George Zimmerman's bloody head

[oracle]

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

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.

You are dumb. You know that right?

 

[oracle]

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.

Because he's speaking your language?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

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.

Aren't you one of the people that argued that the video proved there was no injury to the back of his head?

 

[oracle]

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?

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]

Was Zimmerman acting in his neighborhood watch capacity at the time? No. <<SNIP>>

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."


>>>>

OK. Thanks.

Are you forgetting that said watch group has explained he wasn't with them?

 

[KissMy]

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?

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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.

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.

- A person looking into a neighbor's windows and/or parked cars, moving from door to door.

How to Report Suspicious Activity:

- Immediately report any/all suspicious persons, vehicles, and activity to the Sheriff's Office non emergency dispatch.

- Be specific when describing any suspects (race, sex, age, height, weight, eye/hair color, facial hair, tattoos and articles of clothing worn.)

 

[oracle]

An injury to his nose would have created blood dripping on his shirt, there was none of that in the video.

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?



see 1, 2 and 3, above.



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.



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?

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.

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?

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]

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.

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.

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.

>>>>

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.

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]

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?



see 1, 2 and 3, above.



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.



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?



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.

Honestly, what do you think Liability? Right from the hip.

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.

Yeah! Just like Casey Anthony. Because she was found "not guilty and CLEARLY innocent. Gotta love the Florida justice system.

 

[oracle]

If you are trying to argue that what she heard is not hearsay you are the one that does not understand.

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.

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.

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]

If you are trying to argue that what she heard is not hearsay you are the one that does not understand.

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.

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, 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]

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.

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?

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

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]

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."


>>>>

OK. Thanks.

Are you forgetting that said watch group has explained he wasn't with them?

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]

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.

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?

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

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]

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?

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

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?

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]

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.

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?

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.”

After the release of the photo, however, Dershowitz went much further, telling Breitbart News that if the prosecutors did have the photo and didn’t mention it in the affidavit, that would constitute a “grave ethical violation,” since affidavits are supposed to contain “all relevant information.”

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."

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.

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.............

Yes, well, I believe that IS the point of self-defense: to make sure YOU don't end up dead.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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[

If, in fact, you never claimed that, then you are repeating yourself by saying it is a strawman, and then asserting that you never said it.

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.


>>>>

I did not contradict myself at any point because I said that, even if Zimmerman started the fight, he can still argue self defense if he was on the ground getting beaten. You then tried to argue that it is not true under Florida law if Zimmerman was the aggressor, and then posted a link to a law that talks about people not being able to claim self defense if they are committing a felony. You then insisted that the first part of the law, which specifically mentions the felony, proves that Zimmerman could be convicted of murder. I then proceeded to mock your understanding of the law.

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.

 

[paperview]

OK. Thanks.

Are you forgetting that said watch group has explained he wasn't with them?

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.)


>>>>

*hey!!* <hands on hips> ** I work my ass off tor you , and I get no credit***

Harrumph!