Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 299
105
<< 296  297  298    300  301  302 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Sonny, you aren't that bad for a dude i usually disagree with


We all have days, but so far all of us haven't been shot by Georg Zimmerman, or we wouldn't be here to nag about it and express our discontent.

Honestly, in my opinion, he should be sitting in the slammer until the end of the trial, like OJ




posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Something interesting to think about. Zimmermans on his 911 call ask the operator to have the police call him back as to where to meet him. He has said he was going to look for an address to tell the police where he was at, according to his father's account of what his son told him.

According to his father as to what Zimmerman told him. His father says that Zimmerman was walking on the side walk between Twin Trees (where his SUV was) and Retreat View Circle(where he was going to look for an address).....His father says he originally was walking down the sidewalk from his truck following Trayvon....he is told that isn't needed of him....his father says that he continues on to Retreat View Circle to find an address to give to officers to meet him when they arrive. Zimmerman says in his 911 call that he wants Police to call him back to advise of his location to meet him.

His father also says that he was headed back to his SUV when Trayvon attacked him.....So the question is if he was looking for an address to give Police to meet him at ...and listen to his fathers words.....he would have been looking for an address on Retreat View Circle..remember his father says AFTER he was told he wasn't needed to follow he CONTINUED on to Retreat View Circle to find the address......his father says he heads back to his SUV....why is he heading back to his SUV when his father says he was looking for an address to give police?.....or maybe he was still pursuing Trayvon and never stopped, that seem more like the truth, to me, and the evidence....such as where Trayvons gunned down dead body was located.

Zimmemans Father - 'From where Georges vehicle was (Twin Trees), uh, there's a sidewalk that goes to the next street over (Retreat View Circle).

Hannity - Ok

Zimmerman Father - Off of that sidewalk there's another sidewalk, that goes between 2 rows of town homes. It's my understanding that Trayvon went between the 2 rows of townhomes. And George was walking down the main sidewalk to see if could see where Trayvon was going (still following Trayvon at this point, to point out).....He continued walking down that sidewalk (still towards Retreat View Circle) to the next street (Retreat View Circle). He wanted an address, all he could see was the back of the town homes and he could not see and address. So he asked the dispatcher to have the responding unit call him and he could tell him the address (which remember he is looking for an address on Retreat View Circle). So he walked down to the end of the street, I'm sorry to the end of the sidewalk, to the next street (Retreat View Circle) to get an address. He did not know at that time where Trayvon Martin had gone. As he was walking back to his vehicle (this is where the question come in.....why was he walking back to his vehicle? according to his dad he was looking for an address to give police to meet him, as he told police dispatch on the 911 call. If he is looking for an address on Retreat View Circle to meet police what was he doing then heading back in the opposite direction towards Twin Trees and his SUV? ..... To give an address to police to meet you at, you must stay at that address....so even according to Zimmermans own father his sons account is not true......). There was a sidewalk that goes to his left (where Trayvons body was...2 houses deep, down that sidewalk...again in a direction away from any address on Retreat View, or Twin Trees for that matter, and away from his SUV) and Trayvon came from that area were the sidewalks meet (yet his body was still found 2 house down and away from the meeting point of the 2 sidewalks...) he asked my son if he had a problem, George said 'no, I don't have a problem (which is also not true....george did have a problem...george had called the police on the kid...that was georges oppurtunity right there...instead he lied to Trayvons face) trayvon said 'well you do now.' He punched him in the face, knocked him to the sidewalk, got on him and started beating him (this took place at the 'T' of the sidewalk according to Zimmermans dad's account...yet again, Trayvons body was found 2 houses deep down the sidewalk.....).

George Zimmerman's Father - Full Interview on Trayvon Martin Shooting - Sean Hannity -- 4-4-12

So which is it?

Was he looking for an address on Retreat View Circle? Why didn't he stay there? Why was he headed away from that address?

How did Trayvon end up 2 houses deep of town homes when the confrontation supposedly started at the 'T'.

If Zimmerman was looking for an address, why didn't he stay at that address? How could he have ended up where he did if he wasn't still following Trayvon?

Why didn't Zimmerman tell Trayvon he had called the police on him? Why did he say he didn't have a problem with him?



