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

reply to post by solarjetman


First off, X likes to link alot and talk like he knows what he is saying, he doesn't most of the time and he had very limited knowledge of this case. Thats been proven in past post. He can copy and paste and link a link just as well as the next guy, but most of the time what he is posting has no relevance to what he is trying to say or to this case. Sorry, he isn't very credible in my opinion, ive read his post and his reasoning.

The prosecution does have an uphill battle, but it is no more steep than the slope the defense is gonna have to climb to defend every thing the prosecution throws at them. Like TM screaming for his life, like how can GZ explain being in fear (like reported to police) and then still pursuing, how can TM body be found 30+ feet from the place he said he was suckerpuched and knocked to the ground, why witness saw him seconds after the shooting on top of TM....just to name a few. GZ has a bigger battle in front of him than the prosecution, imo.

Sometimes all the blame is placed on one person because one person deserves all the blame. GZ deserves all the blame imo because he chose to follow a teenager that was running away from him, he created the situation, Thats how I see it and why I blame him, not becuase I like TM more than GZ.

Nothing is being set up for a race war, from what I have seen except the GZ supporters that keep screaming that black people want a race war. I haven't seen the black community saying anything about a race war, just the opposite. Its the GZ side that keeps accusing the TM side of wanting a race war. Ive seen it more as the GZ side is itching and trying to incite a race war if anything.

I have picked my side based on all the available evidence out to the public. If evidence comes out to support GZ I will fully admit Ill eat my crow, but I didn't a side based on anything more than the evidence that is the public domain. I don't even have cable tv, so i have to get all my info online, I don't need to have the media tell me what is right and wrong.

It seems the GZ side only wants to make GZ a victim and a hero and to make TM a thug and a criminal..when in reality, with what we know just the opposite is true.

reply to post by popsmayhem


The targets wont be banned. Those particular targets are designed for not only practice but scenario shoots as well. The hand on the right can have targets put over it, like guns, a wallet, cellphone, etc to simulate a shoot dont shoot setup.

Secondly silhouette are common and have been used looooong before trayvon was even born. They can copyright all they want however it will not apply to the targets.

For those who don't understand - Targets are designed to simulate and encounter. Law Enforcement cannot apply the term of acceptable losses to their job in the manner the military can (completely different operational parameters). If we shoot and miss and drop grandma who is a half block farther down the road, we are accountable for that.

Please dont try and make something out of nothing.

reply to post by conspiracy nut


yeah I know that is what makes Dee Dee more credible than GZ....most likely TM just started walking faster ..... not running as GZ put it.....i don't know what GZ did, but he did do something to make TM walk faster.....my point was that.

So If I believe Dee Dee then TM still felt uneasy enough to walk faster away from GZ. Why?

If I believe GZ then TM felt in fear enough to RUN from GZ. Why?

Either way, no matter who you believe, TM picked up his pace to walking faster or running. Why?

He could have seen a gun and not mentioned it, just like he supposedly circled GZ car and he didn't mention that to dispatch. It all comes down to who you believe more and what the evidence points to. I don't know if TM saw the gun, but it is possible. That was my only point. Something made him want to get away from GZ my question is what is that something?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

The targets wont be banned. Those particular targets are designed for not only practice but scenario shoots as well. The hand on the right can have targets put over it, like guns, a wallet, cellphone, etc to simulate a shoot dont shoot setup.

Secondly silhouette are common and have been used looooong before trayvon was even born. They can copyright all they want however it will not apply to the targets.

For those who don't understand - Targets are designed to simulate and encounter. Law Enforcement cannot apply the term of acceptable losses to their job in the manner the military can (completely different operational parameters). If we shoot and miss and drop grandma who is a half block farther down the road, we are accountable for that.

Please dont try and make something out of nothing.

Thanks for the clarification..
You know what your talking
about on this..

They are after all just targets
i wouldn't buy one but none of my
business anyone else does..
I read they are collecting money
to add to zimmermans defense..

We shall see if he ever sees it.

