It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Exclusive! First hand Witness: Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman Zimmerman Innocent Smoking Gun

page: 271
105
<< 268  269  270    272  273  274 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by LErickson
 

feeling macho are ya?

I dont blame you a bit.

Have a nice Night, I have given your fishing excursions a try, I dont like your boat.

See ya, wouldn't .....what ever




posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by LErickson

Originally posted by Xcathdra

There is no law that prevents a person from following someone else.
There is no law that prevents a person from making contact with another person.


Actually there are a great many laws that do just that from privacy laws to restraining orders. I thought you used to play a cop on ATS? You would think a cop would know there are a ton of laws that can prevent me from following you.



Apparently from what the lawyer from Florida said (talk radio panel). Following - - - and following with presumption and intent - - are 2 different things. Zimmerman profiled Trayvon as a criminal - - with intent to prevent him from committing another crime. That qualifies as premeditated ill will - - - which gives reason for 2nd degree murder. The fact he was also armed could give strength to ill will.

Only repeated what they said.



Respectfully - Please do not take this post as me lecturing you. I am just responding because I am seeing this term used a lot and I am getting the impression some people are not understanding what it means. Just trying to add some clarity since the term is being confused / misapplied.

To qualify for 2nd murder (in FL) there has to be depraved indifference (ill will is a bit off but I think I get what you are stating). Depraved indifference has nothing to do with the result of an action, but the action itself. Here is a generic definition of what the term means -

Depraved Indifference

To constitute depraved indifference, the defendant's conduct must be 'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime. Depraved indifference focuses on the risk created by the defendant’s conduct, not the injuries actually resulting.


This is the confusing part.

Under Florida Law, and in order to meet the burden of proof for 2nd murder, the PA must establish Link - > proof beyond a reasonable doubt- (The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.) that Zimmermans actions that night were "'so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for the life or lives of others, and so blameworthy as to warrant the same criminal liability as that which the law imposes upon a person who intentionally causes a crime".

Under Floridas SYG law, invoking self defense is an affirmative defense, which means the defense is required to invoke it.

Under Florida law the defense's proof obligation is Link -> preponderance of the evidence -(This preponderance is based on the more convincing evidence and its probable truth or accuracy, and not on the amount of evidence), which is typically used is non criminal / civil cases. It can be used in criminal law, and in Florida it is the required level for the part of the SYG law Zimmerman is invoking.

The PA is going to have to argue that Zimmermans actions qualified as depraved indifference while at the same time being required to overcome the self defense claim. The PA will need to nail both arguments in order to sustain a conviction. After the investigators questioning and his answers at the bail hearing that is looking less likely (unless they have more evidence which will come out at the next hearing).

I am curious how he is making the argument based on possession of a weapon. In FL, Zimmerman was lawfully in possession of the weapon, so trying to argue that possession as a negative is without merit in my opinion. If he was in unlawful possession then I can see the argument.

His commentary is also based off of the PA's version of events so the conclusions are prelimenary only.

Again, not intending to piss anyone off - just adding the info to help explain the terms and how each side is coming up with their cases.
edit on 22-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Respectfully - Please do not take this post as me lecturing you. I am just responding because I am seeing this term used a lot and I am getting the impression some people are not understanding what it means. Just trying to add some clarity since the term is being confused / misapplied.


I always read several sites with various versions - opinions.

I am not ignorant or naive.

We still do not know everything. The scale could tip either way in this case.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by rebellender
reply to post by LErickson
 

feeling macho are ya?


I have never felt macho a day in my life. I am always a perfect lady. Even when I am following kids with my gun.


I dont blame you a bit.

Have a nice Night, I have given your fishing excursions a try, I dont like your boat.


My fault you cannot fish? I have been hoping and praying you might add something to this thread eventually.


See ya, wouldn't .....what ever


Where did you do time, exactly?



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 02:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by buster2010
 


His truck was there, maybe he had a spare shirt in it? Don't you carry spare clean clothes in your vehicle? I do, it comes in handy a lot. A spare change of clothes and a spare coat, always in my trunk.
edit on Sat, 21 Apr 2012 18:32:24 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


You kill a guy and then go change your clothes and the cops are ok with that? What world is that supposed to be normal in?



