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: 272
105
<< 269  270  271    273  274  275 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
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?

There are procedures in place for law enforcement to contact the legal departments of cell phone companies in order to get emergency access to cell phone information but only if its based on the preservation of life. Absent that, those files are protected under privacy laws and absent the family volunteering the bills to law enforcement, we must obtain a warrant in order to obtain those records and establish a chain of custody for admissability in court.

If you worked for a cell phone company you would know this right?
If you understand police procedure as well as you claim, you would know all about chain of custody and requirements placed on the collection of evidence right?



Originally posted by pizzanazi75
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?

Nope but at the same time witholding information in a police investigation can be a criminal offense. As I stated if the familys lawyer has coached the 16 year old in order to shape her testimony, its witness tampering / hindering prosecution and could result in charges being dismissed if the PA used any of that information (if it were illegally shaped / obtained) to support their charge. There are also laws that require an individual who was witness to a crime to make themselves known to law enforcement. As a witness they do not share the same level of protection as a suspeect / charged defendent would. Worst case scenario, if she refuses to cooperate, a material witness warrant can be issued to compel testimony.

Again those laws and procedures come into play but if you know those procedures you would know this.



Originally posted by pizzanazi75
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.

I dont have an issue with a lawyer being present, and if you notice I never said I did. What I have an issue with is if that lawyer shaped her testimony. If she has information that is exculpatory / specific and that info is withheld, and as a result Zimmerman is convicted, the result can be overturned / thrown out on due process violations.

There are 2 issues here -
A lawyer who is a 3rd party who comes across evidence relevant to a case is required to turn that information over as a lawyer as well as an officer of the court. Mr. Crump is not prosecuting Zimmerman so he is a 3rrd party. However he is representing the family in their civil trial, and civil cases also use motions of discovery. Since there is a difference in burden of proof between the 2 systems, any actions taken to limit / shape the witness testimony intentionally will affect both.



Originally posted by pizzanazi75
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.

If you are dismissing her information then why is there an irritation by you and the family that she was never interviewed? Secondly she has been interviewed by more than just ABC. As far as what she heard she made no attempt to disclose that to Police.

If the Martins are not wanting to cooperate with Sanford police because they dont trust them, then would that mean that any evidence they find to help put zimmerman away would be disclosed immediately? If the gf heard everything, and new Martin was killed, dont you think she would be screaming at the top of her lungs about what she heard?

If she can sink zimmerman by reufting his claims, why hide her? Why wait 3 weeks? She is not a suspect in this case and has relevant information (according to crump and other posters). Why the subterfuge?


You call me and anyone else who proves you wrong a liar. You dismiss evidence that supports Zimmermans side while asserting conspiracy theories and questionable sources. I posted my source for the 3 week deal and even highlighted the specific section where it gives the timeline. Did you not bother to read that post or did you just filter out the info that supported my side and proved you wrong?

As far as lying I have done no such thing. Again if you actually read the posts instead of seeing only what you want, you would have noticed I corrected myself and provided SOURCES that corrected the confusion. However since you are incapable of defending your points you have nothing left but to attack the poster, which you have done every chance you get. You seem to have quickly forgotten the posts you made where you passed your opinion off as fact and when called out you backtracked and half assed it as your opinion. On the other claims you simply have refused to provide your sources and have ignored any and all requests to do so, using the lame excuse you already posted it and to go look for it.

You have no credibility and the more you accuse people of being liars and not knowing police procedure the more ridiculous you look. By the way I noticed you once again have failed to provide sources as to your background and your expertise in legal and police procedures.

You claimed to know them, yet here you are, no able to support your claim.


Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Source that it took 3 weeks for the phone records to come out?

read


Originally posted by pizzanazi75
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.

read



Originally posted by pizzanazi75
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.


Would it be possible to find someone to read posts to you since you apparently are incapable of doing it yourself.
read
read
read

Since you called me, again, a liar, after I provided you with the sources that you failed to read, what will you accuse me of next?

read

Just so you dont miss it -

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.


