidence that Zimmerman laid so much as a finger on Martin?  Martin aint talkin'.  I know of no witness saying any such thing.  

Since there is NO evidence that anybody BUT Zimmerman got struck in ANY way, there is no basis to speculate about "initial aggressor" stuff -- which does not mean what you seem to imagine anyway.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 6, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Is there any particular reason we should believe the girlfriend?  She can't prove she actually heard any of what she says she did, and it's not like she's unbiased.



It's also not like she came to police right away.  She didn't give her story until weeks later, and that was through/with a Martin family Afro AA lawyer.   If Trayvon is so innocent, it's incredible that his girlfriend wouldn't have immediately contacted police, if not immediately when she lost a call when she supposedly thought Travyon was assaulted by a stranger, then the next day when she learned he was dead. 

Just from her bias, if Trayvon told her that he's going to attack Zimmerman, or if he used racial slurs, there's zero chance that she would have told us.  

She has zero credibility. 

But, again, Trayvon supporters are total shitheads.  They are apes who cannot be reached with reason.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 6, 2012)

Liability said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




Actually under Florida law if you walk up to me and threaten me verbally (with "word or intent") with bodily harm (assault), I can then respond physically under Florida' SYG law.  The aggressor (or person who initiates the assault) need not be the one to throws the first punch.




Liability said:


> Where is there ANY evidence that Zimmerman laid so much as a finger on Martin?  Martin aint talkin'.  I know of no witness saying any such thing.
> 
> Since there is NO evidence that anybody BUT Zimmerman got struck in ANY way, there is no basis to speculate about "initial aggressor" stuff -- which does not mean what you seem to imagine anyway.




Which will be for the jury to figure out.  The one witness to the initial moments reports that Zimmerman was approaching Martin.  Martin had already exhibited a willingness to depart the area.  The call will be the juries (unless Judge Lester throws dismisses the case at Self Defense Hearing).  But that will weigh a lot on credibility and since Judge Lester has also been overseeing the bail process he may not have that high an opinion right now of Zimmerman's credibility after failing to disclose financial resources as required under Florida Statute 903.046.



>>>>


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



No, unfortunately, it won't be. 

Corey knows that a Sanford jury will never vote to convict.

Hence , the new strategy is to torture him until he  cops a plea.

.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 6, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Well, she is a Republican so you could be right.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 6, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Is there any particular reason we should believe the girlfriend?  She can't prove she actually heard any of what she says she did, and it's not like she's unbiased.
> ...



Well, beyond the fact that the evidence supports his story and not hers, you don't have to, Sparkles.  HE doesn't have to prove anything.  The prosecution does, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Meanwhile, perhaps you could sack up and answer the question, instead of trying to divert.  Is there any reason AT ALL that we should believe Martin's girlfriend's story?  Is there any evidence AT ALL that supports her tale of what happened?

FYI, if you say, "The fact that Martin's dead", you will have conceded defeat, so try and come up with a REAL argument.  

Or just tuck tail and run, like always.  Cowardice is what I expect from you.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Is there any particular reason we should believe the girlfriend?  She can't prove she actually heard any of what she says she did, and it's not like she's unbiased.
> ...



Wow.  The exact same diversion, in almost the exact same words, from two different trolls.  It's like someone somewhere is pumping out talking points to you pissants.

Try answering the question as though you actually had a pair, poltroon.  Is there any reason AT ALL to believe Martin's girlfriend's story?

As I told your ass buddy, Middle, answering, "The fact that Martin's dead" will be a concession of defeat, so try to come up with a real argument.

Continuing to say, "I don't hear any questions about Martin's girlfriend.  WHAT ABOUT ZIMMERMAN?!  There are no questions about Martin's girlfriend.  WHAT ABOUT ZIMMERMAN?!" just tells me I'm right, so by all means, keep trying to dodge.   Everyone's watching and laughing at your dickless antics.

Any other idiot libs want to try answering a question with a question?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...




And what, pray tell, do you think the jury will make of "This is what I told the cops when they initially asked me, and this is what I told cops after a months-long media feeding frenzy full of screeching protesters and people making death threats"?

My bet is that they'll give more weight to the statement he made BEFORE he was told what he was "supposed" to say.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 6, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...




"Before he was told what he was 'supposed' to say."



Sorry, I didn't know the conversation was going off in to conspiracy theory land.  If that's the case, please enjoy yourself.



>>>>


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Thank you.  Your surrender is accepted.  Toddle along.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 6, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...



I read posts linearly and respond typically in that order.  Don't like it, that's your problem.



Cecilie1200 said:


> Try answering the question as though you actually had a pair, poltroon.  Is there any reason AT ALL to believe Martin's girlfriend's story?



Actually that is an unanswerable question, is there any reason to believe AT ALL any person's testimony at trial.  The testimony will be evaluated by the jury, that's their job.  Until that time, her statements are what they are.

Is there evidence that the phone call actually occurred?  Yes there is.

Does it sound like her testimony will conflict with what we've heard (2nd and 3rd hand) about what Zimmerman told the police?  Sounds like it will.

When it comes to credibility, the jury will weigh the delay in coming forward, was it her or her parents that did that.  The jury will also likely way Zimmerman's credibility.  Does the clubhouse security video taken at the time Zimmerman called the dispatcher and listed on the evidence report show Martin doing anything "suspicious"?  If so Zimmerman's credibility goes up, if not Zimmerman's credibility goes down.  During the dispatcher call Zimmerman identified Martin as in his late teens (on tape) but at the bail hearing, under oath, he said he thought at the time Martin was only a couple of years younger then himself.  Does Martin's attempt at justification on the stand by changing the story from the recorded one add or detract form Zimmerman's credibility.  Then of course there is the whole credibility thing about Zimmerman and his wife making known false statements as part of the bail process in an attempt to get him classified as indigent for a lower bail when they are recorded on tape as knowing about and changing password on accounts with financial assets of about $155,000.

If anyone ought to be really worried about being believed by the jury, it's probably Mr. Zimmerman.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 6, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




No surrender given, none intended.

If you want to have a discussion based on reality and not conspiracy theories about witnesses being told what to say - I'll be around.


>>>>


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 6, 2012)

Cecilie1200 said:


> Well, beyond the fact that the evidence supports his story and not hers



Untrue.  The evidence, to include Zimmerman's own inconsistencies, does not support any version of his story.



> HE doesn't have to prove anything.  The prosecution does, beyond a reasonable doubt.



That is where you are wrong.  Zimmerman is presenting an affirmative defense, which means that he will have a burden to present positive proof of his claim of self defense.  Aside from that, the evidence that is known so far is not consistent with the story that he has presented.



> Meanwhile, perhaps you could sack up and answer the question, instead of trying to divert.  Is there any reason AT ALL that we should believe Martin's girlfriend's story?  Is there any evidence AT ALL that supports her tale of what happened?



Unfortunately, you've made an illogical presentation.  You challenge us for a reason to believe one story, while rebuking any apply the same standard to the story which you have chosen to believe.



> FYI, if you say, "The fact that Martin's dead", you will have conceded defeat, so try and come up with a REAL argument.



Unfortunately for you, I've made no such argument.  Your straw man fails.



> Or just tuck tail and run, like always.  Cowardice is what I expect from you.



Unfortunately for you, your ad hominem fails.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Zimmerman approached Martin first ?

I thought Martin approached Zimmerman to begin with (came closer to Zimmerman while Zimmerman was observing Martin as a suspicious looking character in the neighborhood at night, and in the rain), just as it is stated in the 911 call, when the dispatcher asked Zimmerman to describe the suspect, and Zimmerman was having trouble doing that because of the hoody, and this until Martin began approaching Zimmerman (coming closer to him)-("wait he is coming/walking closer to me"), Zimmerman said, where as this is when Zimmerman was able to give the description to the dispatcher/911 operator in which he (the operator) was asking for once this took place.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 6, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Well, beyond the fact that the evidence supports his story and not hers
> ...



It's the Defense's job to keep racist pieces of shit, like yourself, off of the jury.   Zimmerman has a story and the evidence supports his story.  Other evidence supports that you have shit for brains.



> Zimmerman is presenting an affirmative defense, which means that he will have a burden to present positive proof of his claim of self defense.



Even though Zimmerman will have an affirmative defense, the Prosecution still has a burden to refute that affirmative defense.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 6, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Based on the girlfriends statement, Martin conveyed to her that Zimmerman was getting closer to him.



beagle9 said:


> I thought Martin approached Zimmerman to begin with (came closer to Zimmerman...



Probably true.

Supposedly Zimmerman's story was he was leaving the complex on his way to the store, that would mean he was leaving the community at the time that Martin was coming in.  If you look at the topography of the community (Use Google Maps and enter "1230 Twin Trees Lane, Sanford FL".  Zimmerman's truck location on Twin Trees Lane would have been between Martin and the address he was returning to.  To continue toward the house he would have had to walk toward the truck to pass it.



beagle9 said:


> ... while Zimmerman was observing Martin as a suspicious looking character in the neighborhood at night, and in the rain), just as it is stated in the 911 call, when the dispatcher asked Zimmerman to describe the suspect, and Zimmerman was having trouble doing that because of the hoody,  and this until Martin began approaching Zimmerman (coming closer to him)-("wait he is coming/walking closer to me"), Zimmerman said, where as this is when Zimmerman was able to give the description to the dispatcher/911 operator in which he (the operator) was asking for once this took place.



Check the audio.  Zimmerman makes his opening statement about someone acting suspicious, the first question the dispatcher asks is for a description.  Zimmerman doesn't equivocate, he says "He looks black."  No mention of not being identify a description based on a hoodie.


>>>>


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 6, 2012)

Liability said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Ummm, there is such a thing as verbal assault and physical assault, so your claim to not having assaulted someone in anyway, could be challenged in that respect wouldn't you think ? Just saying is all...........It may be that the court would slap the hand of the verbal assault offender, while being very hard on the physical assault offender as is found in a case, yet this is what happens when taking all facts into consideration when judging a case completely & fairly.


----------



## Liability (Jun 6, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...




It looks like you might have the germ of a "thought," there, but next time you might want try English.

There is such a thing as being verbally assaulted, but it does not have the same precise meaning as a genuine physical assault.

In any event, your quibble is pointless.

Rather than babbling and burping as you are presently doing, try to man up a little.

POINT us to ANY "evidence" known to date that says that G. Zimmerman assaulted Trayvon Martin.  I'll save you some time.  You can't.

NOW be honest enough to acknowledge that there IS pretty good evidence that Trayvon Martin assaulted G. Zimmerman.

So, now, when asking the faux question about  who was the alleged "initial aggressor," try not to pretend that there is ANY evidence -- or any prospect of getting any evidence -- that G. Zimmerman was the initial aggressor.  Because it doesn't exist and there is no reason to believe it ever will exist.

We can ALL safely disregard WorldWatcher's claim that "under Florida law" a person can be the initial aggressor via a mere verbal confrontation. 

 That's mere unsupported fiction.

Once again the so-called "stand your ground" "law" has exactly NO applicability here.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 6, 2012)

Liability said:


> We can ALL safely disregard WorldWatcher's claim that "under Florida law" a person can be the initial aggressor via a mere verbal confrontation.
> 
> That's mere unsupported fiction.




Florida Statue 784.011

(1)&#8195;An assault is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.​

>>>>


----------



## Liability (Jun 6, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > We can ALL safely disregard WorldWatcher's claim that "under Florida law" a person can be the initial aggressor via a mere verbal confrontation.
> ...




Exactly.  So if one merely approaches some other individual and either doesn't make a threatening statement and especially if one doesn't do so in the context of being apparently able to do shit about it, then there is no such thing as a verbal assault.  It requires a *THREAT.*

But, here, there is *no evidence* of a threat.  And there is no evidence that GZ laid so much as a finger on TM.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 6, 2012)

Liability said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...




So, can a person be charged with assault under Florida law based on a verbal statement and conveying a threat without the need to initiate physical contact?  The answer is "yes" which is different then your requirement when you said "There is such a thing as being verbally assaulted, but it does not have the same precise meaning as a genuine physical assault."?  

Under Florida Law, "genuine" assault can occur without the person physically making contact with the targeted person.


***********************

Now, you also moved the goalposts from a theoretical, to limiting it to this case.  Physical contact under Florida Law is not required.

I've never disagreed that no evidence has been released to the public that would indicate who initiated hostilities between Zimmerman and Martin.  At this point it could theoretically have been Martin.  On the other hand, at this point it could theoretically have been Zimmerman.  How it will play in court is yet to be seen.  


>>>>


----------



## taichiliberal (Jun 7, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I applaud your objective approach to this subject...and how you systematically point out how folk who desperately want to defend the "Stand Your Ground" laws and Zimmerman "move the goal post" whenever they cannot logically and factually support their contentions and assertions.  Keep it up!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 7, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



What?

He did no such thing. He was engaged in conversation with ONE PERSON, duh.

There is no material evidence that GZ threatened or assaulted Martin in any form other than the shot at the end.

There is plenty of evidence that Martin assaulte GZ.

But maybe you can pretend other wise no matter what the facts.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 7, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



WW, do you really think that a jury will return a guilty verdict if a person were arrested for a purely verbal assault with no violence?

I rather doubt a prosecutor would even take it to a grand jury.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 10, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> There is no material evidence that GZ threatened or assaulted Martin in any form other than the shot at the end.
> 
> There is plenty of evidence that Martin assaulte GZ.
> 
> But maybe you can pretend other wise no matter what the facts.



And this is why you are an idiot.  There's "plenty of evidence" that Martin assaulted Zimmerman?  Like what?  Zimmerman's scrapes?  How is that "plenty" of evidence of anything?  All that shows is that a scuffle took place.  You're entire position is based on nothing more than a bias and desire for Zimmerman to be innocent.


----------



## Liability (Jun 10, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > There is no material evidence that GZ threatened or assaulted Martin in any form other than the shot at the end.
> ...



No no, muddled.  You are projecting.  THERE IS in fact plenty of evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.  Zim is the one with the broken nose.  Zim had the minor scrapes or abrasions on his face.  Zimmerman had the multiple cuts/abrasions to the BACK of his head.  By contrast, Martin had a scrape on a finger.  So, it DOES look quite clearly as though Zim was the one on the receiving end.

I have no idea if Zim is innocent or not.  But YOUR position stems from your evident desire to see him found guilty.  You and other twits like you are the ones busy prejudging.   Your strident calls for "justice" are actually the yowlings of a mob.  You are so engrossed in prejudging the guy's guilt that any voice that says "wait for the evidence " strikes YOU as being a claim that Zim is innocent.


----------



## Liability (Jun 10, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Nice try at spin, WW, but you remain wrong.

A mere verbal confrontation will not suffice as an assault no matter how far you wish to stretch reality.

As I noted before, there must be a concomitant THREAT.

Physical contact may not be required in all cases, but more than mere words ARE required.  AT the barest of minimums, *the words have to include a threat* which -- under those specific circumstances -- place the person in REASONABLE fear of IMMINENT great bodily harm or death.

If you think there's some evidence which has been disseminated to the public, so far, that shows that Trayvon Martin was confronted by ANY verbal threat from GZ at all, much LESS a threat which was then and there coupled with an apparent ability to fulfill the threat, much LESS one which would put a reasonable person in fear of imminent serious harm -- then I admit I haven't seen it or heard of it.

That being the case, if it is, then Martin would not have been legally privileged to lay even  a finger on GZ.


----------



## LilOlLady (Jun 10, 2012)

Quote: Originally Posted by Liability  

Exactly. So if one *merely approaches *some other individual and either doesn't make a threatening *statement* and especially if one doesn't do so in the context of being apparently able to do shit about it, then there is *no such thing as a verbal assault*. It requires a *THREAT*.
A verbal assault can be a threat and when it is felt as a threat, stand your ground should applly. Zimmerman did something to provoke Trayvon to beat his ass. Maybe Trayvon saw the gun and felt threatened and responded by standing his gound and attacking Zimmerman first. The little fuck was stalking him with a gun and that is a threat.

If the *verbal assault puts someone in fear for their well being *and/or safety then yes, you can be arrested for it. This is a *class 5 assault.*


----------



## MaxCha (Jun 10, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> Quote: Originally Posted by Liability
> 
> Exactly. So if one *merely approaches *some other individual and either doesn't make a threatening *statement* and especially if one doesn't do so in the context of being apparently able to do shit about it, then there is *no such thing as a verbal assault*. It requires a *THREAT*.
> A verbal assault can be a threat and when it is felt as a threat, stand your ground should applly. Zimmerman did something to provoke Trayvon to beat his ass. Maybe Trayvon saw the gun and felt threatened and responded by standing his gound and attacking Zimmerman first. The little fuck was stalking him with a gun and that is a threat.
> ...



And so Trayvon Martin's response to seeing a gun was to attack GZ?

And if Trayvon had seen the gun, and if GZ was pointing the gun at him, then I seriously doubt GZ would have let the kid break his nose and bloody his head the way he did. He would have shot him immediately.

The way I see it, Travon felt threatened and attacked GZ first because GZ was following him. But by nature of his attack, he opened up the gateway to being shot. Trayvon did not have any cuts or bruises at all to indicate HE was attacked - and believe me, if he there were cuts and marks on him then it would be ALL over the news.

I believe GZ unlawfully pursued Trayvon, and should face some punishment. But to ask for 2nd degree murder, or, as the OP said on the first page of this thread, ask for the ELECTRIC CHAIR, is ridiculous.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 10, 2012)

Liability said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Which is exactly what I've said in the hypothetical.  The original statement was that there MUST be a physical attack.

That's not true.




Liability said:


> If you think there's some evidence which has been disseminated to the public, so far, that shows that Trayvon Martin was confronted by ANY verbal threat from GZ at all, much LESS a threat which was then and there coupled with an apparent ability to fulfill the threat, much LESS one which would put a reasonable person in fear of imminent serious harm -- then I admit I haven't seen it or heard of it.
> 
> That being the case, if it is, then Martin would not have been legally privileged to lay even  a finger on GZ.




Now we've moved from a hypothetical to what the state can prove in the Zimmerman case.  Again, I've have repeatedly noted that, from the evidence that has been released to the public, it does not appear that the state has the evidence to make such a case beyond a reasonable doubt.  Given the public evidence, then Zimmerman would be found not guilty - even of the lower standard required for Manslaughter.  The state being able to prove the prerequisite mental condition and actions required for Murder 2 is even more unlikely.


>>>>


----------



## Ariux (Jun 10, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> The way I see it, Travon felt threatened and attacked GZ first because GZ was following him. But by nature of his attack, he opened up the gateway to being shot. Trayvon did not have any cuts or bruises at all to indicate HE was attacked - and believe me, if he there were cuts and marks on him then it would be ALL over the news.
> 
> I believe GZ unlawfully pursued Trayvon, and should face some punishment. But to ask for 2nd degree murder, or, as the OP said on the first page of this thread, ask for the ELECTRIC CHAIR, is ridiculous.



Trayvon didn't feel threatened by Zimmerman.   You don't approach, let alone assault, someone who you feel threatened by.  You leave.  A big no-limit-nigga at his physical peak wouldn't feel threatened by a chubby hispanic.  Do you take stupid pills?

Why do you think, other than being intellectually challenged, that Zimmerman broke the law by following Trayvon for a moment?  How much punishment for Zimman face?  He'll already spend weeks/months in jail.  He having to spend tens of thousands of dollars.  He had move.  He has to fear for his life.  You're a complete piece of shit for calling for that f-ing jew-hispanic to be punished for a non-crime of looking to see where someone is going.


----------



## MaxCha (Jun 10, 2012)

Ariux said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > The way I see it, Travon felt threatened and attacked GZ first because GZ was following him. But by nature of his attack, he opened up the gateway to being shot. Trayvon did not have any cuts or bruises at all to indicate HE was attacked - and believe me, if he there were cuts and marks on him then it would be ALL over the news.
> ...



Me taking stupid pills?

If you read what I wrote, you'd see that I am on your side of the argument. I do not think GZ should be prosecuted for murder.

Sadly, having rednecks supporting GZ purely for racial reasons weakens the real argument.

Uggg, people these days...


----------



## Ravi (Jun 10, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > MaxCha said:
> ...


Unless you feel that Zimmerman should be given a hero's parade and free ammo for life with the stipulation that he kill black people, you are not on his side.


----------



## MaxCha (Jun 10, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Unless you feel that Zimmerman should be given a hero's parade and free ammo for life with the stipulation that he kill black people, you are not on his side.



Well I was trying to make my answer "child friendly" if you know what I mean. No complicated words like "generally" or "technically, but not idealogically."

I disagree more with him than I do those who hope GZ is given life in prison, but I disagree with both.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 10, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > MaxCha said:
> ...



Max, Arius doenst support GZ for racial reasons as he doesnt consider GZ to be white.

Hang in there and be patient. We need everyone that we can work with in the coming dark times (next five to ten years).


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 10, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > Quote: Originally Posted by Liability
> ...



I agree with almost all of your post, but where did GZ break the law by following Martin?

You know, we do have the right to do that, especially if we think someone is up to criminal purposes.


----------



## MaxCha (Jun 10, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> MaxCha said:
> 
> 
> > LilOlLady said:
> ...



I don't think he did anything that bad. But he was told specifically by the officer on the phone to not pursue TM, so that would be a definite mistake that perhaps can only be seen in hindsight.

The crazy apart about all this is, if GZ gets off, people against "racial violence" will be rioting and burning buildings in protest.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 10, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with almost all of your post, but where did GZ break the law by following Martin?
> ...



Mistake? Probably. But illegal? I am fairly sure it isnt illegal.

Were it me, I would have waited for the cops. But people in neighborhoods with rapidly increasing crime rates do get frustrated and do rash things sometimes.




MaxCha said:


> The crazy apart about all this is, if GZ gets off, people against "racial violence" will be rioting and burning buildings in protest.



Not so sure the leaders of that opposition to racial violence is so opposed to anything other than white racial violence. Dont ever recall seeing Sharpton rant and rave about some white kid that got killed by a gang banger because the victim was white. He only gets upset if his own get hit. That is about as racist as it gets if we only demand justice for one race.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 10, 2012)

Liability said:


> No no, muddled.  You are projecting.  THERE IS in fact plenty of evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.  Zim is the one with the broken nose.  Zim had the minor scrapes or abrasions on his face.  Zimmerman had the multiple cuts/abrasions to the BACK of his head.  By contrast, Martin had a scrape on a finger.  So, it DOES look quite clearly as though Zim was the one on the receiving end.



Nonsense.  All it shows is that an altercation took place.  Shows nothing about how it started.  The fact that Zimmerman came out worse for wear does not in any way suggest or imply that Martin was the instigator.  It's just as possible that Martin was merely the superior combatant and easily got the upper hand.  It's also possible that the altercation started modestly.  By that, I mean that Zimmerman could have started it with something as simple as trying to grab Martin by the arm, intending to physically detain him until the police arrived (which Zimmerman would have had no right to do), and Martin responded in self defense.



> I have no idea if Zim is innocent or not.  But YOUR position stems from your evident desire to see him found guilty.



Horseshit.  My position stems from the information presented thus far.  Let me explain it to you in a nutshell:
_
Zimmerman's self contradictions, and his claims that are inconsistent with the physical evidence, are indicative of a guilty conscious and intent to hide something.  This leads me to believe that Zimmerman has known since the beginning that he landed the wrong side of the baseline that fateful night.  I don't believe that Zimmerman had any truly malicious intentions, but he probably was somewhat drunk on his overzealous hero complex that is evident from his history of playing police-man.  The notion that Martin, or anyone, would simply attack Zimmerman just for the Hell of it, is pretty far fetched to say the least.  And the "thug" explanations are nothing more than intellectual laziness hellbent on maintaining a predetermined position regardless of factual accuracy or logical validity.  Zimmerman claims to have been given a thorough lashing, which is inconsistent with the physical evidence of his injuries, and claims that he was able to pull out his gun and shoot in self defense, which is inconsistent with his claims of being straddled and having the bloody shit beat out of you.  He claims to have been heard on the 9-11 tapes yelling at the top of his lungs, which is inconsistent with his claims to have been getting his head bashed into the concrete and being on the verge of unconsciousness.

So, what I find to be most likely what happened, more or less, is that Zimmerman pursued Martin, hoping to score hero points, eventually caught up with him, and crossed the line by trying to physically detain Martin.  Zimmerman probably was thinking himself somewhat of a tough guy and didn't expect this skinny kid to have some skill in a brawl.  Martin resisted, as per his rights of self defense, and Zimmerman found himself on the losing end of a wrestling match.  Martin probably had no idea what Zimmerman was doing, probably was scared shitless that Zimmerman was some kind of thug, and wasn't going to be inclined to let up easy.  Zimmerman isn't exactly getting his ass kicked, like he claims he was, but isn't exactly a street smart guy nor does he seem to have any kind of skill dealing with a pushing match, so he gets freaked out and panics, and figures that if he pulls out his gun he can scare the kid into submission.  Martin may or may not have noticed the gun before Zimmerman tries to pull it out, but as soon as Zimmerman does, Martin starts trying to wrestle the gun away from GZ, still afraid that GZ is some thug who's trying to rob him.  I don't think that Zimmerman ever intended to shoot Martin.  But the gun goes off accidentally, killing Martin.  Zimmerman is then seen by witnesses dazed and confused, in shock and fear over what's just happened, knowing that he's not exactly clean, because the whole thing started with GZ in the wrong for trying to detain Martin.  And he probably knew that pulling out his gun for the simply purpose of trying to intimidate Martin also put him in the wrong.

All in all, George Zimmerman doesn't seem to be a malicious murderer as some people try to claim.  He's simply a careless and foolish man.  He was overzealous in his efforts to be the local Bat-man, and he acted wrecklessly in trying to detain Martin, and in trying to use his weapon for intimidation purposes.  The charge should have been in the ballpark of manslaughter or negligent homicide._ 



> You and other twits like you are the ones busy prejudging.   Your strident calls for "justice" are actually the yowlings of a mob.



That's actually quite ironic, because in fact I'm nothing of the sort.  But you automatically prejudge me as such, simply because of the fact that I believe that Zimmerman has been in the wrong here.  Way to go, dumbass!  



> You are so engrossed in prejudging the guy's guilt that any voice that says "wait for the evidence " strikes YOU as being a claim that Zim is innocent.



No, your own claims that Zimmerman was innocent back when this story first broke the national spotlight, and your statements regarding Martin being a "punk" were sufficient to show me where your position is.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 10, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> I agree with almost all of your post, but where did GZ break the law by following Martin?
> 
> You know, we do have the right to do that, especially if we think someone is up to criminal purposes.



Florida Statutes

_(2)&#8195;Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083._


----------



## Liability (Jun 10, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with almost all of your post, but where did GZ break the law by following Martin?
> ...



Willfully?  Maybe.  

Maliciously?  No evidence of that.

Repeatedly?  No evidence of that.

So since the words are joined by the conjunction "and," you need all three.

One out of three is a good day at bat for a big league baseball player.  But for meeting the requirements of that provision of law?  Not so much.

You fail again.


----------



## Liability (Jun 10, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > No no, muddled.  You are projecting.  THERE IS in fact plenty of evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.  Zim is the one with the broken nose.  Zim had the minor scrapes or abrasions on his face.  Zimmerman had the multiple cuts/abrasions to the BACK of his head.  By contrast, Martin had a scrape on a finger.  So, it DOES look quite clearly as though Zim was the one on the receiving end.
> ...




Muddled, you are reduced to a wall of words.

Starting at the end:  I highlighted your lie.

I said no such thing, you dishonest loser.  Since you find it necessary to deliberately lie, you have less than zero credibility.

I think you are part of the yowling mob, you dishonest dumbass, because you fucking admit it.  Damn, you are pathetically stupid.  How can you "believe" Zimmerman was "in the wrong here" when you have NO fucking evidence of that?  You are an idiot.

You aren't worth the effort of a point by point rebuttal.  You are a dishonest and rather stupid, plodding hack.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 10, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with almost all of your post, but where did GZ break the law by following Martin?
> ...




*"AND"* is a very important word in the law which you post.  "And" means that to qualify under the statute "repeatedly" would be a qualifying condition needed to meet the requirement of the law.


Can you provide any evidence that Zimmerman repeatedly followed Martin?  A situation where Zimmerman had followed Martin in the past?



>>>>


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 10, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with almost all of your post, but where did GZ break the law by following Martin?
> ...



It was not repeated and not malicious, dumbfuck.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 10, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > MaxCha said:
> ...


And when or if they do, it should be that they are delt with very seriously by the law, because enough is enough of such threats of lawlessness, and then actual mob actions to go on in this nation once the law has spoken in these cases. Either we are going to be a nation of laws and not of men, or we are going to be a nation of thuggery and intimidation from here on out. Whats it going to be America ? The apeals process is also a part of the law, so it's best to use that process if they think someone had been done wrong amongst these cases or sentenced wrong maybe or even not sentenced at all in these cases, but mobs reeking havoc in the streets is never a viable option to pursue by anyone afterwards, and thus anyone who chooses this route should be delt with accordingly when they choose this path to go down, instead of the proper civil path to go down instead.

Just be smart about it all people, and stay out of the propaghanda zone that is being slung before hand & afterwards by those who may be acting upon or wanting actions based upon emotions, instead of keeping a level head on their shoulders, and letting the law do their job & then respecting it afterwards.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 10, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> So, what I find to be most likely what happened, more or less, is that Zimmerman pursued Martin, hoping to score hero points, eventually caught up with him, and crossed the line by trying to physically detain Martin.



I think what most likely happened is that your mom wanted a child but couldn't conceive.  One day she got an idea. She retrieved a piece of her shit from the toilet and raised it has her baby.  That baby is you!  

What you think happened is contrary to the evidence and defies reason. 

There were several minutes from the time Zimmerman told the police that he had lost Trayvon to the time Trayvon's ho suggests the encounter happened.  Several minutes is enough to be a half mile away.  But, Trayvon was put down in the same area where Zimmerman reported last seeing him.  Deal with that, piece of shit.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 10, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> So, what I find to be most likely what happened, more or less, is that Zimmerman pursued Martin, hoping to score hero points, eventually caught up with him, and crossed the line by trying to physically detain Martin.



The time line doesn't allow for this does it ? Zimmerman broke off the pursuit once the operator told him to do so, but you have Zimmerman continuing his pursuit after the operator said "we don't need you to do that sir", and Zimmerman said "OK", right ?

This would have to be all speculation by you, otherwise beyond the point that Zimmerman replied Ok to the operator, in which we all think at this time he had ended his pursuit of Martin once the operator told him "we don't need you to do that sir" correct ?


----------



## Cecilie1200 (Jun 10, 2012)

MaxCha said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > MaxCha said:
> ...



First of all, an advisory that "we don't need you to do that" is not a specific order NOT to walk down that sidewalk.  I'm not entirely sure that dispatcher even HAS the authority to give orders.

Second of all, there's no evidence that Zimmerman DID continue to follow Martin after the dispatcher advised him that he didn't need to.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 10, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > So, what I find to be most likely what happened, more or less, is that Zimmerman pursued Martin, hoping to score hero points, eventually caught up with him, and crossed the line by trying to physically detain Martin.
> ...




The problem with that is that from the time on the audio tape that you hear Zimmerman exit the truck to the time of his response of "OK" to the dispatcher "once the operator told him to do so" was 18-seconds.

In that 18-seconds Zimmerman would not have traveled the distance from the truck to the event site behind the building where the event took place. When the timeline of the dispatcher call and the "OK" is synced with the shoot being recorded on the 911 call form the neighbor then Zimmerman would have had about 3 minutes to 3 minutes 30 seconds being between his "OK" and the shot being fired.

There are two possibilities.  First, Martin attacked Zimmerman and knocked him unconscious and the dragged him down the street, around the north end of the building, then woke Zimmerman back up to then commence further assault so that Zimmerman would be conscious to fire the shot OR Zimmerman continued to move away from the truck after Martin after the "OK" and arrived at the event site under his own power.

Average walking speed is 4.5 feet/second (double that to a jog at 9 fps).

At walking speed Zimmerman would have covered 79.2 feet | 26.4 yards.  We know he did not sprint at full speed because he continued a conversation with the dispatcher and there was some wind noise, but no background noise evidence of heavy breathing or the jerkiness of speech that would result in running.  So let&#8217;s say he moved at light jog of double normal average speed.  That would be 158.4 feet | 52.8 yards.

The distance from the truck area, east along Twin Trees Lane, along the sidewalk to the north of the building, and from the sidewalk "T" south along the sidewalk between the backyards was about 105 yards.


If you would like to research yourself, Google "Average Human Walking Speed".  Then using Google Earth, you can use the path function to measure distances between multiple points you designate from start to end.  Use "Path" instead of "Distance" because distance from point "A" to "B" would be "as the crow flies" meaning Zimmerman would have had to go through the building.   Use the address of "1230 Twin Trees Land, Sanford FL" and it will display the right area.  Distance measurements are under the "Tools" menu.




Cecilie1200 said:


> Second of all, there's no evidence that Zimmerman DID continue to follow Martin after the dispatcher advised him that he didn't need to.




Actually there is.  One the distance involved (see above) and two the girlfriends statement that Martin indicated the unknown man was following him and getting closer.


>>>>


----------



## Ravi (Jun 11, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Cecilie1200 said:
> 
> 
> > Second of all, there's no evidence that Zimmerman DID continue to follow Martin after the dispatcher advised him that he didn't need to.
> ...


If true, that would be the repeatedly in Inthemiddle's use of the stalking law. And the maliciously would be his comment that "these assholes always get away."


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 11, 2012)

Ravi said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Cecilie1200 said:
> ...




No they wouldn't, the actions of that evening would be considered a single event and an issuance of frustration does not imply malicious intent.



>>>>


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 11, 2012)

Liability said:


> Maliciously?  No evidence of that.



Malice is inferred from disregarding the instructions of the 911 operator, acting beyond the established practices and scope of neighborhood watch, and his recorded comments such as "they always get away."



> Repeatedly?  No evidence of that.



Eh, he followed Martin, stopped, then went looking for him again.  Seems repeated to me.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 11, 2012)

Liability said:


> Muddled, you are reduced to a wall of words.



Awww, poor baby.  Three paragraphs too much for you to handle, eh?



> I said no such thing, you dishonest loser.  Since you find it necessary to deliberately lie, you have less than zero credibility.



  I knew you'd eventually come to such BS.  I wish I'd bookmarked it.  It's funny when people accuse you of lying, when they lie on a daily basis about supposedly being a lawyer, but then can't handle reading three little paragraphs.  



> I think you are part of the yowling mob, you dishonest dumbass, because you fucking admit it.



  More lying!  



> How can you "believe" Zimmerman was "in the wrong here" when you have NO fucking evidence of that?



  Maybe you missed the part where I said "based on the evidence available."  



> You are an idiot.



  No, you are.  You're so wrapped up in your confirmation bias it's insane.  You say "there's no evidence of that" when in fact the evidence is there, and you simply want to push a particular interpretation of that evidence that supports exactly your own pre-determined notions.  What's worse, is you actually think that what you're doing and saying is intelligent.  Just goes to show that incompetence really does create the illusion of competence.   



> You aren't worth the effort of a point by point rebuttal.  You are a dishonest and rather stupid, plodding hack.



In other words, you're incapable of actually rebutting, so you're just going to throw a tantrum just like any other intellectually handicapped wingnut.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 11, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> *"AND"* is a very important word in the law which you post.  "And" means that to qualify under the statute "repeatedly" would be a qualifying condition needed to meet the requirement of the law.
> 
> 
> Can you provide any evidence that Zimmerman repeatedly followed Martin?  A situation where Zimmerman had followed Martin in the past?



Be up to a jury, honestly.  But trying to stick a stalking charge on Zimmerman was not really my purpose.  Jim wants to paint Zimmerman as some kind of wholesome white-suited, innocent, and trying to imply that such would make it completely inappropriate/illogical/whatever for Martin to have been fearful about the fact that Zimmerman was following him, and approached him.  I'm just pointing out that Zimmerman's behaviors leading up to the confrontation were already on the borderline of unusual, harassing, and/or criminal.  Even if we agree that Zimmerman did not break any laws by following Martin, Martin still have a perfectly valid and reasonable basis to be fearful of Zimmerman.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 11, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> The time line doesn't allow for this does it ?



Yes, it does.



> Zimmerman broke off the pursuit once the operator told him to do so



Complete fabrication and contrary to the evidence, and completely unsupportable by the timeline and known events (like, for example, the fact that Zimmerman was heard departing his car, and was only running for a very short time, but the confrontation between him and Martin took place much farther away from his car than would have been possible if Zimmerman had ended his pursuit when you claim he did).



> but you have Zimmerman continuing his pursuit after the operator said "we don't need you to do that sir", and Zimmerman said "OK", right ?
> 
> This would have to be all speculation by you, otherwise beyond the point that Zimmerman replied Ok to the operator, in which we all think at this time he had ended his pursuit of Martin once the operator told him "we don't need you to do that sir" correct ?



No, we don't all think he ended his pursuit at that point.  Only the Zimmerman apologists think that, and base it no absolutely nothing.  Such a theory conflicts with the fact that, ya know, Martin and Zimmerman ended up meeting up, and quite a distance from Zimmerman's vehicle at that.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 11, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...




Hmmm, so there is approximately 3 min's & 30 seconds between the "OK" and the event site, where we have no accounting for or answer for at this time upon where Zimmerman was actually at within the time frame or where Martin was actually at in the time frame correct? All we have is speculation in which as you have already listed, where there are various possibilities in such speculation as is noted by you above, but are there more possibilities maybe?


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 11, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Hmmm, so there is approximately 3 min's & 30 seconds between the "OK" and the event site, where we have no accounting for or answer for at this time upon where Zimmerman was actually at within the time frame or where Martin was actually at in the time frame correct? All we have is speculation in which as you have already listed, where there are various possibilities in such speculation as is noted by you above, but are there more possibilities maybe?



Wow.  You just babbled on about how the evidence this and that, then when it's illustrated to you what the evidence does indeed support the position opposite yours, you want to say that now there's no evidence either way.  *shakes head*


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 11, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > The time line doesn't allow for this does it ?
> ...


No apologist here for either men, but it is good to explore all areas of the event, and to tease the minds in order to maybe get close to the actual accounting of the two men's actions (in which many are doing a great job on), and their exact where abouts within the time lines that are being figured, otherwise before they both met up for that traggic event or situation that took place once they did meet up, and maybe to find out how they came to meet up as found within the time lines in which we are all exploring in the event.

You seem bias in your assertions regarding the case, where as you lump someone in as an apologist for Zimmerman, but refuse to acknowledge your apologist attitude for what Martin's roll/part may have been in the case (or) what he may have been guilty of possibly in the case just as well. Keep an open mind always in something like this, and it will serve you well my friend, but showing bias is always something that can confuse and distort your findings & assertions (even jeapardize your credibility), because no one wants to listen to someone who has already made up their mind, especially when the case is something that hardly no one can figure out as of just yet, or may not ever know the truth on sadly enough in such a case.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 11, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm, so there is approximately 3 min's & 30 seconds between the "OK" and the event site, where we have no accounting for or answer for at this time upon where Zimmerman was actually at within the time frame or where Martin was actually at in the time frame correct? All we have is speculation in which as you have already listed, where there are various possibilities in such speculation as is noted by you above, but are there more possibilities maybe?
> ...


It wasn't totally a position opposite of mine (what ever that was suppose to mean), because if you would read World Watchers entire post, he gave two possibilities that could have taken place, but you choose only one due to your extreme bias in the situation.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 11, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...




And that's the issue that BOTH sides don't want to do.  Examine multiple scenarios against all the evidence to see how it fits.  Commonly someone per-decides that Zimmerman was at fault or that Martin was at fault and then argues based on that emotional position.

Basically we have:

Scenario #1:  Zimmerman was out to commit murder, found a subject, and is fully responsible for Murder.  (This appears to be the case the State will try to make.)

Scenario #2:  Zimmerman acted with no pre-decided intent or disregard for human life but initiated hostilities.

Scenario #3:  Zimmerman acted with no pre-decided intent or disregard for human life and Martin initiated hostilities.​


Under scenario #3, Zimmerman would have retained his self defense immunity as it was Martin that initiated hostilities.  Under Scenario #2, the state would have to show first that Zimmerman initiated hostilities.  Then they would have to show either (a) the extend of those initial hostilities, or (b) that Zimmerman after the initiation of hostilities and at the point he was losing the fight that he was presented with an opportunity to retreat.  Even if Zimmerman started the hostilities, it is possible that he retained self defense immunity, but that question would have to be answered first.  Scenario #1 appears (from the public evidence) to be a very weak case on the part of the prosecution.

During this time we have Zimmerman on the phone with the dispatcher and Martin on the phone with his girlfriend.  Zimmerman's call ends at 19:13:41 or 1911 (depending if you go my dispatcher logs for external phone records).  Martins call with the girlfriend ends at approximately 19:16:00 (based on phone records).  The shot recorded by the 911 tapes takes place shortly after the girlfriends call ends and police report being on scene at 19:17.


The big unknown right now is exactly what Zimmerman said to the police that night.  Remember, at the time it is very, VERY unlikely that he knew Martin was on the phone at the time that the event started and much will depend on his credibility as viewed by the jury.  **IF** his story is that he approached Martin while Martin was on the sidewalk between houses and that Martin initiated hostilities - then that actually supports his credibility since Zimmerman's story matches closely that of the girlfriend.  On the other hand **IF** Zimmerman's story is that Martin was hiding and jumped him, then (IMHO) that detracts from Zimmerman's credibility because it does not make sense under the known facts (i.e. Martin was carrying on a conversation on the phone at that exact time and it makes no sense for someone to hide to ambush while they are talking on the phone).

Then there are other issues that expert witnesses will need to be brought in to explain.  If Zimmerman's story is that Martin was on top of him beating his head against the ground then:  

(a) I'm the same height as Martin (71") with an arm length of 22" to the wrist.  If Martin his his hands on Zimmerman's head and is flexing his elbows up and down (to create the beating head motion) then chest to chest Zimmerman and Martin will be 12-18" apart with Zimmerman under Martin.  The straight front to back trajectory of the bullet through Martin's chest would require that Zimmerman pull the weapon and maneuver it between them pointing it "down" towards his feet (an unnatural wrist movement) to achieve that shot.  A more natural shot would have been to remove the gun from the holster, place the weapon against Martin's side and fire.  That would have created a side entrance rising into Martin's chest instead of a straight front to back.  The second thing is that there was no Gun Shot Residue on either Zimmerman's jacket or shirt from such a close proximity shot.  One would think that with them being that close that blow-back would have deposited GSR on Zimmerman and that gravity would have cause some material to fall down (since Zimmerman was under Martin).

That actually gives raise to possible 4th and 5th scenarios.  That being in those critical couple of seconds before the shot was fired that, Zimmerman twisted and pushed Martin off and either: (a) pulled his weapon and fired, with arm extended away from his body into the center of Martins chest (No GSR, Straight Trajectory) with no delay even with separation (about 2 feet, arms length), **OR** (b) same thing but this time Martin attempted to re-engage Zimmerman resulting in Zimmerman firing his weapon.


It will be interesting to see how Zimmerman's accounts from that night and the video of his reenactment the next morning compare with facts that can be established and the forensic evidence.



>>>>


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 11, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


A very indebt easy to understand analysis world, and yes it will be interesting to see how it all comes out, especially with the experts who will defintely unravel the mystery of it all hopefully...Good Job !


----------



## paperview (Jun 11, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm, so there is approximately 3 min's & 30 seconds between the "OK" and the event site, where we have no accounting for or answer for at this time upon where Zimmerman was actually at within the time frame or where Martin was actually at in the time frame correct? All we have is speculation in which as you have already listed, where there are various possibilities in such speculation as is noted by you above, but are there more possibilities maybe?
> ...


Am I incorrect, Inthemiddle, of my recollection that you said you were a Judge?

Just wondering.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 11, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Even if Zimmerman started the hostilities, it is possible that he retained self defense immunity,



Not in this case.



> The big unknown right now is exactly what Zimmerman said to the police that night.



The idiot Jew-Hispanic couldn't keep his mouth shut.



> **IF** his story is that he approached Martin while Martin was on the sidewalk between houses and that Martin initiated hostilities - then that actually supports his credibility since Zimmerman's story matches closely that of the girlfriend.  On the other hand **IF** Zimmerman's story is that Martin was hiding and jumped him, then (IMHO) that detracts from Zimmerman's credibility because it does not make sense under the known facts (i.e. Martin was carrying on a conversation on the phone at that exact time and it makes no sense for someone to hide to ambush while they are talking on the phone).



Forget his story?  What's your story?  Were you shot in the head and had half your brains blown out?

You think Martin's best Defense is to claim he approached Travyon?  When half of your brains were blown out, you must have filled the cavity with shit, because that's a shitty idea.

The ho on the phone has no credibility.  It doesn't matter what she said.  She's 100% biased in favor of Trayvon.  She refused to talk to police, until weeks later through a lawyer.  She wasn't there.  She could make up anything she wants, after knowing much of the evidence, and she would certainly leave out any facts that incriminates Trayvon.  Yet, even her account makes it sound like Travon approached Zimmerman.

Zimmerman's credibility is not at stake in any regard to what the ho on the phone claims.  



> The straight front to back trajectory of the bullet through Martin's chest would require that Zimmerman pull the weapon and maneuver it between them pointing it "down" towards his feet (an unnatural wrist movement) to achieve that shot.  A more natural shot would have been to remove the gun from the holster, place the weapon against Martin's side and fire.  That would have created a side entrance rising into Martin's chest instead of a straight front to back.



You're stupid.  Leave the speculation up to people who aren't stupid.  

If there were a struggle, Zimmerman didn't have much luxury of controlling his movement sin what you imagine are the most natural way.  It could be that Trayvon was about to get shot in the side, at an upward angle, but Trayvon grabbed the gun with the hand on the opposite side, and while trying to grab away the gun, pulled it to where Travyon was shot.

Or, maybe Zimmerman wasn't considering your idea about what is natural and instead deliberately shot Trayvon straight in the heart.



> It will be interesting to see how Zimmerman's accounts from that night and the video of his reenactment the next morning compare with facts that can be established and the forensic evidence.



Stupid Jew-Hispanic, couldn't keep his mouth shut.  This point is worth repeating.


----------



## paperview (Jun 11, 2012)

And the slimy racist, sexist, neanderthal  weighs in once again...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 11, 2012)

paperview said:


> And the slimy racist, sexist, neanderthal  weighs in once again...




Some peoples posts make you want to wash you eyes out with dish-washing detergent, it's less painful then reading their writings which show what exists in their heads.


>>>>


----------



## Ariux (Jun 11, 2012)

paperview said:


> And the slimy racist, sexist, neanderthal  weighs in once again...



Neanderthals are known for their exceptionally large brains, larger than average human brains.

Afros are known for their exceptionally small brains, smaller than average human brains.

An insult would be to say that shit-for-brains Afro weighs in once again.  That wouldn't be any more racist than what you said.  But, it would be insulting.


----------



## Liability (Jun 12, 2012)

Ariux said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > And the slimy racist, sexist, neanderthal  weighs in once again...
> ...



Neanderthals are not around anymore.  If you knew thing one about brain science even a scum-sucking asshole like you would know that brain size does not directly correspond to intelligence.  

To compare you to Neanderthals is insulting.  To the late Neanderthals.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 12, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



LOL! Not to mention that they were none too bright, apparently.


----------



## paperview (Jun 12, 2012)

*BREAKING NEWS: !!*

 Hollllllllllllllllllllllllllly Molllllllllllllllllllie.

Hold onto yer hats fellers:
*Shellie's been ARRESTED!*

BREAKING: Shellie Zimmerman, wife of #GeorgeZimmerman, arrested 

https://twitter.com/#!/JeffWeinerOS


----------



## paperview (Jun 12, 2012)

And there she is:







The lying Ms. Zimmerman!  In full color MUG SHOT!

heh.

Mugshot: Shellie Zimmerman, wife of #GeorgeZimmerman, arrested #TrayvonMartin


----------



## Ravi (Jun 12, 2012)

What was she arrested for?


----------



## paperview (Jun 12, 2012)

ravi said:


> what was she arrested for?


Perjury!


----------



## paperview (Jun 12, 2012)

His & Her Matching jumpsuits at the Correctional facility!

Isn't that cute?


----------



## OtaniKitano (Jun 12, 2012)

*I hope the righties on here who defended this sorry trash like the taste of their crow feathers.  And educate their sorry asses for what "Stand Your Ground" means, rather than twisting it to suit their silly redneck purposes.  *


----------



## geauxtohell (Jun 12, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Stupid Jew-Hispanic, couldn't keep his mouth shut.  This point is worth repeating.




ALCON:

Every time racist/bigot/waste of carbon/prison-rape victim/Auriux opens his ball washer, I neg him with "dipshit" in the comment box.

You should try it!


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 12, 2012)

OtaniKitano said:


> *I hope the righties on here who defended this sorry trash like the taste of their crow feathers.  And educate their sorry asses for what "Stand Your Ground" means, rather than twisting it to suit their silly redneck purposes.  *


Has nothing to do with Stand your Ground, but everything to do with deception, lies, biases, mis-representing, defending or not defending, racism, accusations, assumptions, conclusions, and so on and so forth in which has all been drummed up by the out of control media, and the racist on either side of the spectrum, in which became a spectacle born from a traggedy that revealed a deeper more entrenched problem of putting the cart before the horse in this nation anymore these days, and this is due to a more deep seated & rooted suspicion of one another in this nation, that continues right on and right on. It seems that before the law could do their job as it should always be allowed to, even if it goes all the way to the top levels of the law when doing so, the people now want to try a person in the media first, and then let the law do their job afterwards in hopes that they (the law) will be swayed to either move one way or another in a case that has been ruled upon by influenced biased media votes or perswassion of, in order to get the ruling that the people want, instead of what the law wants.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 12, 2012)

paperview said:


> And there she is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh please, she was arrested for "perjury" for not telling about Zimmerman's website which she may or may not have known about.  The prosecution is getting desperate.  They know they can't make a real case against Zimmerman so they are doing all they can to try it in the media.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 12, 2012)

Ravi said:


> What was she arrested for?


Glad you asked this question, because it shows that you are interested in the truth regarding what happened between George and Trayvon only, and to keep spererated from those things in which are possibly not connected to the truth searced for in the case between George and Trayvon. Good Job!

Lets await the answer, and then cast our opinions upon.. B )


----------



## paperview (Jun 12, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > And there she is:
> ...


That ^  is one ^ huge pile ^ of crap ^ there.


----------



## paperview (Jun 12, 2012)

She knew about it, and was spending lots of dough from it.

Didn't know about.    Hell, the whole world knew about it.


----------



## paperview (Jun 12, 2012)

Judge Lester..."*this is a serious charge for which life may be  imposed;  the evidence  against him is strong;  he has been charged with  one prior  crime, for  which he went through a  pre-trial diversion  program, and has  had an  injunction lodged  against him"

**Zimmerman 'does not properly respect the law,' judge says in order revoking bond :* George Zimmerman bond revoked order: Judge's order explains why he sent Zimmerman back to jail - Orlando Sentinel

From Lester's Bond Revocation he wrote yesterday.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 12, 2012)

paperview said:


> Judge Lester..."*this is a serious charge for which life may be  imposed;  the evidence  against him is strong;  he has been charged with  one prior  crime, for  which he went through a  pre-trial diversion  program, and has  had an  injunction lodged  against him"
> 
> **Zimmerman 'does not properly respect the law,' judge says in order revoking bond :* George Zimmerman bond revoked order: Judge's order explains why he sent Zimmerman back to jail - Orlando Sentinel
> 
> From Lester's Bond Revocation he wrote yesterday.



Then, Shellie Zimmerman told the judge during her husband's bond hearing that the couple was essentially destitute.

Since the money was raised for his defense and not for anything else, doesn't that make them "essentially destitute?"

I guess that depends on what the meaning of "is" is.  

Again, how do you feel about Clinton's lying under oath?  I'm sure, without a doubt, that you gave him a free pass and he really lied.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 12, 2012)

paperview said:


> His & Her Matching jumpsuits at the Correctional facility!
> 
> Isn't that cute?



I wonder if they will also charge Zimmerman with a felony as it appears he failed to disclose his assets.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 12, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Judge Lester..."*this is a serious charge for which life may be  imposed;  the evidence  against him is strong;  he has been charged with  one prior  crime, for  which he went through a  pre-trial diversion  program, and has  had an  injunction lodged  against him"
> ...


A screenshot of his website has been posted in this thread several times. He asked for donations for BOTH defense AND living expenses. It would definitely be considered an asset.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 12, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



still not answering the Clinton question...


----------



## Ravi (Jun 12, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


I've no idea what he has to do with this thread, but he acted like a POS and lost my respect.

But I don't believe he killed anyone.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 12, 2012)

paperview said:


> And there she is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And this picture of her is to infer what to us ? I mean looking at her tells us what ? What are we supposed to see here in this picture of her ?  Give me some ideas or guidence please, because I am fresh out of my abilities to read minds anymore.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 12, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



That wasn't the question.  Should he have gone to jail for perjury, which he did.  He lied under oath.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 12, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


No, he shouldn't have. You'd have a hard time finding me supporting sending a sitting president to jail for anything short of premeditated murder. Even Dubya. Fuck, even Reagan.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 12, 2012)

But I see what you are saying here.

Since Clinton didn't go to jail, neither should anyone else.

That's awesome!


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 12, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > And there she is:
> ...



Can you explain how on April 20th Mrs. Zimmerman could testify that she did know about the account and was involved with moving money just prior to the bail hearing, yet claim to not have any money on the 20th?

*April 20th - Bail Hearing :*  Mrs. Zimmerman testified under oath.  When asked if she new about the website she answered "I am aware of that site."  When asked if she was aware of how much money was collected she answered "Currently, I do not know.".  When asked if she had an estimate of how much money was collected she answered I do not.

*April 16 to April 19:*  Shellie Zimmerman's credit union records show she transferred $74,000 from Georges account to her's.

*April 16, Jail Recording:* Shellie Zimmerman and George Zimmerman arrange for Shellie to have access to his accounts directly.

*April 16, Credit Union Records:* Show Shellie Zimmerman withdrew $18,000.

*April 15, Jail Recording:* Shellie Zimmerman and George Zimmerman are recorded discussing how much money is in the accounts.​



http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Shellie-Zimmerman-Arrest-6-12-12.pdf?mobile=nc

>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 12, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Since the money was raised for his defense and not for anything else, doesn't that make them "essentially destitute?"











1.  Here is a screen shot of the website, notice that the use of the collected money was not limited to his defense.

2.  When a legal defense fund is setup, it is not setup where the defendant can draw cash.  It is setup as a trust with an independent conservator.  That was not done for the initial fund that Zimmerman setup.

3.  As a result those were financial resources they were required to report under Florida Law 903.046.



>>>>


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 12, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



So, the president is above the law?  I thought we decided against that with Nixon.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 12, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


Can you imagine how this money affected these two individuals minds, whom had never had such money as this in their lives ? I bet they were thinking about what this money could do for them down the road (a new start way off from the whole situation), especially once cleared of this thing, in which Zimmerman feels hopefully will not cost that much, because he figures he would easily be found innocent & need as much money as he can keep down the road from it all.

I can understand the "insane" protectionist attitude these two are having towards this money, because they have never seen or figured they would ever see this much money in their lives ever or ever again.

Can you imagine what they see laying ahead of them after this case is over, and if Zimmerman is found innocent maybe ? They feel that they will need all the money or reserves they can hold onto, in order to get away from this thing finally, and I mean as far away as they can (in which will take alot of money to do) in their minds or thinking I bet.

Look what Money did to Rodney Kings mind after such a large settlement (PARTY, DRUGS & DRINKING), and this after such a terrible situation to have occurred in his life, and who would have ever thunk that he would be arrested like a street bum again, after all the money in which he recieved in that situation, but we all did see that he was wrecklace in his thinking in regards to it all afterwards, but finally came around down the road a ways.

Is it so hard to see that these two are being over protective of any large amount of money that they may have been given them, if they see a great need for much of it to be used afterwards, in order to get that new start away from it all if found innocent ?


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 12, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Since the money was raised for his defense and not for anything else, doesn't that make them "essentially destitute?"
> ...


You are talking about two very common average citizens I'm guessing here, who donot have a law degree, and probably don't have the education in which you may think that they have, so is it really any surprise to you that these things may have happened in such a way ?

Were not these people outcast for a while, having hardly no money or even a place to stay (very poor), and so they needed somehow to get money, and began thinking upon how to somehow get money for all sorts of expenses in which they were occurring or using to sustain themselves under the weight of it all ?


----------



## Ravi (Jun 12, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Nixon didn't get charged with anything in criminal court.

And yes, the way our laws are written, a standing president can't be charged with criminal behavior.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 12, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


sounds like you are accusing them of being opportunists.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 12, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Can you imagine how this money affected these two individuals minds, whom had never had such money as this in their lives ? I bet they were thinking about what this money could do for them down the road (a new start way off from the whole situation), especially once cleared of this thing, in which Zimmerman feels hopefully will not cost that much, because he figures he would easily be found innocent & need as much money as he can keep down the road from it all.
> 
> I can understand the "insane" protectionist attitude these two are having towards this money, because they have never seen or figured they would ever see this much money in their lives ever or ever again.
> 
> ...





beagle9 said:


> You are talking about two very common average citizens I'm guessing here, who donot have a law degree, and probably don't have the education in which you may think that they have, so is it really any surprise to you that these things may have happened in such a way ?
> 
> Were not these people outcast for a while, having hardly no money or even a place to stay (very poor), and so they needed somehow to get money, and began thinking upon how to somehow get money for all sorts of expenses in which they were occurring or using to sustain themselves under the weight of it all ?




Do I feel for the Zimmerman's? Absolutely.  The situation that they've created for themselves really sucks.


However George Zimmerman was arrested on April 11, on April 12th he made his first court appearance with Mark O'Mara at his side.  His bond hearing was on April 20th.  The Zimmerman's didn't tell O'Mara about the money until AFTER the bail hearing at which point he informed the court at the next opportunity.


Do I fee sorry for them?  Yep.  Does that excuse them committing (possible) perjury in hiding their financial resources in an attempt to be declared indigent? No.



>>>>


----------



## Ariux (Jun 12, 2012)

The shitty thing about the state vs. those wanting to support Zimmerman is if the judge knew about the money, he would have raised the bail enough to wipe out the donations... nullify the support Zimmerman has been given.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 12, 2012)

Ravi said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


No, just poor folk in a situation whom are trying to survive in such a situation, in which many can't even imagine what it would do to their minds if were in the same situation. Money has a way of doing some strange things to people, especially for whom didnot have money much before in their lives, and especially in a situation that had become them in their lives found under the weight of it all, just like it has done with these people in such a case being reviewed and investigated heavily now against them...

