Just curious...with the number of times you continue to say the same things over and over again have you actully CONVINCED yourself that your arguments ARENT stupid?Wonderful!
If I am, then it should be no problem for you to point out these falsities, spin and mischaracterizing of mine, just like I did for yours.
Until then all we have is your spin, multiple falsities and mischaracterizing.
You even started your spin and mischaracterizing again in this post.
Your narrative is as clear as mud.
Because you rely on a biased outlook of what occurred.
It is filled with hyperbole, supposition and outright falsities.
And is just plain wrong.
Wrong again.
There was no stalking or harassment.
Wrong again.
No law says this.
Wrong again.
It was not illegal, so therefore he had every (r)ight.
This statement has been corrected over and over again, so I can only assume you are choosing to lie.
He was not told to do anything. A suggestion was made.
No one knows if it was actually an Officer and it doesn't matter if it was, because an Officer on the phone has no on site Authority over the person on the other end. None.
And as I believe was pointed out earlier, the 911 operator has no Authority because it would be a liability issue.
Wrong again.
Wrong again.
No law says this.
The suspicious behavior did exist.
Whether or not you or I think it was or wasn't suspicious doesn't matter.
Because it depends on the perceptions of the one who calls it in.
And as evidenced from the call, it was enough to dispatch a unit.
Wrong again.
That isn't a great track record.
I guess you've never been to Harlem.
It's uncorroborated testimony being told by the man who has the most reason to lie and it is inconsistent with another witnesses account.Wrong.
It is evidence and was used in the investigation.
If it wasn't consistent with what others reported, he would already have been arrested.
And if it turned out to be a lie, or contain a lie, you better bet it would be used in court as evidence also.
No it doesn't rule out his statement in any way.Yes, it does rule out what he said. He said he was walking back to his SUV and was attacked from behind. According to her, Trayvon asked him why he was following him and Zimmerman asked what Trayvon was doing there. Explain how two people who are deadly suspicious of each other can hold a conversation but one of them gets attacked from behind?
I am debating this from 3 directions. One is legalistic - does evidence WE know support a conviction? I don't think so - clearly not - but forensic evidence MAY change that.
Well said.
In fact, I'm sure that will be the closing argument for the prosecution should this ever go to trial.
No real forensic evidence exists. The police f-ed up big time.
Can they confirm the trajectory of the bullet w/o digging up the body.
Were Zimmeran's "wounds" photographed and/or examined by a doctor who could accurately confirm how he got those wounds.
Were his hands checked for gunshot residue?
His blood was not tested for alcohol, we know that. The gun isn't even in police custody.
Were Martin's body and clothes examined to determine if he did strike Zimmerman?
What kind of joke police department are they running down there, good thing the chief resigned today. The Martins could sue him and the police department for big buck -- not that I condone that sort of thing, but when negligence is so profound...
If I were to guess, when Martin saw the gun, he clocked Zimmerman who fell backward to the ground hitting his head. Martin starts yelling, Help, Help... The other boy sees them from some distance, then leaves. Zimmerman, filled with rage and fear, aims and shoots. Manslaughter. Reckless disregard for public safety.
lolJust curious...with the number of times you continue to say the same things over and over again have you actully CONVINCED yourself that your arguments ARENT stupid?
Lets go to one very basic example. We have a police officer on tape asking the guy if he is following him and informing him they do not need him to do that. YOU then parse that to mean that A-we dont REALLY know he was talking to a police officer and B-he wasnt REALLY telling him to not follow him. Your zeal in this instance alone completely blows any credibility which you might HOPE to have which...lets be honest...based on the facts...doesnt give you ANYTHING resembling sound footing from the get-go. I would kinda LOVE for you to be the guys defense attorney though. Whereas I believe he should be tried for some level of manslaughter because he CAUSED the incident and death, your defense would get the guy fried for sure.
Honestly...Do you think a jury is going to disregard the FACT that a DISPATCHER at the POLICE DEPARTMENT that ZIMMERMAN CALLED told him they do NOT NEED HIM TO FOLLOW? DO you think the jury is going to give greater weight to a 17 year old kid reacting to being stalked by a complete stranger than to the overzealous neighborhood watchman that was stalking him for absolutely NO reason? And if you are a security guard at a store and the requirement is that you be an UNARMED security guard, then regardless of the states laws on private and concealed carry, guess what you CANT DO. And...guess what neighborhood watch people CANT DO.Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
Riiiiight. I think you are the one mis-characterizing the situation. The narrative is pretty clear. Im not sure what others see in this case. I see an overzealous neighborhood watchman, carrying a weapon in a situation he shouldnt have been, following a kid he had no business following after being told by a real officer not to, for suspicious behavior that didnt exist. The 17 year old kid very likely overreacted to being stalked and harassed by the overzealous neighborhood watchman. Regardless...the responsibile agent is still the overzealous neighborhood watchman who was carrying a weapon in a situation he shouldnt have been, following a kid he had no business following after being told by a real officer not to, for suspicious behavior that didnt exist.
Well said.
