Judge: Zimmerman defense gets to see Martin's records [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Judge: Zimmerman defense gets to see Martin's records


stormspotter
10-19-2012, 16:07
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-zimmerman-defense-see-martin-records-195306228.html

countrygun
10-19-2012, 16:12
Even more important from the article,

"In regards to the emergency motion, O'Mara said in the filing he that he learned during a recent deposition of police Sgt. Joseph Santiago that investigators held several meetings in the weeks after the shooting and reached a consensus that Zimmerman should not be charged with a crime.

O'Mara contends that information was only learned through a question during the deposition of Santiago and that the state never disclosed the existence of the meeting or what was discussed during them.

"If all those witnesses had a similar opinion, I'm very concerned of what the basis for the prosecution is," O'Mara said. "We certainly now have a lot more to look into. I didn't know we'd be going down this path. Now it's been opened up to us, we're going to investigate it to wherever it leads us."

stevelyn
10-19-2012, 17:19
"If all those witnesses had a similar opinion, I'm very concerned of what the basis for the prosecution is,"


Perhaps it's a politically correct appeasement to keep the illiterate, low-IQ, feral urban underclass from acting up.....or acting out. Don't know where they find the statutory authority to do so, but that's what it is.

jeanderson
10-19-2012, 18:00
Perhaps it's a politically correct appeasement to keep the illiterate, low-IQ, feral urban underclass from acting up.....or acting out. Don't know where they find the statutory authority to do so, but that's what it is.

The prosecutor was pressured to charge Zimmerman with murder. Anything less would have caused riot among the "urban underclass". The thinking was that by the time Zimmerman was acquitted (and he will be), the natives would not be so restless.

Of course, if Zimmerman is acquitted and the "urban underclass" is still in an uproar about Obama losing, he'll could break loose.

Trew2Life
10-19-2012, 19:33
It's facinating how citizens who stand up for justice and fairness in our legal system are considered 'urban underclass' and vigilante and posse mentality is the norm.

The hypocrisy is almost as distasteful as the ignorance.
A human being was killed by a man who stalked him and shot him down and that should be legal?

countrygun
10-19-2012, 19:40
It's facinating how citizens who stand up for justice and fairness in our legal system are considered 'urban underclass' and vigilante and posse mentality is the norm.

The hypocrisy is almost as distasteful as the ignorance.
A human being was killed by a man who stalked him and shot him down and that should be legal?



Oh, it 's you,

http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee518/CountryG/likeadog.png



Sorry, I didn't recognize you without the hat.


My my, not too strong on the idea of the right to self-defense against attack by a teenage thug.

Why am I not surprised?

BlownFiveLiter
10-19-2012, 19:50
Oh, it 's you,

http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee518/CountryG/likeadog.png



Sorry, I didn't recognize you without the hat.


My my, not too strong on the idea of the right to self-defense against attack by a teenage thug.

Why am I not surprised?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

DOC44
10-19-2012, 20:00
I found it interesting that the prosecutor is arguing that he wants this trial to tried in the court room not in public opinion and that all the publicity would make it difficult of field a jury..... seems like he needs to be talking to Trayvon's mamma and daddy and their lawyer who were on national news tonight not wanting the true image of Trayvon through exposure of his school records including displinary actions and social media records.

Doc44

Gunnut 45/454
10-19-2012, 20:08
It's facinating how citizens who stand up for justice and fairness in our legal system are considered 'urban underclass' and vigilante and posse mentality is the norm.

The hypocrisy is almost as distasteful as the ignorance.
A human being was killed by a man who stalked him and shot him down and that should be legal?

And you got proof of this? You obviously haven't read nor seen any of the news coverage on this case! Cause what you stated is a falsehood!:faint: Are you going to deny that Martin attacked Zimmerman? Remember there are two witnesses to this.

Trew2Life
10-19-2012, 21:35
And you got proof of this? You obviously haven't read nor seen any of the news coverage on this case! Cause what you stated is a falsehood!:faint: Are you going to deny that Martin attacked Zimmerman? Remember there are two witnesses to this.

Proof!? Falsehood!? I believe everything I've stated is self-evident.

1. Citizens are standing up for justice
2. They've been called the 'urban-underclass'
3. Vigilante and posse mentality is becoming the norm.
4. George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin, first by car, then by foot and shot and killed him.

No matter what might be revealed in Trayvon Martins background, Zimmerman has a background as well. Whether or not either of their backgrounds is relevant to the night in question is for the legal system and evidence to determine.

Are you going to deny that Zimmerman followed and shot Trayvon? What makes Zimmerman's right to stand his ground any more greater than Trayvon right to stand his ground?

This case must be investigated. Zimmerman should be found guilty.

pipedreams
10-19-2012, 21:45
Oh, it 's you,

http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee518/CountryG/likeadog.png



Sorry, I didn't recognize you without the hat.


My my, not too strong on the idea of the right to self-defense against attack by a teenage thug.

Why am I not surprised?

:perfect10::wave:

countrygun
10-19-2012, 21:50
What makes Zimmerman's right to stand his ground any more greater than Trayvon right to stand his ground?

This case must be investigated. Zimmerman should be found guilty.

Zimmerman did nothing illegal and Martin attacked him.

Martin came back and found Zimmerman and attacked him.

there was no "Stand your ground" involved.

Martin had no right to do that.

end of story and Martin

Gunnut 45/454
10-19-2012, 21:58
Trew2Life
Yep he sure did follow TM please show me the law that he broke in doing so. Nothing illegal about it! I don't see the thugs going to prison for stalking there victims? Please point out a case where a thug was prosecuted for this crime? Que crickets as you'll not find one! Also I noticed you didn't deny TM assualted Zimmerman! So when assaulted one has no right to self defense? You sure you don't live in England? As we Americans have an inherent God given right to self defense.:supergrin:

jeepinbandit
10-19-2012, 21:59
Proof!? Falsehood!? I believe everything I've stated is self-evident.

1. Citizens are standing up for justice
2. They've been called the 'urban-underclass'
3. Vigilante and posse mentality is becoming the norm.
4. George Zimmerman followed Trayvon Martin, first by car, then by foot and shot and killed him.

No matter what might be revealed in Trayvon Martins background, Zimmerman has a background as well. Whether or not either of their backgrounds is relevant to the night in question is for the legal system and evidence to determine.

Are you going to deny that Zimmerman followed and shot Trayvon? What makes Zimmerman's right to stand his ground any more greater than Trayvon right to stand his ground?

This case must be investigated. Zimmerman should be found guilty.

You knowledge of the "facts" is amazing. :rofl:

IvanVic
10-19-2012, 22:18
I like how both sides pretend they know exactly what happened, when neither do, and accuse the other side of lying. Hilarious.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Gundude
10-19-2012, 22:42
Zimmerman did nothing illegal and Martin attacked him.Since when does someone have to do something illegal to be responsible for escalating? There are tons of legal things one can do to escalate a situation. Escalating a situation is taken into account when one subsequently claims self-defense. The fact that he did nothing illegal before shooting Martin is completely irrelevant.

Martin came back and found Zimmerman and attacked him.Naturally, you don't know that.

there was no "Stand your ground" involved.

Martin had no right to do that.

end of story and MartinSaying "end of story" doesn't end anything. There will still be a trial. The story has barely started.

Gunnut 45/454
10-19-2012, 23:08
IvanVic
So all that has been reported in the news is false? All that Zimmerman, the DA, cops have said in the press is false? I've followed this case from day one very closely read every account. Please tell me what I've said that isn't true. There is no law that says Zimmerman couldn't follow what he though was a thief/burglar. He called 911 to report a suspicious person. TM called his girl freind! Now he really felt threaten? That person instead of going on to daddies house decided he would beat on the guy that followed him-which he did -as witnessed by two people.
Instead of letting the prep beat him to death Mr. Zimmerman exersised his God given right to defend himself! Which under FL law is perfectly legal to do! I know these facts don't sit well with those that think no one should kill another. But thats life deal with it!:whistling:

Trew2Life
10-19-2012, 23:39
Trew2Life

Yep he sure did follow TM please show me the law that he broke in doing so. Nothing illegal about it!

None that I am aware of.


I don't see the thugs going to prison for stalking there victims? Please point out a case where a thug was prosecuted for this crime?

Criminals in my neighborhood get tried for their crimes. I don't know about where you live. But in an interesting twist to your question, are you familiar with the John McNeil case?

McNeil shot and killed a man on his property who had been menancing his son with a knife. Brian Epp charged toward McNeil, and reaching for his pocket. McNeil shot him. McNeil was charged with and convicted of murder. Despite Georgia's stand your ground law.


Que crickets as you'll not find one! Also I noticed you didn't deny TM assualted Zimmerman! So when assaulted one has no right to self defense? You sure you don't live in England? As we Americans have an inherent God given right to self defense.

Again, you're making the assumptions as to whose right to defend themself trumps whoms. TM also was breaking no law as he walked home from the store. He could have very well felt threatened by GZ's presence. Especially after being slow-followed by him down the street.

P.S.

I squash crickets!

oldman11
10-19-2012, 23:51
Oh, it 's you,

http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee518/CountryG/likeadog.png



Sorry, I didn't recognize you without the hat.


My my, not too strong on the idea of the right to self-defense against attack by a teenage thug.

Why am I not surprised?
You got that right.

Trew2Life
10-20-2012, 00:00
IvanVic
TM called his girl freind! Now he really felt threaten? That person instead of going on to daddies house decided he would beat on the guy that followed him-which he did -as witnessed by two people.

Right there is where you let go of reality and float away into the world of speculation.

If you've been following the news as closely as you say, you should know that the two witness accounts were reported to be in stark conflict with each other.

IvanVic
10-20-2012, 04:01
IvanVic
So all that has been reported in the news is false? All that Zimmerman, the DA, cops have said in the press is false? I've followed this case from day one very closely read every account. Please tell me what I've said that isn't true. There is no law that says Zimmerman couldn't follow what he though was a thief/burglar. He called 911 to report a suspicious person. TM called his girl freind! Now he really felt threaten? That person instead of going on to daddies house decided he would beat on the guy that followed him-which he did -as witnessed by two people.
Instead of letting the prep beat him to death Mr. Zimmerman exersised his God given right to defend himself! Which under FL law is perfectly legal to do! I know these facts don't sit well with those that think no one should kill another. But thats life deal with it!:whistling:

Your account of what has been reported is different than what I have seen from the testimony thus far. Got a link to the witness testimony that backs up the part of your story where you assume to know exactly who started the physical confrontation?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Sam Spade
10-20-2012, 05:40
Again, you're making the assumptions as to whose right to defend themself trumps whoms. TM also was breaking no law as he walked home from the store. He could have very well felt threatened by GZ's presence. Especially after being slow-followed by him down the the street

"Feelings" when there has been no attack against you do not justify the initiation of force against another. "Self-defense" does not come into play when there has been no attack upon you. Absent a crime by Zimmerman, Trayvon had no right to play, much less trump the other guy's right.


