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

As someone on this topic said to me what I don't say is telling,

Well Maybe I thought waiting for ALL the evidence was important, instead of jumping on the, Zimmerman is a racist white man, bandwagon.

I blame Obama.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


My sister and her husband live in FL, I got info from them before I jumped to conclusions. The local FL news about it, was way way different than what the national news was putting out there. That was my first clue something fishy was going on with this story.

Reminded me a lot of the JLL case, how the media reported he was a right wing extremist tea partier, and he turned out to really be a registered democrat.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

My sister and her husband live in FL, I got info from them before I jumped to conclusions. The local FL news about it, was way way different than what the national news was putting out there. That was my first clue something fishy was going on with this story.

I see,

reply to post by PLASIFISK


We don't know that he "stalked" Trayvon. So you can't say definitively that he did. More likely he observed him from a distance and then unwittingly crossed his path again after he had lost him (if Zimmerman lost Martin who was hidden or walking somewhere out of sight and then on his way back Zimmerman crossed his path and Martin jumped him thinking Zimmerman was looking to hurt him or whatever). Then Trayvon jumped Zimmerman and most likely initiated the fight. The reason this is most likely is because Trayvon had no other damage to his body aside from the gunshot so he would have some other marks if Zimmerman attacked him. Also Zimmerman was armed, why on Earth would he get into a fight with Trayvon or try to detain him physically when he could just pull his gun and order him to the ground? It doesn't make sense, Zimmerman was the only one injured from the physicaly altercation so it is most likely Martin jumped him. Trayvon died because he forced a man to defend himself. People don't take responsibility for their actions anymore and it's sad, but it's the truth too.

UPDATE: As a poster above me posted.. medical files are proving what I am saying. Martin had damage to his knuckles and Zimmerman had the broken nose and damaged head. Trayvon started this altercation. I am sorry this ruins your guys image the media has painted of this teen, but facts are facts. Trayvon is the one that attacked and committed a crime, Zimmerman defended himself.

I live 20min from Sanford, Zimmerman is innocent they know it and we know it. Hopefully the video they have shows how he was ambushed by Trayvon.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

My sister and her husband live in FL, I got info from them before I jumped to conclusions. The local FL news about it, was way way different than what the national news was putting out there. That was my first clue something fishy was going on with this story.

Reminded me a lot of the JLL case, how the media reported he was a right wing extremist tea partier, and he turned out to really be a registered democrat.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


The people that for some reason want TM to be this innocent kid will somehow deny it.

All evidence creates a scene where Martin jumped Zimmerman and Zimmerman defended himself. I don't know why these people want to remain blind and condemn someone that appears to be a deecent man (I guess just because he used a gun and they don't like guns) and try to paint this teen, that had contributed to nothing but the crime rate so far in his life, as some innocent kid that could do no harm and if he did was totally justified.

I understood it when it looked like he was an innocent kid, but now nothing about it makes sense. It is only out of spite or ignorance that they condemn Zimmerman.

I saw a post in the thread about Trayvon's knuckle damage that didn't surprise me.

The poster said that Trayvon probably punched a tree or a wall or something.

Are we about done here?

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I respect your opinion.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

The people that for some reason want TM to be this innocent kid will somehow deny it.

The people that for some reason want GZ to be this innocent man will somehow deny it.

PLEASE! Tell me what makes you any different.

Originally posted by rebellender
Are we about done here?

He was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion,

The real trial is yet to come.

No we are not done.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Originally posted by rebellender
Are we about done here?

He was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion,

The real trial is yet to come.

No we are not done

"HE" Who?

Which "HE" are you referring to?

Seriously,
are we done here!!!

Originally posted by Xcathdra
What is your background in? Since I have seen fit to give you mine, please extend the same courtesy so I can pick apart and highlight your ignorance.

edit on 14-5-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-5-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

edit on Mon May 14 2012 by DontTreadOnMe because: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.

All you did was expand on the exact same limited list of items to look for and into as the person I was discussing this with before. I do not really see what you added other than making his post longer. Did you not understand that what I was pointing out is that forensics is not limited to bullet angle, powder, etc. all the crap you and he listed. If only you had actually mentioned all the other things in this case that forensics will take into account then you would have had me. Sad that you did not even try. I was expecting more.

When did you give me your background?

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Originally posted by rebellender
Are we about done here?