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by sonnny1
 


Sonny, you aren't that bad for a dude i usually disagree with


We all have days, but so far all of us haven't been shot by Georg Zimmerman, or we wouldn't be here to nag about it and express our discontent.

Honestly, in my opinion, he should be sitting in the slammer until the end of the trial, like OJ


I hear you. I actually was on the fence,since this began. I was at first,calling for his head. Then I changed my stance. Why? Because I let my emotion get the better Judge of me. Innocent,till proven Guilty. Should he have been held? Yes,I believe. Should he have got bail? Sure. He posed no Flight risk. All around,this case was screwed up,since the beginning. I jumped out of this thread for along time,because the idiots were out in abundance,playing the race card,and trying to bait people into arguments. I recently jumped back in,because I started to see more people actually discussing the subject,then making a mockery of it. People like you,Gogo,Pops,Xcathdra,a few more,are actually are setting their emotions aside,and discussing it. Thats a good thing,and what makes ATS great.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Actually I dont have the answers to those questions so no worries on trying to find them. Going to the tone / intent comment I made I didn't ask them to call you out so please dont take it that way.

We need to wait for the autopsy report to come out in order to answer them. I was putting those questions out there more to demonstrate that what we see on TV is not how it works in real life. Also to demonstrate that there are factors that people might not be aware of simply because its not something they deal with / want to deal with / curious about etc.

For those who might be curious about why I asked about bullet type and grain - Bullets fail.
It very well may discharge from the gun, but thats no guarantee that it can do major damage or travel completely through the body. A .22 caliber causes more deaths / internal damage than larger caliber bullets. More powerful bullets enter and are less affected by the material they are traveling through because of speed. A .22 enters and bounces around, causing more internal damage in various areas.

The autopsy report is going to be playing a key factor as it will tell us positioning of Martin and Zimmerman, distance of the gun when it was discharged (stippling on the clothing if close), angle of travel of the bullet as well as blood loss etc etc etc.

I guess the other question I forgot was what type of ammo - full metal jacket, frangibles, hollow points? All will have different affects on the body.

Like I said, im not looking for the answers simply because we won't have them until the report comes out. The questions are more food for thought...



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


Could it be possible Zimmerman's dad got the info wrong?



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


Could it be possible Zimmerman's dad got the info wrong?


Sure. Second hand information.




posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Nevermind.
Taking advice and just letting it go.
Thanks for the star though..
edit on 27-4-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Thanks.
That is what I thought. Also what I was trying to explain to.. someone. She has HERSELF over a barrel.
She wanted one of these spectacular media event, high profile cases, but this case isn't really one of those. In order to maintain a possibility of having an OJ or Casey Anthony she over charge. Unfortunately for her when you overcharge all the way to murder you actually have to convince the Jury that it can't be one of the lesser included charges because that what create reasonable doubt for the highest charge. I guess if she feels she has absolutely no chance at getting murder 2 at the end of the trial she can ask them to consider the lesser included, but it would cast doubt on everything she has said. As you said, she definitely has painted herself into a corner.

It's not uncommon for juries to find manslaughter on their own, but I wonder if it will be any harder finding manslaughter when they haven't heard any case for it from the prosecution (due to not compromising the murder 2) and in a case where the death is claimed self defense. I agree, I honestly don't think this will make it to trial, but if it did it would be interesting. I would like to see it if 25 + years of a guys life wasn't on the line.

I didn't know that about the dwi. That's interesting.
edit on 27-4-2012 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 



could it be possible that his son lied to him, or he is making it up?

Not to mention we have also heard what was reported by the orlando sentinal about what they confirmed that cops told them about what Zimmerman told them happened, which doesn't match up with the evidence, such as he was looking for an address (he even tells police dispatch to have police call him for his location)....

So now the argument is going to be that Zimmermans dad, brother, previous lawyers, confirmed police reports to media.....are all wrong and all mistaken...is that it?

Listen to the reporter.....