Originally posted by fbluth
First off, X likes to link alot and talk like he knows what he is saying, he doesn't most of the time and he had very limited knowledge of this case.

Number one knock of the personal attacks.. We were doing just fine until you came back and you apparently are picking up right where you left off - attacking the poster because you cant attack the facts you don't like.

None of us know all the facts in the case, including yourself, and I have stated as much in this and other threads. Since its obvious you arent reading or understanding the posts feel free to ask other people about my posts, my position from a legal standpoint and my position from a personal point of view.

Originally posted by fbluth
Thats been proven in past post. He can copy and paste and link a link just as well as the next guy, but most of the time what he is posting has no relevance to what he is trying to say or to this case.

Florida State law in addition to federal appeals and Supreme Court rulings are VERY much relevant to this situation. I am sorry if you are not capable of understanding that but as the sayings, in general, go you cant fix stupid and you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink.

Please explain to us how the Florida Statutes and Case law I have posted don't apply to this situation. Maybe this time you can actually answer the questions instead of attacking me?

Originally posted by fbluth
Sorry, he isn't very credible in my opinion, ive read his post and his reasoning.

Its blatantly apparent you have not read my posts.. What is blatantly obvious is you are not understanding how the law works, how Florida law is applied, or how the police / judicial system work.

So again, please
* - cite your sources that counters any one of my arguments.
* - cite your sources that contradict the links I have supplied to Florida statutes.
* - cite your sources that counter Federal appeals / US Supreme Court rulings in this matter.
* - cite your sources that shows I don't know police procedure (something you are still refusing to do).
* - shows us the complete autopsy report / crime scene diagram (not media / 3rd party reconstructions) that support your theory that Zimmerman could not have been injured or hit his head on concrete based on location of the body.
* - cite all Florida laws that I "got wrong"
* - tell us what your background is... You have still refused to do that.

This is your problem... You attack others, make claims yet to date you have failed to even support one of your positions.

Either put up or shut up. I am done with you acting like a jerk.

reply to post by fbluth

I figured such a ridiculous answer.

Sorry.

I was just pointing out that the evidence supporting your daydream is non-existent. You can use circumstance to support your idea here, but it isn't going to get anywhere in a court of law.

reply to post by Xcathdra


My opinion of you is not a personal attack. Its the opinion I have formed based on reading your post. I don't think you are that informed about this case and I stated my opinion as such.

Ive never claimed to know all the facts of the case. Read my post. I have claimed to know everything that is able to the public. Which I do. So what is your problem with that?

You copy and paste alot of links you think are relevant but have no clue on whether they have any bearing on this case. The judge will decide that, not you. You can link all day, that doesn't mean it has any relevance to this case. We won't know exactly what all laws and past cases will be relevant to this case until it is all said and done. Thats just how it is.

I made a claim based on the available evidence to the public. I stated that it was in my opinion and I stated why I thought that. I stated that IMO that TM may have seen the gun because SOMETHING made him run. He didn't just decide to take a job instead of a walk, something triggered that action. I stated what I thought that something was. I never stated it was a fact or that I had proof, but you don't have proof to prove me wrong either.

I brought you up because someone used you as a credible source, just like any source I scrutinized it and responded accordingly. I don't find you to be a credible source, that is my right. That is not a personal attack. If you don't want to be scrutinized as a source of information then ask other to not use you in that manner. I stated why I didn't feel the source was credible, I didn't personally attack you, even though that is all you chose to see.

The personal attack come when you call me a jerk. I didn't call you any names so why did you feel you had to resort to such tactics? Im sorry your feeling were hurt because I don't find you a credible source. Sorry, nothing personal.

reply to post by butcherguy


Umm, once again you are wrong. The prosecution may absolutely theorized that TM was aware of the gun before GZ got of the car, GZ can take the stand and refute that claim if he wants to. You see how that works? I know you don't, I know you know exactly how all of this is going to play out, you know exactly what the prosecution can and can't say, and will and won't say.