He was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion,

The real trial is yet to come.

No we are not done.

edit on 093131p://bTuesday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

are you implying you statement wasnt said in the first 20 pages of this thread, by someone else?

I think we are done here.

Originally posted by gambon
reply to post by cdesigns

 

its just a scratch hardly what would get from having head smashed into concrete....

Something to consider (actually the people who are making decisions based off of their perception of a wound). The decision to use force did not occur because of what occured after an injury. It occureed during the creation of that injury and we all know how the body works when it comes to adrenaline, perception, and the ability for soemthing to be worse while its occuring that after the fact.

While the aftermath of the wound looks superficial, the same cannot be stated during the encounter.

Please keep that in mind when reviewing the situation.

Neither party had the benefiet of 20/20 hindsight that night.. Neither party had the sequence of events... Neither party knew who the other person was...

Making your decisions now while passing judgement on one person or the other is based on the fallacy of hindsight.


Please keep that in mind.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

the original d.a. in the case wanted to hold him for manslaughter, it wasnt til a higher up called it off. i find that suspicious. i also find the fact that they ignored and tried to lead all other witnesses to testify in zimmermans favor, suspicious.

This is not correct...

The lead detective wanted Zimmerman held and charged with manslaughter. The PA reviewed the evidence and said no because there was no evidence that disputed the claims Zimmerman made. The decision to charge is the sole responsibility of the PA, NOT the police.

A meeting occured between the detective, the PA and the Chief. When the detective kept pushing, and the PA kept saying no, the chief told the detectiove to stop. The detective, who did not agree with the decision, filed a report where he went on record disagreeing with the decision.

When the news media began distoring facts and out right making up lies is when the Governer folded to politicla pressure and appointed a special prosecutor. She then folded to politics when she filed charges that werent supported by the evidence.

That mistake was compoo9unded by the lie the detective committed by stating in the PC Statement that Zimmerman confrontefd Martin. When asked under oath if he had info to support that, the Detective stated no.

That shouyld have been the end of the case right then and there bvut since the prosecution is politically motiviated and not based on the law it moved forward.

The Sanford Police department followed procedure and did everything they could under state law. You cannot use the laws of the area / state / country you live in to view this situation. It does not and will not work,.

reply to post by Autumnal


Read the entire post and you will find your answer. I have provided more and then some. I cant force people to read / learn about a topic they have no interest in. On the off chance you wish to learn about it you can read the thread or ask questions and I would be more than happy to provide you with not only answers, but links to Florida State Law / Evidence laws / Police procedure so you can read and verify the information yourself and draw your own conclusion.

Just be specific with your question and ask.

Secondly the list of questions asked are important... The release of Zimmermans medical reports as well as Martins reports go directly to those questions you and other dismiss. Its going to be harder to do that now that the info coming out doesnt fit the theories of a few people in the thread.

Respectfully, what source talks about how the Sanford PD didnt follow procedure or law? It is a simple request. You made the claim and all I am asking for is for you to link to it so I can read it.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by fbluth
Why did you bring me up in a post when no one mentioned me?

You mentioned yourself when you oncve again brought up Martins autopsy and what the funeral director saw and described. You continue to refuse to acknowledge what occured prior to the funeral director receiving the body.

You do this becuase you are not familiar with procedure let alone forensic autopsies. If you were, you would not so consistently cite wrong information while ignoring the facts of a forensic autopsy.

Originally posted by fbluth
And....

Secondly......blah blah blah blah

If you are stating im wrong, then feel free to answer the questions I posed to your other account and prove me wrong.

Please be sure to cite your sources as well as police procedure to support your answers. As you stated and I will use, everytime you post wrong information, I am going to be there to correct it, whether its you or one of the others who want to use blind ignorance instead of the actual law for the State of Florida.

Answers please or dont bother to make claims you cant support.

edit on 14-5-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

What exactly qualifies you as an expert in Florida laws?
Seriously?
You seem to think you are somehow an authority on law.
Why is that?
Even if you were really a cop, you would still not qualify as any kind of legal expert.

reply to post by Autumnal


When you decide to answer the question shoot me a U2U. As I stated I am interested to read up on what the Sanford Police Department did wrong. Since I have not seen that information it could very well change my opinion on the handling of the situation by the department.

I look forward to reading the source you provide.

Thanks