George Zimmerman to be charged in Trayvon Martin shooting, official says

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Now who can't read.

You - Go back and read the post time.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
I said I was still looking for it. Its a video. I told you I would post it when I found it, and I will. Reread what I wrote, I didn't ignore anything.

Go back and read the post time.



Sidewalk
Curb

reply to post by Xcathdra

Under SYG it allows an aggressor to use deadly force and lists the elements required in order for it to be valid. We cannot just simply ignore that section and substitute an opinion.

I don't think I'm ignoring any of the facts, quite the opposite, I'm also trying to determine when SYG begins and when it terminates. Maybe I am looking at this scenario from a biased stand point, from what I consider reasonable and what I would have done. I think the cops would have preferred him make his call to 911, remain in his vehicle and then let them proceed. I think I can safely say the dispatcher gave him pretty good advice. Had this been a medical 911 call, the dispatcher would give the caller pre-arrivals and tell them to sit tight until the ambulance arrives. I don't think it would be prudent for a non-medical type to start interventions normally left to paramedics. I see it as the same difference. I understand that a lot of the discussion is centered around SYG, if and when it applies, how it applies. Sounds like there are two camps: the first allowing SYG as a reasonable defense, and second-that SYG does not apply since GZ made a decision to purse Martin. If I'm correct you believe Zimmerman correctly utilized SYG because he believed he was in mortal danger after Martin attacked him? That's easy to understand I think.

My belief, is that, while yes, during the altercation he life may have been endangered by Martin, but he placed himself in that danger so I feel SYG does not apply. I think these are both pretty straight forward, albeit opposite views. But I guess this is the question that a Grand Jury, or Jury, and/or the Courts will decide? I guess I related it Castle Doctrine, which you know, basically says I have the right to defend myself in my home against a perceived mortal threat. Now similarly, what if I shoot and kill someone who was trying to escape my house once they saw I had a gun? What if I shoot that person in the back as they are exiting my house? Is a jury or PA/DA going to look at that shooting any different than if I shot that person during an aggressive assault, one in which they had no plans in escaping. Basically, does a jury disdain someone getting shot in the back because that implies they were trying to flee and such my life was no longer in danger? I don't know. I'm not a law enforcement professional. These are the questions I have.

reply to post by jrod


There is a lot more information coming out about both Zimmerman and Martin. I maintaining my position that these individuals, their prior and current histories are irrelevant. Like I said before, as a strong supporter of 2nd Amendment rights and an avid fan of firearms myself, I'm more disturbed about Zimmerman's actions while he was carrying a weapon. You see, I think I'm a more observant and law-abiding citizen now that I'm armed; mostly because I don't want to lose the privilege to have a firearm(s). I avoid of potentially stupid crap now that I carry. I want to avoid as many situations in which I may possible need to draw that weapon. I call it avoidance! lol I drink a lot less socially because I'm armed now, which means no chance of doing something stupid involving alcohol and guns. No chance of getting a DWI or DUI. Hell, I don't even roll through stops anymore I think its made me a more conscientious citizen. My situational awareness is so much more astute than it was before.

I would be equally looking into Martin's actions that night if he was carrying a weapon.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Yes, and not to mention that Trayvons body was entirely in grass and his head was facing toward the building with his feet pointing toward the sidewalk.

Source for these claims please.

I see you are already prepping to discount a medical release that doesn't work in your favor as well.

Here is one source that says they were 4 feet from a hard surface......still looking for the one that states which direction the body was pointing......as soon as I find it, ill post it, don't you worry. I don't have a need to make things up or embellish anything.

You can jump to around 8:40 to hear this witness describe how far from 'a hard surface' they were.

Eyewitness to the Trayvon Martin shooting speaks out

She acknowledges she could not hear what the people were talking / yelling about.
She can not identify either person involved.
She describes 2 different voice types.
When asked if she could identify the age of the person by what she heard she makes a guess. She states she felt it was the younger person.

Her window was closed and when she opened it she still could not make out what the argument was / words exchange. She states she cannot make out what the conversation was.

She then states she couldnt hear any words just arguing.

She states 2 men were on the ground when she finally looked.