So when you stated I never provided a source regarding the phone bill issue, were you lying then or are you lying now, because its pretty clear I did.
edit on 22-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by LErickson
 


No.. that map helps his case. Go back try to comprehend what I explained about the map and then comment.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Yes, but you did say "in the 911 call" and I know what you meant by that. I know another poster tried to defend you on this one by saying you can profile without it being racial, but you and I both know that the only time profiling was brought up in regards to the 9-11 call was when CNN edited it to make Zimmerman sound like he was racist and profiling. There is no indication in the 911 call that he was profiling.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
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)


It matters a great deal who he called, considering he walked out of the police station that night. Ask any law enforcement officer if they let the person they just approached with a gun in their hand and and a dead body under them if they then let that person immediately start making phone calls. Im sure your buddy X will say that is normal police procedure but it is not.

Alot about his attitude says he was violent.....'these a'holes always get awy'.....'f'ing punks'......plus his past history of aggression shows he is likely to be an aggressor, even if you like to say that doesn't matter.

Since you think it looks like Zimmerman was justified then why did the first and second investigation both want to charge him and the second was successful at doing so? Funny how you think that is an indication that it was justified.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 07:10 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 07:13 AM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


X and I are the furthest thing from buddies, but I am not gonna disagree with him when he is right.

He was cooperating with the police, he was no risk of running, and all evidence indicated he was attacked and defending himself. There was no true evidence that he was guilty of a crime, and he was shaken up. I am sure under the circumstances they would let anyone make a few phone calls.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


X and I are the furthest thing from buddies, but I am not gonna disagree with him when he is right.

He was cooperating with the police, he was no risk of running, and all evidence indicated he was attacked and defending himself. There was no true evidence that he was guilty of a crime, and he was shaken up. I am sure under the circumstances they would let anyone make a few phone calls.


How do you know he was no risk of running? All the evidence does not point to him being attacked, quite the contrary, that is why he has a 2nd degree murder charge on his head. Lucky him, he was shaken up, Trayvon was dead, where was his concern for him? No, under those circumstance they would not let anyone make a few phone calls. Part of securing the scene is securing Zimmerman, guilty or not, that also means securing who he was and was not speaking to. He should not be speaking to witnesses or his wife, dad, or lawyer at that point, witnesses should not be taking pictures of injuries...those are the jobs of the police. How do we know what Zimmerman was telling witnesses? We don't.

I sure hope you aren't any type of law enforcement if you are going to let people make phone calls and interact with witnesses during the investigation of a shooting. Maybe you are, I mean Sanford PD let these things go on when they shouldn't have, you seem to think it is normal procedure.....let's hope you aren't for the sake of us all though.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
Where does it say 3 weeks?

That is all I have to point out to you. It says 'weeks'...you added the 3. What do you call that?

The police should have had the information within minutes. The Martins had to try and get their sons body, plan a funeral, try and find out why the killer was still free with no charges, and try and do their own investigation. It is understandable it may take them some time to find out this information. The police had the responsibility of investigating the crime, they didn't have to plan a funeral, get there son unlisted as 'john doe' (that the police kept him listed as for 3 days even after he was identified, as you know) why didn't the police find this information within minutes...they had the phone in their possession.


Why are trying to blame the Matins for doing the job of the police? What if it did take 3 weeks? Why would that make a difference? Why did you feel the need to add the '3'? Why have you ignored all the evidence that points to Zimmermans guilt yet tried to smear the victim AND his family?

Don't bother answering any of these question. You will only come up with twisted explanation and falsehood.

As far as you are concerned I am only here to correct your lies, misleading statements, and ridiculous assumptions.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I disagree with you in almost every situation, but a star for that post.
The main problem people seem to be having is an inability to understand why someone might act any differently than they would (not even different than they would, but different than they THINK they would).

They have dismissed any possibility that this was a traumatic experience for Zimmerman and that he was some calculated killer through and through. Once they are locked into this mode of thinking there may not be any coming back. They have an opinion of someone they have never met. As I have said before, I have started out on one side of this argument and ended up on the other side. I can accept people wanting to demonize Zimmerman, but I can't understand the inability to move away from wanting to when new evidence and discrepancies are exposed.

People do some extraordinarily strange things in traumatic situations (which we know this was for Zimmerman), but in my opinion Zimmerman's actions were completely normal. The picture (which he is seated in, IMO), and the phone calls all normal. The police could see he wasn't going to run and he surrendered his gun, he was wounded and therefore there was no proof that any crime other than assault took place correct? At the time he was willing to come in with them and it looked as though he was defending himself so he would most likely be allowed to use his phone right?