Being a East-coast liberal, you may not understand this, so I thought I'd explain.

Trew2Life
10-20-2012, 06:09
"Feelings" when there has been no attack against you do not justify the initiation of force against another. "Self-defense" does not come into play when there has been no attack upon you. Absent a crime by Zimmerman, Trayvon had no right to play, much less trump the other guy's right.


Being a East-coast liberal, you may not understand this, so I thought I'd explain.

Unjustified "feelings" are what initiated this entire tragedy. GZ had a' feeling' TM was suspicious.

You're automatically assuming TM initiated the physcial contact. The question is, were you there? No. Are the witness accounts 100% reliable?

DOC44
10-20-2012, 06:18
Unjustified "feelings" are what initiated this entire tragedy. GZ had a' feeling' TM was suspicious.

You're automatically assuming TM initiated the physcial contact. The question is, were you there? No. Are the witness accounts 100% reliable?

is your imagination 100% reliable?:dunno:

Doc44

Sam Spade
10-20-2012, 06:25
Unjustified "feelings" are what initiated this entire tragedy. GZ had a' feeling' TM was suspicious.

You're automatically assuming TM initiated the physcial contact. The question is, were you there? No. Are the witness accounts 100% reliable?

First, Z did nothing illegal based on his feelings. That alone is enough to put the rest of your comparisons in the garbage.

Second, I'm not "automatically assuming" anything. (As many times as you say that, I gotta wonder about projection.) The physical evidence is what backs Z on this point. We have the tape where he says he lost Trayvon and is returning to his car, we have the nature of the injuries, we have the location of the death struggle compared to the travel routes.

Stop being so emotional. You'll do better if you dump all this feeling crap and deal in fact.

jeepinbandit
10-20-2012, 06:26
Right there is where you let go of reality and float away into the world of speculation.

If you've been following the news as closely as you say, you should know that the two witness accounts were reported to be in stark conflict with each other.

So you should know that one eye witness actually saw Martin ontop of Zimmerman and the other "eyewitness" only HEARD the altercation because she was too scared to look outside or go outside yet made the accusation on TV that Zimmerman was the aggressor.


Sent from my iPhone

Cavalry Doc
10-20-2012, 08:35
There is no need to jump to conclusions, I've been saying all along that there might not be any good guys in this story. But you can't deny that as time goes on, it has been looking more and more that Zimmerman should not have been charged. I hope the trial is fair and enlightening, and that in the end, justice is done.

Very glad that Zimmerman is suing NBC for editing the 911 call. Hope he gets a pallet of 100 dollar bills over that one.

English
10-20-2012, 10:11
Proof!? Falsehood!?....
This case must be investigated. Zimmerman should be found guilty.

I am almost inclined to believe you are joking. You assert that he should be found guilty before there has even been a trial! That is a great kind of justice.

English

countrygun
10-20-2012, 10:40
I am almost inclined to believe you are joking. You assert that he should be found guilty before there has even been a trial! That is a great kind of justice.

English


That is the way Liberals work in theis Country . In this case they scream and yell about martin's rights, without having been a witness to the events themselves, but are perfectly willing to witness Zimmerman's rights being abused if it gives them what they want.

Some people decided he was guilty the because of his white-sounding name and the media identifying him as such. After that it became a racist witch hunt.

I am glad that his attorneys are going to have more facts to work with, some people's decisions are short on those.

QNman
10-20-2012, 12:01
This case must be investigated. Zimmerman should be found guilty.

So, it should be investigated why? You've already convicted him; why investigate when you're so ready to offer a verdict without one?

countrygun
10-20-2012, 12:03
So, it should be investigated why? You've already convicted him; why investigate when you're so ready to offer a verdict without one?

That's how liberals work,

"Komrade you have been accused, but not to fear, we will give you a fair trial before your execution"

IvanVic
10-20-2012, 12:22
That's how liberals work,



I guess you just ignored all of the posts from people convicting Martin, huh?

It's not only how liberals work, it's how partisans work, liberal or conservative.

countrygun
10-20-2012, 12:25
I guess you just ignored all of the posts from people convicting Martin, huh?

It's not only how liberals work, it's how partisans work, liberal or conservative.

Funny, I didn't think self-defense was a partisan issue, unless something is coloring your judgement

Trew2Life
10-20-2012, 12:29
So, it should be investigated why? You've already convicted him; why investigate when you're so ready to offer a verdict without one?

Yes. It should be investigated to see if twelve jurors may find him guilty as well. I can only convict him in the court of public opinion. Jurors with evidence and testimony will determine his guilt in the court of law. As it should be.

Trew2Life
10-20-2012, 12:32
I am almost inclined to believe you are joking. You assert that he should be found guilty before there has even been a trial! That is a great kind of justice.

English

Hey F. Lee Bailey, I said he should be 'found guilty'. Now the last time I checked, in order to be 'found guilty' you have to have a judge and jury and prosecution and a defense (a.k.a., a trial) That IS a great kind of justice.

domin8ss
10-20-2012, 12:50
There is an old Chinese saying (paraphrased), A smart person knows to listen to both sides. A wise person knows which side to listen to.

In case some of you guys don't get it (True2Life), somewhere in the middle is the truth. Assuming guilt before conclusion of a trial is na´ve and ignorant.

IvanVic
10-20-2012, 13:08
Funny, I didn't think self-defense was a partisan issue, unless something is coloring your judgement

And we know which one of them started the physical confrontation how, exactly? Do you have access to information that the rest of us don't?

Gundude
10-20-2012, 13:22
I am glad that his attorneys are going to have more facts to work with, some people's decisions are short on those.Shortest on facts are those who say he should've never been arrested in the first place. Based on what? Biased opinion pieces selectively citing evidence which may or may not be accurate?

My position has always been that even if he was in the position where he had to shoot to save himself, the circumstances may be that he still has a price to pay for contributing to that situation.

Those who insist he is innocent and mock those who suggest otherwise are just as bad as those who insist he is guilty. Neither have the facts to back them up. All we have is speculation about what may have happened, and there's nothing wrong with discussing those things. It's still possible to discuss them as adults and not five year olds.

countrygun
10-20-2012, 14:05
And we know which one of them started the physical confrontation how, exactly? Do you have access to information that the rest of us don't?

Do you remember the coroners report when matched against the police reports of Zimmerman's injuries? Look at who's knuckles were injured versus who's head.

there is also the incredible hurdle of logic you want to do an end run around concerning the recording, Zimmerman called the cops, hardly what you would do if you were planning on starting a fis figth, then there is Z saying he didn't know where M was, and agreeing to not follow him. Them we hear (from the only person concerned enough to call the cops at that point, Mr. Zimmerman) that M has returned. Add to that the fact that when Z saw something/someone he thought was suspicious he took the reasonable and prudent step of calling the cops. If M had felt threatened he had a phone with which he could have taken the same reasonable and prudent step, instead he texts a girl.

Listen to the whole unedited recording again.

Gunnut 45/454
10-20-2012, 14:21
Gundude
Based on the FL Stand your Ground law! It says they can't arrest you unless they have evidence that you had no right to claim selfdefense. Zimmerman had plenty of evidence that it was selfdefense. There was no evidence to the contrary. Witness stating TM was on top banging Z's head in the ground /punching him. TM had no defensive wounds. Z's statement of what happened. Forensic proof of angle /distance of the shot.:upeyes:

countrygun
10-20-2012, 14:35
Gundude
Based on the FL Stand your Ground law! It says they can't arrest you unless they have evidence that you had no right to claim selfdefense. Zimmerman had plenty of evidence that it was selfdefense. There was no evidence to the contrary. Witness stating TM was on top banging Z's head in the ground /punching him. TM had no defensive wounds. Z's statement of what happened. Forensic proof of angle /distance of the shot.:upeyes:

It really goes well above the need to invoke "stand your ground", it was a life-threatening assault.

IvanVic
10-20-2012, 15:04
Do you remember the coroners report when matched against the police reports of Zimmerman's injuries? Look at who's knuckles were injured versus who's head.

there is also the incredible hurdle of logic you want to do an end run around concerning the recording, Zimmerman called the cops, hardly what you would do if you were planning on starting a fis figth, then there is Z saying he didn't know where M was, and agreeing to not follow him. Them we hear (from the only person concerned enough to call the cops at that point, Mr. Zimmerman) that M has returned. Add to that the fact that when Z saw something/someone he thought was suspicious he took the reasonable and prudent step of calling the cops. If M had felt threatened he had a phone with which he could have taken the same reasonable and prudent step, instead he texts a girl.

Listen to the whole unedited recording again.

None of this is proof of who started the confrontation, only evidence that a confrontation occurred. If you want to criticize others for jumping to conclusions and making unfounded assumptions about this case, maybe you should take your own advice.

Allfal
10-20-2012, 16:32
None of this is proof of who started the confrontation, only evidence that a confrontation occurred. If you want to criticize others for jumping to conclusions and making unfounded assumptions about this case, maybe you should take your own advice.

Perhaps you should read the transcripts from the 1st bond Hearing. GZ's attorney calls the police investigator to the stand. He asks the investigator several different ways if they have any evidence that contradicts GZ's version of how the conflict began. The officer replied that they had no evidence that contradicted GZ's account. Now, with the emergency sequestration request, it appears that other police officers involved in this case maintain in deposition that there was no evidence to support any charge.

countrygun
10-20-2012, 16:33
None of this is proof of who started the confrontation, only evidence that a confrontation occurred. If you want to criticize others for jumping to conclusions and making unfounded assumptions about this case, maybe you should take your own advice.

I know a bit about homicide juries, BTDT got the shirt.

Who did what with their phones is going to be huge to a jury as to intent.

The evidence of the injuries is another big piece.

The recording supports Zimmerman and there isn't anything, the public has access to at this point, that refutes it. It is a fact, any doubt of that is speculation, there is a difference.


Unless it can be proven that Zimmerman was in the commission of a crime (that's legal talk for an illegal act, not just something you don't like) then Martin had no justification for attacking him. There is NO evidence (thats another legal term that pretty much means "not your speculation") that Zimmerman is not telling the truth. Martin's autopsy shows no damage, save a bullet hole, other than that which corresponds to him inflicting the noted injuries on Zimmerman.

