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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Source that it took 3 weeks for the phone records to come out?
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by pizzanazi75
IIm sure your buddy X will say that is normal police procedure but it is not.
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.
—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.
—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.
—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.
(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.
.....Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.
.....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."
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.
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.
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).
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.
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 have no idea what you think you are proving with copying and pasting your nonsense. As usual.
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.