The fact is the prosecution will have to THEORIZE what TM did, he isn't here to tell them. They have to look at the evidence and facts available to them and present their THEORY or in a word you can understand, their case. That is what they do. It is a pity you don't understand that. They are trying to tell the story of a dead person, they have to theorize what happened based on the facts and evidence because that person isn't here to tell them their side, get it?

Of course you don't .

So tell me wise one, why do you think TM ran from GZ? Based on a logical scenario with the available facts and evidence, not something you want to use to try and undermine me? Why would you say TM ran?

reply to post by fbluth

Since we are operating on theories......

Maybe Trayvon was casing his next house to burgle. Maybe he had seen George on watch before. Maybe that is why he ran.

Can you refute that theory?

Maybe it wasn't just the 12 year old Trayvon we got all the nice pics of in the media afterwards. Maybe it was the 17 year old Trayvon that was staying with his dad because he was suspended from school. Maybe it was the Trayvon that had been bragging about 'swinging' on a bus driver.

reply to post by fbluth

So tell me wise one

Here is something for you to ponder.

Ever here about the trial that OJ Simpson was involved in regarding the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman?
The prosecution thought they had a pretty strong case.
They had OJ's blood trail leaving the murder scene.
They had both victims blood in OJ's white Bronco.
They had a trail of OJ's blood going from the Bronco into his house.
They had an ex-husband with a history of violence against his ex-wife, the victim.
They had a suspect that ran with his passport and a lot of money when they prepared to arrest him.
That is a pretty strong case. Not a lot of imagination required.....

They did not get a conviction.

reply to post by butcherguy


Maybe he was, but if that was true GZ would have said something to dispatch, one would think. Like, he's looking in windows, cars, trying open doors, he didn't say any of that. He just said he was acting suspicious, what does that mean? TM probably thought GZ was suspicious.

GZ spotted TM and called dispatch on him at least 3 minutes before he ever said, 'he ran'....so what made TM wait all that time to run? He had called Dee Dee and told her that he knew GZ was watching him, so we know that TM was aware of him to begin with and didn't run right away, so what made him all of the sudden run?

There is always the possiblity that he never ran at all. He may have just started walking faster, like Dee Dee said he was gonna do. We don't even know for sure he actually ran, that is only if you believe GZ. According to Dee Dee he only started walking faster. The point is he picked up the pace? Why?

If you wanna stick to your theory, then why didn't GZ mention any of his casing to the dispatch?

Maybe it was the girlfriend hitting-police officer hitting-throwing woman out of bars and injuring them-jekyll and hyde-wanna be cop - with a lit fuse waiting to go off - that chased down TM and killed him in cold blood. that is also possible, just as much as what you claim, right? At least what I am claiming, his violent past, can be documented, ... you accusations against Trayvon hitting a bus driver is base on one tweet from a hacked twitter account from white supremacist ... I think my vetting of GZ is a little better than your vetting of TM ....

reply to post by butcherguy


They didn't get a conviction for murder because OJ wasn't guilty of murder. He is guilty of covering up a murder that his son Jason committed. That is why OJ was not convicted. They charged him with murder, when they should have charged him with accessory to murder after the fact. That is the states fault.

Jason Simpson killed Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson. Look it up. We can talk all about that in a different thread if you want to start one. I know all about that case too. ;-)

reply to post by fbluth

Maybe he was, but if that was true GZ would have said something to dispatch, one would think. Like, he's looking in windows, cars, trying open doors, he didn't say any of that. He just said he was acting suspicious, what does that mean? TM probably thought GZ was suspicious.

If you would notice, I didn't specifically say that Zimmerman saw him casing a house to burgle. I said maybe he was casing a house to burgle.

My point is that he may have been doing that(given his history) and people that are up to no good sometimes run if they think they have been caught doing something.
It simply isn't necessary for Zimmerman to have seen him doing it. It has to do with Trayvon and what may have been going on in his mind.

reply to post by fbluth

They didn't get a conviction for murder because OJ wasn't guilty of murder. He is guilty of covering up a murder that his son Jason committed

This tells me a lot.
But as you said, it belongs in a different thread.