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
that picture was supposedly taken 2 minutes after zimmerman had his head beaten in a "life threatening manner" yet he is standing up and on the phone?

People need to understand the differences in how evidence is processed and used in court. A head injury for law enforcement is the officer documenting what he sees. Law Enforcement cannot diagnose, so in a report you are going to get generic medical terms based on what the officer sees.

The evidentiary value for that evidence comes from the medical professionals. For what it is worth for those not familiar with medical procedures -

An adult who falls down from a standing position (with no assistance IE not attacked but just standing and then falling down) whose head impacts with the ground can actually qualify as a trauma since there is a possibility of head / brain trauma.

Each state sets its own criteria but generally speaking your lowest level is a trauma consult (immediately seen by ER medical staff with specialists / OR notified) up to a full trauma activation (immediately seen by ER medical staff in addition to OR surgeons / specialists etc).

Even a minor impact on the head can result in major issues...

again, this is just generic information for those not familiar with medical or how medical evidence is collected, processed and used in court. All a person needs to do is google head injuries and you will see how easy it is to go from alive to dead in a matter oif minutes from what people would consider a minor bump on the noggin.

The severity of Zimmermans injuries / wounds as evidence is in the realm of medical professionals and not lawyers or the police.



Originally posted by conspiracy nut
if i just had to shoot someone because he was beating me to death, i would still be on the floor half concussed dizzy and in pain, waiting for emergency help and the guy that came out to take the picture should be telling me to stay on the floor and wait for medical attention. or do you think the first thing i would do 2 minutes after i killed someone would be to tell the guy, i just killed this kid quick take a picture of my bloody head while i make this phone call, it was self defense i tell ya he almost killed me!!!!!! he seemed to have his wits about him enough to start proving his self defense immediately after he killed tray. so much for lying there half dead after that "brutal life threatening beating"


Respectfully stating how you would react in this situation is not correct. Granted their is a possibility of that but truth be told you will never know unless it occurs to you. One of the very first questions asked for people going through a law enforcement academy is -

Can you take another persons life.

Generally almost all people in the class will riase their hands. The question is not meant to be callous but instead to force people to accept the possibility that they may, at some point, be required to end another persons life. No amount of mentla preparation can prepare an individual for that action.

You have the fight or flight response kick in, you have an adrenaline dump in the body, you will experience tunnel vision, audio exclusion. This will apply to all parties invovled in a high stress situation and each person will experience those effects differently.

The above is one of the main reasons you see law enforcement officers yelling at an individual, repeating the same commands over and over. Its designed to break through part of the audio / visual effects and to force focus. Its also why you generally see only one officer yelling commands while others remain quiet. To many voices confuse more rather than reinforce.

Trying to disprove Zimmermans reaction to the incident by stating what you would do is not going to work as a comparison.

It is one of THE main results of US Supreme Court rulings involving use of force. Hindsight 20/20 cannot be applied. The incident must be viewed as to what the person perceived at the exact moment the force was used.
edit on 22-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 03:12 AM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


What you are failing to take into account was the fact the 2 were wrestleing around on the ground. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shoots, Martins body is not going to just stand up and move off of Zimmerman. Zimmerman would need to move the body off of him.

Secondly was any first aid provided to Martin by anyone?
When Police arrived on scene did they attempt any first aid?
When medical arrived on scene did they attempt any first aid?

At what time was the scene secured and cleared of medical personnel pending the arrival of the ME / Cornoner?

While medical disctates an injured person should not be moved until medically stable / protected, its does not completely prohibit it. There are circumstances where a body must be moved in order to facilitate first aid or to prevent further injuries depending on enviornmental factors, up to and including elevating the feet to assist inblood flow to the upper extremities.

So my question to you, since you are stating as a fact the position of the body does not support the events - was the body moved? If so by whom? why? Did Zimmerman apply first aid? Did any of the civilains who responded provide 1st aid? Did Police? Medical? Fire?

Since we still dont ahve a complete accounting of what occured from moment of contact to the moment police arrived, I fail to se how your version of events is anything but your opinion, and not fact.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Respectfully - Please do not take this post as me lecturing you. I am just responding because I am seeing this term used a lot and I am getting the impression some people are not understanding what it means. Just trying to add some clarity since the term is being confused / misapplied.