Who knows what many would or wouldnot have done in the same situation, where as they might have been trying to secure enough money from it all (not telling everything), in so that they could get a fresh start after all was said and done in the matter (keep some away from the vultures), if they are ever allowed to get a new start and/or maybe not in such a situation.

Opportunist ? Maybe if they were like another type of person or persons situation in life, that wasn't or isn't so dire as this is, but in this case, I think they are in survival mode, and have been like this for quite sometime now.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 12, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Can you imagine how this money affected these two individuals minds, whom had never had such money as this in their lives ? I bet they were thinking about what this money could do for them down the road (a new start way off from the whole situation), especially once cleared of this thing, in which Zimmerman feels hopefully will not cost that much, because he figures he would easily be found innocent & need as much money as he can keep down the road from it all.
> ...


No, but it is understandable for these things to be coming from peoples minds who cannot handle what they are dealing with possibly in it all, so they do things that are not rational or rather are wreacklacly protective in their minds of what they think will be something they will need alot of (money) still, because they may see something down the road in which they want to be prepared for, otherwise if they even make it down that road in which they might see somehow in the distance still (if found innocent), otherwise if that is to be the case.. I agree that the law is the law though, and they should have acted accordingly and not wrecklacly in such a situation, but like I said it is understandable also.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 13, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> You seem bias in your assertions regarding the case, where as you lump someone in as an apologist for Zimmerman, but refuse to acknowledge your apologist attitude for what Martin's roll/part may have been in the case (or) what he may have been guilty of possibly in the case just as well.



I'm not biased at all.  I've come to my positions based on a full analysis of the information that is available, and by applying common sense and logic.  Which is exactly why I reject your babble about what Martin "may have been guilty of" because that kind of thinking indicates either a lack of knowledge of the facts that are known, or a Zimmerman-apologist disposition.  Martin is known to have been doing nothing but walking back to dad's GF's house, and talking on the phone with his own girlfriend.  There is no crime in that, not even close.  The fact that you would even bother to suggest that we should contemplate this ridiculous notion that Martin was laying in wait to jump Zimmerman shows that you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but manufactured BS that is designed to create an "out" for Zimmerman.  There is not one good reason to believe that that happened.  There is not a single, rational explanation that can bring us to even suspect that it _might_ have happened.  The only way anyone can reach that theory is to first presume Zimmerman as being honest and innocent.  And even then, it's a very weak case in favor of Zimmerman.  Therefore, the entire line of thinking is illogical question begging, and doesn't even do very much good for Zimmerman's case.



> Keep an open mind always in something like this



I don't like the context in which you use the phrase "open mind," so no I won't keep one.  Instead, I'll keep a _rational_ mind.  A rational mind considers realistic and meaningful possibilities.  It rejects theories that defy logical thinking.  You seem to think that having an "open" mind requires one to entertain every and any half baked "purple-people-eater" theory as possible.  A rational mind rejects the need to consider such theories, especially if arriving at them requires violating the norms of logical thinking and reasoning.



> but showing bias is always something that can confuse and distort your findings & assertions



Your entire argument here is invalid.  You have nothing upon which to justify your claim that I am "showing bias" other than the fact that I am asserting theories and conclusions with which you disagree.  In fact, I have no bias.  I am evaluating the totality of information available and applying logic and common sense, and through that process I am reaching conclusions.  The fact that you are calling these things "bias" indicates that YOU are the one who is biased, because you cannot confirm the known facts and logical applications, because you are intent on avoiding having to acknowledge that those conclusions I'm asserting can have any validity.



> (even jeapardize your credibility), because no one wants to listen to someone who has already made up their mind



In other words, YOU don't want to acknowledge the validity of conclusions that are contrary to the conclusions you wish to see affirmed.



> especially when the case is something that hardly no one can figure out as of just yet, or may not ever know the truth on sadly enough in such a case.



I'm not "hardly no one."  What you are basically saying is that YOU don't know, and you either don't think it's necessary to explore or analyze the information available, or don't have the capacity to do so.  That's great.  But just because you're not competent doesn't mean that others, like myself, are somehow in the wrong to call a duck a duck.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 13, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Oh please, she was arrested for "perjury" for not telling about Zimmerman's website which she may or may not have known about.



Are you kidding me?  First of all, she stated in her testimony that she did know about the website.  That's not why they are charging her.  This is about the fact that she denied having knowledge of the funds the site had generated, and having access to those funds.  And there's no disputing the fact that she did indeed know.  She's been recorded on tape talking with her husband about the funds the day before her testimony.  She was at the bank transferring the funds, for crying out loud.



> The prosecution is getting desperate.  They know they can't make a real case against Zimmerman so they are doing all they can to try it in the media.



Uh, perjury is a serious offense.  Without the honesty of witnesses the courts cannot reach just conclusions.  It has nothing to do with desperation.  It's about preserving law and order.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 13, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> still not answering the Clinton question...



Really?  Are you fucking kidding me?  Let's make a billboard:

FREE GEORGE ZIMMERMAN!  CLINTON GOT HIS DICK SUCKED, AFTER ALL.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 13, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Oh please, she was arrested for "perjury" for not telling about Zimmerman's website which she may or may not have known about.
> ...



So then, you were all in favor of Clinton going to jail for his perjury in the Paula Jones case when he lied about Monica Lewisnsky?


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 13, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > still not answering the Clinton question...
> ...



No, free his wife, after all Clinton perjured himself and wasn't punished...


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 13, 2012)

*shakes head*

Pathetic.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 13, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> I'm not biased at all.  I've come to my positions based on a full analysis of the information that is available, and by applying common sense and logic.  Which is exactly why I reject your babble about what Martin "may have been guilty of" because that kind of thinking indicates either a lack of knowledge of the facts that are known, or a Zimmerman-apologist disposition.  Martin is known to have been doing nothing but walking back to dad's GF's house, and talking on the phone with his own girlfriend.  There is no crime in that, not even close.  The fact that you would even bother to suggest that we should contemplate this ridiculous notion that Martin was laying in wait to jump Zimmerman shows that you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING but manufactured BS that is designed to create an "out" for Zimmerman.  There is not one good reason to believe that that happened.  There is not a single, rational explanation that can bring us to even suspect that it _might_ have happened.  The only way anyone can reach that theory is to first presume Zimmerman as being honest and innocent.  And even then, it's a very weak case in favor of Zimmerman.  Therefore, the entire line of thinking is illogical question begging, and doesn't even do very much good for Zimmerman's case.



If Martin attacked Zimmerman, because Zimmerman had let his gaurd down in a situation, where as Martin almost alledgedly had done Zimmerman in because of, then Martin is guilty of something maybe, but this will be determined in a court of law finally, so it's still a wait and see situation & outcome for all..

  Kidding me right ? Tell ya what, if you can go back somehow, and find anywhere in which I said Martin was laying in wait for Zimmerman, and this in order to jump him, then I won't call you a LIAR in which you just proved yourself foolishly to be. Oh and you won't find it, because I never said it, so you are a LIAR plain and simple.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 13, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> If Martin attacked Zimmerman, because Zimmerman had let his gaurd down in a situation, where as Martin almost alledgedly had done Zimmerman in because of, then Martin is guilty of something maybe



Exactly.  The only way anyone can even arrive at the idea that Martin was guilty of something, is to presume, without any valid rationale, that Martin attacked Zimmerman while Zimmerman did absolutely nothing wrong.  There is absolutely no valid basis for such an assumption, and there is no rational means to even infer such a scenario from the known facts.  



> but this will be determined in a court of law finally, so it's still a wait and see situation & outcome for all.



So all you're saying is that since the case hasn't been tried yet, nobody has the right to consider the information given so far, to analyze it, or formulate any kind of theory or draw any conclusion based on that information.  You are, therefore, arguing nothing more than a demand for absolute silence.  Of course, you're not being silent....



> Kidding me right ? Tell ya what, if you can go back somehow, and find anywhere in which I said Martin was laying in wait for Zimmerman, and this in order to jump him, then I won't call you a LIAR in which you just proved yourself foolishly to be. Oh and you won't find it, because I never said it, so you are a LIAR plain and simple.



The only possible way that Martin could be guilty of something would be for Martin to have been lying in wait to attack Zimmerman.  If you don't want to have that claim attached to yourself, then stop arguing that Martin may have been guilty of something.  I'm not a liar, I'm just calling you out.  Maybe I'm just smarter than you.  You don't seem very capable of connecting elementary dots.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 13, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> *shakes head*
> 
> Pathetic.



You are the pathetic POS on this thread, jack.

You have not yet posted a single thing worth my time and I suspect most agree.

Your sole tactic is to try and kill any discussion by acting like a jack ass as much as you can and run people off.

Fuck you.


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 13, 2012)

Ravi said:


> A screenshot of his website has been posted in this thread several times. He asked for donations for BOTH defense AND living expenses. It would definitely be considered an asset.



Yo Vern, do Florida's Constitution allow judges to release defendants' ON THEIR OWN RECOGNIZANCE?

If it does, what's the big deal about his finances.

.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 13, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > A screenshot of his website has been posted in this thread several times. He asked for donations for BOTH defense AND living expenses. It would definitely be considered an asset.
> ...



He is out on bond. Bonds are set many times based on assets. Zimmerman lied on his asset sheet. In many cases the bonds are set so high to make it impossible to obtain a bondsman and the bond comes from cash assets total of the accused. Flight risk is also a factor even though they ask for the surrender of the passport. In most all drug cases the bondsman never front more than half of the bond and always require the defendant to post the other half. Flight risk is always the highest on dope cases.


----------



## MarcATL (Jun 13, 2012)

I'm just glad that racist bastard is currently locked up behind bars where he's GUARANTEED to be able to do no one else any harm, except maybe himself, but that would be wishful thinking.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 13, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > If Martin attacked Zimmerman, because Zimmerman had let his gaurd down in a situation, where as Martin almost alledgedly had done Zimmerman in because of, then Martin is guilty of something maybe
> ...



How do you like the long shot 9-1 odds on Go Bananas at Calder tomorrow night?
What lottery numbers do you like this week?
Where do I find a crystal ball like yours?
Do you also read palms?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 13, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> I'm just glad that racist bastard is currently locked up behind bars where he's GUARANTEED to be able to do no one else any harm, except maybe himself, but that would be wishful thinking.



You do not even have a clue what the definition of a racist is Marc.


----------



## MarcATL (Jun 13, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just glad that racist bastard is currently locked up behind bars where he's GUARANTEED to be able to do no one else any harm, except maybe himself, but that would be wishful thinking.
> ...



I'm just glad that racist bastard is currently locked up behind bars where he's GUARANTEED to be able to do no one else any harm, except maybe himself, but that would be wishful thinking.


----------



## MarcATL (Jun 13, 2012)

Let's make that ecstatic...I'm ecstatic that they finally locked up that racist animal. I hope they lose the keys.


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 13, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



The question was Does Florida Constitution and statutes allow the judge to release defendants on their own recognizance?



> Zimmerman lied on his asset sheet.



*LINK TO THE ASSET SHEET* - NOT A LINK TO COREY'S WEBSITE


.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 13, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Because it is so racist to stop someone from killing you, right?

God! Where do you morons comeo from? Pods from outer space or what?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 13, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Let's make that ecstatic...I'm ecstatic that they finally locked up that racist animal. I hope they lose the keys.



He cant be racist since he agrees with Obama and one is a racist if one disagrees with the Big O, right?

/s You are worse than a broken record of cats drowning in a hot tar pit.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 14, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > A screenshot of his website has been posted in this thread several times. He asked for donations for BOTH defense AND living expenses. It would definitely be considered an asset.
> ...



Hello non sequitor!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 14, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



A racist is one that believes his race is superior to another.
So Zimmerman the half Hispanic, half white believes his race, whatever Marc believes it to be, is superior to others.
Is that the best you can do Marc?


----------



## paperview (Jun 14, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> The question was Does Florida Constitution and statutes allow the judge to release defendants on their own recognizance?
> ...


Not for 2nd degree murder they don't.

In fact, it's a non-bondable charge.  That's why there has to be a special "Arthur hearing" in Florida to allow bond to be made. 

And ASSETS are most definitely a part of the equation.

They need to be certain you're not going to bug out.


----------



## paperview (Jun 14, 2012)

Further information on the matter:

Providing False Information in Bail Application   &#8220;*Unlike Perjury, Providing False Information in a Bail Application does not require a person to be under oath.*

&#8221;-- Richard Hornsby

 If accused of Providing False Information in Bail Application, you need to know the:


Definition of Providing False Information in Bail Application
Penalties for Providing False Information in Bail Application
Defenses to Providing False Information in Bail Application
 *Definition of Providing False Information in Bail Application*

  The crime of Providing False Information in a Bail Application [1] occurs when a person:


Applies for bail or for a modification of bail; and
Intentionally provides false or misleading material information, or    intentionally omits material information, in the application.
 *Difference Between Perjury*

  Unlike Perjury,    Providing False Information in a Bail Application does not require a    person to be under oath and simply punishes one who intentionally    provides or omits material information in an application for bail.
   However, since both statutes punish the same basic crime (i.e., the    violation of a legal obligation to tell the truth); a person can only  be   convicted of one crime due to Double Jeopardy protections (even if   they  were originally charged with both). [2]
*Penalties for Providing False Information in Bail Application*

 The penalties for Providing False Information in Bail Application    differ depending on whether the false information was made in relation    to an application for bond on felon or misdemeanor.
*Felony Penalties for Providing False Information in Bail Application*

 If the application for bond related to a Capital, Life, First Degree,    or Second Degree felony then the crime of Providing False Information    in a Bail Application is prosecuted as a Third Degree Felony.
  If convicted of felony Providing False Information in a Bail    Application, a judge can impose any combination of the following    penalties:


Up to five (5) years in jail.
Up to five (5) years of probation.
Up to $5,000 in fines.
Florida Crimes: Providing False Information in Bail Application


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 14, 2012)

paperview said:


> Further information on the matter:
> 
> Providing False Information in Bail Application   *Unlike Perjury, Providing False Information in a Bail Application does not require a person to be under oath.*
> 
> ]



Bullshit.

*837.02&#8195;Perjury in official proceedings.*

(1)&#8195;Except as provided in subsection (2), whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding in regard to any material matter, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(2)&#8195;Whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, *under oath* in an official proceeding that relates to the prosecution of a capital felony, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3)&#8195;Knowledge of the materiality of the statement is not an element of the crime of perjury under subsection (1) or subsection (2), and the defendants mistaken belief that the statement was not material is not a defense.

History.s. 1, sub-ch. 6, ch. 1637, 1868; RS 2561; GS 3473; RGS 5343; CGL 7477; s. 998, ch. 71-136; s. 55, ch. 74-383; s. 33, ch. 75-298; s. 3, ch. 97-90; s. 1311, ch. 97-102.


----------



## paperview (Jun 14, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Further information on the matter:
> ...


Jesus H. Christ, do you even read before you spit that idiocy out?

*Difference Between Perjury*

  "Unlike Perjury,     Providing False Information in a Bail Application does not require a     person to be under oath *and simply punishes one who intentionally     provides or omits material information in an application for bail.*

*However, since both statutes punish the same basic crime (i.e., the     violation of a legal obligation to tell the truth); a person can only   be   convicted of one crime due to Double Jeopardy protections* (even if    they  were originally charged with both). [2]
*Penalties for Providing False Information in Bail Application*..."


The penalties are exactly the same.


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 14, 2012)

paperview said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



LINK to the goddamned "bail application"

.


----------



## paperview (Jun 14, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...


Holy crap.  Talk about denial.  You don't think he applied for bail? 

The stupid gets thickerer. 

It's not good enough for you, the judge not only* READ ALOUD* in the courtroom a portion of this law, he included THIS LAW CITATION in his *revocation of bond decision*?: 



> "(1)(a)&#8195;All information provided by a defendant, in connection with any    application  for or attempt to secure bail, to any court, court    personnel, or  individual soliciting or recording such information for    the purpose  of evaluating eligibility for, or securing, bail for the    defendant,  under circumstances such *that the   defendant  knew or should have known that the information was to be used   in  connection with an application for bail, shall be accurate,   truthful,  and complete without omissions to the best knowledge of the   defendant.*(b)&#8195;The failure to comply with the provisions of paragraph (a) may result in the revocation or modification of bail.
> 
> (2)&#8195;An  application for modification of  bail on any felony charge must be heard  by a court in person, at a  hearing with the defendant present, and with  at least 3 hours&#8217; notice  to the state attorney.
> (3)&#8195;*Any  person* *who  intentionally provides false or misleading material  information or  intentionally omits material information in connection  with an application for bail or for modification of bail is guilty of a  misdemeanor or felony*  which is one degree less than that of the crime  charged for which bail  is sought, but which in no event is greater than a  felony of the third  degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.


 903.035  - Applications for bail information provided hearing on application  for  modification penalty for providing false or misleading information  or  omitting material information. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The  Florida  Senate

Do you have the slightest clue why Zimmerman has his ass back in jail right now?


----------



## paperview (Jun 14, 2012)

BTW.  I cited that Law Back in April!

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5204515-post1663.html [Post 1663]

I knew he'd be in trouble for it!


----------



## paperview (Jun 14, 2012)

And if the Judges word isn't good enough, I don't know what to tell you.

Judge Lester..."*this is a serious charge for which life may be  imposed;  the evidence  against him is strong; he has been charged with  one prior  crime, for  which he went through a pre-trial diversion  program, and has  had an  injunction lodged against him"

**Zimmerman 'does not properly respect the law,' judge says in order revoking bond :  George Zimmerman bond revoked order: Judge's order explains why he sent Zimmerman back to jail - Orlando Sentinel
*



> Quote:
> The judge who revoked George Zimmerman's  bond did so after he determined that *it was "apparent" that Zimmerman's  wife had lied under oath, and clear that Zimmerman "does not properly  respect the law."*
> Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester revoked  Zimmerman's bond on June 1, but  his written order was filed Monday. In  it, Lester lays out his  rationale.








You can read the entire *ORDER REVOKING BOND* - all laid out - 
here: http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/order%20revoking%20bond.pdf


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 14, 2012)

paperview said:


> Do you have the slightest clue why Zimmerman has his ass back in jail right now?



1- because prosecutor Corey is corrupt

2- because she has --somehow -- acquired judicial immunity so she can stick it to any defendant with impunity
*
903.046&#8195;Purpose of and criteria for bail determination.*

(1)&#8195;The purpose of a bail determination in criminal proceedings is to ensure the appearance of the criminal defendant at subsequent proceedings and to protect the community against unreasonable danger from the criminal defendant.

The point is that the statute permits the court to court to release a defendant on his own recognizance. 

So in this case where there is NO EVIDENCE of guilt bail should have not been required. Even if there was a concern about him being a flight  risk that was disproven by the fact that he turned himself in without delay.

.


----------



## paperview (Jun 14, 2012)

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. - Voltaire


----------



## Ravi (Jun 14, 2012)

paperview said:


> I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. - Voltaire



Oh my, did he ever. That guy you're arguing with is an idiot.


----------



## paperview (Jun 14, 2012)

Ravi said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. - Voltaire
> ...


Every time I see his/her name, all I see is Comatose. 

S/he/it *has* to be, to be making the kind of mind-bleedingly moronic assertions I am seeing here.


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 14, 2012)

paperview said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Why can't you simply say that you want the powers-that-be to arbitrarily  incarcerate the fellow because you have an agenda which you can not defend

*903.046&#8195;Purpose of and criteria for bail determination.&#8212;

(1)&#8195;The purpose of a bail determination in criminal proceedings is to ensure the appearance of the criminal defendant at subsequent proceedings and to protect the community against unreasonable danger from the criminal defendant.

The point is that the statute permits the court to court to release a defendant on his own recognizance.

So in this case where there is NO EVIDENCE of guilt bail should have not been required. Even if there was a concern about him being a flight risk that was disproven by the fact that he turned himself in without delay.*

.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 14, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> You are the pathetic POS on this thread, jack.
> 
> You have not yet posted a single thing worth my time and I suspect most agree.



Which is why you're taking the time to read everything I've said, and why you're bothering to reply.  



> Your sole tactic is to try and kill any discussion by acting like a jack ass as much as you can and run people off.



No.



> Fuck you.



Actually, I like women, so Imma pass on that one.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 14, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> The point is that the statute permits the court to court to release a defendant on his own recognizance.
> 
> So in this case where there is NO EVIDENCE of guilt bail should have not been required. Even if there was a concern about him being a flight  risk that was disproven by the fact that he turned himself in without delay.
> 
> .

























No.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 14, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> *903.046&#8195;Purpose of and criteria for bail determination.
> 
> (1)&#8195;The purpose of a bail determination in criminal proceedings is to ensure the appearance of the criminal defendant at subsequent proceedings and to protect the community against unreasonable danger from the criminal defendant.
> 
> ...



Just because the statute permits PR does not mean that it necessitates it.  The court set a bail that was intended to ensure Zimmerman's appearance, based on the financial information provided by the defendant.  For Zimmerman to lie about his finances, it gives the court sufficient reason for concern that the previously established bond is insufficient to secure Zimmerman's appearance because it demonstrates a willingness to disregard the law.  With so much financial resources at his disposal, his documented history of disregarding the law (to include this recent lie), and his own complaints about his safety being in jeopardy, the court is well within its discretion to revoke bail.


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 14, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > *903.046&#8195;Purpose of and criteria for bail determination.
> ...



Bullshit.

Just because the statute allows the LEGAL DISCRETION to demand a cash bond does not mean that it was necessary in this case. 

Just because the Rev Al Sharpton and the Negro Defense League was involved should have NOT influenced the judge or prosecutor.

.


----------



## paperview (Jun 14, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...


Ah, now we're getting to the heart of it, you're not just  a stupid fuck, you're a racist stupid fuck.

Thanks for confirming.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 14, 2012)

Bail and the amount were not unreasonable in this case. 
This is moot anyway. Zimmerman will be out shortly on the evidence.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 14, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> Just because the statute allows the LEGAL DISCRETION to demand a cash bond does not mean that it was necessary in this case.



Sit down before you hurt yourself.  Zimmerman is charged with a serious crime.  The more serious a crime, the more likely a person is to attempt to flee and avoid having to face his charges.  This is a simple fact that has been understood in criminal procedure for centuries, and hence why bail exists.  It is up to the court to determine an appropriate bond that the court finds sufficient to secure a defendant's appearance, based on the circumstances.  You seem to think that from the get-go Zimmerman should have been released on PR.  That is an extraordinary claim.  While the law always allows for PR, I challenge you to find a single example in the past ten years when a defendant charged with second degree murder has been released on PR.  Furthermore, if you are going to even make the claim that PR should have been granted, you have the burden to substantiate that claim and explain why the court should have been satisfied that Zimmerman would appear simply on his own say-so, anymore than any other person facing a similar charge who was subsequently required to post a bond.

Moving forward from there, what you're not understanding is that the fact that Zimmerman lied about his financial situation in his application for bail creates sufficient cause to revoke bail, regardless of what the original bail was set at.  Even if Zimmerman had been granted PR, the fact that he lied creates a reasonable concern that Zimmerman's future appearances have not be secured, because by lying to the court the defendant has demonstrated a disregard for the law in general, and for this court particularly.  Especially when coupled with Zimmerman's past, the judge is absolutely correct to say that Zimmerman does not respect the law.  Accordingly, he cannot be trusted to appear back in court based on nothing more than his own say so.

He lied.  He lied to the court, and therefore cannot be trusted.  That's what you have to get through your head.  THAT is what matters in this.  The fact that Zimmerman intentionally deceived the court.


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 14, 2012)

paperview said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...



No, to the contrary.

YOU are the racist stupid fuck

You are supposed to be demanding JUSTICE ACROSS THE BOARD BASED ON FACTS ,ie, EVIDENCE.

But you are saying that because he is white and killed a Negro that he deserves a miscarriage of justice.

.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 14, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



Bail in a murder case is the norm.


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 14, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> [  Zimmerman is charged with a serious crime.









Bullshit says a Renowned Constitutional Attorney 

*[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4fr5QwG63M"]Alan Dershowitz: Zimmerman Arrest Affidavit "Irresponsible And Unethical"[/ame]*


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 14, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Just because the statute allows the LEGAL DISCRETION to demand a cash bond does not mean that it was necessary in this case.
> ...



You are right, he is charged.
You have already convicted him.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 14, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Just because the statute allows the LEGAL DISCRETION to demand a cash bond does not mean that it was necessary in this case.
> ...



None of the bail information is admissable in his case other than remand.


----------



## paperview (Jun 14, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...


It could very well be admissible.

There were certainly be a fight to exclude it, and a fight to include it.

If GZ opts for a SYG hearing, all that doesn't matter, does it?  The judge knows how Z now lacks credibility.  And he's the one that matters.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 14, 2012)

If Zimmerman takes the stand in his own defense, he can be attacked on credibility just like any other witness on cross examination, including his history of lying to the court.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 14, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> If Zimmerman takes the stand in his own defense, he can be attacked on credibility just like any other witness on cross examination, including his history of lying to the court.



Wrong dumb ass, keep your day job of "Do you want fries with that?".
The bail hearings and everything associated is prejudicial to the jury. ONLY prior convictions are relevant and admissable if they are similar transactions.
Lying in a bail report sheet is not admissable in a murder case as it is irrelevant to the murder charge.
*And it gets even better Moe, it was his wife Shellie that filled it out and she was the one arrested for the perjury.*Something about the law which you know nothing about.
Zimmerman will be released after the hearing on the 29th.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 14, 2012)

paperview said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...



Oh, the prosecution will try to get it in but even if they do that is grounds for appeal and if it is a guilty verdict they will have to retry him because the court of appeals will set aside the conviction.
Case law out the ass on that one.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 14, 2012)

The defense will file a Motion in Limine to keep out anything to do with the bail proceedings and the affidavit. 
And the Judge will rule in their favor barring any questions by the prosecution about it.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 14, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> it was his wife Shellie that filled it out.


Link?


----------



## paperview (Jun 14, 2012)

I've read enough from respected lawyers that disagree with you, so we'll leave that as an unknown at this point.  It could go either way, and it's not a certainty it would be such a slam dunk appeal matter.

Short of that, Gilligan, you seem certain Z will be out on Bond on the 29th.  What makes you conclude that, and what amount do you think Bond will be set at?


----------



## paperview (Jun 14, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > it was his wife Shellie that filled it out.
> ...


He made it up.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 14, 2012)

paperview said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



He makes up a lot of things so I figured that was the case.


----------



## paperview (Jun 14, 2012)

The Potted Palm lied.  Ain't no doubt about it, Oscar. 

That's why his fat  ass is sitting in the pokey right now gobbling up Jolly Ranchers.


----------



## Liability (Jun 14, 2012)

paperview said:


> I've read enough from respected lawyers that disagree with you, so we'll leave that as an unknown at this point.  It could go either way, and it's not a certainty it would be such a slam dunk appeal matter.
> 
> Short of that, Gilligan, you seem certain Z will be out on Bond on the 29th.  What makes you conclude that, and what amount do you think Bond will be set at?



That's not Gilligan.  It's Maynard.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 14, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> The bail hearings and everything associated is prejudicial to the jury. ONLY prior convictions are relevant and admissable if they are similar transactions.
> Lying in a bail report sheet is not admissable in a murder case as it is irrelevant to the murder charge.



It's called impeaching a witness.  When a witness testifies, the examining attorney has the right to attempt to impeach the witness and call into question his/her credibility for the trier of fact to consider.  This can be done in several ways, to include documented instances of deceiving the court.  It will be up to the trier of fact to weight the witness's credibility.

You might want to educate yourself.  



> *And it gets even better Moe, it was his wife Shellie that filled it out and she was the one arrested for the perjury.*Something about the law which you know nothing about.
> Zimmerman will be released after the hearing on the 29th.



It was Zimmerman's hearing.  He knowingly presented the evidence, he knowingly mislead the court.  As paperview showed above, providing false information at a bail hearing need not be in the form of lying under oath.  It is sufficient for Zimmerman to have willfully presented misleading information, or willfully omitted material information.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 14, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > If Martin attacked Zimmerman, because Zimmerman had let his gaurd down in a situation, where as Martin almost alledgedly had done Zimmerman in because of, then Martin is guilty of something maybe
> ...


Ok, so you can review the so called theories or so called facts and etc. here, in which people have spoken about and commented on with every angle possible, but you can't stand it when someone does comment in a fair way that gives both sides some new ideas maybe, but you think we are all Zimmerman Zombie's if we seek a fair look at this thing from all views and/or angles eh? So what you actually want is for your side of the opinion to be heard and cemented in, but how dare anyone else take another look at it, and then form an opinion for all to ponder as well. I'd say you are as bised as biased can be in such a case, even though you don't think so.

Round and around you go, trying to make excuses and trying to distract or confuse with your rude attacks on everyone who voices their opinion, but everyone see's right through you, I do hope you know that.. Don't you ??


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 14, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > it was his wife Shellie that filled it out.
> ...



She was arrested for it. Find it yourself. Are you lazy or what?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 14, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The bail hearings and everything associated is prejudicial to the jury. ONLY prior convictions are relevant and admissable if they are similar transactions.
> ...



Dumbass, how many criminal trials have you investigated?
I have over 3000, over 1000 gone to trial and over 100 murder cases.
You do not even know what a Motion in Limine is do you?
When you are attempting to impeach a witness you can only ask the questions relevant to the case and only the ones that pass through the Motion in Limine.
That question and that line of questioning will be excluded long before trial.
This is getting funny. You watch too much TV.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 14, 2012)

The burden in all of these bond cases where there was money not accounted for in the bail appication financial affidavit of assets is always on the prosecution. Zimmerman never used the money for anything so deceit, which is the burden, is not there. 
Inculpatory evidence is always scrutinized to a higher degree by not only trial courts but in most all case law on motions in limine by the appellate courts.
Could make the Judge rule in favor of the prosecution but relevance to the charges, an affidavit signed by his wife, compared to the prejudicial effect that irrelevant inculpatory evidence on the jury points the ruling based on case law and the defense should prevail.
All of the bail proceedings should not be used as inculpatory impeachment purposes by the prosecution.
That is always the liberal argument when the tables are turned the other way. The most recent police officer killing all of the civil rights groups wanted any and all inculpatory evidence prejudicial to the jury excluded.
But when it is a white dude they change their tune.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 14, 2012)

paperview said:


> I've read enough from respected lawyers that disagree with you, so we'll leave that as an unknown at this point.  It could go either way, and it's not a certainty it would be such a slam dunk appeal matter.
> 
> Short of that, Gilligan, you seem certain Z will be out on Bond on the 29th.  What makes you conclude that, and what amount do you think Bond will be set at?



That is not Gilligan.
Guess who it is?
Raise the bond 100K more.
Zimmerman is not a flight risk so why waste taxpayer $$$?


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 14, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Let's make that ecstatic...I'm ecstatic that they finally locked up that racist animal. I hope they lose the keys.


Did you ever say that about OJ Simpson, just to be fair here?

Of course you didn't did you?...... B )

Wait, wait, I bet you even said that everyone should all wait for Simpson to be tried first, instead of coming to the conclusion that he may have or may not have done it right? So what is different here prior to the trial where all the evidence will be submitted finally, and all sides will be represented as they should be in a case ? Whats with the lynch mob mentality still hanging around on such a case here, and this prior to the trial or law doing their job on the case as they are doing, and will be doing with everything considered (on the table) and with much needed due process involved as it should be ?


----------



## paperview (Jun 14, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


SHE was arrested for Perjury.   Find it yourself. Are you lazy or what?


----------



## paperview (Jun 14, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > I've read enough from respected lawyers that disagree with you, so we'll leave that as an unknown at this point.  It could go either way, and it's not a certainty it would be such a slam dunk appeal matter.
> ...


Don't care if it's not Gilligan - you look (and sound)  like Gilligan to me. 

Wanna bet a sig line for a month his bond will not be raised by *only* 100K more?

I say - if Lester *does* decide to raise it, instead of revoking it completely - it's to the tune of many, many many more multiples of that.  Like the 1 MIL originally requested.  Maybe more. 

Nonetheless, it will be *significantly* more than 100K more.  Up for the  bet?


----------



## Ravi (Jun 14, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


Not at all. I just know you don't have your spouse fill out your sworn statements, you stupid asshole.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 14, 2012)

paperview said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Are you really that stupid?
Perjury for signing the affidavit and not listing the 135K.
She was the one signing the bond affidavit. It HAS TO BE SOMEONE OTHER than the defendant.
WELL DUH!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 14, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Booked for making a false statement about the bond affidavit that she filled out.
She made her $1000 bond and was released.
You people are beyond ignorant. 
$1000 bond, wow, what a crime. 
This is getting to be very funny.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 14, 2012)

Why was the wife called to testify about the finances, the very nature of the affidavit, if she WAS NOT the individual that was filing it?
WELL DUH!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 14, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Funny in a pathetic drunk-falling-into-the-ditch sort of way.


----------



## paperview (Jun 14, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


She was arrested for perjury during the Court hearings about her husband.

Are you drunk?  

The Capias for her arrest lays it out.

LINK TO CAPIAS

Here, I'll get you started:







It's a *FELONY* Charge.  Make light of it if you must.


----------



## paperview (Jun 14, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Why was the wife called to testify about the finances, the very nature of the affidavit, if she WAS NOT the individual that was filing it?
> WELL DUH!


Mom & Dad were called to testify too. 

Yes, SZ was there to assure the court he would not be a flight risk and that she didn't think he was a danger to the community.  It's what happens when a judge considers releasing an alleged murderer.


Duh.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 14, 2012)

paperview said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Why was the wife called to testify about the finances, the very nature of the affidavit, if she WAS NOT the individual that was filing it?
> ...



Wow, congratulations for keeping the 'alleged' part in there.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 15, 2012)

paperview said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Why was the wife called to testify about the finances, the very nature of the affidavit, if she WAS NOT the individual that was filing it?
> ...



It's pointless. You can't fix stupid. He obviously believes what he wants to believe.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 15, 2012)

paperview said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



I could care less what they raise his bond to. Makes no difference to me.
That also is NOT evidence of any kind.
For the dumb masses: bond has to be reasonable. 
Zimmerman is not flight risk. 
Tell us oh wise one, what is the purpose of bond?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 15, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



They are beyond stupid. Give them some slack.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 15, 2012)

paperview said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



With testimony ABOUT THE FINANCIAL AFFIDAVIT.
You are also beyond stupid. Read the transcripts.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 15, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



No.  She's being charged for her testimony.  In either event, it doesn't change anything.  Zimmerman still deliberately omitted material information.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 15, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



We agree on that. Zimmerman and his wife left that out intentionally.
But since they did not spend any of it yet the act of deceit is not there.
Much ado about nothing. The system did their job. Big deal.
If I was the prosecutor I would have done the exact same thing. And I would ask again for the million dolar bond.
That is what they do. The scales of justice. Works for me.
But what argument is there to deny him bail on the 29th? He is not a flight risk.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 15, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Let me explain something to you. Do you know that you can not enter in ANY DOCUMENT ever into court unless you have someone to testify to it?
Every picture, everything that was signed and filled out by someone, everything has to have that person on the stand to testify "Yes, that is what I filled out and this is when I did it and that is my signature". Everything.
Did you know that? If not then I will give you a pass on that.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 15, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


Bullshit. Read the law, dummy.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 15, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...



Link?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 15, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...




IIRC, supposedly, they transferred $74,000 from the collection accounts into Shellie Zimmerman's personal account.  Then try transferred $47,000 from the collection account into a sisters personal account.

And, IIRC, they spent $18,000.



As to the 29th's hearing, we shall see.  Defense will make arguments (which I believe are good one's based on his past behavior of surrendering himself when needed) that he is not a flight risk.  The prosecution will make a case to remand.

A separate issue, which I think will be addressed, will be the attempt to hide assets from the initial bond hearing.  S. Zimmerman has already been charged, I think the determination whether to charge G. Zimmerman will result from that hearing.




Once question I have.  Since G. Zimmerman's previous bond was revoked, does that mean the $150,000 will have to be paid?  Or is the slate clean since he turned himself in and the only thing lost is the (IIRC) 10% Bondsman's fee to arrange/finance the initial bond?



>>>>


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 15, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...



The $150,000 paid to who?
Bond revocation is not the same as bond forfeiture. 
Bond is for if the defendant flees and does not appear in court. Then and only then is the bond forfeited and then to the state.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 15, 2012)

Made many a stack back in the day when I did bond forfeiture work. The bonding company is on the hook to lose their bond $$ if we did not locate and bring in the rabbits.
Looking back when I did that out of college in the late 70s and early 80s I WAS STUPID!!


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 15, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> We agree on that. Zimmerman and his wife left that out intentionally.
> But since they did not spend any of it yet the act of deceit is not there.
> Much ado about nothing. The system did their job. Big deal.
> If I was the prosecutor I would have done the exact same thing. And I would ask again for the million dolar bond.
> ...



He intentionally allowed the court to believe false information.  That's not deceit?  Since when did deceit require spending money?  The judge, I think, explained it very clearly.  Zimmerman has a demonstrated lack of respect for the law, and deceived the court already in this case.  As such, his word is not sufficient to secure his appearance.


----------



## idb (Jun 16, 2012)

If Zimmerman hadn't have got out of his car there would be no issue.
No question, all liability for a death lies with him.
It couldn't be more clear.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 16, 2012)

idb said:


> If Zimmerman hadn't have got out of his car there would be no issue.
> No question, all liability for a death lies with him.
> It couldn't be more clear.



If that no-limit-nigga hadn't assaulted Zimmerman, there would be no issue.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 16, 2012)

idb said:


> If Zimmerman hadn't have got out of his car there would be no issue.
> No question, all liability for a death lies with him.
> It couldn't be more clear.



Could not be more clear you do not know the difference between the burden of proof in a civil liability case and a criminal case.
Wrongful death liability is in the civil courts. Preponderance of the evidence is the burden in those courts.
Criminal courts it is beyond a reasonable doubt.
In American liability is ONLY an issue in civil courts.
Liability has nothing to do with criminal charges.
But no offense to you as your post is typical of what is posted here. Most Americans do not have a clue as to the criminal code or the Constitution either.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 16, 2012)

idb said:


> If Zimmerman hadn't have got out of his car there would be no issue.
> No question, all liability for a death lies with him.
> It couldn't be more clear.


Are there some supposed unwritten rules or guidelines in which to follow for any neighborhood watch captain I wonder, who in his task was to report on any suspicious looking characters in the neighborhood by calling 9-11, and this in order to report on what he thinks was a suspicious looking character in the area (all due to the crime in the area in which a watch person is appointed to police), and then when the person/suspect decides to flee the area once noticed he was being observed by this watch captain), the watch captain "Zimmerman" tries to keep him in his eyesights until the police arrive, but then the 911 operator fearing the unknown for Zimmerman (hearing his movement over the phone), asked if he is pursuing the suspect, Zimmerman said yes, where as this is when the operator tells Zimmerman "OK we don't need you to do that sir", in which Zimmerman replies and complies with the operator at that point "OK". After this we are all in unknown terrirtory for which we have only the one man dead and the other one injured as a result of (we don't actually know at this point what is beyond this time line exactly), because it is a puzzel trying to be put together, where many parts are misplaced and/or are even missing.  Good luck everybody on figuring it out, as per all the post on this case in numbers there of, it is a doozy of a case for sure.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 16, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > We agree on that. Zimmerman and his wife left that out intentionally.
> ...


Yes, but looking at the human nature side of it, what would you had done if were Zimmerman looking to keep enough money to get a new start on, and this once this thing was all said and done ? Remember that these two people have been through it, couldn't even live at their home anylonger, and this out of fear of what was being done by those who already had come to conclusions themselves about Zimmerman, and this before they even knew the evidence or circumstances surrounding the case (i.e. spike lee and the panthers for example), doing what they were doing outside of the law, in which is no better than what they were accusing of Zimmerman to be doing that night as a watch captain for that community, where as they became just as guilty of the same thing they accuse Zimmerman of, in which could have gotten Zimmerman killed just as easy, but luckily it didn't for them, as they would now be going through the same situation themselves for their assumptive actions also.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 16, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



If you expect that jack ass to give you an honest answer you are wasting your time and lots of electrons.


----------



## Liability (Jun 16, 2012)

Ariux said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > If Zimmerman hadn't have got out of his car there would be no issue.
> ...



Almost everyone on BOTH sides of the issue (and those firmly in the middle) consider you, Ariyucks, to be just a fucking lowlife scumbag asshole.   Why the fuck do you even bother to post?  You have nothing useful, intelligent, funny or interesting to say.  On your best days, all you do is suck dick.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 16, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Yes, but looking at the human nature side of it, what would you had done if were Zimmerman looking to keep enough money to get a new start on, and this once this thing was all said and done ?



That's a piss-poor excuse.  It does not matter why he broke the law.  The fact remains that Zimmerman willingly deceived the court.  Why should the court believe that Zimmerman will appear, when he's already lied once so that he could get out of jail?


----------



## Ariux (Jun 16, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> That's a piss-poor excuse.  It does not matter why he broke the law.  The fact remains that Zimmerman willingly deceived the court.  Why should the court believe that Zimmerman will appear, when he's already lied once so that he could get out of jail?



There's a reason Z's lawyer didn't immediately seek a new bail hearing.  The dumb Jew-Hispanic has pissed on his credibility, especially regarding being a flight risk.  He lied to the court about his funds and his a passport. Shame on that f-ing Democrat.

Doubly bad for Z is that he had already waived his right to a speedy trial, back when he thought he'd be waiting for trial outside of jail.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 16, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > If Zimmerman hadn't have got out of his car there would be no issue.
> ...




Actually, we know that Zimmerman did not comply with the dispatchers instructions based on situational awareness and time/distance analysis.  The distances from Zimmerman truck, down Twin Trees Lane, up the sidewalk, and around the house to the back to arrive at the event site are known quantities.  From the dispatcher recording it can be determined that Zimmerman's "OK" response to the dispatcher occurred 18-seconds after the sound of his exiting the truck.  We also know by synchronizing his dispatcher call with those of the neighbors' 911 calls (they were to the same recording system) that the shot occurred approximately 3 minutes 30 seconds after the "OK" to the .  Distance time analysis shows that Zimmerman could not have complied with the dispatcher as he ended up FARTHER from the truck then he would have traveled in 18-seconds.

We also have a witness reporting the Zimmerman approaching Martin.




beagle9 said:


> After this we are all in unknown terrirtory for which we have only the one man dead and the other one injured as a result of (we don't actually know at this point what is beyond this time line exactly), because it is a puzzel trying to be put together, where many parts are misplaced and/or are even missing.  Good luck everybody on figuring it out, as per all the post on this case in numbers there of, it is a doozy of a case for sure.



There are a couple of things that can be determined once some more information comes out.

1.  **IF** Zimmerman's story told to the police that night is that Martin was hiding and jumped him (which is the version which the father said during an interview), then that will conflict with a witness statement.  That could be very damaging to Zimmerman because during the police interview it is unlikely that he would have known that Martin was on the telephone at the time.

2.  **IF** Zimmerman's story is that Martin was on top, then we have Martin's height from the autopsy report as 71" (5'11") which means the length of his arms would be 22-24" depending on whether it was a measurement to the wrist or palm.  Now, for one person to be leaning over another means the chest's were 12-18" apart when the shot was fired - yet the autopsy report shows a straight path front to back instead of the side shot which would have been natural in such a position and that there was no Gun Shot Residue on the front of Zimmerman's Jacket/Shirt.​

>>>>


----------



## Ariux (Jun 16, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Actually, we know that Zimmerman did not comply with the dispatchers instructions based on situational awareness and time/distance analysis.  The distances from Zimmerman truck, down Twin Trees Lane, up the sidewalk, and around the house to the back to arrive at the event site are known quantities.  From the dispatcher recording it can be determined that Zimmerman's "OK" response to the dispatcher occurred 18-seconds after the sound of his exiting the truck.  We also know by synchronizing his dispatcher call with those of the neighbors' 911 calls (they were to the same recording system) that the shot occurred approximately 3 minutes 30 seconds after the "OK" to the .  Distance time analysis shows that Zimmerman could not have complied with the dispatcher as he ended up FARTHER from the truck then he would have traveled in 18-seconds.



WW, Shithead, may I call you Shithead?  Why is it you think that three minutes shows that Zimmerman didn't comply with the meaningless request by the police operator... But, you don't think that three minutes shows anything about the intentions of that piece-of-shit Afro, Travyon?  Specifically, that Trayvon chose to engage Zimmerman?

The shooting occurred only about 18-seconds distance from Zimmerman's car.   Only the shit in your skull which you use as a poor substitute for a brain could conclude that the shooting occurred further away than that.  Essentially, Zimmerman was parked in front of a building and the shooting happened behind that same building.



> 1.  **IF** Zimmerman's story told to the police that night is that Martin was hiding and jumped him (which is the version which the father said during an interview), then that will conflict with a witness statement.  That could be very damaging to Zimmerman because during the police interview it is unlikely that he would have known that Martin was on the telephone at the time.



Shithead, has anyone ever told you that you're a moron?  Even your mom?  Anything the ho on the phone claims happened is worthless.  Even taking her word, it's still possible that Trayvon approached Zimmerman with Zimmerman being unaware of the approach, and Zimmerman interpreted that as being jumped.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 16, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, but looking at the human nature side of it, what would you had done if were Zimmerman looking to keep enough money to get a new start on, and this once this thing was all said and done ?
> ...


His lie got him out of jail ?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 16, 2012)

Ariux said:


> The shooting occurred only about 18-seconds distance from Zimmerman's car.




The shooting was over 100 yards from the truck.


The world record for the 100 yard dash is about 9.1 seconds set in 1964 by a world class athlete. Zimmerman's booking height was 5'8" and the police report from that night lists him at 200 lbs.  Finally, he was carrying on a conversation with the dispatcher during that time with audio indications of him sprinting.  No way he covered 100+ yards in 18-seconds.


Heads are good for things other that hat racks.



>>>>


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 16, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...




World, could it have been that Zimmerman somehow could have gotten himself off of the ground, and would have broke apart from the struggle before delivering the fatal shot that killed Martin (both being in a standing position at this point) ?


----------



## Ariux (Jun 16, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > The shooting occurred only about 18-seconds distance from Zimmerman's car.
> ...



Shithead, AKA WorldWatcher, it's trivial for a healthy person to move at half a world-record-pace, which is all your numbers require.  In this case, given your numbers, would be about 11mph.  Granted, Z was obese (because you're a shithead, you'll reject this the moment we're talking about whether obese Zimmerman would attempt to physically challenge the taller and ideal-weight ape-like Travyon), but 11mph isn't outside the possibility a young-ish obese man for 18 seconds. 

The above math is irrelevant, Shithead.  We're not talking about precisely 100 yards and 18 seconds.  We're talking about something under 100 yards in 18 seconds vs. three minutes.   There's no evidence that Zimmerman was ever very far from his car.  But, Trayvon should have been long gone, unless he intended to confront Zimmerman - which proves you're a shithead.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 16, 2012)

Ariux said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...




1.  The truck was over 100 yards, not under.

2.  Secondly, the claim I was responding to was that Zimmerman complied with the dispatcher at the 18-second point.  Zimmerman would not have covered over 100 yards in that time while carrying on a conversation with the dispatcher during that time, the audio of Zimmerman's voice does not indicate he was running.

3. I agree, Zimmerman continued to move away from the truck after the 18-second replay to the dispatcher, which was my point to begin with.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 16, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...




The forensics, which I don't claim to be an expert on, show the barrel of the gun was pointed straight (perpendicular) to Martin's chest.  That would call for an unnatural position of the hand/wrist when someone is supposedly on your chest, leaning over you, while their hands are on the side of your head flexing their arms to smash your head into the ground.  The lack of GSR would be indicative of a straight arm shot with the gun discharged away and not over Zimmerman's jacket/shirt.

You ask if Zimmerman could have somehow gotten himself off of the ground and broken from Martin and then drawn and fired his gun.  That is one possibility, but would also require Martin to have gotten to his feet.  Another possibility is that Zimmerman twisted and pushed Martin off to the side, both still on the ground but now separated by about 2 feet (arm-length).  A shot fired in this type of position could still be "straight-arm" with the gun away from Zimmerman's jacket/shirt resulting in no GSR but close enough for the noted muzzle burns/stippling in the forensic/autopsy reports.



The above scenario's then are important as to determination of initial aggressor.  Under Florida Statute (776.041) if Martin is the initial aggressor, the Zimmerman's immunity under self defense are never lost.  However if Zimmerman was shown to be the initial aggressor **AND** he'd pushed Martin away **THEN** Zimmerman would have been under a requirement to attempt to disengage before the use of lethal force if such an opportunity (as measured by a reasonable person) presented itself.  Such as Zimmerman pushing Martin away.  Not committing to one scenario over the other at this piont.  I just find that that there are questions (in my mind) I would hope the expert witnesses would address at the Self Defense Hearing or at the jury trial if it gets that far.

Google the law and you will see what I mean by that.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 16, 2012)

>

I'm actually traveling tomorrow and have to get up at 05:00.  So ya'll have fun.  Will check back tomorrow night.

G'night.


>>>>


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 17, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Yes if he (Zimmerman) had pushed away, it could have been the cause for disengaugement as you say between the two men after a serious struggle began, but would Zimmerman be in a frame of mind at this point, where he felt that maybe his life was still endanger due to the initial attack, and this because the push had to be made by him in order to get disengaugement, instead of it being made by Martin who could have disengauged also by such a push instead? Where as one of the pushes could have been in order to signal an end to hostilties at this point, and the other would have been to stop an attack that could have been life threatening. Otherwise if Martin would have pushed off to disengauge, it would have signaled an end to the attack by Martin, otherwise if Martin was the attacker in this senario, and so if Zimmerman would have made the push, then it would have been to save his life somehow by such a push being made. Right?

However, if Zimmerman would have attacked Martin lets say, then the push off by Zimmerman could have been a push to somehow get free in the struggle, and this would be because Martin had turned the tide back on him (Zimmerman), and this could have very well been because Martin somehow got the upper hand in the struggle after Zimmerman attacked him, but to shoot Martin after the disengaugement occurred and/or a lull came in the struggle, where Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, well doesn't make much since does it or does it ? I guess it all depends on the fury or anger built up between these two during the struggle, that caused the gun to come out, and a shot to get fired.

I guess it will go back to who was the initial agressor (threw the first punch or physically made the first contact) in the situation, where as all blame for the death will befall the individual that is proven to be the initial physical aggressor, who made physical contact with the other as an aggressor, and especially so if the initial physical aggressor was the one that was armed in the situation, when the other one wasn't. So it all comes down to who started the physical confrontation first, in which led to one man's death in the struggle that ensued afterwards. Everything else was legal for both men to be doing that night, up until the physical confrontation took place correct ?


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 17, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > That's a piss-poor excuse.  It does not matter why he broke the law.  The fact remains that Zimmerman willingly deceived the court.  Why should the court believe that Zimmerman will appear, when he's already lied once so that he could get out of jail?
> ...



Yes, there is.

1- The fucking judge - Kenneth Lester - is corrupt and willing to  be manipulated by the prosecution

2- the fucker demanded that GZ pay bail even though prosecutor Corey's information accusation is a sham; GZ should have been released on his own recognizance ,

3- Instead they found pretexts in order to incarcerate him hoping to force him to cop a plea ; Prosecutor Corey  knows that while he is locked up , she can coerce  a jailer  or another inmate to produce an affidavit claiming that GZ admitted to them that he began the altercation;

.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 17, 2012)

What the girl friend did or did not hear on the phone is hearsay testimony.
None of it is admissable.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 17, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> Yes, there is.
> 
> 1- The fucking judge - Kenneth Lester - is corrupt and willing to be allowed to be manipulated by the prosecution
> 
> ...



You may be right.  First, the governor went Prosecutor shopping to find one who would charge Zimmerman.  Then the Prosecutor went judge shopping to find one who would entertain a perjurous Probable Cause affidavit.  The judge and the Prosecutor are both corrupt.


----------



## paperview (Jun 17, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...


Every time I read one of your posts, I'm convinced, with each new one - you can't be older than twelve.


----------



## paperview (Jun 17, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> What the girl friend did or did not hear on the phone is hearsay testimony.
> None of it is admissable.


DeeDee's testimony will be allowed.  Mark it.


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 17, 2012)

paperview said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...



Every time I read one of your posts, I'm convinced, with each new one - that you are  prosecutor Angela B Corey.







You are so fucking ugly which explains why you are so  mean and bitter.

.

.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 17, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...



I'm of the opinion that deals shouldn't be allowed.  How many people have lied on the stand because they made a deal with the prosecutor to shorten their own time?  Or to put it another way, wouldn't you lie to get out of jail?


----------



## paperview (Jun 17, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...


^ and he proves it yet again.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 17, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> Every time I read one of your posts, I'm convinced, with each new one - that you are  prosecutor Angela B Corey.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Corey looks like she has an Afro in her family tree.


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 17, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...



That is correct. 

All Femi-nazi Corey has to do is find an inmate who wants to serve less time and presto the mo'fo' will claim in an affidavit that GZ admitted to creating the altercation.

Then Corey , aka, paperview, will be arguing that GZ has a definite "credibility" problem.

.


----------



## paperview (Jun 17, 2012)

I can't be Corey. I'm not a republican.


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 17, 2012)

paperview said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Yo Corey, here is a motion for you:

Consider the Salt Lake City Beauty makeover

*[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDTAf6Cusyw&list=PLAEB28F1F9584346A&index=1&feature=plpp_video"]THE BEAUTY SHOW MAKE-OVER TV[/ame]*

.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 17, 2012)

People seem to be losing it....wow


----------



## Ariux (Jun 17, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> What the girl friend did or did not hear on the phone is hearsay testimony.
> None of it is admissable.



The ho on the phone has zero credibility and her hearsay testimony should be kept out of court.  But, when Afros are involved, civilization retreats.    

Even with her shilling for Travyon in the courtroom, it's still an easy acquittal.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 17, 2012)

paperview said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > What the girl friend did or did not hear on the phone is hearsay testimony.
> ...



No hearsay evidence is ever allowed in that situation. How can you cross examine "He said"?
Rules of evidence 101.


----------



## idb (Jun 17, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Sure you can...you can ask "are you sure?"


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 17, 2012)

paperview said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > What the girl friend did or did not hear on the phone is hearsay testimony.
> ...



As for the girlfriend's testimony that is a double edge sword for the prosecution and they know it. 
On cross examination the defense could show her all of the social network photos and everything out there on him and also the jewelry being found in his locker and every question out there about if he smokes dope and things like that. As for her credibility it is hard to say. What little of value she may have to offer that survives the hearsay rulings of inadmissable by the Judge is probably moot. It will be nothing related to Zimmerman's self defense claims and does nothing to attack that. I do not see her hurting Zimmerman very little if any.
And here is why:
Add in the fact that she may have had conversations with Al Sharpton and His Race Pimp Brigade, tailored her version of the events according to their set of facts and the stench that brings for the prosecution's credibility to the jury. All things the defense would vigorously attack. Martin's girlfriend is what we call a low contribution, very high risk witness for the prosecution.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 17, 2012)

idb said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...




You are joking, right? 
"are you sure" does NOT allow in any hearsay evidence, ever, in any case. 
He said, she said is hearsay Moe.
Get used to it, that is the law in all court cases.
You can only use that to impeach a sitting witness, someone that testifies in this case.
Newsflash: Trayvon Martin is DEAD and can not testify.
Nothing he told the girlfriend is allowed as evidence. Nothing, period. All hearsay.
Rules of evidence 101. 
Sorry.


----------



## idb (Jun 17, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Are you sure?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 17, 2012)

idb said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Do you even understand the hearsay rule? If not then go study up on it and that will answer your question for you.


----------



## idb (Jun 17, 2012)

No, I think that's enough..."are you sure?", "yep, I think so!"


----------



## true (Jun 17, 2012)

ha ha sherry you're awesome and thanks for the laugh, it's nice to see something so cute written


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 17, 2012)

idb said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...




*Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution*

*In all criminal prosecutions*, *the accused shall enjoy the right to* a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; *to be confronted with the witnesses against him;* to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.[note 1][1]

.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 17, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...




I'm not really committed to any sequence of events as a final decision because we have not seen all the information yet.  I find a couple of the forensic pieces of evidence interesting and it will be something to watch both at the self defense hearing and at trial (if it gets that far).  The prosecution is required to hand over evidence as part of discovery, it is not required to hand over how the prosecution use expert witnesses to explain that evidence.

So we have forensics which indicate that there was some separation between Zimmerman and Martin at the time the shot was fired.  It will depend on how the prosecutions (and defeses) expert witnesses present that data to the judge/jury and how it's to be interpreted AND the comparision of that information to Zimmerman's statements given that night to the police.

If the forensics and expert testimony show that the shot could not have occurred while Martin was straddling Zimmerman beating his head on the ground, and **IF** that was Zimmerman's statement - then that will look bad for Zimmerman if his story is that Martin was on toip beating his head into the ground.

The prosecution will ((IMHO) make the case that whether it was Martin or Zimmerman that was disengaging that caused the distance consistent with the forensics, that at that time Martin could not have been beating Zimmerman's head into the ground and therefore no longer presented an imminent treat.



beagle9 said:


> I guess it will go back to who was the initial agressor (threw the first punch or physically made the first contact) in the situation, where as all blame for the death will befall the individual that is proven to be the initial physical aggressor, who made physical contact with the other as an aggressor, and especially so if the initial physical aggressor was the one that was armed in the situation, when the other one wasn't. So it all comes down to who started the physical confrontation first, in which led to one man's death in the struggle that ensued afterwards. Everything else was legal for both men to be doing that night, up until the physical confrontation took place correct ?



You appear to want to focus on just the physical contact as defining the aggressor.  However that may not be the case.  Under Florida Law (784.011) assault is defined by word or act to do violence, coupled by an apparent ability to do so and committing some threatening act which present an intent to do violence.  In other words, the aggressor in an assault situation need not physically strike another person to be guilty of assault.

784.011 - Assault. - 2011 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate



So, the first question the Judge/Jury in the hearing/trial (respectively) will have to determine is who was the initial aggressor - which is not the same as deciding who struck the first physical blow.



>>>>


----------



## idb (Jun 17, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



So, if Zimmerman was adjudged to be the initial aggressor the Stand Your Ground law would exonerate Martin?

Can that law be used for prosecution as well as defence?
What I mean is, if Zimmerman was the aggressor - meaning that Martin was killed exercising his rights under the SYG law - can Zimmerman face charges under the SYG law?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 17, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> What the girl friend did or did not hear on the phone is hearsay testimony.
> None of it is admissable.





Gadawg73 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...




The value of the girlfriends testimony of course is something we will have to wait and see.  There are two possible scenario's, one the defense has no chance of keeping out, the other maybe kept out as hearsay or it may be allowed in because the individual is not available.

1A.  The part of the statement/testimony that will undoubtedly be allowed in pertains to her direct testimony about the facts surrounding the phone call.  One, the phone call did occur.  Two she was on the phone with Martin with what could be called the pursuit phase of the event (during the time Zimmerman was in his truck, through exiting, and coming into contact with Martin.  Phone records show she was on the phone with Martin from approximately 19:12 to 19:16, police reports how the police arrived on scene at 19:17 and Martin was already shot.  