Now, go ahead and tell everyone about your theory that Zimmerman attacked Martin by visciously, and repeatedly, slamming his face into Martin's fists:upeyes:

QNman
10-20-2012, 18:02
Yes. It should be investigated to see if twelve jurors may find him guilty as well. I can only convict him in the court of public opinion. Jurors with evidence and testimony will determine his guilt in the court of law. As it should be.

Hey F. Lee Bailey, I said he should be 'found guilty'. Now the last time I checked, in order to be 'found guilty' you have to have a judge and jury and prosecution and a defense (a.k.a., a trial) That IS a great kind of justice.

Would you be satisfied if he were tried and found NOT guilty? You see where your personal politics are leading, don't you?

Trew2Life
10-20-2012, 20:22
There is an old Chinese saying (paraphrased), A smart person knows to listen to both sides. A wise person knows which side to listen to.

In case some of you guys don't get it (True2Life), somewhere in the middle is the truth. Assuming guilt before conclusion of a trial is na´ve and ignorant.

I'm in the court of public opinion, so spare me the soap box melodrama. I'm all for the trail. That's the difference. Some of you guys don't even think there should be a trail. Just shoot someone and claim self-defense.

countrygun
10-20-2012, 20:27
I'm in the court of public opinion, so spare me the soap box melodrama. I'm all for the trail. That's the difference. Some of you guys don't even think there should be a trail. Just shoot someone and claim self-defense.

A telling Freudian slip there,

Trew2Life
10-20-2012, 20:29
Would you be satisfied if he were tried and found NOT guilty? You see where your personal politics are leading, don't you?

Don't be absurb. If the jury finds him not guilty .. hey, it wouldn't surprise me, but I would have to accept it and move on. Just like I did with Casey Anthony. What's your point? You have none.

countrygun
10-20-2012, 20:52
I'm in the court of public opinion, so spare me the soap box melodrama. I'm all for the trail. That's the difference. Some of you guys don't even think there should be a trail. Just shoot someone and claim self-defense.



http://i1231.photobucket.com/albums/ee518/CountryG/Iwant.png

Allfal
10-20-2012, 22:38
I am consistently amazed at the divergent opinions on this case. Although I disagree, I somewhat understand those that want to see all of the rest of discovery material. I even understand those that just want a Stand Your Ground hearing. What I cannot understand are those that read the materials released and come to the conclusion that GZ is Guilty of some offense.

Please read the sequestration motion put forward this week. It contains information on depositions taken from police. Clearly there are a number of officers involved in this investigation that determined that there were no grounds for any charge. They complained when one officer recommended Manslaughter charges. They complained even more when that recommendation was upgraded to a Murder charge. One detective that complained took a " voluntary transfer " to become a 3rd shift road cop.

When some of the defenses main witnesses are going to be the officers that investigated the case and recommended against any charge, the idea of Malicious Prosecution charges, AKA Nyphonged, begin to become evident.

I understand that a SYG Hearing may now be needed just to insure that GZ is protected from the Civil suits sure to pop up. After all, he should be a somewhat wealthy man when some of the suits his attorney files are settled.

IvanVic
10-21-2012, 03:28
Perhaps you should read the transcripts from the 1st bond Hearing. GZ's attorney calls the police investigator to the stand. He asks the investigator several different ways if they have any evidence that contradicts GZ's version of how the conflict began. The officer replied that they had no evidence that contradicted GZ's account.

Of course they didn't have any because the other person is dead and as far as I know, we haven't heard from any witness that can attest to who started the physical confrontation. That is not proof of anything.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

IvanVic
10-21-2012, 03:33
Now, go ahead and tell everyone about your theory that Zimmerman attacked Martin by visciously, and repeatedly, slamming his face into Martin's fists:upeyes:

That's not my theory. I don't have a theory because I have no idea who started it, neither do you. The difference between you and I is that you criticize others for speculating and then do the exact same thing. Your ability to ignore your own hypocrisy is breathtaking.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

QNman
10-21-2012, 07:40
Don't be absurb. If the jury finds him not guilty .. hey, it wouldn't surprise me, but I would have to accept it and move on. Just like I did with Casey Anthony. What's your point? You have none.

Oh, you got my point. So did everyone else.

Your originals posts belie your current one. You've already stated you want him investigated so he can be found GUILTY, not so he may be tried.

Trew2Life
10-21-2012, 08:10
Oh, you got my point. So did everyone else.

Your originals posts belie your current one. You've already stated you want him investigated so he can be found GUILTY, not so he may be tried.

Clearly, you don't recognize the difference between the court of public opinion and Lady Justice.

Lady Justice found O.J. and Casey Anthony innocent - but in the eyes of the public opinion they're guilty.

My posts have been consistent. I encourage the trial. This situation warrants further investigation. My personal opinion, not-withstanding - is not the final say.

I'm sorry if your life experiences are such that shooting someone in a darken walkway and then claiming self-defense is good enough for no further review.

Allfal
10-21-2012, 09:07
Clearly, you don't recognize the difference between the court of public opinion and Lady Justice.

Lady Justice found O.J. and Casey Anthony innocent - but in the eyes of the public opinion they're guilty.

My posts have been consistent. I encourage the trial. This situation warrants further investigation. My personal opinion, not-withstanding - is not the final say.

I'm sorry if your life experiences are such that shooting someone in a darken walkway and then claiming self-defense is good enough for no further review.

When someone claims self defense and ALL available evidence supports that individuals version of the event and the investigating officers state under oath that they see no basis for any charge, why would you force that individual to undergo the time and stress of a trial?

Reading the Florida law, it appears that GZ has almost met all elements required to begin a Malicious Prosecution investigation. If that occurs and is proven, the state must reimburse for all expenses and damages. This would also open the door for civil liability for Crump and others involved in this travesty.

Allfal
10-21-2012, 09:24
Of course they didn't have any because the other person is dead and as far as I know, we haven't heard from any witness that can attest to who started the physical confrontation. That is not proof of anything.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

We have heard from the victim, GZ. We have seen the physical evidence, including pictures of GZ's injuries and TM's lack of them excluding 1 well placed small hole. We have heard testimony from police, both in Court and by deposition. The closest thing we have to an eye witness observed TM on top of GZ striking GZ repeatedly prior to being shot. Nothing, not physical evidence or testimony contradicts GZ's version of the event. How much do you require?

kirgi08
10-21-2012, 10:12
When someone claims self defense and ALL available evidence supports that individuals version of the event and the investigating officers state under oath that they see no basis for any charge, why would you force that individual to undergo the time and stress of a trial?

Reading the Florida law, it appears that GZ has almost met all elements required to begin a Malicious Prosecution investigation. If that occurs and is proven, the state must reimburse for all expenses and damages. This would also open the door for civil liability for Crump and others involved in this travesty.

:goodpost: :agree: :notworthy:

Trew2Life
10-21-2012, 10:32
When someone claims self defense and ALL available evidence supports that individuals version of the event and the investigating officers state under oath that they see no basis for any charge, why would you force that individual to undergo the time and stress of a trial?

Reading the Florida law, it appears that GZ has almost met all elements required to begin a Malicious Prosecution investigation. If that occurs and is proven, the state must reimburse for all expenses and damages. This would also open the door for civil liability for Crump and others involved in this travesty.

Where is the physical evidence that Trayvon Martin was the agressor, thus creating the circumstances necessary for George Zimmerman to claim self-defense? George Zimmerman's state of mind, as evident from the 911 tape clearly identifies him as the agressor. Why are you discounting the ear-witness testimony of Trayvon's last phone call?

If something like this happened to a relative of yours; a friend of yours, I would hope you would appreciate the need for a thorough, indepth investigation.

Trew2Life
10-21-2012, 10:43
When someone claims self defense and ALL available evidence supports that individuals version of the event and the investigating officers state under oath that they see no basis for any charge, why would you force that individual to undergo the time and stress of a trial?

Reading the Florida law, it appears that GZ has almost met all elements required to begin a Malicious Prosecution investigation. If that occurs and is proven, the state must reimburse for all expenses and damages. This would also open the door for civil liability for Crump and others involved in this travesty.

The problem is, as pointed out previously, ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE does NOT support that indiduals version of the event. The only thing the police assert under oath is that they see no reason to contradict the story told to them by Zimmerman.

However, the physical evidence tells me a different story.

Trew2Life
10-21-2012, 11:03
We have heard from the victim, GZ. We have seen the physical evidence, including pictures of GZ's injuries and TM's lack of them excluding 1 well placed small hole. We have heard testimony from police, both in Court and by deposition. The closest thing we have to an eye witness observed TM on top of GZ striking GZ repeatedly prior to being shot. Nothing, not physical evidence or testimony contradicts GZ's version of the event. How much do you require?

I'd like to know how (in your mind) do you believe the situation played itself out after George Zimmerman told the 911 operator he was going to end his pursuit of Trayvon Martin? Clearly, he did not.

In the 911 transcripts Zimmerman states that Trayvon is running away, and then later in the transacripts states he doesn't want to give the 911 operator his address because, 'I don't want to give it out. I don't know where this kid is'.

That tells me that Zimmerman did not end his pursuit; that he may have even closed ground on a hiding Trayvon.

So, you think Trayvon Martin ran away, circled around, jumped out from behind a building and opened a can of whip ass until George could get one off ... just like that?

Allfal
10-21-2012, 11:15
Where is the physical evidence that Trayvon Martin was the agressor, thus creating the circumstances necessary for George Zimmerman to claim self-defense? George Zimmerman's state of mind, as evident from the 911 tape clearly identifies him as the agressor. Why are you discounting the ear-witness testimony of Trayvon's last phone call?

If something like this happened to a relative of yours; a friend of yours, I would hope you would appreciate the need for a thorough, indepth investigation.

The physical evidence includes documented injuries to GZ's face, scalp and the back of his head and no injuries to his hands. TM's injuries include a cut to a knuckle and a bullet hole. It is doubtful that GZ attacked TM with his nose and the back of his head. You have GZ's statement, police investigation and an eye witness that observed TM beating GZ. There are toxicology reports showing marijuana in TM's system and school reports showing TM to have been found in possession of suspected stolen womens jewelry, which helps back up GZ's observation of " he looks like he is on something" and that he looks like he is up to no good. Lacking evidence to contradict these findings should have meant that no charges would be filed.


GZ's phone call was to the non emergency police number not 911, just as he had been instructed to do on neighborhood watch. I was unable to detect any aggression in his voice on that tape. He observed and reported just as he had done before and had been instructed to do. He ceased his observation when requested to do so. There is no aggression in observing and reporting suspicious behavior.