I always read several sites with various versions - opinions.

I am not ignorant or naive.

We still do not know everything. The scale could tip either way in this case.


I absolutely agree..

The point behind my respectfully part was so you did not think I was stating you did not know what you were talking about or that you were ignornat or naive.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


Yeah, if george started the fight, then tray could defend himself. However, according to that funeral home guy, the only mark on tray was the bullethole. I would suspect if he was defending an attack, there would be some cuts and bruises on him as well.

IMO, it should be made against the law, except in special cases, to tell the media anything about any criminal case before it is settled. The only reason any case should be made public, is like trying to find a kidnapped victim, where someone can still be helped.


Something to take into account...

Trayvon B. Martin - 1995 - 2010 Funeral notice

This incident occured on February 26th 2010 and the funeral was held on April 10th 2012. There is a very large break in between custody of the body by the coronoer / me and possession of the body by the funeral home for burial.

The funeral home did not have access to the body right away as if it were a natural death. The body was secured and in the possession of the coroner / m.e. and tests were run. An autopsy was performed, and in this case areas where "injuries" occured are going to be documented and then probed / analyzed / cut / etc by the ME / Cornoner. People are most familiar with rigormortis from tv however its tv. There are other stages, like pallor mortis, algor mortis, rigor mortis, liver mortis.....

If you are not familiar with how invasive a forensic autopsy is I suggest you do some research in that area as I feel it will answer the inconsistencies raised by the funeral home.

- photos
- measurements
- blood / drug / tox screening
- collection of trace evidence (foreign material located on the body - in / under fingernails / scalp / any other wounds).
- processing wounds on the inside, which will result in more damage to the already processed wound.
- going inside the body you will have items inserted to assist in determining enterance / exit points of the bullet.
- internal probing to determine angle / path of travel through the body by the bullet.
- removal / disection of organs affected by the bullet.
- removal of trace evidence inside the body (bullet fragments / foreign objects that may have punctured skin).
- Testing to determine offical cause of death / contributing factors - which can be invasive.

The above is just some of the things done during a forensic autopsy. I am not even touching on body decomposition and what occurs as the days go by. Even when kept "on ice" the decomp process continues. So I dont make anyone sick here is a basic overview - Human Decomposition Stages - wiki

Once an autopsy is performed, the body is "put" back together and sewn shut (in general).


Other info -
According to wikipedia and its sources at the bottom it shows Mr. Martins Father being notified of his sons death in the early AM hours of Feburary 27th. This seems to contradict some claims in this forum that Mr. Martin was not identified or the family notified about his death for 3 days.


edit on 22-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by rebellender
reply to post by PsykoOps
 


If I have a weapon and someone tries to disarm me, they absolutely will lose their life.



Another John Wayne?

This false bravado might end up costing you your life.

I have one word for you.

Sniper.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
i am sorry i might be mistaken, did trays girlfriend call 911? her testimony is that she was on the phone with tray and she overheard zimmerman ask tray what he was doing and tray ask zim why he was following him, at that point the earpiece falls out of his ear and she loses contact with tray. if she is telling the truth, it kills the idea that tray ambushed zimmerman.


She never called 911. She never identified herself to law enforcement either. It was not until 3 weeks later where Mr. Martins parents were going through his cell phone bill did they find the call to his girlfriend. Even then they never contacted police. Instead they contacted their lawyer, who met with the girlfriend. After they had their meeting, she was then identified to the police by the lawyer as being on the phone with Martin the night of the incident.

Personally speaking not a very ethical stand point by the lawyer. I acknowledge his goal is to represent his clients zealously but since the parents arent charged and its still a criminal investigtion that action could come back and bite them in the ass if defense raises / detects any differences in her story.


Where did you get the information that she never called 911? Where did you get the information that the parents didn't know about the call to the girlfriend for 3 weeks? Just because it wasn't reported to the media until 3 weeks after the incident does not mean the family and lawyers didn't know about her. How can you say they never contacted police in one breath and then in the next say she was then identified to police.

Its a new day and you are fresh with new lies. You have no source for any of your 'information'.....yet you state it as fact.

