Trayvon Martin Shooter Told Cops Teenager Went For His Gun

reply to post by Believer101


"Arguing with an idiot is like beating your head against a brick wall to teach the wall a lesson." (you)

Pleasure to meet you Believer101, compassion and reason are very appealing qualities.

Originally posted by TruckDriver69
reply to post by Believer101

 

Oh come on.. I'm the troll and you are the one using fake blood analogies from imaginary fake blood tales that you spin for our amusement? The facts are the facts and if the POLICE have not arrested him and the Prosecutor has not charged him then it was a legal shoot.

Having said that, I take it you think the police are in his corner and they are doing a cover up. If it happens they do arrest him due to minorities such as yourself being so demanding how can you square that with the fact that the POLICE seem to be lying now. You people are so predictable.

Here, I'll ask you one more time: I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to reply as you're just a troll, as it is obvious to spot from your posts, but, IF Martin did punch Zimmerman multiple times, as allegedly reported, Martin would have some sort of physical signs of such an altercation taking place in the form of lacerations, redness, or bruising on his hands and knuckles. As reported by the funeral director who was in close proximity with Martin after he died, Martin had no such physical evidence on his body other than the gunshot wound.

Explain that for me instead of going off topic. Or is this yet another thing you cannot prove with facts and sources?

reply to post by AliceBlackman


Lol I know I know, I should take my own advice.

Originally posted by dragonridr

Originally posted by Believer101
reply to post by TruckDriver69

 

I'm not sure why I'm even bothering to reply as you're just a troll, as it is obvious to spot from your posts, but, IF Martin did punch Zimmerman multiple times, as allegedly reported, Martin would have some sort of physical signs of such an altercation taking place in the form of lacerations, redness, or bruising on his hands and knuckles. As reported by the funeral director who was in close proximity with Martin after he died, Martin had no such physical evidence on his body other than the gunshot wound.

Really people win fights all the time without getting hurt come on you know that. knuckles dont bruise easily unless you break them.

If we are to believe Zimmerman's story of Martin punching him repeatedly in the face, there would be some sort of sign on Martin's hands and knuckles such as lacerations, swelling, redness, or bruising. Trust me, my closest friend is a registered nurse with my local hospital that I frequently volunteer at. I've seen it all. I know what to expect to see from someone who was in a fight.

Also, how do you explain the lack of swelling on Zimmerman's face in the video?

Originally posted by Believer101
reply to post by AliceBlackman

 

Lol I know I know, I should take my own advice.

Trust me i dont like this any more then you do.But we have to go off the evidence presented and hope the authorities can sort it out. When people come up with random speculation it does nothing but make the situation worse. I fear people are going to die because of all this racial tension being stirred up. Truth is the family thought he was white based mostly on police report and his name. If his last name was gonzales we wouldn't be having this conversation.

reply to post by Believer101


Ok, let me explain it to you like a "Child." The "Child" that was shot laid in the morgue for 3 days because his parents didn't have a clue he was there or anywhere for that matter. They didn't care until they realized they could make money off the "Childs" death. At any rate, any physical signs of bruising to the hands would have been long gone after being dead for 3 days.I am sure you know differnet though..

You are grasping at straws and not reaching far enough. Your tall tale about imaginary blood spatters is amusing but hurts your cause in your attempt to vilify the real victim here. This was clearly an uneducated miscalculating foolish "Child" that had no business jumping someone from behind as was stated by the victim and is now pubic record with the Police department.The "Child" lost and the victim lives. These are the facts...

reply to post by Believer101


As opposed to using the facts of the case to win your argument you spin tall tales of nurse friends, first hand blood spatter experience and now self sacrifice at a local hospital! You are really good at this! You just go ahead and keep adding to your list of self importance here!

reply to post by TruckDriver69


If his parent's didn't "care" that he was missing, how do you explain the fact that they both filled missing person cases for Martin on the 27th of February, the day after he was shot? www.abovetopsecret.com... Go there for the article.

And at least I'm actually basing my facts off of real evidence and posting sources for them, unlike you. Also, that "child" as you put him has a name. It's
TRAYVON MARTIN

Now, I'm done with you. As I say in my signature line, "arguing with an idiot is like beating your head against a brick wall to teach the wall a lesson"

reply to post by Believer101


You clearly lost this debate when you injected your self as the primary focus to win the argument. What really happened is you felt foolish when you went too far with that blood spatter hilarity. Then to compound your mistake you went off about more imaginary self sacrifice at your local hospital along with a claim of what I can only assume at this point is a non-existent "nurse friend!.That was a nice touch btw. In the end you decided to concede defeat couched in another self righteous diatribe about the "Childs" name.