1B.  Even if the Judge excludes what she said Martin said, he testimony about hearing another man's voice over the phone will not be excluded because that is not hearsay, that is her direct testimony of what she directly heard.

2.  The second element of testimony would be the part that will be challenged by the defense as hearsay, the prosecution will call for it to be admitted.  Not all hearsay is inadmissible, section 90.803 and section 90.804 provide a whole list of exceptions to the hearsay rule.​


Even without Martin's portion of the conversation being repeated by the girlfriend, her testimony can be important depending on Zimmerman's statements to police that night, statements given prior to knowing that the girlfriends call even existed.  If Zimmerman's story is that Martin was hiding and jumped out and attacked him then the girlfriends testimony would be in direct conflict with that statement has the prosecution will argue that he would not have been hiding and carrying on a conversation at that same time, an argument that has nothing to do with hearsay as it has no basis in what Martin told her.  Secondly she will be able to speak directly to the second voice she heard, the fact that the second voice was heard again has nothing to do with hearsay.  The judge would probably even let her testify as to the content of what she heard the other voice say because Zimmerman will be available at trial and could take the stand to rebut her testimony.


So the importance of the girlfriend being on the phone with Martin at the time of the event does not rest solely on her repeating what Martin said.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 17, 2012)

idb said:


> So, if Zimmerman was adjudged to be the initial aggressor the Stand Your Ground law would exonerate Martin?



Theoretically "yes" if you mean by "exonerate" that if Zimmerman was the initial aggressor then under the SYG law Martin had no requirement to retreat and was authorized to use force to defend himself from an aggressor.




idb said:


> Can that law be used for prosecution as well as defence?  What I mean is, if Zimmerman was the aggressor - meaning that Martin was killed exercising his rights under the SYG law - can Zimmerman face charges under the SYG law?




IMHO - No, SYG provides for defense only.

Generally speaking, prosecution of the aggressor would be under the applicable sections of the criminal code for assault, battery, rape, kidnapping, manslaughter, murder, etc.


Which, being ignorant of the law but willing to learn, I find interesting about the prosecutions charging in the case.  If they are going to try to make the case that Zimmerman was the initial aggressor and that Martin was therefore defending himself - seems like they should have charged Zimmerman with the lesser offenses as a basis for the charge resulting in the shooting of Martin, which I think Murder 2 is overcharged.  Under a heat of the moment scenario, assault followed by battery, leading to Manslaughter could be understandable.  But Murder 2 with no lesser charges?  Doesn't make sense to me.



>>>>


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 18, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > What the girl friend did or did not hear on the phone is hearsay testimony.
> ...



I agree but is any of that worth what she is subject to cross on?
"Did you know that Trayvon Martin smoked marijuana?"
"Did you know he was caught with stolen jewlery in his locker at school?"
"Why was he not in school that day? How many times had he been expelled from school?"
And everything else along those lines of questioning on cross.
They called her and the second the prosecution asks one question about that call and any conversations with him ALL conversations with him are open for the defense to question her about.
She is a low contribution, high risk witness for the prosecution.


----------



## paperview (Jun 18, 2012)

Very soon we'll be privy to six phone calls made in Jail, and from  what's being said, it doesn't look good for the Tugboat family.


> SANFORD, Fla. -                          Six phone calls are  among the evidence expected to be released Monday in the case against  George Zimmerman.
> 
> 
> Prosecutors  say the conversations, which were made between Zimmermand  and his wife,  show the couple tried to hide a six-figure defense fund  from the court.
> ...




Read more: Another round of evidence expected in George Zimmerman case | Trayvon Martin - WESH Home
​


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 18, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...



Are you paying attention?  How can you not already know that?  Zimmerman was arrested and was in custody.  He had a bail hearing, and his deceit helped secure him a relatively low bail amount, which he was all too willing to pay, without having to dip significantly into his available funds.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 18, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



The questioning during cross examination must be relevant to the topics of direct examination.



Gadawg73 said:


> "Did you know that Trayvon Martin smoked marijuana?"



The prosecution would object and likely be sustained since Martin's past usage of mariguana would be irrelevant to the fact that the phone call occurred and what the witness heard over the phone.

And the amount of THC in Martin's blood was reported from the toxicology portion of the autopsy as a trace amount of 1.5 ng/mL (equivalent to one joint 10-12 hours prior to that evening) which means that Martin was not under the influence of marijuana at the time of the call.




Gadawg73 said:


> "Did you know he was caught with stolen jewlery in his locker at school?"



Again the prosecution would object for two reasons, one it is again no relevant to the witness testimony regarding the phone call during the event and secondly it is a leading and incorrect statement.  School officials and police researched the incident and determined that the jewelry matched no description of stolen jewelry and Martin was never charged with anything.




Gadawg73 said:


> "Why was he not in school that day? How many times had he been expelled from school?"



Again the prosecution would object to that line of questioning during cross as it has nothing to do with the phone call.




Gadawg73 said:


> And everything else along those lines of questioning on cross.



None of those character assassination leading questions would be relevant to the phone call during cross.




Gadawg73 said:


> They called her and the second the prosecution asks one question about that call and any conversations with him ALL conversations with him are open for the defense to question her about.
> She is a low contribution, high risk witness for the prosecution.




Actually she is a low risk witness and high contribution witness depending on Zimmerman's story given to police that night when he (presumably) didn't know Martin was on the telephone with someone else.  If her testimony is in direct conflict with Zimmerman's account (such as saying that Martin was in hiding and jumped him from the rear) - then that would be bad for Zimmerman.



>>>>


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 18, 2012)

paperview said:


> Very soon we'll be privy to six phone calls made in Jail, and from  what's being said, it doesn't look good for the Tugboat family.
> 
> 
> > SANFORD, Fla. -                          Six phone calls are  among the evidence expected to be released Monday in the case against  George Zimmerman.
> ...



Old news, this was the basis for her arrest. 
Nothing new here.


----------



## tinydancer (Jun 18, 2012)

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



omg you have the best avie on the planet. Say no more. I'm laughing again. Thanks for the avie.


----------



## paperview (Jun 18, 2012)

Here they are guys 'n gals:

http://soundcloud.com/producermatthe...n-jail-house-1

Have at it!


----------



## paperview (Jun 18, 2012)

Matthew Keys (producermatthew) on Scribd | Scribd

Same jail calls--transcripts.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 18, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



You should well know the scope of cross examination is far, far greater on leading questions during cross than direct. All of Martin's discussions with her are open if they discuss one conversation. How do we know if ALL of that conversation was about Zimmerman following him? If you allow part of the conversation in with Martin you have to allow ALL of that conversation and that opens the door to ALL other conversations by phone. No way to get around that. 
Under Florida statute a defendant can not be limited to his cross examination that mirrors the inquiry of direct examination. IOW, that gives them wide latitude. 
The Sixth Amendment GUARANTEES the right of the accused to attack witness' credibility by means of cross examination directed toward revealing possible biases or ulterior motives of the witness as they may relate to the case in hand. And the theory of the defense is self defense and that Zimmerman was attacked by an aggressive, out of control young man that has had history of problems in and out of school. Federal case law is clear on this "a trial court may not prohibit cross examination when the facts sought to be elicited are germane to that witness' testimony and plausibly relevant to the theory of the defense." Martin's history is OPEN the second she takes the stand and answers one question about that call. Oh, the prosecution will certainly file a Motion in Limine to ban that line of questioning before the trial but the appellate rulings in Florida are clear on this. It all gets in. They fit under the theory of the defense case law.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 18, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



1.  There are times when hearsay is admissible.  The fact that you don't know this proves that you don't know even an inkling as much about the law as you pretend to know.

2.  It wouldn't be hearsay if Zimmerman testifies.  

3.  Also, it could be deemed to not be hearsay if the g/f testifies about what Martin said, since Martin is unavailable due to death.

4.  It would not be hearsay if the girlfriend does not attempt to identify Zimmerman.


----------



## paperview (Jun 18, 2012)

Jeff Weiner &#8207;@JeffWeinerOS
#GeorgeZimmerman says it doesn't matter if car that picks him up from jail has tinted windows. "Well, I have my hoodie."


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 18, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



1. Never said it wasn't.
2. Zimmerman WAS NOT on the phone dumb ass! So how could his testimony have anything to do with hearsay argument about phone conversations HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN? 
3.  You are ignorant.
4.  "    "      "        ".
Stick to your " Do you want fries with that?" gig.


----------



## tinydancer (Jun 18, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...



Every one is freaking now, what would be a fair amount?

What would be a bail amount that any black man could agree on? We already Know every man wants to hang him high aka asswipes out of Karengas crew.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 18, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> 1. Never said it wasn't.



Yes, you did.  



> 2. Zimmerman WAS NOT on the phone dumb ass! So how could his testimony have anything to do with hearsay argument about phone conversations HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN?



The g/f's statements have said that she heard someone talking to Martin.



> 3.  You are ignorant.



No response, noted.  Seems you don't know what you're talking about.



> Stick to your " Do you want fries with that?" gig.



Again, no response.  You're reduced to meaningless insults.  Sums up the validity of your entire position.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 18, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...




We'll have to see how it plays out in court, I know you are one of the good guys and so personally I give weight to you postings - unlike some others that just want to rant and insult.

I think there will be a distinct difference if she answers questions about the fact that the call existed and that she heard another male voice as opposed to being questioned on the content of what Martin said.  The existence of the phone call and how it fit's into or conflicts with Zimmerman's story to the police that night will be very important.

Personally I assume the persecution plans on going into content so it will be interesting to see how that proceeds.


>>>>


----------



## tinydancer (Jun 18, 2012)

paperview said:


> Jeff Weiner &#8207;@JeffWeinerOS
> #GeorgeZimmerman says it doesn't matter if car that picks him up from jail has tinted windows. "Well, I have my hoodie."



The prosecution is toast.

No brainer.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 18, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...


No what I'm saying, is you mean to tell me that he was able to lie himself out of jail, or was it that he met the demands the court had set for him enough so, in which did get him out of jail, and this besides the lie that was found out about later on, in which he was trying his darndest I guess, not to tell about all the money he had, in order to hold on to enough of it outside of the "vulture game" that he is in, to somehow get him and his wife a new start I'm guessing, and long away from this mess that he has gotten himself into somehow... I agree it was defintely not a smart move on him and his wifes part to lie, but somewhat understandable that they took the chance when they have come from where it is that they have come from since.. However, the phone calls will be interesting stuff.. Hey didn't our new supreme court appointment Sata Mynora (spelling), get her nomination based upon that big ole word empathy, so where is all that empathy influence now ? Oh it is no where to be found in this case, because this man has already been deemed and found guilty by the media due the pressures found within it all, so it's probably good bye Zimmerman, even if he may have been innocent in the original case or investigation that was then formed under the law against him at first. 

He has got to be tried now though, in order to get to the truth I'm thinking, so lets hope that happens soon or next. Hey if he is guilty I am for him swinging for comitting murder like this, but only if he is guilty, but if found innocent, then he should be on his way, and no one should say a word about it afterwards, unless the parents want to file a wrongful death suit against him maybe, just like they did on OJ, but that will be up to them. Trust me, I am for justice to prevail always, and this I always want no matter what or who is involved always..


----------



## paperview (Jun 18, 2012)

Pretty clear from those phone calls they were obviously  plotting to hide cash and his passport.

Flight risk and the means.

I wonder how a judge considering rebonding would look at that.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 18, 2012)

paperview said:


> Pretty clear from those phone calls they were obviously  plotting to hide cash and his passport.
> 
> Flight risk and the means.
> 
> I wonder how a judge considering rebonding would look at that.


Could be (or) it could be a stash until all was said and done, so who knows really ?

The passport is interesting however, do those things have an expiration date on them?


----------



## Ariux (Jun 18, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> 1.  There are times when hearsay is admissible.  The fact that you don't know this proves that you don't know even an inkling as much about the law as you pretend to know.
> 
> 2.  It wouldn't be hearsay if Zimmerman testifies.
> 
> ...



1. Never said it wasn't.
2. Zimmerman WAS NOT on the phone dumb ass! So how could his testimony have anything to do with hearsay argument about phone conversations HE WAS NOT INVOLVED IN? 
3.  You are ignorant.
4.  "    "      "        ".
Stick to your " Do you want fries with that?" gig.[/QUOTE]

Unless the judge wants to piss on justice, he won't allow the girl to testify to what Trayvon told her.  It's hearsay, with nothing to counter that the girl is 100% biased and can make up anything she wants, especially given that she didn't come to police in a timely manner.  

There are some reasons to allow hearsay in the courtroom.  One example is _ Declaration against interest_, such as if this girl claims Trayvon said something that is against the interests of the girl.  But, that exception, nor any other exception, applies here.


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 18, 2012)

paperview said:


> Pretty clear from those phone calls they were obviously  plotting to hide cash and his passport.
> 
> Flight risk and the means.
> 
> I wonder how a judge considering rebonding would look at that.



Excuse me , Angie.

Clarify a point for moi.

 When he was directed to report back to jail did he do so without a problem or was he picked up at the US-Mexico Border?

.


----------



## paperview (Jun 18, 2012)

Yes.  The State of Florida GPS jewelry  around his ankle and vigilante ...I mean vigilant monitoring might have had a little something to do with it.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 18, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> When he was directed to report back to jail did he do so without a problem or was he picked up at the US-Mexico Border?



Zimmerman surrendered a May 2002 (now expired) passport.  But, a phone conversation from jail indicated that Zimmerman has another passport (the 2004, valid for 10 years) in a safety deposit box.  

It looks like Zimmerman was keeping his options open, even if he turned himself in rather the fleeing, when his bond was revoked.   Even though the murder trial is bogus, Zimmerman looks to me like a flight risk.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 18, 2012)

paperview said:


> Yes.  The State of Florida GPS jewelry  around his ankle and vigilante ...I mean vigilant monitoring might have had a little something to do with it.



Really?  When did they start putting ankle monitors on people out on Bond?


----------



## paperview (Jun 18, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.  The State of Florida GPS jewelry  around his ankle and vigilante ...I mean vigilant monitoring might have had a little something to do with it.
> ...


If you didn't know Georgie was wearing an GPS ankle bracelet aka State of Florida monitoring device when he was out on Bond, you obviously haven't been following the case.

Bond hearing.   You know, the first time we saw him suited up in shackles? Judge ordered then:  GPS electronic monitoring,  has a curfew, no alcohol, no gun possession...a few other orders. 

People out on Bond are still under arrest, you know.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 18, 2012)

Doesn't look good for either one of them. Why on earth would you say such stupid things from jail?


> Zimmerman, who was wearing a vest when he was released on bond, also discusses a possible escape route and renting two cars to throw off the media, possibly driving into a hotel with an attached garage or heading to an airport to fly to "heaven."
> 
> In one conversation as the two are planning a possible escape route if he receives bail, Zimmerman talks about going to a hotel like the Western he stayed at in Tampa, and that if he is in a car he could wear "his hoodie" and lie down as they are driving away.



George Zimmerman Urged Wife to Buy Bulletproof Vest in Jailhouse Calls - ABC News


----------



## bodecea (Jun 18, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Pretty clear from those phone calls they were obviously  plotting to hide cash and his passport.
> ...



Yes...I believe 5 years.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 18, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Doesn't look good for either one of them. Why on earth would you say such stupid things from jail?
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman, who was wearing a vest when he was released on bond, also discusses a possible escape route and renting two cars to throw off the media, possibly driving into a hotel with an attached garage or heading to an airport to fly to "heaven."
> ...



Because......he's stupid?


----------



## Ravi (Jun 18, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



The questions you've pretended would matter wouldn't be attacking the witness's credibility, they would be questions trying to demonize a kid that was killed. If he did any of the things you claimed, i.e. smoked weed, would have as much relevance to the case as if he liked the teletubbies as a child.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 18, 2012)

bodecea said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


10 years.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 18, 2012)

bodecea said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't look good for either one of them. Why on earth would you say such stupid things from jail?
> ...


Could this have been just consideration of all options considered by the two, enlight of him getting bail ? Remember that this is a man that feels like he is a marked man by those who feel that he is a racist killer, so every precaution seems to have been looked over or entertained while on the inside, for when he would be finally out on bond, but to become a flight risk could be a stretch of our imagination enlight of everything that has taken place against them, in which would just seem to be more of him and her trying to stay alive while he is out on bond, than to take flight at this junction.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 18, 2012)

> Because......he's stupid?



Maybe not....

Could this have been just consideration of all options considered by the two, enlight of him getting bail ? Remember that this is a man that feels like he is a marked man by those who feel that he is a racist killer, so every precaution seems to have been looked over or entertained while on the inside, for when he would be finally out on bond, but to become a flight risk could be a stretch of our imagination enlight of everything that has taken place against them, in which would just seem to be more of him and her trying to stay alive while he is out on bond, than to take flight at this junction.


----------



## taichiliberal (Jun 18, 2012)

Man, the Zimmerman Zombies are STILL at it?  And with Georgie's honesty of character looking more and more dubious.  If this stuff ever gets to trial, it's going to be REAL interesting.


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 19, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Man, the Zimmerman Zombies are STILL at it?  And with Georgie's honesty of character looking more and more dubious.  If this stuff ever gets to trial, it's going to be REAL interesting.



Man, Angela Corey zombies are STILL at it? And with Angela's honesty of character looking more and more dubious.  If this stuff ever gets to trial, it's going to be REAL interesting.

.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 19, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.  The State of Florida GPS jewelry  around his ankle and vigilante ...I mean vigilant monitoring might have had a little something to do with it.
> ...



They do it all the time. Expensive for the defendant.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 19, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



If you do not know that it is the defense attorney's job to attack Martin as much as he can then please quit posting on this subject.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 19, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


Sorry, I forgot you were semi-retarded.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 19, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Reading your posts will make anyone "semi-retarded".


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 19, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Yes.  The State of Florida GPS jewelry  around his ankle and vigilante ...I mean vigilant monitoring might have had a little something to do with it.
> ...



This just goes to show that you're so entirely ignorant on the subject that you shouldn't even speak at all.  Hold your breath for three minutes before you post again.  It just might bump up your IQ a few points...


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 19, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Don't feel bad, so did I.  Could have sworn it was full blown.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 19, 2012)

Social Groups
Pictures & Albums
Settings & Options
Edit Avatar
Edit Signature
Edit Email & Password
Edit Options
Edit Ignore List
Private Messages
List Messages
Send New Message
Track Messages
Edit Folders
Subscribed Threads
List Subscriptions
Edit Folders
Miscellaneous
Event Reminders
Paid Subscriptions
Attachments

Report Private Message  
Private Message: New reputation!

Today, 12:54 PM
Inthemiddle Inthemiddle is online now
Registered User
Member #32985

Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 3,546
Thanks: 629
Thanked 643 Times in 488 Posts
Rep Power: 187
Inthemiddle could successfully start his own religionInthemiddle could successfully start his own religionInthemiddle could successfully start his own religionInthemiddle could successfully start his own religionInthemiddle could successfully start his own religion
Inthemiddle could successfully start his own religionInthemiddle could successfully start his own religionInthemiddle could successfully start his own religion
New reputation!
Hi, you have received -92 reputation points from Inthemiddle.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
Don\'t speak, you\'re only making yourself out to be an even bigger dumbass then what you\'re perceived to be.

Regards,
Inthemiddle

Really?  I'm guessing no one ever told you there was no such thing as a dumb question. Since Ankle monitors haven't been around that long, I thought it was a legitimate question.  I don't give a crap what your rep power is, it's obviously higher than it should be and if I retaliated by negging you, you'd lose a lot more than I did from your neg.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 19, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



My IQ is 140, what's yours?

Notice how for the most part I've been participating in this discussion without insulting those that disagree with me?  My parents always taught me, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all."  Kind of wish you'd met my parents....


----------



## Liability (Jun 19, 2012)

"*George Zimmerman's bloody head*

It looks like certain judgmental and pre-judging "liberal" types here want it ^ on a stick.

Is a hypocritical liberal a *hypoliberal?*

Or is a hypocritical liberal merely a redundancy?


----------



## Ariux (Jun 19, 2012)

Liability said:


> Or is a hypocritical liberal merely a redundancy?



Just as much as "hypocritical neocon" is a redundancy, shithead.


----------



## Liability (Jun 19, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Or is a hypocritical liberal merely a redundancy?
> ...



So, then, you fucking racist submoron piece of shit, don't be a neocon.  And don't be a liberal.

Even a fucking brainless cocksmoker like you *should* be able to figure that much out.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 19, 2012)

He's no liberal. But thanks for demonstrating what a hack you are.


----------



## Liability (Jun 19, 2012)

Ravi said:


> He's no liberal. But thanks for demonstrating what a hack you are.



Hey idiot.  I never said he was a liberal, douchey.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 19, 2012)

Oh bother says E-ore.....LOL


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 19, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Really?  I'm guessing no one ever told you there was no such thing as a dumb question.



No, I've heard people say that before.  I simply reject that claim.  Your question WAS a stupid question.  You've had plenty of things to say about this whole ordeal, and yet you don't even know the very basic facts and developments.



> Since Ankle monitors haven't been around that long



Only a few decades.  



> I thought it was a legitimate question.



If you're going to insert yourself into the discussion and have as much to say about it as you have, you should make sure to know the basics first.  That's the problem here.  Not the fact that you asked a question.  It's the fact that you're being a literary critic when you don't even know your ABCs yet.



> I don't give a crap what your rep power is



Good, then stop whining about being negged like a pansy.



> it's obviously higher than it should be and if I retaliated by negging you, you'd lose a lot more than I did from your neg.



Is that a threat?  Shut up you sissy.  I'm not usually inclined to neg people, but it's uncalled for to be so intentionally ignorant yet maintain stubborn positions.  Considering that you've negged me more than once for not reason other than having a position opposite of yours, and you simply couldn't come up with a decent argument, I think that this was well deserved.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 19, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> My IQ is 140, what's yours?



I've taken the Wechsler twice.  The lower score was 153.  Can we move on now?


----------



## Liability (Jun 19, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > My IQ is 140, what's yours?
> ...



What was it before you multiplied it by two?


----------



## percysunshine (Jun 19, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > My IQ is 140, what's yours?
> ...



I want to offer you a job. What can you do for me?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 19, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > My IQ is 140, what's yours?
> ...



Do you display your MENSA magazines on your coffee table?


----------



## idb (Jun 19, 2012)

The nice man in the white coat said my IQ was equivalent to '2 x 4'.
That's 24!!!


----------



## paperview (Jun 20, 2012)

Soooooooooo.....bets that Zimmerman is not going to be let out on Bond again?


----------



## Liability (Jun 20, 2012)

paperview said:


> Soooooooooo.....bets that Zimmerman is not going to be let out on Bond again?



No bets.  But I'll offer my prediction.

The bail amount will get jacked up.

It will get posted eventually.  

He will get out sooner rather than later and well before "trial" if there is a trial.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 20, 2012)

Liability said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



You know, trying to insult a person's intelligence with jokes that, literally, don't add up is never a very wise idea.


----------



## Liability (Jun 20, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...



I knew you wouldn't get it, Muddled.

And if I wanted a lecture on what is or isn't "wise," rest assured I'd ask someone WITH actual intelligence.  So, you wouldn't be on the list.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 20, 2012)

Would it be possible that he gets charged with a felony at his next hearing?


----------



## Liability (Jun 20, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Would it be possible that he gets charged with a felony at his next hearing?



With an overzealous prosecutor who doesn't bother with Grand Juries in a politically charged case with lots of public attention and a "race" factor?

Of course it's possible.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 20, 2012)

paperview said:


> Soooooooooo.....bets that Zimmerman is not going to be let out on Bond again?




1.  Bail amount increased.


2.  No charges filed against George for two reasons, both based on timeline.  PRIOR to the prosecution taking any action GZ had turned the second passport over to O'Mara and had notified O'Mara about the additional money.  O'Mara then took that information to the court at the next available opportunity (i.e. Media Sunshine Motion Hearing) so effectively GZ notified the court of the error.  I think that will weigh into the Judges/Prosecutions decision as to whether to file charges.


3.  Possible charges filed by Federal prosecutors against GZ for violoation of 31 USC § 5324 - Structuring transactions to evade reporting ...  I don't know, but the multiple transactions at just below the $10,000 limit appear suspicious.


4.  SZ, charged with perjury, but I think they will do it at the misdemeanor level instead of the allowed felony 3 level.  (Under Florida Law, lying as part of the bond process could be charged at one level below the original crime.)



>>>>


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 20, 2012)

percysunshine said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



That depends on what kind of industry you're in.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 20, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> 2.  No charges filed against George for two reasons, both based on timeline.  PRIOR to the prosecution taking any action GZ had turned the second passport over to O'Mara and had notified O'Mara about the additional money.  O'Mara then took that information to the court at the next available opportunity (i.e. Media Sunshine Motion Hearing) so effectively GZ notified the court of the error.  I think that will weigh into the Judges/Prosecutions decision as to whether to file charges.



It would be the state's decision.  I'm inclined to expect that charges would be filed, though they may decide to wait for the outcome of the wife's charge.  They're willing to come at Zimmerman with everything they can, so it would seem odd to me to let this slide.  Not to mention that, but I would think that it would be foolish, since going for murder 2 was a gamble already.



> 4.  SZ, charged with perjury, but I think they will do it at the misdemeanor level instead of the allowed felony 3 level.  (Under Florida Law, lying as part of the bond process could be charged at one level below the original crime.)



I think the third degree felony would be applicable to George Zimmerman only.  His wife should be subject to normal perjury charges, which under state law is always a felony.  Since it's not a capital case, it would be a 3rd degree felony instead of 2nd degree.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 20, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



I haven't joined MENSA.  If anything, I'd want to pursue membership in Prometheus or Triple nine.  In any event, your insinuation that I'm bragging is unfounded.  It's not something I usually talk about and in fact, I'd like to move on.


----------



## paperview (Jun 20, 2012)

> Quote: Originally Posted by *WorldWatcher*
> 
> 
> _2.   No charges filed against George for two reasons, both based on  timeline.  PRIOR to the prosecution taking any action GZ had turned the  second passport over to O'Mara and had notified O'Mara about the  additional money.  O'Mara then took that information to the court at the  next available opportunity (i.e. Media Sunshine Motion Hearing) so  effectively GZ notified the court of the error.  I think that will weigh  into the Judges/Prosecutions decision as to whether to file charges._



Not really. O'Mara said he had it, and just forgot to file it with the court.  At the Sunshine hearing that 2nd one had not been handed it.

That's a pretty egregious mistake.  As Tommy said earlier, most lawyer's would FLY to the courtroom immediately and file the "oversighted" passport.

Instead, a month goes by and he "mistakenly" tables it?

Just a nitpick on the details that may not amount to a hill of B&M beans.

I'm leaning to a million dollar bond.

Then some rich, slack-jawed dick looking for fame will come along and bail his ass out.

;/


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 20, 2012)

paperview said:


> Then some rich, slack-jawed dick looking for fame will come along and bail his ass out.
> 
> ;/



Why you gotta bring Trump into this?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 20, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...



What, no sense of humor?
You can dish it out but sometimes have a hard time taking it.
You would not last 10 minutes in my world.
Lighten up! This is an internet message board.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 20, 2012)

The line is already stretched around the block of great Americans that would raise and spot bail for Zimmerman.
When he gets off how about a kitty for a medal and a trip to the Bahamas for him and his wife?
I do not condone what he did but the ole boy has been done wrong by media, Prince Sharpton and the PimpTones and most folks here.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 20, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



I thought it was quite humorous.  In fact, I have a much better outlook on life now that I've ignored notevenslightlyinthemiddle.

Good Days.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 20, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> What, no sense of humor?
> You can dish it out but sometimes have a hard time taking it.
> You would not last 10 minutes in my world.
> Lighten up! This is an internet message board.



I just didn't think it was funny, it was too cliche.


----------



## Liability (Jun 20, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > What, no sense of humor?
> ...



Oh.  'Cause you made it sound like your objection was the fact that it is difficult (without rounding) to divide an odd number by 2.

Whine some more.  That oughta help your cred.  

You _have_ no wit, inthemuddle.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 20, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> The line is already stretched around the block of great Americans that would raise and spot bail for Zimmerman.
> When he gets off how about a kitty for a medal and a trip to the Bahamas for him and his wife?
> I do not condone what he did but the ole boy has been done wrong by media, Prince Sharpton and the PimpTones and most folks here.



I condone it and I hope it happens a hell of a lot more often.

Alot more criminals than that deserve a good shooting.


----------



## MarcATL (Jun 20, 2012)

He's still locked up in isolation right?

That's all I care about, that that animal is still locked up like the animal he is.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 21, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> He's still locked up in isolation right?
> 
> That's all I care about, that that animal is still locked up like the animal he is.



You have it backwards as usual Marc.
Zimmerman is in isolation BECAUSE OF the animals in prison.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 21, 2012)

The video of Zimmerman's reenactment has been released.

George Zimmerman's Reenactment Of Trayvon Martin Shooting (VIDEO)

Zimmerman's story continues to be unbelievable.  He says Martin covered his mouth and nose.  Yet also claims to be heard screaming at the top of his lungs on the 9-11 tapes.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 21, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> The video of Zimmerman's reenactment has been released.
> 
> George Zimmerman's Reenactment Of Trayvon Martin Shooting (VIDEO)
> 
> Zimmerman's story continues to be unbelievable.  He says Martin covered his mouth and nose.  Yet also claims to be heard screaming at the top of his lungs on the 9-11 tapes.



I believe it.
What do you have to refute any of it?
How can anyone refute any of it?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 21, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> The video of Zimmerman's reenactment has been released.
> 
> George Zimmerman's Reenactment Of Trayvon Martin Shooting (VIDEO)
> 
> Zimmerman's story continues to be unbelievable.  He says Martin covered his mouth and nose.  Yet also claims to be heard screaming at the top of his lungs on the 9-11 tapes.



Even the announcer, the black dude, says "Zimmerman gunned him down".
You are not in the middle. Your mind is made up.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 21, 2012)

>


*Newly released...*


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/06/21/written_statement_0226.pdf
Zimmerman&#8217;s written police statement.

http://cmgdigital.brightcove.com.ed...9001_1699804655001_video-reenactment-0227.mp4
Zimmerman reenactment video

http://cmgdigital.brightcove.com.ed...12959001_1699747058001_Reeanactment-Feb27.mp4
Zimmerman Police Interview Feb 27


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 21, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> He's still locked up in isolation right?
> 
> That's all I care about, that that animal is still locked up like the animal he is.



Thanks to the corrupt and inept handling by law enforcement, he's a walking dead man. In jail or out on the street, there's a price on his head. The police chief of that town was just fired but that's too late to save Zimmerman's wife from becoming a wealthy widow.

The video I posted in another thread is very damning - unless he's superman with a gun. 

How come we keep hearing about poor Zimmerman's teensy weensy butterfly band aid but don't hear anything about about the hole Trayvonn got for "standing his ground" and defending himself?

If he had been arrested and tried, none of this would have happened.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 21, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > The video of Zimmerman's reenactment has been released.
> ...



No, he's never been in the middle.  did you see the video after it, of all the stars coming out to promote awareness of Trayvon Martin, saying protected things like "I am Trayvon Martin".  That scum's mother is making a fortune off of her son's death.
Kind of makes you wonder if she ever loved him in life.  What kind of parents let their suspended student walk the streets at night and when he doesn't come home, just "assume" that he's spending the night with a friend.  It wasn't even his neighborhood, what kind of "friend" were they assuming he had.

In my mind, the parents of Trayvon are the guilty party.  Had they been doing their job, this never would have happened.  And of course, they object to anyone pointing out that their son was on suspension from school for the 3rd time that year, saying that "they're" attacking her son's reputation when in fact, it's the parent's rep that is and should be under attack.

She finds out her son is dead and the first thing she does is get patents on various forms of his name.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 21, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > He's still locked up in isolation right?
> ...



If Trayvon's parents had actually parented him, none of this would have happened.  Who lets a kid on suspension from school wander the streets at night?


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 21, 2012)

> If Trayvon's parents had actually parented him, none of this would have happened. Who lets a kid on suspension from school wander the streets at night?



Bull shit.

Really, that is the most ridiculous thing any of you rw's have written in a long while.

None of your post is true, but even if it were, how is a walk to the convenience store a crime punishable by death? What did Trayvon do to deserve being murdered?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 21, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> If Trayvon's parents had actually parented him, none of this would have happened.  Who lets a kid on suspension from school wander the streets at night?


 

Going to the 7-11 for iced tea and skittles at 6:30PM on a Sunday evening is not "wandering the streets at night".

>>>>


----------



## MarcATL (Jun 21, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > He's still locked up in isolation right?
> ...



Thanks for confirming that that animal is caged up behind bars...exactly where he needs to be.

Let's go Justice, let's GO!!!

*clap, clap*


----------



## MarcATL (Jun 21, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> > If Trayvon's parents had actually parented him, none of this would have happened. Who lets a kid on suspension from school wander the streets at night?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It goes to show her deep, rooted racism and contempt for all black people she has in her.

So many others like her exist today, too many.

I will be too glad to see them gone.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 21, 2012)

luddly.neddite said:


> > If Trayvon's parents had actually parented him, none of this would have happened. Who lets a kid on suspension from school wander the streets at night?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



#1, I'm not rw.

#2, didn't say a walk to the convenience store was punishable by death, I said Trayvon was on suspension from school (for the 3rd time that year) and if his parents were actually parenting him, he never would have been out on the street that night and the shooting would never have happened.

#3, His father cam home during the night, after work, noticed his son wasn't there and "assumed" he was spending the night with a friend.  This at his father's fiancees apartment where they took him after he was suspended for the THIRD time, probably to be away from the influence of his friends.  So I am asking, who is this "friend" he "assumed" his son was spending the night with?  What kind of parents treats a kid on suspension from school like that?

And his mother, in her grief, took out patents on various forms of her son's name, it was the FIRST thing she did.  This is all so they can make money off of his death.

Pay attention, I don't lie and I'm not making this stuff up.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 21, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > If Trayvon's parents had actually parented him, none of this would have happened.  Who lets a kid on suspension from school wander the streets at night?
> ...



It was my understanding that the shooting took place at night, so what was he doing between 6:30 and the time of the shooting?  Oh yeah, WANDERING THE STREETS.

Would you let your kid, who was suspended from school for the 3rd time that year, walk up to the nearest convenience store, by himself to get oh, ANYTHING?  If you answer is yes, you ought not to be a parent.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 21, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> I believe it.



And you're an idiot. 



> What do you have to refute any of it?
> How can anyone refute any of it?



Zimmerman's story refutes itself.  If Martin was covering Zimmerman's mouth and nose, he wouldn't have been able to be yelling at the top of his lungs, as he claims he is heard doing on the 911 tapes.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 21, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> > > If Trayvon's parents had actually parented him, none of this would have happened. Who lets a kid on suspension from school wander the streets at night?
> ...



This has nothing to do with black and white.  Guess what, my family MELTED.  We have all races, including blacks in my family.  I posted a link to a program my niece and nephew are starting in Oakland CA this summer and was told that anybody can search the web and find something like that to post.  Yeah, maybe, except that Isaak who is black is my nephew by marriage, and Rassamee who is Thai is my niece, his wife.  I'm very proud of them.  I have a picture on my computer now of Rassamee, her mother and my niece Juilia who is part black, I say part because although up until she was born her father claimed to have NO white blood, she was born with blond hair and blue eyes.  She still has the blond hair, though I'm not sure if she colors it now as I don't get to see her much as she lives in SF.  Her sister, Sabrina who is darker skinned married a white man, a soldier who is currently in Iraq.  I pray for them nightly.  

Zimmerman himself is multiracial and was mentoring a young black man and had partnered with a black man who defended him and said Zimmerman wasn't racist.  

Now what is racist about expecting parents to actually be parents and not to allow their child who has been suspended from school no less than 3 times in one year, to wander around alone in the dark?  What is racist about saying that when a father comes home at night and finds out his son, who was suspended from school isn't there, should be out combing the streets for his son instead of just "assuming" he's spending the night at a friend's house when it's not even his neighborhood?

Think about it, he wouldn't have had to wait for the cops to notify him if he'd gotten up off his butt and gone looking for his son.  How many feet away from his door was the tape?  I would have torn that neighborhood apart to find my child.  Heck where I live, I wouldn't have let my kid out by himself at night even if he wasn't suspended from school.

Some parents don't care and I think it's clear given that the first thing his mom did was patent various forms of his name that her concern is more for how much money she can make off the death of her son than the fact that he is dead in the first place.

The only people making this a racist thing are the blacks.  You know, the ones that put out a $10,000 reward for Zimmerman?  What do you think would happen if a white organization put out a $10,000 reward on a black man?  And Zimmerman isn't even white, he's Hispanic.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 21, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> And his mother, in her grief, took out patents on various forms of her son's name, it was the FIRST thing she did.  This is all so they can make money off of his death.
> 
> Pay attention, I don't lie and I'm not making this stuff up.



Well.  

One, patents apply to inventions, not name recognition - so ya that's made up.

Two, the proper term is "trademark" and you can't trademark a name - so ya that kind of made up.

Three, the AP report you are referencing cam out on MARCH 27th which was a month after the shooting and the story was going national, so it being a month later it wasn't the FIRST thing she did - so ya the was kind of made up.



>>>>


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 21, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> #1, I'm not rw.



A wing nut like herself, and she wants to complain that I'm supposedly left wing.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 21, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > And his mother, in her grief, took out patents on various forms of her son's name, it was the FIRST thing she did.  This is all so they can make money off of his death.
> ...



LOL, do you ever read what you write.  You're lying based on a technicality, you're lying based on a technicality, but it really happened, it just happened a month later.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 21, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...




Actually phone records show he was talking to and texting his girlfriend while walking home from the 7-11.



Againsheila said:


> Would you let your kid, who was suspended from school for the 3rd time that year, walk up to the nearest convenience store, by himself to get oh, ANYTHING?  If you answer is yes, you ought not to be a parent.




None of my kids were ever suspended for any reason except for one time my son was attacked in middle-school.  We took Tae Kwon Do together and he round house kicked the kid in the stomach and laid him out flat.  But because he was involved, even though he was defending himself, there was a minimum 3-day suspension.  Would I have let my son walk to the convenience store?  Yep.


Of course all of that is irrelevant to the night of the shooting as walking home from a convenience store is not justification for getting shot, even if you are on a suspension from school.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 21, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...





You mean the technicality that you can't trademark (or in your words patent) a name?


Or the technicality that YOU made a big deal that it was the FIRST thing she did, when it fact it was a month later after the story had gone national and the Mother was trying to protect her son's name.


Ya, those technicalities.



>>>>


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 21, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> It was my understanding that the shooting took place at night, so what was he doing between 6:30 and the time of the shooting?  Oh yeah, WANDERING THE STREETS.



Psst, pull down your skirt.  Your ignorance is showing again.  On Feb 26, 2012, 6:30 p.m. *was* night time in Sanford.  Sunset was about 10 minutes prior.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 21, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



you would have let your son walk to the convenience store alone, at night while on suspension?

I wouldn't even let my son walk there alone at night if he wasn't on suspension.

No walking home from a convenience store at night isn't justification for shooting but had Trayvon's parents been actually parenting, Trayvon would not have been there and wouldn't be dead.  It's as legitimate a statement as if Zimmerman didn't have a gun Trayvon wouldn't be dead.  Of course, Zimmerman probably would be, but that's beside the point.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 21, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > It was my understanding that the shooting took place at night, so what was he doing between 6:30 and the time of the shooting?  Oh yeah, WANDERING THE STREETS.
> ...



You stupid shit, if Trayvon left 7-Eleven at around 6:20 or 6:30, and was shot at 7:25, about 5 minutes walking distance away from 7-Eleven, that proves that Trayvon was wondering or casing the neighborhood.  If Trayvon were "walking home", he would have been home long before Zimmerman would have had the opportunity to spot him.

You f-ing stupid shit, there is absolutely nothing incomparable with using the phone and wondering/casing.  On the contrary, one is more likely to wonder while using a cell phone.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 21, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > If Trayvon's parents had actually parented him, none of this would have happened.  Who lets a kid on suspension from school wander the streets at night?
> ...



How do you know that is all he was doing?
No way my 18 year old would be allowed to be away freeloading on vacation being suspended from school a half dozen times.
The guy was a punk. His death was a tragedy but no one knows who was at fault yet.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 21, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> The guy was a punk.



That sums up the validity of your entire position.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 21, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...




What Martin was doing is irrelevant to the core item that needs to be determined.  Unless Martin was in the act of committing a felony under Florida law, then the primary determination that needs to be made is who initiated hostilities and thereby establishing themselves as the initial aggressor.

"Wandering" around a neighborhood where you were lawfully allowed, getting tea and skittles, or talking to your girlfriend on the phone are all distractions and irrelevant (IMHO) - none of that is illegal and Martin had just as much right to be in the community where his Dad was as anyone else.

If Martin was the initial aggressor - fine, Zimmerman would then have his self defense immunity intact and should be acquitted.  On the other hand if Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, then the likelihood is that his self defense immunity will be voided and he would be responsible for his actions which lead up to the shooting.

The prosecution will make it's case, the defense will counter - then it will be up to jury of his peers to make the call.  I'll be fine with that.



>>>>


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 21, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The guy was a punk.
> ...



He steals things.
In my community we call them punks.
You may accept that as okay but I don't.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 21, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I agree but how long does it take to go get Skittles?
40 minutes to go a half mile?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 21, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...




Why is it relevant?  How does how long it takes to travel 4,184 feet (the distance from the house he was staying at to the nearest 7-eleven) impact who initiated hostilities that night?


One thing that it does appear though is that is phone reception must have sucked near the 7-Eleven because his phone at 10 phone calls between 18:30 and 19:12.  It appears the 17 was more concerned with yak'ing with his girlfriend then walking in a hurry to someone else's approved time frame that they think he should have been home by.




>>>>


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 21, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Gives Zimmerman motive to watch him if Martin is casing the neighborhood.
That is a huge part of this. "He was stalking him" BS.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 21, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> He's still locked up in isolation right?
> 
> That's all I care about, that that animal is still locked up like the animal he is.


What with OJ you hope he is locked up with  ?


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 21, 2012)

*MSNBC NEW  VIDEO EVIDENCE SHOWS GZ ' S VERSION OF THE EVENTS ARE SOLID, INDISPUTABLE*

.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 21, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> He steals things.
> In my community we call them punks.
> You may accept that as okay but I don't.



Somehow, I'm betting that when white kids steal a girl's earrings you don't call them punks.  In any event, this whole thing reminds me of a girl I used to know named Jackie.  Jackie got raped one night, but it was her on fault.  Bitch shouldn't have been looking so good in that mini-skirt.  She was a ho anyway.  I know it, because she slept with me once when she got real drunk.  Where I come from, we call that a ho.


----------



## paperview (Jun 21, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> *MSNBC NEW  VIDEO EVIDENCE SHOWS GZ ' S VERSION OF THE EVENTS ARE SOLID, INDISPUTABLE*
> 
> .


Solid.  Indisputable. !  

He is solidly inconsistent, and that is 100% clear.


----------



## paperview (Jun 21, 2012)

I think this one is the most damning:

http://gzlegalcase.com/documents/statements/audio_interview_0229_3.mp3http://gzlegalcase.com/documents/statements/audio_interview_0229_3.mp3

Interview with Serino and female officer, where they play the 911 tape for GZ, and ask him to explain each portion.

LOT"S of problems with his story there.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 21, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> *MSNBC NEW  VIDEO EVIDENCE SHOWS GZ ' S VERSION OF THE EVENTS ARE SOLID, INDISPUTABLE*
> 
> .



Notice how the MSNBC video ends with the photoshopped picture of a young Travyon in a white hoodie, not the the older Travyon in a black hoodie who assaulted Travyon.


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > *MSNBC NEW  VIDEO EVIDENCE SHOWS GZ ' S VERSION OF THE EVENTS ARE SOLID, INDISPUTABLE*
> ...



Actually, I meant to say that 

*MSNBC NEW  VIDEO EVIDENCE SHOWS GZ ' S VERSION OF THE EVENTS IS SOLID, CONSISTENT and INDISPUTABLE*

.


----------



## paperview (Jun 21, 2012)

Well, there ya go.  Blow it up to 24 point font and belch out the lie.

It's a proven fact that on the internet - the bigger the font, the more truthiness it holds.

lol


----------



## paperview (Jun 21, 2012)

ANYONE - and I do mean anyone - who says Z's story is consistent, has NOT seen today's tapes.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 21, 2012)

paperview said:


> ANYONE - and I do mean anyone - who says Z's story is consistent, has NOT seen today's tapes.



Consistency in accounts is actually very rare in criminal cases. Do you expect him to get every detail correct in everything that happened that day?
The only thing that matters that has to be consistent is if he states he was attacked first. If he was attacked and hit first then he can use deadly force under the law.
Everything else, other than the forensic evidence, is moot.
Now if the forensic evidence is inconsistent with his version of who was attacked first then he has massive problems.
But let us say his entire case falls apart and maybe he will.
He still walks on the 2nd degree murder charge, all day, every day if the jury listens to the Judge's charges. There has to be intent to kill.
This case is a good case for manslaughter from the start, word go. Prince Sharpton and the PimpTones made it into a media circus. If they jury receives charges of lesser charges in the jury charges prior to deliberations they will go with voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. If Zimmerman does not make it out on the stand your ground hearing then since he pulled the gun out in my view that is the voluntary threshold. 
Sad fact is this case should be a plea on the voluntary or involuntary with a 10 year sentence to do 2-3 years and the rest on probation.
Civil case is SLAM DUNK on the insurance carrier for the apartment complex. 
POLICY LIMITS BABY,  a Plaintiff's lawyer's dream case!
And that is what this is all about with all of the Martin's lawyers and Prince Sharpton and The Pimptones. They smell the civil payout and are posturing for it.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 22, 2012)

Anyone that thinks something is suspicious about a boy talking to a girl on the phone while outside for an extended length of time is pretty stupid.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Anyone that thinks something is suspicious about a boy talking to a girl on the phone while outside for an extended length of time is pretty stupid.



Anyone that believes Zimmerman, or anyone, can tell who someone is talking to on the phone is pretty stupid.

That is the same kind of psychic logic that wrongly claims Zimmerman is a racist.

Seventeen year olds don't normally have gold teeth, multiple tatoos, multiple school suspensions, friends publicly asking for "plant" on their Facebook page, mark up public property with graffiti, school problems, burglary tools and stolen jewelry in their possession. Those are the facts we do know.

Trayvon Martin was half a foot taller than Zimmerman. If Zimmerman wanted a fight with Martin why would he call 911 before doing so? 

Zimmerman was a pain in the ass copper wannabe that had a temper at one time and was prone to call the cops all the time for BS things.

End of the day NO ONE knew what happened that day. Let the jury sort it out.
But Martin is no boy and no saint. Trouble maker big time.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 22, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone that thinks something is suspicious about a boy talking to a girl on the phone while outside for an extended length of time is pretty stupid.
> ...


I was talking about you, not Zimmerman.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 22, 2012)

btw, good to see that you've all dropped the claim that Zimmerman was an obese waddler. The videos of him sure prove otherwise. They also disprove the claim that he lost weight between his arrest and his incarceration.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 22, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> Actually, I meant to say that
> 
> *MSNBC NEW  VIDEO EVIDENCE SHOWS GZ ' S VERSION OF THE EVENTS IS SOLID, CONSISTENT and INDISPUTABLE*



In other words, you _meant_ to present a boldfaced lie.  Go away, you're done here.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> btw, good to see that you've all dropped the claim that Zimmerman was an obese waddler. The videos of him sure prove otherwise. They also disprove the claim that he lost weight between his arrest and his incarceration.



Never said that or anything you claim I said.

Why can't you ever tell us WHAT YOU BELIEVE?
Insecurities about your claims?


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 22, 2012)

paperview said:


> I think this one is the most damning:
> 
> http://gzlegalcase.com/documents/statements/audio_interview_0229_3.mp3http://gzlegalcase.com/documents/statements/audio_interview_0229_3.mp3
> 
> ...



Jesus, listening to this interview, how in the world can anyone believe anything he's saying?  He "doesn't remember" damn near everything.  The part where the officer asks GZ to describe how Martin was running makes me want to ram my head into a wall.  How can you not remember something like that?

He also admits that the reason he got out of the car was to follow Martin.  Oh wait, then he says that he wasn't following him.    You just said you were following him!!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 22, 2012)

What your team needs to worry about is the incompetence on your prosecutorial staff. 
Go and read the transcript from the bond hearing which 99% of the time are usually very quick and unremarkable.
Omara admits to the Judge that Dale Gilbreath, one of 2 assigned to the case, brought NO material to the hearing. Nothing, nada, zero.
Gilbreath was totally unprepared for the case as illustrated by his dodging and weaving. He could not even tell the court who put certain phrases and words in the affidavit! Doofus+.
Gilbreath testified he had no idea who put the word "profiled" in the affidavit despite the fact he testified HE WROTE THE AFFIDAVIT. 
Gilbreath admitted he never interviewed Zimmerman indicating he has NO new evidence.
Gilbreath could not justify in any way the use of the word "confrontation" in the affidavit to the Judge. 
Gilbreath did admit he had no idea who's voice was calling for help, admitted he has not spoken with the Martin family about whether anyone could ID Martin's voice or not. Boop 
Gilbreath admitted he had no idea who started the fight and had no evidence there to prove anything.
Gilbreath admitted he HAD NO EVIDENCE that conflicted with Zimmerman's account that day.
The one thing that does stand out BIG TIME is Gilbreath testified that Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with Zimmerman's account of the attack.

No wonder the defense had few if any objections to Zimmerman being tossed back into the slammer. They gained far more out of this hearing than they lost.

Isn't it great having someone that has a 34 year track record on this subject and can objectively locate and comment on THE FACTS?


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 22, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> What your team needs to worry about is the incompetence on your prosecutorial staff.



I don't have a "team" and it's not my job to secure a conviction, so I don't "need" to do anything.  I'm not here talking about the performance of either side of attorneys (though I _have_ said more than once that the prosecution hasn't been wise with the way they are approaching this).  I'm here talking about Zimmerman's guilt or innocence in killing Trayvon Martin.


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 22, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, I meant to say that
> ...



Actually , what I meant , is if you guys are planning to burn the City of Sanford down , well better get ready.

.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Anyone that thinks something is suspicious about a boy talking to a girl on the phone while outside for an extended length of time is pretty stupid.



How did Zimmerman know the boy was talking to a girl?  How was he supposed to know who the strange man in his neighborhood was?


----------



## paperview (Jun 22, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone that thinks something is suspicious about a boy talking to a girl on the phone while outside for an extended length of time is pretty stupid.
> ...


There are about 800 to 1000 people in that complex.  A good many of them renters due to the housing slump, many transient.

How the heck does George know all of them?  Heck, he couldn't even remember the one of three streets in the development!


----------



## paperview (Jun 22, 2012)

I see Gilligan is making up garbage again.  Ho hum.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 22, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone that thinks something is suspicious about a boy talking to a girl on the phone while outside for an extended length of time is pretty stupid.
> ...



He knew by looking who the strange man was.  He saw a hooded no-limit-nigga, at night, who had something in mind other than getting out of the cold rain.  And, just to settle the issue, Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, removing all doubt.

As for the other question, because of Trayvon's bluetooth, Zimmerman probably didn't know that Trayvon was on the phone so that he might conclude "Hmmm, that f-ing cold is talking on a phone to a girl.  That's suspicious."


----------



## Ravi (Jun 22, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone that thinks something is suspicious about a boy talking to a girl on the phone while outside for an extended length of time is pretty stupid.
> ...



Again, I was talking about Gilligan and the others in this thread that keep pretending being outside talking on the phone is suspicious behavior for a teen.

But you bring up an interesting point, Zimmerman SHOULD have known that the possibility existed that Martin was just acting like a typical teen.

The guy should never have been allowed on neighborhood watch and this is why cops have strict guidelines for people on neighborhood watch. Vigilantism is unwelcome. Thinking coherently is welcome.


----------



## paperview (Jun 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


A neighborhood watch guy on both uppers and downers prone to wild mood swings prolly isn't the best dude for the job either.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 22, 2012)

I can't believe I didn't catch this one earlier.  I guess I let it slip through the cracks since it's not directly material.  But does serve asa a clear slam dunk against Zimmerman's credibility.  Can you catch it?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aVwPqXc-bk]George Zimmerman Trayvon Martin 911 Call - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVyh-uwM0aI]George Zimmerman Takes Stand in Bond Hearing (Raw Video) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## paperview (Jun 22, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> I can't believe I didn't catch this one earlier.  I guess I let it slip through the cracks since it's not directly material.  But does serve asa a clear slam dunk against Zimmerman's credibility.  Can you catch it?
> 
> 
> George Zimmerman Trayvon Martin 911 Call - YouTube
> ...


Yow.  Thanks for that.
De La Rionda  drove it home immediately:  Did you express remorse?

GZ: I'm sure I did. In (the statements to detectives/LEO right after)

S: You're sure?

GZ: Yes.

LIAR.  He never expressed ANY remorse.  None.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 22, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> I can't believe I didn't catch this one earlier.  I guess I let it slip through the cracks since it's not directly material.  But does serve asa a clear slam dunk against Zimmerman's credibility.  Can you catch it?



I'm thinking to myself:

Inthemiddle is one of the dumber people around her.  That's saying something!  I'm not going to attempt to divine what a shithead thinks discredits Zimmerman in these videos.  I'll just wait for the f-ing moron to proclaim what it is, and then I'll rip in a new asshole... which will be good for him, because he's so full of shit that a new asshole could only help him.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 22, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > btw, good to see that you've all dropped the claim that Zimmerman was an obese waddler. The videos of him sure prove otherwise. They also disprove the claim that he lost weight between his arrest and his incarceration.
> ...



I said there was no way Zimmerman "ran down" Martin.  I still stand by that.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 22, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > I can't believe I didn't catch this one earlier.  I guess I let it slip through the cracks since it's not directly material.  But does serve asa a clear slam dunk against Zimmerman's credibility.  Can you catch it?
> ...





I never can tell if you're sincerely an idiot or a master Poe artist.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 22, 2012)

paperview said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > I can't believe I didn't catch this one earlier.  I guess I let it slip through the cracks since it's not directly material.  But does serve asa a clear slam dunk against Zimmerman's credibility.  Can you catch it?
> ...



Well, I guess that's not bad.  But there's one in there that's a little more matter-of-factly.  It's about Trayvon's perceived age.  In the bail hearing, Zimmerman claims that he didn't know how hold Trayvon was, that he thought Trayvon was "a little big younger than me."  But in the 911 tape he tells the operator that Trayvon is in his late teens.  Zimmerman was lying, he CLEARLY could see how old Trayvon was.


----------



## paperview (Jun 22, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...


Oh yeah, there's that.  It was noted by many right off.

That's why I didn't think it remarkable. He clearly said in the 911 tapes he thought it was a kid - then on the stand, thought he was just a little younger. than he was. LIAR. 

I've long since moved away from there - but the remorse part, that was something that I keyed in on as I watched that again.  Bernie - INSTANTANEOUSLY - went to the remorse part - and that's one thing absent from the tapes revealed recently.

 NO remorse.  NONE.  Serino shows him gruesome autopsy pics of the dead boy, and nothing.  NOTHING.  Most feeling humans would be reduced to tears.  Even cops display this when they kill someone.  Even with bad guys,  With Zim ---> NOTHING. 

This tells us a lot.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 22, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Well, I guess that's not bad.  But there's one in there that's a little more matter-of-factly.  It's about Trayvon's perceived age.  In the bail hearing, Zimmerman claims that he didn't know how hold Trayvon was, that he thought Trayvon was "a little big younger than me."  But in the 911 tape he tells the operator that Trayvon is in his late teens.  Zimmerman was lying, he CLEARLY could see how old Trayvon was.



Do you live in a cave?  When Zimmerman first made that comment, shitheads were running around crowing like roosters that Zimmerman lied.  How did you miss it?

"Little younger" vs. "late teens."  

All it takes for this not to be a lie is for 20-something Zimmerman not to think of himself as much older than an adult teenager.  Do you know what's in Zimmerman's head?

Unless Zimmerman lives in a cave next to your cave, he knows that the general public is aware of what he said to police that fateful night.   It makes no sense for him to lie on a point that wouldn't help him, but would only make him a liar.


----------



## paperview (Jun 22, 2012)

...said the racist who is despised by all here...


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 22, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Well, I guess that's not bad.  But there's one in there that's a little more matter-of-factly.  It's about Trayvon's perceived age.  In the bail hearing, Zimmerman claims that he didn't know how hold Trayvon was, that he thought Trayvon was "a little big younger than me."  But in the 911 tape he tells the operator that Trayvon is in his late teens.  Zimmerman was lying, he CLEARLY could see how old Trayvon was.
> ...



Almost anyone will tell you that if you tell the exact same story using the exact same words every time, it's memorized and most likely a lie.  The fact that he uses different wording is more of an example that he's telling the truth than that he is lying.


----------



## paperview (Jun 22, 2012)

Or when mounting a self -defense claim, you know exactly what checkmark boxes need to be fulfilled to comply with the law, said the Criminal justice student, son of a judge and Superior  Court clerk of decades to the lil mouse.


----------



## asterism (Jun 22, 2012)

paperview said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



It really doesn't tell us anything by itself.  Would you have remorse killing someone who tried to kill you?  It depends.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 22, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



This is getting rich now.
Their making their arguments based on what folks "should have known".
SPECULATION is not allowed in any court testimony.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 22, 2012)

Ravi reminds me of a paralegal I worked with a few years ago.
"You mean Paul McCartney played with another band before Wings?"
That is not Gilligan and Ravi has no clue who it is.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 22, 2012)

paperview said:


> Or when mounting a self -defense claim, you know exactly what checkmark boxes need to be fulfilled to comply with the law, said the Criminal justice student, son of a judge and Superior  Court clerk of decades to the lil mouse.



Who are you talking about?  The guy who did all he could to break the biggest rule about dealing with cops?  DON'T TALK TO THEM.  Zimmerman couldn't keep his mouth shut.  Zimmerman has a habit of acting like he doesn't even know what the rules are.


----------



## paperview (Jun 22, 2012)

All I know is, every time I scroll by your silly mug next to your ridiculous commentary, all I see is Gilligan.  In every sense.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 22, 2012)

asterism said:


> It really doesn't tell us anything by itself.  Would you have remorse killing someone who tried to kill you?  It depends.



Zimmerman's apology to the Martin troop just felt wrong to me.  I'm sure he did it in the desire for leniency, but still... I wouldn't have apologized or expressed remorse.  It strikes me as an expression of guilt.   I would't feel sorry I put down a thug who was attacking me.  I might be sorry I had to do it, but I wouldn't be sorry about doing it.  