1.) The jury would be told - on a Defense motion - that statement is false. It has been noted on this thread at least 30 times the dispatcher was NOT a real officer.
2,)The statement "The 17 year old kid very likely overreacted to being stalked and harassed by the overzealous neighborhood watchman," is exactly the defense's claim, and
3.) the claim that Zimmerman was carrying a gun when shouldn't would be a DA trying to use a JURY to overturn a valid state-law, which a jury cannot do.
Overall, that actually is more a defense closing argument.
How is that again? Zimmerman and Martin were talking to each other with Martin behind Zimmerman? That is not consistency, that is refutation. How does Zimmerman's claim that he lost sight of Martin and was going back to his SUV when attacked by Martin, square with the girlfriend's statement that she heard them confront each other verbally? With bated breath.
Inconsistent with who's account? Not the girlfriend's, which it is consistent with. So who's?It's uncorroborated testimony being told by the man who has the most reason to lie and it is inconsistent with another witnesses account.
Sadly...and seeing how zealously you defend a guy for creating an ultimately fatal encounter...it appears that it IS. If it is 'just' about Zimmerman, every action he made prior to and up to the fatal shooting caused this event. A 17 year old kid is dead because HE carried a weapon...HE decided to follow an innocent kid who was in no way, shape, or form guilty of ANYTHING. HE made some very damning comments (****ing coons...they always get away). HE ignored the police dispatcher that very clearly informed him not to follow the kid. He CAUSED the death of a 17 year old kid.lol
Me being being factual blows my credibility.
While you with your over blown hyperbole, supposition and and outright false statements are what? Credible? That's really incredible.
This isn't about you or me. Is it?
So how about sticking to the facts of the case instead of making them up.
What he said, and what you think he said has been two different things from the beginning.Other obvious lies told by Zimmerman was that he got out of his SUV to check the name of the street he was on ... that's refuted by his own phone call to 911 where he can be heard exiting his car to chase Trayvon when the kid took off running away from Zimmerman. Another lie is that he said he got out of his SUV to see what street he was on and was on his way back to his SUV when Trayvon supposedly attacked him from behind -- well that would place him by the street ... but the confrontation actually occurred in between two buildings, nowhere near the street.
The guy cold blood murdered Trayvon and is capitalizing on a lack of witnesses to rely on the stand your ground law to keep him out of jail.
My guess is that when he asked Trayvon what he was doing there, he reached out and either grabbed, or tried to grab Trayvon, in order to detain him until the police arrived; and then Trayvon began to fight back. If something like that did transpire, we may likely never know unless Zimmerman slips up and reveals the details of their confrontation.
I see you are still trying to spin what happened.Sadly...and seeing how zealously you defend a guy for creating an ultimately fatal encounter...it appears that it IS. If it is 'just' about Zimmerman, every action he made prior to and up to the fatal shooting caused this event. A 17 year old kid is dead because HE carried a weapon...HE decided to follow an innocent kid who was in no way, shape, or form guilty of ANYTHING. HE made some very damning comments (****ing coons...they always get away). HE ignored the police dispatcher that very clearly informed him not to follow the kid. He CAUSED the death of a 17 year old kid.
Trayvon is dead because he decided to confront Zimmerman from behind.every action he made prior to and up to the fatal shooting caused this event. A 17 year old kid is dead
You already know that this has not been confirmed yet you cling to it like it has. You have this preconceived narrative that you just wont let go of, no matter how many times you are shown to be wrong.HE made some very damning comments (****ing coons...they always get away).
Another statement you know not to be true. Deliberately telling an untruth is call lying.HE ignored the police dispatcher that very clearly informed him not to follow the kid.
Holy ****!! Tell me you didn't just say that?????Second, I am offended at asserting facts unknown, just assumed or outright false ...
Please link to that.But even though the 911 operator stated Zim sounded intoxicated, ?
Please pay better attention. What I said has nothing to do with gun-rights. I didn't even mention firearms.In every rage piece by MSNBC, they explain this was caused by gun-owners rights and proves those rights need be taken away. I've pointed out numerous times what you just confirm. Fundamentally, the media is event of this is an anti-gun rights crusade.
Please pay better attention. What I said has nothing to do with gun-rights. I didn't even mention firearms.
I spoke of a barbaric law that has no place in our society.
No. I think you are having reading difficulties.
Please stand by.
You are confusing two separate issues.
One is the 'correction of false' and dissemination of correct information, as in, he was not "told" to do anything.
Two, it was being said that he didn't turn around, where according to the evidence, he did at one point, turn around and head back to his truck.
So on both accounts the people making these statements were wrong.
I hope that clears up your confusion.
Trayvon is dead because he decided to confront Zimmerman from behind.
I see you are still trying to spin what happened.
I am defending the use of correct information which you do not seem to want to do.
Trayvon is dead because he decided to confront Zimmerman from behind.
You already know that this has not been confirmed yet you cling to it like it has. You have this preconceived narrative that you just wont let go of, no matter how many times you are shown to be wrong.
Another statement you know not to be true. Deliberately telling an untruth is call lying.
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?