There is no legal documented ear witness testimony from Dee Dee. There will be since the defense had discovery on her approved and she will now be deposed. Dee Dee is alleged to have been TM's girlfriend on the phone when TM attacked GZ. She was located by Crump, an attorney representing TM's family. She refused to be interviewed by police. She was taped by Crump and company without any law enforcement present and later by a state attorney. Do yourself a favor and listen to the parts of those tapes that are available online then get back to me on how credible you believe her statements to be. She heard the grass over the phone. After you listen to the tapes, you may want to review the screen caps of her twitter and facebook pages, which have now been granted to the defense. She was neither TM's girlfriend, nor was she concerned about anything that happened that night. She was tweeting while allegedly on the phone with TM that night and identifies her boyfriend, not TM, in other tweets. Her deposition will almost certainly go a long way towards a better settlement in GZ's lawsuits.

Allfal
10-21-2012, 11:32
I'd like to know how (in your mind) do you believe the situation played itself out after George Zimmerman told the 911 operator he was going to end his pursuit of Trayvon Martin? Clearly, he did not.

In the 911 transcripts Zimmerman states that Trayvon is running away, and then later in thtranscriptsts states he doesn't want to give the 911 operator his address because, 'I don't want to give it out. I don't know where this kid is'.

That tells me that Zimmerman did not end his pursuit; that he may have even closed ground on a hiding Trayvon.

So, you think Trayvon Martin ran away, circled around, jumped out from behind a building and opened a can of whip ass until George could get one off ... just like that?

Have you even looked at any of the evidence or are you basing your conclusions on an emotional response? GZ's tape from that night indicates he did lose sight of TM. Crime scene reconstruction indicates he went 1 street further than where TM ended up designated mort of the evening.

It indicates he ceased attempted observation of TM when requested and began to return to his vehicle and was confronted by TM on his way back. Dee Dee's vaunted ear witness claims even indicates TM made first contact, she claims by TM asking GZ " why you following me?" " You got a problem". I won't use Dee Dee's statements as proof of anything though, listen to her tapes and you will see why.

Last point. If you were a good citizen on neighborhood watch, observing and reporting suspicious behavior as you have been trained to do, and you had lost sight of a suspicious subject in a dense residential area that may be hiding anywhere, would you give out your home address over the phone or would you do as GZ did and state you don't want to give it out now, but will meet the police officer at your vehicle?

jeepinbandit
10-21-2012, 11:39
So, you think Trayvon Martin ran away, circled around, jumped out from behind a building and opened a can of whip ass until George could get one off ... just like that?

With the evidence we have available to us the public yes I do believe that is what happened.




Sent from my iPhone

Trew2Life
10-21-2012, 11:56
The walkthrough of the crime scene clearly suggest GZ did not end his pursuit of TM, as he stated to the dispatcher. After TM fleed, GZ does not head back towards his vehicle (where he's arranged for the police to meet him). The map and the transcript suggest GZ got ahead of TM and cut him off from his destination.

This suggest to me that GZ was acting in an overly agressive behavoir. Which would be consistent with his past and his arrest record.

http://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-path.jpg

Allfal
10-21-2012, 12:21
The walkthrough of the crime scene clearly suggest GZ did not end his pursuit of TM, as he stated to the dispatcher. After TM fleed, GZ does not head back towards his vehicle (where he's arranged for the police to meet him). The map and the transcript suggest GZ got ahead of TM and cut him off from his destination.

This suggest to me that GZ was acting in an overly agressive behavoir. Which would be consistent with his past and his arrest record.

http://bcclist.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-path.jpg

That is an incomplete reconstruction of the route. Try this one. http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back

I feel that you are being somewhat obtuse in putting forth a partial reconstruction.

As to GZ's past arrest record, would you be refering to the incident in a bar where an undercover ABC officer attempted to arrest a freind of GZ? The one where GZ was unaware that the plain clothes individual was an officer and touched the officer's arm asking him what he was doing to his friend. The one where the officer over charged GZ and the judge reduced the charge and granted him First Offenders Program, which legally does not count as a conviction.

Never heard about it. This changes everthing. He put his hand on the arm of an unidentified plain clothes officer. This must mean he stalked poor Trayedmark and shot him just to watch a balck kid die.

I will, of course, discount GZ's work on behalf of the homeless black man beaten by the police. You remember. The one where he handed out brochures at black churches calling for investigation of unlawful use of force on a black man. The one where an officer lost his job for beating a black man. Lost his job, in part, due to efforts of GZ. It's obvious that GZ hates black people.

Snowman92D
10-21-2012, 12:44
Your ability to ignore your own hypocrisy is breathtaking.

You know you've won the argument with a double-cinnamon latte sipping lib when they call what you said "breathtaking". :rofl:

Guss
10-21-2012, 12:49
I'd like to know how (in your mind) do you believe the situation played itself out after George Zimmerman told the 911 operator he was going to end his pursuit of Trayvon Martin? Clearly, he did not.
...
Zimmerman's videotaped interviews give his clear description of what happened. He had lost sight of Trayvon, assumed he had fled the neighborhood, and Zimmerman walked on between the houses to get a glimpse of the street sign that he knew was was there so he could give police a better description of where he was. He was no longer expecting an encounter.

Look at the evidence before drawing conclusions.

Trew2Life
10-21-2012, 13:16
That is an incomplete reconstruction of the route. Try this one. http://www.wagist.com/2012/dan-linehan/evidence-that-trayvon-martin-doubled-back

I feel that you are being somewhat obtuse in putting forth a partial reconstruction.

LMFAO. We used the same map minus the path of direction arrows.


As to GZ's past arrest record, would you be refering to the incident in a bar where an undercover ABC officer attempted to arrest a freind of GZ? The one where GZ was unaware that the plain clothes individual was an officer and touched the officer's arm asking him what he was doing to his friend. The one where the officer over charged GZ and the judge reduced the charge and granted him First Offenders Program, which legally does not count as a conviction.

If that's the case in 2005 in which Zimmerman was arrested for 'resisting an officer with violence' and 'battery of a law enforcement officer', Yes. That's one of them. Theres also the domestic violence issue that same year in which both parties were granted orders of protection.

Please also note that in the case involving the police officer the charges weren't dismissed/reduced because the officer failed to identify himself as a LEO. Zimmerman knew who he was putting his hands on.

You go on to write about officers over-charging GZ. What does that say about the integrity of the officers? It would also stand to reason they would under-charge or not charge an individual, too in some instances.

countrygun
10-21-2012, 13:44
I'd like to know how (in your mind) do you believe the situation played itself out after George Zimmerman told the 911 operator he was going to end his pursuit of Trayvon Martin? Clearly, he did not.

In the 911 transcripts Zimmerman states that Trayvon is running away, and then later in the transacripts states he doesn't want to give the 911 operator his address because, 'I don't want to give it out. I don't know where this kid is'.

That tells me that Zimmerman did not end his pursuit; that he may have even closed ground on a hiding Trayvon.

So, you think Trayvon Martin ran away, circled around, jumped out from behind a building and opened a can of whip ass until George could get one off ... just like that?



That post shows exactly how far into Fantasy land you have gone in "recreating" events to suit your personal narrative.


"That tells me that Zimmerman did not end his pursuit; that he may have even closed ground on a hiding Trayvon."





That is a complete flight of fantasy that has NO evidence to even suggest it as a possibility "Hiding Travon"??? Does that fit into his character? Does it fit into the fact that he was so close to the house he was staying at?.

Did you actually listen to the unedited recording?

I am going to ask that again;

HAVE YOU LISTENED TO THE UNEDITED RECORDING?

Tell me anything that supports your daydream od a "hiding Trayvon"

This has gotten way out in the woods as you spin fictional "well maybe's" in the face of facts.

Allfal
10-21-2012, 14:36
LMFAO. We used the same map minus the path of direction arrows.



If that's the case in 2005 in which Zimmerman was arrested for 'resisting an officer with violence' and 'battery of a law enforcement officer', Yes. That's one of them. Theres also the domestic violence issue that same year in which both parties were granted orders of protection.

Please also note that in the case involving the police officer the charges weren't dismissed/reduced because the officer failed to identify himself as a LEO. Zimmerman knew who he was putting his hands on.

You go on to write about officers over-charging GZ. What does that say about the integrity of the officers? It would also stand to reason they would under-charge or not charge an individual, too in some instances.

This will be my last attempt to reason with you. The Protection From Abuse Act allows mutual PFA's to be granted were both parties are making allegations towards the other party but lack evidence to support a charge or conviction. They are not criminal although violations of the PFA, once granted, are. Having a simple argument with a significant other who then makes unsupported allegations against you is often sufficient to have a PFA granted. By itself, PFA that is lacking a criminal conviction in no way indicates a propensity towards violence.

You are not really trying to argue that GZ knew that a plain clothes ABC officer in a bar was a police officer attempting to arrest his friend? I have worked in law enforcement for over 28 years and would not have made that assumption in a crowded noisy bar had my friend been the one being arrested.

As far as integrity and police over charging, it is well within an officer's discretion to over or under charge. A simplistic example would be that some people stopped for traffic offenses get a warning. Others get a ticket for a single offense even if there are several offenses evident. Still others get written for every offense observed. What and if they get witten for depends on a number of factors including the totality of the circumstances of the stop. All within the officer's discretion.

Given your views, perhaps a better example would be an officer responding to a domestic. 2 adults, 1 child, with the adults involved in an argument that left a small bruise or fingernail scratch on the others arm. That individual could be charged with Offensive Touching. This could be an example of an under charge. They could also be charged with Assault 3rd, Disorderly Conduct, Endangering The Welfare Of A Child and Offensive Touching. This could be an example of an over charge. Both actions would be legal and within the discretion of the officer.

countrygun
10-21-2012, 14:58
The problem is, as pointed out previously, ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE does NOT support that indiduals version of the event. The only thing the police assert under oath is that they see no reason to contradict the story told to them by Zimmerman.

However, the physical evidence tells me a different story.

That's the problem with having no experience, you imagination can run wild, as yours has.

TDC20
10-21-2012, 15:06
LMFAO. We used the same map minus the path of direction arrows.



If that's the case in 2005 in which Zimmerman was arrested for 'resisting an officer with violence' and 'battery of a law enforcement officer', Yes. That's one of them. Theres also the domestic violence issue that same year in which both parties were granted orders of protection.

Please also note that in the case involving the police officer the charges weren't dismissed/reduced because the officer failed to identify himself as a LEO. Zimmerman knew who he was putting his hands on.