Zimmerman has gotten nothing but shit for apologizing.  First, he got shit from the Prosecutor who grilled him about the apology and then he got shit from the racist shithead supporters of Trayvon who accused him of telling a couple of lies during the apology.  

You don't see any member of the Martin troop apologizing to Zimmerman for their son assaulting him.  F-ing colds.


----------



## Intense (Jun 22, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Ravi reminds me of a paralegal I worked with a few years ago.
> "You mean Paul McCartney played with another band before Wings?"
> That is not Gilligan and Ravi has no clue who it is.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BrAg0ouxXk&feature=related]The World According to Maynard G. Krebs - 07 I&#39;m Like Lost... Doomed - YouTube[/ame]
The World According to Maynard G. Krebs - 07 I'm Like Lost... Doomed


----------



## asterism (Jun 22, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Ravi reminds me of a paralegal I worked with a few years ago.
> "You mean Paul McCartney played with another band before Wings?"
> That is not Gilligan and Ravi has no clue who it is.



That's quite funny!  Excellent pwnage!


----------



## paperview (Jun 23, 2012)

"*This is a serious charge for which life may be imposed; the evidence against him is strong*;  he has been charged with one prior crime, for which he went through a  pre-trial diversion program, and has had an injunction lodged against  him" for domestic violence.

"Most importantly, though, is the fact that he has now demonstrated that  he does not properly respect the law or the integrity of the judicial  process," Lester wrote.

George Zimmerman bond revoked order: Judge's order explains why he sent Zimmerman back to jail - Orlando Sentinel


----------



## Ravi (Jun 23, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


I wasn't talking about court testimony. I was pointing out that Zimmerman should never have been allowed to be a part of neighborhood watch in the first place.

You make so many assumptions you must really suck at your job


----------



## paperview (Jun 23, 2012)

The screams.

Something came to mind:  The screaming stopped the instant the shot went into Trayvon's heart.

Now, that was something brought up before, and something some of the   witnesses noted, making that part clear to them - it was TM, and not GZ   screaming.

Zimmerman defenders have returned with: well, sure it stopped.  Z was no longer in fear...(or some such) --

*BUT!*  But..._noooooooooooow we know_, now, since GZ's statements have been made public: this isn't the case. 

GZ did *not* think he killed TM. He believed the "suspect"  still placed  him in danger - to the point he mounted TM's body and  spread his arms  apart, thinking he had a weapon or _something_ in  them (which too, is messed up: How does someone cover a mouth and nose,  flat palmed, as GZ described - with "something in them?")

Anyway - George DID NOT THINK HE KILLED TM. He tells us he was still in  fear. "ah ya got it" he heard (supposedly), and to him (supposedly) this  "****ing punk" was still a threat - and then after, GZ told flashlight  man: _don't call 911. Help me subdue this dude!_

That sure changes the twist on _*that*_ little story line.

I'm convinced more than ever that was the blood curdling screams of Trayvon, begging for his life.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 23, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



"Zimmerman SHOULD have known that the possibility existed that Martin was just acting like a typical teen" Ravi.

You were one of those kids that was never punished for making up lies by your parents.
That is why you twist, distort and side step every time you are proven to be the fool you are.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 23, 2012)

paperview said:


> The screams.
> 
> Something came to mind:  The screaming stopped the instant the shot went into Trayvon's heart.
> 
> ...



Why would he beg for his life when eye witness testimony has him on top of Zimmerman?
You are biased also. 
In many of the cases I have worked over the years the shooter empties his gun into the victim if he was really wanting to kill.
No brainer to anyone with over 100 cases in criminal work, Zimmerman did not want to shoot anyone. There was never any intent. If there was Martin NEVER would have reached ten feet from Zimmerman.
Try being objective for a change. It helps the brain work.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 23, 2012)

Ravi said:


> btw, good to see that you've all dropped the claim that Zimmerman was an obese waddler. The videos of him sure prove otherwise. They also disprove the claim that he lost weight between his arrest and his incarceration.


Glad everybody figured out that the boy pic of Martin when he was (what appeared to be an apple pie, humble, innocent young looking chap in his school jersy or football uniform), for whom the impression was to be given by the pic chosen, that how could anyone think such a clean cut young man, could somehow be profiled as a thug burgular in the situation, so it just had to be a "racist profiling" that had taken place against Martin by Zimmerman, so how on earth could it have been anything else in which was the impression that was attempted to be given by those that would turn the case into a racist profiling case, in order for it to have all the benefits of being a racist profile case (instant slam dunk), that to be found under the civil rights acts and etc. (i.e. when this thing was to be prosecuted as such)? The reason I have gone here, is first to even the score on your assertions or attacks in this way, but secondly to show how things can be purposely skewed by either side at any given time, and for what ever reasons they choose to do this, but the sad thing is, is that if this case would have been set up to be a racist profiling case (somehow twisted in that way), when it may not have been that at all, then it would empower others who may want to sight such cilvil rights laws also, yet in seperate cases not related to, in order to destroy the prosecution in those cases where also it is figured that such tatcics can be used with ease as well, and this by way of the confusion that was injected and/or could have been gotten by with in this case, thus setting the bar and precedent with ease for another to then use such a tactic as a way to get over in their specific case as well by way of.

People need to seek out always blind justice in these cases for all, where as it is the only way to hold this so called Union/Nation of ours together anymore, and this as we all go into the future together. The devil is the author of confusion though an evil wisdom that is used, and he is raging through men who have allowed him into their souls now in America, and so much more is this the case these days it seems more so than ever before, especially when looking at this stuff in which goes on in all of this now in America.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 23, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Well, I am pointing out that you never should have been allowed access to a keyboard to post youor assinine drivel on the internet.

How's that for an unwarranted assertion, dumbass?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 23, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > btw, good to see that you've all dropped the claim that Zimmerman was an obese waddler. The videos of him sure prove otherwise. They also disprove the claim that he lost weight between his arrest and his incarceration.
> ...



Ravi wont be able to read all that. You've got to put some pics and jokes in there every few sentences or she loses her strain of thought.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 23, 2012)

paperview said:


> The screams.
> 
> Something came to mind:  The screaming stopped the instant the shot went into Trayvon's heart.



Well, it isnt like Zimmerman would keep screaming AFTER he shot the punk off him.

You are such a fucking moron, shit, it defies the power of the English language to describe.

Hell, next to you Ravi is a genius.

Oh, and go ahead and neg me, you  fucktard. I dont give a shit.


----------



## Bigfoot (Jun 23, 2012)

Ariux said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Or when mounting a self -defense claim, you know exactly what checkmark boxes need to be fulfilled to comply with the law, said the Criminal justice student, son of a judge and Superior  Court clerk of decades to the lil mouse.
> ...



I don't know what or why he is doing what he is doing ~shrug~ surely he has his attorney with him?? I sure as hell wouldn't talk to anyone but my Attorney about it.


----------



## Bigfoot (Jun 23, 2012)

paperview said:


> The screams.
> 
> Something came to mind:  *The screaming stopped the instant the shot went into Trayvon's heart.
> *
> ...



Yeah, I gave Zimmerman an A+ for marksmanship, I bet you do as well eh..


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jun 23, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Sometimes Zimmerman strikes me as some wide eyed niave idealist who simply cant believe what has happened in the last 6 months and turned his world inside out.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 23, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Why would he beg for his life when eye witness testimony has him on top of Zimmerman?




Another eye witness places Zimmerman on top.  Now, in the interview she didn't call Zimmerman by name, because of course that night she didn't know the names.  In a video interview describing that night she described "a larger man on top"  (Police report had Zimmerman @ 200 lbs and Martin's autopsy weight was 158 lbs).  She was watching when the shot was fired and then this "larger man" got up and began walking around.  Since Martin was on the ground, the person that rose was then of course Zimmerman.


>>>>


----------



## LilOlLady (Jun 23, 2012)

Corrections. two little stratches not even requiring a bandage the day of the incident, suddenly required a bandaid. one bandaid the day after? NO blood head consistant with head being bashed into concrete to the point of passing out. Injuries consistent with him faling on the ground.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Why would he beg for his life when eye witness testimony has him on top of Zimmerman?
> ...


Back to forensics then, if Zimmerman was alledgedly on top, and a shot was fired into Trayvon from above, then how are we to determin this or prove it by way of forensics maybe ? Let us have your ideas or thoughts on this world...Could that be proven by forensics ? Thanks


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 23, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> Corrections. two little stratches not even requiring a bandage the day of the incident, suddenly required a bandaid. one bandaid the day after? NO blood head consistant with head being bashed into concrete to the point of passing out. Injuries consistent with him faling on the ground.


Not so much about how little the injuries were, but more so about where exactly those little injuries and/or scratches were, in which in a case like this will say or suggest a whole lot still ya know..


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 23, 2012)

paperview said:


> Oh yeah, there's that.  It was noted by many right off.



LOL, really?  I missed that all somehow.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 23, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...



Logical fallacy, denying the andecedent.

If P then Q
Not P, therefore not Q.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 23, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



1.  I'm not a forensic analysis, but the autopsy shows the path through the body, it doesn't show whether the shot came from above or below.  Martin was 5'11" (autopsy results) which means that his arms were approximately 22" to the wrists and 24" to the palms.  Marin would not have been holding his arms stiffly at full length, he would have bee flexing them.  Which means the actual distance would have been about 18" between the.  Zimmerman had his weapon in hip holster on his right side.  The most natural movement for Zimmerman would be to release the weapon, which flexes his elbow, extract the gun, rotate it against Martin and fire.  This would have provided a path of travel from the side of Martin and probably up through they chest cavity.  Side entry, rising path.  Yet that is not what the autopsy reports.  The actual path was a straight path front to back with the entry in the center of Martins chest (actually just left of center), straight through the heart.  With Martin leaning over Zimmerman, Zimmerman would have had to bring the weapon from the side to the area between the chests and then angle the weapons down (in reference to the plane of his body) since Zimmerman's body and Martins body were not in the same plane.  An awkward thing to do.

2.  Zimmerman's clothing was tested for Gun Shot Reside which looks for microscopic particles through visual examination and chemically for the presence of the components for gunpowder and lead which is present in the "smoke" when a weapon is fired (lead comes from small shavings from the barrel rifling and powder is present as burnt components and partially burned particles).  GSR is ejected from the gun through the shell discharge whole during recoil/reload and from the end of the barrel.  The forensics show the shot was fired from a very close distance based on the burn pattern on Martins sweatshirt.  Some of the particles would have ejected from the discharge port and some out the barrel "hitting" Martin and falling due to the force of gravity onto Zimmerman.  No GSR was found on the front of Zimmerman's jacket or on the cuffs of the sleeve.  

3.  DNA testing was done on all of Zimmerman's clothing.  None of the clothing tested positive for Martin's DNA.  If the shot to the chest had produced any blood spatter, then gravity would have caused that blood to fall on Zimmerman if Zimmerman was under Martin.  DNA testing of Zimmerman's jacket and shirt were negative for Martin's DNA (which would have be been in any blood).



The bullet path and the lack of GSR could be indicative of (a) Zimmerman on top, or (b) Zimmerman caused separation at the time the shot was fired and the weapons was discharged with his arm fully extended away from his body such that no GSR was deposited on his chest.



The above though is my analysis.  The prosecution is required as part of the discovery process to provide all facts they have gathered to the defense.  Which they have (or are in the process of doing).  They are not required to provide the defense with an analysis of how those "facts" are to be interpreted.  I think (<<-- Note Opinion) that these are items that the prosecution will bring up during their case.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 23, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I'm not a forensic analysis, but I have handled long rifles, shotguns and pistols (both revolver and automatics) in the past.

1.  The autopsy shows the path through the body, it doesn't show whether the shot came from above or below.  Martin was 5'11" (autopsy results) which means that his arms were approximately 22" to the wrists and 24" to the palms.  Marin would not have been holding his arms stiffly at full length, he would have bee flexing them.  Which means the actual distance would have been about 18" between the.  Zimmerman had his weapon in hip holster on his right side.  The most natural movement for Zimmerman would be to release the weapon, which flexes his elbow, extract the gun, rotate it against Martin and fire.  This would have provided a path of travel from the side of Martin and probably up through they chest cavity.  Side entry, rising path.  Yet that is not what the autopsy reports.  The actual path was a straight path front to back with the entry in the center of Martins chest (actually just left of center), straight through the heart.  With Martin leaning over Zimmerman, Zimmerman would have had to bring the weapon from the side to the area between the chests and then angle the weapons down (in reference to the plane of his body) since Zimmerman's body and Martins body were not in the same plane.  An awkward thing to do.

2.  Zimmerman's clothing was tested for Gun Shot Reside which looks for microscopic particles through visual examination and chemically for the presence of the components for gunpowder and lead which is present in the "smoke" when a weapon is fired (lead comes from small shavings from the barrel rifling and powder is present as burnt components and partially burned particles).  GSR is ejected from the gun through the shell discharge whole during recoil/reload and from the end of the barrel.  The forensics show the shot was fired from a very close distance based on the burn pattern on Martins sweatshirt.  Some of the particles would have ejected from the discharge port and some out the barrel "hitting" Martin and falling due to the force of gravity onto Zimmerman.  No GSR was found on the front of Zimmerman's jacket or on the cuffs of the sleeve.  

3.  DNA testing was done on all of Zimmerman's clothing.  None of the clothing tested positive for Martin's DNA.  If the shot to the chest had produced any blood spatter, then gravity would have caused that blood to fall on Zimmerman if Zimmerman was under Martin.  DNA testing of Zimmerman's jacket and shirt were negative for Martin's DNA (which would have be been in any blood).



The bullet path and the lack of GSR could be indicative of (a) Zimmerman on top, or (b) Zimmerman caused separation at the time the shot was fired and the weapons was discharged with his arm fully extended away from his body such that no GSR was deposited on his chest.



The above though is my analysis.  The prosecution is required as part of the discovery process to provide all facts they have gathered to the defense.  Which they have (or are in the process of doing).  They are not required to provide the defense with an analysis of how those "facts" are to be interpreted.  I think (<<-- Note Opinion) that these are items that the prosecution will bring up during their case.



>>>>


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 24, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Yes, this will be very important information to be looked at in this case, because it could get right to the heart of it all finally, and this for all who are interested. Thanks for giving us all some more to chew on here World, as we follow along a bit more in this case as it finally plays out soon enough.

Yes, Zimmerman would have had to have caused seperation before the shot was made it seems, and this by the evidence that is already known about or is showing, and we have discussed that before also here, so good job world, as there may be some more splaining to do in the case based on testimony and the forensics involved..


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 24, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Why would he beg for his life when eye witness testimony has him on top of Zimmerman?
> ...



Forensics will determine without any doubt who was on top and who was on the bottom when the shot was fired so if this witness has it the other way around all of their testimony will be discredited.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 24, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Almost anyone will tell you that if you tell the exact same story using the exact same words every time, it's memorized and most likely a lie.  The fact that he uses different wording is more of an example that he's telling the truth than that he is lying.
> ...



Is yo family too po to buy ya some desperately needed IQ points?  No one is denying any antecedents.  So, mind your own Ps and Qs.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 24, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...





P and Q.

If a person (tells the exact same story using the exact same words every time) then (it's probably a lie).

Zimmerman is NOT (telling the exact same story using the exact same words every time).

Therefore, Zimmerman is NOT (lying)


----------



## Ariux (Jun 24, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...



You have a problem with reading comprehension.

Againsheila makes two assertions:
1) Repeating the same words suggests lying.
2) Using different words suggests telling the truth.   ("Fact: using different words is an example of telling the truth, beeatch!")

Againsheila then reaches this logical conclusion:
Zimmerman used different words which suggests he's telling the truth.

Neither 1 or 2 is an antecedent of the other.  Assertion 1 is superfluous to the conclusion.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 24, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Why would he beg for his life when eye witness testimony has him on top of Zimmerman?
> ...



On top when? As he was getting up and Martin was on the ground?
Doesn't matter what any eye witness allegedly saw about the position of a struggle where each of them may have been on top 4 times during the struggle.
The forensics will show where Martin was when he was shot. 
So let us say there was a struggle and Martin was on top of Zimmerman at the start and then after a while Zimmerman freed himself and then he was on top. Does he just let Martin still attack him?
Who was on top will have little, if anything, to do with self defense and the stand your ground statute for Zimmerman if there is evidence that Martin attacked him first.
Police report has Martin 6 inches taller than Zimmerman and Martin so none of that means a damn thing.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 24, 2012)

PLus it makes no sense whasoever for someone with a gun to attack someone while the gun is in his pants.
To allege that scenario is beyond absurd. 
If it doesn't make sense it most likely is not true.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 24, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...




Where the position of Martin and Zimmerman would be important would be as it pertains to Florida Law 776.041 which removes the self-defense immunity from a person if they were the initial aggressor in a confrontation.  **IF** the forensics were to show that Zimmerman had created separation from Martin and did not attempt to disengage, but instead drew his weapon and fired - then Zimmerman could still be held responsible for an illegal killing.  (Although IMHO, Murder 2 is an overcharge.)


Zimmerman's booking height was 5'8", Martins autopsy was 71" (5'11").


Serious question, how would the forensics show who was on top when the shot was fired?  Lack of GSR on Zimmerman?  Lack of blood/DNA on Zimmerman?  The bullet remained in the chest cavity, if it was a pass through and had lodged in the ground that would have shown Martin on the bottom or if it had passed through and lodged in a building or couldn't be found that would indicate an upward shot with Martin on top.  Again, serious question.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 24, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> PLus it makes no sense whasoever for someone with a gun to attack someone while the gun is in his pants.
> To allege that scenario is beyond absurd.
> If it doesn't make sense it most likely is not true.




Actually the scenario would be that Zimmerman as a wannabe cop --- frustrated with the burglaries in the area and having a past episode where he called the police on a suspicious person and the police didn't arrive until after person had departed --- was in a mindset where he was not going to allow that to happen again.  As a result he threatened and attempted to unlawfully detain Martin.  Now you have an unknown individual in a vehicle that follows you, exits the vehicle and pursues you on foot, then confronts you and grabs you means that Martin would have felt threatened and would have been justified in using force to try to get away from this unknown individual.

Given Zimmerman's actions that night, it is a possible scenario and it would make sense.  However making sense and the police being able to prove it are two different things  --- the evidence available to the public does not provide conclusive proof.



>>>>


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 24, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...



Perhaps you have a logic comprehension problem.  At best, you're saying that she made one unsubstantiated claim, and one irrelevant claim.  But clearly, she was attempting to make a hypothetical syllogism.


----------



## Emma (Jun 24, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Police report has Martin 6 inches taller than Zimmerman and Martin so none of that means a damn thing.


Autopsy says Martin is 5'11" and 158 lb. Zimmerman tells detective that he is 5'8" and 194 lbs.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 24, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> PLus it makes no sense whasoever for someone with a gun to attack someone while the gun is in his pants.



But you ignore the very sensical possibility that an overzealous Zimmerman could have tried to physically detain Martin, waiting for the police.  This would be enough to justify a defensive reaction by Martin.



> If it doesn't make sense it most likely is not true.



The scenario of Martin attacking Zimmerman doesn't make sense at all.  But you embrace it willingly.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 24, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Police report has Martin 6 inches taller than Zimmerman and Martin so none of that means a damn thing.



Like a fat Hispanic would assault a strange, hooded Afro who is six inches taller.   That boggles the mind... but racist Trayvon supporters have shit for brains, so they don't have minds, no mind to be boggled.  Before the shooting, Zimmerman would have bet money that the Afro was high on drugs and had a knife, let alone Trayvon being six inches taller and having the Afro physic which is nature-made for fighting.

The Afro skull is so thick that you can't beat any sense into the tiny skull inside of it.  That's why Afros dominate boxing.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 24, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...



In a casual internet forum such as this one, one of the most desperate responses is try to make an issue that a claim is unsubstantiated.  You might as well just call yourself a loser.  

But, she did substantiate it with an appeal to common knowledge, granted that's something shitheads often lack.  The proper disagreement is either explain that the fact is irrelevant or to say something along the lines of "Is not!"  Either of you may then escalate the debate by trying to put more substance behind your assertions.  Maybe you really aren't so lacking in common knowledge, and that's why you chose a tact other other than "Is not!"  But, that also failed you.

One assertion she made was irrelevant to her conclusion.  But, the assertion was part of a relevant reply, in disagreeing with your shit-brained belief that Zimmerman stating the same thing in two different ways indicated a lie.... a point I've already easily refuted you on.

Here's some advice:  you want people to think you're smart.  You're not going to accomplish that by trying to defend absurdities.  In this case, your absurdity is that Zimmerman didn't shoot in self-defense.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 24, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Interesting that as this goes on, Martin is getting shorter and Zimmerman is getting thinner.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 24, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...



Don't worry about it, I ignored "notinthemiddle" awhile ago, he/she can say "is not" all he/she wants, I'm not listening.  I tend to ignore people when the debate degenerates to the point that I can't learn anything and only get annoyed at their posts.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 24, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...




The physical characteristics for Martin are 71 inches (5'11") @ 158 lbs per the autopsy report.

Police report from the night of the event has Zimmerman @200 lbs.  Six weeks later at his booking information from the police was 5'8" @185lbs (and his lawyer said he'd lost weight due to the stress).



You disagree with the coroner and the police?



>>>>


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 24, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Who am I to disagree, I'm just making a point that the story keeps changing.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 25, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Initial aggressor is PHYSICAL CONTACT.
Following someone is not initial aggressor. Yelling at someone is also not.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 25, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > PLus it makes no sense whasoever for someone with a gun to attack someone while the gun is in his pants.
> ...



"mindset" is rank speculation, never admissable.
Everythin you post that follows that is also rank speculation. 
Confronts is not aggressive under the law.
If Martin was getting away he would have outrun Zimmerman all day, every day.
That is what he should have done but didn't. He confronted Zimmerman and the tragedy followed.
But it is not murder. Manslaughter case from the get go.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 25, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...




No, PHYSICAL CONTACT is not required under Florida Law...

784.011&#8195;Assault.
(1)&#8195;An assault is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.​

Conveying a threat with an act that indicates violence is imminent (as in about to occur, not has occurred).

I've never said or indicated that following someone qualifies them as an initial aggressor.  Following, confronting, threatening, and/or grabbing though would.  That is the standard that the prosecution will need to meet.  And honestly, that kind of evidence has not been made available even if it exists.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 25, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...




1.  Based on the lack of evidence for that critical time of initial confrontation, that "rank speculation" is as valid as those who claim without a doubt that Martin attacked Zimmerman --- it's just the other side of the same speculation coin at this point.

2.  Martin was in a place he was legally allowed to be as a guest of a resident of the community, Martin was under no obligation to run.

3.  Your statement that "he confronted Zimmerman" is also rank speculation, just the other side of the coin.  Audio recordings that have been made available to the public indicate Zimmerman confronted Martin.  Now whether that specific portion of the statement will be allowed in court is yet to be determined.

4.  I've consistently agreed that Murder 2 appears to be an over charge because the state will have to prove "depraved disregard for human life" which is a standard I don't think they can meet.



>>>>


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 25, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> 2.  Martin was in a place he was legally allowed to be as a guest of a resident of the community, Martin was under no obligation to run.



Yo Vern, what the fuck do you mean by  he was legally allowed to be IN A GATED COMMUNITY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 25, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > 2.  Martin was in a place he was legally allowed to be as a guest of a resident of the community, Martin was under no obligation to run.
> ...




He was invited the home of a resident.  Residents can invite guest into the community.  He was not in the community illegally, therefore he was in a place he was legally allowed to be.


BTW - names not "Vern", feel free to call me "Chief" if you need a shorter name for typing purposes.  


>>>>


----------



## Ariux (Jun 25, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> He was invited the home of a resident.  Residents can invite guest into the community.  He was not in the community illegally, therefore he was in a place he was legally allowed to be.



Shithead, Zimmerman was there legally and every action of Zimmerman's was legal.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 25, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Zimmerman was there legally



Of course he was.




Ariux said:


> and every action of Zimmerman's was legal.




That's what the courts and a jury of his peers will determine.


>>>>


----------



## Ravi (Jun 25, 2012)

I just can't wrap my mind around killing a kid that wasn't doing anything wrong being legal.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 25, 2012)

Ravi said:


> I just can't wrap my mind around killing a kid that wasn't doing anything wrong being legal.



Shithead, you keep for getting the part about the Afro assaulting Zimmerman.


----------



## manifold (Jun 25, 2012)

Ravi said:


> I just can't wrap my mind around killing a kid that wasn't doing anything wrong being legal.



I can't wrap my mind around bashing a man's head off the pavement not doing anything wrong.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 25, 2012)

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > I just can't wrap my mind around killing a kid that wasn't doing anything wrong being legal.
> ...



If someone was following ME with evil intent I'd bash his fucking head. Not that we know that actually happened.


----------



## Too Tall (Jun 25, 2012)

Ravi said:


> I just can't wrap my mind around killing a kid that wasn't doing anything wrong being legal.



If someone has you on the ground and is banging your head on the sidewalk and is hitting you in the face isn't doing anything wrong, I would agree with you.

Wrap your mind around that if you are able too.


----------



## manifold (Jun 25, 2012)

Ravi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



So it's ok to bash someone's head off the pavement for patrolling his neighborhood, but it's not ok to shoot a guy bashing your head off the pavement.

And you don't think you're biased!


----------



## Contumacious (Jun 25, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



And was the invitation stapled to his forehead?

.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 25, 2012)

George Zimmerman Reenacts Struggle, Shooting | Video - ABC News
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc-XxAg56Zc]Zimmerman re-enacts struggle with Trayvon Martin - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## paperview (Jun 26, 2012)

Better:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k07wZIU1siM&feature=youtube_gdata_player]Zimmerman Re-enactment Video w. Notes pt. 1 (inc. comparisons to police call) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 26, 2012)

paperview said:


> Better:
> 
> Zimmerman Re-enactment Video w. Notes pt. 1 (inc. comparisons to police call) - YouTube



It said it would take Trayvon 1:40 to walk to were Zimmerman stop? How can they assume that? Maybe Trayvon ran. The video is nothing but an assumption of people who weren't there and looking for a conviction. Hell north Carolina has had some good lynching's but this one has surpassed any of those.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 26, 2012)

manifold said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



 I've not claimed to unbiased. And there you go again, twisting my words to suit your own agenda.

So sad.


----------



## idb (Jun 26, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Better:
> ...



Mind you, your link mentions "bloody police photos of Zimmerman" that shows that Zimmerman and Martin "clearly fought".
There are entrenched positions on both sides I think bigrednec.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 26, 2012)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Well in the two videos at the the first one you can see Zimmerman had been beat up.


----------



## idb (Jun 26, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I can see he's got a bloody head.
That's all.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 26, 2012)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



I don't know it look fake to me


----------



## idb (Jun 26, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Hmmmm.
Well, all I'm saying that it isn't conclusive evidence that he fought with Martin, but that was the statement made by the reporter.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 26, 2012)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



Yep this is a police cover up fast and the furious is not an obama cover up


----------



## manifold (Jun 26, 2012)

Ravi said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Nice try.



Now tell us again how Martin was "doing nothing wrong" and that Zimmerman the racist simply shot him because he's black.


----------



## idb (Jun 26, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



I wouldn't be so quick to leap to the conclusion that it's a police cover-up bigrednec!


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 26, 2012)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...


It's a cover up and obama isn't


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 26, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...




You want people to walk around with signs stapled to their foreheads?


Listen, Zimmerman called the police and the dispatcher informed them they were on the way.  If the evidence shows that Zimmerman observed and it was Martin that initiated hostilities - then he should be found not guilty.  On the other hand if the evidence shows that Zimmerman pursued Martin and it was he that initiated hostilities - then he should be help responsible for his actions.  That's why we have a court system and Zimmerman will ultimately be judged by a jury of his peers.



>>>>


----------



## idb (Jun 26, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Which Obama conspiracy are you referring to?
He's got so many happening I get confused.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 26, 2012)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



What ever. I've heard it too many times the police are covering up what happen between Zimmerman and Martin and the same people argue that there is no obama cover up with fast and the furious.


----------



## idb (Jun 26, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



Wow.
I struggle to see the connection myself but...as you say - whatever.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 26, 2012)

idb said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > idb said:
> ...



There's a lot you struggle with isn't there?
Question 
Police cover up yes or no
Obama cover up fast and the furious yes or no?


----------



## Ravi (Jun 26, 2012)

bugger, please take your stupidity to a different thread.


----------



## idb (Jun 26, 2012)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



The first is being investigated by people that aren't relying on Google to come to a conclusion.

The second, I don't know what the cover-up is that you refer to.
Is it the assault on your constitutional rights by government agents tracking weapons sold legally - I mean, where will that end?
They'll be looking in your window next.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 26, 2012)

Ravi said:


> bugger, please take your stupidity to a different thread.



Stupid was here when I left this thread it will be here until you leave it.

Weren't you one of those who said the police were covering up what happen?


----------



## taichiliberal (Jun 27, 2012)

So little Georgie's wife perjured herself, Georgie's credibility is shaky at best regarding his personal finances towards bail, and then there's this:

_In the report released Tuesday, police say Zimmerman contradicted himself by saying that he was initially fearful of Martin but later got out of his vehicle and followed after the teen.

"His actions are inconsistent with those of a person who has stated he was in fear of another subject," Serino wrote.



Neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman missed two opportunities to try to peacefully approach Trayvon Martin before he fatally shot the unarmed teenager, according to an investigator's report released Tuesday.

"The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern," investigator Chris Serino wrote in an arrest warrant affidavit._

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...avoiding-confrontation-trayvon-192523670.html


Now let's watch the Zimmerman's zombies whirl like dervishes while their heads explode!


----------



## paperview (Jun 27, 2012)

Why things just don't add up, George. 

*Zimmerman Re-enactment Video w. Notes pt. 1 (inc. comparisons to police call)*



A video worth looking at:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k07wZIU1siM&]Zimmerman Re-enactment Video w. Notes pt. 1 (inc. comparisons to police call) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 27, 2012)

None of this matters if he wins The Stand Your Ground hearing.
I do not see him winning that but the murder charge is almost impossible burden for the prosecution in this case.
Motive and intent to kill just are not there no matter how hard you guy spin it.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 27, 2012)

paperview said:


> Why things just don't add up, George.



Yeah, your IQ just doesn't add up to double-digits, shithead.  Zimmerman's next-day walk-through is about what I would expect, if Zimmerman's account is true.  Far more honest than shitheads like your let on, but as imperfect as is human nature.


----------



## paperview (Jun 27, 2012)

There won't *be* a Stand Your Ground hearing.

Mark it.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 27, 2012)

paperview said:


> There won't *be* a Stand Your Ground hearing.
> 
> Mark it.



Good point there. Zimmerman takes huge risk filing that motion and what could come out in that hearing if he loses.
This is my take on the problems and risks he takes on that defense and the hearing:
There is NO jury at this hearing and there is no charge to anyone of the fact that a defendant is presumed innocent and never has to testify to anything to be found not guilty. I have never seen a case won on Stand Your Ground where the defendant did not testify.
And this is a gold mine for the opposing party, the prosecution, as they can go on a fishing expedition of the grandest scale if Zimmerman testifies at that hearing as he most likely would have to if he stood any chance of winning it. (See my posts on the risks the prosecution takes if they put up Martin's girl friend on the stand. Same thing but worse for Zimmerman as he is the one facing the trial and this is just a hearing)
Of course the SYG ruling can be appealed to the Florida Court of Appeals and The Supreme Court and that law is so strong case law may side with Zimmerman at that level.
There is no statutory deadline to file for SYG. If I was defense counsel I would interview everyone possible before making that decision.
He may not need that if the evidence is in his favor.


----------



## Againsheila (Jun 27, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> So little Georgie's wife perjured herself, Georgie's credibility is shaky at best regarding his personal finances towards bail, and then there's this:
> 
> [I*]In the report released Tuesday, police say Zimmerman contradicted himself by saying that he was initially fearful of Martin but later got out of his vehicle and followed after the teen.*
> 
> ...



Courage is being scared to death - but saddling up anyway. - John Wayne

Some people wouldn't recognize courage if it hit them in the face with a 2 x 4.


----------



## Bigfoot (Jun 27, 2012)

> George Zimmerman&#8217;s trial is still a work in progress. However, evidence is continuing to mount that the arrest and charge of Mr. Zimmerman may have been the wrong call, after all. In the most recent piece of evidence, the Smoking Gun reports that Zimmerman passed a lie detector test about his behavior the night of the shooting:
> 
> According to a &#8220;confidential report&#8221; prepared by the Sanford Police Department, Zimmerman willingly submitted to a computer voice stress analyzer (CVSA) &#8220;truth verification&#8221; on February 27. Investigators concluded that he &#8220;has told substantially the complete truth in regards to this examination.&#8221;
> 
> ...











Well, what do ya know...It looks like Trayvon should have kept his hands to himself instead of trying to play bad ass.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 27, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> > George Zimmermans trial is still a work in progress. However, evidence is continuing to mount that the arrest and charge of Mr. Zimmerman may have been the wrong call, after all. In the most recent piece of evidence, the Smoking Gun reports that Zimmerman passed a lie detector test about his behavior the night of the shooting:
> >
> > According to a confidential report prepared by the Sanford Police Department, Zimmerman willingly submitted to a computer voice stress analyzer (CVSA) truth verification on February 27. Investigators concluded that he has told substantially the complete truth in regards to this examination.
> >
> ...



Those machines are unreliable and inadmissable in court.
If they had any validity whatsoever to them our wives would hook us up to them weekly.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 27, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Motive and intent to kill just are not there no matter how hard you guy spin it.



Which would be relevant if Zimmerman were charged with 1st degree murder.  But on 2nd degree murder, intent to kill is not necessary.  Under Florida statute 2nd degree murder is defined as such:  

The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although *without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual*, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 27, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Yeah, your IQ just doesn't add up to double-digits, shithead.



Well, if paperview scored a maximum possible score of 160 on the Weschler, you'd be absolutely right.  Even if she only scored the average 100, you'd still be right.  Even if she scored slightly below the "average" range with a 70, you'd still be right, and she'd still be smarter than you.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 27, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> If they had any validity whatsoever to them our wives would hook us up to them weekly.



Since when have our wives/girlfriends been interested in the truth?  It's best just to go along with whatever they say insist, apologize, and move on.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 27, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Motive and intent to kill just are not there no matter how hard you guy spin it.
> ...



Second degree murder under the Florida statute always refers to the "criminal act", same as Georgia and most states.
The criminal act reference in the Florida statute must be a single event or a series of related action arising from and performed pursuant to a single design or purpose of committing the murder, IOW intent under all Florida case law for 2nd degree murder, or creating the dangerous condition that led to death.
Premedidated design is different than intent. One can have intent and never premeditate it. 
The jury question is whether the defendant's actions could have been reasonably foreseen as endangering a human life to the point of warranting a prosecution.
2nd degree murder cases in Florida, and Georgia, always come down to whether or not the killing was warranted or not. 
All case law in Florida on 2nd degree murder is on whether the defendant's actions in killing amount to the REQUISITE INTENT or recklessness.
No other standard exists on 2nd degree murder. 
But at least you are reading the law and making good points middle!


----------



## Bigfoot (Jun 27, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > > George Zimmermans trial is still a work in progress. However, evidence is continuing to mount that the arrest and charge of Mr. Zimmerman may have been the wrong call, after all. In the most recent piece of evidence, the Smoking Gun reports that Zimmerman passed a lie detector test about his behavior the night of the shooting:
> ...



The police do not dismiss them as easily as you do.  The results do carry some weight.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 27, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> So little Georgie's wife perjured herself, Georgie's credibility is shaky at best regarding his personal finances towards bail, and then there's this:
> 
> _In the report released Tuesday, police say Zimmerman contradicted himself by saying that he was initially fearful of Martin but later got out of his vehicle and followed after the teen.
> 
> ...


Do you think that when cops get out of their vehicle, and they go on foot pursuit of a suspect (even with a weapon, body armor and such on their person), that they are NOT FEARFUL of the unknown that may lerk in the darkness up ahead (or) even around every corner found within the job of pursuit and/or surveilence, in which they may be enguaged in on a daily basis in the nation? There are many things that are found in some officers districts and/or upon their beats, in which places them in all sorts of senarios in life, and especially so while doing that kind of work in which their job calls for sometimes. 

IF Zimmerman wanted to keep an eye on Martin, just so he wouldn't look a fool for calling the police on what would then apear as a false call with no suspect to be found when they arrived, it could be understandable that he would have worried about the suspect getting away before the police arrived, and so he did something next, that put fear into the 911 dispatcher, causing that dispatcher to ask Zimmerman ("are you pursuing him"-yes- Ok, we don't need you to do that sir"), in which was directed at Zimmerman when trying to keep Martin in his sights. Yes we all know now that that was defintely the wrong thing to do in hinesight, as Zimmerman knows just as well it was the wrong thing to do also now, it's just to bad we all can't go back and make it all right somehow, just so Martin would be still alive as he should be in his life now, and George Zimmerman to get more training in the security business, before making huge mistakes (not illegal though) as this mistake was partly made by him (the getting out of his car/truck), in order to keep Martin in his sights, especially if he wanted to take the security business as a serious buisness to be in, where as further training would have helped in such a situation I would think maybe. Martin is alledged to have made some serious mistakes as well in the situation (alledgedly attacking Zimmerman out of nowhere), and this I guess for Zimmermans alledged suspect surveilence of him, and this while he was walking in or through the area (which also was not illegal to be doing).


----------



## Ariux (Jun 27, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Do you think that when cops get out of their vehicle, and they go on foot pursuit of a suspect (even with a weapon, body armor and such on their person), that they are NOT FEARFUL of the unknown that may lerk in the darkness up ahead (or) even around every corner found within the job of pursuit and/or surveilence, in which they may be enguaged in on a daily basis in the nation?



Libtards are complete cowards.  They have no concept of courage, no concept of being fearful but continuing anyway.  



> IF Zimmerman wanted to keep an eye on Martin, just so he wouldn't look a fool for calling the police on what would then apear as a false call with no suspect to be found when they arrived,



You've got some shit in your skull that you need to work on cleaning out.  Zimmerman wasn't worried about looking like a fool.  He was doing what he thought the police operator wanted him to do, follow the suspect to tell the operator where the suspect was going.   Otherwise, Zimmerman didn't want the criminal to get away, just for the sake of not wanting the criminal to get away.



> Martin would be still alive and growing into an adult as he should be in his life now,



Shithead, stop making excuses for the criminal element.  If that that Afro no-limit-nigga hadn't attacked Zimmerman, that Afro would still be alive.  It's not Zimmerman's fault.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 27, 2012)

paperview said:


> Why things just don't add up, George.
> 
> *Zimmerman Re-enactment Video w. Notes pt. 1 (inc. comparisons to police call)*
> 
> ...



In my opinion, the most egregious part is toward the end of your clip.  Zimmerman says he was walking back to his truck, says he was looking around to see if he could find Martin, (he even points down the direction from which Martin allegedly came at him, and says he looked down that direction).  AND THEN!  Two steps later he says that this is where I heard him *YELL* at me.  He points to where he says Martin was standing, which happens to be out in the wide open.  (We'll call this "spot M.")

According to Zimmerman's story, he walked back to his truck actively looking for Martin, passed within five feet of spot M, and looked directly at that spot, yet Martin was not there to be seen.  Approximately 1-3 seconds later Martin is magically at spot M to attack Zimmerman for no good reason.  That, of course, is all after Martin spent such effort trying to evade Zimmerman.

I don't see how Zimmerman can possibly meet his burden of clear and convincing evidence for his affirmative defense.  His credibility is zero, nobody is going to be convinced of anything.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 27, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Why things just don't add up, George.
> ...


Will be interesting to see it all unfold finally in a court of law...


----------



## hortysir (Jun 27, 2012)




----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 27, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Libtards are complete cowards.  They have no concept of courage, no concept of being fearful but continuing anyway.



Oh, shut up!  There's nothing courageous about chasing down and killing a tea and skittles packing teenager.  If you're "courageous" enough to go after him, you should be courageous enough to not have to resort to shooting him, _even if_ you were getting beat to within an inch of your life.  

And just so you know, claims of courage have nothing to do with this case.  Self defense as a defense against prosecution does not tolerate a person creating their own peril against which they subsequently need to defend themselves.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 27, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



The only use they have is "See, the machine said you are telling lies".
And a few dumbasses confess as a result of that.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 28, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Oh, shut up!  There's nothing courageous about chasing down and killing a tea and skittles packing teenager.  If you're "courageous" enough to go after him, you should be courageous enough to not have to resort to shooting him, _even if_ you were getting beat to within an inch of your life.



You're a low-IQ shithead.  Someone brave will something that he's afraid to do.  But, being brave does't mean freely letting yourself being severely beaten or killed.



> And just so you know, claims of courage have nothing to do with this case.  Self defense as a defense against prosecution does not tolerate a person creating their own peril against which they subsequently need to defend themselves.



Shithead, being brave and facing a thug doesn't give that thug the right to beat you.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 28, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, shut up!  There's nothing courageous about chasing down and killing a tea and skittles packing teenager.  If you're "courageous" enough to go after him, you should be courageous enough to not have to resort to shooting him, _even if_ you were getting beat to within an inch of your life.
> ...



Zimmerman is not brave, and he's not a hero.  He's a COWARD.  What kind of grown man lets himself get beat by a teenage the way Zimmerman claims to have been beat?  What kind of man let's his wife perjure herself so that he can get a cheaper bond?  A goddamned coward, that's what kind of man.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 28, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...



Whether Zimmerman is a grown man or not means nothing.
But you make a good and valid point.
Martin beat Zimmerman up.
Zimmerman defends himself.
Self defense.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 28, 2012)

Whether Zimmerman is guilty or not, justified or not can we all agree on one thing?

He comes across as a DUMB ASS when he speaks and from the actions he has taken after the incident.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 28, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Whether Zimmerman is a grown man or not means nothing.



It means nothing to the case, you're right.  But I was following Ariux down his tangent road.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jun 28, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...



Actually it kind of does, if Zimmerman was a minor and not an adult this would be in the Juvenile courts no?


----------



## Ariux (Jun 28, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Whether Zimmerman is guilty or not, justified or not can we all agree on one thing?
> 
> He comes across as a DUMB ASS when he speaks and from the actions he has taken after the incident.



Zimmerman isn't half the dumb ass of that stupid Afro who got himself shot because he thought it was cool to be a thug and assault someone over practically nothing.  Zimmerman isn't half the dumb ass as that stupid Afro who raised people's suspicions by dressing and acting like a thug.  

If Zimmerman hadn't shot that piece of shit, someone else would have, eventually.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 28, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...



Maybe or maybe not. Depends on the jurisdiction.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 28, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Whether Zimmerman is guilty or not, justified or not can we all agree on one thing?
> ...



So Martin is a dumb ass also. So what?

Imagine that, all of us bent out of shape over TWO DUMBASSES.
Life in America TODAY!

Life is passing by fast.


WHERE IS MY HELMET? 3 AND OUT COACH!
I understood things a lot better back then.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 28, 2012)

High_Gravity said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...


Juveniles can't prance around playing cop and carrying a loaded gun. 

Odd, isn't it?


----------



## paperview (Jun 29, 2012)

Live stream here for the bond hearing: Fox 35 live stream - OrlandoSentinel.com

Coming up soon.  Lawyers and press are filling in the courtroom now.


----------



## Ariux (Jun 29, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Juveniles can't prance around playing cop and carrying a loaded gun.
> 
> Odd, isn't it?



That f-ing cold (coon), Trayvon, didn't even have ID.  A 17yr-old without a driver's licence?  And, you're whining that the tailless monkey isn't allowed to carry a gun.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 29, 2012)

>


From the live feed of the new bail hearing today...things that look good for GZ...


1.  Looks like the transfer of $10,000 doesn't violate IRS rules since it wasn't cash (as some said) - and I will stand corrected.

2.  The Zimmerman's attempted to transfer the whole (larger amounts) but PayPal processing rules would not allow them to do it.  As a result the <10K transfers were per PayPal rules.



Those address the legality of the transfers only, not whether the Zimmerman's were attempting to hide the money from the court as part of financial disclosure laws for the bail process.  That will still be addressed.



>>>>


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 29, 2012)

I'm not sure where the defense is going with the 911 tapes.  Seems to me like they're trying to get a head start on trial.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 29, 2012)

Did O'mara just say that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jun 29, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Did O'mara just say that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin?




No.


>>>>


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 29, 2012)

_Look at all the racist shitheads, ranting their shit, for their latest lying George!  

Get a clue, about Georgie-boys, wingpunk assholes!  GHW was boss of the CIA, he knew Saddam was a client, in 1958, so GHW gets cold feet, on the road to Basra.  But THEN, he tells the Iraqis to revolt, they do it, but GHW was chumping them, in preparation, for CHIMPING them, with his kid, GW, and his then-Veep, magic-Dick Cheney.

Saddam clobbered Kurds, Shiites, Madan Arabs, and the rest, right past observing UN and US troops.

So along comes GW, he gets elected, since rats suck, and they lose, all they can, and GW wants to attack Afghanistan, before 9/11, even.  But after 9/11, he decides to fuck with all the Sunnis he can get to, which means Saddam, who was a Sunni asset of the CIA, put up to oppress a Shiite majority.

GW and Cheney get ahold of a lying Iraqi, in re Operation Curveball, and they lie, including to Congress, to get a war on Iraq and torture, going.  Shit happens, again, and again, with George!

They are so gorgeous, let 'em kill anybody, anytime, never mind how the witnesses to circumstances of the murder of Trayvon Martin are disposed, for the defense.  Never mind, how there weren't any bushes, where Zimmerman said there were (except for GW and his daddy), and Zimmerman never identified himself, which was usual, for somebody, who expects GEORGE to just kill, and get over and away, again and again.

Since wingpunk assholes can't think for shit, let GEORGE do it!  How do you say, "nukuler?"  Ask anybody, named George:_

Zimmerman Failed to Identify Himself to Trayvon Martin

Newly released documents show George Zimmerman failed at least two times to identify himself as a neighborhood watchman before he shot Trayvon Martin dead in Florida. A police investigator concluded Zimmerman "had at least two opportunities" to defuse his encounter with Martin but failed to do so.

-----------------------

Investigator: Zimmerman missed opportunities to defuse situation - CNN

George Zimmerman failed to identify himself twice during a confrontation with Trayvon Martin and missed opportunities to defuse the situation that led to the death of the teen, a detective says in a newly released report.

Zimmerman, who served as a neighborhood watch volunteer, is charged with second-degree murder in the February 26 shooting death of Martin, 17, in Sanford, Florida.

The report is part of information Florida prosecutors released Tuesday. It includes a previously undisclosed portion of a video of Zimmerman showing injuries he said he suffered in the altercation with Martin.

------------------------(226 pages, later)

_When you are a wingpunk asshole, you drive shit, for anybody, named GEORGE, except Washington_.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 29, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Did O'mara just say that Zimmerman racially profiled Martin?
> ...



Sounded that way to me.   He said that Zimmerman saw a black male, and knew that alot of black males had broken into homes in the neighborhood, and was thus concerned.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jun 29, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...



So answering a question honestly is racially profiling.
What else could he say when asked to identify him?
So everyone that identifies anyone a black male is racially profiling?
And the history of his neighborhood was black males breaking into homes.
Facts sure a bitch. That is what this is all about with you anyway. Black on black crime is rampant and you are silent on that but if whitey......................... then it is "racially profiling".
BS.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 29, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I don't think you understand.  I'm not talking about answers Zimmerman gave to any questions.  O'Mara said in his arguments that Zimmerman suspected Trayvon because he was a black male.  



> That is what this is all about with you anyway.



Actually, I've been very up front with saying that race is not a factor in this case the way people have made it out to be.  I'm just pointing out that O'Mara slipped up with what he said here.


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 29, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...


All you have to do is refer back to the 911 tape for your answer, in which will be the only proven factual evidence one can verify concerning what was in Zimmermans head when spotted Martin, instead of what you are trying to infer here, and/or instead of pouncing on hearsay or speculation (i.e. grasping for straws) about what had happened during the event in which is now known about in those tapes only, and that are recorded in real time, not re-interpreted or speculated upon by those who were not there later on..


----------



## bobgnote (Jun 29, 2012)

_You must be referring to Dee Dee saying, "We don't need you to do that."

We needed George to identify himself, since he was such a cowboy.  But nooooo._


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 29, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _You must be referring to Dee Dee saying, "We don't need you to do that."
> 
> We needed George to identify himself, since he was such a cowboy.  But nooooo._


You and I don't know if Zimmerman had identified himself or not to Martin, it is a grey area that no one can get beyond, except for whats in the 911 phone call, in which gives no indication of that, whether it be one way or the other before the trouble/struggle began.


----------



## paperview (Jun 30, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > _You must be referring to Dee Dee saying, "We don't need you to do that."
> ...


Yes we do.  He didn't.


----------



## paperview (Jun 30, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


Bizarre statement.  Z's statements to police after tell us what was _in his head._

I have a question for you: Is English your second language?


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...


Prove it....


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...


His recounting of the event, may be skewed after all that he has went through beyond the event, so what will be next, is the focus upon by the court in review of the actual evidence in which is in the 911 tape mainly, where as Zimmerman next will be led by the court, in order for him to try and help it understand what happened beyond that point, along with any witnesses who will testify afterwards also.

After that the witnesses will be crossed in order to see if it makes any sense to them beyond the tape, where as it will all then fall back upon the time lines & forensics by the end of the day.


----------



## paperview (Jun 30, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


George *SAID* he didn't identify himself.

Geezus.  Have you even read the reports, listened to the interviews, watched the tapes?? -- done just, you know, the _basic_ stuff that would allow you to comment with at least the bare bones knowledge of the case?


----------



## paperview (Jun 30, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


I suggest you read this:

GZ handwritten statement:

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2012/06/21/written_statement_0226.pdf

and listen to this:

Zimmerman audio interview with Sanford PD on Feb 27 | www.wdbo.com

And especially this one:

Zimmerman audio interview with Sanford PD on Feb 29 Pt. 3 | www.wftv.com


----------



## taichiliberal (Jun 30, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > So little Georgie's wife perjured herself, Georgie's credibility is shaky at best regarding his personal finances towards bail, and then there's this:
> ...




Once again for the cheap seats:  your opinion, supposition and conjecture, wishful thinking, is NOT a substitute for the FACTS in evidence and the logical conclusions of ALL those facts.  So next time spare yourself and the reading audience time and effort by not gracing these boards with these tired ass fantasy excuses for Zimmerman.   Thank you.


----------



## Plasmaball (Jun 30, 2012)

Can I get a summary of what's been going on?


----------



## paperview (Jun 30, 2012)

Plasmaball said:


> Can I get a summary of what's been going on?


nah.


----------



## Plasmaball (Jun 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > Can I get a summary of what's been going on?
> ...



Eat me!


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


Link..


----------



## paperview (Jun 30, 2012)

Plasmaball said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


Not my thing.


----------



## paperview (Jun 30, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > beagle9 said:
> ...


Too bad, so sad.

I'm not going to hunt for something that is IN the document dump. You should know this. (parts of which I JUST LINKED YOU TO!)

If you don't know that, you know nothing.  You want it handed to you.

If you think I am wrong, prove me wrong, 


I'll save you time: you won't be able to.


----------



## paperview (Jun 30, 2012)

It's amazing, some people come to the table here with such little information, yet spout off a holy spit Sunday of shit, as if they know - and then make it fucking OBVIOUS for all to see, how they haven't even read the BASICS of the case.

I'm delighted though, they are outing themselves as idiots.


----------



## Plasmaball (Jun 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



So then I should have said blow me?


----------



## paperview (Jun 30, 2012)

Plasmaball said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Plasmaball said:
> ...


Never did understand why they called it that...


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jun 30, 2012)

Because it blows your mind away....


----------



## beagle9 (Jun 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> It's amazing, some people come to the table here with such little information, yet spout off a holy spit Sunday of shit, as if they know - and then make it fucking OBVIOUS for all to see, how they haven't even read the BASICS of the case.
> 
> I'm delighted though, they are outing themselves as idiots.


I was commenting on something that was in debate here about Zimmerman either did or didnot identify himself to Martin, so if he didnot, then why is it being debated here as if it is some sort of a grey area or something ? If Martin surprised Zimmerman (as was also claimed by Zimmerman), then yes it would have been hard for Zimmerman to have identified himself in such a situation right?


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 1, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > It's amazing, some people come to the table here with such little information, yet spout off a holy spit Sunday of shit, as if they know - and then make it fucking OBVIOUS for all to see, how they haven't even read the BASICS of the case.
> ...



_Google and Bing are two of the leading search engines.  If you know how, to point and click, you can go find:

1.  Video reconstructions, of the murder, on YouTube and other websites;
2.  News report reconstructions;
3.  The lead detective commented, how GZ TWICE failed to identify himself, to Martin, and GZ failed to defuse the situation, as it developed, which anyone can see was the result of GZ wanting to use his pistol, to fire one, fatal shot, without warning or wounding Martin;
4.  GZ claimed Martin leaped out of bushes, where no bushes are evident, but GW, lying to Congress, to get an Iraq War going!  Eh?

It is almost JULY 2012, more than 220 pages are at this one USMB thread, and you still haven't used your PC, to go get some goddamn details!_

Trayvon Martin - The Daily Beast

_In other news, redstate-zombies are stalking people, trying to eat their brains:_


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 1, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


Did anyone ask for your opinion or advice ? I didn't think so... However, since you insist though on giving it, I will respond... Yes there are 220 pages of debate here, and there has been much evidence known about and/or not known about that came later on during these debates, in which has been debated to death, upon giving each opinionator their right to opine, and it will still be debated until the end of this case, is that a problem with you ?


----------



## Ariux (Jul 1, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> I was commenting on something that was in debate here about Zimmerman either did or didnot identify himself to Martin, so if he didnot, then why is it being debated here as if it is some sort of a grey area or something ? If Martin surprised Zimmerman (as was also claimed by Zimmerman), then yes it would have been hard for Zimmerman to have identified himself in such a situation right?



1) That Afro thug would still have assaulted Zimmerman, even if Zimmerman identified himself.

2) Yes, it would have been hard for Zimmerman to identify himself.  He wasn't allowed much opportunity before he was assaulted.  And, given the situation, it would have been hard for Zimmerman to think about what he should say.  

3) It's interesting how shitheads think the whole burden to avoid the assault is on Zimmerman. How about if that piece-of-shit Afro just didn't assault Zimmerman? It's the age old story of how everyone just expects Afros to be pieces of shit and it's up to white people to keep the peace in spite of Afros.


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 1, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Did anyone ask for your opinion or advice ? I didn't think so... However, since you insist though on giving it, I will respond... Yes there are 220 pages of debate here, and there has been much evidence known about and/or not known about that came later on during these debates, in which has been debated to death, upon giving each opinionator their right to opine, and it will still be debated until the end of this case, is that a problem with you ?



_Since you are retarded, let me assure you, by posting at this thread or others, you don't get to discriminate, against other posters, including the ones who notice what a fucktard you are, *bug-hole9*.

Of course, you get to be an "opinionator," even if you are a retard, with English usage and reasoning issues.  Feel free, to be stupid and get stupider.  I believe in telling you and *Airyasshole* and any other retards all about yourselves, so go ahead and read this.

You might even plan to use a gun, get that gun ready, make sure you kill somebody, and then try to weasel out, of getting busted, since retards think they might have some line, on getting over, by some alliance, with corrupt people, who might help you, in the way GZ tried to kill, killed, and he lied, about what happened.  You would be lucky, to plead guilty, to murder-2, given your usual criminal affinity.

I insist on telling you how full of shit you are, since I know you sassy, retarded buggers cherish criminal intent, and I know this, so eat shit and die._


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 1, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > Did anyone ask for your opinion or advice ? I didn't think so... However, since you insist though on giving it, I will respond... Yes there are 220 pages of debate here, and there has been much evidence known about and/or not known about that came later on during these debates, in which has been debated to death, upon giving each opinionator their right to opine, and it will still be debated until the end of this case, is that a problem with you ?
> ...


Do you really think that you are more inteligent than me, when you are a person who has to resort to name calling, cussing and ignornace, in which is what you project in your postings, just to get a point across ? Yes, I do need to keep talking to you, just so you can keep showing the board just how low down in the gutter you can go, which isn't much lower as you have hit the bottom already (IMHO).

This is what we are all dealing with in society now, but these types think they are right and others are wrong, in which is the same thing as calling evil good and good evil these days. Many here just don't want to see a person get an unfair trial by media jury, and internet biases run amuck upon this internet, in which could sway the law and judicial system into being fearful of doing the right thing as it should always do.

Hey, these days Presidential elections are being swayed big time by this internet anymore, so (IMHO) it is anymore that it must have some kind of balance injected into it all, or where will this nation go next one wonders ? I am not a defender of Zimmerman or Martin, but simply a truth seeker in a case that was being tainted from the get go by both sides early on.


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 1, 2012)

_OK, *bug-hole*.  You are a "truth-seeker," posting crap at a pissing contest, and you object to getting whizzed on.  Good luck.  If you hit SEARCH, you could have some information.  If you'd read any of the many posts, at this thread, you'd see it's a pissing contest!  

Allow me to help you, on your way, to actual reality, rather than your blissful ignorance._


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 1, 2012)

_OK, *bug-hole*.  You are a "truth-seeker," posting crap at a pissing contest, and you object to getting whizzed on.  Good luck.  If you hit SEARCH, you could have some information.  If you'd read any of the many posts, at this thread, you'd see it's a pissing contest!  

Allow me to help you, on your way, to actual reality, rather than your blissful ignorance._


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 1, 2012)

_OK, *bug-hole*.  You are a "truth-seeker," posting crap at a pissing contest, and you object to getting whizzed on.  Good luck.  If you hit SEARCH, you could have some information.  If you'd read any of the many posts, at this thread, you'd see it's a pissing contest!  

Allow me to help you, on your way, to actual reality, rather than to your blissful ignorance._


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 1, 2012)

You know you start driving them mad, and this because of possibly hitting on the direct truth at times here and again, as is found when posting good points to their opinionated debates found on the issues, especially when they start resorting to cussing and ranting like mad men or women on you next, with their wild, raunchy and crazy comebacks...LOL


----------



## paperview (Jul 1, 2012)

beagle:  I didn't mean it as a cut when I asked you, I was sincerely wondering: * Is English your second language?
*
Your posts read so choppy...it just helps to know this...I'll cut you some slack if it is.  Just curious.


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 1, 2012)

paperview said:


> beagle:  I didn't mean it as a cut when I asked you, I was sincerely wondering: * Is English your second language?
> *
> Your posts read so choppy...it just helps to know this...I'll cut you some slack if it is.  Just curious.


Trick question maybe, that will lead to more ranting and raving if I were to say one way or the other ?

Uh nope, I ain't fallen for it...LOL


----------



## paperview (Jul 1, 2012)

OK.  I'll just chalk it up to mental deficiency if it suits you better.

