To be honest, I didn't pay much attention to the Skittles angle. But now that I've read a bit about "blunts" and "lean" and the unaccounted for time between leaving the 7-11 and Zimmerman first noticing him....he could have smoked a "blunt". Or suppose the "blunt" was still in Martin's pocket when Zimmerman first saw him and not knowing if a Zimmerman was a cop, he took off running so he could hide it and then circle back round to confront Zimmerman...or he could have just waited for Zimmerman to catch up.
And it is also highly plausible that Martin bought the Skittles for his brother, Chad...but whose not really his brother. So the question is, what was 14yr old Chad going to do with the Skittles? Make some "lean" and "smoke some blunt" during the NFL game with Trayvon, perhaps? But then lots of people get stoned and have a few drinks during football games. Probably half the country at least. But none of that has anything to directly to do with Martins killing, so I guess thats why I didn't follow the Skittle angle very closely. Instead I focused on the evidence in the immediate moments of the attack to see if it was really self defense...and I concluded way back when that technically it was...but it seemed to have a lot mitigating circumstance to suggest that Zimmerman was culpable because he chased after Martin instead of staying in his vechicle like he was supposed to. He created the situation, he was the aggressor first, he had the advantage over Martin, and he knew that the police were coming. What advantage over Zimmerman did Martin have...he had no idea who or what the creep following him wanted. It is Martin that acted according the SYG law because he stood his ground against a threat with the only weapons he had, his fists. So in the course of standing his ground, Martin is the one who gets shot.
I'm just hypothesizing and speculating based on the evidence like everyone else...including you.iLOL
:doh
:lamo
You are the one showing that you do not know the evidence, or the applicability of that you do know.
Ew boy, here comes the nyuh uhhh, you don't know, neener neener, you're a liar routine...right on cue. <yawn>No there wasn't and no you haven't. So you are telling a lie. There is no mitigating circumstances against him at all.
Following is also what stalkers and serial killers do. Trayvon had no idea who the creep following him was, so he started running and so did Zimmerman. Zimmerman's shortness of breath from running after Trayvon is what tipped the dispatcher off that Zimmerman was following Trayvon..No there wasn't and no you haven't. So you either do not know the evidence or are purposely telling a lie. There was no chase. He followed in his vehicle.
He then got out and followed on foot only to stop doing so. There was no chase.
He was inside the gated community when he first saw Trayvon. He watched him from his SUV and then got out and started following him on foot. Then Trayvon started RUNNING!!!!! Zimmerman said so himself in a recorded call to the dispatcher.He wasn't on NW, but on his way to the store.
He broke the rules and started following Trayvon. What was he going to do when he caught up with him?And secondly.
He is not beholden to any NW rules. Nor are they rules. But guidelines.
Nor can those guidelines prevent him from acting the way he did, as his actions were legal.
Trayvon had a right to protect himself, too. The deadly threat facing Trayvon was an armed nutball who was following him for no apparent reason. How was Trayvon supposed to know Zimmerman wasn't some pervert or serial killer? Was he supposed to wait until Zimmerman got close enough to do him harm? Or does he stand his ground and become the aggressor instead of the victim. The SYG law says he doesn't have to wait to become a victim, he can stand and defend himself with deadly force (it used to be called reasonable force) if he feels his life in in eminent danger. You could be dead if you waited for an attacker to make the first move.Wrong!
Trayvon was not standing any ground, but unlawfully attacking.
How do you know Trayvon circled Zimmerman?Trayvon approached Zimmerman and circled him. That shows he was not trying to get away, but was trying to intimidate him.
Why did Zimmerman do that? Why didn't he just wait for the police where he was?here was no pursuit. Trayvon went South and had more than enough time to get home. While Zimmerman went East and then came back West.
When Trayvon approached Zimmerman from his rear when Zimmerman was not a threat of any sorts. Did you get that? From his rear.
Trayvon could have been riding on fear since he first saw that he was being followed by Zimmerman. His actions are those of a person defending themselves from a percieved threat ...or a real one such as another person trying to pull a gun on him.He approached yelling his question and immediately stuck Zimmerman upon arrival. That is an attack.
Trayvon's actions are not those of a person in fear.
Have you authenticated those tweets?
PLEASE EXPLAIN THE LEGAL AUTHORITY OF AND LEGAL DUTY TO COMPLY WITH "NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH" GUIDELINES.
Cite a source, any source. That claim has always been totally false.
Wrong!I'm just hypothesizing and speculating based on the evidence like everyone else...including you.
Ah... so you already knew you were wrong!Ew boy, here comes the nyuh uhhh, you don't know, neener neener, you're a liar routine...right on cue. <yawn>
Following is what children do.Following is also what stalkers and serial killers do.
Wrong!Trayvon had no idea who the creep following him was, so he started running and so did Zimmerman.
Wrong again!Zimmerman's shortness of breath from running after Trayvon is what tipped the dispatcher off that Zimmerman was following Trayvon..
Zimmerman: <panting>
Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: <panting> Yes.
:dohHe was inside the gated community when he first saw Trayvon. He watched him from his SUV and then got out and started following him on foot. Then Trayvon started RUNNING!!!!! Zimmerman said so himself in a recorded call to the dispatcher.
And again. They are not rules, but guidelines. Do you really not understand that?He broke the rules and started following Trayvon.
