What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (4 Viewers)

Barbara Walters refuses impromptu interview with George Zimmerman.

Earlier during Thursday’s show, Walters explained that she’d set up an interview with Zimmerman the day before, but the plans fell through when an agreement about the terms for the talk couldn’t be reached.

According to Walters, Zimmerman would only do the interview under one condition. She wasn’t willing to reveal that caveat, but added, “It was a condition that, being a member of ABC News, I was unable to grant.”

Offering one big clue, she said, “He’s desperate for money. His defense fund ran out.”

 
Yes I read the article I posted. I find it interesting though that you think you can tell the difference when it happens in real-time. Do you think he apologized after hitting the computer, or owned that smashing like, yeah I meant to do that, or perhaps do you think he tried to paint a positive description of the events that happened and said it was an accident when police filed a report when they arrested him? :rolleyes:
:owned: but won't even admit it. Call me out for my choice of words when it's straight from your article. :lmao: x10 that he told the cops it was an accident like that'll mitigate the armed robbery charges. Just admit you effed up and move on.
I'm pretty sure what I said went right over your head.
:lmao: Uh oh, guy smashed a computer, better turn this into a firefight! :lmao: Anyway, what were you saying about my choice of words again?
Right because smashing a computer does not escalate the situation, for all you know if you were in that room and you didn't actually see him smash the computer you might think he was taking a swing at someone, but of course you would have thought to yourself, yeah it must have been an accident. I find it interesting that you think you need to hear a gun shot before you start shooting. Let them shoot first and then ask questions/shoot later? Good luck with that.
I think it's interesting that you think I said somewhere that they needed to shoot first and still won't own up to completely flopping while trying to slam me for my word choice. I said my opinion would change based on the tone and disposition of the robbers.
Please be more vague about "get deadly" and "tone and disposition of the robbers": we have smashing things (possibly people if you can't see what is being smashed because they told you not to move) with a bat not deadly enough and actually using a gun too deadly so I'm guessing they need to tell you "THIS IS GOING TO GET DEADLY" for you to take action. You know what forget it, your blinders are on so tight you won't see daylight.
Get back to me when you learn to read. I can't be specific about a situation I'm not in, there's no hard rule about it. But most robberies are just robberies. That's why the death rate isn't equal to the robbery rate.
 
Yes I read the article I posted. I find it interesting though that you think you can tell the difference when it happens in real-time. Do you think he apologized after hitting the computer, or owned that smashing like, yeah I meant to do that, or perhaps do you think he tried to paint a positive description of the events that happened and said it was an accident when police filed a report when they arrested him? :rolleyes:
:owned: but won't even admit it. Call me out for my choice of words when it's straight from your article. :lmao: x10 that he told the cops it was an accident like that'll mitigate the armed robbery charges. Just admit you effed up and move on.
I'm pretty sure what I said went right over your head.
:lmao: Uh oh, guy smashed a computer, better turn this into a firefight! :lmao:Anyway, what were you saying about my choice of words again?
Where have you taken your self defense class?
What does that have to do with anything? TIA
Answer the question and I'll answer yours.
I haven't taken any self defense classes.
 
What if I didn't want to give the robber my wallet.. He has a gun, and the intent is either to use it on me if I refuse, or to make me think he will.. So, if I don't want to give him my wallet, and because of that he would shoot me, am I allowed to shot him?

When someone points a gun at you, that's a threat.. A threat with deadly force. You are at that point certainly allowed to defend yourself with deadly force..

Sweeney's implied assertion is ridiculous..

I expect his response to this post to be equally ridiculous..

"what if he pointed the gun at you on accident?"

"What if your friend pointed a gun at you while cleaning it unintentionally?, Is that a threat?"

If I have a gun, and you point a gun at me during a robbery, better bet you're getting shot if I have the chance...

 
What if I didn't want to give the robber my wallet.. He has a gun, and the intent is either to use it on me if I refuse, or to make me think he will.. So, if I don't want to give him my wallet, and because of that he would shoot me, am I allowed to shot him?When someone points a gun at you, that's a threat.. A threat with deadly force. You are at that point certainly allowed to defend yourself with deadly force..Sweeney's implied assertion is ridiculous..I expect his response to this post to be equally ridiculous.."what if he pointed the gun at you on accident?""What if your friend pointed a gun at you while cleaning it unintentionally?, Is that a threat?"If I have a gun, and you point a gun at me during a robbery, better bet you're getting shot if I have the chance...
I agree, the shooter acted in self defense. Only thing I wish is he was a better shot. Did you see those guys RUN out of there when the tables were turned?!! That was sweet and Sweeney is totally wrong on this one.
 