Fine with me.


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 2, 2012)

paperview said:


> OK.  I'll just chalk it up to mental deficiency if it suits you better.
> 
> Fine with me.


Call it anything you want, as long as it puts peace in your heart, instead of all that anger you have.. B )


----------



## paperview (Jul 2, 2012)

Re: The wounds...the title of this thread.

I think the interviews right after tell us a lot.  People who saw him close up, when the wounds were still fresh...

 So we go back to the interview 2 days after the incident.  Here. 

 2/29 audio interview part 1 (Inv. Serino and Inv. Singleton)

 That can be heard here:http://www.gzlegalcase.com/documents/statements/audio_interview_0229_1.mp3

A few minutes into that interview, we hear the detective inquire:


> CS: Listen, it&#8217;s not a guarantee, but like I said a strong possibility,  I&#8217;m hoping myself. *Okay.  Another thing too as far as 25 and 30 punches,  I&#8217;ve consulted with a  lot of people, not quite consistent with your  injuries.* You do have  injuries, however. Um, how did he manage to bang  your head, and, okay,  correct me if I misunderstood what you said here  as far as slamming  the head into the concrete. Into the cement thing.  How&#8217;d he do that?
> GZ: I was on my back.
> CS: Okay.
> GZ: First punch, you mean? I don&#8217;t know if I immediately fell down, he threw me down. I was stumbling, I ended up on my back.
> ...


then, a little bit later:



> CS: Court of public opinion is going to beat up on you a lot, okay?
> GZ: Yes, sir.
> CS:* I mean, a lot of people don&#8217;t think that your injuries are  consistent with getting in a life-threatening type thing,*  it&#8217;s a matter  of perception, I understand that. If there&#8217;s anything  that you might&#8217;ve  forgotten&#8230;here&#8217;s him again, and now here&#8217;s another  thing too I gotta  show you also. That right there, is the only injury  to his hands that we  could document. Okay? Now I heard you say you&#8217;re  yelling for help, it&#8217;s  a matter of perception, I guess that there&#8217;s no  doubt in my mind that  you were in fear, okay? Well the question comes  into play is that what  enraged him so badly?


Then more commentary on his wounds not being consistent with his story:


> CS: That&#8217;s why we&#8217;re here today. *Once again, these can be interpreted  as  capillary-type cuts or whatever, lacerations, uh, not really, um,   coinciding with being slammed hard into the ground. Okay? That&#8217;s skull   fractures is you happen with that*. I&#8217;ve seen &#8216;em all, you know. Me, I   reserve judgment because everybody&#8217;s built differently, your tolerance   for pain might be different from mine, and anybody else&#8217;s and it   wouldn&#8217;t be fair for me to go, I wasn&#8217;t there. I actively remain neutral   here, okay? It&#8217;s kind of a good shoot, bad shoot type thing.
> GZ: Yes, sir.
> CS: And the only thing that you don&#8217;t have is the authority to go ahead and do the stop legally. You follow, I mean&#8230;
> GZ: Sure
> ...


At the time, I highly doubt the person making these  comments had any idea that interview would explode into the public as  it has.  It was his observation right after, directly, and right after.   I think it tells us a lot.


----------



## paperview (Jul 2, 2012)

OK.  More from that same interview that some might have missed. * 

2/29 audio interview part 1 (Inv. Serino and Inv. Singleton)
*
 This is taken from here: http://www.gzlegalcase.com/documents/statements/audio_interview_0229_1.mp3

 This goes to his state of mind, which he makes clear in several  interviews, that just a few weeks earlier he'd been in a remarkably  similar situation. One where the _suspicious looking guy_ got away.  

 I find the part about where he gave the NEN his address remarkably similar, and  where he says
 "I waited and I waited and I waited..." coupled with the later "these  ******* always get away"  - it kind of gets us inside his head, and why  he was so frustrated that fateful night.

 Then, the part I've marked in red below is a bit of a smoking gun.  It  seems he thought it was the guy who broke in earlier.  The one that had  been arrested. To me, that is GZ clearly melding the two incidents, near  certain it was the same guy... 

 imo.
*
[at 4:23]*



> GZ: Well, um, 2 or 3 weeks prior to that I&#8217;d seen somebody looking in the window of the house that he was in front of.
> CS: Was he white or black?
> GZ: Black.
> CS: Okay.
> ...


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 2, 2012)

paperview said:


> OK.  More from that same interview that some might have missed. *
> 
> 2/29 audio interview part 1 (Inv. Serino and Inv. Singleton)
> *
> ...



The more information comes out, the more dubious Zimmerman's claims of "self defense" seems.


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 2, 2012)

paperview said:


> Re: The wounds...the title of this thread.
> 
> I think the interviews right after tell us a lot.  People who saw him close up, when the wounds were still fresh...
> 
> ...


Does this inv. seem to you, that he is leading the subject as he goes along?


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 2, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Re: The wounds...the title of this thread.
> ...



Nope.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5546018-post3402.html


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 6, 2012)

Bond set at 1 million. 
Told you folks so.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 8, 2012)

Zimmerman released on bond.
Told you dumbasses so.


----------



## Liability (Jul 8, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Zimmerman released on bond.
> Told you dumbasses so.



On the other hand, whether he IS innocent or not (on the ground that he was "justified" in shooting Trayvon Martin in self-defense), let's be candid about one thing.

His justification/self-defense claim is a burden he will have to assume and it will be based largely on HIS own say-so.

Therefore, to the extent that his original bail application was dishonest or less than fully forthcoming, he probably DID hurt his own credibility.  In the process of doing that, he therefore DID probably undermine the strength of his own defense case.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 8, 2012)

Liability said:


> Therefore, to the extent that his original bail application was dishonest or less than fully forthcoming, he probably DID hurt his own credibility.  In the process of doing that, he therefore DID probably undermine the strength of his own defense case.



Bullshit.

"Judge" Lester  is supposed to be ADJUDICATING not grandstanding.

Femi-nazi Corey's information is a sham. GZ should have released GZ on his own recognizance.

Instead , Lester has been manipulating the issues and facts in order to create the illusion that GZ has a penchant for lying and that he  attemplted to flee the jurisdiction.

.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 9, 2012)

Illusion that he's lying? 

I found it odd that even though the judge appears to believe Z is a flight risk and a liar he still felt compelled, under the law, to release him.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 9, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Illusion that he's lying?
> 
> I found it odd that even though the judge appears to believe Z is a flight risk and a liar he still felt compelled, under the law, to release him.



You remind me of the religous right wing. 
They also have a hard time understanding and accepting that we are a nation OF LAW, not of beliefs.
What the Judge believes is moot and he is ONLY the impartial ruler of interpreting the law.
The jury is the determiner of fact.
I suggest 5th grade civics for you.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 9, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Therefore, to the extent that his original bail application was dishonest or less than fully forthcoming, he probably DID hurt his own credibility.  In the process of doing that, he therefore DID probably undermine the strength of his own defense case.
> ...



Judges do not adjudicate in a bond hearing.
Judges interpret the law in bond hearings.
Adjudication between private parties such as civil cases a Judge can adjudicate.


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 9, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Bond set at 1 million.
> Told you folks so.





Gadawg73 said:


> Zimmerman released on bond.
> Told you dumbasses so.


The law is the law, I get that, but why do you seem to be rejoicing over the fact that that animal is back on the streets?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 9, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Therefore, to the extent that his original bail application was dishonest or less than fully forthcoming, he probably DID hurt his own credibility.  In the process of doing that, he therefore DID probably undermine the strength of his own defense case.
> ...




Florida Law 903.046 requires that individual applying for bond provide a full and accurate accounting of financial resources.  Florida Law 903.035 makes it a criminal offense to purposefully attempt to lie, omit, or mislead the court as part of the bond process chargeable - in this case - as a felony 3.


Please explain the following:

1.  How did Judge Lester manipulate Zimmerman into claiming indigent status while having about $130,000 in his accounts?

2.  How did Judge Lester manipulate Zimmerman and his wife into attempting to hide the money from the court by transferring the money out of those account just days before the bond hearing?

3.  How did Judge Lester manipulate Ms. Zimmerman into lying on the stand pertaining to financial resources?

4.  How did Judge Lester manipulate Zimmerman's father?

5.  How did Judge Lester manipulate the Defenses finical forensics expert who testified that Zimmerman's actions were consistent with individuals trying to hide money from the court?​


>>>>


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 9, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Bond set at 1 million.
> ...



Why do you think he's an animal?  Have you already tried and convicted him?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 9, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Illusion that he's lying?
> ...


The judge could have charged Z with a felony for being dishonest about his finances.


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 9, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Bond set at 1 million.
> ...


He is not rejoicing over Zimmerman being back out on the street, even though your comprehension is of such, and what because of your idiotic bias shown here?  He is instead rejoicing over all the ones here who had said something other than what had just taken place, where as they were all just made fools of to his understanding, uhh because well simply put they were wrong!


----------



## Ariux (Jul 9, 2012)

Ravi said:


> The judge could have charged Z with a felony for being dishonest about his finances.



It would be a real dick move to charge Zimmerman with lying about his finances.  

Zimmerman has already been punished for lying, by having his previous bond revoked, spending more time in jail, and then by a million dollar bond.

Zimmerman is also being charged with second degree murder.  If he's guilty, a conviction for lying to the court would be insignificant in comparison (e.g. he wouldn't spend one extra day in jail).  If he's innocent, he's only guilty of trying to minimize how much he's getting shafted for a crime he didn't commit.


----------



## Liability (Jul 9, 2012)

Ravi said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



The judge could do that?

Really?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 9, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Bond set at 1 million.
> ...



I, unlike you that stand idle and say nothing while the Trayvon Martins of the world steal and pillage and are expelled from school numerous times, have not rejoiced in anything to do with this tragedy.
You are the one foaming at the mouth wanting to pull the lever to the electric chair for George Zimmerman before the first fact has been introduced in a court of law.
You should be ashamed to call yourself an American citizen.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 9, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...




She is so stupid she really believes that.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 9, 2012)

In Florida, at least, a judge could have issued a warrant for his arrest.


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 9, 2012)

GZ went Rambo: 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






Now he's in trouble:  

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qz-JBbExyOw]Busta rhymes Ft Pharell - Lite ya ass on fire - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Liability (Jul 9, 2012)

Ravi said:


> In Florida, at least, a judge could have issued a warrant for his arrest.



Not on his own motion.

What is your claimed basis of legal authority for your contention, Raving Ignorance?


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 9, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Easy, Vern.

First, expalin the reason GZ wasn't released on his own recognizanxce?


*903.046&#8195;Purpose of and criteria for bail determination.*(1)
&#8195;
*The purpose of a bail determination in criminal proceedings is to ensure the appearance of the criminal defendant at subsequent proceedings and to protect the community against unreasonable danger from the criminal defendant.*

.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 10, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...




So no answer ...

...................... Didn't think you'd have one.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 10, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> First, expalin the reason GZ wasn't released on his own recognizanxce?
> 
> 
> *903.046&#8195;Purpose of and criteria for bail determination.*(1)
> ...



903.046&#8195;Purpose of and criteria for bail determination.
(1)&#8195;The purpose of a bail determination in criminal proceedings is to ensure the appearance of the criminal defendant at subsequent proceedings and to protect the community against unreasonable danger from the criminal defendant.
(2)&#8195;When determining whether to release a defendant on bail or other conditions, and what that bail or those conditions may be, the court shall consider:
(a)&#8195;The nature and circumstances of the offense charged.
(b)&#8195;The weight of the evidence against the defendant.



Nature of Charges = Murder
Weight of the Evidence = 100% certainty he killed Martin and Zimmerman will have a responsibility to present an affirmative defense and show he was not the initial aggressor under Florida Law 776.041.


He wasn't released on his own "recognizanxce" the second time around because he lied to the court and attempted to hid financial resources from the court and failed to property report them as required under Florida law.


>>>>


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 10, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > First, expalin the reason GZ wasn't released on his own recognizanxce?
> ...



Again, WHY was he released on his own recognizance the FIRST time?

.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 10, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...




Because of the charge of Murder, the Judge didn't feel it was appropriate.


Now, the questions you are deflecting from...






WorldWatcher said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > *Instead , Lester has been manipulating the issues and facts in order to create the illusion that GZ has a penchant for lying and that he  attemplted to flee the jurisdiction.*
> ...


​


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 10, 2012)

Yeah GZ Defenders, please answer the following questions...

*1. *How did Judge Lester manipulate Zimmerman into claiming indigent status while having about $130,000 in his accounts?

*2. *How did Judge Lester manipulate Zimmerman and his wife into attempting to hide the money from the court by transferring the money out of those account just days before the bond hearing?

*3. *How did Judge Lester manipulate Ms. Zimmerman into lying on the stand pertaining to financial resources?

*4. *How did Judge Lester manipulate Zimmerman's father?

*5. *How did Judge Lester manipulate the Defenses finical forensics expert who testified that Zimmerman's actions were consistent with individuals trying to hide money from the court?

Thank you.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 10, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Because of the charge of Murder, the Judge didn't feel it was appropriate.




Now, the questions you are deflecting from...




*903.046&#8195;Purpose of and criteria for bail determination.&#8212;*
(1)&#8195;The purpose of a bail determination in criminal proceedings is to ensure the appearance of the criminal defendant at subsequent proceedings and to protect the community against unreasonable danger from the criminal defendant.

*(2)&#8195;When determining whether to release a defendant on bail or other conditions, and what that bail or those conditions may be, the court shall consider:*
(a)&#8195;The nature and circumstances of the offense charged.

*(b)&#8195;The weight of the evidence against the defendant.*

OK Vern, talk to me, without evasion, about Corey's information and the weight of the evidence

.


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 10, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Bond set at 1 million.
> ...



Probably because Zimmerman put down the animal that was attacking him as anyone in the same circumstance would have. If it was not for black racists such as yourself that would be an easy enough fact for you to see. Take off your race blinders and see for yourself that Zimmerman regardless of race, defended his life from a dangerous attacker who was using the concrete sidewalk as a weapon when he was justifiably killed.


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 10, 2012)

_That's right, *Bigfart*.  GZ didn't do what dispatch advised, he failed to identify himself, twice, he lied about Martin attacking, from out of non-existent bushes, he may be inferred to have approached Martin, who was on the phone, and he somehow held onto his flashlight AND shot Martin dead, with one shot, then a witness saw him sit on Martin, who bled out.

If GZ starts claiming Martin was an animal, as if Martin was in season, GZ needs to stay in, forever.  If you think GZ will end up free, after sentencing, you are going to eat your own feet and farts.

If GZ cops your attitude, murder 2 with a BIG SENTENCE will issue._


----------



## Ariux (Jul 10, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> If GZ starts claiming Martin was an animal, as if Martin was in season, GZ needs to stay in, forever.  If you think GZ will end up free, after sentencing, you are going to eat your own feet and farts.



Florida has a year-around coon hunting season.  So, leave Zimmerman alone.


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 10, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Because of the charge of Murder, the Judge didn't feel it was appropriate.
> ...



Quit stalling....you're just trying to rehash the SOS in order to avoid the FACT that the Judge's initial call resulted in bail.....but Georgie turned out to be a liar...and that translates to possible flight risk, etc.

You get caught lying to a Judge, it does not bode well.

Like it or not, Georgie keeps digging his hole deeper with each video release, statement and re-examination.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 10, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _That's right, *Bigfart*.  GZ didn't do what dispatch advised, he failed to identify himself, twice, he lied about Martin attacking, from out of non-existent bushes, he may be inferred to have approached Martin, who was on the phone, and he somehow held onto his flashlight AND shot Martin dead, with one shot, then a witness saw him sit on Martin, who bled out.
> 
> If GZ starts claiming Martin was an animal, as if Martin was in season, GZ needs to stay in, forever.  If you think GZ will end up free, after sentencing, you are going to eat your own feet and farts.
> 
> If GZ cops your attitude, murder 2 with a BIG SENTENCE will issue._



Dispatch stated, never "advised" or ordered Zimmerman to do anything, "you do not have to do that."
That is not a command of any kind.
How do you know who attacked who? Were you there?
Your entire post is rank speculation.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 10, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> How do you know who attacked who?



Imagine an armed pudgy jew-hispanic deciding to attack, sans gun, a strange, black-hooded big Afro, at night... We know the Afro shit attacked Zimmerman.  The timeline proves Trayvon doubled back to attack Zimmerman.  Case closed.  The shit-brained Trayvon supporter don't care what really happened.  They just support the Afro because they're racist.

The difference between an Afro and a roach is... hold on, I'll figure it out.


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 10, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I'm glad you finally admitted that GZ is being railroaded.

.


----------



## Huey (Jul 11, 2012)

*Send him up the river for the rest of his life.*


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 11, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _That's right, *Bigfart*.  GZ didn't do what dispatch advised, he failed to identify himself, twice, he lied about Martin attacking, from out of non-existent bushes, he may be inferred to have approached Martin, who was on the phone, and he somehow held onto his flashlight AND shot Martin dead, with one shot, then a witness saw him sit on Martin, who bled out.
> 
> If GZ starts claiming Martin was an animal, as if Martin was in season, GZ needs to stay in, forever.  If you think GZ will end up free, after sentencing, you are going to eat your own feet and farts.
> 
> If GZ cops your attitude, murder 2 with a BIG SENTENCE will issue._



You post like a child.


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 11, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


Wrong. Totally and absolutely wrong. Nothing you stated is a fact. Especially the bolded.


Gadawg73 said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > _That's right, *Bigfart*.  GZ didn't do what dispatch advised, he failed to identify himself, twice, he lied about Martin attacking, from out of non-existent bushes, he may be inferred to have approached Martin, who was on the phone, and he somehow held onto his flashlight AND shot Martin dead, with one shot, then a witness saw him sit on Martin, who bled out.
> ...


See...? Evern RWers assert the FACT that no one KNOWS who attacked who.

BigFart is such a GD liar.

*SMH*


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 11, 2012)

There was a black woman wrongly arrested and held for 40 days released last week.
Where were the so called black "leaders" getting media time on that case. 
Oh wait, whitey was not involved.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 11, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



How am I "rightwing" Marc?
This ought to be rich.
You are bigoted and prejudicial.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 11, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



So you now admit NO ONE knows who attacked who?
You are a bald faced liar then Marc. You have claimed Z is guilty all along.
Hypocrit.


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 11, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



Yeah, he is such a racist that he cannot keep his story straight.


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 11, 2012)

> A new witness to the Trayvon Martin shooting has come forward, claiming the Florida teen did in fact attack neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman, according to media reports.
> 
> (Related: Report: New Audio Surfaces of Trayvon Martin Shooter
> 
> ...



Yes Marc we do know who the attacker was and he was justifiably killed for his actions. It remains to be seen if Zimmerman is unjustly convicted for defending himself or not. With all of the Black's dogma surrounding this case that would not surprise me. Fair or right has nothing to do with it when people like you reduce everything to the color of one's skin. Take off your race blinders and jump into "right or wrong" for a change rather then your normal (and typical for blacks) "black vs white" mentality.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 11, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Yes Marc we do know who the attacker was and he was justifiably killed for his actions. It remains to be seen if Zimmerman is unjustly convicted for defending himself or not. With all of the Black's dogma surrounding this case that would not surprise me. Fair or right has nothing to do with it when people like you reduce everything to the color of one's skin. Take off your race blinders and jump into "right or wrong" for a change rather then your normal (and typical for blacks) "black vs white" mentality.



The Prosecution needs 12 out of 12 people to vote guilty.  And, the Defense has some room to dismiss biased people to arrive at those 12.  Zimmerman is charged with murder, which defies the Prosecution's own scenario, let alone the evidence.  There will not be a murder conviction.  

The uncivilized and racist Afro species may have been able to push a pandering government into charging an innocent man, but they can't push a jury to convict.`


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 11, 2012)

A young man was brutally beaten in a Florida A & M band bus because of the culture of violence that is accepted in the black community and where were the black "leaders" advising the family over this tragedy?
Whitey was not involved so there is no race pimp $$$ involved. 
The President of that university resigned today. Where were the race pimp whores asking for him to be prosecuted?
Why not? 
Because he is not white.


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 11, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> A young man was brutally beaten in a Florida A & M band bus because of the culture of violence that is accepted in the black community and where were the black "leaders" advising the family over this tragedy?
> Whitey was not involved so there is no race pimp $$$ involved.
> The President of that university resigned today. Where were the race pimp whores asking for him to be prosecuted?
> Why not?
> Because he is not white.


Calm down Neal Boortz


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 11, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > A young man was brutally beaten in a Florida A & M band bus because of the culture of violence that is accepted in the black community and where were the black "leaders" advising the family over this tragedy?
> ...



Normally I do not agree with Boortz. 
But if he agrees with me on this one he is right.
Boortz' rants on public education piss me off.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 11, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> A young man was brutally beaten in a Florida A & M band bus because of the culture of violence that is accepted in the black community and where were the black "leaders" advising the family over this tragedy?
> Whitey was not involved so there is no race pimp $$$ involved.
> The President of that university resigned today. Where were the race pimp whores asking for him to be prosecuted?
> Why not?
> Because he is not white.



Unarmed Afro shits beat Robert Champion to death.  But, it's okay, because they were unarmed.  Besides, Robert Champion is just an Afro himself.  So, who cares.


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 12, 2012)

_Intent to use a firearm may be suspected, but since GZ killed, rather than wound or warn Martin, and GZ didn't identify himself, we have to infer Martin attacked GZ, even though GZ is lying and witnesses contradict him or reveal facts, which he concealed.

Consensus facts, circumstances, and accounts from witnesses won't be tried, in the GZ trial, now that Trayvon Martin is dead, from one shot, while GZ kept his flashlight AND his gun, while he was supposedly attacked AND having the shit beat out of him AND his wounds don't seem consistent, with his account.  

Right.  Shall we all ignore facts and issues, since the trash be talkin'?

"Afro" defines issues, not facts.  Right.  Well hey, I don't play much hoop, anymore.  Neither does Chuck Barkley, I guess!  When "afro" defines review, a hate crime will be tried, *Fairysux*.

Are we entertaining psychotic, white sociopaths, at this thread, or is this only MY suspicion?_


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 13, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Are we entertaining psychotic, white sociopaths, at this thread, or is this only MY suspicion?[/I]



I don't know.  Here, check this out:


  
      


Are you entertained?


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 13, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > Are we entertaining psychotic, white sociopaths, at this thread, or is this only MY suspicion?[/I]
> ...


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 13, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious said:
> ...



  Contumacious, you need to grow the fuck up and deal with being wrong.  Making wild accusations when the FACTS don't fit your belief system is NOT a rational rebuttal. (and please spare us all the "I know you are, but what am I" response!).

Zimmerman was given bail, and then it was discovered that he LIED prior to that initial bail rendering....THAT resulted in the LEGAL revoking of his original bail.  A matter of law, a matter of legal precedent, a matter of fact, a matter of history.  Deal with it.


----------



## The Infidel (Jul 13, 2012)

_FBI interviews with dozens of friends, coworkers and neighbors of George Zimmerman found no evidence that the accused murderer of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was a racist, according to new documents released on Thursday.[...]
FBI agents investigating whether race was a factor in the shooting spoke with Sanford police officers, Zimmermans bosses and colleagues, friends, neighbors and others to determine if he had ever shown any racial prejudice.
In one interview detailed in the evidence, Sanford Police Detective Christopher Serino, the lead investigator in the Martin case, told the FBI he did not believe Zimmermans shooting of Martin was motivated by race.
Serino believed that Zimmermans actions were not based on Martins skin color (but) rather based on his attire, according to a report.
Serino told investigators that members of local gangs, who called themselves Goons, frequently wore hoodies, or hooded sweatshirts, and he believed Zimmerman took it upon himself to view Martin as acting suspicious.
Martin was wearing a hoodie and returning from a convenience store when Zimmerman called a 911 dispatcher and said the teen looked suspicious and then followed him.
The FBI has been probing the handling of Martins death for any civil rights violations, but the agency hasnt released any findings.
Zimmermans ex-fiancée told FBI agents that he had never exhibited any prejudices. She observed Zimmerman as he socialized and played basketball with white, black and Hispanic men, the FBI report said. Zimmermans friends were from all of these racial groups.
The only exception, however, were when he once went on MySpace and was critical of Mexicans, saying when he lived in Virginia they pulled out knives and messed with peoples cars. 
I dont miss driving around scared to miss Mexicans, walkin on the side of the street, soft as wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around, one entry said._

FBI Report Officially Exonerates George Zimmerman for Being a Racist | TheBlaze.com


----------



## Ariux (Jul 13, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> _FBI interviews with dozens of friends, coworkers and neighbors of George Zimmerman found no evidence that the accused murderer of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was a racist, according to new documents released on Thursday.[...]_


_

The Obama chimp administration wants to try Zimmerman for thought crimes.  Even if Zimmerman hated f-ing colds as much as AG Holder hates white people, Zimmerman still shot that f-ing cold in self-defense.    

There's no good reason for the FBI to have even attempted to build a case that Zimmerman hates f-ing colds._


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 13, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> _FBI interviews with dozens of friends, coworkers and neighbors of George Zimmerman found no evidence that the accused murderer of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was a racist, according to new documents released on Thursday.[...]
> FBI agents investigating whether race was a factor in the shooting spoke with Sanford police officers, Zimmermans bosses and colleagues, friends, neighbors and others to determine if he had ever shown any racial prejudice.
> In one interview detailed in the evidence, Sanford Police Detective Christopher Serino, the lead investigator in the Martin case, told the FBI he did not believe Zimmermans shooting of Martin was motivated by race.
> Serino believed that Zimmermans actions were not based on Martins skin color (but) rather based on his attire, according to a report.
> ...



And yet there were ALL those 911 calls from Georgie about suspicious black folk...all that turned out to have no basis for alarm.

Hey, Georgie's not a racist....that's nice.....still doesn't take away the EVIDENCE that essentially makes him guilty of manslaughter.....of which HIS actions caused.

March on, my Zimmerman zombies.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 14, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> And yet there were ALL those 911 calls from Georgie about suspicious black folk...all that turned out to have no basis for alarm.
> 
> Hey, Georgie's not a racist....that's nice.....still doesn't take away the EVIDENCE that essentially makes him guilty of manslaughter.....of which HIS actions caused.
> 
> March on, my Zimmerman zombies.



Yep. You can't ignore all those calls he made regarding a 'suspicious' black person, when there was no reason to be suspicious. I still believe Zimmerman has an issue with black folk.


----------



## sitarro (Jul 14, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > _FBI interviews with dozens of friends, coworkers and neighbors of George Zimmerman found no evidence that the accused murderer of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was a racist, according to new documents released on Thursday.[...]
> ...



How many calls exactly, you say those 911 calls and how would you know so much about each call and the validity of each.......where's the link to your facts?


----------



## sitarro (Jul 14, 2012)

Noomi said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > And yet there were ALL those 911 calls from Georgie about suspicious black folk...all that turned out to have no basis for alarm.
> ...



Really mooni is that what your gut feeling is? Why? Is it his skin color that makes you feel that way........are you a bigot moon?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 14, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Contumacious, you need to grow the fuck up and deal with being wrong.  Making wild accusations when the FACTS don't fit your belief system is NOT a rational rebuttal.



Oh, God, the irony here is unsurpassed in the annals of civilization.

You have to be the most ridiculous poster on these boards, worse than RDean or Starkey.

I still cant believe you are anything more than some conservative sock-puppet trying to get all the conservatives pissed off for the elections to increase their turnout or else you are simply the stupidest person on the planet who can still type on a keyboard.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 14, 2012)

Noomi said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > And yet there were ALL those 911 calls from Georgie about suspicious black folk...all that turned out to have no basis for alarm.
> ...



'All those calls'? WTF are you talking about? He said that in the one conversation he was having with the 911 operator and he had good grounds to be suspicious since, according to him at the time, Martin was walking around in the rain looking into peoples homes and one of them was a home that had recently been burglarized.



Noomi said:


> I still believe Zimmerman has an issue with black folk.



And I still believe that a lot of people are so convinced that whites are racist that they see it where it doesnt exist, similar to the old prejudices people used to have about blacks being stupid.


----------



## California Girl (Jul 14, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > _FBI interviews with dozens of friends, coworkers and neighbors of George Zimmerman found no evidence that the accused murderer of Florida teenager Trayvon Martin was a racist, according to new documents released on Thursday.[...]
> ...



According to the actual transcripts released of his 911 calls, the 'suspicious folk' were white, black... and hispanic. But please don't let the actual evidence get in the way of your bullshit.


----------



## California Girl (Jul 14, 2012)

Noomi said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > And yet there were ALL those 911 calls from Georgie about suspicious black folk...all that turned out to have no basis for alarm.
> ...



You can 'believe' whatever racist crap you choose. Some of us prefer facts to 'beliefs'. We lean towards due process, not trial by media. The media have already been found guilty when it comes to misreporting the facts about the Zimmerman case. 

Idiot.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 14, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Yep. You can't ignore all those calls he made regarding a 'suspicious' black person, when there was no reason to be suspicious. I still believe Zimmerman has an issue with black folk.



Everyone, even the f-ing colds themselves, have an issue with Afros.  Every criminal everyone in that community complained about what a f-ing Afro.  

The Afro defense:  "We're all criminals, therefore you're racist..."


----------



## The Infidel (Jul 14, 2012)

Noomi said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > And yet there were ALL those 911 calls from Georgie about suspicious black folk...all that turned out to have no basis for alarm.
> ...



What calls?

You have audio of it?


I have this.... what do you have?

NBC fires producer over edited Zimmerman 911 call | The Upshot - Yahoo! News

_The recording aired on NBC's "Today" show on March 27, when the audio viewers heard suggested that Zimmerman volunteered to police, without provocation, that Martin was black: _*"This guy looks like he's up to no good. He looks black."*

_*"This guy looks like he's up to no good. Or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about." Then the dispatcher asked, "O.K., and this guy  is he white, black or Hispanic?" To which Zimmerman replied, "He looks black."*_


----------



## The Infidel (Jul 14, 2012)

Report: Zimmerman Worked To Help Black Man In Beating Case | WREG.com &#8212; Memphis News & Weather from WREG Television, News Channel 3
_
Ware, a black homeless man, was beaten by a Sanford police lieutenant&#8217;s son. Zimmerman was critical of police handling of the case and reportedly worked on Ware&#8217;s behalf handing out these flyers and letters._


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 14, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Report: Zimmerman Worked To Help Black Man In Beating Case | WREG.com  Memphis News & Weather from WREG Television, News Channel 3
> _
> Ware, a black homeless man, was beaten by a Sanford police lieutenants son. Zimmerman was critical of police handling of the case and reportedly worked on Wares behalf handing out these flyers and letters._



Well obviously Zimmerman did that as a cover, anticipating his later attack on the first black child he saw carrying skittles and tea.

/sarcasm


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 14, 2012)

sitarro said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



I am SO tired of doing the homework for willfully ignorant zimmerman zombies.  But hope springs eternal.....here's a primer for ya, bunky:  Shooter of Trayvon Martin a habitual caller to cops - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 14, 2012)

California Girl said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



Not quite, my Californian female zimmerman zombie:   Shooter of Trayvon Martin a habitual caller to cops - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

Please get your act together before you try to condescend to someone, Cali-girl....makes you look less foolish.


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 14, 2012)

The Infidel said:


> Report: Zimmerman Worked To Help Black Man In Beating Case | WREG.com  Memphis News & Weather from WREG Television, News Channel 3
> _
> Ware, a black homeless man, was beaten by a Sanford police lieutenants son. Zimmerman was critical of police handling of the case and reportedly worked on Wares behalf handing out these flyers and letters._



And yet:

Shooter of Trayvon Martin a habitual caller to cops - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

March on, my Zimmerman zombie!


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 14, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> sitarro said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...




When my kids were young, we had some problems and I called the cops.  I was told, by the cops that the more calls they received, the more often they patrolled the neighborhood, I started calling them for EVERYTHING, and advised my neighbors to do the same.  we had the cops coming by our house 3 or more times a day, the incidents stopped.  Now they are full force again, I'm gonna have to start calling the cops again.....

Now for your link:

Zimmerman called police 46 times since 2004 to report disturbances, break-ins, windows left open and other incidents. Nine of those times, he saw someone or something suspicious.

Read more here: Shooter of Trayvon Martin a habitual caller to cops - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

can you show me where it says all those calls were about black people?


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 14, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Contumacious, you need to grow the fuck up and deal with being wrong.  Making wild accusations when the FACTS don't fit your belief system is NOT a rational rebuttal.
> ...



Poor Jimbo....he still can't debate ALL the facts, so he just lashes out in a childish personal attack.  As the chronology of the posts shows, the zimmerman zombies just try  to ignore any information I and others source that contradicts their delusions of zimmerman.

I took Jimbo briefly off of IA to see if he wised up/grew up a little.  Sadly, that's not the case, so back into the dumpster he goes.


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 14, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > sitarro said:
> ...



Here's part of the article you seemed to have overlooked:

_Licensed to carry a firearm and a student of criminal justice, Zimmerman went door-to-door asking residents to be on the lookout, specifically referring to young black men who appeared to be outsiders, and warned that some were caught lurking, neighbors said. The self-appointed captain of the neighborhood watch program is credited with cracking some crimes, and thwarting others._

But as for the actual calls:  George Zimmerman 911 calls: George Zimmerman, the man who shot Trayvon Martin, called 911 dozens of times - Orlando Sentinel

Please try doing your OWN research next time....and stop relying on the likes of Drudge and Kristol to do your homework for you.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 14, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



You might have a point, if the recent break ins in the neighborhood weren't perpetrated by blacks....

I'm not relying on Drudge or Kristol, I'm just taking apart YOUR research...

BTW, who the heck is Kristol?


----------



## tjvh (Jul 14, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> > Report: Zimmerman Worked To Help Black Man In Beating Case | WREG.com  Memphis News & Weather from WREG Television, News Channel 3
> ...



And the problem with *calling the Police to report suspicious activity* is what exactly?


----------



## Noomi (Jul 14, 2012)

tjvh said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



He called the cops to report a god damned window open! If I see a window open, I am not going to call the freaking cops over it! He called cops to report a break in - how would he know the house had been burgled unless he witnessed it, or went inside? The door could be ajar and he'd call the cops over it! Waste of time. 

Also, you need to read the part where it says he spoke to the neighbours, telling them to be on the lookout for 'suspicious black men' who could be 'outsiders'. 

There is evidence piling up against Zimmerman, and he is likely to go down for this. Hopefully that will mean the 'Stand Your Ground' law is also repealed.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 14, 2012)

Noomi said:


> He called the cops to report a god damned window open!



I'm not going to disagree that Zimmerman can be a little silly at times (but, not near as silly as the shitheads who support Travyon).  So what if he called about an open Windows?  Was it a negroid window?  Zimmerman was concerned that an open window made the home vulnerable to burglary.  He was trying to help his neighbor.



> Also, you need to read the part where it says he spoke to the neighbours, telling them to be on the lookout for 'suspicious black men' who could be 'outsiders'.



Do you have shit for brains?  Why should Zimmerman mention suspicious white women if the spat of burglaries were by black men?



> There is evidence piling up against Zimmerman, and he is likely to go down for this. Hopefully that will mean the 'Stand Your Ground' law is also repealed.



Your shit-filled-skull is delusional.  Zimmerman will be acquitted.  

Are you a member of the KKK, and you hate Zimmerman because he's a Jew-Hispanic?


----------



## Noomi (Jul 14, 2012)

If Zimmerman is acquitted, he will have to change his name and leave the country, because someone out there will be ready to see justice done. Not that I would agree with it, but that is what would happen. There would almost certainly be some kind of revenge attack against him.


----------



## The Professor (Jul 14, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > He called the cops to report a god damned window open!
> ...



I agree.  Trayvon Martin's defenders are not the brightest.  They don't care about evidence.  I suspect that racism is at the heart of their blind defense of the young thug.

There is one point I have to make because a lot of people do not understand that this case has nothing to do with the stand your ground defense.    Some states require that if you can retreat from a threat, you must do so in order to avoid using deadly force.  In simple terms, stand you ground means that if someone is coming after you, and you are armed, you do not have to retreat  even if you can - to avoid using deadly force to protect yourself.    

Once someone hits you upside the head knocking you to the ground, and is sitting on you beating you in the face  as  Martin was doing to Zimmerman, this is not a stand your ground case.  It is a simple case of common self defense.   Zimmerman was in a position where he could not escape and he had a reasonable fear of serious bodily injury or death.  These circumstances give a victim the right to use deadly force in every state.   This has always been and always will be a basic right.

Trayvon (NO_LIMIT_NIGGA) Martin got what he deserved.  Thank God he got shot before he had the chance to kill Zimmerman.  There's one question Trayvon's defenders don't want to be asked:  What would have happened to Zimmerman if he had not shot Martin?


----------



## Noomi (Jul 14, 2012)

^can you prove that Trayvon was beating Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman acted in self defense?


----------



## Ariux (Jul 14, 2012)

Noomi said:


> ^can you prove that Trayvon was beating Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman acted in self defense?



That's how the a skull full of shit thinks... "Whitey is guilty until proven innocent, and nothing will be accepted as proof."

The timeline proves Trayvon doubled back to confront Zimmerman.  The wounds prove Zimmerman was being beaten.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 14, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > ^can you prove that Trayvon was beating Zimmerman, and that Zimmerman acted in self defense?
> ...



The timeline which was given by Zimmerman? What about Trayvon's version of events? Oh yeah, he's dead. How convenient.
The wounds don't prove a beating at all. They could just as easily have been self inflicted.

Of course, Zimmerman is to be considered innocent before being shown to be guilty, but everyone seems to assume they know exactly what went down that night, and the one person who might be able to shed some light on the situation is 6 feet underground.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 14, 2012)

Noomi said:


> The timeline which was given by Zimmerman? What about Trayvon's version of events? Oh yeah, he's dead. How convenient.
> The wounds don't prove a beating at all. They could just as easily have been self inflicted.



Shithead, I don't care what Zimmerman's story is.  The timeline is from when Tryavon left 7-Eleven, to when Zimmerman called police, to when others called the police and the gun shot.  You f-idiot, if Trayvon hadn't intended to confront Zimmerman, he would have been long gone. 

Shithead,  Zimmerman's wounds couldn't have easily been self-inflicted.  The police arrived just seconds after the shooting.  Zimmerman didn't have time to think about self-inflicting wounds, let alone doing it.   You f-idiot, there are also those witnesses who saw the two fighting, and apparently Trayvon on top of Zimmerman.



> Of course, Zimmerman is to be considered innocent before being shown to be guilty, but everyone seems to assume they know exactly what went down that night, and the one person who might be able to shed some light on the situation is 6 feet underground.



I don't assume anything.  I know Zimmerman is innocent.  And, I know if someone cracks open your skull, they'd find a ball of maggot-infested pig shit.

Trayvon would be alive today if he didn't decide to assault Zimmerman for looking at him.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 14, 2012)

Sorry folks.  I just have no patients for racists.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 14, 2012)

You said innocent until proven guilty before, yet you refuse to the consider the possibility that things didn't happen the way you assume they did.

You are not worth talking to.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 15, 2012)

Noomi said:


> You said innocent until proven guilty before, yet you refuse to the consider the possibility that things didn't happen the way you assume they did.
> 
> You are not worth talking to.



Shithead, you're upset with me because I won't assume ridiculous things that there's no evidence for, like Zimmerman self-inflicting his wounds.


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 15, 2012)

Noomi said:


> If Zimmerman is acquitted, he will have to change his name and leave the country, because someone out there will be ready to see justice done. Not that I would agree with it, but that is what would happen. There would almost certainly be some kind of revenge attack against him.



Justice would be all charges dropped and a healthy sum paid to Zimmerman for the attempted railroading because of the black communities racist bullshit. Trayvon Martin is dead, that's one less "No limit Nigga" the rest of us have to deal with.


----------



## Cowman (Jul 15, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Sorry folks.  I just have no patients for racists.



Oh great, our resident Klansman chimes in about racism.


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 15, 2012)

Noomi said:


> If Zimmerman is acquitted, he will have to change his name and leave the country, because someone out there will be ready to see justice done. Not that I would agree with it, but that is what would happen. There would almost certainly be some kind of revenge attack against him.


It just goes to show doesn't it, where as when OJ killed his wife and friend, did anyone seek justice or revenge on him, whether it be on the inside or while out ?? Nope, they agreed with what the law had said and had ordered up for OJ, now what is the difference in which you are implying to us here ?

So no matter what the law says, revenge will be sought after, and if so by whom? Do tell....


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 15, 2012)

I wish this issue could be debated or discussed without all the racism that is flying from both sides of the isle....Good Lord man, how about everyone please trying to, and/or staying focused on the facts and evidence in the case, and donot fall into the fog of racism if at all possible...

It's so wonder anyone can get a fair trial in this kind of circus atmosphere found in America anymore...


----------



## Noomi (Jul 15, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > If Zimmerman is acquitted, he will have to change his name and leave the country, because someone out there will be ready to see justice done. Not that I would agree with it, but that is what would happen. There would almost certainly be some kind of revenge attack against him.
> ...



Your post screams racism. It sounds like you have decided Trayvon must be guilty simply because he was black.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 15, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > You said innocent until proven guilty before, yet you refuse to the consider the possibility that things didn't happen the way you assume they did.
> ...



There is no evidence Trayvon confronted Zimmerman. Unless you believe everything that comes out of his mouth.


----------



## California Girl (Jul 15, 2012)

Noomi said:


> If Zimmerman is acquitted, he will have to change his name and leave the country, because someone out there will be ready to see justice done. Not that I would agree with it, but that is what would happen. There would almost certainly be some kind of revenge attack against him.



The way it works, in the United States, is that 'justice' is 'done' by the due process of law. It is not done by mob rule.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 15, 2012)

California Girl said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > If Zimmerman is acquitted, he will have to change his name and leave the country, because someone out there will be ready to see justice done. Not that I would agree with it, but that is what would happen. There would almost certainly be some kind of revenge attack against him.
> ...



That is correct, and I have no doubt Zimmerman will get a fair trial. I had thought that Casey Anthony (I believed her innocent) would be found guilty as I didn't think the jury could put aside their personal feelings, but they did and she was acquitted. Because of this, I have absolute faith that Zimmerman will also receive a fair trial.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 15, 2012)

California Girl said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > If Zimmerman is acquitted, he will have to change his name and leave the country, because someone out there will be ready to see justice done. Not that I would agree with it, but that is what would happen. There would almost certainly be some kind of revenge attack against him.
> ...


If that were true, Zimmerman wouldn't have a ghost of a prayer of being found innocent since he acted like a vigilante.


----------



## California Girl (Jul 15, 2012)

Noomi said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



At the risk of repeating myself, what you 'believe' is of absolutely no fucking consequence. If you think everyone gets a 'fair trial' then you are fucking deluded. There remains no evidence that Zimmerman's account is not accurate. In fact, quite the opposite... the evidence supports his account of what happened. However, we do not have ALL the evidence so I remain open as to his guilt or innocence. I'm anal like that, I prefer not to decide - or 'believe' - anyone's guilt or innocence until I have ALL the evidence. That's the curse of the logical mind... we don't make emotional judgments. Unlike you. Twit.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 15, 2012)

California Girl said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



I never said that everyone gets a fair trial. If everyone got a fair trial you wouldn't have innocent people languishing in prison for crimes they didn't commit. And I do keep an open mind, I just happen to believe the opposite of the evidence. No harm in that, and certainly no reason to call me a 'twit' simply because you disagree with me.


----------



## California Girl (Jul 15, 2012)

Noomi said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



There remains absolutely no evidence of wrong doing by Zimmerman. None. That's what the facts currently available show. Nothing. You are welcome to 'believe' otherwise but that just makes you stupid.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 15, 2012)

California Girl said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



He was instructed to remain in his car until the cops arrived, yet he went after Trayvon. He is the one who initiated the confrontation, therefore, he is responsible for the death of Trayvon. You cannot put yourself in a dangerous situation and then expect to get away with killing someone. If he had stayed in his car, there would have been no confrontation and a 17 yr old kid would still be alive.

That is something Zimmerman is likely to get roasted for - assuming he testifies which is highly unlikely.


----------



## California Girl (Jul 15, 2012)

Noomi said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



It would have been impossible for him to 'remain in his car' - he wasn't in his car when he called 911. He was not 'instructed' to remain anywhere. He was advised by the operator that they 'didn't need him to' follow Martin. At which point, he says, he stopped following Martin and started to return to his car. 

According to Zimmerman's account - and there currently remains no evidence against his account - he stopped following Martin. At that point, the 'confrontation' was over. According to Zimmerman (and evidence, including witness statements) it was Martin who then confronted him. At that point, it's on Martin as to what happened.


----------



## idb (Jul 15, 2012)

California Girl said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



It looks like you've already made up your mind, contrary to your earlier statement - liar.


----------



## California Girl (Jul 15, 2012)

idb said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



No, I haven't. I have - on numerous occasions - said we do not have ALL the evidence so no one of a rational mind can decide guilt or innocence. What I do say, and will continue to say, is that - on the evidence available - there is nothing that suggests he is guilty of the charges he faces. I remain open minded... but I'm gonna call out the morons who are running with the 'trial by media' bullshit.


----------



## paperview (Jul 15, 2012)

California Girl said:


> *It would have been impossible for him to 'remain in his car' - he wasn't in his car when he called 911*. He was not 'instructed' to remain anywhere. He was advised by the operator that they 'didn't need him to' follow Martin. *At which point, he says, he stopped following Martin and started to return to his car.
> *
> According to Zimmerman's account -
> ....


According to Zimmerman's account?  You don't even have Zimmerman's account accurate.  No wonder you're con-fused.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 15, 2012)

California Girl said:


> However, we do not have ALL the evidence so I remain open as to his guilt or innocence. I'm anal like that, I prefer not to decide - or 'believe' - anyone's guilt or innocence until I have ALL the evidence. That's the curse of the logical mind... we don't make emotional judgments. Unlike you. Twit.





California Girl said:


> No, I haven't. I have - on numerous occasions - said we do not have ALL the evidence so no one of a rational mind can decide guilt or innocence. What I do say, and will continue to say, is that - on the evidence available - there is nothing that suggests he is guilty of the charges he faces. I remain open minded... but I'm gonna call out the morons who are running with the 'trial by media' bullshit.



First of all let me agree with you on a couple of basic points:

First we do not have all the evidence as yet, and that is what the legal process is for.  All the evidence will be presented and then the Judge (self-defense hearing) and the Jury (if it goes all the way to trial) will review and then make their decision.  That process should continue and the decision made on the fact and not the race baiting which has occurred from the pros and cons on the case.

Secondly, at this point in time and given the evidence that has been released to the pubic, it is my opinion that the state will have a difficult time making Murder 2 charges stick because they will have a responsibility to prove "depraved disregard for human life".  Now if the Jury is allowed to consider lesser included charges, such as Manslaughter or Voluntary Homicide, then that could be problematic for Zimmerman.



California Girl said:


> In fact, quite the opposite... the evidence supports his account of what happened.





California Girl said:


> There remains absolutely no evidence of wrong doing by Zimmerman. None. That's what the facts currently available show. Nothing. You are welcome to 'believe' otherwise but that just makes you stupid.





California Girl said:


> It would have been impossible for him to 'remain in his car' - he wasn't in his car when he called 911. He was not 'instructed' to remain anywhere. He was advised by the operator that they 'didn't need him to' follow Martin. At which point, he says, he stopped following Martin and started to return to his car.
> 
> According to Zimmerman's account - and there currently remains no evidence against his account - he stopped following Martin. At that point, the 'confrontation' was over. According to Zimmerman (and evidence, including witness statements) it was Martin who then confronted him. At that point, it's on Martin as to what happened.



With the above stated there are issues with the various version of Zimmerman story ones where more evidence may be forthcoming and evidence already released that will need to be explained in court by experts because they don't support Zimmerman's version of events.

You claim that there is no evidence that conflicts with his account, that is untrue.  Here is some.

1.  Your statement is incorrect, he didn't call "911" he called the non-emergency number (which really has no bearing on evidence).

2.  Your statement is incorrect, review the audio of his call, his written statement, and his video reenactment, he was in his car when he called the dispatcher.  First he followed Martin in his vehicle, then when Martin ran, he exited his truck and continued to follow on foot.

3.  Watch the video reenactment and then compare to his written statement.  In the statement he says Martin punched him in the face, knocking him down on his back and that Martin then mounted him.  However in the video reenactment Zimmerman points out where Martin, supposedly, punched him and mounted him.  However that is a long distance away from where Martin's body was actually found.  (Which was much farther down the darkened sidewalk.)

******************************************************

4.  Forensics:

Here is the situation that we are led to believe.  At the time of the shooting Martin is straddling Zimmerman on top with his hands on the sides of Zimmerman's head beating it against the ground.  Now close your eyes and think for a minute.  Matin's height (autopsy report) was 71" (5 foot 11 inches).  I'm 5'11" and the length of my arms (shoulder to writs is about 22 inches), to the palms is about 24".  Now someone on top of someone else wouldn't be leaning back to be able to beat someone's head in front of them on the ground - they would be leaning forward.  So Zimmerman is under Martin and their chests are 12"-18" (maximum 22") between their chests.

A.  *Bullet Path:* Lay on your back and imagine pulling a weapon from a hip holster.  Your elbow will be at approximately 90 degrees.  Release the weapon, pull the weapon, release the safety/**** the weapon, lift the weapon to contact the body of the person over you.  The natural rotation of the arm will place the muzzle of the gun (a) more to the side, and (b) lower in the abdomen.  That would provide a bullet path that should be (through Martin's body) from left to right and likely from lower to higher.  Yet the autopsy report shows the bullet entered center of the chest (actually just left of center) and about 1" below the line between the nipples.  That means Zimmerman had to bring the gun up between the bodies and then angle it "down" (relative to Z's body) toward his feet since Zimmerman's chest and Martin's chest were on two different planes.  In a time of panic during a fight, such additional movement of the weapon and the odd wrist angle needed seems, IMHO, odd.

B.  *Lack of GSR:*  Again Zimmerman is below Martin and their chest are 12"-18" apart.  If Zimmerman were to discharge a weapon in the tight space between the bodies then there blowback and gravity would have resulted in GSR being deposited on the chest area of Zimmerman's jacket and/or shirt.  Yet forensic analysis of Zimmerman's clothes showed no GSR evidence on the chest area.  (Chemical analysis found one microscopic particle of lead on the rear of Zimmerman's jacket upper right sleeve.)​
Now, from a logic stand point what do the combination of those two items possibly indicate?  The scenario as indicated means that bullet path should have been different and that GSR should have been detected on Zimmerman's clothes.  So the evidence is inconsistent with the story.  So how do you arrive at a different path (straight on chest shot) and no GSR on the jacket.  One possibility (<<-- Possibility), is that first the orientation of Zimmerman and Martin were (as a function of the body orientation were more parallel.  The head to foot orientation could be the same or different, the important point is that the plane of their chests was more closely the same.  Lack of GSR on the chest of Zimmerman could be achieved if Zimmerman's arm was extended away from his body and Zimmerman wasn't below the gun (to remove gravity causing particles to fall on him).  This situation could (<<-- could) be achieved if Zimmerman and Martin were separated, for example Zimmerman pushed Martin off or if Martin was attempting to disengage.  So if Zimmerman pushed Martin off to the side (creating separation) then Zimmerman pulls his weapon, extends his arm and shoots for center of mass.  The accounts for a more straight path shot and the lack of GSR on Zimmerman's clothes.

[DISCLAIMER:  Raw evidence has been released.  Experts will be providing testimony at trial (for both the prosecution and defense) as to how forensic evidence can be interpreted.  I would recommend watching the forensics section very closely.)

********************************************************

5.  Time/distance analysis.  If you take Zimmerman's statements about what happened and plot them as a function of time and distance, they do not match-up very well.  In other words, Zimmerman could not have followed the paths that he described in the video from the time-stamped point where he exited the truck (dispatcher call) to the time stamped shoot being fired (neighbor 911 call)  to the event spot in the measured time frame.

6.  Phone calls.  There are phone records showing that Martin was on the phone with his girlfriend during the event.  However none of Zimmerman's versions of events account for Martin being on the phone.  As a matter of fact records show Martin was on the phone talking to his girlfriend at the exact time he says that Martin attacked him.

7.  Girlfriends Testimony - contested.  Whether the girlfriend will be able to testify to what Martin told her is yet to be determined.  Defense will move to exclude, the prosecution will move to include - that will be up to the Judge.  If included it provides two things: (a) direct evidence that conflicts with Zimmerman's version of the initial contact, and (b) evidence that Zimmerman followed and confronted Martin.

8.  Girlfriends Testimony non-contested.  Even if her testimony about Martin's side of the conversation is excluded, she will still be able to testify about multiple things which are damaging to Zimmerman's story.  She will of course be able to testify that the call occurred and phone records will show Martin was talking to her at the time Zimmerman says he was being attacked which is independently supported by phone records.  Secondly she will be able to testify to what she directly heard which will include Zimmerman's voice and what he said.  This would not be hearsay, and Zimmerman can elect to take the stand to provide his side of what he said.

9.  Addresses.  This will be an interesting one to watch.  There are only three streets in the community Zimmerman lived in for over 2-years (Retreat View Circle, Twin Trees Lane, and Long Oak Way) and for which he was the Neighborhood Watch Captin.  Yet he claimed after the event that he couldn't remember the name of 1 of 2 streets (2 since he was not on the street he lived on).  Now he claimed he was looking for an address, he he proceed around behind houses to find and address into a darkened area where (a) there are no street signs, and (b) there are no house numbers.  Street signs are located at intersections.  The two nearest intersections where Retreat View Circle/Twin Trees Lane which was West, back the way they had come or Twin Trees Lane/Long Oak Way which was South from where his truck was parked.  He traveled East.  In addition his truck was parked across the street from a street lamp providing illumination and looking at the reenactment video you can clearly see that each house has (a) numbers mounted next to the garage and (b) lights next to the garage door.  Yet he went behind the houses to a darkened area to find an address?  Make no sense.

10.  Stopping.  You claim he stopped when the dispatcher told him not to follow Martin and that he returned to his truck.  That dispatcher statement was 18-seconds after the exiting the truck.  It is incorrect to state that Zimmerman's stopped and begain returning to his truck per his own statements (written, audio, and video) which clearly show that under his own words he continued away from the truck to the darkened area behind the houses.




OK, well that's about all I've got off the top of my head.  Inconsistencies, conflicting accounts, direct forensics that undermine his story.  I'll be more than happy to let letal system play this out and for Zimmerman to make his self-defense case to the Judge and, if it goes that far, to the jury of his peers that will decide the case.


>>>>


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 15, 2012)

California Girl said:


> There remains no evidence that Zimmerman's account is not accurate. In fact, quite the opposite... the evidence supports his account of what happened.



I realize that's what you believe.  But it's of no fucking consequence.


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 15, 2012)

Noomi said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...


You believed Casey Anthony was innocent eh? Good googly moogly, I really feel sorry for anyone who feels this way, but then again I don't feel sorry for someone that feels this way at all either, I just feel sadness for them.

There is no way that woman was innocent, but due to many many trial problems, technicailities and so on and so forth (creating a circus atmosphere and a confusion of great magnitude to boot), somehow it ended up going her way so very shockingly. OJ was also guilty to, and he also escaped justice in that case just as well, and all because of yet another sad case that ended up tainted, but everyone knows now that he done it alright, and he had help doing it as most did find out or learned also in that trial. These are most of the nations opinions upon these trials, yet it is that judicial proceedings were brought in these cases, and rules were followed as best as they could be, thus rendering the verdicts that were given in which people did abide by afterwards, just as it should be. 

These people even though not convicted will now live their own hell on earth for what they have done, and trust me they are living in hell now upon this earth, because they know in their minds they are guilty, where as the hell they now are living is found now cemented forever into their own minds. I look for Casey Anthony to possibly commit suicide someday maybe, unless she uses this time to stay away from the devil as long as she can, in which will be the only reason she keeps herself going until the terrible day of judgement in which will come finally, and this by the one who does see directly into her soul as well as the rest of these peoples souls who are guilty as well. People can run, but they can't hide from the one who knows, no matter what happens upon this earth for them.

These are my opinions, but I will abide by the verdicts rendered even though I dis-agreed with them big time ( as so many millions of others in America and out in the world dis-agreed with such verdicts to), but like everyone should, it best they do abide by them on into the future in order to keep the laws intact, and the judicial system running regardless of it's human falibilities.


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 15, 2012)

_Thank you, Chief, for the best impromptu recount, of State v. GZ consensus information.

What a contrast, between that and the 200+ pages, of GZ-weazy rants, which I believe reflect, on how courts actually operate, with arranged convictions or arranged immunity, for those discriminated, either for or against, whereby judges and attorneys simply decide which facts and law will apply, so they can make a lot of money, including off continuances and prison industry.

But in State v. GZ, the Feds and the public are watching.  This trial might be straight.  Thanks to *paperview* and *WorldWatcher*, this thread is straight, after 236 pages._


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 15, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



What about the witness that saw trayvon on top of zimmerman?


----------



## Ariux (Jul 15, 2012)

Noomi said:


> You cannot put yourself in a dangerous situation and then expect to get away with killing someone. If he had stayed in his car, there would have been no confrontation and a 17 yr old kid would still be alive.



You got it!  You get out of your car near the lions on an African safari, what follows is on you.  Just like getting out of the car with a f-ing cold (coon/Afro) nearby!  F-ing animals.  However, your analogy fails in that shooting a lion in self-defense would go unchallenged.  Our laws treat Afros like people, because of obsessive lobbying by animal rights nuts.

Noomi, I'm glad we finally found something we agree on.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 15, 2012)

Noomi said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



When and where did that happen?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 15, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...




1.  Just because a person is on top during a struggle, does not mean that person started it - only that at point in time they are "winning".

2.  What about the witness that say Zimmerman on top of Martin?


>>>>


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 15, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



You mean the one who didn't see anything?  The one that came out after the fact and told a complete fib?  That one?  Or the one that changed his story after his mom talked to him?


----------



## freedombecki (Jul 15, 2012)

California Girl said:


> idb said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...


I agree with you. But what puts me in Zimmerman's corner is the attending police report noting that Zimmerman's claims were backed up with evidence they found.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 15, 2012)

California Girl said:


> No, I haven't. I have - on numerous occasions - said we do not have ALL the evidence so no one of a rational mind can decide guilt or innocence.



That's nonsense.  We have enough evidence to know beyond a reasonable doubt that both Zimmerman is innocent and that there isn't any unknown evidence which would show Zimmerman to be guilty.  

We don't have all the evidence?  Hypothetically, what evidence might we not have that could change the picture?  Maybe Martians came to Earth and brainwashed us to make us think Zimmerman shot in self-defense?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 15, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



The one that saw the one on top rise after the shooting.  



Againsheila said:


> The one that came out after the fact and told a complete fib?  That one?



You mean "John" who first claimed he saw an MMA style beating and then retracted it - no, not him.