You go on to write about officers over-charging GZ. What does that say about the integrity of the officers? It would also stand to reason they would under-charge or not charge an individual, too in some instances.
Please cite your source for the part of the quote in bold. I have not seen anything that indicated, or anyone who officially claimed, that Z knew the ABC officer was in fact LE.

Citation, please. Thanks in advance.

QNman
10-21-2012, 15:12
Clearly, you don't recognize the difference between the court of public opinion and Lady Justice.

Lady Justice found O.J. and Casey Anthony innocent - but in the eyes of the public opinion they're guilty.

My posts have been consistent. I encourage the trial. This situation warrants further investigation. My personal opinion, not-withstanding - is not the final say.

I'm sorry if your life experiences are such that shooting someone in a darken walkway and then claiming self-defense is good enough for no further review.

That's not how your posts read.

And my position is, and always has been, that the "court of public opinion" is worthless where guilt or innocence is determined. The actual court trial is where witnesses will be sworn and actual, non-heresay evidence will be offered by both sides, debated and deliberated, and guilt or not guilt will be decided.

Everything else is just entertainment.

I don't know what happened that night. Neither do you. Quit pretending you do.

DOC44
10-21-2012, 15:14
affirmative action poster.

Doc44

Trew2Life
10-21-2012, 17:33
Everything else is just entertainment. I don't know what happened that night. Neither do you. Quit pretending you do.

Not pretending I do know what happened that night at the fatal moment. That's why I support the trial. Many others here, perhaps yourself include, do not even think a trial is warranted. So who's really pretending they know all the facts?

Trew2Life
10-21-2012, 18:02
Please cite your source for the part of the quote in bold. I have not seen anything that indicated, or anyone who officially claimed, that Z knew the ABC officer was in fact LE.

Citation, please. Thanks in advance.

Now you want me to do your homework for you too?

What is Orange County FL's legal definition of:

Resisting an officer with violence

Knowing and willful resisting, obstruction, or opposition of an officer by threatening violence or engaging in violent conduct, and at the time:
The officer was engaged in either the:
Execution of legal process, or


Lawful execution of a legal duty.

The officer was either a:
Law Enforcement Officer,


Correctional Officer,
Probation Officer, or
Person legally authorized to execute process.

The officer's status as an officer was known.
Other wise, you're suggesting the LEO falsified police documents and made a bogus arrest. But charges weren't dismissed/reduced due to factual error. Zimmerman was charged with the lesser offense of Resisting an officer without violence. Which under FL definition also implies the officer's status as an officer was known.

countrygun
10-21-2012, 18:21
Now you want me to do your homework for you too?

What is Orange County FL's legal definition of:

Resisting an officer with violence

Knowing and willful resisting, obstruction, or opposition of an officer by threatening violence or engaging in violent conduct, and at the time:
The officer was engaged in either the:
Execution of legal process, or


Lawful execution of a legal duty.

The officer was either a:
Law Enforcement Officer,


Correctional Officer,
Probation Officer, or
Person legally authorized to execute process.

The officer's status as an officer was known.
Other wise, you're suggesting the LEO falsified police documents and made a bogus arrest. But charges weren't dismissed/reduced due to factual error. Zimmerman was charged with the lesser offense of Resisting an officer without violence. Which under FL definition also implies the officer's status as an officer was known.

You aren't "suggesting" you are proving that you have no experience in the criminal justice system.

IME 80% of the time, when it is finally adjudicated, the initial "at the scene" charges are different from the lesser offense that is charged in Court or what the suspect pleads to.

What is most strange in this case is, again IME, a Prosecutor ignoring the investigators conclusions and charging, knowing (according to what was revealed) that the investigators are going to be in Court testifying that their investigation concluded there was no case. That borders on the bizzare.

QNman
10-21-2012, 19:55
Not pretending I do know what happened that night at the fatal moment. That's why I support the trial. Many others here, perhaps yourself include, do not even think a trial is warranted. So who's really pretending they know all the facts?

Read my posts. It's right up there by the search button. I don't claim he's either guilty or innocent. I don't claim it because I DON'T KNOW. I wasn't there.

I also know you only get to see what the reporters want you to. The jury will see something different. Some similarities, perhaps, but not the same thing.

I've worked in trials before (as an expert witness on numerous occasions) - I believe they work more than they don't.

You've already claimed you believe he's guilty, so I think we all know who's doing the pretending here.

QNman
10-21-2012, 19:57
Now you want me to do your homework for you too?

What is Orange County FL's legal definition of:

Resisting an officer with violence

Knowing and willful resisting, obstruction, or opposition of an officer by threatening violence or engaging in violent conduct, and at the time:
The officer was engaged in either the:
Execution of legal process, or


Lawful execution of a legal duty.

The officer was either a:
Law Enforcement Officer,


Correctional Officer,
Probation Officer, or
Person legally authorized to execute process.

The officer's status as an officer was known.
Other wise, you're suggesting the LEO falsified police documents and made a bogus arrest. But charges weren't dismissed/reduced due to factual error. Zimmerman was charged with the lesser offense of Resisting an officer without violence. Which under FL definition also implies the officer's status as an officer was known.

OMG - you were there TOO? Damn, you should be a witness or something... Or charged with stalking Zimmerman, perhaps.

Stop pretending - you're embarrassing yourself.

Trew2Life
10-21-2012, 20:25
Read my posts. It's right up there by the search button. I don't claim he's either guilty or innocent. I don't claim it because I DON'T KNOW. I wasn't there.

I also know you only get to see what the reporters want you to. The jury will see something different. Some similarities, perhaps, but not the same thing.

I've worked in trials before (as an expert witness on numerous occasions) - I believe they work more than they don't.

You've already claimed you believe he's guilty, so I think we all know who's doing the pretending here.

My opinions of his guilt comes in the court of public opinion. Where it doesn't mean squat! I don't know how many times I have to say that. I can read a phone transcript and and a police record, too and form a public opinion as to his guilt or innocents. As I'm sure you and many of us did with the O.J. & Casey Anthony trials. Or did you always believe those two may be innocent, too?

OMG - you were there TOO? Damn, you should be a witness or something... Or charged with stalking Zimmerman, perhaps.
Stop pretending - you're embarrassing yourself.

I'm pretending those are the Florida state statues ?? Easily independently verifiable information and I'm the one pretending ?? If you're such the expert witness and a student of juris prudence then you would have a greater appreciation for criminal charges such as battery against a police officer and resisting arrest and the proceedings for court orders of protection. Or maybe you believe the courts just issues them out like flyers.

Stop pretending - you've embarrassed yourself !!

engineer151515
10-21-2012, 20:35
Lady Justice found O.J. and Casey Anthony innocent - but in the eyes of the public opinion they're guilty.

.

Nobody was found "innocent"

OJ was declared "not guilty", the main reason being jury nullification.

By the way, there are reports that OJ is trying to sell the knife.

Trew2Life
10-21-2012, 20:44
Nobody was found "innocent"

OJ was declared "not guilty", the main reason being jury nullification.

By the way, there are reports that OJ is trying to sell the knife.

Good point, because we're supposed to already be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I don't know if I'd call the O.J. case jury nullification. The state put on a weak case. I have no idea what the Anthony jurors were smoking.

TDC20
10-21-2012, 21:29
Now you want me to do your homework for you too?

What is Orange County FL's legal definition of:

Resisting an officer with violence

Knowing and willful resisting, obstruction, or opposition of an officer by threatening violence or engaging in violent conduct, and at the time:

The officer was engaged in either the:
Execution of legal process, or



Lawful execution of a legal duty.



The officer was either a:
Law Enforcement Officer,



Correctional Officer,
Probation Officer, or
Person legally authorized to execute process.



The officer's status as an officer was known.

Other wise, you're suggesting the LEO falsified police documents and made a bogus arrest. But charges weren't dismissed/reduced due to factual error. Zimmerman was charged with the lesser offense of Resisting an officer without violence. Which under FL definition also implies the officer's status as an officer was known.
No, I don't want you to do my homework for me. I've already done my homework, and the account that I read said that Zimmerman did not know that the ABC officer was LE until after he put his hands on him. Zimmerman thought the guy was gonna beat up his underage friend. What would you do? Let some guy beat up your friend?

Anyway, you asserted earlier that Zimmerman knew the ABC guy was LE. I wanted to know where you got that information from, that's all. It differed from the information that I had.

Maybe the cop thought Zimmerman knew he was LE, so he filed the report that way. I'm not suggesting he falsified the report or anything like that. The whole incident sounded like nothing more than a misunderstanding to me, but I wasn't there, either. Just wanted to know what you found that differs from that story.

countrygun
10-21-2012, 21:43
No, I don't want you to do my homework for me. I've already done my homework, and the account that I read said that Zimmerman did not know that the ABC officer was LE until after he put his hands on him. Zimmerman thought the guy was gonna beat up his underage friend. What would you do? Let some guy beat up your friend?

Anyway, you asserted earlier that Zimmerman knew the ABC guy was LE. I wanted to know where you got that information from, that's all. It differed from the information that I had.

Maybe the cop thought Zimmerman knew he was LE, so he filed the report that way. I'm not suggesting he falsified the report or anything like that. The whole incident sounded like nothing more than a misunderstanding to me, but I wasn't there, either. Just wanted to know what you found that differs from that story.

Not that it really has a bearing on the facts in the Zimmerman case, but I would like to know where someone comes up with proof that Zimmrman had the rquisite previous knowledge that the guy was an LEO?

Guss
10-21-2012, 21:54
What does the old barroom incident have to do with the price of tea in China?
Zimmerman was in a bar, presumably doing the things that young folk do in a bar, and he paid the price. It seems to have caused him to straighten up because many of his current friends say he is a non-drinker.

English
10-22-2012, 05:08
....

IME 80% of the time, when it is finally adjudicated, the initial "at the scene" charges are different from the lesser offense that is charged in Court or what the suspect pleads to.

What is most strange in this case is, again IME, a Prosecutor ignoring the investigators conclusions and charging, knowing (according to what was revealed) that the investigators are going to be in Court testifying that their investigation concluded there was no case. That borders on the bizzare.

I believe this is the source of the Zimmerman problem. The relatively hot headed and less legally knowledgeable LEO responders will put what they see as appropriate charges. The cooler, more legally knowledgeable prosecutors, who do not want to go to court unless they think they have a good chance of winning, will reduce those charges to ones they think they can provide sufficient evidence to justify.

If this process is reversed, it is almost inevitably a decision based on political desires rather than justice. There are advantages to electing judges and prosecutors, but the temptation for them to play to the electorate at the expense of justice is a big downside.