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


Because he was known to the police, lived a few houses over, and surrendered his gun and self to police. He was no risk of running. Why would he run? The fact he didn't run just lends more credibility to self defense, btw.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 07:43 AM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


Where does it say three weeks? Do you know anything about this case? It was dug up weeks after the death and that is when this new information came out.

No one needs to post it, just look for yourself on any timeline of the case.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


Where does it say three weeks? Do you know anything about this case? It was dug up weeks after the death and that is when this new information came out.

No one needs to post it, just look for yourself on any timeline of the case.


If you kept up with the conversation you would know this was said .....




posted on 22-4-2012 @ 01:35 AM by Xcathdra
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.


You see that '3' up there...that is where it says 3. No where does it say the family didn't find out for '3 weeks'...the link he eventually provided said 'weeks'...not 3. Keep up, its just another one of you friends misleading statements. We don't know what day for sure the family was made aware of the phone records. We know what day the information hit the media. He can not claim it took 3 weeks when he does not know that....not to mention, what difference does it make how long it took the family to find the information? He is supposedly a police officer, you would think he would criticize his fellow officers for not doing a proper investigation instead of trying to lay blame on the family. The family was busy reporting their son missing, being told he was dead, then having his body held for 3 days as a 'john doe', not getting any answers from investigators they finally hired their own. Not to mention they had to plan a funeral and had just lost their son. Why criticize the family for it taking weeks and not the police for not finding it within minutes? Seems biased to me.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
IIm sure your buddy X will say that is normal police procedure but it is not.


Provide your source that it is not police procedure. You constantly pull this stunt... Dismiss, make an accusation, call people liars and yet there is absolutely nothing by you to support it.

Please prove me wrong on police procedures and cite your source or quit launching personal attacks and making claims that you absolutely refuse to support.

Here is my source -
Florida State Statutes - TITLE VII EVIDENCE - CHAPTER 90 - EVIDENCE CODE

Regarding the Phone -
90.406 Routine practice.—

Evidence of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is admissible to prove that the conduct of the organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the routine practice.
History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 22, ch. 78-361; s. 1, ch. 78-379.


Regarding the 16 year old girlfriend -
90.604 Lack of personal knowledge.

—Except as otherwise provided in s. 90.702, a witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced which is sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may be given by the witness’s own testimony.
History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 22, ch. 78-361; s. 1, ch. 78-379; s. 483, ch. 95-147.



Regarding evidence application and opinions in the threads -
90.401 Definiti on of relevant evidence

—Relevant evidence is evidence tending to prove or disprove a material fact.
History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 22, ch. 78-361; s. 1, ch. 78-379.


Regarding the 16 year old and not identifying her to police -
90.403 Exclusio n on grounds of prejudice or confusion

—Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. This section shall not be construed to mean that evidence of the existence of available third-party benefits is inadmissible.
History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; ss. 6, 22, ch. 78-361; ss. 1, 2, ch. 78-379.



Regarding the Probable Cause Statement -
92.525 Verifica tion of documents; perjury by false written declaration, penalty

(1) When it is authorized or required by law, by rule of an administrative agency, or by rule or order of court that a document be verified by a person, the verification may be accomplished in the following manner:
(a) Under oath or affirmation taken or administered before an officer authorized under s. 92.50 to administer oaths; or
(b) By the signing of the written declaration prescribed in subsection (2).
(2) A written declaration means the following statement: “Under penalties of perjury, I declare that I have read the foregoing [document] and that the facts stated in it are true,” followed by the signature of the person making the declaration, except when a verification on information or belief is permitted by law, in which case the words “to the best of my knowledge and belief” may be added. The written declaration shall be printed or typed at the end of or immediately below the document being verified and above the signature of the person making the declaration.


George Zimmerman P.C. _/url]

.....Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.

[url=http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/21/experts-say-zimmerman-attorney-made-smart-move/]Experts say Zimmerman attorney made smart move


.....Mark O'Mara, questioned an investigator for the special prosecutor, sentence by sentence, about a probable cause affidavit the investigator signed outlining certain facts in the case.

Investigator Dale Gilbreath testified that he does not know whether Martin or Zimmerman threw the first punch and that there is no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's contention he was walking back to his vehicle when confronted by Martin. The affidavit says "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."



Regarding Zimmermans injuries
90.702 Testimon y by experts

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify about it in the form of an opinion; however, the opinion is admissible only if it can be applied to evidence at trial.
History.—s. 1, ch. 76-237; s. 1, ch. 77-77; s. 22, ch. 78-361; s. 1, ch. 78-379.