How does Trayvon approach Zimmerman from the Back...remember he is walking on the side walk that connects Twin Trees and Retreat View circle....supposedly going back to towards his vehicle...for Trayvon to have attacked him from the BACK that meant Trayvon would have had have been coming from Retreat View Circle....now explain how his body ended up in the back yards many yards away from the sidewalk Zimmeran says he was on? Zimmerman says he was 'punched in the nose, and that floored him'.....that means he supposedly ended up on the sidewalk that connects Twin Trees and Retreat View Circle....so how did Trayvon's body end up yards and yards from there?

Trayvon Martin Lynching: Lawrence O'Donnell Challenges Orlando Sentinel Report

See Zimmerman story just keeps crumbling....and the only thing you can come up with is 'could it be possible his dad got it wrong'.....thats pretty weak....

Not to mention ... his father was present at the scene for a reenactment....so how do you think his dad got it wrong?




The day after the shooting, George Zimmerman, according to his father, returned with at least three police officers to the Retreat at Twin Lakes, back to that grassy area where plaintive cries for help had gone unanswered. The investigators, accompanied by someone with a video camera, wanted him to re-enact the events of the night when the two strangers had stood their ground. Mr. Zimmerman’s father watched from nearby. “They started where his vehicle was,” he recalled. “They walked him down the sidewalk and to the end of the sidewalk, to the street where he got an address and then walked him back towards his vehicle, near where the incident occurred.”


Race, Tragedy and Outrage Collide After a Shot in Florida


So everybody is wrong, except Zimmerman and his ever changing story. Of course.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


How does he attack him from the back? You are incorrect that that means Trayvon would have to be coming from behind him. It could mean Trayvon was hiding off to the side and attacked when Zimmerman passed his position.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


The only testimonies and stories that really mean anything, are those told under oath, if it gets to trial. The rest is just people flapping their lips trying to get on the idiotbox.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


Could it be possible Zimmerman's dad got the info wrong?


Sure. Second hand information.



Nope, Zim's daddy was there for a reenactment.....guess his dad must have horrible memory......




The day after the shooting, George Zimmerman, according to his father, returned with at least three police officers to the Retreat at Twin Lakes, back to that grassy area where plaintive cries for help had gone unanswered. The investigators, accompanied by someone with a video camera, wanted him to re-enact the events of the night when the two strangers had stood their ground. Mr. Zimmerman’s father watched from nearby. “They started where his vehicle was,” he recalled. “They walked him down the sidewalk and to the end of the sidewalk, to the street where he got an address and then walked him back towards his vehicle, near where the incident occurred.”


Race, Tragedy and Outrage Collide After a Shot in Florida

So, now let's assume his dad wasn't mistaken, since he was privy to the reenactment.....how do you explain all the inconsistency?



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by pizzanazi75


Nope, Zim's daddy was there for a reenactment.....guess his dad must have horrible memory......




Reenactment.


This is how I feel actually,also.


Originally posted by TKDRL


The only testimonies and stories that really mean anything, are those told under oath, if it gets to trial. The rest is just people flapping their lips trying to get on the idiotbox.


That's pretty much the truth,of it all.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


How does he attack him from the back? You are incorrect that that means Trayvon would have to be coming from behind him. It could mean Trayvon was hiding off to the side and attacked when Zimmerman passed his position.


That account would make no sense....because you are saying Trayvon is hiding somewhere and attacks as Zimmerman is walking back to his car....that would have meant Zimmerman would have passed Trayvon hiding once before he turned around to go back to his car.....so why didn't Trayvon jump him the first time?

And explain if he was hiding to the side, like you put it, how did his body end up on the other side walk in the back yards.....you can't have zimmerman being attacked on both sidewalks.....you can't have Trayvon hiding on both sidewalks....so which sidewalk was Trayvon hiding in? the back yard sidewalks or the street connecting sidewalks? and which sidewalk was Zimmerman walking down when he was attacked?

You guys are just getting silly now....Trayvon must have really been some sort of super villian and Zimmerman must have been the weakest, dumbest person, following people he was supposedly afraid of...remember one of his stories has been Trayvon circled his car and he was scared....it was in the bond hearing, go listen to......

Zimmerman has so many changing stories and you guys just ride that Z wave any which way it takes you. It must be a crazy ride.
edit on 27-4-2012 by pizzanazi75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


And these people can be called under oath, and if they change their story then the prosecution will bring up these interviews and ask them 'why did you say so and so then and now you are saying so and so'.....so it absolutely matters what they are saying now......if anyone on the Zimmerman side was smart they all would have zipped their lips.....but now everyone of those words are going to come back to haunt them......