English

FFR Spyder GT
10-22-2012, 09:32
IvanVic
So all that has been reported in the news is false? All that Zimmerman, the DA, cops have said in the press is false? I've followed this case from day one very closely read every account. Please tell me what I've said that isn't true. There is no law that says Zimmerman couldn't follow what he though was a thief/burglar. He called 911 to report a suspicious person. TM called his girl freind! Now he really felt threaten? That person instead of going on to daddies house decided he would beat on the guy that followed him-which he did -as witnessed by two people.
Instead of letting the prep beat him to death Mr. Zimmerman exersised his God given right to defend himself! Which under FL law is perfectly legal to do! I know these facts don't sit well with those that think no one should kill another. But thats life deal with it!:whistling:

Do you have any proof that what you posted is true?

What you posted is your opinion of what happened from a bias point of view.

A couple of known facts that you got wrong:

TM was already talking to his GF when GZ passed him in his vehicle. TM didn't call her he was already on the phone to her.

TM felt threatened enough to run from GZ when he got out of his vehicle with a gun and started following him.

Since TM wasn't breaking any laws why didn't he have right to, in your words "exercise his God given right to defend himself"?

Just curious on the last part.

jeepinbandit
10-22-2012, 09:53
Do you have any proof that what you posted is true?

What you posted is your opinion of what happened from a bias point of view.

A couple of known facts that you got wrong:

TM was already talking to his GF when GZ passed him in his vehicle. TM didn't call her he was already on the phone to her.

TM felt threatened enough to run from GZ when he got out of his vehicle with a gun and started following him.

So Martin knew he had a gun?

Since TM wasn't breaking any laws why didn't he have right to, in your words "exercise his God given right to defend himself"?

Bashing someone's head into the pavement and punching them in the face is illegal. I can post a story from El Paso I believe where an off duty police officer confronted some teenagers who were vandalizing his patrol car. They bounced his head off the ground knocking him unconscious then continued to beat him after he passed out. He died by the way. Same thing could have happened to Z.

Just curious on the last part.

Wait what? My replies in Green

Gundude
10-22-2012, 10:02
Bashing someone's head into the pavement and punching them in the face is illegal.So is shooting somebody. Or isn't it? Depends on the circumstances, doesn't it?

countrygun
10-22-2012, 10:18
her.

TM felt threatened enough to run from GZ when he got out
of his vehicle with a gun and started following him.

Spydey, your imagination comes into play again, as it does so often. How do you know that "TM ran because he was frightemed?" Did he tell you?. How do you figure GM chased him down given the disparity between the two and the fact that GZ was on the phone and sure didn't sound like he wa running? Were you there? Examins the time element for a running kid TMs age how much time elapses. Now look t the map that shows the location. Gee for a running kid he didn't run too far and got "run down" by Zimmerman. Really? Is that what you saw when you witnessed it or did TM come to you in a dream and tell you/

Oh and now we come to your "With a gun" now how does that play in since the gun was concealed therefor TM had know knowledge of it's existence? The wounds on GZ and TM's knuckles are not the type of wounds one would associate with someone struggling of a gun on a belt. They are the wounds on the knuckles of TM and on the face and head GZ of an attack with fists. When someone, is trying to prevent a shooting they go for the gun itself and a different pattern of wounds from a different type of struggle exist.
Those wounds do not exist. Martin didn't know his victim was armed.



Since TM wasn't breaking any laws why didn't he have right to, in your words "exercise his God given right to defend himself"?

Defend himself from what? He was running away according to you eyewitness testimony (you stated it above) Are you saying that GZ is actually part cheetah and ran the younger longer legged kid down, with the kid having such a head start?

Defend himself by doubling back, finding GZ and hitting him in the face. Yah sure.

Just curious on the last part.

There was recently a thread on the death here.




Got back to analyzing polls and determining the winners in debates, that's your Forte'.

Gundude
10-22-2012, 10:47
How do you know that "TM ran because he was frightemed?" Did he tell you?.Defend himself by doubling back, finding GZ and hitting him in the face. Yah sure.

Same post even! You can't make this stuff up! :rofl:

So countrygun, how do you know that TM doubled back and found GZ? Did he tell you? Did anybody not accused of murder tell you?

countrygun
10-22-2012, 10:55
Same post even! You can't make this stuff up! :rofl:

So countrygun, how do you know that TM doubled back and found GZ? Did he tell you? Did anybody not accused of murder tell you?

Well, if he didn't you have to believe that Spyder's narrative that TM was running for his life from a man with a gun, and that man, whos was on the phone with the cops and clearly not running, put the phone down and then ran TM to the ground so close to his car and so quickly, Zimmerman must be an olympic quality runner to pull that off IF MARTIN WAS RUNNING AWAY. as per Spyder's eyewitness testimony. If any part of Spyder's narrative is not possible his whole testimony, when they call him as a witness, will be dismissed.

Unless, as I said, Zimmerman is a super athlete, TM contributed to his own demise by doubling back and confronting Zimmerman. Than is no way he couldn't run from zimmerman with impunity.

kirgi08
10-22-2012, 11:07
So is shooting somebody. Or isn't it? Depends on the circumstances, doesn't it?

n00bs,gotta love em.From the facts that the detectives said it was a good shoot and the predatory acts by the ADA,I can't wait for the Defense ta call the SVU officers ta the stand.

From what I've seen this case is moot.The darwin award winner got his scare/chicks do dig them.

The defendant got wounds that consist with his statement,the aggressor got a dirt nap.Sounds like compost ta me.'08. :cool:

Gundude
10-22-2012, 11:12
Well, if he didn't you have to believe that Spyder's narrative that TM was running for his life from a man with a gun, and that man, whos was on the phone with the cops and clearly not running, put the phone down and then ran TM to the ground so close to his car and so quickly, Zimmerman must be an olympic quality runner to pull that off IF MARTIN WAS RUNNING AWAY. as per Spyder's eyewitness testimony. If any part of Spyder's narrative is not possible his whole testimony, when they call him as a witness, will be dismissed.

Unless, as I said, Zimmerman is a super athlete, TM contributed to his own demise by doubling back and confronting Zimmerman. Than is no way he couldn't run from zimmerman with impunity.How do you know that GZ was "so close to his car" when he got "attacked"? The body was resting quite a ways away from his car when found, judging from the crime scene photos and police report.

There isn't a shred of evidence TM doubled back. Using somebody else's faulty logic to "prove" yours doesn't make sense. TM didn't need to be running. He just had to be moving away from GZ until the confrontation began in order for GZ to have legal problems. I don't know that that's actually the case or not, but I'm not screaming for GZ to be put in jail. I'm simply pointing out the hypocrisy of screaming for him to be released, when neither of us know the circumstances.

countrygun
10-22-2012, 11:13
n00bs,gotta love em.From the facts that the detectives said it was a good shoot and the predatory acts by the ADA,I can't wait for the Defense ta call the SVU officers ta the stand.

From what I've seen this case is moot.The darwin award winner got his scare/chicks do dig them.

The defendant got wounds that consist with his statement,the aggressor got a dirt nap.Sounds like compost ta me.'08. :cool:

I tell you, some folks have denied the evidence and created senarios that would make any conspiracy theorist proud.

Having been on a Capital Murder Jury myself, in a bit of a similar crime, where the shooter did commit murder, I can tell you it took a lot more evidence for us to find him guilty and even more before we sentenced him to death.

kirgi08
10-22-2012, 11:18
Kinda changes things when mulligans don't exist.'08.

Gundude
10-22-2012, 11:27
I tell you, some folks have denied the evidence and created senarios that would make any conspiracy theorist proud.

Having been on a Capital Murder Jury myself, in a bit of a similar crime, where the shooter did commit murder, I can tell you it took a lot more evidence for us to find him guilty and even more before we sentenced him to death.
The difference being you were presented with all the evidence back then, and this time you aren't.

I, for one, haven't denied any evidence, but of course I've created scenarios on what might have happened. That's what discussion is about. You don't have to be a conspiracy theory to consider the scenario where GZ followed TM, found him, confronted him, escalated the fight, ended up on the losing end of the fight, then shot him.

Everything between "followed TM" and "ended up on the losing end of the fight" is up for speculation, because we just don't know what happened. My theory is no more of a "conspiracy theory" than yours is. The difference is that you are adamant that he's not guilty, where I can fathom that he could be, and therefore I'm not automatically regarding the prosecution as a Nifonging while you are.

You're making a lot more assumptions than I am.

kirgi08
10-22-2012, 11:28
I love watching :snoopy: run.'08.

countrygun
10-22-2012, 11:28
Kinda changes things when mulligans don't exist.'08.

You learn to be critical in examining facts and what they tell you, rather that what you "think" they imply or what you want them to.

Gundude
10-22-2012, 11:30
You learn to be critical in examining facts and what they tell you, rather that what you "think" they imply or what you want them to.You do? What is your implication that TM doubled back based on?

FFR Spyder GT
10-22-2012, 11:33
Well, if he didn't you have to believe that Spyder's narrative that TM was running for his life from a man with a gun,

During GZ's 911 call he clearly stated that TM was running. That's when the 911 dispatcher told GZ NOT to follow TM. GZ had a gun on him. That's a known fact.


and that man, whos was on the phone with the cops and clearly not running, put the phone down and then ran TM to the ground so close to his car and so quickly, Zimmerman must be an olympic quality runner to pull that off IF MARTIN WAS RUNNING AWAY. GZ clearly stated in his 911 call that TM had started running away from him. This was GZ statement Well, unless GZ was lying. as per Spyder's eyewitness testimony. If any part of Spyder's narrative is not possible his whole testimony, when they call him as a witness, will be dismissed.

Unless, as I said, Zimmerman is a super athlete, TM contributed to his own demise by doubling back and confronting Zimmerman. how do you know TM "doubling back and confronting Zimmerman"? What proof do you have that this happened? I guess since you were a witness to everything and that in TM last dying gasp he said "countrygun, doubling back and confronting Zimmerman when he popped a cap in my......chest!":wow: Than is no way he couldn't run from zimmerman with impunity.

I guess you saw all this from your "Command Post"!:rofl::rofl::rofl:

kirgi08
10-22-2012, 11:37
CG,shots under fire teaches folk that,my point is that these n00bs here haven't.They are boot lickers and unaware of reality.

Gotta challenge fer folks,how many posting the above diatribe has EVER heard shots fired in anger.I have,and know what,I take care of myself.'08. :impatient:

Gundude
10-22-2012, 11:47
CG,shots under fire teaches folk that,my point is that these n00bs here haven't.They are boot lickers and unaware of reality.