I will be content to wait for the verdict in a trial, if it even comes before a jury.

reply to post by butcherguy


I doubt it will... The PA has to figure out how to proceed from the Detectives testimony when it came to the lie in his PC statement. If they cannot support that claim in the PC, then the PC is worthless since it can't support the charges.

reply to post by butcherguy


I know you didn't say he was doing it for sure, I was simply asking why you would think that since GZ never said anything to the sort on the dispatch call. Just like I said maybe GZ showed his gun.....neither one of us know, you seem to thing TM was a bad person based on what information you have gained from a hacked twitter account and leaked high school records, I think GZ fits the profile of a murder better based on his past of violence that I have already talked about. I based my opinions on confirmable evidence like the police reports of the incidents in question. You based your opinions on few tweets, there is a big difference.

My point is people like GZ who has a history of violence and calling police on black males at least 8 times in the past 14 months may have been doing something wrong by showing his gun to TM. To me GZ past highly suggests that. To me he seems to have a need to be the authority in all situations.

To me what was going on in Zimmermans mind was this 'f'ing punk ahole' wasn't going to get away on his watch. See we know what GZ was thinking, he told us on the dispatch call, we can only theorize what TM was doing, GZ took the right to question TM for us. Thats why he is charged and the prosecution will try to speak for him.

reply to post by fbluth

I know you didn't say he was doing it for sure,

Did you read my post?

I am trying to convey to you is that Trayvon may well have run simply because he was up to no good. He may have thought that Zimmerman saw him doing something illegal. That does not mean that Zimmerman saw him doing whatever it may have been.

reply to post by butcherguy


I don't know why that tells you alot.

The entire documentary was on Youtube, it looks like youtube pulled it. But you should look into it, this guy investigated basically since it happened, he was able to get jason possessions from storage he failed to pay....he was able to get the car jason owned at the time of the murder....the LAPD did not look into jasons background which was filled with hospital stays for rage....jason had just started a new job as chef and nicole brown simpons and the entire family was to come to dinner at his restaurant the night of the murders ..... she blew him off just before time to show.....the ivestigator has an altered time card from jason employment the night of the murders....he has witness statements from people who worked with jason at the time and jasons gf that all confirm he left work and was alone at the time of the murders.....

The only blood of OJ's found at the crime seen had a chemical in that is only found in labs. They found DNA from an unknown person. The only evidence is that OJ simpson was at the crime scene AFTER the murder and he was completely set up by the LAPD FOR the murders, but all the evidence points to Jason Simpson, and it points to OJ being guilty accessory to murder after the fact......

I never thought Id believe it either, but the evidence it overwhelming that is was Jason Simpson and not OJ.....look it up, it is very very interesting. Like I said, we can talk about it in another thread.

But dont think you know me because I know think OJ simpson is innocent of the actual murder and only guilty of covering up, that will do you no good, not in this conversation or any other.

O.J. Simpson Innocent? Private Eye Claims Simpson's Son, Jason, Did The Killings

reply to post by fbluth

leaked high school records,

So those were false?
The family came out with the info that he was suspended for marijuana possession, in public..... Not exactly a leak.
Why did they do that? Is there something worse that hasn't been made public?

Originally posted by fbluth
My opinion of you is not a personal attack. Its the opinion I have formed based on reading your post. I don't think you are that informed about this case and I stated my opinion as such.

Its an opinion when you say I think. Its not an opinion when you constantly accuse me yet not supporting the accusation itself. Like how you told me I know nothing about Police Procedure, and when I proved you wrong you never followed through with your claim that you know them. You never posted them / cited them.

You attacked me, and when you got called out for lying, you switched gears.

Originally posted by fbluth
Ive never claimed to know all the facts of the case. Read my post. I have claimed to know everything that is able to the public. Which I do. So what is your problem with that?

The issue is your inability to read peoples posts, understand process and your stellar ability to confuse facts with your opinion. The problem stems from the following - Its not what you state, its how you state it.