Againsheila said:


> Or the one that changed his story after his mom talked to him?



Since the witness is a full grown female, then no it wouldn't be the 13-year old boy.


>>>>


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 15, 2012)

*Christopher Serino, cop who said George Zimmerman should be charged, is transferred from investigative unit*



(CBS) SANFORD, Fla. - The Sanford Police Department investigator who informed his superiors that he believed there was enough evidence to charge George Zimmerman with manslaughter for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin is being transferred from the investigative unit to the patrol division. 

gee, such an oustanding detective , is going back to the beat.........., I wonder why


Hummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 15, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Ah, the full grown female, the one who didn't see anything and then came out after the fact for her 15 minutes of fame...even an idiot can tell she's making everything up.  At one point she said that Zimmerman was taller, then when she found out Trayvon was taller, she changed her story.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 15, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> *Christopher Serino, cop who said George Zimmerman should be charged, is transferred from investigative unit*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You'll notice the cop said "manslaughter" not 2nd degree murder...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 15, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Nope, she didn't say "taller" she said "larger" and since Zimmerman outweighed Martin by about 45lbs and is the one that rose after the shot was fired, that's who she was talking about.  Identifying a 3" height difference would be pretty difficult when two people are on the ground, identifying a weight difference of 45 lbs - not so hard.


>>>>


----------



## Ariux (Jul 15, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> You'll notice the cop said "manslaughter" not 2nd degree murder...



The media is misreporting this.  The investigator didn't say Zimmerman committed manslaughter.  The investigator was just letting the prosecutor make the call, given that severity of the situation, someone a dead Afro at the hands of a person.  It's called butt-covering.


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 15, 2012)

_Looks like a load of sacks, by Chief.   But the perps are still throwing the ball, trying to run a game.

Just sayin' . . ._ 


http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...e-zimmermans-bloody-head-236.html#post5622474


----------



## Ariux (Jul 15, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Nope, she didn't say "taller" she said "larger" and since Zimmerman outweighed Martin by about 45lbs and is the one that rose after the shot was fired, that's who she was talking about.  Identifying a 3" height difference would be pretty difficult when two people are on the ground, identifying a weight difference of 45 lbs - not so hard.



Hi, Shithead.  The difference between you and me is that I believe in justice and you hate justice.  Morally, you are leagues beneath me.

You're right, identifying a 3" height difference would be pretty difficult, with one (and only one) person laying on the ground, especially at night.  But, I also wonder how easily it would be to tell a 45 lb difference, given the situation where she could't identify race or clothing.  As an optical illusion, the person laying down is likely to look smaller than the person sitting on top.

The bimbo said "bigger" not "larger".  She didn't describe either one as fat (and as a factual matter, neither were skinny).  "Bigger" usually means taller, and Trayvon is taller.   She also decided it was Zimmerman on top after being exposed to TV, back when the only image TV showed of Travyon was that of a pre-teen child, and the shitheads on your side repeatedly called Travyon "little".  

"I know after seeing the TV of whats happening  comparing their pictures  I think Zimmerman is definitely on top because of his size.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 15, 2012)

Who was on top at the end of a struggle has little to no bearing on a self defense argument.
Who threw the first punch has more weight.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 15, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Who was on top at the end of a struggle has little to no bearing on a self defense argument.
> Who threw the first punch has more weight.



1) The only witness, Zimmerman, reports that Trayvon threw the first punch.  (That's the position for the Prosecution to refute.)

2) The timeline proves that Trayvon doubled back, indicating intent to confront Zimmerman.    There's no evidence Zimmerman intended to confront Trayvon.

3) Various factors, such as dress, physical size, and age indicate that Trayvon would be more willing to start a physical confrontation than Zimmerman.  (e.g. I'd be less likely to choose to assault a stranger in a black hoodie than a stranger in a preppy jacket.  These are calculations everyone makes to avoid starting a fight they can't win.  The wounds prove Zimmerman couldn't win a fist fight with Trayvon.) 

There's absolutely no reason to think Zimmerman threw the first punch.  There's absolutely no reason for there to be a murder trial.  Of course, shitheads who equate their stupid speculation with evidence might disagree.  "Zimmerman's wounds are self-inflicted. " Zimmerman tried to hold Trayvon for police."  

All Travyon supporters will rot in Hell.  Heaven is no place for mindless racists.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 16, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> When and where did that happen?



When he made the call, he was instructed by the operator to not follow Trayvon. He completely ignored this order and went off, placing himself into danger.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 16, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > When and where did that happen?
> ...



"we don't need you to do that" doesn't translate into "stay in your truck and wait for the cops"  at least not in any dictionary I've ever read.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 16, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



The operator didn't mean for him to follow Trayvon. No one would want you to follow a suspicious person. Zimmerman wanted to be the hero, so he followed Trayvon. The rest, who knows? Trayvon is the only person who hasn't given his account of what happened, but maybe he doesn't need to. The dead speak louder in life, anyway. I am sure the autopsy might shed some light on what exactly happened.


----------



## paperview (Jul 16, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


The police instructions told him not to get physically involved in any suspicious activity he reports.  Chasing after a "suspect" is getting physically involved.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 16, 2012)

paperview said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



No they were not.
"You do not have to" is not any instruction.
Quit distorting and twisting facts.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 16, 2012)

Any reasonable person would believe that Martin most likely was the aggressor.


----------



## paperview (Jul 16, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


Yes, he was. I've posted this about 50 times now.  I guess I'll have to keep posting it.

I'll post it one more time - for those in the cheap seats:

*Sanford Police Department Neighborhood Watch         Handbook
*


> You will add your &#8220;eyes and ears&#8221; to
> those of the Police Department which
> cannot be everywhere, all the time, by
> keeping a watchful eye and open ear to
> ...



^^^^ Emphasis THEIRS.

In big bold-up fonts the above words there  INSIST people are not to     "*get physically involved with any activity you report or       apprehension of  any suspicious persons."*

     They do that in not only one area of the NW Guidelines, but twice.      
     In BOLD letters.

     We KNOW Zimmerman was told by police this, as Z was the one who     helped facilitate the NW meeting with the *Sanford Police Chief*     for guidelines, and as* contact and Captain* would necessarily     need to be informed of the rules.


----------



## paperview (Jul 16, 2012)

And for those who need the visual:








*Sanford Police Department*


----------



## paperview (Jul 16, 2012)

More visuals for people who like to just look at pictures.







Twin Lakes at Retreat news letter -*Sept 2011*:
*George Zimmerman's name listed as contact & that Chief Lee       was coming to next meeting:* RTL Newsletter September 2011 FINAL

*Feb 2012* Twin Lakes at Retreat news letter - *George       Zimmerman identified as Captain: *RTL February 2012 Newsletter

    SFP -meeting with residents after shooting - Relaying Zimmerman *was       acting as NW at the time of the shooting:* Sanford PD Meeting


----------



## Liability (Jul 16, 2012)

Have all the usual suspects in this thread solved the case, prosecuted George Zimmerman, secured his conviction and had him sentenced yet?


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 16, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Any reasonable person would believe that Martin most likely was the aggressor.



Based on what?


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 16, 2012)

paperview said:


> More visuals for people who like to just look at pictures.



That really is the difference here, isn't it?


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 16, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



You lied, you can't even admit you lied, and you expect us to take your view on this matter seriously???


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 16, 2012)

paperview said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



following someone is not getting "physically involved".


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 16, 2012)

paperview said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



"following" someone is not getting physically involved.  I don't understand how you can equate "following" with chasing...even Trayvon's girlfriend says he wasn't running...


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 16, 2012)

paperview said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Handbook??

?
That is no police command. 
Give it up. You know nothing.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 16, 2012)

paperview said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



So it he is attacked he is not to defend himself?
Where does it say NOT to pursue someone?
You have zero credibility as you stretch the facts to fit your preconceived opinion.
Zimmerman was NEVER told not to pursue Martin and never told not to defend himself.
EVER.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 16, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> "following" someone is not getting physically involved.  I don't understand how you can equate "following" with chasing...even Trayvon's girlfriend says he wasn't running...




Under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, Martin - being in a place he was legally allowed to be and not breaking any law - had no requirement to run.  However, he already had run away once to depart the area that Zimmerman was located in.

If you allow that the girlfriend said Martin said he wasn't going to run, then you would also have to accept that the girlfriend said Martin said that Zimmerman was following him and getting closer, thereby approaching Martin.



>>>>


----------



## paperview (Jul 16, 2012)

The story...at OS, will be updated throughout the day:*

'Witness 9' tells prosecutors Zimmerman molested her*

A young woman told authorities that murder suspect George Zimmerman sexually molested her for a decade, according to prosecution records released today.
The woman, identified only as "witness 9," said the abuse started when she was six years old and ended when she was 16.

George Zimmerman jail calls: George Zimmerman jail calls to be released today - Orlando Sentinel


----------



## paperview (Jul 16, 2012)

Jeff Weiner &#8207;@JeffWeinerOS
*Witness 9 says her parents confronted #GeorgeZimmerman about  molestation  at restaurant. Zim said "I'm sorry and just got up and  walked out."*


----------



## paperview (Jul 16, 2012)

"Investigators asked her why she decided to come forward now."This is the first time in my life that I'm not afraid of him," she replied."


I might remind the readers, this witness contacted the police TWO DAYS   after the shooting incident, so before anyone ties it to the media   hoopla...


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 16, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > "following" someone is not getting physically involved.  I don't understand how you can equate "following" with chasing...even Trayvon's girlfriend says he wasn't running...
> ...



Approaching is not chasing down....following is not chasing....in any case..no evidence points to Zimmerman, chasing down Martin or attacking him in anyway.  There is evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman (scratches on Trayvon's fist) and bruising and scratches and wounds on Zimmerman's face and head.

There was no bruising or wounds on Trayvon, other than the gunshot and the scratches on his fist...now if Zimmerman attacked Trayvon before shooting him, wouldn't you think there'd be some bruising?

There is not justification for 2nd degree murder charges...possibly for manslaughter, but definitely not for 2nd degree murder.  If he's found guilty it will be a big miscarriage of justice and if he's not found guilty the blacks will riot...some choice, huh?

Everyone here who is defending Trayvon is supporting the rioting and the railroading of Zimmerman.  

Trayvon "No-limit-niggar"  was a hateful gang wannabe that was in the wrong place at the wrong time and took it out on Zimmerman and paid for it with his life.  He'd been suspended from school no less than 3 times that year alone...in answer to that, his wonderful parents allowed him to roam the streets at night and took out patents on various form of his name so they can make money.  It's almost as if they wanted their son dead.

Be sure and get your "I am Trayvon" t-shirt so his family can make their money off of his death.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 16, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > "following" someone is not getting physically involved.  I don't understand how you can equate "following" with chasing...even Trayvon's girlfriend says he wasn't running...
> ...



How does anyone know if Martin was running away?
Everything the girlfriend could testify to is hearsay except for times of calls.
Stand YOur Ground applies to both parties but if Martin attacked first and there is evidence of that everything else is moot.


----------



## paperview (Jul 16, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> ...  It's almost as if they wanted their son dead.
> 
> ....



Conservatives: take a hard look.  She's one of your own.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 16, 2012)

This woman that came forward first told police "Zimmerman and his family dislike blacks".

So we know where this one is once again headed.

Very unusual that a sitting Judge would release this information without any indictment, accusation from the prosecution or any evidence whatsoever to back it up. 
The audio of this woman is all over the place with Zimmerman's family is mean and racist but she has been questioned and there is no evidence to back up any of her claims. Apparently she is a relative of Zimmerman.
The defense filed a motion for Lester to step down in this before he ruled on the release of this info. That is a No No in the law as NO JUdge is supposed to take any further action on the case until that motion is heard and ruled on.
Accordingly, all of that stuff will be ruled inadmissable at trial. 
What we have here is a task force of 10 FBI agents and an entire DA's office working on this thing and what do they come up with after researching everything they could find about Zimmerman's past?
A deranged family member personal enemy with a quack story with no details or facts to support it.
Time to put this circus to an end. Our tax dollars at work.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 16, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Handbook??
> 
> ?
> That is no police command.
> Give it up. You know nothing.



Stop mincing words.  The pertinent questions:  Should he have known better?  Would a "reasonable person" have known better?

The answer:  Yes.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 16, 2012)

paperview said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > ...  It's almost as if they wanted their son dead.
> ...



To shallow uninformed ideologues like you this and everything else is always a conservative versus liberal issue.

Political ideology has no place and is not relevant in criminal procedure and trials.

Grow up, learn something and govern yourself accordingly.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 16, 2012)

paperview said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > ...  It's almost as if they wanted their son dead.
> ...



No, I'm not....I'm a moderate...they call me a liberal...you call me a conservative...neither one of you seem to be able to use your brains...

Tell me, if your son was suspended from school,would you let him wander the streets alone after dark?  If you came home in the evening and found out he wasn't there, would you go to bed, or would you be like me, checking all of his friends homes to find him????  This kid was 17 and in a dangerous neighborhood with a high crime rate and his dad comes home and when he isn't there he "assumes" he's staying at a friends home?  What kind of father does that?


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 16, 2012)

paperview said:


> "Investigators asked her why she decided to come forward now."This is the first time in my life that I'm not afraid of him," she replied."
> 
> 
> I might remind the readers, this witness contacted the police TWO DAYS   after the shooting incident, so before anyone ties it to the media   hoopla...



I think we still have to be very skeptical at this point.  No doubt, the story of the shooting was all over the local news immediately, before it ever hit the national lime light.  It's still reasonably possible that this person is just looking for her 15 minutes.

Of course, if it turned out to be true, it would certainly blow a hole in the "but he's such a nice guy" argument.  Though I would have thought that that kind of thinking would have finally been put to rest with the Jerry Sandusky trial.  In any event, obviously this won't be admissible in GZ's murder trial, but I'll be interested to hear if anything turns up to support this allegation.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 16, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> but if Martin attacked first



And where is there any evidence to suggest that?


----------



## paperview (Jul 16, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > "Investigators asked her why she decided to come forward now."This is the first time in my life that I'm not afraid of him," she replied."
> ...


You can listen to her account here:


*Interview in which the witness accuses George Zimmerman of sexually assaulting her since the age of 6 

*Witness #9 Files: Trayvon Martin / George Zimmerman Case | AxiomAmnesia.com Presents They Always Get Away: Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Documents, Photos, Videos, Audio, and Articles

You tell me if you think she sounds credible.

People just don't 'make up' stories like this. Take  a listen.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 16, 2012)

paperview said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Eh, I've stopped being surprised at the things people make up at times.  But right now I'm going off of extremely limited information.  Thanks for the links.


----------



## paperview (Jul 16, 2012)

Looks like the Zimmerman household was not a safe place for children at all.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 16, 2012)

True or not though, it won't have any bearing on the case.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 16, 2012)

paperview said:


> Looks like the Zimmerman household was not a safe place for children at all.



I have to admit, only a few minutes in, and this is painful to listen to.  While I'd hate to think that someone would make up something like this about an innocent person, I really hope she is.  I hate to think of children having to go through such horrible things.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 16, 2012)

Well then, I guess it will make him look like a predator....


----------



## paperview (Jul 16, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> ...
> The defense filed a motion for Lester to step down in this before he ruled on the release of this info. That is a No No in the law as NO JUdge is supposed to take any further action on the case until that motion is heard and ruled on.
> Accordingly, all of that stuff will be ruled inadmissable at trial.


The Judge signed his original order the day before O'Mara filed his motion.

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/order denying reconsideration of release.pdf

Case law precedent and Sunshine Law is quite clear on this.  As the judge himself said, his hands are tied as to whether he allow release.



> What we have here is a task force of 10 FBI agents and an entire DA's office working on this thing and what do they come up with after researching everything they could find about Zimmerman's past?
> A deranged family member personal enemy with a quack story with no details or facts to support it.
> Time to put this circus to an end. Our tax dollars at work.



The Witness came forward less than 1 day after TM's parents were notified he was dead. 

It wasn't the FBI who did that later interview. It was investigators from the SAO.


----------



## Liability (Jul 16, 2012)

The tendency of liberals to prejudge appears to be something that comes with time pressure.


----------



## paperview (Jul 16, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like the Zimmerman household was not a safe place for children at all.
> ...


It's corroborated.


----------



## paperview (Jul 16, 2012)

Ravi said:


> True or not though, it won't have any bearing on the case.


Only to the extent she may be  a rebuttal witness..."like in  Sandusky trial  to show 
he has* a "history of violence and manipulation."*


----------



## Ariux (Jul 16, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Trayvon "No-limit-niggar"  was a hateful gang wannabe that was in the wrong place at the wrong time and took it out on Zimmerman and paid for it with his life.  He'd been suspended from school no less than 3 times that year alone...in answer to that, his wonderful parents allowed him to roam the streets at night and took out patents on various form of his name so they can make money.  It's almost as if they wanted their son dead.



Not only did the shit parents let their thug son roam the streets at night, even while on school suspension for illegal drugs, they let him leave the house in a black hoodie, looking like a thug.  That stupidity is compounded by the racist claims of the father that he warned his son (years earlier) about whites stereotyping Afros.

Afros need white people to raise their children, such as in the public schools.  It is only white influence that any Afro grows up to be even a half-decent  half-human.  Where would Obama be if he wasn't raised by his white mother and white grandparents?


----------



## paperview (Jul 16, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Looks like the Zimmerman household was not a safe place for children at all.
> ...


Yes, it is painful.  Like a hard belt in the stomach painful.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 16, 2012)

> "Growing up he and his family always made statements that they did not like black people unless they act white," she told police.



Woman accuses Zimmerman of child molestation

Sounds like most of the cons on this messageboard.


----------



## Liability (Jul 16, 2012)

Ravi said:


> > "Growing up he and his family always made statements that they did not like black people unless they act white," she told police.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What does?  A mere allegation "sounds like" most of the conservatives on USMB?

Yeah.

You're honest and reasonable.  Not.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 16, 2012)

Liability said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > > "Growing up he and his family always made statements that they did not like black people unless they act white," she told police.
> ...


I've read countless times here that blacks shouldn't act black. Heck, Gunny used to claim it was okay to call black people ******* if they act like *******.

Blow it out your ass, dope.


----------



## Missourian (Jul 16, 2012)

This thread is too long.

That is all.


----------



## Luissa (Jul 16, 2012)

Liability said:


> The tendency of liberals to prejudge appears to be something that comes with time pressure.



Kind of like the right who prejudged a black kid with no criminal record?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 16, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...




Well actually it is...

Follow - Synonyms and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Thesaurus, Synonym

Follow: Verb
to go after or on the track of <let's follow the boys to their hiding place>
Synonyms bird-dog, *chase*, course, dog, hound, *pursue*, run, shadow, tag, tail, trace, track, trail



Againsheila said:


> in any case..no evidence points to Zimmerman, chasing down Martin



Actually there is, the dispatcher call from that night were Zimmerman admits to following Martin and the video reenactment the next day where Zimmerman followed the same path Martin took when he ran away from Zimmerman the first time.



Againsheila said:


> or attacking him in anyway.  There is evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman (scratches on Trayvon's fist) and bruising and scratches and wounds on Zimmerman's face and head.



Sorry, you are under the false impression that wounds indicate who started a fight.  They don't.  They indicate who was loosing, not who may have initiated hostilities.




Againsheila said:


> There is not justification for 2nd degree murder charges...possibly for manslaughter, but definitely not for 2nd degree murder.  If he's found guilty it will be a big miscarriage of justice and if he's not found guilty the blacks will riot...some choice, huh?



Acatually I agree with you, Murder 2 appears to be a stretch because of the need to prove "depraved disregard for human life" and none of the information available to the public supports that requirement.



Againsheila said:


> Everyone here who is defending Trayvon is supporting the rioting and the railroading of Zimmerman.



Whew, good, I'm nether supporting Trayvon or attempting to railroad Zimmerman.  What I want is the justice system to work and for all the evidence to be placed before the court and the jury of his peers to render their decision.

That OK with you?

George Zimmerman MySpace | Breaking News for Black America




Againsheila said:


> Trayvon "No-limit-niggar"  was a hateful gang wannabe that was in the wrong place at the wrong time and took it out on Zimmerman and paid for it with his life.  He'd been suspended from school no less than 3 times that year alone...



Well if you want to do that then...

Zimmerman "&#8220;DatNiggyTB" was a frustrated wannabee cop who thought that playing "hero" in the community would further a career in law enforcement.  That by being the one to catch the "bad guy" who had been burglarizing the neighborhood that it would get him some notoriety.  He's been arrested for assaulting a police officer in the process of making arrests after that police officer had lawfully identified himself and told the police officer &#8216;I don&#8217;t care who you  are.&#8217; and when asked to leave stated "**** you".  Zimmerman was also fired for assaulting a guest at party.


OK, see how that works.




Againsheila said:


> his wonderful parents allowed him to roam the streets at night and took out patents on various form of his name so they can make money.  It's almost as if they wanted their son dead.




Psst.

You can't take out a patent on a name and you can't copyright a name either.


>>>>


----------



## Ariux (Jul 16, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Kind of like the right who prejudged a black kid with no criminal record?



The only reason Trayvon doesn't have a criminal record is because he was a minor.  He's a vandal, a burglar, an illegal drug user/dealer, and a proud no-limit-nigga.  And, he assaulted someone just for looking at him in the wrong way.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 16, 2012)

paperview said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



"People just don't "make up" stories like this"
You are as naive and gullible as they come. Ever heard of the McMartin pre-school case?
I have worked child molestation cases where the mother coached the kid.
Dozens of them.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 16, 2012)

paperview said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



she was 6, he was 8.

yep, people make up stuff like this all the time...Remember the Duke Lacross team?  "It was in front of everybody".....yeah, no one saw what was happening, she didn't mention it and suddenly, out of nowhere, she's accusing him of sexual abuse.  He was 2 years older than her...TWO lousy years.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 16, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



A dictionary is not Florida statute and case law.
I know you know better so why the BS from the dictionary?
They trademarked his name numerous ways. To cash in.
That is what this all about anyway as Sharpton, et al had contingency contracts ready for the attorneys from the word go.
Where the $$ is Sharpton and Jackson follow. 
Not illegal to follow anyone at any time and that is not an admission of guilt of any kind.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 16, 2012)

Amazing that you legal morons do not do the math here.
Al Sharpton and Tawana Brawley ring a bell?
"People do not just make things like that up" paperless.
Al Sharpton enters the picture again.


----------



## Liability (Jul 16, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > The tendency of liberals to prejudge appears to be something that comes with time pressure.
> ...



No.  I don't see anybody but asshole racist shit-birds like Ariux doing that.

But I DO see lots of faux detectives, forensic experts, lawyers, judges and members of the jury HERE -- mostly from the left -- who are quite insistent that GZ "is" guilty.

As I said way back when:  Zimmerman MIGHT turn out to be guilty.  But it takes a special brand of stupid to insist (at this early juncture) that he "is" guilty.

And if it turns out that he is guilty, fuck him.  Let justice grind him down.  But if he was telling the truth (and all of the huffing and puffing from those who presume him guilty doesn't alter the fact that much of his story is confirmed implicitly by physical evidence), then he deserves to be acquitted.

I still think there's a chance that the case will get tossed before it goes to trial.


----------



## manifold (Jul 16, 2012)

Liability said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



The only thing Zimmerman is guilty of is buying into stereotypes yo. 

Just ask Ravi.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 16, 2012)

paperview said:


> *Interview in which the witness accuses George Zimmerman of sexually assaulting her since the age of 6 *


*

We've known from the start that Zimmerman is a God Damned Jew-Hispanic and Democrat asshole.  He even has Afro shit in his family tree.   This isn't about whether or not Zimmerman has blue eyes and a halo.   It's about whether or not he shot that thug in self-defense. 

This "sexual assault" (nothing beyond touching) was between children.  And, she may have been somewhat as complicit as he was, in spite of what she's claiming now (really, would have been so hard for her to tell her dad that Zimmerman put his hands in her pants?).  I wonder how many girls that thug Travyon assaulted (or pressured into sex).  Lucky for Trayvon, no one is interviewing everyone who ever knew him (I've not seen one white classmate come to Trayvon's defense).  Piece-of-shit Afro.*


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 16, 2012)

Liability said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



And under THE UNITED STATED CONSTITUTION he is IS PRESUMED INNOCENT now and until the jury goes out after ALL OF THE EVIDENCE is entered into the case, CROSS EXAMINED and the Judge gives his jury charges.
The presumption of innocence is the foundation of this country. Amazing how the very folks that claim to be "liberals" selectively use the very document that grants them their freedoms to front their ideology and then turn that off when it suits them to persecute someone they do not like.
They are closet fascists.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 16, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> And under THE UNITED STATED CONSTITUTION he is IS PRESUMED INNOCENT now and until the jury goes out after ALL OF THE EVIDENCE is entered into the case, CROSS EXAMINED and the Judge gives his jury charges.



Libtards really believe that the burden is on Zimmerman to prove himself innocent.  The shitheads point to the affirmative defense of claiming self-defense to reach their idiotic conclusion.   And, of course, Zimmerman can't prove himself innocent because he conspired with the police to fake his wounds, and he also hates f-ing colds, and anyone who hate's colds is automatically guilty.  So, the racist shithead believe.

The legal standard of "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply in this forum.  But, it is a moral principle that a person is innocent until we see evidence that reasonable shows a person to be guilty.  Florida has shared the evidence, and it shows Zimmerman to be innocent.  If it had shown him to be guilty, it would be fair for us to say that here and now.


----------



## Liability (Jul 16, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Agreed, except they aren't exactly closeted.


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 16, 2012)

_It takes racist meat-wads, to rant about how somebody who presents evidence against GZ is somehow against trial procedure taking its lawful course, when wingpunk fucktards, ranting against "liberals" wouldn't know a liberal or likely evidence at a public trial, if a liberal came along and shoved plastic up their assholes and spun it around and around.

Fucktards forgot, how GZ wasn't arrested, when the lead detective recommended arrest.  It seems to me probable cause for arrest was not only evident, right after the February 2012 incident, but also evidence likely to result in conviction has accrued.

But it takes a wingpunk fucktard, to gather, with all his retarded pals, to engage in liberal-baiting, while ranting, against any fact or issue, at all indicative, of how GZ should have been arrested, immediately.  

Hey!  When SPD didn't arrest GZ, I was curious, to find out how that could happen.  I happen to be a non-partisan, who will vote for the Green Party candidate, this election.  I have been a Libertarian.  But I will never be a wingpunk or one of black Obamney's cultists.

Former SPD Chief Lee is gone, the lead detective has been re-assigned, GZ won't be getting SYG, and we will see what happens, as the hearings go down.  As it happens, witness accounts are generally lining up, for conviction, of some kind, as time goes by.

You bitches against justice are perps, who shouldn't go around, in traffic.  Anybody who says GZ isn't getting a fair trial because we examine facts needs to eat shit and die.  Don't bother posting, at a forum thread, where you don't like the topic being discussed.

Of course, we run into this problem, all the fucking time, with wingpunk fucktards._


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 16, 2012)

Liability said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Deference to the Judiciary.  I like it.  Tell me, were you this quick to wait for the outcome of the case when it was the health care law that everyone was talking about?


----------



## Luissa (Jul 16, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Kind of like the right who prejudged a black kid with no criminal record?
> ...



First off he was caught with crumbs in a baggy. Second you have no clue what you are talking about, and should probably try to prove your false claims. Good luck.


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 16, 2012)

paperview said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


The part where it says (((keep a watchful eye))) in those rules, well isn't that what he Zimmerman was doing pretty much ? 

The operator then fearing for Zimmerman who had called, and for whom was "keeping a watchful eye" on a suspicious person, by attempting to do what came next in order to achieve this ((keeping a watchful eye)), began pursuit of Martin for continued survielence purposes I'm guessing, at least until the law got there, but then the operator told Zimmerman when dectected this pursuit in sound of, "are you pursuing him"--yes--"we don't need you to do that sir" (i.e. trying to keep a watchful eye on the suspect by pursuit of), in which Zimmerman replied OK, and stopped the pursuit of Martin at this point, so am I right on this point maybe ? What lay beyond this I havn't a clue.. Ok now you all go right ahead and have at it some more, and hopefully it will all make sense someday somehow... I just want justice to be blind, and to be served properly and righteously for all involved..


----------



## Ariux (Jul 16, 2012)

Luissa said:


> First off he was caught with crumbs in a baggy. Second you have no clue what you are talking about, and should probably try to prove your false claims. Good luck.



Luissa, you're a shit-brained fucktard!  Do you think that those pot crumbs were put in that bag by themselves?  At one point, that bag was full.  And, it's more likely he sold the missing pot than smoked it at school.  Other lines of evidence also indicate that your piece-of-shit Afro was a drug dealer.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 16, 2012)

manifold said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Yeah, guess he is 'guilty' of that, if something almost everyone does is something to be guilty of. That is the whole basis for modern advertising, using positive and negative stereotypes.

But what he said pales in comparison to what the race-baiting self-appointed 'civil liberties' mafia does whenever a white person shoots a black person; 'IT WAS RACISM!'

lol


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 16, 2012)

Ariux said:


> We've known from the start that Zimmerman is a God Damned Jew-Hispanic and Democrat asshole.  He even has Afro shit in his family tree.



Its interesting how statements from you like the above discredit everything else that follows, in my mind, and I fucking agree with you most of the time.

Racism is stupid bullshit, dude. It makes you look like some ignoramus that got beat up by a black guy once in his life.

Why discredit yourself so much?

Guess, in a way it is fortunate. At least you are a known quantity.


----------



## ItsjustmeIthink (Jul 16, 2012)

Shows how fucked up the far-right can be.

Rallying behind, and defending someone like Zimmerman, its pretty disgusting.

If Zimmerman had not been carrying a gun, Trayvon would not have died.

If Zimmerman had listened to the police, Trayvon would not have died.

If Zimmerman -knowing he could just blow this punk away if he gave him any trouble- had not approched Trayvon...Trayvon would probably be speaking for himself today.

He knew he had the gun, he knew he wasn't supposed to pursue and approach Trayvon, he did it anyway. He should be punished as such.


----------



## paperview (Jul 16, 2012)

Well, the monkey fuckheads at Conservative Treehouse have uncovered W9's identity, complete with an array of pictures.

I wish someone would tazer their asses. (figuratively)


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 16, 2012)

ItsjustmeIthink said:


> Shows how fucked up the far-right can be.
> 
> Rallying behind, and defending someone like Zimmerman, its pretty disgusting.
> 
> ...



I Trayvon hadn't been out that night, he wouldn't have died.  If Trayvon hadn't been suspended from school, he woudn't have died.  If his parents had disciplined him instead of letting him wander the streets at night after being suspended, he wouldn't have died...see how that works?  Everybody can play "what if", it doesn't solve anything.

And I didn't put any thoughts in their heads like you did Zimmerman....are you psychic or what?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 16, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _It takes racist meat-wads, to rant about how somebody who presents evidence against GZ is somehow against trial procedure taking its lawful course, when wingpunk fucktards, ranting against "liberals" wouldn't know a liberal or likely evidence at a public trial, if a liberal came along and shoved plastic up their assholes and spun it around and around.
> 
> Fucktards forgot, how GZ wasn't arrested, when the lead detective recommended arrest.  It seems to me probable cause for arrest was not only evident, right after the February 2012 incident, but also evidence likely to result in conviction has accrued.
> 
> ...



You are not interested in a fair trial either.
All your rant is political which this case has nothing to do with.
Hope you get a baton to the head at your next Occutard rally.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 16, 2012)

paperview said:


> Well, the monkey fuckheads at Conservative Treehouse have uncovered W9's identity, complete with an array of pictures.
> 
> I wish someone would tazer their asses. (figuratively)



Your team put her out there.
Worried?


----------



## Noomi (Jul 16, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > Kind of like the right who prejudged a black kid with no criminal record?
> ...



Are you capable of debating without calling people names and referring to a young kid as a 'nigga'? Your posts reek of racism which is probably why no one likes you.


----------



## ItsjustmeIthink (Jul 16, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> ItsjustmeIthink said:
> 
> 
> > Shows how fucked up the far-right can be.
> ...



Say what you will, but Zimmerman made a series of decisons that quickly lead to Trayvon's death. I'm not playing "what if", the decisons Zimmerman made *that night* are much different from the ones you just described.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 16, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



I believe he/she was referring to Trayvon's name on his twitter account.  Since he called himself that, how is it racist for others to do so?


----------



## Noomi (Jul 16, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...



I understand what you mean, and I do agree, but it seems that every post from this person refers to all blacks as 'niggas'. That sounds like racism to me. Can't we discuss the issue without calling Trayvon a ****** or a coon etc?


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 16, 2012)

ItsjustmeIthink said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > ItsjustmeIthink said:
> ...



You're playing psychic pretending to know what was in Zimmerman's head.  He had a gun because the cops told him to get one...he got pepperspray for the dogs that were bothering them but the cops said the pepperspray wouldn't do it an he should get a gun.  

If Zimmerman hadn't been carrying a gun, he'd probably be dead.  He's the one with wounds to his head and face.  Trayvon only had a scratch on his knuckles.  I think if Zimmerman had attacked him first there would have been at least one bruise, don't you?  

When your head is being pounded into the ground and you are screaming for help, what are you suppose to do?  Let the guy kill you, or shoot him to save your life?


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 16, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



All I know is the "n" word isn't allowed in my home but if he referred to himself as "nigga" then I don't see that as racist.  "******" maybe, but not "nigga".


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 16, 2012)

ItsjustmeIthink said:


> Shows how fucked up the far-right can be.
> 
> Rallying behind, and defending someone like Zimmerman, its pretty disgusting.
> 
> ...



Lol, After all the info that has come out and completely discredited that narrative, the only way you could seriously be saying that bullshit is if you are either dumber than a sack of dirt clods or are just a fucking stupid ass troll.

GZ did us all a service putting that little thug in the ground for good.

Thank God and George Zimmerman, and not because Martin was black. There are plenty of white ass hats that deserve the same fate.


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 16, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



I have never understood how using a colloquial expression for the Spanish word for 'black' which is 'negroe' is somehow so evil when the people who have been the greatest harm to all races of our society wouldnt be caught dead saying that in public. They are too smart for that.

Guess who I am referring to? The racists still running the Dimocrat Party, that is who and they know these policies are killing the black community and that is just what they want.

A guy observed that the national forrest service puts up these signs telling people to not feed the bears as that makes them dependent on tourists for food and that is bad for the bears. Then the same government hannds out hundreds of millions dollars doing exactly that to human beings?

Can this destruction NOT be entirely deliberate?


----------



## ItsjustmeIthink (Jul 16, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> ItsjustmeIthink said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Alright, but that only says why he was carrying the gun. Zimmerman still made decisions that lead to a death that, ultimately, could have been avoided. He should have listened to what the police said and not followed. 

I'm not psychic, I just don't think Zimmerman was a tard. I just argue that if he were qualifed to carry a firearm then he was proabably smart enough to know what guns do, they tend to kill things.

________________

All I'm really trying to say is this: Theres a difference between a "whooped ass" and dead one..


----------



## Ariux (Jul 16, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Racism is stupid bullshit, dude. It makes you look like some ignoramus that got beat up by a black guy once in his life.



The only reason anyone thinks Zimmerman should go to jail is because his skin is lighter than Travyon's skin.  So, don't lecture me on racism.  Zimmerman is a piece of shit to me, but he's innocent so I'm defending him.

And, don't suggest that I'm ignorant.  It's a lame insult that makes you look desperate to find fault.  My offensiveness to those who are Politically Correct is that I'm not ignorant.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 16, 2012)

Ariux said:


> The only reason anyone thinks Zimmerman should go to jail is because his skin is lighter than Travyon's skin.  So, don't lecture me on racism.  Zimmerman is a piece of shit to me, but he's innocent so I'm defending him.
> 
> And, don't suggest that I'm ignorant.  It's a lame insult that makes you look desperate to find fault.  My offensiveness to those who are Politically Correct is that I'm not ignorant.



You do not know if he is innocent. You were not there that night, you have not listened to all the evidence, you have no way of knowing if Zimmerman is guilty or not. Stop assuming he is innocent. He may well not be.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 16, 2012)

Noomi said:


> You do not know if he is innocent. You were not there that night, you have not listened to all the evidence, you have no way of knowing if Zimmerman is guilty or not. Stop assuming he is innocent. He may well not be.



Sufficient evidence has been released to know beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is innocent.  More evidence won't change this.

You're either ignorant of the vast amount of evidence that has been released, or you're too stupid to evaluate the released evidence.  

As a demonstration of your stupidity, please propose an example of unknown evidence that would show Zimmerman is guilty.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 16, 2012)

You are simply interpreting the evidence in your own way. I, and others, interpret that same information differently. I believe there is a good chance he will go down for this.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 16, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Stop it...stop handing out the food and the welfare.  guess what will happen?  Yeah, revolution...hungry people do amazing things.  The only reason we have welfare is because the rich and the government don't want the French revolution spreading to the USA.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 16, 2012)

ItsjustmeIthink said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > ItsjustmeIthink said:
> ...



shoulda coulda woulda, second guessing after the fact proves nothing...


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 16, 2012)

Noomi said:


> You are simply interpreting the evidence in your own way. I, and others, interpret that same information differently. I believe there is a good chance he will go down for this.



If he gets convicted of 2nd degree murder, it will be a gross miscarriage of justice.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 16, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> The operator then fearing for Zimmerman who had called, and for whom was "keeping a watchful eye" on a suspicious person, by attempting to do what came next in order to achieve this ((keeping a watchful eye)), began pursuit of Martin for continued survielence purposes I'm guessing



You don't have to go as far as a manual.  Zimmerman told the police operator that Trayvon is running.  The operator then asked where Trayvon was going.  That's when Zimmerman got out of his car and started following.  Zimmerman could easily have interpreted the operator's question as a request to follow Trayvon.  Zimmerman would have to had followed to give any more information than he had already given.   

And, a moment later, Zimmerman stopped following and lost Trayvon.   

Anyway, it doesn't matter.  This is a bullshit issue that shitheads raise.  It's like saying "the sky is blue, therefor Zimmerman is guilty."  It doesn't show intent to confront Travyon.  It doesn't show that Zimmerman had opportunity to confront Trayvon, after Zimmerman had lost Trayvon.  It doesn't show that Trayvon had justification to assault Zimmerman.  

If anything, it shows that Trayvon had motive (not justification) to hunt down and assault Zimmerman (to punish Zimmerman for getting out of his car and following him).


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 16, 2012)

The bastard is not only a run-of-the-mill wild savage and proven child-murderer, but he also has a history of sexual deviancy...

Woman Says George Zimmerman Molested Her For More Than A Decade

*SMH*


----------



## Noomi (Jul 17, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> The bastard is not only a run-of-the-mill wild savage and proven child-murderer, but he also has a history of sexual deviancy...
> 
> Woman Says George Zimmerman Molested Her For More Than A Decade
> 
> *SMH*



The only problem I have with this is that she waited until now to come forward with it. That damages her credibility. I don't know if she is truthful, but I won't dismiss her allegations like some would do.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 17, 2012)

Noomi said:


> You are simply interpreting the evidence in your own way. I, and others, interpret that same information differently. I believe there is a good chance he will go down for this.



There are not equally valid different ways of interpreting the evidence.  There are only degrees of rationality in interpreting the evidence.  Shitheads have irrational interpretations.

There's no chance of Zimmerman being convicted of murder.  The only chance I see of him being convicted is if the Prosecution adds a manslaughter charge, then stupid people on the jury might choose the compromised position to try to please everyone.   Even the manslaughter possibility requires Zimmerman's lawyer to do a bad job.

There is no evidence that the public doesn't yet know about which would change the game.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 17, 2012)

ItsjustmeIthink said:


> Zimmerman still made decisions that lead to a death that, ultimately, could have been avoided.



Why the f- do you care that Zimmerman didn't avoid shooting a wild animal in self-defense? 



> I just don't think Zimmerman was a tard. I just argue that if he were qualifed to carry a firearm then he was proabably smart enough to know what guns do, they tend to kill things.



I know you're a tard.  Of everything Zimmerman has said and done, the thing he has done the best is use the gun.


----------



## Luissa (Jul 17, 2012)

Ariux said:


> ItsjustmeIthink said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman still made decisions that lead to a death that, ultimately, could have been avoided.
> ...



A wild animal? Are you serious?


----------



## Ariux (Jul 17, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > ItsjustmeIthink said:
> ...



ItsjustmeIthink thinks Afros are just wild animals. (That's typical of liberals.)  He said Zimmerman made decisions that lead to the death of Trayvon.  In other words, he doesn't see fit to hold Trayvon responsible for anything, including assaulting Zimmerman, exactly as if Travon were a wild animal.  

Maybe you'd prefer an analogy of a girl getting drunk in an ally and then being raped.  "She made decisions that led to the rape... so, she has no right to self-defense."


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 17, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Fallacy of the complex question.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 17, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > The only reason anyone thinks Zimmerman should go to jail is because his skin is lighter than Travyon's skin.  So, don't lecture me on racism.  Zimmerman is a piece of shit to me, but he's innocent so I'm defending him.
> ...



The law assumes he is innocent as of now.
Read The United States Constitution, an interesting document.
Innocent UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY is the law. The presumption of innocence is the foundation OF THIS COUNTRY.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 17, 2012)

Noomi said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > The bastard is not only a run-of-the-mill wild savage and proven child-murderer, but he also has a history of sexual deviancy...
> ...




News reports are that she called SFPD within a couple of days of the shooting, not that she "waited until now" to come forward.


>>>>


----------



## Contumacious (Jul 17, 2012)

Scumbag Angela Corey has released information that allegedly when Zimmerman was* 8 *and his cousin was* 6* he molested her.


This is an admission that prosecutor Corey has NO EVIDENCE against Zimmerman. 

But a corrupt prosecutor and equally corrupt judge are determined to show Alan M Dershowitz that they can easily manipulate the facts and issues in order to convict.

BTW, there is NOTHING Zimmerman can do because US judges and prosecutors have adopted the nazistic rule which grants them immunity from lawsuits for violation of Constitutional rights.

.


----------



## Liability (Jul 17, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



*People* get the presumption of innocence in our system, you idiot.  Not legislative Acts.

Laws can be judged *before* they are even passed.   True story, you dork.

 Hell, sometimes the legislators even read the shit BEFORE they vote and thus are in the position to know what is "in the law" without having to see how it turns out after it passes.


----------



## Liability (Jul 17, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> The bastard is not only a run-of-the-mill wild savage and proven child-murderer, but he also has a history of sexual deviancy...
> 
> Woman Says George Zimmerman Molested Her For More Than A Decade
> 
> *SMH*



Wrong.

He is accused -- and accused only -- of murder.  That doesn't make him a murderer, much less a "proved" one.

And somebody has now *claimed* that as a child GZ allegedly did something sexual in nature with her.  It may or it may not even be true.  Either way it wouldn't constitute a history of sexual deviance, much less "prove" it.

It's nice to see you remain ever willing to prejudge when it suits your biased political interests.


----------



## Liability (Jul 17, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Luissa said:
> ...



Ariux is nothing more than a dopey racist.  And yes, that is redundant.

That prick is such a scumbag that even when he occasionally manages to say something right it is so polluted with his racist "thinking," that he deserves to get a neg rep anyway.  I tend to oblige him in that way.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 17, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > The only reason anyone thinks Zimmerman should go to jail is because his skin is lighter than Travyon's skin.  So, don't lecture me on racism.  Zimmerman is a piece of shit to me, but he's innocent so I'm defending him.
> ...



If I'm going to "assume" something, I'd rather "assume" someone is innocent than "assume" they are guilty....


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 17, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Okay, so 2 days after the shooting, she makes up a story to get herself in the spotlight, claiming sexual molestation since she was 6 and Zimmerman was 8.  Sorry, I don't buy it....and saying that it happened IN FRONT of their families....you really believe that?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 17, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...




The shooting occurs 2/26/2012, she calls SFPD a couple of days later (call it 2/28/2012) - the case blows up and goes national around *3/20/2012* and the claim is she called to "get herself in the spotlight" a month before there was a spotlight to get into?

You really believe that?


>>>>


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 17, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Yes, do you really think she didn't hear about the case before she brought her charges????


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 17, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...




Of course she heard about the case before she called the police.  If she hadn't heard about it, she wouldn't have known, and therefore wouldn't have called.

The point you tried to make is that the reason she called was that it would shine a spotlight on her for national attention.  But wait, she contacted the police within days of the event and well before the case made any kind of national news.

The timeline for the position you attempted to make doesn't make sense.  Someone does not call the police to get in the national spotlight for a case that is not in the national spotlight.


>>>>


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 17, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



No, the point I make is that she did it for attention...I didn't say it was for "national" attention....


----------



## paperview (Jul 17, 2012)

Her story is corroborated.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 17, 2012)

paperview said:


> Her story is corroborated.



by whom?


----------



## Liability (Jul 17, 2012)

paperview said:


> Her story is corroborated.



Yeah?

How so?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 17, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



She waited how many decades?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 17, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



If she has an axe to grind then she would call when he was most vulnerable.
And that looks to be the case here as there is ZERO evidence of anything other than hher word against his.
She has no credibility. Why give her any?


----------



## paperview (Jul 17, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Her story is corroborated.
> ...


Prosecution in their  court documents declare her statements are corroborated.


----------



## Liability (Jul 17, 2012)

paperview said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



That's not corroboration.  That is just a claim that there is corroboration.

You repeating it also doesn't count as corroboration.


----------



## paperview (Jul 17, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


Investigator:  *Why have you decided to come forward now? *  Not that that&#8217;s wrong. I  mean I don&#8217;t want you to think that at all.  I think that good but* what  has led you to come forward to us now?*

*W9:  This is the first time in my life that I am not afraid of him  (crying).*  I know that nothing can get to me, he can&#8217;t get to me.  I  mean if I saw him on the street or if I saw him anywhere it would just  make me breakdown in tears.  But now with everything going on, I know  he&#8217;s not going to be out in public, you know I won&#8217;t go to Target and  see him anymore. * I&#8217;m not afraid of him now.  *

<snip>

W9:  The thing is that growing up I told my friends, but I didn&#8217;t tell  my family.  And those people would probably remember more than I would.    I don&#8217;t remember, I tried, tried so hard to forget it all and to make  it go away that I even forgot the good stuff in my life (crying).

I:  Well 

W9:  There&#8217;s things that my family talks about that sounded awesome but I  don&#8217;t remember that (crying) it sounds like they are talking about  someone else.  I don&#8217;t (crying)

I:  OK, OK.  Just so I&#8217;m clear person you&#8217;re talking about that did this in Lake Mary what&#8217;s his name?

W9: George Zimmerman

I: OK and what&#8217;s his relationship to you?

W9:  (redacted)

I:  Alright, is there anything else that you can think of that we  haven&#8217;t discussed that important that you wanted to share with me today  about this?

W9: Does it count that he admitted it?

I:  Did he admit it to you? Is that what you&#8217;re saying?

9 - well yeah, my parents were there  - my parents found out & they  confronted him & his parents about what happene & they wanted to  get together & talk about it because I think - they just don't  believe it because he - he is that way that he MAKES HIMSELF LOOK SO  GOOD THAT THEY WERE IN SHOCK. They had no idea and I never told them the  depths of it, I told them I don't want to talk about it Just forget it,  (NN - when did this happpen?/go into more detail)  2005 - My sister  told them after I told her that night & she said  that she told  them, she had to tell my dad & she didn't know what else to do &  I was so afraid and I WAS I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN AFRAID OF HIM.. 

NN - what's your sister's last name (REDACTED) how old were you in '05? 

9 - let's seeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.... 20 

NN  -what happened when your sister told... what part did you tell your sister first? 

9 - I just told her that things happened. That was it, I never... (NN -  no specifics?) - NOTHING IN DETAIL - I was there when she called my dad  & told him I was freaking out & very scared & said things  happened w/George &.... 

NN - OK so what happens next in the sequence of that? 

9 - we went to a restaurant it was the UNO in Lake Mary @ the time, we =  me mom & dad annnd they told George we need to talk about this and   INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT IT all he did was come in the room  - the  restaurant, he sat on the end of the booth and said "I'm sorry" AND JUST  GOT UP AND WALKED OUT.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 17, 2012)

Contumacious said:


> Scumbag Angela Corey has released information that allegedly when Zimmerman was* 8 *and his cousin was* 6* he molested her.



The girl was nearly 7 and Zimmerman was barely 8.  They would have been one grade apart in school and girls mature faster, so they would have been roughly equals.  Zimmerman may have initiated it, but she went along with it.  It's not like an adult molesting a child.

While inappropriate, it wasn't really molestation.  And, it's totally irrelevant to Zimmerman's trial.



> This is an admission that prosecutor Corey has NO EVIDENCE against Zimmerman.



Right.  The prosecutor has no case.  And, instead is doing everything possible to poison the  jury pool against Zimmerman by broadcasting every embarrassing element of his life.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 17, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Of course she has an axe to grind.  The original statement was that she called to get into the spotlight, called well before the case got any publicity.



Gadawg73 said:


> And that looks to be the case here as there is ZERO evidence of anything other than hher word against his.
> She has no credibility. Why give her any?




What makes you think, that I think, she has any credibility?

She has, as you put it, an "axe to grind" AND the charges about sexual contact with Zimmerman are totally irrelevant to the case for which he is charged.


>>>>


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 17, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


Has anyone heard from the 999 babes, who attacked a presidential running mate just at the right time, in which they did just to unhinge him from his run for the presidency? Isn't it just funny how they all disapeared once they achieved their goals ? Oh and forget about the hurt and pain and suffering they had aquirred in it all, just as long as they politically unseated the canidate in which became their target in what must have been a cunning and planned character assasination, but for whom did they do all this for, and where did they all go ?


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 17, 2012)

paperview said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Oh, then, yeah, it must be so....


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 17, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> The law assumes he is innocent as of now.



I know that this may come as as surprise to you, but YOU ARE NOT THE LAW!  Nor is anyone here.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 17, 2012)

Liability said:


> *People* get the presumption of innocence in our system, you idiot.  Not legislative Acts.



Legislative acts get the presumption of constitutionality, though.  But I'm sure you already knew that, what with being a lawyer and all.  So you say.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 17, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Very well said.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 17, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The law assumes he is innocent as of now.
> ...



Your ignorance of the law does not surprise me at all.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 17, 2012)

paperview said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



The Tawana Brawley interview looked better than this one. 
Are you interested in some beach front property in Macon, Ga.?


----------



## Liability (Jul 17, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > *People* get the presumption of innocence in our system, you idiot.  Not legislative Acts.
> ...



InthemUddle:

Legislative Acts get a presumption of Constitutionality when they are reviewed by a Court of law.  Individual citizens are under no such constraint, you utter dimwit.

Furthermore, you asswipe, you are free to believe or disbelieve me about my career.  I'm not exactly clear on why I should care what _you_ believe or don't, though.

But back on topic.  In our society, it is considered fundamental fairness to give an accused person a presumption of innocence, and  the law requires it IN a Court of law.

It is not an issue of fundamental fairness to presume a law to be in compliance with the Constitution.  In fact, sometimes it is just downright stupid.

Damn, you are ignorant.


----------



## MuadDib (Jul 18, 2012)

I saw George Zimmerman club a baby seal.

I swear it's the truth.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 18, 2012)

MuadDib said:


> I saw George Zimmerman club a baby seal.
> 
> I swear it's the truth.



He lies about the size of the fish he catches too.
Honest, he does.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 18, 2012)

Liability said:


> *People* get the presumption of innocence in our system





Liability said:


> Individual citizens are under no such constraint



I'm glad you finally are getting it.


----------



## paperview (Jul 18, 2012)

Hannity scores a coup!

*Sean Hannity Nabs First Interview With George Zimmerman, Airing Tonight*

                                     by Meenal Vamburkar | 12:26 pm, July 18th, 2012



On Wednesday night, *Sean Hannity* is devoting the entire hour of his show to his interview with *George Zimmerman*. Accused of second-degree murder after the *Trayvon Martin* shooting, Zimmerman is sitting down for an interview for the first time.
 According to Fox News, Zimmerman will &#8220;open up about what happened the  night of Trayvon Martin&#8217;s death and his experience in the aftermath of  the fatal shooting.&#8221;

Sean Hannity Nabs First Interview With George Zimmerman, Airing Tonight | Mediaite


----------



## Liability (Jul 18, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > *People* get the presumption of innocence in our system
> ...



No no, you willfully dishonest petty fraud.  *I* have gotten it all along.  

YOU were the one who stupidly, ignorantly, disingenuously or dishonestly tried to equate the presumption of innocence to which an individual accused of a crime in our criminal justice system is entitled with a presumption of constitutionality to which a law gets treated when challenged on a constitutional basis in a court of law.

Everyone sees through you, you know, when you try to reverse  your field like that, you dishonest petty hack.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 18, 2012)

paperview said:


> Hannity scores a coup!
> 
> *Sean Hannity Nabs First Interview With George Zimmerman, Airing Tonight*



Zimmerman is such a piece of shit.  Why doesn't he give his first interview to a fellow Liberal?

The shithead spent his whole life being his own worst enemy.


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 18, 2012)

Yeah, he doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb on the tree but at least he shoots straight. I still do not think he is guilty of murder. He is rather a political victim of the black communities conviction without due process. I think that the prosecution and the media in this case are both trying to assassinate him with public opinion and possibly taint the jury pool in their favor. It's time for a new judge and way past time for a gag order to be issued.


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 18, 2012)

paperview said:


> Hannity scores a coup!
> 
> *Sean Hannity Nabs First Interview With George Zimmerman, Airing Tonight*
> 
> ...



10,000 dollar bet that this interview will have extremely leaning and coercive questions intended to paint a certain, and very specific narrative.

How much you wanna bet....$10,000!


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 18, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



You didn't "take apart" anything...you just left out what didn't fit your narrative, as I've demonstrated.

Oh, and next time you read the WND, you're reading Kristol.


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 18, 2012)

tjvh said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > The Infidel said:
> ...



Something routine that became an obsessive act committed by Zimmerman, which in many cases didn't pan out, as the police records reported.


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 18, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Hannity scores a coup!
> ...


Are you trying to set the stage for us (prior to this interview), out of fear that it may be a great interview maybe, (debunking alot that has been thrown out there by his accusers)? 

So MarcALT, are you attempting to taint the interview with your bias in hopes to sway us the inet jury, before it even gets aired tonight ? How about this for a better analysis and alert for us -To Everyone here, Zimmerman and Hannity are going on in an interview tonight, and this will be at 9:00 o'clock eastern time, so be there or be square to all those who are interested in furthering their investigative journalism skills in this case... B )


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 18, 2012)

The Professor said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



I love it when David Duke wanna-be's console each other with their pseudo-intellectual rationalizations.

Stand your ground was invoked by Zimmerman's camp, genius.  That coincides with the allegation/assumption/supposition/conjecture that Martin was attacking Zimmerman.  The EVIDENCE, however, points to Zimmerman getting out of his car to confront Martin (against police telling him it wasn't necessary to)....a strange man stalks you in his car, and then gets out...armed...to confront you.  We don't know who threw the first punch (dead men tell no tales), but Zimmerman's tale of having his skull bashed on concrete numerous times does NOT coincide with the actual wound as seen later that evening on surveillance tapes.

But bigots and racists say that a young man who was doing NOTHING but walking back home from his Dad's girlfriend's house with a soft drink, skittles and a cell phone DESERVED to be stalked and killed because Zimmerman SUSPECTED him of being up to no good.

And the Zimmerman zombies march on!


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 18, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...


How can I "taint" anything?

I'm only a single, solitary, man. I have no power.

However, I AM predicting what it will be. And there's absolutely nothing wrong.

Seems that you have your own predictions and biases as well.

We'll see how it goes.

*leaves to setup DVR*


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 18, 2012)

paperview said:


> Hannity scores a coup!
> 
> *Sean Hannity Nabs First Interview With George Zimmerman, Airing Tonight*
> 
> ...



Anyone that believes the Madison Avenue marketing of the Sean Hannity Show that Zimmerman will "open up" in this interview is beyond stupid.
Zimmerman's lawyer gave Hannity a list of questions they will answer. 
This show has been canned from the start.
Amazing how naive and gullible the dumb masses are.


----------



## Bigfoot (Jul 18, 2012)

Well, there you go. You have now heard eye-witness testimony of the moments before Martin was shot. If Martin hadn't attacked Zimmerman he would still be alive today.


----------



## MuadDib (Jul 18, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> tjvh said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



He's on the Neighborhood Watch program and he called the cops on 4 prior occasions. That's an obsession?


----------



## paperview (Jul 18, 2012)

MuadDib said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > tjvh said:
> ...


He called 911 THIRTY THREE times in 3 years.


----------



## paperview (Jul 18, 2012)

Dan Abrams &#8207;@danabrams

&#8234;#Zimmerman&#8236; offering very specific details that could come back to haunt him at trial. &#8234;#trayvonmartin


----------



## paperview (Jul 18, 2012)

*Frances Robles*             &#8207;@*RoblesHerald*                                             Zimmerman says he doesn't  regret getting out of his car, carrying a gun and would not do anything  differently. @*MiamiHerald

*       He really said that??

Holy shit.


----------



## MuadDib (Jul 18, 2012)

paperview said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Even if that's correct, so what? He's on the watch program. If he sees something suspicious, it's his responsibility to call 911 and report it, and let the cops check it out.


----------



## MuadDib (Jul 18, 2012)

paperview said:


> *Frances Robles*             &#8207;@*RoblesHerald*                                             Zimmerman says he doesn't  regret getting out of his car, carrying a gun and would not do anything  differently. @*MiamiHerald
> 
> *       He really said that??
> 
> Holy shit.



Why should he if he didn't do anything wrong?


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 18, 2012)

paperview said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Which equals out to about once a month...you think that was excessive?????


----------



## paperview (Jul 18, 2012)

MuadDib said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > MuadDib said:
> ...


The Neighborhood Watch program he started began less than 6 months before the shooting.

Some of his other calls were for kids in the streets, one gal spit, garage doors open, oh, and lots of suspicious black dudes.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 18, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Yeah, he doesn't seem to be the brightest bulb on the tree but at least he shoots straight. I still do not think he is guilty of murder. He is rather a political victim of the black communities conviction without due process. I think that the prosecution and the media in this case are both trying to assassinate him with public opinion and possibly taint the jury pool in their favor. It's time for a new judge and way past time for a gag order to be issued.



What's going on shows how completely unethical this Prosecutor is.   First, she charges Zimmerman with murder in a cut-and-dry self-defense case, without a shred of evidence to support a murder charge, presumably to draw out a manslaughter conviction from the jury.  Then she digs up every bit of dirt she can find in Zimmerman's life and hands it over to the media to sensationalize, presumably to bias the jury pool.

The judge is allowing it... sealing nothing beyond the identify of the witnesses.  Zimmerman is right to request a new judge.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 19, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Hannity scores a coup!
> ...