Gotta challenge fer folks,how many posting the above diatribe has EVER heard shots fired in anger.I have,and know what,I take care of myself.'08. :impatient:
Since the only one shot fired in this case was by GZ, what does that have to do with anything? Are you implying it was fired in anger?

countrygun
10-22-2012, 11:52
I guess you saw all this from your "Command Post"!:rofl::rofl::rofl:

I can see what the evidence says and I listened to the entire unedited recording of the phone call. Have you listened to it, worked out the timeline and the location or are you just treating it like you did the first debate and declaring Obama the winner because that is what you want to see?

countrygun
10-22-2012, 11:55
Since the only one shot fired in this case was by GZ, what does that have to do with anything? Are you implying it was fired in anger?


Gee, George was on the ground getting pummelled (and NO evidence does anything but confirm that) and geting his head bashed, he was definately scared, and I think most people in that position might be what you call "angry".

How does that surprise you unless you have absolutely no experience in what you are talking about

Goaltender66
10-22-2012, 11:59
Well, now that Trew2Life and Hyder have chimed in, I'm more secure than ever in my opinion that George Zimmerman is the victim of a witch hunt and should be released immediately. :)

Gundude
10-22-2012, 12:03
Gee, George was on the ground getting pummelled (and NO evidence does anything but confirm that) and geting his head bashed, he was definately scared, and I think most people in that position might be what you call "angry".

How does that surprise you unless you have absolutely no experience in what you are talking aboutYou got all this from my post asking kirgi08 what he was talking about? What does "hearing shots fired in anger" have to do with the GZ/TM situation?

kirgi08
10-22-2012, 12:03
:whip:

I'm tired of dealing with the fact that he built a gallows ta maintain full employment.'08. :sad:

The lob numbers suck,I'm referring ta Libya.'08. :sad:

Gundude
10-22-2012, 12:03
I can see what the evidence says and I listened to the entire unedited recording of the phone call. Have you listened to it, worked out the timeline and the location or are you just treating it like you did the first debate and declaring Obama the winner because that is what you want to see?Which part of that recording led you to believe TM doubled back?

countrygun
10-22-2012, 12:04
Well, now that Trew2Life and Hyder have chimed in, I'm more secure than ever in my opinion that George Zimmerman is the victim of a witch hunt and should be released immediately. :)

Isn't "Gun-Duds" last post a hilarious example?

"Since the only one shot fired in this case was by GZ, what does that have to do with anything? Are you implying it was fired in anger?"



Well, no snot Sherlock. I would be more concerned if he WASN'T "angry" at that point:upeyes:

His post came right out of a tool box.

Gundude
10-22-2012, 12:06
Isn't "Gun-Duds" last post a hilarious example?

"Since the only one shot fired in this case was by GZ, what does that have to do with anything? Are you implying it was fired in anger?"



Well, no snot Sherlock. I would be more concerned if he WASN'T "angry" at that point:upeyes:

His post came right out of a tool box.Yup, forget about context. Latch onto a "binderful of women" and keep repeating it. Why do you guys even bother to complain about such tactics when you embrace them so heartily?

kirgi08
10-22-2012, 12:06
I wondered why my latrine exploded.'08. :dunno:

kirgi08
10-22-2012, 12:07
:headscratch:

countrygun
10-22-2012, 12:09
Which part of that recording led you to believe TM doubled back?

None of you "Zimmerman's guilty" crowd have yet answered my question about whether or not you have listened to the whole unedited recording. That leads me to believe you haven't and you are running off the media "spun" and edited versions. If you had listened to the unedited version you wouldn't have to ask.

If you believed Spyder's version you would have to believe Zimmerman could run Martin down with Martin having a head start. DO you?

kirgi08
10-22-2012, 12:11
GD,I've faced shots fired in anger,you ain't.Yer safe at the bunker/basement.While we have over 55 acres of land.With "safe" rooms in each.'08. n00bs

countrygun
10-22-2012, 12:11
Yup, forget about context. Latch onto a "binderful of women" and keep repeating it. Why do you guys even bother to complain about such tactics when you embrace them so heartily?

I quoted your entire post, what more "context" do you want?

Do you understand the word "Context"? I do not think it means what you think it means.

Gundude
10-22-2012, 12:14
None of you "Zimmerman's guilty" crowd have yet answered my question about whether or not you have listened to the whole unedited recording. That leads me to believe you haven't and you are running off the media "spun" and edited versions. If you had listened to the unedited version you wouldn't have to ask.

If you believed Spyder's version you would have to believe Zimmerman could run Martin down with Martin having a head start. DO you?I'm not in the "Zimmerman's guilty" crowd. I'm in the "don't assume so fast that Zimmerman's innocent" crowd. Your ability to make so many unfounded assumptions and not recognize it, while jumping on other people's assumptions, is hilarious.

Yes, I've heard the 911 call. Nothing in it leads me to believe Martin doubled back. You still haven't said what part of it leads you to believe he doubled back, as opposed to, say, stopping and hiding somewhere.

Gundude
10-22-2012, 12:15
I quoted your entire post, what more "context" do you want?

Do you understand the word "Context"? I do not think it means what you think it means.How about the post it was a response to? If I posted a recording of Zimmerman saying "He looks black", since that was his whole response, would that be in context?

kirgi08
10-22-2012, 12:21
GD,I've faced shots fired in anger,you ain't.Yer safe at the bunker/basement.While we have over 55 acres of land.With "safe" rooms in each.'08. n00bs

How about the post it was a response to? If I posted a recording of Zimmerman saying "He looks black", since that was his whole response, would that be in context?

God youse gotta be an world class,I wish I could run that fast.'08.,

countrygun
10-22-2012, 12:22
I'm not in the "Zimmerman's guilty" crowd. I'm in the "don't assume so fast that Zimmerman's innocent" crowd. Your ability to make so many unfounded assumptions and not recognize it, while jumping on other people's assumptions, is hilarious.

Yes, I've heard the 911 call. Nothing in it leads me to believe Martin doubled back. You still haven't said what part of it leads you to believe he doubled back, as opposed to, say, stopping and hiding somewhere.

Was Zimmerman running during the recording. I have been on both ends of that kind of conversation, both running and on the radio listening to someone running and talking. If Zimmerman wasn't running when he was talking to the call taker, how in the heck did he catch up to Martin IF Martin was running away? Add in the length of the fight before the shot and it doesn't add up to Zimmerman being able to catch a fleeing Martin as Spyder asserted.

countrygun
10-22-2012, 12:28
How about the post it was a response to? If I posted a recording of Zimmerman saying "He looks black", since that was his whole response, would that be in context?

Your silly post still stands. You are stuck with it. You questioned whether kirgi was implying that Aimmerman fired the shot in anger.

that is pretty straight forward, stupid, but straight forward.

Gundude
10-22-2012, 12:31
:whip:

I'm tired of dealing with the fact that he built a gallows ta maintain full employment.'08. :sad:

The lob numbers suck,I'm referring ta Libya.'08. :sad:OK, I get it now, your posts are simply random ramblings, unrelated to any discussion at hand.

My bad for not realizing that before I responded to your "hearing gunshots fired in anger" post. I could've saved countrygun from blowing his load over a single sentence taken out of context, the way so many race baiters do on a daily basis. And I could've saved the time it took me to point it out to him.

Lesson learned.

Gundude
10-22-2012, 12:40
Was Zimmerman running during the recording. I have been on both ends of that kind of conversation, both running and on the radio listening to someone running and talking. If Zimmerman wasn't running when he was talking to the call taker, how in the heck did he catch up to Martin IF Martin was running away? Add in the length of the fight before the shot and it doesn't add up to Zimmerman being able to catch a fleeing Martin as Spyder asserted.Why did GZ get out of the car immediately after saying "He's running"? What were those noises that made the dispatcher ask GZ if he's following him?

From the tape and the resting place of the body, it would seem GZ ran just far enough to try to keep sight of TM, and TM ran just enough to get out of GZ's sight. Naturally, after the call was over, they found each other. Nothing tells us who found whom. That's why screaming either his guilt or his innocence is unfounded.

countrygun
10-22-2012, 12:54
Why did GZ get out of the car immediately after saying "He's running"? What were those noises that made the dispatcher ask GZ if he's following him?

From the tape and the resting place of the body, it would seem GZ ran just far enough to try to keep sight of TM, and TM ran just enough to get out of GZ's sight. Naturally, after the call was over, they found each other. Nothing tells us who found whom. That's why screaming either his guilt or his innocence is unfounded.


Review the recording again. Zimmerman didn't want to give his address because he didn't "know where he (TM) is"

When told by the call taker they didn't need him to follow he said "OK"

He says he is going to find the streeet name, IE a street sign.

Given that he was law abiding enough to be on NW and that night he called the police, and that he agreed to the call takers statement, I see no reason to doubt him. That is something you learn on a jury, and on the street, is that in a situation as it unfolds people will react "in character". There is nothing in Zimmermans words or known actions that prove he went out of his character. He wouldn't have called the police if he were planning on being a vigilante, he wouldn't have agreed with the call taker, if he had been willing to chase Martin he would have been running during the conversation.

Those things go way beyond reasonable doubt in the "chased him down" scenario. you might as well say he hitched a ride on a passing UFO to run Martin down.

Like I said, having been on a jury, it took us a lot more evidence than that to come to a guilty verdict.

Gundude
10-22-2012, 13:05
Review the recording again. Zimmerman didn't want to give his address because he didn't "know where he (TM) is"

When told by the call taker they didn't need him to follow he said "OK"

He says he is going to find the streeet name, IE a street sign.

Given that he was law abiding enough to be on NW and that night he called the police, and that he agreed to the call takers statement, I see no reason to doubt him. That is something you learn on a jury, and on the street, is that in a situation as it unfolds people will react "in character". There is nothing in Zimmermans words or known actions that prove he went out of his character. He wouldn't have called the police if he were planning on being a vigilante, he wouldn't have agreed with the call taker, if he had been willing to chase Martin he would have been running during the conversation.

Those things go way beyond reasonable doubt in the "chased him down" scenario. you might as well say he hitched a ride on a passing UFO to run Martin down.