For Pete's sake. :dohTrayvon had a right to protect himself, too. The deadly threat facing Trayvon was an armed nutball who was following him for no apparent reason. How was Trayvon supposed to know Zimmerman wasn't some pervert or serial killer? Was he supposed to wait until Zimmerman got close enough to do him harm? Or does he stand his ground and become the aggressor instead of the victim. The SYG law says he doesn't have to wait to become a victim, he can stand and defend himself with deadly force (it used to be called reasonable force) if he feels his life in in eminent danger. You could be dead if you waited for an attacker to make the first move.
That is the evidence.How do you know Trayvon circled Zimmerman?
Zimmerman already stated why. NOr was he required to wait for the Police so you speculating why he didn't means absolutely nothing.Why did Zimmerman do that? Why didn't he just wait for the police where he was?
I say he approached him from his behind and you reply with he did not attack him from behind?Trayvon didn't attack him from behind,
That is actually wrong.instead he asked Zimmerman to his face, "why are you following me?"
Why no it isn't, as it is not part of the evidence.Is it possible that Zimmerman was reaching for his gun while he said that and Trayvon saw him and punched him in the nose and tackled him to the ground before Zimmerman could get his gun fully out? Why yes, it is.
Bs!Trayvon could have been riding on fear since he first saw that he was being followed by Zimmerman. His actions are those of a person defending themselves from a percieved threat ...or a real one such as another person trying to pull a gun on him.
Maybe it had something to do with the Call-Taker telling him to let him know if the suspicious person did anything else.When the police tell you to do something.....it's usually more than just a suggestion. Anyway, Zimmerman didn't seem to have a problem following NW "protocol" the five or six times he called the police before. So what made this time so different?
Is that in evidence somewhere?
It wasn't in that dump with the texts and pictures, as far as I could tell.
That statement there is worth the whole discussion. Kind of a private joke but enjoyable just the same.
What I don't understand is for a year people have been fighting about whether or not Martin was stoned on marijuana. Some argued the THC level was so low that it could have been smoked days before and others thought the level was appropriate for very recent use. No one during that time had been stating as far as I could remember he was high on Skittle Tea. Then as evidence you have a supposed text that reeks of a poor attempt to sound "ghetto".
Did that same text include the names of the Asiana pilots too?
They look like facebook posts, not tweets.
Whether they are fake or fabricated i do not know.
However i find it very peculiar, that not a single evidence from TMs facebook and/or twitter
Account was put into evidence in this trial.
If this is not his real account, what does his Real Account look like?
Something smells fishy.
If you reversed that - you'd have the same, true statement.
They were both thugs, both causing trouble, evidently - and no evidence came out during the entire investigation and trial that proved otherwise. The only ball that Zimmerman has is he called 911, but that was before he acted - not after. This is an example of 'when things go really wrong and no one else is around to see it.'
And because one is dead and there were no eyewitnesses - we have Zimmerman's word, a smattering of evidence that amounts to nothing, and mere personal opinions.
The "if you punch someone in the nose you win the fight" was singularly the most relevant and important FACT (not subjective or speculation) about TM of all. And it was kept out, while allowing evidence about GZ and physical combat allowed in. To me, that made it 100% clear the judge was NOT impartial.
That Corey hide that evidence for months is basis for sanctions both in terms of attorney fees and against her law license.
I think we need a SCOTUS ruling on the admissibility of cell phone records. Her reasoning was that there was no proof he'd sent those texts himself. And that would be true. But, seems to me, it'd be a case of "let the jury decide." I agree with you . . . the punch in the nose text and the text about losing a fight because a kid got on top of him and he couldn't defend himself . . . both very powerful.
George's texts etc were also NOT allowed at trial.
If you reversed that - you'd have the same, true statement.
They were both thugs, both causing trouble, evidently - and no evidence came out during the entire investigation and trial that proved otherwise. The only ball that Zimmerman has is he called 911, but that was before he acted - not after. This is an example of 'when things go really wrong and no one else is around to see it.'
And because one is dead and there were no eyewitnesses - we have Zimmerman's word, a smattering of evidence that amounts to nothing, and mere personal opinions.
I think we need a SCOTUS ruling on the admissibility of cell phone records. Her reasoning was that there was no proof he'd sent those texts himself. And that would be true. But, seems to me, it'd be a case of "let the jury decide." I agree with you . . . the punch in the nose text and the text about losing a fight because a kid got on top of him and he couldn't defend himself . . . both very powerful.
What texts?
The ruling to seal his texts and phone records was made months ago.. along with not allowing any prior bad acts. Evidently .. he was texting and emailing before and after the shooting.. and they were called "incendiary".
I think we need a SCOTUS ruling on the admissibility of cell phone records. Her reasoning was that there was no proof he'd sent those texts himself. And that would be true. But, seems to me, it'd be a case of "let the jury decide." I agree with you . . . the punch in the nose text and the text about losing a fight because a kid got on top of him and he couldn't defend himself . . . both very powerful.
BS... prove it or provide source
Did you find the "punch in the nose" text?
I just don't remember it from the third supplemental or connors testimony.
If you did, which of the eight was it in?
The "if you punch someone in the nose you win the fight" was singularly the most relevant and important FACT (not subjective or speculation) about TM of all. And it was kept out, while allowing evidence about GZ and physical combat allowed in. To me, that made it 100% clear the judge was NOT impartial.
That Corey hide that evidence for months is basis for sanctions both in terms of attorney fees and against her law license.
Look it up yourself.. I am not going to hunt it up again.
You'll have to ask Joko. I got it from him:
How can you do something again when you haven't done so in the first place?Look it up yourself.. I am not going to hunt it up again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?