At least those goons out for Zimmerman's head aren't trying to turn this into a three-ring spectacle that's tried in the court of public opinion.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 19, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Well, there you go. You have now heard eye-witness testimony of the moments before Martin was shot.



Yeah, we should just take Zimmerman's word for it.  Let's not bother with the fact that the evidence doesn't add up with his current story, or that his current story doesn't add up with his previous stories.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 19, 2012)

MuadDib said:


> Even if that's correct, so what? He's on the watch program. If he sees something suspicious, it's his responsibility to call 911 and report it, and let the cops check it out.



"Suspicious" by what standards?  You seem "suspicious" to me.  Maybe I should call the police.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 19, 2012)

Liberals are not entitled to their own evidence and the evidence is against the prosecution.

How much was spent on the massive FBI investigation to prove Zimmerman is a racist?


----------



## ItsjustmeIthink (Jul 19, 2012)

Moral of Zimmerman case: If someone tries to fight with you, just shoot 'em. 

What a great guy




> Even if that's correct, so what? He's on the watch program. If he sees something suspicious, it's his responsibility to call 911 and report it, and let the cops check it out.


-Muad

EXACTLY! Mr. Badass Watch Capt. w/ A GUN should have let the cops handle it, but he knew he was armed...not much risk to him. He pursued Trayvon, and the rest is history


----------



## MuadDib (Jul 19, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> > Even if that's correct, so what? He's on the watch program. If he sees something suspicious, it's his responsibility to call 911 and report it, and let the cops check it out.
> ...



Suspicious by the standards of the observer. Once the cops arrive, it's up to them to determine whether a crime was committed.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 19, 2012)

MuadDib said:


> Suspicious by the standards of the observer.



    

And I bet you don't even realize you just made the case against yourself.


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 19, 2012)

_Moral of the GZ weazy case:  If you intend to kill someone, try to make it look like you didn't follow the murder victim, and do a better weaz, to hide how you twice failed to identify yourself, and then allege he was beating you to death, while you held your flashlight AND your gun, and the alleged whupping didn't mess up your aim, from the bottom of the whupping-pile up, and no GSR ended up on your garments, even though you allege the victim was on top.

Also, plant bushes, where you allege the victim was hiding, as he talked to his girlfriend, on a cell-phone, but then the victim jumped out of those non-existent bushes, and he ended up dead, somewhere else, where GZ's flashlight was found, so hey, lie-lie-lie a lot better, next time, since no way could GZ carry his flashlight AND his gun AND get a whupping AND fire one, fatal shot AND get no GSR on his jacket, given Trayvon Martin was on top of GZ, whupping shit out of GZ.

That fatal shot was fired, at arm's length, while standing, with the gun stuck right into Martin, per WorldWatcher research.

Also, when you fabricate wounds, do a better job, so you fool the lead detective, who got reassigned, not just to fool the Chief of SPD, who got fired, and anybody else, who should get fired._


----------



## Ariux (Jul 19, 2012)

MuadDib said:


> Suspicious by the standards of the observer. Once the cops arrive, it's up to them to determine whether a crime was committed.



I see no reason to doubt that Zimmerman made a reasonable judgement that Trayvon was acting suspiciously.  If the cops were there a minute sooner, they would have caught Travon in mid-crime.  But, catching a thug in a crime isn't the only reason to call the police.  Calling the police is also to prevent a crime with police presence.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 19, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> That fatal shot was fired, at arm's length, while standing, with the gun stuck right into Martin, per WorldWatcher research.




That's not definitive, it is a possible area that we will have to wait for ballistict/forensic experts that the prosecution will/may bring to the stand.


>>>>


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 19, 2012)

The fatal shot was from 1 inch to 18 inches away.  It was not a "contact" shot.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 19, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _Moral of the GZ weazy case:  If you intend to kill someone, try to make it look like you didn't follow the murder victim, _


_

Wrong, Bobgnote the Shithead.  The moral of the Zimmerman case is if you see an Afro criminal, shoot him, but don't call police._


----------



## MuadDib (Jul 19, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> > Suspicious by the standards of the observer.
> ...



I didn't make a case against myself at all. Zimmerman saw a stranger in the neighborhood whose behavior raised his suspicions. This is a neighborhood that's seen a shitload of crimes. He called 911 and followed the person to see where he went and what he was doing. There's nothing immoral or illegal with that.


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 19, 2012)

ZOMG!!! Did you guys see the Sean Hannity interview of the killer George Zimmerman last night?!?!?

If you didn't here it goes: Exclusive: George Zimmerman breaks silence on 'Hannity' - Interviews - Hannity - Fox News

That palook is toast! TOAST I said.








lol


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 19, 2012)

Ariux said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > _Moral of the GZ weazy case:  If you intend to kill someone, try to make it look like you didn't follow the murder victim, _
> ...


_

Your basic approach qualifies you to be neighborhood watch captain, in an asylum.  The morals and the ethics of *Fairysux* show if you suck, you suck some more, *Fairy*.

GZ was keeping up appearances, by talking to the police, at all, since he intended to kill, and he may have become distorted, by contact with SPD officers, who were racists.

Hey, if GZ fired from below Martin, with Martin on top of him, GSR would be all over GZ's jacket.  If GZ could hang onto his flashlight and his gun, while Martin was beating the shit out of big George, from control pass position, hey now!  GZ would have residue, all over his face and on the top and front of his jacket, no two ways.

But GZ didn't have any of that GSR on his face and front.  GZ had bogus-looking wounds and a bogus-sounding story.  The fatal shot was fired 1" to 18" away, from Martin, not right up, to Martin's body.  GSR would only avoid GZ, in the event GZ was standing.

Of course, that bit of forensic review will be complete, at trial, but we can see, how GZ had to have some sort of attitude, similar to *Fairysux*, so let's get real, about "God's will," which will be for you weazes to have flare-ups, in your lying assholes.

Hey, GZ has his weazes; Willard Meat (white) Obamney has his rats, who want the President's grades, to deflect, from our need, to see Meat's tax returns and FBARs._


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 19, 2012)

MuadDib said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > tjvh said:
> ...



Do a better job of research next time, bunky....try reading the article I sourced which refers to Zimmerman's numerous (more than 4) calls.  Also, you should know that he was NOT an official member of the Neighnborhood Watch program, as the local officials attested to.


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 19, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> ZOMG!!! Did you guys see the Sean Hannity interview of the killer George Zimmerman last night?!?!?
> 
> If you didn't here it goes: Exclusive: George Zimmerman breaks silence on 'Hannity' - Interviews - Hannity - Fox News
> 
> ...



It was pretty sad....I mean, the guy just regurgitates the same BS that the evidence, taped police interviews and subsequent investigation pokes numerous holes through.  Hannity is just another over-paid propagandist for the Murdoch run right wingnut noise machine who's purpose was to just prompt and highlight GZ's version with no contrary information from the cops....it's really sad that over-hyped radio DJ's like Hannity are what Fox is passing off as a journalist doing an interview.


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 19, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > MuadDib said:
> ...



Being that his neighborhood was and is NOT a high crime area, and that the majority of his calls were frivolous and did not pan out, I'd say Georgie has issues.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 19, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



He called the cops less than once a month over a 3 year period, hardly an obsession.  As I noted before, I was told BY THE COPS that the more calls they receive from an area the more they will patrol that area.  For awhile there, I was calling the cops almost every week.  Zimmerman is an amateur, compared to me...guess I should be put in jail too?.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 19, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



If your neighbors were robbed, it's a high crime area....


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 19, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > ZOMG!!! Did you guys see the Sean Hannity interview of the killer George Zimmerman last night?!?!?
> ...


Yep...the good news is that he's only digging a deeper hole for himself.

That entire interview is going in as evidence.

If that dunce had any sense he'd exercise his 5th Amendment right...but he doesn't.

It's fun to watch him take HIMSELF down in flames though.


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Jul 19, 2012)

I get a kick out of watching racist pig fucks go on and on defending a murderer, well hell, he killed a Black person, so he did a good job, right!

dont you know your continued racism wont end well?


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 19, 2012)

Sheesh shut up, you extremist weirdo.


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Jul 19, 2012)

koshergrl said:


> Sheesh shut up, you extremist weirdo.



racist pig fucks


----------



## Ariux (Jul 19, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> I get a kick out of watching racist pig fucks go on and on defending a murderer, well hell, he killed a Black person, so he did a good job, right!
> 
> dont you know your continued racism wont end well?



Killing an Afro is at most statutory murder.  Killing an Afro that is attacking you is legal and laudable.


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Jul 19, 2012)

Ariux said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> > I get a kick out of watching racist pig fucks go on and on defending a murderer, well hell, he killed a Black person, so he did a good job, right!
> ...



I was right, this country is filled to the brim with racists...my friends kept telling me this, i didnt believe them

crap, i guess we have to wait for evolution


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 19, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Sorry sweetheart, but you and the rest of the Zimmerman Zombies can't rewrite definitions just to suit your agenda.  Reality shows that Zimmerman's area was NOT inundated with crime....PERIOD.  No one begrudges the occasional 911 call, or actions that result in the apprehension of criminals (which Zimmerman has done to his credit).  It's the HABITUAL caller who's misses outweigh his hits that's in question....and Georgie definitely has issues in that area (remember, Georgie was NOT an official member of his local Neighborhood Watch).  Deal with it.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 19, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> I was right, this country is filled to the brim with racists...my friends kept telling me this, i didnt believe them



Yes, but thanks to Zimmerman putting down that no-limit-nigga, there's one less racist around.


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Jul 19, 2012)

Ariux said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> > I was right, this country is filled to the brim with racists...my friends kept telling me this, i didnt believe them
> ...



Scares the crap out of you that you white folks are the minority now, dont it


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 19, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > MarcATL said:
> ...



Here's the thing:  Zimmerman just wants to get a justifiable homicide label.  Given all the evidence, that ship has sailed.  That the right wing nuts pushing "Stand your ground" with the NRA lobby watching with interest should clue in Georgie that he's just a patsy.  The local cops that gave into whitewash have been pushed to the sidelines. 

Like you said, Georgie just keeps digging himself into a deeper hole.  His lawyers should be shot....but I won't shed a tear for the little jerk.


----------



## MuadDib (Jul 19, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



I was going by a statement he made in the interview, skippy. He may have meant 4 actual crimes in progress.

Even if it was more than 30 times, does he not have a right and duty to report suspicious activity in his neighborhood? According to Reuters' investigation:



> At least eight burglaries were reported within Twin Lakes in the 14 months prior to the Trayvon Martin shooting, according to the Sanford Police Department. Yet in a series of interviews, Twin Lakes residents said dozens of reports of attempted break-ins and would-be burglars casing homes had created an atmosphere of growing fear in the neighborhood.



You might want to do a little better research, yourself:



> In September, a group of neighbors including Zimmerman approached the homeowners association with their concerns, she said. Zimmerman was asked to head up a new neighborhood watch. He agreed.



Read the whole article here: George Zimmerman: Prelude to a shooting | Reuters


----------



## MuadDib (Jul 19, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Sheesh shut up, you extremist weirdo.
> ...



"Racist": it's the new Godwin.


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Jul 19, 2012)

MuadDib said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Really, son, stop being a racist, it isnt good for your karma...

Karma, I would explain it to you but you wouldnt understand


----------



## Ariux (Jul 19, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> Scares the crap out of you that you white folks are the minority now, dont it



I've never enjoyed being a "majority". There's no elitism in that.  But, what I will enjoy is the end of the gravy train.  Afros are nothing without whites to hold them up.


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 19, 2012)

MuadDib said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > MuadDib said:
> ...



"may have" doesn't cut it, bunky.  The record shows far more calls than that.  No one begrudges actual, valid 911 calls especially if they help prevent crimes or capture crooks (as GZ actually did on a FEW occasions).  But GZ is has a crank on about this...to the point where he was 911 petty nonsense.  Do your homework properly and you'll see it for yourself.

A "new" neighborhood watch group.....hmmm, were they registered with the local cops? Did they supercede the established group? And GZ's numerous calls preceded this latest.  Did it ever occur to you that GZ's numerous calls to 911 (the vast majority did not pan out) contributed to the dozen of reports that exaccerbated the "atmosphere of growing fear"?

Look, no one is disputing that there was crime in the area, but it wasn't a "high crime" wave....but that does NOT change the chain of events where GZ plays vigilante and subsequently kills a kid.  That he keeps opening his yap and contradicting his earlier statements and the video tapes tells me that his lawyer just wants to get paid.


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 19, 2012)

*Fairysux* =


----------



## MuadDib (Jul 19, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> MuadDib said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Didn't read the article, didja sparky?


----------



## MarcATL (Jul 19, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Here's the thing:  Zimmerman just wants to get a justifiable homicide label.  Given all the evidence, that ship has sailed.  That the right wing nuts pushing "Stand your ground" with the NRA lobby watching with interest should clue in Georgie that he's just a patsy.  The local cops that gave into whitewash have been pushed to the sidelines.
> 
> Like you said, Georgie just keeps digging himself into a deeper hole.  His lawyers should be shot....*but I won't shed a tear for the little jerk.*


Yep, on the contraire...I'll be dancing a JIG!!


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 20, 2012)

MarcATL said:


> ZOMG!!! Did you guys see the Sean Hannity interview of the killer George Zimmerman last night?!?!?
> 
> If you didn't here it goes: Exclusive: George Zimmerman breaks silence on 'Hannity' - Interviews - Hannity - Fox News
> 
> ...



Was not able to watch it, so I'm glad for the opportunity.  BTW, anyone got a clip of Boy George calling into The View?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 20, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> I get a kick out of watching racist pig fucks go on and on defending a murderer, well hell, he killed a Black person, so he did a good job, right!
> 
> dont you know your continued racism wont end well?



I get a kick out of watching racist pig fucks prejudge a white guy charged with killing a black person before one piece of evidence is introduced at trial.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 20, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > ConzHateUSA said:
> ...



Not for another 75 years, but why quibble.

Not to even bring up that by the time the white folks are a minority, the black folks probably won't exist at all.   It's not like blacks are expanding their own population.


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 20, 2012)

In my opinion, and by what I saw in the interview "Zimmerman" contridicts himself a few times in that interview, and (IMHO) these areas wouldn't have held up under cross examination by a prosecutor once in a trial situation....

I do believe that their are racist attaching themselves to this case, for whom want to see Zimmerman be in the wrong no matter what, and their are also racist who want to see Trayvon be in the wrong no matter what. It has been a major problem in this case.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 20, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> In my opinion, and by what I saw in the interview "Zimmerman" contridicts himself a few times in that interview, and (IMHO) these areas wouldn't have held up under cross examination by a prosecutor once in a trial situation....
> 
> I do believe that their are racist attaching themselves to this case, for whom want to see Zimmerman be in the wrong no matter what, and their are also racist who want to see Trayvon be in the wrong no matter what. It has been a major problem in this case.



Beagle, you're an idiot.  You're the kind of idiot that the Prosecution is hoping to get on the jury... the kind who will witnesses overwhelming evidence showing Zimmerman to be innocent but then will vote for a manslaughter conviction, seeing it as some sort of virtuous compromise between voting "not guilty" and voting "Murder".


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 20, 2012)

_OK, here's what we know, about possible witnesses, who might testify, including from a good forum:_

George Zimmerman : Witness Support and Legal Recap - TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime

---------------------

_GZ might be portrayed, as a bully:_

Witness Says George Zimmerman Repeatedly Bullied Him At Work, Targeted Him With Racist Jokes - Democratic Underground



> Source: Think Progress
> 
> Among the evidence in the Trayvon Martin case released by the Florida state prosecutor yesterday was a 15-minute interview with a former work collegue of George Zimmerman. The man, who is not identified by name, says that Zimmerman relentlessly bullied him at work.
> 
> ...



_According to this potential character witness, GZ is a complete bitch._

---------------------

Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman Evidence and Court Proceedings « Bcc:List.com

Trayvon Martin Arrest Now After ABC Reveals Crucial Phone Call - ABC News

CNN.com - Transcripts

---------------------

_This blog is the shizzle:_

Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman Evidence and Court Proceedings « Bcc:List.com

_You know, I don't see how GZ gets SYG, and if he doesn't he has lied and acted up too much, to take the stand, in any way, which will help an affirmative defense.

I don't see how in the world anybody would let Fairysux have a gun, with responsibilities, attached.  GZ has the same sort of problems, but there he was, bullshitting around, with a gun, which he apparently intended to use, when he went after Martin.

MAYBE the judge will find some element of murder-2 isn't evident, at some point, but I don't see where that will happen.  The depravity is there, with that witness, who claims GZ got fired, for sucking, but he was a usually busy RACIST, who showed a depraved mind, generally, and then, prior to the murder, he showed a reckless disregard, for any procedures he might have followed, which does not disprove depravity.

Sorry, *Fairysux*, but your boy GZ is going DOWN._


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 20, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Zimmerman, according to the witness, targeted him because he was Middle Eastern. He repeatedly called the man a fucking moron and mocked him using the voice of Achmed the terrorist. Zimmermans stories about the man would involve bombing, Ill kill your family and other jokes about Middle Eastern stuff. According to the man, this went on for days and days.



But Zimmerman's Hispanic.  He CAN'T be racist.   



> After a few months, Zimmerman was terminated. According to the witness, he was fired for calling HR hotline so many timeshe would complain about each and every manager and employee.



This is almost funny, next to GZ's frequent 9-1-1 calls.


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 20, 2012)

Ariux said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion, and by what I saw in the interview "Zimmerman" contridicts himself a few times in that interview, and (IMHO) these areas wouldn't have held up under cross examination by a prosecutor once in a trial situation....
> ...


You know, I wish I was an idiot, but sadly I'm not, so I have to live with the fact that I'm not an idiot, unlike those who are really happy, because they are truly idiots..


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 20, 2012)

BNO News -- Inbox

Florida v. Zimmerman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

----------------------

DOCUMENTS: Prosecution for Florida Vs. Zimmerman Releases Witness and Evidence List

_Eight witness lists!

One witness will be a forensic examiner, who can testify, how Trayvon Martin had no knuckle or hand injuries, consistent with those to be found, on the hands of an assailant._

------------------------------

Special Prosecutor to Trayvon Martin Case Releases Documents About Zimmerman Charge

_Angela Corey is straight-up._


----------



## Ariux (Jul 20, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> You know, I wish I was an idiot, but sadly I'm not, so I have to live with the fact that I'm not an idiot, unlike those who are really happy, because they are truly idiots..



Because Trayvon is wrong, it's total nonsense for you to argue that racists will see Travyon as wrong no matter what.  There is no "no matter what". There is the timeline that proves Travyon double-backed, which the shitheads in this thread of studiously ignored.   There is the fact that all the physical evidence supports Zimmerman, contrary to the lies liberals often tell, like their claim Zimmerman had no wounds or that he self-inflicted his wounds.  The shitheads are busy trying to play got-ya games with Zimmarman, "he contradicted himself...".  

You're an idiot predisposed to think there's a little truth in everything.  Supporters of Trayvon are racists with shit for brains.


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 21, 2012)

_Cool, *Fairysux*.  Anytime YOU want to go over possible evidence, we can read it, for some more point-by-point.  But you never post any reference to reviews or evidence.  You only rant, since you SUCK._


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 21, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _OK, here's what we know, about possible witnesses, who might testify, including from a good forum:_
> 
> George Zimmerman : Witness Support and Legal Recap - TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime
> 
> ...




Zimmerman's kindergarden teacher said he said nasty racist jokes at snack time.
Why not call her as a "character witness".

Prosecutors do not call character witnesses. Because THE LAW FORBIDS THEM FROM DOING SO.
That person has no relevance to this case whatsoever.
Damn, this is getting very funny.


----------



## California Girl (Jul 21, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > ConzHateUSA said:
> ...



And yet, it elected a mixed race President. Go figure how that happened. You really are exceptionally stupid. 

Piece of advice for ya... the racist is the one who keeps calling everyone who disagrees with him a 'racist'. Need a mirror?


----------



## Ariux (Jul 21, 2012)

California Girl said:


> And yet, it elected a mixed race President.



Yes, Obama even got more votes than any politician in US history.  That dark face helped him get votes.  



> Piece of advice for ya... the racist is the one who keeps calling everyone who disagrees with him a 'racist'. Need a mirror?



Liberalism is bigotry.  Liberals accuse others of being bigots because they think everyone else reasons the same way they do.  They support Obama because's he's black.  They supported Obama to the near total exclusion of support for all the white male Democrats who did or might have ran in the primary for the 2008 election.


----------



## LilOlLady (Jul 21, 2012)

Zimmerman' mouth is his worse witness. His account changes at every interview.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 21, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> Zimmerman' mouth is his worse witness. His account changes at every interview.



Shithead, when various witnesses change their stories, even though they only provide a few details each to keep straight, you applauded them.  When you allege Zimmerman doing the same thing, you say it shows he's not credible.  You really are a pathetic racist and an enemy of justice.

I haven't noticed Zimmerman changing his account.  But, even if Zimmerman has no credibility, the evidence supports self-defense. 

The timeline proves Trayvon doubled back and the one-sided injuries shows Travyon was in control of the encounter... until that piece of Afro shit got popped.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 21, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > _OK, here's what we know, about possible witnesses, who might testify, including from a good forum:_
> ...



Yeah, character is relevant, especially in a case like this, however, I've seen quite a bit of evidence to support Zimmerman is a stand up guy, including from his former partner who is black.  The prosecution, of course, knows it has no case, so is releasing all kinds of irrelevant data to sway public opinion....


----------



## Plasmaball (Jul 21, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Uh no....


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 21, 2012)

MuadDib said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > MuadDib said:
> ...



Oh puh-leeze, mousy.....you've got to come here with something stronger than that for a retort!  If you don't have the brains or the guts to deal with the points I put forth in my rebuttal, then spare us all your lame BS and don't post.  All Zimmerman zombies eventually run out of steam, so we'll understand.


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 22, 2012)

_Yeah, all kinds of "irrelevant" information gets out, like how Martin had no hand damage, consistent with GZ's claims, of an assault.

All kinds of "irrelevant" discrepencies in GZ's account seem to be getting all over the internet, since this case has attracted the attention, of a lot of people.  Facts are not "irrelevant," assholes and all kinds of luckless people, stuck, in shit-traffic.

The same kind of people who think GZ should get busy, fail to identify himself or otherwise defuse a situation he caused, while fucking up his watch-captain scam, then shoot a teenager, and then LIE, about what actually happened are the same kind of people, who don't believe global warming is happening, they don't believe climate is changing, they don't accept responsibility, for burning wood, coal, and oil, while riding around in cars, to cut trees, using chainsaws, and they don't think temperatures will continue, to climb, to follow the rampant out-gassing, of CO2 and CH4, with a host of other GHGs. 

Earth, to shitheads:  1. GZ whacked a kid, and he should at least eat manslaughter, but since he intended to use his gun, to kill, instead of do a job, as watchcaptain, he can chew on murder-2;
2. The planet is heating up, despite melting ice and heat exchange phenomena AND a mild solar cycle;  3.  Somebody burned wood, coal, and oil, while riding around, in cars, to go whack forests, with CHAINSAWS;  4.  Disasters are on the rise, with the sea level, which will NOT simply spill over the edge of the Earth, which is NOT FLAT, stupid-fucks!

GZ will go down, but before he gets out, Florida will eat some sort of heavy shitload._


----------



## California Girl (Jul 22, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _Yeah, all kinds of "irrelevant" information gets out, like how Martin had no hand damage, consistent with GZ's claims, of an assault.
> 
> All kinds of "irrelevant" discrepencies in GZ's account seem to be getting all over the internet, since this case has attracted the attention, of a lot of people.  Facts are not "irrelevant," assholes and all kinds of luckless people, stuck, in shit-traffic.
> 
> ...



In this country, we still use due process, trial by jury, not trial by media. 

Earth to moron: The media is not part of the Due Process of Law. 

Idiot.


----------



## California Girl (Jul 22, 2012)

LilOlLady said:


> Zimmerman' mouth is his worse witness. His account changes at every interview.



How many interviews has he given?

1.

Exactly how has his 'account changed' at 'every interview' since he's only given one? 

Fucking idiot... and other idiots 'thank' you for your bullshit. That's pretty funny shit.


----------



## paperview (Jul 22, 2012)

California Girl said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman' mouth is his worse witness. His account changes at every interview.
> ...


Are you oblivious to the 5, 6 he gave to police?  You somehow think those don't count or something?

His account changed with every one of those.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 22, 2012)

paperview said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > LilOlLady said:
> ...



Yes she is.  Because she chooses to be.


----------



## Luissa (Jul 22, 2012)

California Girl said:


> LilOlLady said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman' mouth is his worse witness. His account changes at every interview.
> ...



You are the fucking idiot who doesn't realize his story has changed a few times when he was interviewed by the Police. How about the fact he got his wife to lie for him? 
I think you calling someone an idiot is pretty funny shit. 

Go get butt hurt about something, you are on a roll today.


----------



## Liability (Jul 22, 2012)

Nobody ever gives the exact same account twice.  It depends on what got asked.  It depends on what was deemed important each time.  Filters are in place at both times, but what is deemed worthy of an edit may differ from time to time.  People sometimes do just forget to say some things.  People have the damnedest way of confusing things in terms of time sequences, etc., etc., etc.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 22, 2012)

Luissa said:


> You are the fucking idiot who doesn't realize his story has changed a few times when he was interviewed by the Police. How about the fact he got his wife to lie for him?
> I think you calling someone an idiot is pretty funny shit.



Give your best example of Zimmerman's story changing?  

Or, are you just a stupid shithead who likes to make stupid accusations you can't support?


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 22, 2012)

Liability said:


> Nobody ever gives the exact same account twice.  It depends on what got asked.  It depends on what was deemed important each time.  Filters are in place at both times, but what is deemed worthy of an edit may differ from time to time.  People sometimes do just forget to say some things.  People have the damnedest way of confusing things in terms of time sequences, etc., etc., etc.



While it's true that people might not use the exact same wording, you bringing that up is a straw man.  Nobody is complaining about the tomato/tomahto of Zimmerman's stories.  But Zimmerman's multiple accounts paint stories that cannot be reconciled with each other.


----------



## Liability (Jul 22, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody ever gives the exact same account twice.  It depends on what got asked.  It depends on what was deemed important each time.  Filters are in place at both times, but what is deemed worthy of an edit may differ from time to time.  People sometimes do just forget to say some things.  People have the damnedest way of confusing things in terms of time sequences, etc., etc., etc.
> ...



Well, thanks for your spin.

I wonder if you have the ability, Muddled, to back up your mere words, however?  I doubt it.

But just on the remote chance that you do have some ability to support your position, then you really should do so.  Point by point.  Show the allegedly irreconcilable discrepancies.  Provide links.


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 22, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> > You are the fucking idiot who doesn't realize his story has changed a few times when he was interviewed by the Police. How about the fact he got his wife to lie for him?
> ...



_I think you getting all sassy at the nice lady moderator is kinda funny, but hey:_

George Zimmerman&#8217;s Story Continues To Shift | TPMMuckraker



> On a recording of the call, Zimmerman could be heard at one point telling the dispatcher that Martin had taken off. &#8220;Shit, he&#8217;s running,&#8221; Zimmerman said. At almost the same moment, the audio captured him taking off his seat belt, opening the door to his vehicle and getting out to follow the teen.
> 
> 
> Authorities have said Martin ran because he was afraid of Zimmerman and that the neighborhood watchman chased him down, confronted him and eventually shot and killed him.
> ...



-----------------------

_As I have previously posted, one of the witnesses on the prosecution's 8 lists is a forensic examiner, who will allege no wounds were on Martin's hands, consistent with any sort of repeated blows or even ONE HARD PUNCH, to GZ-weazy's head.

Moreover, witnesses have changed their accounts, in ways, which won't help GZ:_

George Zimmerman witnesses: Several George Zimmerman witnesses change their accounts in Trayvon Martin case - Orlando Sentinel



> Evidence released last week in the second-degree-murder case against George Zimmerman shows four key witnesses made major changes in what they say they saw and heard the night he fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford.
> 
> Three changed their stories in ways that may damage Zimmerman. A fourth abandoned her initial story, that she saw one person chasing another. Now, she says, she saw a single figure running.
> 
> ...



--------------------------

New Evidence Released In Trayvon Martin Case May Complicate Public Debate (UPDATE)



> But Benjamin Crump, an attorney for Martin&#8217;s family, said the Zimmerman medical reports raise more questions than answers.
> &#8220;You have to take all of this in full context,&#8221; Crump told The Huffington Post this afternoon. &#8220;When someone leaks information they do it for a reason. Someone is trying to manipulate and bolster George Zimmerman&#8217;s self-defense claims.&#8221;
> 
> A number of points remain troubling, Crump said, including the fact that Zimmerman visited his family doctor the day after the shooting.
> ...



---------------------

Trayvon Martin: George Zimmerman's story may not hold up to scrutiny | theGrio



> Thanks to a strategic leak by Sanford, Florida police, and a self-described friend (or coworker) Joe Oliver, we now know what George Zimmerman told police about what happened in the minutes before he fatally shot Trayvon Martin.
> 
> The account, printed in the Orlando Sentinel and repeated by Oliver in TV and print interviews, including with theGrio, is that Zimmerman had given up following Trayvon after losing sight of him, and was returning to his SUV when the 17-year-old appeared from nowhere and jumped him from behind, then punched him in the face, breaking his nose and dropping him to the ground, and banged his head repeatedly on the pavement. Zimmerman&#8217;s latest account, via the leaks, is that he and Trayvon struggled for his 9mm semiautomatic handgun, and he the shot the teen once in the chest, killing him.
> 
> ...



--------------------

Zimmerman's account examined | ShowMe

_A number of problems with GZ's account crop up, right away.

Where was any area, for Martin, to hide?  There weren't any such areas.  The likely event which started the fatal confrontation was GZ's approach, to Martin, while Martin was openly on the path, going toward his Dad's home, while Martin talked, to his girlfriend.

Where were any injuries, at all, to Martin's hands, consistent with the beating, which GZ claimed he took, from Martin?  No such injuries exist.  

GZ's account varies, from pummeling, to having his head bashed, on the sidewalk.

GZ keeps making different claims, that Martin jumped him, that Martin followed him, back toward his car, that he confronted Martin, that Martin started smashing GZ's head, into the sidewalk, without mentioning any pummeling, which come up in ways, which may  not be so easily explained, given GZ never identified himself, and Martin's body location indicates he was murdered.

That no GSR was found on GZ's jacket indicates Martin was flat-out murdered, without evidence of circumstances, such as Martin being shot, while straddling GZ, on the ground, which would leave a whole lot of GSR, on GZ's jacket.

There you have it, *Fairysux* and *Littleidiot* and *Cali Crack*.  You SUCKED, and you SUCKED, and you still suck._

--------------------------

Zimmerman told police Trayvon punched him, bashed his head on sidewalk | theGrio

--------------------------

Trayvon Martin death: Slain black youth that galvanized the nation (SLIDESHOW) | theGrio


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 22, 2012)

Why does Trayvon's family need a lawyer?
The liability carrier for the complex and/or the HMA is on the hook big time for this. Could settle it without a lawyer. The civil liability here is a slam dunk.
TV rights, trademark rights for the "Justice for Trayvon" mugs, T shirts, hats, visors, flyers and such are lining up. The lawyer smells a cash pay day.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 22, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _I think you getting all sassy at the nice lady moderator is kinda funny, but hey:_
> 
> George Zimmermans Story Continues To Shift | TPMMuckraker



In short, you think Zimmerman changed his story from Trayvon was running to he wasn't running?  Reading Zimmerman's comments, it doesn't sound like he's changing his story, only adding nuance.  

It's legitimate to generally describe a jog as running.  But, to be technical, jogging isn't running.  This is nuance, not contradiction.  

I asked for the best example you could provide, and this is it??? Trayvon supporters have shit for brains  And, their arguments never extend beyond these gothya games... Was it jogging or running?   

From your source: "In one version, Zimmerman has said the teen repeatedly punched him in the face while he was flat on his back and then slammed his head into the concrete. In another [later] version, he never mentioned the punches..."

Was Zimmerman punched or not?   

Don't you feel like a f-ing idiot?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 22, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> The liability carrier for the complex and/or the HMA is on the hook big time for this.



Serious question...

........................ Why would the HMA/Complex be on the hook for this in a civil case?


>>>>


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 22, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Why does Trayvon's family need a lawyer?
> The liability carrier for the complex and/or the HMA is on the hook big time for this. Could settle it without a lawyer. The civil liability here is a slam dunk.
> TV rights, trademark rights for the "Justice for Trayvon" mugs, T shirts, hats, visors, flyers and such are lining up. The lawyer smells a cash pay day.



I find that quite sad...that his parents so such concern for money and so little for the life of their son, but then they didn't show concern for him while he was alive either so....


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 22, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Why does Trayvon's family need a lawyer?
> The liability carrier for the complex and/or the HMA is on the hook big time for this. Could settle it without a lawyer. The civil liability here is a slam dunk.
> TV rights, trademark rights for the "Justice for Trayvon" mugs, T shirts, hats, visors, flyers and such are lining up. The lawyer smells a cash pay day.



Translation: Another Zimmerman Zombie realizes that Georgie's story ain't cutting it in th elight of day ( and with anyone with an attention span beyond high school), so he slanders the family of the deceased.  Gadawg ain't that a classy Zimmerman Zombie!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The liability carrier for the complex and/or the HMA is on the hook big time for this.
> ...



1st: The burden of proof in a civil case is completely different than a criminal case. Prepondrance of the evidence is civil and all you need is a hair more than the defense to win. Criminal it is all or nothing.
The complex hired and/or allowed Zimmerman to patrol armed. As a result of that Martin was killed. Civil negligence. Wrongful death case this is a SLAM DUNK. 
That has nothing to do with the burden of proof in a criminal case.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 23, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Why does Trayvon's family need a lawyer?
> ...



The truth is slander to those that are ashamed of themselves.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 23, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



No disagreement.



Gadawg73 said:


> The complex hired and/or allowed Zimmerman to patrol armed. As a result of that Martin was killed. Civil negligence. Wrongful death case this is a SLAM DUNK.
> That has nothing to do with the burden of proof in a criminal case.



I disagree.

One the complex didn't "hire" Zimmerman.  The Home Owners Association (HOA) initiated actions to create a Neighborhood Watch and asked for volunteers and Zimmerman was elected as the Watch Captain.  That does not imply negligence on the part of the HOA.  They did nothing wrong with that, if that were to be the case then no HOA with the country would allow NW organizations in their community because of liability - clearly not the case.

In addition there is documented evidence that Zimmerman was advised by police personnel as to the proper conduct of NW volunteers.  Powerpoint Presentations used by the Police Liaison and the instructional materials provided to the group included instructions:

1.  Not to patrol armed with a firearm, and 
2.  Not to physically interject themselves into a situation.​
Zimmerman violated two fundamental guidelines of the NW organization - no guns, not interference - it is not negligence on the part of the HOA because Zimmerman violated procedures.  Now if the HOA had been informed in the past that Zimmerman was violating established protocols and then either endorsed or failed to take action against Zimmerman's conduct, that would be a different matter.  But the claimant in the case would have to show that the HOA was negligent in failure to act upon such notifications, if they existed.  (Which it appears the don't.)


Slam dunk?  I respectfully disagree.  The claimant in such a suit would have to a burden of proof to show negligence on the HOA's part which does not appear to exist.


>>>>


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 23, 2012)

Ariux said:


> In short, you think Zimmerman changed his story from Trayvon was running to he wasn't running?  Reading Zimmerman's comments, it doesn't sound like he's changing his story, only adding nuance.
> 
> It's legitimate to generally describe a jog as running.  But, to be technical, jogging isn't running.  This is nuance, not contradiction.
> 
> ...



_From interview to interview, GZ isn't sure, how Martin got to him, where Martin got to him, how Martin struck or grabbed him, exactly where and how much, or how the gun discharged, which leaves us with a lot of circumstances to sort, since GZ won't get too much of your brand of conjecture in, as deflection.

GZ clearly isn't sure how to relate the various aspects of a Martin assault, since by now, he knows Martin didn't have any hand wounds, consistent with hitting the bigger GZ in the face and head area, to land numerous blows, which would leave some hand trauma.

I don't know why GZ hasn't shown why no GSR was on his jacket, but GZ went against his general instructions, to carry a gun, and against any several instructions, to follow Martin and intervene, without identifying himself OR defusing the situation.

You ask, "Was Zimmerman punched or not?"  That's what the lead detective and I would like to know, since it looks like GZ fabricated his wounds, which are not consistent, with the amount of strike damage, claimed by GZ, and GZ's wounds aren't consistent at all, with the complete lack of wounds, on Martin's hands.

I'm not much of an idiot, but aren't you queer, as a three-dollar-bill?  I bet punking around makes your butt-hole feel just fantastic.  And you're a racist punk, just sayin' . . ._


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I have worked a few of these and policy limits was offered on each one. 
The cost of the defense in a case like this would be 200K so that would be offered immediately. The defense could win, but I doubt it, and their legal bills would be 200K.
HOA did not have to be informed of anything. If a truck is in an auto accident and the driver had a history of bad driving recently and his insurance carrier and employer were not informed that means nothing. They are still liable. The "we did not know so we are not liable" defense in civil negligence matters goes way back. Accordingly, most states' stautes of civil procedure in wrongful death cases have a large burden on the defense to prove that they are not liable because of no prior warnings.
In most all states the "We did not know" defense is a jury question but how many insurance companies want to risk this case going to a civil jury for damages!?
"We did not know" is not a valid defense in this case for the HOA. Their limits have full exposure. If they gamble and go that route I doubt a jury would side with them.
POLICY LIMITS BABY!
And I hope the Martin family gets the policy limits. This is a strong wrongful death case on the part of the liability of the HOA.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Dog bite cases in some jurisdictions you get a first bite exemption but not in wrongful death negligence.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 23, 2012)

Additionally, if the HOA specifically did not train and/or monitor Zimmerman then they are definitely on the hook.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 23, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> From interview to interview, GZ isn't sure, how Martin got to him, where Martin got to him, how Martin struck or grabbed him, exactly where and how much, or how the gun discharged, which leaves us with a lot of circumstances to sort, since GZ won't get too much of your brand of conjecture in, as deflection.



A female witness says Trayvon was on top.  In a later interview, she says Zimmerman was on top.  You applaud her.

Travyon's parents said Trayvon was currently suspended for tarties, then later acknowledge it was for illegal drug possession at school.  You yawn.

Travyon's ho girl friend at first had nothing to say at first and then has something to say  much later.  And, you're fine with that.

The Prosecutor says Zimmerman committed murder.  But she'll change that and tell the jury that it was manslaughter.   Just watch.  And, you'll cheer of there's a manslaughter conviction.

Zimmerman makes some slight changes in some details, such as "running" to "going quickly" (a jog) and you yell that he has no credibility.

You have shit for brains.  Everything you argued in your post is an exercise in spilling your racist, stupid, hypocritical shit out into the internet.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 23, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...




I'm not seeing the legal connection here.

In a dog bite case there are two possible scenerios:

1.  The dog is owned by someone, the owner would be responsible under the appropriate jurisdiction under animal control/leash laws to maintain positive control over the animal.  Failure to maintain such control then would be negligence and they would be responsible for the actions of the animal.

2.  The other case is for a dog not owned by anyone (a stray).  In which case there are no owners to hold negligent.​

An individual who violated animal control/leash laws would be the party responsible for negligence, not the HOA.  Now, IF the HOA had received repeated complaints about someone in the community who violated leash laws and pet control was part of the HOA's bylaws and the HOA took no action to correct the situation - then there may be a case against the HOA.  But again it would be the claimant's responsibility to show a pattern.  In the case of a stray, the HOA would have no control over a wild dog who happened to wander through the community.  Basically that premise is that a wild dog could confront someone, chase them onto my property and because the wild dog killed them as the homeowner I'm responsible for the death even though my wife and I were at work and the kids were at school.  I don't think that line of reasoning is a "slam dunk".


>>>>


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Jul 23, 2012)

a grown man murders a child and millions of rabid racist pieces of trash come out of the woodwork

why this country  hasnt exploded yet i dont know


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 23, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Additionally, if the HOA specifically did not train and/or monitor Zimmerman then they are definitely on the hook.



The training and guide materials are provided by the Sanford Police Department, same way that our NW program is administered through our county Sheriff's office and it was a law enforcement officer that trained us and provided guidance materials.  It wasn't the HOA.

How do you "monitor" an organization were the premise is that members agree to keep an eye out for their neighbors and their property and to call the police to check on this if something is out of the norm?


Was there supposed to be someone from the HOA riding with Zimmerman that night when he decided to drive from his home to Target to do food shopping and then he decided to interrupt his shopping trip because he saw a young man walking down the street?



>>>>


----------



## Ariux (Jul 23, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> a grown man murders a child and millions of rabid racist pieces of trash come out of the woodwork



That was no child.  That was an Afro.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 23, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> a grown man murders a child and millions of rabid racist pieces of trash come out of the woodwork
> 
> why this country  hasnt exploded yet i dont know



Well, number one, a what 24 year old shot a 17  year old, not really a child and certainly not smaller than him, skinnier maybe, but not smaller.

Number 2, it wasn't murder, it was self defense...The cuts on Zimmerman's face and the back of his head are pretty much testimony to the fact that he was fighting for his life.

Number 3  why is it racist to recognize that when your head is being pounded into the ground, it's self defense to shoot the guy doing it?

Number 4, if Zimmerman had actually been white, there probably would have been riots, but since it turns out he's Hispanic with black blood and that he was big brother (as in the organization) to a black boy, it kind of negates the whole cry of "racism".


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 23, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> a grown man murders a child and millions of rabid racist pieces of trash come out of the woodwork
> 
> why this country  hasnt exploded yet i dont know



STFU  you racist POS


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 23, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> > a grown man murders a child and millions of rabid racist pieces of trash come out of the woodwork
> ...



Good response, but you do realize that CHA is just an asshole troll who could not care less what the actual facts are, right?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Additionally, if the HOA specifically did not train and/or monitor Zimmerman then they are definitely on the hook.
> ...



Dude, stop being reasonable and be more like....I dont know, reasonable is like so last millenia or something, lol.

/jk


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Additionally, if the HOA specifically did not train and/or monitor Zimmerman then they are definitely on the hook.
> ...



I appreciate the dialogue. You make very good points.
But let me appeal to your reason and common sense.
If the Sanford Police Department provided the training and guide materials, and I do not doubt at all that they did as I believe they did, and George Zimmerman was their poster child for Community Watch Patrolman, the cream of their training program, and then he goes out and shoots someone on his watch, if you were an unbiased juror wouldn't you believe that since he has had all of that training and then shot someone that somewhere, someplace, someone with the HOA lacked serious judgment in fronting this person as their top dog on the watch and their best candidate for the training FOR THEIR HOA and had the police department train him?
Believe me, this looks very bad for the HOA no matter how hard you defend it. The HOA is fucked beyond all means in this because you have a dead body and a ready made reason to award the plaintiffs.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 23, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Was there supposed to be someone from the HOA riding with Zimmerman that night when he decided to drive from his home to Target to do food shopping and then he decided to interrupt his shopping trip because he saw a young man walking down the street?



That wasn't a young man, it was a f-ing cold casing the neighborhood.  

Zimmerman wasn't functioning in the capacity of neighborhood watch when the happened.  The HOA is meaningless.  Zimmerman broke no laws.  Zimmerman shot a worthless piece of shit in self-defense.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 23, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...




Thank you for the compliment.

Nothing prior to the incident of February 26th would have provided any indicators to members of the HOA of any problems with Zimmerman being a member of the NW.  The NW was established in the community because a group of residents went to the HOA and requested it be setup in September 2011 - just 5 months before the shooting.

There would be no legal basis for a case of negligence against the HOA for sanctioning a NW within the community.  The expectation would be that all members of the group would attend the training and follow the policies and procedures described to them by the Sanford Police.  The only way the HOA would be negligent is to allow someone to lead the organization who demonstrated a history of not following the NW rules.  Prior to the 26th of February, not such pattern had been established.

There is only one reason to file a suit against the Retreat at Twin Lakes community as a whole - that being the perception that the RTL community had deeper pockets then the Zimmerman's as individuals with the hope of getting more cash.  Even if such a suit was filed (there is nothing from preventing a suit being filed).  Such a suit would likely be dismissed at the first court hearing for two reasons: (1) lack of evidence of wrong doing on the HOA's part, and (2) the HOA would not be liable for an individual in the community - even if they were part of the NW - acting independently and in violation of NW policies and procedures.


Just MHO of course.


>>>>


----------



## Noomi (Jul 23, 2012)

Ariux said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> > a grown man murders a child and millions of rabid racist pieces of trash come out of the woodwork
> ...



You really are a racist piece of crap, you know that?


----------



## Ariux (Jul 23, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > ConzHateUSA said:
> ...



You're the racist.  You're culturally insensitive.  In Afro communities, 17 is considered a man, not a child.  Do often run around calling Afro men "child" or "boy"?   

I try to set an example of non-racism for everyone to follow, but you people keep getting dragged down by your bigotry.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 23, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...



I refer to black people as black people, not ******* or Afros or whatever they hell you like to call them. What would happen if you called a black person a ****** to their face? You wouldn't be here right now.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 23, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



I had a black man staying in my home and he referred to a black as a n...I told him I didn't care if he was black, that word wasn't allowed in my house...he never used it in front of me again.

I always think of Afro as a hair style but it seems to me that if you're calling yourself an African American, Afro's as good a nickname as anything....I must have missed something...when did "afro" become synonymous with the "n" word?


----------



## Noomi (Jul 23, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...



Ariux isn't using the term Afro as a shortened form of African American. He's using it in a racist way, because he is a racist.

I agree with you about the N word, I don't think anyone should use it, but if a black person is happy to use the word to describe themselves or their mates, then it should be okay for a white person to use it, too.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 24, 2012)

Noomi said:


> I refer to black people as black people, not ******* or Afros or whatever they hell you like to call them. What would happen if you called a black person a ****** to their face? You wouldn't be here right now.



Afro, as in Afro-American, is a term of respect.  It honors their African heritage without implying that they're only half American.

What would happen if you called a white person a Cracker to his face?  Nothing.  You insult Afros by arguing that a mere word would lead them into a murderous rage.  Do you know any Afros?  I'm asking because what you think about them seems to be stereotypes learned from Hollywood.

You might think it's okay to call grown Afros "boy", but just because they don't go into a murderous rage when you call them that doesn't mean your not being insulting, insensitive, and racist.  

You need to overcome your racism.  And, I'll be here to help you.  Okay?


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 24, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



So if he refers to them as blacks, he's not using it (blacks)_ in a racist way?  You are giving him/her way too much power.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 24, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



He had a criminal record! 
If the HOA did not know that that is their problem.
"Lack of evidence"? Please, there is plenty of evidence. 
"acting independently" The HOA had him trained and told everyone "call George Zimmerman". No offense but why the nonsense here about acting independently. His negligence acts are their baby. 
The dog analogy is the same here, you can not have a dog bite someone and then claim "I did not know he bit folk."
Zimmerman was their boy and he was negligent. 
No way this suit will be dismissed as the defenses you cite are all jury questions, not summmary judgement as Motion For Summary Judgment is what dismisses a civil case IF a Judge rules favorably in it. Rarely do they win as a Jury is what decides negligence, never a Judge. Judges interpret the law, not facts of negligence.

If Zimmerman pleads guilty watch for the first shot across the bow. 
Again, if this is a plea or a guilty verdict all of that comes in and there are no issues for a Judge do dismiss it unless the STand Your Ground defense wins. Then by statute the Judge has to dismiss it.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 24, 2012)

Liability said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Liability said:
> ...



Well, there's the discrepancy of Trayvon's apparent age, for starters.  In the 9-1-1 tape, Zimmerman says that Trayvon is a teenage kid.  In court, Zimmerman said he thought Trayvon was "just a little younger than" himself.  These assertions are contrary to each other.  He cannot have believed both things.  Both statements, therefore, cannot be true.  Though theoretically, both could still be false.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 24, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Actually he didn't, what we know about is that he had an arrest record, but the status of that arrest is "Dismissed".  Now the public knows the details, but an HOA doing a background check would not have known that he submitted to a pre-trail intervention program for anger management.

A background check conducted at levels for the HOA would not have shown any convictions.




Gadawg73 said:


> "Lack of evidence"? Please, there is plenty of evidence.



OK, lay it out, please show what evidence there is that the HOA had received complaints about Zimmerman or that Zimmerman had routinely broken the rules and policies of the NW organization and that the HOA had been made aware of it and failed to take action.

[/QUOTE]"acting independently" The HOA had him trained and told everyone "call George Zimmerman". No offense but why the nonsense here about acting independently. His negligence acts are their baby. [/QUOTE]

No the police department "had him trained", NW is their organization.



Gadawg73 said:


> The dog analogy is the same here, you can not have a dog bite someone and then claim "I did not know he bit folk."



True, the owner of the dog is responsibile.  NW is an organization administered through the police, not the HOA.



Gadawg73 said:


> Zimmerman was their boy and he was negligent.
> No way this suit will be dismissed as the defenses you cite are all jury questions, not summmary judgement as Motion For Summary Judgment is what dismisses a civil case IF a Judge rules favorably in it. Rarely do they win as a Jury is what decides negligence, never a Judge. Judges interpret the law, not facts of negligence.



Actually it would likely be dismissed the same way our case was when I was an officer on our HOA.  Someone tried to bring a case of liability against us for an accident that had occurred on community grounds (we owned the roads at that time).  Our lawyer presented a motion to dismiss because there was no history or act of negligence on our part and that the claimant had not presented any reasonable evidence to show such.  Judge agreed - case dismissed.

Before a case is presented to the Jury, then the claimant must present a valid case under the law and show where they have evidence of their likelihood to succeed.



Gadawg73 said:


> If Zimmerman pleads guilty watch for the first shot across the bow.
> Again, if this is a plea or a guilty verdict all of that comes in and there are no issues for a Judge do dismiss it unless the STand Your Ground defense wins. Then by statute the Judge has to dismiss it.



I fully expect someone to file suit against the HOA, I doubt it will go anywhere though.

Re: SYG - If Zimmerman's case is dismissed under the provisions of Florida's SYG law, then Zimmerman would be immune from a law suit, true.  However, the HOA would not have that same immunity, a claimant could still file suit - though I think it would be dismissed for failure to show a lack of negligence - by SYG wouldn't apply to the HOA.



>>>>


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 24, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...


"acting independently" The HOA had him trained and told everyone "call George Zimmerman". No offense but why the nonsense here about acting independently. His negligence acts are their baby. [/QUOTE]

No the police department "had him trained", NW is their organization.



Gadawg73 said:


> The dog analogy is the same here, you can not have a dog bite someone and then claim "I did not know he bit folk."



True, the owner of the dog is responsibile.  NW is an organization administered through the police, not the HOA.



Gadawg73 said:


> Zimmerman was their boy and he was negligent.
> No way this suit will be dismissed as the defenses you cite are all jury questions, not summmary judgement as Motion For Summary Judgment is what dismisses a civil case IF a Judge rules favorably in it. Rarely do they win as a Jury is what decides negligence, never a Judge. Judges interpret the law, not facts of negligence.



Actually it would likely be dismissed the same way our case was when I was an officer on our HOA.  Someone tried to bring a case of liability against us for an accident that had occurred on community grounds (we owned the roads at that time).  Our lawyer presented a motion to dismiss because there was no history or act of negligence on our part and that the claimant had not presented any reasonable evidence to show such.  Judge agreed - case dismissed.

Before a case is presented to the Jury, then the claimant must present a valid case under the law and show where they have evidence of their likelihood to succeed.



Gadawg73 said:


> If Zimmerman pleads guilty watch for the first shot across the bow.
> Again, if this is a plea or a guilty verdict all of that comes in and there are no issues for a Judge do dismiss it unless the STand Your Ground defense wins. Then by statute the Judge has to dismiss it.



I fully expect someone to file suit against the HOA, I doubt it will go anywhere though.

Re: SYG - If Zimmerman's case is dismissed under the provisions of Florida's SYG law, then Zimmerman would be immune from a law suit, true.  However, the HOA would not have that same immunity, a claimant could still file suit - though I think it would be dismissed for failure to show a lack of negligence - by SYG wouldn't apply to the HOA.



>>>>[/QUOTE]

Respectfully, all the plaintiffs need as evidence is a dead body and they have it.
This is a WRONGFUL DEATH CASE. We have a death and Zimmerman was the HOA guy that shot him.
SYG applies to the civil statutes if he was deemed defending himself. 
The individual, not the insurance company or entity gets sued and then the deep pockets get attached to that liability. Joint and several liability.
World, this is how it works in a negligence case. If you are negligent in a car accident or any tort YOU get sued, not the entity you were working for or insured by. They also get brought in but it is their indeminification of their "insured" that the plaintiffs are after.
If Zimmerman wins on SYG how could the HOA be liable in any way? They indemnify him and his actions were ruled not to be unreasonable. If SYG is ruled valid then Martin would have been ruled the aggressor and Zimmerman had a right to defend himself. No plaintiffs lawyer would touch it then.


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 24, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...


Yet it can only be used in the context by what the blacks were using it in or for themselves upon exceptance of, and not in the context of racism or defamation of character against the blacks in a sneaky way because they also use the word now. This is the only way in which to be excepted by the blacks if a white person joins in by way of the use of this word or label into a conversation.

It is my belief that the word being used by blacks upon each other as they are doing, was a way to try and change the meaning of the word from a negative to a positive in their thinking, where as it would take away it's sting in which the early white racist were using it for. Not a bad idea by the blacks in trying to change the meaning of the word in which it was associated with for so long, and I see it as smart by them in doing this... So it all depends on how whites are joining into the conversation when using the word by claim of "hey (the blacks) are also using the word" so what ? It all depends on context, always. If used out of context, then a person will be found out immedaitely by what they mean when using the word, so no one is fooled when placing the persons usage in context with the reasoning in why it is being used, and by what manor it is being used for.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 24, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> It is my belief that the word being used by blacks upon each other as they are doing, was a way to try and change the meaning of the word from a negative to a positive in their thinking, where as it would take away it's sting in which the early white racist were using it for. Not a bad idea by the blacks in trying to change the meaning of the word in which it was associated with for so long, and I see it as smart by them in doing this...



It is my belief that you're a f-ing retard, shithead.  Afros are not trying to change a negative word to a positive word.  They object to whites using the n-word, no matter how whites use the word.  And, they often use the word in a negative fashion themselves.  

Afros violently object to whites using the word because Afros are racist.  Afros use the word themselves because they're racist.   You pretend there's something noble in the ways of those animals, but you're full of shit.


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 24, 2012)

Ariux said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > It is my belief that the word being used by blacks upon each other as they are doing, was a way to try and change the meaning of the word from a negative to a positive in their thinking, where as it would take away it's sting in which the early white racist were using it for. Not a bad idea by the blacks in trying to change the meaning of the word in which it was associated with for so long, and I see it as smart by them in doing this...
> ...



Nothing noble at all about them you say, animals and etc. you say, but you are no racist ? Do you actually think you are fooling anyone here, and if you think you are, then you certainly have issues for sure..


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 24, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Criminal record?  From what I understand, he was arrested for trying to stop the cops from hassling his friend,  and that was the only thing on his record...am I wrong?

PS, I have friends who've been hassled by the cops.  One of them is actually smarter than the cops.  The cops tried to take his money back in the drug seizure days...he said fine, but as soon as you walk away, I'm calling 911 and reporting that you stole my money...they ended up letting him go and keep his money.

Remember that?  When they could take your money for any reason and you had to prove that your money hadn't been involved in drugs?  Do they still do that?  I think they finally changed that law when the USA Attorney General's son was caught in her home with pot.  Suddenly they stopped taking away people's homes, go figure.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 24, 2012)

Ariux said:


> beagle9 said:
> 
> 
> > It is my belief that the word being used by blacks upon each other as they are doing, was a way to try and change the meaning of the word from a negative to a positive in their thinking, where as it would take away it's sting in which the early white racist were using it for. Not a bad idea by the blacks in trying to change the meaning of the word in which it was associated with for so long, and I see it as smart by them in doing this...
> ...



You know if you could keep your racism to a minimum, the rest of us might be able to make a point here...


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Jul 24, 2012)

Afros are racist 

wait

Oh god, LOLOLLOLOLOLOL

moron doesnt understand the meaning of the word


----------



## Ariux (Jul 24, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Criminal record?  From what I understand, he was arrested for trying to stop the cops from hassling his friend,  and that was the only thing on his record...am I wrong?



Zimmerman was drunk and his actions were extremely minor.  And, yes, that is the only previous time he was arrested, and charges were dropped.

As for Trayvon, I'd love to see his school record... In essentially a single semester alone, he was caught with stolen jewelry and a burglary tool, he was caught vandalizing school property, and he was caught with a marijuana bag.  I'll bet money there are a number of fights in his school record, over the years.  The no-limit-nigga was solidly on the hoodlum track.

If Trayvon had made it to Zimmerman's age, he would be in prison.  But, he didn't' survive long enough to make it to prison, because being a hoodlum got him shot.


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Jul 24, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Criminal record?  From what I understand, he was arrested for trying to stop the cops from hassling his friend,  and that was the only thing on his record...am I wrong?
> ...



there it is folks, this racist would LOVE to see it 

why?

he would LOVE to show that Trayvon had done anything wrong, anything at all, thus justifying he be hunted down, for no reason, and shot to death

you idiots want a war, keep it up


----------



## Liability (Jul 24, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



conztipHATEFULlib:  STFU.  You are no better than Ariux, and Ariux is a fucking scumbag imbecile.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 24, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



Trayvon was suspended from school no less than 3 times in one year...he obviously had done something wrong...the question is, since he was suspended from school, why was he wondering out alone at night???   What the heck kind of parents let their suspended kid do what he wants at night, with no supervision whatsoever?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 24, 2012)

This is what I have learned about the evidence gathering for the Martin family attorney on the civil lawsuit against the Home Owner's Association.
1. After the shooting there was an emergency meeting of the HOA concerning Zimmerman on May 1. One man stated publicly that he had made numerous complaints against Zimmerman to the Samford PD concerning Zimmerman coming to his residence.
2. The SAME LAW of Stand Your Ground applies in the civil courts.
3. All a civil lawsuit against the HOA would require is a relationship between Zimmerman and The Retreat at Twins Lake association as well as a relationship between the homeowners and a crime watch group led by Zimmerman. In a February newsletter the HOA acknowledged Zimmerman and the neighborhood crime watch group encouraging residents to contact Zimmerman in case of an incident. "If you have been the victim of a crime within the community, after calling the police, please contact our captain, George Zimmerman" the newsletter states so there clearly is a libalility relationship between Zimmerman and the HOA. 
5. The HOA can not say they had no idea that Zimmerman held himself out as a neighborhood watch captain. 
6. "Action unforseen" will be the defense and that could be a solid one as the question will be for a jury to decide if the board directors of the association could have forseen the actions of Zimmerman but the lack of proper background checks on Zimmerman will seriously hurt them in these claims. There appears to be many homeowners that made complaints about the tactics of Zimmerman and if that is the case then that defense is shot full of holes.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 24, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Trayvon was suspended from school no less than 3 times in one year...he obviously had done something wrong...the question is, since he was suspended from school, why was he wondering out alone at night???   What the heck kind of parents let their suspended kid do what he wants at night, with no supervision whatsoever?