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



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


Because he was known to the police, lived a few houses over, and surrendered his gun and self to police. He was no risk of running. Why would he run? The fact he didn't run just lends more credibility to self defense, btw.


I guess that would be like the fact that since he did not go to the ER lends credibility to the point that he wasn't in fear of his life also.

He ended up in handcuffs so I guess they came to that conclusion some how. They didn't handcuff him for the fun of it.....oh wait, maybe they did.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Your long winded copy and paste job in no way even comes close to responding to the quote you put up by me. The quote is in reference to what Zimmerman was doing at the crime scene the minutes afters. I have no idea what you think you are proving with copying and pasting your nonsense. As usual.


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

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



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
I disagree with you in almost every situation, but a star for that post.
The main problem people seem to be having is an inability to understand why someone might act any differently than they would (not even different than they would, but different than they THINK they would).

The descriptions / examples I gave are just a few of the basics when it comes to high stress situations. I think if people would take some time to understand the physical / mental response these types of incidents cause it could possibly make more sense to them. They dont have to agree with it of course but an understanding is better than none at all.



Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
They have dismissed any possibility that this was a traumatic experience for Zimmerman and that he was some calculated killer through and through. Once they are locked into this mode of thinking there may not be any coming back. They have an opinion of someone they have never met. As I have said before, I have started out on one side of this argument and ended up on the other side. I can accept people wanting to demonize Zimmerman, but I can't understand the inability to move away from wanting to when new evidence and discrepancies are exposed.

This goes back to my morals / ethics verse law comparison people have been using. Substituting the law for personal belief is, in my opinion, where the resistance is coming into play.



Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
People do some extraordinarily strange things in traumatic situations (which we know this was for Zimmerman), but in my opinion Zimmerman's actions were completely normal. The picture (which he is seated in, IMO), and the phone calls all normal. The police could see he wasn't going to run and he surrendered his gun, he was wounded and therefore there was no proof that any crime other than assault took place correct? At the time he was willing to come in with them and it looked as though he was defending himself so he would most likely be allowed to use his phone right?

I was under the impression he made a phone call / asked a guy to make a call for him (not sure on which one it is) prior to police arriving on scene and securing him (I could be wrong). After police are on scene its going to be departmental policy / discretion of the officer in terms of using his phone. My personal opinion is to seize the phone as evidence and not allow him to contact anyone. I would want to make sure the area is secured. Just because one person is dead and the suspect is alone does not mean there arent any cohorts in the area watching who were assisting. Allowing use of the phone could very well result in the suspect calling his accomplices and warning them instead of calling a family member. It also creates an officer safety hazard on the off chance they want to spring their buddy from custody.

As far as other charges im not sure... We would need to know what happened from contact to finish.


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



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   

I have no idea what you think you are proving with copying and pasting your nonsense. As usual.


You really don't realize just how comical you are to many of us do you?

Almost your entire argument is based around you stating your opinions as facts, constantly dismissing other people when they offer you facts and logical theories and opinions, you go so far as to accuse them of lying, fixate on minor meaningless tidbits that have been explained ad nauseum, Frankly, I'm exhausted for all the people that try to get through to you...

honestly you come off very childish and are so obvious in your bias, if I thought you were a little brighter, I'd question your motives.



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 

I am responding to you so that the food fascist doesn't have a heart attack over me 'butting in'.

'Someone' said this:



I guess that would be like the fact that since he did not go to the ER lends credibility to the point that he wasn't in fear of his life also.

I guess you have to go to the ER after an event to prove that you were in fear for your life?

I was in several car accidents where I actually feared that I was going to be killed. In two of them, the cars were demolished. I didn't go to the ER.

I suppose that I can't prove that I was in fear for my life, but does that make it doubtful that I was?



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Going back to Zimmermans injuries and not going to the Hospital and his appearence at the Police station.

Does anyone know how much time had passed from Zimmermans detention on scene to his arrival at the Police station?



posted on Apr, 22 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by LErickson
 


Changing out of a wet and dirty shirt when you have a dry one... What would be the point of staying in a wet shirt? To prove how macho you are or something? The cops are supposed to not let him change into a dry shirt, why? You make the weirdest claims.



new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 269  270  271    273  274  275 >>

log in

join