It seems the Zimmermans like drama and lies.



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


If they don't have enough real evidence, and have to resort to that kind of tactics to try and prove their case, I can't see it making it past the prelims.

Also, I am not sure the prosecution can bring up any statement like that, because it wasn't under oath. If they signed an afadavit(I think I butchered the spelling) saying a different story, that would be admissable.
edit on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 22:51:26 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by pizzanazi75


Nope, Zim's daddy was there for a reenactment.....guess his dad must have horrible memory......




Reenactment.


This is how I feel actually,also.


Originally posted by TKDRL


The only testimonies and stories that really mean anything, are those told under oath, if it gets to trial. The rest is just people flapping their lips trying to get on the idiotbox.


That's pretty much the truth,of it all.




And what makes you think these people won't be called at a trial? they will be.....

It was a police reenactment with George telling what happened that night....so now you are saying that you don't trust that, or you don't trust that his dad was there.....it was a reenactment with George being the director telling his story of what happened.....i agree with you, it shouldn't be trusted.

So who are you doubting Zimmerman, the police, or Zimmerman's father whose was present at the reenactment......

So if someone tells you to reenact something that happened to you, are you lying when you 're' enact it, or is not credible.....it was georges version of events....

I know, anything that points to George not being an honest little good little boy looking out for the neighborhood is automatically dismissed by you guys....even when it comes from Zimmermans side....its just truly amazing.....




The day after the shooting, George Zimmerman, according to his father, returned with at least three police officers to the Retreat at Twin Lakes, back to that grassy area where plaintive cries for help had gone unanswered. The investigators, accompanied by someone with a video camera, wanted him to re-enact the events of the night when the two strangers had stood their ground.



edit on 27-4-2012 by pizzanazi75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


If they don't have enough real evidence, and have to resort to that kind of tactics to try and prove their case, I can't see it making it past the prelims.

Also, I am not sure the prosecution can bring up any statement like that, because it wasn't under oath. If they signed an afadavit(I think I butchered the spelling) saying a different story, that would be admissable.
edit on Fri, 27 Apr 2012 22:51:26 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)


It doesn't have to be under oath, by that logic no body in the world can testify at trials.......

It was mentioned in the bond hearing that the prosecution has evidence that directly points to the fact that Zimmerman is not telling the truth......no one said they would have to 'resort to these tactics'....as there only recourse.....but you can rest assured that if this makes it to trial and he doesn't plea bargain....that his father, his brother, for sure will be called to testify. They have both offered direct testimony as to what George told them that night...that is allowed in court and will just be another tool used to break down Zimmermans story.....watch and see. If Zimmerman loves his family and doesn't want to put them through a humilating trial he would plea this out.....they are all gonna get caught in lies......its all just crumbling for him from here ....



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


Hearsay is not admissible as evidence in a court of law.

Reenactments are not admissible in a court of law, especially when its done by 3rd parties.

also -

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
reply to post by TKDRL
 


And these people can be called under oath, and if they change their story then the prosecution will bring up these interviews and ask them 'why did you say so and so then and now you are saying so and so'.....so it absolutely matters what they are saying now......if anyone on the Zimmerman side was smart they all would have zipped their lips.....but now everyone of those words are going to come back to haunt them......

It seems the Zimmermans like drama and lies.


No, they cannot.

90.603 - Disqualification of witness.
90.405 - Methods of proving character.
90.404 - Character evidence; when admissible

Why did the Martin family get upset about the apology?
90.4026 Statements expressing sympathy; admissibility; definitions

...............(2) The portion of statements, writings, or benevolent gestures expressing sympathy or a general sense of benevolence relating to the pain, suffering, or death of a person involved in an accident and made to that person or to the family of that person shall be inadmissible as evidence in a civil action..............


As far as your reenactments and the media and everyone else discussing the case that you want to classify as a witness.
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.
edit on 27-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 27 2012 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

It is his claim that is not hearsay, I said the same a few pages back.





new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 296  297  298    300  301  302 >>

log in

join