Trayvon: "Hey dad, since I don't have to go to school because I'm suspended for drugs, I think I'll just go outside tonight, wonder aimlessly around this neighborhood, wearing my black hoodie."

Travyon's Dad, "Have fun, and watch out for white people."


(You'll have to provide your own Ebonics translation.)


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 24, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...


Oh so Ariux speaks for the whole white race now does he ? Ummmm who is the racist idiot here now ? I think that be's you....Racist Idiot!


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 24, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...



The only two things Martin did to deserve getting shot was that he was beating a man to death then went for his gun.

Everything else I couldnt give a rats ass about.


----------



## Ariux (Jul 24, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> The only two things Martin did to deserve getting shot was that he was beating a man to death then went for his gun.



The libtards want us to believe that Trayvon was a 12yr old angel who would never hurt a fly and so couldn't have assaulted a man.  The libtards want us to believe that Zimmerman is a crazed psychopath and so he grabbed Trayvon.

That's why the background information... Of course, it's all prejudicial, but prejudicial is the only thing libtards understand.


----------



## Luissa (Jul 25, 2012)

Ariux said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > The only two things Martin did to deserve getting shot was that he was beating a man to death then went for his gun.
> ...



Who has a history of violence and who does not? Who followed who for no reason?


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 25, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



History of violence? You meanlike a conviction for aviolent crime? I dont think either of them did.

But the physical evidence proves GZ was getting beat up, and your attempt at amateur psychoanalysis proves nothing.

And GZ had a reason to follow the little thug who was walking around in the rain staring into peoples homes. That is called 'casing' a place and theives do it all the time before breaking into a place, unless they are stupid asses.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 25, 2012)

Ariux said:


> JimBowie1958 said:
> 
> 
> > The only two things Martin did to deserve getting shot was that he was beating a man to death then went for his gun.
> ...



And you want us to believe that because Trayvon was black, he deserved to be killed.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 25, 2012)

Luissa said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...



Who has a history of theft, school suspensions and drug use?


----------



## Ariux (Jul 25, 2012)

Noomi said:


> And you want us to believe that because Trayvon was black, he deserved to be killed.



Do roaches deserve to be killed?  They have their function in nature, just as long as they're not in your house.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 25, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > ConzHateUSA said:
> ...



I do, I think there is something really wrong with our society when parents don't parent their children.  Don't know what we can do to fix it, but until we recognize it as a problem, it's not going to change.


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 25, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > JimBowie1958 said:
> ...


Looking at the two statements above yours in which you just responded to, I can't see where you got that anaology or analysis out of the two from, otherwise as coming out of those two specific statements in which you were responding to... Help me out here maybe, in order to understand how you pulled that out of those two statements that were made. This sort of accusation is what hurts ones credibility also, and this when throw this kind of rational into the frey, but if you were drawing your analysis from a conglomerate of past statements made, then maybe there is a point to be made in this respect, but even then would it have a bearing on the case pertaining to the facts known or would it be just to attack those here for whom you feel would have this personal outlook in opinion of, but not actually would it pertain to the specifics in the case as we all do know of them now?


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Jul 25, 2012)

Black kids should stay in Black neighborhoods, white folks wont tolerate them walking around in white territories much longer.

It is as if the Black kids think this is a free country or some stupid thing like that!


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 25, 2012)

Trayvon Martin wasn't in a white neighborhood.   After all his black father's black girlfriend lived there.


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 25, 2012)

Katzndogz said:


> Trayvon Martin wasn't in a white neighborhood.   After all his black father's black girlfriend lived there.


And zimmerman to right ?


----------



## Ariux (Jul 25, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> Black kids should stay in Black neighborhoods, white folks wont tolerate them walking around in white territories much longer.



Whites are the most tolerant race in the world.  



> It is as if the Black kids think this is a free country or some stupid thing like that!



You think this is a free country, you're a stupid shit.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 25, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> Black kids should stay in Black neighborhoods, white folks wont tolerate them walking around in white territories much longer.
> 
> It is as if the Black kids think this is a free country or some stupid thing like that!



I don't think there should be "black" neighborhoods or "white" neighborhoods.  When I was a kid, this neighborhood was all white, today it's mixed...I think I like mixed better....

One of my neighbors speaks six languages...you couldn't get than in an all white neighborhood if you tried.....


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 25, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> > Black kids should stay in Black neighborhoods, white folks wont tolerate them walking around in white territories much longer.
> ...


I may disagree to a degree here, because it will always depend on the character of the people that are moving in, and also upon how it is that these certain characters/people had gotten to the point of moving into a neighborhood, especially one that is culturally out of whack with them in regards to their culture and/or belief system. Many will always see the occupants of a community as being a counter culture found in a specific race, that usually constitutes in their mind as a threat to them, if the community holds witin itself a majority of that race in which they see as that counter or opposite to their plight in life, once living within the community that they have now either moved into due to affordability reasons or were placed into by the government run public housing athority and etc. which ever is the case that they would rather not had been there, but have ended up there due to some twist of fate in their lives in which they couldnot control, where as problems usually will begin soon after as a result of their being unhappy.

If a people are placed or are afforded into a community that is totally foriegn to what they believe in or that they are jealous towards or hate as even a racist people would, for whom have taught themselves to be racist against the culture and/or people who are already living within the community, then the community will quickly be destroyed as it has been seen time and time again across this nation when this sort of thing happens or is forced by government to happen to a community. I think that everyone should have the freedom to have communities that represent who they are, and for what their beliefs are in life, and if anyone moves into such communities, then they must prove that they are there to assimilate into the community as productive citizens that have the same beliefs, and that they are culturally in tune with the communties in which they (((choose))) to live in, and rather they are not forced to live in such communities that they would hate while they are there (or) worse would be hated while there. Whites shouldn't have to move or live in racist black communities or blacks shoudn't have to move to or live in racist white communities, just like athiest shouldn't have to live in christian communities nor should christians have to live in athiest communities and on and on and on it should go in this respect, especially when dealing with a muti-cultural society who wants to get somewhere where they are more intune with. Muti-cultural harmony sought after communities could be set up to seek volunteers who would want to try and live together in harmony by their own choosing etc. but the main thing is promoting harmony in American communities by having people living around each other who want to live around each other, and not the opposite to be the case. Looking at many communities over time now, and it's as if looking at a failed state within these communities, but it just keeps going and going and going no matter what into these directions... I know that the feds have a vision that everyone will soon equal out somehow, and that this will cure everything we have been facing in this experiment they have been working on for centuries now, but will it ? Do they really know all the players like they think they do, and will they be able to get them all to play together in the end ? What a task that will be or an undertaking it will be, trying to bring it all under one roof someday... Will the various muti-cultural players ever let this happen ?

Just my thoughts on some of this stuff, but I have no real answers in solving any of it someday for all who are involved in these issues..


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 25, 2012)

My neighborhood the largest home is 11,000 square feet and it is an elderly black man and his wife that own it.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 25, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> My neighborhood the largest home is 11,000 square feet and it is an elderly black man and his wife that own it.



Wow, that's a big house for two people....and I was thinking of downsizing for our retirement.....


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Jul 25, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > My neighborhood the largest home is 11,000 square feet and it is an elderly black man and his wife that own it.
> ...



Well, they need all that room for their crack drug orgies, lol.

/sarcasm, what the hell do they...need, ....wait a minute, I am starting to sound like a Gun Grabber asking why I would need to buy an 'assault rifle', lol.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 25, 2012)

JimBowie1958 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Well I guess if they can afford it....


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 26, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > My neighborhood the largest home is 11,000 square feet and it is an elderly black man and his wife that own it.
> ...



Jesse worked for Ron Brown in the Commerce Department in the Clinton administration. My next door neighbor built that house. His basement is almost as big as my house! I built this house in 1982 and it is the smallest in the neighborhood so we are good to go until retirement. The market is way down here so he would be foolish to sell it now as he has over a mil in it and could maybe get 600K if he was lucky.
He throws good parties and loves football!


----------



## Noomi (Jul 27, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Whites are the most tolerant race in the world.



Which is why most white people owned a black slave.


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 27, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Whites are the most tolerant race in the world.
> ...




What kind of retort was this by you ? Youch....Not a very good one, but to each their own right ? Just sayin!


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 27, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Whites are the most tolerant race in the world.
> ...



Most white people did not own slaves. Less than 2% of the population were slave owners.


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 27, 2012)

_At one time, the world's largest concentration of capital, in one commodity was invested in SLAVES.

Today's largest capital corruption is probably tied up, in scams, connected to white people.

Just saying . . ._


----------



## Liability (Jul 27, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _At one time, the world's largest concentration of capital, in one commodity was invested in SLAVES.
> 
> Today's largest capital corruption is *probably* tied up, in scams, connected to white people.
> 
> Just *saying* . . ._



Aside from the fact that you are a stupid racist pig fucker, your dopey presuppositions do not amount to anything worth "saying," you scumbag cock smoker idiot motherfucker.

With all due respect.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 27, 2012)

Noomi said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Whites are the most tolerant race in the world.
> ...



Oh, please, less than 5% of the country owned slaves and some of the slave owners were black themselves.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 27, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...



It's also wrong, on so many levels.  Less than 5% of our people owned slaves and of those 5% some were black.  Slavery no longer exists in the USA, but it still exists in Africa.


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Jul 27, 2012)

whites are tolerant

wait

LOL

tell me i i didnt read that

LOLOL


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 27, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...



5%, according to the books I read.  Still, not very many and some of the slave owners were black.

There is still slaver in Africa today, among the blacks...


----------



## bobgnote (Jul 27, 2012)

Liability said:


> bobgnote said:
> 
> 
> > _At one time, the world's largest concentration of capital, in one commodity was invested in SLAVES.
> ...



_*Littleidiot*, aside from the fact that you are a racist, fascist, cock-sucking, Log Cabin Club tea room faggot, you wouldn't know jack, but since you suck, you might exclaim, "cock smoker," when *what YOU do is smoke shit, eat shit, and suck dicks, at tea room parties*, so your little, right-wing faggot brain gets confused, in the middle of that.

Aside from the fact you are a racist cock-sucker, I don't see why you'd think anything, but how you have been getting slapped around, since your boy GZ is going down, so whiiiiiiiine, racist, cock-sucking bitch!  Truth or dare, faggot?

WTF kind of faggot word is "presupposition?"  It's a faggot word, which won't come up, in a Google search.  Do a better job, at imitating Archie Bunker, with your asshole on fire, prissy butt-boy.  

Aside from your whining rants, you don't have much left, since your fellow racist GZ is going down, and since you suck, you think this is your big chance, to suck some more.  But your fellow racist, GZ is going DOWN, bitch-ability!

You suck, you sucked, and you will suck, some more.  It's your thing.  I DON'T SUCK, I DON'T SMOKE, and I don't do cocks, let alone smoke any.  You lose again, cock-sucking *Littleidiot* faggot-bitch!_


----------



## Liability (Jul 27, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...




When you go all meltdown, whiney and bitchy, you prissy shit munching pussy cockgobbler, you tend toward the OVERLY verbose.

Did you get the Midol and Maxi pads you ordered?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 27, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> _At one time, the world's largest concentration of capital, in one commodity was invested in SLAVES.
> 
> Today's largest capital corruption is probably tied up, in scams, connected to white people.
> 
> Just saying . . ._



You are an idiot.
Just saying..............


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Jul 27, 2012)

Notice that rich people dont go to jail unless they steal from other rich people.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 27, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> Notice that rich people dont go to jail unless they steal from other rich people.



I have not noticed that.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 27, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> ConzHateUSA said:
> 
> 
> > Notice that rich people dont go to jail unless they steal from other rich people.
> ...



Yeah, me too.


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Jul 27, 2012)

it is times like this we are suppose to put away our differences, our bigotries, for those of us who have them, and realize we are all being played


----------



## taichiliberal (Jul 27, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



And Zimmer Zombies talk enough BS to fill a staduim!  Like I said toodles, the FACTS along with Georgie's continuing blatherings are not working to his advantage.  Deal with it.


----------



## The Professor (Jul 27, 2012)

bobgnote said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> > bobgnote said:
> ...



The word presupposition is a real word, a very common word,  and it's all over  the Internet.  The word is also in the  dictionary in case you have one and would like to check it out.  The word is an all my dictionaries, but right now I am looking at _Websters New World Compact School and Office Dictionary_, Fourth Edition (Paperback)  p. 382.

PS: here are a few of the almost 1,000,000 Internet sites where you can find the word presupposition and its definition.'

Presupposition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Presupposition (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

presupposition - definition of presupposition by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

If you spent less time insulting people and more time researching, perhaps you wouldn't make such blunders.

On a personal level, I question the intellectual level of one who has never heard of the word.    I have used the word often, but then I have 9 years of college.  And you?

You can call me a cock sucker as you have called others.  Just remember this:  I  would rather be known as a cock sucker than an idiot  with a substandard vocabulary.


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 28, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...


I can believe it, because they were mostly used on plantations for commercial purposes, and not so much in use within the white civillian population at large back then right ? 

The business sector still seeks out those who are a bit hungry, and are willing to do the hard task of quanity mass production where it is needed to this day, but this is also why we have another rebellion going on, where as the Americans are trying to balance the system back out again, by making work more attractive again to it's own citizens, instead of looking for others to be exploited as it were and still is in many cases. All people are human beings worthy of their works and talents, but large businesses and corporations can't help but to emplore communist/socailist thinking into their models, in order to keep all workers on a level that which can be used in ways that will allow mass production in various types of jobs, in which are still many in this nation that fit this bill, in order to get the job done with very little impact against their bottom lines or either against what the owners think they should be getting out of the deal, when conducting business in various ways and in means for which they do emplore still, and this regardless of what is right and what is fair in the situations that which are still going on these situations today.


----------



## paperview (Jul 30, 2012)

> I can believe it, because they were mostly used on plantations for  commercial purposes, and not so much in use within the white civillian  population at large back then right ?



About 30% of Southern families owned slaves.


----------



## paperview (Jul 30, 2012)

Guess who was arrested for DUI this weekend?






Frank Taaffe''s mug shot.


Aw, Tugboat's biggest defender and supporter, a drunk!


Who could see that coming?


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> > I can believe it, because they were mostly used on plantations for  commercial purposes, and not so much in use within the white civillian  population at large back then right ?
> 
> 
> 
> About 30% of Southern families owned slaves.



Wrong. 
In today's $$$ a slave costs around $45,000 a piece on average and a young female was around $65,000 and a young strong male was as high as $90,000.

Your quote is from a whacky Yahoo statistic that quotes "families"

A family could have 4 brothers with their families, 8 cousins with their families and 11 grandsons with their families for a total of 117 people all "owning" slaves.

Your stats, which only a fool would believe as most Americans do not know anything about statistics, lump all of them together as ONE family.

5 year olds do not own slaves, 12 year olds also but they were counted in the 1860 census as "potential" slave owners.

Only 2 % of southerners that were adults owned slaves.


----------



## paperview (Jul 30, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > > I can believe it, because they were mostly used on plantations for  commercial purposes, and not so much in use within the white civillian  population at large back then right ?
> ...


I'll warn you, arguing with me about Civil War history is a losing venture for you. Know that upfront.

My statistic is correct, and it's not from some "whacky yahoo" site, it's from reputable historians.

If a family owned slaves, they reaped the financial benefit of those slaves. It was considered a household "asset." 

Here's some numbers for you to munch on. 

*Selected Statistics on Slavery in the United States*



> *(unless otherwise noted, all data is as of the 1860 census)*
> 
> *Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).
> *
> ...



Selected Statistics

Need pictures?









> In the eleven states that formed the Confederacy, there were in  aggregate just over 1 million free households, which between them  represented 316,632 slaveholders&#8212;meaning that somewhere between  one-quarter and one-third of households in the Confederate States  counted among its assets at least one human being.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 30, 2012)

paperview said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



1 million "free households in the Confederacy" LOL 
There were 300,000 KIA and 200,000 troops that went home after the war ended in the Confederacy.
50% of the entire families in the southern states DID NOT have a service member in the Confederate Army. 
Your stats are bogus as they come. There were far over 5 million free citizens in the south in 1860 than the records reflect. Closer to 6.5 million+ and per farm you are looking at property ownership of slaves was about 2% of the citizens of the south owned slaves. 
You do know Ms. Expert that most of the courthouses in Georgia WERE BURNED TO THE GROUND during the civil war so how can you state with a straight face your biased 30% figure. ALL you have is the bogus 1860 census which was poorly done modeled after the corrupt 1850 census. 
You do know that under reporting of the southern states of free citizens favored the north in Congress don't you Ms. Expert?
Every research done on the southern 1860 census reports a margin of error of reporting of free adult citizens as a low of 19% and a high of 25%.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Jul 30, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> 1 million "free households in the Confederacy" LOL
> There were 300,000 KIA and 200,000 troops that went home after the war ended in the Confederacy.
> 50% of the entire families in the southern states DID NOT have a service member in the Confederate Army.



So, 300k + 200k = 500k = 1 milion * 1/2


----------



## Gadawg73 (Jul 30, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > 1 million "free households in the Confederacy" LOL
> ...



1/2 of the families in the south did not have a soldier in the Confederate Army.
About 15-20% and many of those deserted just as the Union Army did.
The 1850 and 1860 census was heavily influenced by the north.
You do know that census counts allocate Congressional districts.
Don't you?
The 1850 and 1860 southern census counts were bogus as the low balled the free citizen counts.
Why? Because of the expansion of slavery was opposed and rightfully so. The result was an uncercount of the citizens of the south. That pissed off the south so that influenced the war. 
Facts are a bitch.


----------



## beagle9 (Jul 30, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...


While we are at it for a second or two (off topic a bit), I traveled down to South Carolina over the weekened to check out the Riverbanks Zoo in which they have there, and while at it I went to the State Museum as well. Ok to quickly ask a question or a few questions here to the experts. Why is it that there is an exhibit depicting slavery in this museum, and in the exhibit there is a sign or statement that read " It was very hard work, and the treatement was very cruel", then there was a film speaking of horrid things that were done by some college looking history proffessor for whom was narrating this film, otherwise letting people (the black children most importantly I guess) know how it was back then for slaves, and this as was written by some of the slaves themselves, but when the statehouse grounds has a civil war soldier and a rebel flag for historical purposes dipicted upon that monument, the blacks want this piece of history removed ? 

How is that they are OK with history teaching their children about the cruelty found in the history of slavery, along with other teachings as well, but it is not Ok to also learn about or know about the whole entire history of the period as it should be learned fully by all ? Why is it that they want history to very much teach their young to possibly hate by way of such history as is learned within a biased version given them (in which it can easily be taught in this way by them if choose to), and to do it in a way where history is only half taught, instead of taught in it's entirety ??????

I say that all of it should be removed (even the slavery side of it in regards to the teachings of that part of it also), and this where ever it may be in this nation, and especially so if it is that the other parts of it are to be removed as wanted by the blacks upon their demands, that are given concerning the monument and etc. also.  

Do they want to teach their young to hate whites with this history, and then the whites have no way of recourse in regards for their young (the white kids) if that were to be the case in response to such hatred as is learned by those who would hate for the reason of having their part of history spoken of to them, but the whites would have no knowledge of the entire history as it should be known by them as well ? 

It must all be learned equally and thoughfully or it should be banished totally (IMHO), as seen in this type of history for all time, in so that neither will remember these bad times ever again, nor will it continue to teach the children of either race about such things that we all need to defintely forget and get beyond finally. 

Now we know that no one is letting go of the nations history (no matter how bad or how good it was at any given time), so it is that the history should be taught in all of it's context and fullness there of, including all monuments and historical records for all to review included, and this in order to digest it properly in these ways as it should be. To suggest anything else is downright wrong for anyone to want a one sided version of history for themselves, and it's events in this nation, but when I saw this at the museum, and then I thought about the monument on the statehouse grounds being under attack as it were a while back in the news by the blacks, I was taken back a little. I am for teaching peace not hatred always, so if any part of it goes, then it all must go in order to make it right for all in the exchange. No one sided way about it.. Period!

Infact if all local and state run governments would banish all forms of "hatred" as is found within the history of this great war between Americans, even though it would be still kept in individual households by choice of those individuals, and would be still taught in such households, yet fewer and fewer of them as time goes by, then the power of it and the sting of it would be so deminished in this respect, that it would soon eventually slip away into the shadows of time, to never be heard from or spoken of again. Think about it.................................Maybe some great consessions could be made, in order to finally get both sides to lay down their hurtful words spoken, and to no longer teach hatred, just as it was that the Japaneese had done the same thing in these ways after world war two.

Will this nation ever come together in the right ways finally, and as Americans all (or) will we keep seperating along imaginary lines that are always being drawn in the sands by various groups in a continuance of these sorts of things ?


----------



## taichiliberal (Aug 2, 2012)

paperview said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Interesting how the conversation gravitated to this subject from a discussion about the culpability and guilt of George Zimmerman....but it is satisfying to see yet another Confederate flag waving apologist get his ass handed to him.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 2, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



I was one of the folks that supported the change in the Georgia Flag dumb ass.
We do not wave Confederate flags here as that insults our black brothers.

The last time I saw something like you I flushed it.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 2, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



Considering that Old Glory flew over slavery a lot longer, and even later, that the confederate flag, I would that would be even more offensive.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 2, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Good point.


----------



## beagle9 (Aug 2, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...


The meaning behind the flag, has changed with time just like it's citizens for whom look to it, and have changed it's meaning in a personal way, that to represent them just as well, so the point was moot (I guess) in concerns of the flags in general. People must always know the meaning of the flags as they have changed over time to represent them now, and not what they may have stood for so many generations before, especially if the meaning was bad during certain time periods, in which was being represented by certain people who were bad also in these time periods. 

The confederate flag for example, also took on a new meaning, where as the old one had gone away, but the flag still remained, just like old Glory has also remained as well. 

Now what to do with the confederate flag, that is what the southerners were thinking next in concerns of a flag that had no longer any purpose or extremist people to represent, and also no meaning anylonger after the civil war. Many generations have past, and the people for whom have since traveled so far down the road a ways from this time period, have changed big time as well. So they (the southerners) changed it's meaning to represent their rugged country living styles, and to represent hard working country folk, who work hard and play hard (Nascar) afterwards. Many young people see the "rebel flag" as representing their culture in the south (country folk living), and not in the ways for which it was represented during the civil war. 

They (the new generation), had adopted the flag, when it had lost it's home and representation for a cause that was represented by a people many years ago, in which for many it was very bad, and thus we have the new generation that has given it a new meaning, but not to include racism or discrimination as a part of it anylonger in the new meaning. 

Ok, now with that said, we all know that their are extremist found in any group, and those extremist love to re-use a flag, a person's name or whatever in order to project their extremist views with these associations and beliefs, and that is unfortunate for those who adopted it, and therefore changed it's meaning sometime back, and have been using it for a better cause than what it was used for during the civil war period since. It is the same with the N-word, where as the rappers began to re-use it, but only to change it's meaning, and this in order for it to begin representing something that they feel is cool and brotherly for them (robbing it's sting and power when abused and used in the wrong ways), so when they (the younger blacks) speak it between each other it is good in their opinions, but there are the extremist amongst their group as well, who are opposed to this usage or change, because they fear that it will become loose lipped amongst other extremist, who would try and use it in a bad way also, but then hide behind the new adopted meaning of it (or) the allowance of it's use there of by others in good context of, thus exposing quickly a perp if caught using it in a bad way once the majority had changed it into someting better.

The N-word is just like the rebel flag, both are left over from a period where they were spoken of, and also looked up at in a very bad way, where as they were represented in a bad light when used most all of the time, but both were adopted later on down the road by a better people who had changed their meanings, but the extremist are always trying to take them back for their hateful reasons found within them. 

It is important that what people do in order to make things better in America, should be fought for and kept away from those who would use what the good folks have adopted and made better, in a very bad way again. 

Old Glory (yes) is a very good example of the changes that have been made over time, and how she represents not a single period in time, but rather she represents the good people found in any given time period for what they wanted her to represent or say for them, and not for the bad people or the extremist who would highjack her, and then try to use her power to somehow hurt with or enslave with..


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 3, 2012)

What kills me are the folks that call me a Confederarte flag waver.
I was born and raised in the south but my parents are both from upstate New York and my older siblings all were born up there. Dad was hired in 1954 to NC and we moved there and I was born.
My politics are fiscal conservative but on all the social issues such as gay this and that, race relations whatever I am as liberal as it gets.


----------



## taichiliberal (Aug 3, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > paperview said:
> ...



An yet here you are arguing the SOS that the Confederate flag stood for.  You have no "black brothers", because we see you for what you are by your words and actions.  The FACTS make a fool of you, my little Zimmerman zombie.  Blather on.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 4, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



What am I arguing about promoting slavery which I oppose?
Last night I had dinner and a few beer with a former team mate who happens to be black. We had 2 beers and a mixed drink at the bar after dinner. 

My father in the 1960s worked for the College Entrance Examination Board and we lived in Sewanee, Tennessee. His work included going to rural high schools in Alabama, Mississippi and Georgia to make sure blacks were able to take the SAT at their high school as the administrators were not allowing it. So what did Dad and them do? They would not allow ANYONE at those schools to take it unless blacks could also so all of the high schools caved in. And our family heard it from the racists in the community about that also, me about every day at school. They called us ****** lovers but we did what was right.
You could not carry my jock strap concerning support for civil rights you damn fool.

This is the work Dad and scroll down on this article from The Journal Of Black Higher Education and read about them. JBHE: Latest News for 1/29/09

My family was fighting for equal rights for everyone before you were smashing zits on your forehead.


----------



## Ariux (Aug 4, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> What am I arguing about promoting slavery which I oppose?



Maybe you're not pro-slavery.  But, in a free market, slavery is all the average Afro is worth -- provided that they're kept in check on the crime front. 

(I'm only the messenger.)


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 4, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > What am I arguing about promoting slavery which I oppose?
> ...



How much did that KKK tatoo on your forehead cost?


----------



## Ariux (Aug 4, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Is that anyway to be, personal insults in reply to valid points?


ATTENTION ALL LIBERALS:  Are any of you in favor of ending all preferences for Afros, and letting the FREE market decide what they're worth?  See, Gadawg, they all agree with me.


----------



## taichiliberal (Aug 5, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



This ain't about your daddy, genius....this is about YOU pushing the BS found by all Confederate flag flunkies who try to minimize the importance of slavery to the Old South.  You were proven WRONG with the FACTS, yet instead of just acknowledging this, you do the usual BS shuffle by regailing us with (alleged) tales of civil rights chivalry and heroism.

Given your Zimmerman zombie status on this thread and this little detour, I ain't buying it.  yeah, we've all dealt with the "some my best friends are black" jokers like you....and so long as nothing treads on your personal mental space or in your backyard, you're all for it.  But given the BS you've embraced about and around Zimmerman on this thread, no one is buying your BS. Get stuffed.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Aug 5, 2012)

What if some of your best friends _are_ black?  Does that make you a racist?  What if you're dating someone who's black?  Do you stop being racist then?  If you're not really "dating" her, you just hook up for casual sex, and then ignore her calls for days, do you become a born-again racist?  What if you're Hispanic?  Does that trump all the other things?  If you're a black woman whose having sex with a white Hispanic, are you now tri-racial?


----------



## beagle9 (Aug 5, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Hmmm does this mean that whites truly never have black friends, but rather they just tolerate them as so called friends, in order to be accepted in certain circles, or to get a point accross in code, otherwise doing so while hiding behind some of their so called black friends ? Can whites according to you even have black friends ? I bet not according to you. Just sayin..


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 5, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Never said a damn thing to minimize the importance of slavery in the south dumb ass.
I stated MOST southerners did not own slaves.
You are about as dumb as a box of rocks as the "facts" you go by were census data where the northern states wanted less representation in Congress and low balled 2 census figures in a row. 
The funny thing is my family IS FROM NEW YORK you dumb fuck. Out of 4 kids I am the only one that was born in the south. All of my relatives fought for the Union Army you fool.
Get your head out of your ass and quit prejudging others. 
I grew up during integration and played on some of the first integrated teams. 
I read you loud and clear. To you ANYONE that wants a fair trial for Zimmerman is a racist.
You are the one that is prejudiced and ignorant. 
I was supporting equal rights for everyone before your punk ass was born.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 5, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> What if some of your best friends _are_ black?  Does that make you a racist?  What if you're dating someone who's black?  Do you stop being racist then?  If you're not really "dating" her, you just hook up for casual sex, and then ignore her calls for days, do you become a born-again racist?  What if you're Hispanic?  Does that trump all the other things?  If you're a black woman whose having sex with a white Hispanic, are you now tri-racial?



Middle, we disagree a lot but that is a good post!
LOL, I read it 8 times and it was funnier the 8th time than the 7th.

We have gays and mixed families in my large family. The food at holidays IS KILLER!
Just kidding as it has made a stronger family.


----------



## taichiliberal (Aug 9, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> What if some of your best friends _are_ black?  Does that make you a racist?  What if you're dating someone who's black?  Do you stop being racist then?  If you're not really "dating" her, you just hook up for casual sex, and then ignore her calls for days, do you become a born-again racist?  What if you're Hispanic?  Does that trump all the other things?  If you're a black woman whose having sex with a white Hispanic, are you now tri-racial?



FYI: the phrase "some of my best friends are black" became popular in the 1960's during the Civil Rights movement...whites who only interacted with black folk on the most basic level (i.e., the job) and claimed to be "liberals" would suddenly come unglued if black folk moved into their neighborhood, or utilizing public facilities and such in their neighborhoods where narry a black person could be found, or if black folk supported causes that upset the status quo and becoame too "radical" (i.e., the March on Washington in 1968).

Hope this clarifies things for you, and prevents any future grade school attempts at sarcasm and mocking on your part.


----------



## taichiliberal (Aug 9, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



You would lose that bet, because I never stated, alluded to, suggested or insinuated what you are putting forth here.  I'm pointing out the FACT that Gadawgs initial and slanderous statements about the Martin family on this thread is parallel to the prejudiced notions voiced by the rabid bigots and racists on this thread.  Seems that you're just saying nothing Beagle9, yet just whistling dixie!


----------



## taichiliberal (Aug 9, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



The chronololgy of the posts shows what was said regarding slavery (minimizing the actual numbers of slave owners and such)...you were given information that proved your initial statements wrong, and now you try to BS over the FACT that you were proven WRONG.

The chronlogy of the posts show you making slanderous assertions about the Martin family, that I ponted out were prejudiced in their formation.

I'm dealing with what you post here, toodles...I don't give a rat's ass about your alleged family history or personal friends.  The chronology of the post nails yhou for an intellectually dishonest Zimmerman Zombie, with a little racial prejudice on the side.  You can deny and lie all you want but the chronology of the post will always be your undoing to the objective, rational reader.

Now, run-a-long and repeat your BS ad nauseum for the cretins that you think you're above.  Gaddawg you're delusional!  Carry on.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 10, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



"intellectually dishonest Zimmerman Zombie with a little prejudice on the side"
You are the one prejudging. I was playing with black kids in the 60s and 70s on teams where we all got along fine.
Not a bigoted or prejudiced bone in my body. You will not find anyone on USMB that supports equal rights for everyone MORE than me.
You are the anti Zimmerman Zombie. I want a fair trial and have stated from the start that he IS guilty of involuntary manslaughter, the family WILL win also in the civil caseasTHEY SHOULD WIN that case.
But if THE LAW, which you could care less about, is interpreted he stood his ground then the LAW sets him free.
We are a nation OF LAWS, not people like you with their narrow and ignorant BELIEFS.


----------



## Bigfoot (Aug 10, 2012)

Zimmerman should be released with murder charges dropped and given immunity to civil prosecution. This farce of placating blacks because of the fear of mobs of blacks rioting has driven this case into corruption from the prosecutor's office. Just two days ago more evidence was leaked to the press by the prosecutor's office to further tamper with the jury pool. All of the shooting evidence in the case so far supports Zimmerman's claim of being attacked by Martin.


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 10, 2012)

wow, how many times will my posts be deleted

blah blah puke puke

this isnt that zone where you cant say anything upsetting is it


----------



## Ariux (Aug 10, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Zimmerman should be released with murder charges dropped and given immunity to civil prosecution. This farce of placating blacks because of the fear of mobs of blacks rioting has driven this case into corruption from the prosecutor's office. Just two days ago more evidence was leaked to the press by the prosecutor's office to further tamper with the jury pool. All of the shooting evidence in the case so far supports Zimmerman's claim of being attacked by Martin.



When this trial is over, I hope Zimmerman has some recourse against that malicious c***Angela Corey.  Charging Zimmerman for murder when there's no evidence of murder is bad enough.  But, she's been doing everything she can to taint the jury pool, the latest thing is releasing his bad college grades.


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 10, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman should be released with murder charges dropped and given immunity to civil prosecution. This farce of placating blacks because of the fear of mobs of blacks rioting has driven this case into corruption from the prosecutor's office. Just two days ago more evidence was leaked to the press by the prosecutor's office to further tamper with the jury pool. All of the shooting evidence in the case so far supports Zimmerman's claim of being attacked by Martin.
> ...



racist puke
blah puke
racist puke
blah puke

if these same exact set of circumstances existed and the dead kid was a rich white kid, the shooter would have already been convicted and fried in the electric chair


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 10, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



I notice you put the word "rich" in there.  Do you think all whites are rich?  or do you acknowledge that we have a class system which favors our wealthy?


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 10, 2012)

no and yes

doesnt have to say rich, but if a rich white person is arrested they almost never go to jail or are found guilty, we all know that

the point simply is this was a child who was murdered for being the wrong color in the right neighborhood


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 10, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> no and yes
> 
> doesnt have to say rich, but if a rich white person is arrested they almost never go to jail or are found guilty, we all know that
> 
> the point simply is this was a child who was murdered for being the wrong color in the right neighborhood



He was 17, and he was killed because he was pounding a guys head into the pavement, if the guy didn't have a gun, the "kid" would still be alive but the guy would be dead.

You know that had this kid been white, nothing would have ever come of it, unless of course, his family was rich.


----------



## Bigfoot (Aug 10, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



The prejudice in your post is overwhelming and your post is false. Martin was killed because he attacked somebody and tried to seriously injure and/or kill the man.  All of the evidence so far points to Zimmerman defending himself from his attacker. The murder charges against Zimmerman should be dropped. He should also receive immunity from civil liability per Florida law. Zimmerman was in the right to defend himself and Martin was in the wrong for attacking the man and it cost him his life.


----------



## ItsjustmeIthink (Aug 10, 2012)

Being Dead Vs. Being Bloodied. Which do you prefer?


----------



## beagle9 (Aug 10, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> no and yes
> 
> doesnt have to say rich, but if a rich white person is arrested they almost never go to jail or are found guilty, we all know that
> 
> the point simply is this was a child who was murdered for being the wrong color in the right neighborhood


Ok and just what had been going on in that neighborhood prior to in which created these suspicions, and/or who was behind the goings on in that neighborhood prior to the traggic event, "rich white kids" ?

Should "rich white kids" take the fall for what was going on in that neighborhood if they were not the culprits, I mean would that have made you feel better since you have brought them up ?  Who was it that was doing the robbing and stealing in that neighborhood ? Anyone know ? Was there any arrest made earlier of those who had been robbing and stealing ? What created Zimmermans suspicion of Trayvon when saw him walking as he did during the night, and in the rain oddly enough as he put it ? 

Who knows really ! 

So was it just a perfect storm that befalled these two sadly enough or so it seems, and at the wrong time for both did it somehow come upon them? Otherwise in light of the goings on in that neighborhood already in which created these suspicions, they both had fallen victim to a perfect storm that next had gotten out of control, and fast.

Both are victims here it seems, where as the criminals who had been infiltrating the neighborhood robbing and stealing, have gotten away with it for now (if no arrest have been made), but they have the blood of Martin and Zimmerman upon their hands now, and they will have to answer to that in their futures, where as they must live with this fact until the final judgement comes upon them, be it here or in the after life all depending .

I have written this because of your "rich white kids" comment.


----------



## Ariux (Aug 14, 2012)

beagle9 said:


> Both are victims here it seems, where as the criminals who had been infiltrating the neighborhood robbing and stealing, have gotten away with it for now (if no arrest have been made), but they have the blood of Martin and Zimmerman upon their hands now, and they will have to answer to that in their futures, where as they must live with this fact until the final judgement comes upon them, be it here or in the after life all depending .



Beagle, shithead, Trayvon wasn't a victim.  You don't know that Trayvon, a known hoodlum, wasn't casing the neighborhood.  Even if he weren't deliberately up to no good, he was behaving negligently (without regard to appearances, wearing a black hoodie, meandering and looking around after dark, etc.).  The worst thing he could have been a victim of is someone looking at him, as a result of his own negligence.


----------



## Ariux (Aug 14, 2012)

The Defense has said it won't seek a Stand Your Ground ruling.  Non-shitheads have pointed out from the start that Zimmerman wasn't "standing his ground" but was purely defending himself.  

It looks to me that Florida law is f-ed up.  A person actually has more rights if he has the option to retreat but chooses not to use it than if he has no option in his self-defense.  Zimmerman didn't have the option to retreat, therefor he can't seek a special ruling to avoid a criminal trial and become immune from civil prosecution.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Aug 14, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> All of the evidence so far points to Zimmerman defending himself from his attacker.



No.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Aug 14, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > What if some of your best friends _are_ black?  Does that make you a racist?  What if you're dating someone who's black?  Do you stop being racist then?  If you're not really "dating" her, you just hook up for casual sex, and then ignore her calls for days, do you become a born-again racist?  What if you're Hispanic?  Does that trump all the other things?  If you're a black woman whose having sex with a white Hispanic, are you now tri-racial?
> ...



Wow, it's pathetic that you're all bent out of shape over some light humor.  Stop taking yourself so seriously and people won't have to school you with their biting sarcasm anymore.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 14, 2012)

Giving folks immunity from anything civil is bad, bad policy.
Terrible abuses of the system always come with that.
Politicians always use that for pet support.
No, we DO NOT want any civil protections for Zimmerman.


----------



## Bigfoot (Aug 15, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > All of the evidence so far points to Zimmerman defending himself from his attacker.
> ...



Yes, it does. Zimmerman was defending himself from an attacker, Martin. So far the evidence in the case strongly points to just that.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Aug 15, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...




Please provide some details on what this "strong" evidence is that Martin was the attacker excluding Zimmerman's statements as the survivor of the confrontation.

(BTW - Injuries to the back of the head are not "strong" evidence on who initiated hostilities (i.e. who was the initial attacker), Zimmerman's injuries simply show at some point he was losing the fight - not who started it.)



Thank you in advance.

WW

>>>>


----------



## Bigfoot (Aug 15, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...



LOL, oh the internet drama! It's all over this thread, the media and every other piece of information out there about the case and you know it.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Ariux (Aug 15, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Please provide some details on what this "strong" evidence is that Martin was the attacker excluding Zimmerman's statements as the survivor of the confrontation.



WW, you worthless piece of racist roach shit:

1) The timeline that show Trayvon doubled back to find Zimmerman, rather than leaving the area.  

2) Zimmerman's injuries shows that he was no match for Trayvon, meaning he (a chubby hispanic) wouldn't have started a fight with Trayvon (a bigger man, in prime condition).  

3) Only Trayvon had motive to start a fight, to punish Zimmerman for following him.

4) Trayvon is a f-ing cold.  What more evidence do you need?

5) The burden of proof is on you, not me, you f-ing piece of shit.  Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty.  What evidence do you have that Zimmerman started the fight?  You got nothing, so fuck off and die.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 15, 2012)

Ariux said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Please provide some details on what this "strong" evidence is that Martin was the attacker excluding Zimmerman's statements as the survivor of the confrontation.
> ...



1. Probably and good point but the last part is speculation. But time does not lie and the timeline favors Z.
2. Maybe and there is evidence that Martin did cause injuries but who laid the first blow? Speculation again.
3. All speculation and no evidence.
4. You are leaning over the deep end.
5. That is the law without the hyperbole.


----------



## Inthemiddle (Aug 15, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



No.


----------



## Ariux (Aug 15, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> 1. Probably and good point but the last part is speculation. But time does not lie and the timeline favors Z.



It's hardly speculation.  Trayvon knew Zimmerman was watching him, yet the two had an encounter in the same location were Trayvon was three minutes earlier.  That's proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Trayvon chose to confront Zimmerman rather than leave.



> 2. Maybe and there is evidence that Martin did cause injuries but who laid the first blow? Speculation again.



Not speculation, but sound reason.  An armed man would not choose to physically assault a suspected thug and a bigger man.  He'd call police and/or pull his gun.  



> 3. All speculation and no evidence.



I'm not speculating that Trayvon had motive.   He did, shithead.   It's not disputed that he knew Zimmerman was watching him.  And, Afro shits generally agree that justifies assault (e.g. look at the Afro shit protesters who argue about Travyon's right to "stand his ground.")



> 4. You are leaning over the deep end.



Statistics isn't proof, but it's a good starting point.  Statistically, Trayvon started the fight.  He's a member of the most violent race.  He's at the most violent age.  He's a druggie.  And, Trayvon's background is far more damning than Zimmerman's background.



> 5. That is the law without the hyperbole.



"Innocent until proven guilty" isn't just the law, it's common decency.   But, someone who doesn't have this common decency, and pisses on the evidence of innocence, deserves that hyperbole.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 15, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Ariux said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I don't think it matters who threw the fist blow.  I think the important part is that Zimmerman was getting his head pounded into the cement, which can cause anywhere from brain damage to death.  Makes it self defense in my book.  Whatever happened to not hitting a person when they're down?


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 15, 2012)

Yes, it doesnt matter, zimmerman clearly hunted and murdered this kid...but i love watching vile racist filth go out of their way to twist their logic into pretzels coming up with a different take


----------



## Ariux (Aug 15, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> I don't think it matters who threw the fist blow.  I think the important part is that Zimmerman was getting his head pounded into the cement, which can cause anywhere from brain damage to death.  Makes it self defense in my book.  Whatever happened to not hitting a person when they're down?



True enough.   Even if we entertain the absurd notion that Zimmerman threw the first punch, the injuries and the witnesses show that Trayvon was in control of the fight and he kept attacking Zimmerman even after he had already "won the fight" and Zimmerman was helpless, leaving Zimmerman with shooting in self-defense.  

But, there's no need to go there because the evidence overwhelmingly shows that Trayvon started the fight.


----------



## Ariux (Aug 15, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> Yes, it doesnt matter, zimmerman clearly hunted and murdered this kid...but i love watching vile racist filth go out of their way to twist their logic into pretzels coming up with a different take



Speaking of logic, are you even capable of attempting to use logic?  Is there any wonder why I regard Liberals as mere animals.  They're mindless creatures, driven by instinct.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 15, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > 1. Probably and good point but the last part is speculation. But time does not lie and the timeline favors Z.
> ...



The defendant never has to prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt" in his theory of defense and proof.
The entire burden of the prosecution is to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 15, 2012)

Zimmerman never hunted anything.
Surveillance is legal.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 15, 2012)

Who threw the first punch is everything in this caseand every case like this where the party that is killed had no weapon.
If Zimmerman threw the first punch he is at the very least guilty of manslaughter in some degree.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 15, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...



It does matter as that is the law, especially if the one killed is not armed.
If Zimmerman threw the first punch then Martin has every right to defend himself and pound heads into cement because Zimmerman HAD A LOADED GUN.
"Not hitting a person when they're down" He had a gun!


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 15, 2012)

sometimes when i read what rabid racists are saying, I hang my head in shame that they are human


----------



## Ariux (Aug 15, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Zimmerman never hunted anything.
> Surveillance is legal.



And coon season is year-around in Florida.


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 15, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Unless he was aiming the gun at Trayvon, it didn't matter that he had one.  You don't hit someone when they are down.


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 15, 2012)

Ariux said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman never hunted anything.
> ...



and a few other states I fear...they want a war, obviously

another civil war, they are very angry they cant own Black people anymore

but too bad


----------



## Ariux (Aug 15, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> It does matter as that is the law, especially if the one killed is not armed.
> If Zimmerman threw the first punch then Martin has every right to defend himself and pound heads into cement because Zimmerman HAD A LOADED GUN.
> "Not hitting a person when they're down" He had a gun!



Trayvon wasn't defending himself against a loaded gun.  If Trayvon knew that Zimmerman had a gun, he would have taken it, fucktard.  

Trayvon was pounding Zimmerman's head into the ground because Trayvon was a f-ing cold, an Afro thug.  

Also, shithead, the law allows lethal force in self-defense against threat of serious bodily injury of death, regardless of who starts the fight.   In other words, fuctkard, just because you get shoved or grabbed by someone, that someone does't lose his right to splatter that shit in your skull if you decide to attempt to beat that someone to death for trying to grab you.


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 15, 2012)

Trayvon was trying to stand his ground, was murdered anyway

anybody see the hypocrisy in the racists position here

fuck, how sick can you garbage get


----------



## tjvh (Aug 15, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> Trayvon was trying to stand his ground, was murdered anyway
> 
> anybody see the hypocrisy in the racists position here
> 
> fuck, how sick can you garbage get



Trayvon was trying to stand his ground? When Zimmerman gets acquitted for self defense, what moral high road are you going to take? The racism is using the Zimmerman/ Martin case as a vehicle to further an agenda of racism... Or we'd be hearing about most every other crime that involved a shooting and self defense... Oh I forgot, blacks killing blacks is OK.


----------



## ConzHateUSA (Aug 15, 2012)

w o w


----------



## WorldWatcher (Aug 15, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...




So you have no actual evidence as to who initiated hostilities?


Your opinion is that Martin was the attacker and Zimmerman the defender.  The evidence equally supports that Zimmerman initiated hostilities and Martin the defender.


Personally?  I don't know, but I'm honest enough to admit it and not make assumptions.


>>>>


----------



## Bigfoot (Aug 15, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



The evidence to this point supports Zimmerman's story and you know it. If it holds up in court remains to be seen or if more evidence is presented. In my opinion you are far from being honest, you are being overly dramatic.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 15, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Againsheila said:
> ...



You do not know or understand THE LAW. If you are "down" with a gun that is NOT retreating under the law.
How can one retreat when they are down?
Throwing the first puch IS ALWAYS the criteria in ALL self defense cases.
And honey, THIS IS a self defense case.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 15, 2012)

Amazing NOT ONE PIECE OF EVIDENCE has been tendered in court yet and we have these wannabe Perry Masons telling us what the evidence "supports".


----------



## WorldWatcher (Aug 15, 2012)

Ariux said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Please provide some details on what this "strong" evidence is that Martin was the attacker excluding Zimmerman's statements as the survivor of the confrontation.
> ...



The timeline and Zimmerman's own description showed that Martin had already run from an area of possible conflict.

Under Florida law Martin was in an area that he was legally allowed to be in.  Under the provisions of Stand Your Ground, Martin had no requirement to flee the area (which he did the first time, but may not have done the second time when Zimmerman pursued him behind the houses.



Ariux said:


> 2) Zimmerman's injuries shows that he was no match for Trayvon, meaning he (a chubby hispanic) wouldn't have started a fight with Trayvon (a bigger man, in prime condition).



Zimmerman's injuries are not indicative of who started the hostilities, they only show that at some point he was losing.  That's not really in dispute.



Ariux said:


> 3) Only Trayvon had motive to start a fight, to punish Zimmerman for following him.



Actually Zimmerman had plenty of motive to initiate hostilities.  One, he has public said he was looking for a career in law enforcement and during taped interviews said he wanted to be a cop.  Secondly, his focus on recent break-ins and the one that got away because the police didn't respond fast enough.  So here he is in the same situation, unknown youth who he calls for police response police haven't arrived yet.  His motivation was to prevent, as he said during the dispatcher call "These assholes. They always get away." from happening again.



Ariux said:


> 4) Trayvon is a f-ing cold.  What more evidence do you need?



Wanna try again in English?



Ariux said:


> 5) The burden of proof is on you, not me, you f-ing piece of shit.



Actually the burden of proof to influence the Jury is up to the prosecution, not me.

Personally I don't think Zimmerman is guilty of the charge of Murder 2.



Ariux said:


> Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty.  What evidence do you have that Zimmerman started the fight?



I don't have any at this point.  Therefore I (if I was on the jury) could not vote to convict on Murder 2 because I don't think he departed his truck with the intent to kill Martin (i.e. a depraved disregard for human live) which is the standard under the law.  I think the death resulted from a more "heat of the moment" encounter.  Manslaughter?  Neglegant Homicide?  Possibly.



Ariux said:


> You got nothing, so fuck off and die.




Does such language make you feel like an all powerful keyboard commando?


>>>>


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 15, 2012)

ConzHateUSA said:


> Trayvon was trying to stand his ground, was murdered anyway
> 
> anybody see the hypocrisy in the racists position here
> 
> fuck, how sick can you garbage get



On this subject you have no clue.
Find another thread.
No offense.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Aug 15, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > Ariux said:
> ...




You are wrong (as it pertains to the law).  Who through the first punch (actually who initiate hostilities) will be crucial to the case as it determines Zimmerman's eligibility to be immune under Florida self-defense laws.  The basic principal is that if you initiate hostilities, you may surrender self-defense immunity.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Aug 15, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> The defendant never has to prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt" in his theory of defense and proof.
> The entire burden of the prosecution is to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think when attempting to show self-defense then the standard is "by a preponderance of the evidence" (a lower standard).  If someone can show self-defense "by a preponderance of the evidence" then that shows that the "reasonable doubt" standard has not been met.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Aug 15, 2012)

Againsheila said:


> Unless he was aiming the gun at Trayvon, it didn't matter that he had one.



False, brandishing a weapon (not saying Zimmerman did) is felony assault under Florida law - and no you don't have to actually aim it at someone.



Againsheila said:


> You don't hit someone when they are down.



My guess would be you've never been in an actual street fight, I have.  You damn well to hit someone when they are down to prevent them from getting back up.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Aug 15, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



No the evidence is inconclusive.  You may want Zimmerman to be innocent, therefore you view the evidence through that lens and confuse your opinion with fact.

I recognize that the evidence at this point is not conclusive as to who started hostilities.  I want justice served, that is all.



Bigfoot said:


> If it holds up in court remains to be seen or if more evidence is presented.



That is true.



Bigfoot said:


> In my opinion you are far from being honest, you are being overly dramatic.



Where was I being "overly dramatic".  You made an absolute statement that Martin was the attacker, I asked for what evidence you have seen that supports such a statement.  That is not "overly dramatic".

I notice though that you have not presented any conclusive evidence that Martin was the attacker (and as I said Zimmerman's story is not conclusive since he is the one charged he as motivation to lie and his head injuries do not indicate who initiate hostilities).

>>>>


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 15, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



You're right, I don't know the law.  I do know right and wrong.


----------



## Bigfoot (Aug 15, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



I've noticed that you have been in this thread reading all of the same posted evidence that I have for the past few months. You have also read the same information that I have that has been plastered all over the Internet. Just because you refuse to use that information and insist that I repost it again and again doesn't mean thAT YOU HAVE NOT READ IT. So you are either being overly dramatic or you are just being a cantankerous old fart that is looking for some kind of jollies thru a contrived (dishonestly) argument. Either way I have no interest in playing your little game with you. The evidence speaks for itself AND YOU KNOW IT as well as anyone who has participated in this thread does. All of the available evidence at this time supports Zimmerman's claim of being attacked by Martin. The fact that you enjoy denying that means nothing.


----------



## Gadawg73 (Aug 15, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> > The defendant never has to prove anything "beyond a reasonable doubt" in his theory of defense and proof.
> ...



Preponderance of the evidence is ONLY in civil court, never in criminal court. 
The burden is never on the accused to prove anything. 
Now there is a difference in the Stand Your Ground hearings. 
"A reasonable belief of a threat" is the threshold.
There is NO obligation to retreat first.
Now Florida distinguishes between force AND deadly force. "imminent death or "great" bodily harm death is justified. 776.012
So what determines "great bodily harm"?
I believe that is a jury question and no way Z has a ruling in his favor from any Judge on that vague interpretation of the law as it relates TO THIS CASE specifically. 
And the Castle doctrine does not apply as this was not in his home so that stretches the defense's burden.
776.041 does address the use of force by the aggressor ONLY IF THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO ESCAPE and desires to determinate the use of force. This does not apply here as I have stated numerous times because Z pulled his gun and killed M.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Aug 15, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...



Your inability to point to one shred of evidence (not based on Zimmerman's recounting of the events) prove my point exactly.

There is no evidence that details what happened when Zimmerman and Martin came into contact.  The evidence equally supports either Zimmerman or Martin as the aggressor.



And you are right, I've watched the evidence unfold for months.  Reviewed the actual evidence released by the prosecution and the defense, I've watched each of the court appearances to date.

There is nothing that shows whether it was Zimmerman or Martin as the initial aggressor except for Zimmerman claims about what happened.

You claim as an absolute fact that Martin was the attacker, yet can't point to one thing that proves that.  Could Martin have been the initial aggressor?  Yep.  Could Zimmerman? Yep.  Do we know at this point what the Jury will decide?  Nope.


>>>>


----------



## Bigfoot (Aug 15, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Bullshit. I've pointed to everything, twice! So far the evidence favors Zimmerman's story. Just because you are acting like a black guy with his fingers in his ears and wagging his tongue doesn't change the evidence in the case.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Aug 15, 2012)

Bigfoot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Bigfoot said:
> ...




The thread had pretty much died out with the lack of new evidence being released and as we reached a lull in the legal proceedings.

You have posted nothing and made no reference to anything since it cropped back up and you made your declaratory statement about Martin being the attacker which resulted in my question that you have refused (or are unable) to answer.

Seems pretty simple.  You claim Martin was the attacker, OK.  Not saying it is impossible he wasn't.  But what piece of evidence (outside of Zimmerman's claims as the sole survivor of the encounter) prove that Martin was the only one that could have initiated hostilities?  

Step up.  Let's see it.  There has been nothing in the evidence released so far that can definitively proves one way or the other who the attacker was since there were no witnesses to those crucial moments.  But ya never know, I may have missed something.  So floor is yours.


>>>>


----------



## Againsheila (Aug 15, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Doesn't the burden of proof lie with the prosecution?


----------



## Bigfoot (Aug 16, 2012)

WorldWatcher said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



You have already seen it..you are in denial. *Don't let that get in the way of trying to create some message board drama by refusing to read what has already been posted many, many times which of course you have also read many times*  (roll-eyes). There I stepped up again, all of the information can be found right on this message board and is also a quick search away for anyone who wants to read it, which of course being black you seem to be allergic to it. You would rather pretend that it doesn't exist or play that game saying that I won't post it. It's already been posted many, many times! What prejudice keeps you from acknowledging that?


----------



## taichiliberal (Aug 17, 2012)

Gadawg73 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Gadawg73 said:
> ...



Again, if you can't provide a post from me that supports what you accuse me of in no uncertain terms, that makes YOU a lying Zimmerman Zombie.

See toodles, YOU were the one who posted that the Martin family are disingenuous because they hired a lawyer.  Did it ever occur to that pea brain of yours that they did so because THEIR SON WAS KILLED, AND THE MAJOR SUSPECT WAS GIVEN A WHITE WASH BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE AND A D.A. REP?

Why is the family suspect and Georgie boy's deteriorating tales are not?  But that is another question you can't/won't deal with.  Carry on, my Zimmerman Zombie.


----------



## taichiliberal (Aug 17, 2012)

Inthemiddle said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...



wow, it's truly amazing how you fail to realize that your poor taste in "humor" may not sit well with others.  Newsflash for ya, sweetpea....if you post, you may get criticized.  If you mean one thing but are unable to transfer that thought into a form that others may readily understand, that's YOUR fault, not the readers.

In other words, you're not sarcastic...just a crashing boor.


----------



## Ariux (Aug 18, 2012)

taichiliberal said:


> Zimmerman Zombie.[/COLOR]



I guess that makes the shitheads who support the piece of shit Trayvon, Trayvon Turds.


----------



## taichiliberal (Aug 18, 2012)

Ariux said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Zimmerman Zombie.[/COLOR]
> ...



don't you realize that David Duke is NEVER going to like you no matter how many times you perform intellectual fellatio?  Back into the dumpster with you, my pointy hooded friend.


----------



## tjvh (Mar 26, 2013)

I miss this thread...


----------



## JimBowie1958 (Mar 26, 2013)

taichiliberal said:


> Inthemiddle said:
> 
> 
> > taichiliberal said:
> ...



Oh, no, is he boring you? What a crie against humanity, you fucking stupid ass.

Only an ideological moron can look at pictures of Zimmermans wounds and say that his life was not being threatened, since had he been knocked unconscious MArtin the fucking thug could have easily beat h im to death. It happens all the time.

You libtard asswipes are so totally fucking loony, please, keep blowing your shit all over the internet so that your fucking lunacy is undeniable to the casual reader.

bitch


----------



## taichiliberal (Mar 27, 2013)

JimBowie1958 said:


> taichiliberal said:
> 
> 
> > Inthemiddle said:
> ...



Once again for the intellectually challenged:   No one said Georgie boy wasn't in a fight....the question remains WHO STARTED & HOW DID that fight start!  

The chronology of FACTS given shows that Zimmerman had made visual contact TWICE with Martin....BOTH times Martin was moving away from Zimmerman (the SECOND time after he made Zimmerman tailing him).  Zimmerman was TOLD it was NOT necessary to continue following Martin and the cops were on the way.  Zimmerman gave a meeting point for the cops.

Since Zimmerman had numerous previous calls with the 911 dispatch, and was a self appointed neighborhood watch for some time, why the hell did he have to get out of his car?  He wasn't lost...all he had to do was drive to the designated meeting point with the cops and wait.

His story is dubious at best...which is why the local OIC of detectives was in the process of booking him.

That knee jerk folk like Jim Bowie are so desperate to characterize Martin as a "thug" (a high school tag for carrying a plastic bag smelling of marijuana and a facebook page bravado is NOT the same as a criminal record of felonies that would be legit description of a "thug") merely speaks to the mindset....which is why I'm not wasting anymore time on cretins like Jim Bowie, and will put him in the IA dumpster with the rest of the garbage.


----------



## MarcATL (Mar 28, 2013)

MarcATL said:


> Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Woohoooo!!!


			
				KissMy said:
			
		

> Hi, you have received -314 reputation points from KissMy.
> Reputation was given for *this* post.
> 
> Comment:
> ...


----------



## tjvh (Mar 28, 2013)

MarcATL said:


> MarcATL said:
> 
> 
> > Does THIS face look like it survived a broken nose not even a good month ago?
> ...



Aren't you glad I resurrected this thread Marc?


----------