She states she is telling the dispatcher exactly what she is hearing. She holds the phone to the screen so the dispatcher can hear.

She cannot for sure describe who is who and what position the 2 were in.

When asked about blood on the person she states its to dark to see.

The police did interview her that night.

Why did the police seem unintrested? Because nothing she said is / can be used in court. People need to understand that when you identify as a witness you are asked specific questions. They are not going to allow a person to get on the stand as a witness when they cannot testify to certainty.

I think... I hear... couldn't make out words... couldn't hear conversation... couldn't see the people in detail.

As far as the distance from grass to sidewalk how does she know? She just got done answering the questions that she could not make out any details because it was to dark.

While she probably did "witness" the encounter, she has no information that can be used in court. One of the things that tv shows do get right is asking a witness if they can identify people. If they cannot identify a person with absolute certainty, then their testimony can no longer be considered simply because it cannot be confirmed.

Tell ya what though.. If we take her memory where she said they were about 4 feet from the sidewalk. Can you or anyone else explain if there were any rocks / hard foreign objects (GIS property markers / old concrete left over from construction / home improvement? Is the ground under the grass hard / moist / soft / clay?

This is what im trying to get at.. An investigation is nowhere near black and white.... There are a LOT of factors that are taken into account and I will point out that so far no one has suggested the other possibilities. This is a murder trial so any witness is going to be under close scrutiny to determine validity.

Why?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

Once again you ignored the request to cite sources to support your accusations.

game over for you..

Here is your source. From Trayvon's father's own words on what the police told him of the position of the body. You can just skip to about 1:30 for the info.

Game back on I would say, wouldn't you? Now we are still waiting for your source to back up your 'misspeak' that said an expert said he heard Zimmerman yelling for help.

Retracing Trayvon Martin's Final Steps Before Vigilante George Zimmerman Lynched Him

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

Once again you ignored the request to cite sources to support your accusations.

game over for you..

Here is your source. From Trayvon's father's own words on what the police told him of the position of the body. You can just skip to about 1:30 for the info.

Game back on I would say, wouldn't you? Now we are still waiting for your source to back up your 'misspeak' that said an expert said he heard Zimmerman yelling for help.

Retracing Trayvon Martin's Final Steps Before Vigilante George Zimmerman Lynched Him

Not really.. While I feel bad for the family I am not going to take the words of a distraught father. That ranks up there with the special prosecutor allowing mom to identify a voice on the tape when the experts from the orlando senitnal cant even for sure say who its is. They are at a 48% chance its Martins...

Just as you stated you want reliable sources.. I want an unbiased source.

Secondly can anyone explain if the final resting place of the body is where the encounter ended? If Zimmerman was on the ground and Martin was on top, at some point Zimmerman is going to have to get out from under him, which will result in the body being moved in that process. Also its possible they moved / flailed around a lot on the ground, starting in one area and ending in another.

When distance measurements are taken for a homicide (or fatality accident) we will mark key points of the body and then distance them to a fixed point (some agencies use GPS).

As I have been saying lots of other factors that must be considered.

Its a circumstantial case.. I dont think the PA is going to win, I dont see Zimmerman taking a plea and I have a strong feeling that the next preliminary hearing, where they invoke SYG, is where the case ends and the charge is dropped.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Yes, and not to mention that Trayvons body was entirely in grass and his head was facing toward the building with his feet pointing toward the sidewalk.

Source for these claims please.

I see you are already prepping to discount a medical release that doesn't work in your favor as well.

Here is one source that says they were 4 feet from a hard surface......still looking for the one that states which direction the body was pointing......as soon as I find it, ill post it, don't you worry. I don't have a need to make things up or embellish anything.

You can jump to around 8:40 to hear this witness describe how far from 'a hard surface' they were.

Eyewitness to the Trayvon Martin shooting speaks out

She acknowledges she could not hear what the people were talking / yelling about.
She can not identify either person involved.
She describes 2 different voice types.
When asked if she could identify the age of the person by what she heard she makes a guess. She states she felt it was the younger person.

Her window was closed and when she opened it she still could not make out what the argument was / words exchange. She states she cannot make out what the conversation was.

She then states she couldnt hear any words just arguing.