Originally posted by fbluth
You copy and paste alot of links you think are relevant but have no clue on whether they have any bearing on this case. The judge will decide that, not you. You can link all day, that doesn't mean it has any relevance to this case. We won't know exactly what all laws and past cases will be relevant to this case until it is all said and done. Thats just how it is.

This is where your ignorace of the Judicial system shows. The statutes ive posted are not in question, they are in play. The judge will determine if the evidence presented justifies the charge (IE meets the elemnts of the crime) or if it falls short. The Judge / jury will then hear the evidence, if it makes it to trial and I doubt it will, and will have to decide if the PA's version is believeable. So stop trying to lecture me on a topic I am quite familiar with. You are only embarrasing yourself.

The SYG and Self defense statutes are in play - thats not an opinion, that is a fact.
The State case law is in play - thats not an opinion its a fact.
Federal appeals case law is in play, that is not an opinion it is fact.
The US Supreme Court rulings are in play, that is not an opinion it is a fact.

If you are still lost research the term search incident to arrest stemming from a traffic stop. Then look up the Arizona case of Arizona V. Gant. That state level case made it all the way to the US supreme court, creating case law for every single state in the nation.

I dont know how to make this more clear to you - They are relevant, they are fact and yet you ignore them.

If you didnt act like such a pretentious prig you would understand the difference. If you would stop calling people names and making accusations you can't support, we could go back to having a real debate. However, your response to Butcher, telling him he is wrong while arguing its just your opinion, explains your mind set and lack of consitency.

If its just your opinion, how is butcher wrong?

Originally posted by fbluth
I made a claim based on the... prove me wrong either.

The proof that you are confused on this issue is evident in your posts and your refusal to engage in civil debate. You continually claim your theories as fact while attacking others who dont agree with you. You have done it to me, you have done it to Butrcher, as well as many others going back in this thread. The fact you dont see it explains a lot and is problematic.

Originally posted by fbluth
I brought you up because someone used you as a credible source, just like any source I scrutinized it and responded accordingly. I don't find you to be a credible source, that is my right. That is not a personal attack.

It is a personal attack and for you to try and says its not is a joke. Just because you dont understand how the legal system works does not make ME an unreliable source. Ive been doing this job for many years now and I see people like you come and go, people who ignore facts simply because you dont understand them. You dont scrutinize anything I post. That is evident with your continued accusations about me being wrong yet supplying nothing to support your claim.

Evidence of that is your response. I again asked you several questions and you once again ignored them. If you are so right and we are so wrong, then back your accusations up. If you cant, them stop making them.

Originally posted by fbluth
If you don't want to be scrutinized as a source of information then ask other to not use you in that manner. I stated why I didn't feel the source was credible, I didn't personally attack you, even though that is all you chose to see.

You dont scrutinize.. You attack.. You are rude, arrogant and ignorant when it comes to the law and how it works. You attack anyone who proves you wrong / challenges you to provide evidence to support your claim and what do you do? You try to backtrack by stating it was jus your opinon.

Thats not gonna fly and is a cowards excuse. You made the claims against me and others, now support those claims with facts or appologize for lying and changing your story in an effort to obfuscate from being called out.

Originally posted by fbluth
The personal attack come when you call me a jerk. I didn't call you any names so why did you feel you had to resort to such tactics? Im sorry your feeling were hurt because I don't find you a credible source. Sorry, nothing personal.

My feelings are not hurt and you should really stop trying to twist words or put them in peoples mouths to deflect from your own absurdities.

Are you EVER going to get around to backing your claims against me and a few othert members?
Are you going to provide us a link to the pollice procedures you claimed to know?
Are you going to answer the questions others have posed of you that you see fit to ignore, most likely because you cant answer them?

As I stated we were doing fine, debating in a civil manner and trying to understand each others positions in this case, and then you come back along and pick up right where you left off.

To stave off further embarrasment would you please take the time to answer the questions people pose to you while at the same time could you stop derailing this thread with your petty issues?

I could care less if you like me or not.. I am not the topic of this thread yet for some reason you cant grasp that either.

Stay on topic, back your claims, or be ignored.