• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The jewelry found in Trayvons possession. [W:242]

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,983
Reaction score
9,129
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
We all know ™ was found to have jewelry and a screw driver when apprehended for vandalism at his school.
We all pretty much know ™ wouldn't answer to whom it belonged.

sharon was saying it was costume jewelry.

What we didn't know is exactly what was found.

So here is the list.




(Original credit to Sundance at the CTH for finding out through a FOIA request.)

In document at Scribe. Page 101 and 102. Also listed just before that in individually entries.
Trayvon Martin MDSPD Reports - Tagle Attachment pgs 90-102


Do you really believe it wasn't stolen?
 
Last edited:


That list seems pretty incriminating. Did any others claim the jewelry?
 
Now now now, many teenage males walk around with that in their pocket. For impromptu cross-dressing.
 

No crime, no charges, no stolen jewelry.
 
It doesn't matter if he was a master thief with the Hope Diamond in his pants and a stolen Rembrandt rolled up in his pocket. All that matters is what happened between the time Zimmerman made his call to the police and Martin being shot. That is all that matters, and as far as I can tell, Zimmerman is going to have a lot of explaining to do if he wants to successfully mount a self-defense claim.
 

This

People are full of **** - and it pisses me off. Some would honestly dip into his Kindergarten files to pull out anything that might make him look bad. He just became the whipping boy of all spite.

What's next - his shot records and how much he cried when he was kneed in the nuts the first time?
 

Absolutely which is why I never said anything about that.
This is specifically about the jewelry and whether you believe it was stolen or not.
 
Excon said:
Absolutely which is why I never said anything about that.
This is specifically about the jewelry and whether you believe it was stolen or not.
Click to expand...

What - evidence for the current trial isn't meaty enough for you to cream over?
 
This? Not!
This thread was not made in that regards. Had you restricted yourself to that which was asked, you would have seen that.
But instead you wish to go off on this tangent.
Your tangent sure brings up a puzzling condition that some folks seems to suffer from.

It seems to me that folks should be upset that a potential theft was covered up.
And that a potential thief was painted as an angle even though he was not.
Those things are more troubling.

And since many of those folks (not specifically you) did not object to the false narrative that was being propagated to begin with, they really have no room to speak now, and if they do, are just showing their bias.
 
Excon said:
Cream over?
What are you speaking about?
Click to expand...

Whatever you want to say.

I just see people dragging a dead guy's life through the mud . . . again and again . . . because his murder exploded into a 2nd amendment suit of interest.

I'm sick of it - it's twisted and ****ed up - and no one can say anything to sooth how peeved it makes me.
 

Get used to it. The history of a person should play a role in the credibility of testimony. If TM was an all-around hoodlum then it should come out to assess the likelihood that TM was acting suspicious that night. Those who were trying to say he was a good kid deserve to have this information thrown in their faces.
 

Good kid - bad kid. Who cares? . . . His 17 year old self isn't on trial for theft.

Zimmerman is on trial for shooting an adult that he believed to have committed a crime. . . and so on.

Sorry - but what he did in high school, etc, does NOT matter. If it did - it would be admissible evidence in the current trial.
 
Interesting!
What I find to be sick and twisted is the following, which confirms what I previously stated about bias.

Killing someone in self-defense, while heart wrenching for some, is not murder.


Aunt Spiker said:
for shooting an adult that he believed to have committed a crime. . .
Click to expand...
I would say this is that bias I was speaking about, as that is not what is reported as happening.


Aunt Spiker said:
it would be admissible evidence in the current trial.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily.
But you did want to go off on this tangent.

Admissibility for trial and public disclosure are two separate things.
Especially as the public has been lied to about the little angel from the beginning.
There is no reason that the public should not know.
 
Zimmerman saw the jewelry, and it made him fear for his life!

He was also afraid because Martin may or may not have assaulted the driver of a bus that Z wasn't riding.

And don't forget the pot plants. Terrifying!
 
rocket88 said:
Zimmerman saw the jewelry, and it made him fear for his life!

He was also afraid because Martin may or may not have assaulted the driver of a bus that Z wasn't riding.

And don't forget the pot plants. Terrifying!
Click to expand...
The question was if you believed it wasn't stolen.
 
Excon said:
The question was whether or not you thought it was stolen.
Click to expand...

I don't care. Unless it was part of the scuffle that resulted in one person's death, it's immaterial. If the claim is self-defense, the only thing that matters is what made him fear for his life, and was that fear justified?
 
rocket88 said:
I don't care. Unless it was part of the scuffle that resulted in one person's death, it's immaterial. If the claim is self-defense, the only thing that matters is what made him fear for his life, and was that fear justified?
Click to expand...
The OP never said it was material to the trial, did it?
It asked a specific question.
Were you not paying attention to what was asked?
 
Sure. But let's also form a line for those who made claims of abuse at the hands of Zimmerman. Including the ex-fiance who says Jorge struck her and the police officer who arrested him for assault.
 
There are multi thousands of people who know the evidence and facts.
Yes George and the ex fiancé had a cross suit going for a year. At the end of that time, the Judge on the case told them to "stay away from each other" and it was dropped.
As noted earlier, the Judge sentenced George to a class for his "assault".
 
Was he Mormon?
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Zimmerman is on trial for shooting an adult that he believed to have committed a crime.
Click to expand...

The little **** DID commit a crime. What is it with people thinking that it isn't a crime to smash someone in the face, jump on top of them, and bash their head into a sidewalk?

If someone does that to me while I am armed, you bet your ass they are getting shot. Thug life gangster trash thinking they can go assault whoever they want should get what they deserve when they pick a fight with the wrong mother****er. He took a gamble and LOST. Good riddance.
 

Skilled counsel bringing up *indirectly/from a different angle* that M was casing windows, looking to burglarize someone/house. In the past found to have burglar tools and ladies jewelry in his backpack, dug paraphernalia, 10 suspensions from school

Maybe the jewelry tied into past crimes in Sanford and M was out to silence Z thinking he got made or busted
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…