She states 2 men were on the ground when she finally looked.

She states she is telling the dispatcher exactly what she is hearing. She holds the phone to the screen so the dispatcher can hear.

She cannot for sure describe who is who and what position the 2 were in.

When asked about blood on the person she states its to dark to see.

The police did interview her that night.

Why did the police seem unintrested? Because nothing she said is / can be used in court. People need to understand that when you identify as a witness you are asked specific questions. They are not going to allow a person to get on the stand as a witness when they cannot testify to certainty.

I think... I hear... couldn't make out words... couldn't hear conversation... couldn't see the people in detail.

As far as the distance from grass to sidewalk how does she know? She just got done answering the questions that she could not make out any details because it was to dark.

While she probably did "witness" the encounter, she has no information that can be used in court. One of the things that tv shows do get right is asking a witness if they can identify people. If they cannot identify a person with absolute certainty, then their testimony can no longer be considered simply because it cannot be confirmed.

Tell ya what though.. If we take her memory where she said they were about 4 feet from the sidewalk. Can you or anyone else explain if there were any rocks / hard foreign objects (GIS property markers / old concrete left over from construction / home improvement? Is the ground under the grass hard / moist / soft / clay?

This is what im trying to get at.. An investigation is nowhere near black and white.... There are a LOT of actors that are taken into account and I will point out that so far no one has suggested the possibilities.

Why?

edit on 14-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Thanks for the recap of the video.

Now you are trying to change the scenario of what happened that night. Zimmermans own father said that Zimmerman told him that his head was being beat on concrete....not a rock, or hard foreign object, etc....grasping at straws you are.

At the 1:22 mark.

George Zimmerman's Father On Trayvon Martin Shooting

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

I think we should take an ATS poll. I don't think this will make it to trial. I think he will plea bargain to a lesser charge, imo. What do you think. You think he will fight it or try and plea?

Really hard to say. Who knows what else investigators have found.

I understand "Letter of the Law". There could be something introduced in this case we know nothing about.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by pizzanazi75

 

Once again you ignored the request to cite sources to support your accusations.

game over for you..

Here is your source. From Trayvon's father's own words on what the police told him of the position of the body. You can just skip to about 1:30 for the info.

Game back on I would say, wouldn't you? Now we are still waiting for your source to back up your 'misspeak' that said an expert said he heard Zimmerman yelling for help.

Retracing Trayvon Martin's Final Steps Before Vigilante George Zimmerman Lynched Him

Not really.. While I feel bad for the family I am not going to take the words of a distraught father. That ranks up there with the special prosecutor allowing mom to identify a voice on the tape when the experts from the orlando senitnal cant even for sure say who its is. They are at a 48% chance its Martins...

Just as you stated you want reliable sources.. I want an unbiased source.

Secondly can anyone explain if the final resting place of the body is where the encounter ended? If Zimmerman was on the ground and Martin was on top, at some point Zimmerman is going to have to get out from under him, which will result in the body being moved in that process. Also its possible they moved / flailed around a lot on the ground, starting in one area and ending in another.

When distance measurements are taken for a homicide (or fatality accident) we will mark key points of the body and then distance them to a fixed point (some agencies use GPS).

As I have been saying lots of other factors that must be considered.

Its a circumstantial case.. I dont think the PA is going to win, I dont see Zimmerman taking a plea and I have a strong feeling that the next preliminary hearing, where they invoke SYG, is where the case ends and the charge is dropped.

edit on 14-4-2012 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Its what the police told him. So now you are saying that he is lying about what the police told him or that the police lied to him? I mean is Trayvon's dad a liar, or are the Cops the liars? Or maybe, its the truth and thats how his body was positioned. I mean come on already. You take the words of a man who gunned down and unarmed teenager and now you say you can't take the words of the dead kids father over what the police told him about his sons body. Remarkable.

Please cite your source that says it is 48% Martins voice yelling on the 911 tape. Your are wrong about that. The expert said its a 48% chance its Zimmermans.....they never tested Trayvons voice...becuase its not needed to rule out Zimmerman.....so if you are going to try and cite facts get them right. Just one more example of you either trying to muddy the waters or just clearly not knowing enough about this case to keep it straight.