You can watch this video with Trayvons lawyer talking about the actual evidence in this case. At 11:22 she talks about how they knew the next day that Trayvon was dead when THEY went to police.....police had his phone then, they should have called the last number dialed. And I've read your pathetic excuse of they couldn't get into the phone because it was evidence, blah blah blah......thats not true and you know it. I find it funny that a so called police officer would of course stand up for a crappy investigation by police. That is to be expected.

At 13:20 you can hear her talk about the phone call and phone records and how the family had to hire an investigator to find out information because police were not telling them squat. Never once does she say it takes 3 weeks, that is just another of your lies.

You can also hear her talk about how the police kept Trayvon listed as a 'John Doe' for 3 days even after they knew who he was. You mentioned to another poster that there was some confusion, there is no confusion. The only people who are confused are you and the other Zimmerman supporters.

Martin Family Attorney on Evidence Against Zimmerman & the Attacks on the Memory of Trayvon

I wonder what you will come up with tomorrow to lie about?
edit on 22-4-2012 by pizzanazi75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 04:39 AM
link   
reply to post by rebellender
 


So you maintain your position that having a gun gives you the right to start fights and kill people because they try to disarm you? Either you should check in at the Dr. or have your guns confiscated. Right to bear arms does not mean right to go around killing people.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


What you are failing to take into account was the fact the 2 were wrestleing around on the ground. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman, and Zimmerman shoots, Martins body is not going to just stand up and move off of Zimmerman. Zimmerman would need to move the body off of him.

Secondly was any first aid provided to Martin by anyone?
When Police arrived on scene did they attempt any first aid?
When medical arrived on scene did they attempt any first aid?

At what time was the scene secured and cleared of medical personnel pending the arrival of the ME / Cornoner?

While medical disctates an injured person should not be moved until medically stable / protected, its does not completely prohibit it. There are circumstances where a body must be moved in order to facilitate first aid or to prevent further injuries depending on enviornmental factors, up to and including elevating the feet to assist inblood flow to the upper extremities.

So my question to you, since you are stating as a fact the position of the body does not support the events - was the body moved? If so by whom? why? Did Zimmerman apply first aid? Did any of the civilains who responded provide 1st aid? Did Police? Medical? Fire?

Since we still dont ahve a complete accounting of what occured from moment of contact to the moment police arrived, I fail to se how your version of events is anything but your opinion, and not fact.


Im not failing to take anything into account.....poor power play on your part.

Ive listened to all the 911 calls and all the eye witness accounts. Ive read the police reports and Ive listed to the investigator in the bond hearing. Have you? What you are trying to say is that someone moved the body 180 degrees. Not one person, not Zimmerman, not police, not eye witnesses, not investigators have said anything about the body being moved in any manner which would suggest it was moved 180 degrees.

Provide a source of any type that says his body was moved in any manner in which you suggest. I have provided many sources for my claims that back them up. Where is just 1 that even remotely suggests anything remotely close to what you are describing.

Then explain to me how the body can be located 3 town house deep in that row of town houses if Zimmerman wasn't pursuing Trayvon. I'm sure you will come up with some bogus reason with nothing to back up it with to explain it. According Zimmerman own father he was attacked at the 'T' of the sidewalks.....so how did they end up so far from that spot if that is where the altercation took place?



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Where did you get the information that she never called 911? Where did you get the information that the parents didn't know about the call to the girlfriend for 3 weeks? Just because it wasn't reported to the media until 3 weeks after the incident does not mean the family and lawyers didn't know about her. How can you say they never contacted police in one breath and then in the next say she was then identified to police.


You apparently are not understanding "identified to police". If the police identify a person, then its the police identified so and so. When a lawyer or anyone else who provides person identification / information to authorities, and the authorities were not aware of the person, that person is identified to law enforcement aka made aware of their existence and that they can provide exculpatory / inculpatory information relevant to an investigation.



Originally posted by pizzanazi75" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Trayvon Martin Case Spotlights Florida Town's History Of 'Sloppy' Police Work


It is now clear that police overlooked Martin's cell phone records.

Attorneys for Martin's family said it wasn't until weeks later, when Tracy Martin, Trayvon's father, was looking through the teen's cell phone bill that he noticed the timing of the last call. The family and their attorneys then contacted Trayvon's girlfriend and heard her account of the night. Lawyer Benjamin Crump, who represents the family, recorded an interview with the girl and provided it with Martin's cell phone records to federal authorities, who by then had joined the investigation.