All I used were the facts of the case as reported by the police, victim and a witness.

You have yourself a wonderful evening.

Originally posted by Believer101
If we are to believe Zimmerman's story of Martin punching him repeatedly in the face, there would be some sort of sign on Martin's hands and knuckles such as lacerations, swelling, redness, or bruising. Trust me, my closest friend is a registered nurse with my local hospital that I frequently volunteer at. I've seen it all. I know what to expect to see from someone who was in a fight.

Also, how do you explain the lack of swelling on Zimmerman's face in the video?

Martin funeral director: No signs of fight on body
How do you explain treyvon had no bruises, or cuts,
or any signs that he was in a fight if WERE to believe zimmerman started it?


If treyvon has no visible signs of being in a fight then zimmerman must of never hit him.
If zimmerman never hit treyvon, then treyvon must of started the physical altercation..
www.cbsnews.com...

There WAS a physical altercation because eye witness
testimony proves it. Not just one person either, MULTIPLE!!
THERE WAS A FIGHT!!

SO HOW COULD THERE BE A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION
AND TREYVON HAVE NO SIGNS OF BEING IN ONE?
Only way that is possible is if zimmerman never hit TREYVON.
If zimmerman never hit him, then treyvon martin started the fight.
Meaning zimmerman acted in self defense..

here is some audio of the 911 call...supposed "racial" slur there are more and they all prove the same thing,

He most definately did NOT say C**ns......no oo sound what so ever...he either said punks or punks with a c and a t which doesn't make sense.


www.youtube.com...

Someone asked this on another thread.

If it is true that no one found Trayvon in the morgue for three days, why didn't his dad go to the police or look for him when he never came back with his "skittles"?

And did this fiancee really even live in that development?

reply to post by timetothink


yes from all the reports, the father's fiance did live in the gated community...
going on to say that it was trayvons first time being there....this being the reason he went to the store supposedly (he was bored and knew no one in the neighborhood)

reply to post by truthseeker808


Just thought it was curious, if no one was looking for him...he says he is just running to the store then never comes back?

reply to post by timetothink


Is it not strange to anybody else that we are still asking the question "Did his fiancee live there?". It seems like we should have a definitive answer to that question. I have seen some reports that said she did, and others that said she didn't. As a matter of fact seems like every report I have read there have been at least 1 or 2 things that were completely reversed. The point I'm making with that is everybody is immediately jumping to conclusions and we can't even seem to find 3 news sources that all match up.

This leads me to believe that maybe, just maybe we have not a single clue what happened that night, or at least not an honest re-telling of the truth so to speak. All we really know for certian is that TM is dead and GZ shot him. Anybody that says they know exactly how and why this happened is clearly a liar because they were not there and this case has not yet been brought in front of a judge. It's a shame how quickly people rush to judgement and decide guilt and/or innocence based on emotion.

Do you think that the media is purposely holding things back from us? Do you think that they are making some aspects up? Leaving other facts out? I wish I knew the answers to those questions because the more I read about this case the more I feel like I have no idea what happened.

reply to post by TruckDriver69


You might as well quit...I did...I posted the police report...no one can read or comprehend.

Good luck if decide to proceed...

Have no interest in this case, but the facts are revelant to most people, came across this, thought that it speaks for itself.
back of shirt was wet, blood to the back of the head and nose, it does look very much like self defence.

reply to post by timetothink


sorry repost, couldn't wade through all this.

reply to post by XxCanexX


They are definitely making up and leaving out...NBC was caught out right lying...they edited the 911 tape in such a way as to completely change the context..They left out the part where the dispatcher asks "is he white, black or hispanic" really good edit too...couldn't even tell if you never heard the full one.

The way they ran it sounds like he immediately says "I think he's black" for no reason than to just say it...like he was looking for a black kid to hassle.

And now the narrative on tv is "He was run down like a rabid dog in the street and murdered" please.

reply to post by RancidCat


Thank you for posting it, it is quite clear if you bother to read it, right?

I posted the link several times but those that don't want to know the truth won't read it.