They are at a 48% chance its Martins...

Yes at some point George would have had to get out from under the unarmed teenager he just killed....and somehow he did that without getting blood from the gunshot wound to Trayvons chest on his own clothes. Id love to hear how you explain that.

I think you are gonna be sadly mistake when a judge rules against SYG, and then your gonna be even more disappointed when the forensics, autopsy, etc come out and totally disprove Zimmermans claims.

where they invoke SYG, is where the case ends and the charge is dropped.

I don't see that happening at all. The only evidence he's got is his word. No witnesses, no physical evidence, nothing proves he acted in self defense except his own word. Not one eyewitness known to date saw what happened before and up to when physical contact was made. We have one on the phone who heard what happened when contact was made but saw nothing. We have several eyewitnesses that only saw after contact was made and they were in mid-struggle and most couldn't see anything. One claims he saw Zimmerman on the bottom. NONE saw who struck who first.


He has to show evidence to the Judge that he was acting in self defense. What evidence is there besides his word?

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Thanks for the recap of the video.

Just pointing out why she is not a good witness. As I stated - I think, sounded like, young voice, cant see due to dark. If it were up to you would you allow that witness to take the stand and why?

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Now you are trying to change the scenario of what happened that night. Zimmermans own father said that Zimmerman told him that his head was being beat on concrete....not a rock, or hard foreign object, etc....grasping at straws you are.

Nope.. Just using my training an experience to demonstrate the other possibilities. Secondly, and again using my training an experience, Zimmerman's dad's account is hearsay. He was not present at the time of the encounter and is recalling what he was supposedly told by his son.

Out of curiosity, and this is a serious question, but are you familiar with brain chemistry, the flight or fight response and what occurs after a traumatic incident and memory?

Also, as with my argument on the female witness who heard and saw nothing, and with mom identifying Martins voice on the tape, Zimmerman's dads account is equally biased in favor of his son. Since he was not at the scene how does he know if there weren't any rocks in the ground or other foreign objects?

Grasping at straws... please.. Seriously.. knock that crap off. It does not help the conversation and adds nothing to the debate.

Click here for more information.

I say big deal. I didnt care about Trayvon Martin when he was alive, and I dont care about him now. I didnt care about George Zimmerman before he shot this kid, and I could care less about him now.
I dont give a rats butt about what happened, who was right, who was wrong or if it was racially motivated or not. Just hurry up, get on with the trial, get a verdict and be done with this nonsense already. Some of us who have lives are tired of hearing about this already.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Its what the police told him. So now you are saying that he is lying about what the police told him or that the police lied to him? I mean is Trayvon's dad a liar, or are the Cops the liars? Or maybe, its the truth and thats how his body was positioned. I mean come on already. You take the words of a man who gunned down and unarmed teenager and now you say you can't take the words of the dead kids father over what the police told him about his sons body. Remarkable.

You are missing the point... A parent, even if their kid went on a 15 state shooting spree, will have the my son would never do that reaction. Parents are not an unbiased source... Sometimes they only hear what they want and ignore the bad stuff. That in and of itself is not remarkable - its called being a parent. I have applied that same standard to the Martin family as well.

Do we know the officer who shared that info?
Was it verbal only or did dad get a copy of the narrative?
Did the officer explain everything to him, or just bits and pieces?
Was the information something the officer had knowledge of firsthand, or was it relayed to him from someone else?


I can keep going but you get the idea...

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Please cite your source that says it is 48% Martins voice yelling on the 911 tape. Your are wrong about that. The expert said its a 48% chance its Zimmermans.....they never tested Trayvons voice...becuase its not needed to rule out Zimmerman.....so if you are going to try and cite facts get them right. Just one more example of you either trying to muddy the waters or just clearly not knowing enough about this case to keep it straight.

My facts are right.. Please take the time to read and understand the posts in their entirety before accusing me of something. Its getting old having to correct your posts and rehash the same material from 20 pages ago because you didn't take the time.

Now how a bout you show me where I stated the 48% was tagged to Martin. Since you are accusing me of saying it please cite where you got it from.