No where does it state the information was turned over to the Sanford Police. Numerous articles actually cite Mr. Crump as stating they don't trust the Sanford Police and would turn the info over to the Feds only. For her family to state she can only be interviewed by a lawyer while select media outlets have been allowed "exclusive interviews", it makes one seriously consider the possibility of witness tampering.

Care to take a guess which media outlets those are? Hint - they are the ones who did the rush to judgment to blame Zimmerman without a trial.

I am curious as to how you are going to dismiss this information. Hopefully its not in the same failed attempt to discount Zimmermans head injuries.



Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Its a new day and you are fresh with new lies. You have no source for any of your 'information'.....yet you state it as fact.

I enjoy it when you just call people liars when they provide you with information, and the sources the info came from, that undermines your biased view / position. If you spent more time keeping up with the case you would know where to look for the info I posted. By the way, when you call a person a liar and accuse them of posting false information, you really should actually support that accusation with the evidence / source that contradicts them.

Simply calling a person a liar while offering no evidence to refute it is the trademark tactic used by people who cant attack the facts... So instead they attack the poster... like you have been doing the entire time.

So how about you post your info that shows I am lying.



Originally posted by pizzanazi75
You can watch this video with Trayvons lawyer ... blah blah blah calling people names and making accusations you cant support.

It is true and as a Police Officer I think I would know. Feel free to give us your background and we can go from there. Absent that you are once again attempting to dismiss information that doesnt support your view point. You are also ignoring police procedure, something you apparently know nothing about contray to your claims with nothing to support your accusations.

Mr. Crump, Martins lawyer, has gone on record (see my first response above) that they discovered the phone call "weeks later", at which point the Martins contacted their lawyer, Mr. Crump, who then in turn interviewed the 16 year old girl and only turned that info over to the Feds. Or is Mr. Crump lying now because he doesnt support your false claims?



Originally posted by pizzanazi75
...blah blah blah accusations.. blah blah blah liar... blah blah blah liar....

I wonder what you will come up with tomorrow to lie about?

If by lies you mean more info and facts that completely and totally undermine your position and biased agenda while correcting your ignorance of the law and police procedures.... A lot.

I imagine as this goes on we will be spending more and more time correcting you while all you do is continue to call people liars while providing no information to actually support your accusations.

So.. what can I correct for you now?
edit on 22-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Im not failing to take anything into account.....poor power play on your part.

Based on your posts to date not really.


Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Ive listened to all the 911 calls and all the eye witness accounts. Ive read the police reports and Ive listed to the investigator in the bond hearing. Have you? What you are trying to say is that someone moved the body 180 degrees. Not one person, not Zimmerman, not police, not eye witnesses, not investigators have said anything about the body being moved in any manner which would suggest it was moved 180 degrees.


So when I listed the questions about the body possibly being moved, you couldnt answer those questions so instead you purposely change the meaning of my questions and falsely state that I said someone moved the body?

I asked you to prove the body was not moved, and I listed the groups that could have moved the body. Since we dont have all of the information and evidence, you cant say for a fact that the body was never moved because you dont know.

I keep forgetting your one of the lead investigators on this case, having access to all information and evidence. So when the Special Prosecuter stated in her press conference, and when the PA at the bail hearing stated after court, that there was more evidence / information that has not been released to the public, they meant everyone except you?

Also, please cite your sources and links to the full police report that states the body was never moved.



Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Provide a source of any type that says his body was moved in any manner in which you suggest. I have provided many sources for my claims that back them up. Where is just 1 that even remotely suggests anything remotely close to what you are describing.

Please stop being lazy and obtuse and read posts and understand them before blatantly making a false accusation. See above.



Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Then explain to me how the body can be located 3 town house deep in that row of town houses if Zimmerman wasn't pursuing Trayvon. I'm sure you will come up with some bogus reason with nothing to back up it with to explain it. According Zimmerman own father he was attacked at the 'T' of the sidewalks.....so how did they end up so far from that spot if that is where the altercation took place?


I dont know... and neither do you. Since you have all the information and evidence in the case, including that which has not been released to the public, please provide us with copies / sources / pictures of said information and post it here so we all can see what you are seeing.