Like I said, having been on a jury, it took us a lot more evidence than that to come to a guilty verdict.
As soon as he said "He's running" he got out of his truck (you can hear the door open and the chimes that go off when you open the door with the key still in the ignition). He says a couple things and then you can hear him running, which prompts the dispatcher to ask if he's following him. After the dispatcher says he doesn't need him to do that, he says "ok", a bit breahless from running, but you hear the running noises for another 10 or 15 seconds after, at which point he stops and talks to the dispatcher again ("He ran"). When the dispatcher asks him what address he's at he says he doesn't know because he's in a cut-through. The body was found in a cut-through. He had already chased him down to this point. That's pretty obvious from the tape.

countrygun
10-22-2012, 13:10
As soon as he said "He's running" he got out of his truck (you can hear the door open and the chimes that go off when you open the door with the key still in the ignition). He says a couple things and then you can hear him running, which prompts the dispatcher to ask if he's following him. After the dispatcher says he doesn't need him to do that, he says "ok", a bit breahless from running, but you hear the running noises for another 10 or 15 seconds after, at which point he stops and talks to the dispatcher again ("He ran"). When the dispatcher asks him what address he's at he says he doesn't know because he's in a cut-through. The body was found in a cut-through. He had already chased him down to this point. That's pretty obvious from the tape.

Funny I don't hear what I would call "running noises" after he said "OK" BTW I heard the sound of a car "keys in the ignition" bell on the recording, where, in the series of events did you place that?

Gundude
10-22-2012, 13:16
Funny I don't hear what I would call "running noises" after he said "OK" BTW I heard the sound of a car "keys in the ignition" bell on the recording, where, in the series of events did you place that?The dispatcher heard them. I heard them. You heard them too, just don't want to admit it. How do you figure he got from his truck, where you heard the "keys in the ignition bell" to the cut-through, where he couldn't see addresses?

countrygun
10-22-2012, 13:25
The dispatcher heard them. I heard them. You heard them too, just don't want to admit it. How do you figure he got from his truck, where you heard the "keys in the ignition bell" to the cut-though, where he couldn't see addresses?

And how did he cover that ground, fast enough to catch Martin, if as according to Spyder's scenario, "TM was running away from a man with a gun"?

And yet again, what in Zimmermans behavior that night, knowing the police were on the way indicates that he instigated the physical contact? What in the physical evidence contradicts Zimmerman's account? what in the evidence and the timeline indicates that Zimmerman was capable of running down a fleeing subject as Spyder claims?

As to what I heard, and agian having been on both ends of such transmissions, I hear a man at a walk, maybe brisk, but not at a run, it sounds different when someone is in a foot pursuit. But then I can only cite personal experience because that is the only kind of experience I have.

FFR Spyder GT
10-22-2012, 13:27
None of you "Zimmerman's guilty" crowd have yet answered my question about whether or not you have listened to the whole unedited recording. That leads me to believe you haven't and you are running off the media "spun" and edited versions. If you had listened to the unedited version you wouldn't have to ask.

If you believed Spyder's version you would have to believe Zimmerman could run Martin down with Martin having a head start. DO you?

countrygun,

I've listened to the unedited 911 call several times.

Where did I say that "Zimmerman could run Martin down with Martin having a head start"?

I've never said that. I said that GZ stated that when he was following TM that TM started running away from GZ.

You've been in your "Command Post" too long and are stating things as "facts" that are not true.

Several people believe that since TM did not live in the gated community and once he started running from GZ he got turned around and got lost. You "claim" you have seen a map of the gated community and if you have, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, then you will realize that it would be easy to get turned around and lose your direction considering the circumstances. ..... It's getting dark, raining a little and then someone is following you. You decide to run ( distance is your friend both on the street and the battle field). Next thing you know, your kinda lost and not sure where you are at the moment.

You cannot say this cannot happen because GZ, who was the neighborhood watch captain and resident "claimed" he wasn't sure where he was at at the time and was trying to find and address for the 911 dispatcher.

According to GZ statement he said (paraphrasing) that he turned around and TM was standing nearby and TM asked "Do you have a problem with me?"

Based on GZ statement TM felt that GZ was following him.

Back to what I asked earlier..........

Why doesn't "Stand Your Ground" apply to TM?

Gundude
10-22-2012, 13:32
And how did he cover that ground, fast enough to catch Martin, if as according to Spyder's scenario, "TM was running away from a man with a gun"?

And yet again, what in Zimmermans behavior that night, knowing the police were on the way indicates that he instigated the physical contact? What in the physical evidence contradicts Zimmerman's account? what in the evidence and the timeline indicates that Zimmerman was capable of running down a fleeing subject as Spyder claims?

As to what I heard, and agian having been on both ends of such transmissions, I hear a man at a walk, maybe brisk, but not at a run, it sounds different when someone is in a foot pursuit. But then I can only cite personal experience because that is the only kind of experience I have.I'm not trying to defend Spyder's scenario. I think TM stopped running as soon as he got out of sight of GZ, and he hid somewhere. Whether GZ was in a sprint of a brisk walk is irrelevant. He was in chase mode until he couldn't see TM any more, at which point he stopped and said "He ran" and started talking to dispatch again. GZ clued into the possibility that TM might not be long gone when he said his address out loud. I'm guessing when he hung up the phone they were within 50 feet of each other. Whether GZ found him or he found GZ is something we don't know, but we do know GZ chased him up to that point.

Skyhook
10-22-2012, 13:34
"Why doesn't "Stand Your Ground" apply to TM? "

Good question. Maybe because TM was the aggressor?

:whistling:

Bren
10-22-2012, 13:36
Based on GZ statement TM felt that GZ was following him.

Back to what I asked earlier..........

Why doesn't "Stand Your Ground" apply to TM?

Because "stand your ground" applies to using justifiable force in self-defense, without a duty to retreat. It isn't legal to use force against somebody for following you.

You really had to ask that?:upeyes:

countrygun
10-22-2012, 13:40
Where did I say that "Zimmerman could run Martin down with Martin having a head start"?

I've never said that. I said that GZ stated that when he was following TM that TM started running away from GZ.


To quote you from post #101

"During GZ's 911 call he clearly stated that TM was running. That's when the 911 dispatcher told GZ NOT to follow TM. GZ had a gun on him. That's a known fact. "



Now how did Z and M come to a confrontation unless

Zimmerman caught him

or

Martin turned back.

?

FFR Spyder GT
10-22-2012, 13:40
And how did he cover that ground, fast enough to catch Martin, if as according to Spyder's scenario, "TM was running away from a man with a gun"?

And yet again, what in Zimmermans behavior that night, knowing the police were on the way indicates that he instigated the physical contact? What in the physical evidence contradicts Zimmerman's account? what in the evidence and the timeline indicates that Zimmerman was capable of running down a fleeing subject as Spyder claims?

As to what I heard, and agian having been on both ends of such transmissions, I hear a man at a walk, maybe brisk, but not at a run, it sounds different when someone is in a foot pursuit. But then I can only cite personal experience because that is the only kind of experience I have.

countrygun,

You stated "I can only cite personal experience because that is the only kind of experience I have". :rofl::rofl:

We've already established the fact that your "personal experience" is very limited. :upeyes:

So, put yourself in TM shoes.........what would you do? You're home along...... You've ran out of your favorite juice box and you decide to walk down to the nearest store to get one. On the way home a Hispanic looking male slows his vehicle as he approaches you ( you're heading towards each other). You make eye contact as he passes you. Next thing you know he has stopped his vehicle and gotten out of it. Then he's watching you, talking on a cell phone and starts following you. What would you do?

You not breaking the law and the guy that's following isn't a cop.

So, what do you do?

countrygun
10-22-2012, 13:42
I'm not trying to defend Spyder's scenario. .

You jumped in at post #91 to defend it.

you defended it, you own it

Gundude
10-22-2012, 13:43
Because it isn't legal to use foprce against somebody for following you. You really had to ask that?:upeyes:We don't know who initiated the force. It is legal to stand your ground against somebody chasing you, and we know GZ was chasing him initially. That's documented on the 911 tape.

The Fist Of Goodness
10-22-2012, 13:44
countrygun,

You stated "I can only cite personal experience because that is the only kind of experience I have". :rofl::rofl:

We've already established the fact that your "personal experience" is very limited. :upeyes:

So, put yourself in TM shoes.........what would you do? You're home along...... You've ran out of your favorite juice box and you decide to walk down to the nearest store to get one. On the way home a Hispanic looking male slows his vehicle as he approaches you ( you're heading towards each other). You make eye contact as he passes you. Next thing you know he has stopped his vehicle and gotten out of it. Then he's watching you, talking on a cell phone and starts following you. What would you do?

You not breaking the law and the guy that's following isn't a cop.

So, what do you do?

Keep walking, dial 911, and be prepared to defend yourself if attacked.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

countrygun
10-22-2012, 13:44
countrygun,

You stated "I can only cite personal experience because that is the only kind of experience I have". :rofl::rofl:

We've already established the fact that your "personal experience" is very limited. :upeyes:



My experience on a murder jury is limited? How many have you been on?

My experience in law enforcement. How many years were you on the job?

Gundude
10-22-2012, 13:46
You jumped in at post #91 to defend it.

you defended it, you own itAre you high?

Pointing out your hypocrisy = asserting things went down exactly as Spyder said??

We are two different people. We're not asserting the same things. You can't argue my points by saying they don't mesh with his. Well, you can, but you'd look foolish.

countrygun
10-22-2012, 13:47
Keep walking, dial 911, and be prepared to defend yourself if attacked.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Gee, two people had phones. One called 911 and one didn't.

One gives a jury the impression that they are going to depend on the police and one doesn't.

I wonder what the one that didn't call the police was planning on doing?

Bren
10-22-2012, 13:47
You not breaking the law and the guy that's following isn't a cop.

So, what do you do?

Either ask him questions, or keep walking. Those are the only legal alternatives I can think of.

Again, who really has to ask these questions you keep asking? Do you not have a CCW permit that, I'd assume, required some minimal instruction on justifiable use of force?

Bren
10-22-2012, 13:52
We don't know who initiated the force. It is legal to stand your ground against somebody chasing you, and we know GZ was chasing him initially. That's documented on the 911 tape.

The facts everybody seems to agree on say that Trayvon was out of sight when he was supposedly "chasing" him and, no, "stand your ground" does not give you a right to use force against a person for "chasing you." If you mean to say the "chasing" put Trayvon in imminent fear of injury, then you'd be onto something - except for the part where Trayvon was out of sight and where it is undisputed in any of the evidence that, after "getting away" trayvon assaulted Zimmerman when Zimmerman was no longer chasing him.

So, even when phrased correctly, the "I'm-a-liberal-and-must-side-with-any-minority" theory fails.

Gundude
10-22-2012, 13:54
Either ask him questions, or keep walking. Those are the only legal alternatives I can think of.
"Do you have a problem with me?" is a question.