Voice analysis post - Orland Sentinel

Orlando Sentinal - Trayvon Martin shooting: It's not George Zimmerman crying for help on 911 recording, 2 experts say

Legalities involved in voice print identification and admissability in court

I was partially mistaken on this part... Companies have been hired by differeing media outlets to analyze the tapes. The Sentinals experts have condluded its martin and not zimmerman. A friend of Zimmermans says the screams are his and the reliability percentage of the analysis expert places it at 48%.

I never stated it was Martins voice that was at 48%. I said Zimmerman's voice was 48%. The source is the Orlando Sentinel and is linked in my original post in this thread and now above.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Yes at some point George would have had to get out from under the unarmed teenager he just killed....and somehow he did that without getting blood from the gunshot wound to Trayvons chest on his own clothes. Id love to hear how you explain that.

What kind of explanation would you like? The basic on forensics and gunshot wounds, how they penetrate and exit and damage caused by caliber or would you like a medical explanation on how wounds can occur while showing no external bleeding? Or I can go into what people see on tv and show how its not even remotely accurate or close to real life.

Your choice.

Pick one and let me know.

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
I think you are gonna be sadly mistake when a judge rules against SYG, and then your gonna be even more disappointed when the forensics, autopsy, etc come out and totally disprove Zimmermans claims.

Why would I be sad about that.. If you bothered to read my personal position / opinion on this topic you should know better than to even make that comment. Since you once again failed to research, even though its been posted in this thread as well now, let me help.

I think Zimmerman's actions were in the wrong. I dont advocate civilians taking actions when there is no immediate danger to anyone. I dont advocate civilians confronting individuals. I dont advocate civilians trying to act in a law enforcement capacity. Zimmerman's actions started the ball rolling.

However, again, my personal opinions dont trump Florida Law. Because of that what I think personally is irrelevant. Why can you not understand that?

Please please please take time to read posts before making accusations that are not true.

Only thing I have to say here is to point out where you said that experts said they were 48% sure it was Martins voice.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Not really.. While I feel bad for the family I am not going to take the words of a distraught father. That ranks up there with the special prosecutor allowing mom to identify a voice on the tape when the experts from the orlando senitnal cant even for sure say who its is. They are at a 48% chance its Martins...

See those words up there.....you typed those. NO ONE has ever said they are 48% sure it is Martins voice. One expert said Zimmermans matched the screams by 48%....which in his expert opinion ruled him OUT as the screamer.

As for the rest of your post I didn't read it. No need to, I've pointed you to yours words, like you ask me to. Are you sticking by your story?

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
So the only witness to you that counts is Zimmerman then? I mean you are finding reasons to discount every other eye witness. If Zimmerman says it you believe it.

No.. What I am telling you is why these "witnesses" are in fact not "witnesses". You really need to get over whatever issue it is and stop trying to paint me as something im not. I understand how witnesses work in the courts. This is a murder trial.. A person who cannot say with 100% certainty that they specifically saw / heard etc having absolutely nothing of value in court.

To borrow the line from A few Good men -
It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove.

Its not enough for a person to say they think they saw or they think they heard or they heard but cant make it out or saw but couldn't make out any details. There is nothing in that testimony that would shed light on what occurred.

Using your mindset on this -
If the witness gets on the stand and goes through what they know they are going to face a cross examination. Those questions are going to be specific - Its going to be where was Mr. Zimmerman in relation to Mr. Martin? You don't know, ok let me ask this. The sounds you heard were they coming from Mr. Martin or Zimmerman? You aren't sure but you think its coming from this person because he sounds younger? If your window was closed how could you determine who was talking? If you cant identify what they were saying then how can you state who was talking and who was not? How many people were present? What were they wearing? Well maam if its so dark you cant make out details then how can you testify who said or did what?

Beyond a reasonable doubt. Putting those people on the stand who at best can state I think I saw this or I think I heard that will sink the PA's case. Because of their inability to give specific who did what play by play, let alone failing to even identify either of the people involved, it will raise doubt for the judge or jury.

Rule 1 for being a lawyer - never ask a question you dont already know the answer to. These "witnesses" dont even have an answer.. They have guesses.