As far as the lazy response about you posted that information already... If thats really the lazy way you are going to take then we will take the same with you. All of the info above has been posted in several threads now, including the conversation about the 16 year old girl.

So, how about you actually answer questions asked of you instead of calling people names and trying to shift people away from the fact that you -
* - Dont answer questions but obfuscate them
* - call people a liar while offering nothing to support that accusation.
* - demand people priovide you with their sources while providing none of your own.
* - ignore any and all information that does not support your biased agenda
* - that you refuse to disclose your background and education in this area while constantly questioning others on their background.
* - and that you always attack the poster when you cant attack the evidence.

By all mens though... prove me wrong.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   
The police don't need the family to turn over phone records. If you are a police officer you know this. I worked for a cell phone company in customer service for 3 years. There are procedures in place with all cell phone providers to get them access to certain persons cell phone records. There is an entire department in every cell phone company that strictly deals with law enforcement. But you would know this being a police officer, right?

So tell me why the family would need to turn this over to the police? Is it the family's job to do the investigation into their own sons death?

The girlfriend is a 16 years old. She is being protected because of her age. Why do you have a problem with her having a lawyer present when she makes her statements for the media? She is 16 years old.

Dismiss what information? They decided she would only give one interview, with a lawyer doing the questioning and it being taped by Matt Gutman over the phone for ABC....what information am I dismissing? That changes nothing as to what she heard.

I called you a liar because you are. It's been proven at least twice, now a third time. You provided no sources for your claims that it took 3 weeks to find out about the girlfriend being on the phone. You just stated information that you BELIEVED to be true and stated it as a fact, which is a lie. I provided the links to support my information, unlike you. You can state in a reply that I didn't but its all document in my past post, all my sources to back up my claims. You can claim anything you want, but people can see that I posted my source for my claims, unlike you. Source that it took 3 weeks for the phone records to come out?

Where is your source that Mr. Crump says they found the cell records 'weeks later'. Once again you are making claims without any source to back them up.

You can correct me with sources for your outlandish claims. Just like I ask in the original reply, which you once again ignored. Until you provide those sources you are a liar, there is no other way to put it. Im not the only one on here has seen you flat out lie about facts. So provide your sources for your claims.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
reply to post by rebellender
 


So you maintain your position that having a gun gives you the right to start fights and kill people because they try to disarm you? Either you should check in at the Dr. or have your guns confiscated. Right to bear arms does not mean right to go around killing people.


Was the gun a factor in the intial confrontation?

Did Zimmerman have his gun in his hand and pointing it at Martin?
Did zimmerman have his gun in hand at the low ready?
Did Zimmerman have his gun in hand pointing at the ground straight down?
Did zimmerman have the gun holstered?
Did Zimmerman have the gun holstered and exposed?
Did Zimmerman have his gun holstered and concealed?

Could it be possible Martin confronted Zimmerman, thinking that he could take him / beat his ass for following him, only to discover that he could indeed beat Zimmermans ass, at which point Zimmerman pulled his gun? Or while beating Zimmerman he noticed Zimmerman was armed and decided to go for gun?

Its one thing to be involved in a fight... Its taken to a completely different level when the possibility of death enters the equation, on both sides. When faced with the possibility of death a person can quickly find self preservation a motivational factor to overcome an otherwise impossible task.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Im not failing to take anything into account.....poor power play on your part.

Based on your posts to date not really.


Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Ive listened to all the 911 calls and all the eye witness accounts. Ive read the police reports and Ive listed to the investigator in the bond hearing. Have you? What you are trying to say is that someone moved the body 180 degrees. Not one person, not Zimmerman, not police, not eye witnesses, not investigators have said anything about the body being moved in any manner which would suggest it was moved 180 degrees.


So when I listed the questions about the body possibly being moved, you couldnt answer those questions so instead you purposely change the meaning of my questions and falsely state that I said someone moved the body?

I asked you to prove the body was not moved, and I listed the groups that could have moved the body. Since we dont have all of the information and evidence, you cant say for a fact that the body was never moved because you dont know.

I keep forgetting your one of the lead investigators on this case, having access to all information and evidence. So when the Special Prosecuter stated in her press conference, and when the PA at the bail hearing stated after court, that there was more evidence / information that has not been released to the public, they meant everyone except you?

Also, please cite your sources and links to the full police report that states the body was never moved.



Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Provide a source of any type that says his body was moved in any manner in which you suggest. I have provided many sources for my claims that back them up. Where is just 1 that even remotely suggests anything remotely close to what you are describing.

Please stop being lazy and obtuse and read posts and understand them before blatantly making a false accusation. See above.



Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Then explain to me how the body can be located 3 town house deep in that row of town houses if Zimmerman wasn't pursuing Trayvon. I'm sure you will come up with some bogus reason with nothing to back up it with to explain it. According Zimmerman own father he was attacked at the 'T' of the sidewalks.....so how did they end up so far from that spot if that is where the altercation took place?


I dont know... and neither do you. Since you have all the information and evidence in the case, including that which has not been released to the public, please provide us with copies / sources / pictures of said information and post it here so we all can see what you are seeing.

As far as the lazy response about you posted that information already... If thats really the lazy way you are going to take then we will take the same with you. All of the info above has been posted in several threads now, including the conversation about the 16 year old girl.

So, how about you actually answer questions asked of you instead of calling people names and trying to shift people away from the fact that you -
* - Dont answer questions but obfuscate them
* - call people a liar while offering nothing to support that accusation.
* - demand people priovide you with their sources while providing none of your own.
* - ignore any and all information that does not support your biased agenda
* - that you refuse to disclose your background and education in this area while constantly questioning others on their background.
* - and that you always attack the poster when you cant attack the evidence.

By all mens though... prove me wrong.

You stated this with no source to back it up. Then when you finally do provide a source it says 'weeks' not 3 weeks. So did you make up the 3 weeks or do you know something we don't know? And I wonder why the police didn't discover it? You know the police force you defend by providing a link that highlights how crappy they are. Thats pretty ironic. The parents were distraught and having to try and claim their 'john doe' son from the morgue for 3 days, then planning a funeral, all while trying to get justice for their son. So it took them 'weeks' to find the cell phone call.......the police should have found it within minutes. Yet you excuse them and try and place blame on the parents. Typical of your stance in the case.



She never called 911. She never identified herself to law enforcement either. It was not until 3 weeks later where Mr. Martins parents were going through his cell phone bill did they find the call to his girlfriend.



Ive proved you wrong on multiple occasions as well as others. You can go on with you long winded post with absolutely nothing to back up your claims. Like I told you before I don't have the time or desire to communicate with known liars, which has been well documented on this thread by me and others. I told you I would read your post and point out where you are misleading or flat out lying. I have done that, and provided my sources to back it up.

I owe you no explanations and I will continue to read your post and reply when you are purposely misleading or flat out lying. You can ramble all you want and accuse me of things, it makes no difference. It is very apparent reading this thread that you haven't followed the case and have no desire for the truth. That is clear by your lies and misleading posts.

It's not just me that sees it, others have too, you know that.


edit on 22-4-2012 by pizzanazi75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by conspiracy nut
 


I don't see why people around you wouldn't be calm and collected enough to take a pictures. Hell people videotape people getting hit by cars and don't stop to help the just video what makes you think someone snapping pictures of a bloodied head is so unusual. As for Zimmerman, I think making phone calls is one of the first things you start to do when something like this happens.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


Why does it matter who he said to call? I would say call my wife too. She is going to be worried when he doesn't come home and he probably needed her to make some phone calls too. Even in a justified shooting there is a need for a lawyer as shown in this case as it is most likely a justified shooting.

He was in shock after the shooting no matter what you choose to believe. You can ask any of the cops on this forum they will tell you no matter what your attitude is shooting someone is going to mess with you. You guys want Zimmerman to be a sociopath really bad, but there is no indication of that at all.

All of the arguments are out the window. Trayvon was not an innocent child, Zimmerman was not an ultraviolent racist. No matter what you think nothing about his attitude indicates he was intending to be violent, hell he didn't have to call 911 at all. There is no evidence that anyone but Zimmerman was attacked. There is no police conspiracy. Sorry that you aren't capable of seeing this from any other side, but it looks like Zimmerman was justified.
edit on 22-4-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 268  269  270    272  273  274 >>

log in

join