So no im not disqualifying them for whatever reason you think. I am stating they dont even come close to being a witness in the first place. Its not enough to think one or the other or possible heard one or the other.

No absolute answer = no testimony

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Ive wasted enough time on you. Ive pointed out your lies and dishonesty twice now and its just a waste to keep going back and forth with someone who makes things up, twists information and flat out lies.

Again there is no need for name calling and acting childish. You keep calling me a liar and misleading yet you have failed to specifically point out what im supposedly lying about. What am I lying about? What am I being misleading about?

and really.. stop calling me names. Instead how about you spend the time tto refute my posts with actual information. It goes a lot farther than just packing your marbles up and going home.

reply to post by pizzanazi75


READ

Still waiting on your to provide your sources for the claims you made.. You seem to be ignoring that request.. Or did you mean to say opinion instead of passing them off as facts?

Also, the voice test is not valid in court. The people violated their own baseline requirement in order to get an accurate response. It requires a minimum of 10 words... They used 2.

Martins mom says it his voice...
Zimmerman's friend says its Zimmerman's voice..

In the end it wont matter because it wont be allowed in as evidence.

I hope this doesnt turn out the way it turned out for Emmet Till.....

Just saying.

Treyvon.

Originally posted by PLASIFISK
I hope this doesnt turn out the way it turned out for Emmet Till.....

Just saying.

Treyvon.

edit on 14-4-2012 by PLASIFISK because: (no reason given)

Why would it? Its not 1955 anymore is it?

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
So the only witness to you that counts is Zimmerman then? I mean you are finding reasons to discount every other eye witness. If Zimmerman says it you believe it.

No.. What I am telling you is why these "witnesses" are in fact not "witnesses". You really need to get over whatever issue it is and stop trying to paint me as something im not. I understand how witnesses work in the courts. This is a murder trial.. A person who cannot say with 100% certainty that they specifically saw / heard etc having absolutely nothing of value in court.

To borrow the line from A few Good men -
It doesn't matter what I believe, it only matters what I can prove.

Its not enough for a person to say they think they saw or they think they heard or they heard but cant make it out or saw but couldn't make out any details. There is nothing in that testimony that would shed light on what occurred.

Using your mindset on this -
If the witness gets on the stand and goes through what they know they are going to face a cross examination. Those questions are going to be specific - Its going to be where was Mr. Zimmerman in relation to Mr. Martin? You don't know, ok let me ask this. The sounds you heard were they coming from Mr. Martin or Zimmerman? You aren't sure but you think its coming from this person because he sounds younger? If your window was closed how could you determine who was talking? If you cant identify what they were saying then how can you state who was talking and who was not? How many people were present? What were they wearing? Well maam if its so dark you cant make out details then how can you testify who said or did what?

Beyond a reasonable doubt. Putting those people on the stand who at best can state I think I saw this or I think I heard that will sink the PA's case. Because of their inability to give specific who did what play by play, let alone failing to even identify either of the people involved, it will raise doubt for the judge or jury.

Rule 1 for being a lawyer - never ask a question you dont already know the answer to. These "witnesses" dont even have an answer.. They have guesses.

So no im not disqualifying them for whatever reason you think. I am stating they dont even come close to being a witness in the first place. Its not enough to think one or the other or possible heard one or the other.

No absolute answer = no testimony

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
Ive wasted enough time on you. Ive pointed out your lies and dishonesty twice now and its just a waste to keep going back and forth with someone who makes things up, twists information and flat out lies.

Again there is no need for name calling and acting childish. You keep calling me a liar and misleading yet you have failed to specifically point out what im supposedly lying about. What am I lying about? What am I being misleading about?

and really.. stop calling me names. Instead how about you spend the time tto refute my posts with actual information. It goes a lot farther than just packing your marbles up and going home.

You lied about the expert saying it was Zimmerman screaming. One example. You have twisted many other things, and now you are trying to back track and say you never said experts said it was 48% Trayvons voice.....i could go back and find the other examples but I don't need to, i pointed them all out in my original response to to you. Calling out your bad, dishonest behavior is not calling you names .... it stating the facts about what you have said that turned out to be lies....that is not name calling......unless the shoe fits.