What if I didn't want to give the robber my wallet.. He has a gun, and the intent is either to use it on me if I refuse, or to make me think he will.. So, if I don't want to give him my wallet, and because of that he would shoot me, am I allowed to shot him?When someone points a gun at you, that's a threat.. A threat with deadly force. You are at that point certainly allowed to defend yourself with deadly force..Sweeney's implied assertion is ridiculous..I expect his response to this post to be equally ridiculous.."what if he pointed the gun at you on accident?""What if your friend pointed a gun at you while cleaning it unintentionally?, Is that a threat?"If I have a gun, and you point a gun at me during a robbery, better bet you're getting shot if I have the chance...
What implied assertion is that? I used the word' accidentally' because it was in the article posted. I should have expected you to only read into it what you wanted and completely miss the point. I said it depended on the tone or attitude or disposition of the robbers whether it not I would appreciate some yahoo turning a robbery into a shootout. But you're so dedicated to being stupid you can't even figure that out. You'd rather just go off into hyperbole land.
 
What if I didn't want to give the robber my wallet.. He has a gun, and the intent is either to use it on me if I refuse, or to make me think he will.. So, if I don't want to give him my wallet, and because of that he would shoot me, am I allowed to shot him?

When someone points a gun at you, that's a threat.. A threat with deadly force. You are at that point certainly allowed to defend yourself with deadly force..

Sweeney's implied assertion is ridiculous..

I expect his response to this post to be equally ridiculous..

"what if he pointed the gun at you on accident?"

"What if your friend pointed a gun at you while cleaning it unintentionally?, Is that a threat?"

If I have a gun, and you point a gun at me during a robbery, better bet you're getting shot if I have the chance...
What implied assertion is that? I used the word' accidentally' because it was in the article posted. I should have expected you to only read into it what you wanted and completely miss the point. I said it depended on the tone or attitude or disposition of the robbers whether it not I would appreciate some yahoo turning a robbery into a shootout. But you're so dedicated to being stupid you can't even figure that out. You'd rather just go off into hyperbole land.
Anyone willing to shoot someone who threatens them with a gun is a "yahoo" now.. Gotcha..Pointing a gun is all it takes.. That's enough.. If he's pointing a gun, he's dangerous. 'maybe if everyone does what he says, he won't shoot anyone'.. Well bud, 'Maybe' doesn't cut it for me. 'Maybe' he will shoot someone regardless.. He's obviously outside of reasonable thought if he's going to run into a public place waiving a gun.. What if he says he wants your wife/girlfriend/sister/daughter to come with him.. What if he decides after doing what he said, he's going to shoot the witnesses anyway.. What if he gets nervous and accidentally shoots someone..? As soon as that gun comes out, the situation deserves action..

 
What if I didn't want to give the robber my wallet.. He has a gun, and the intent is either to use it on me if I refuse, or to make me think he will.. So, if I don't want to give him my wallet, and because of that he would shoot me, am I allowed to shot him?

When someone points a gun at you, that's a threat.. A threat with deadly force. You are at that point certainly allowed to defend yourself with deadly force..

Sweeney's implied assertion is ridiculous..

I expect his response to this post to be equally ridiculous..

"what if he pointed the gun at you on accident?"

"What if your friend pointed a gun at you while cleaning it unintentionally?, Is that a threat?"

If I have a gun, and you point a gun at me during a robbery, better bet you're getting shot if I have the chance...
What implied assertion is that? I used the word' accidentally' because it was in the article posted. I should have expected you to only read into it what you wanted and completely miss the point. I said it depended on the tone or attitude or disposition of the robbers whether it not I would appreciate some yahoo turning a robbery into a shootout. But you're so dedicated to being stupid you can't even figure that out. You'd rather just go off into hyperbole land.
Anyone willing to shoot someone who threatens them with a gun is a "yahoo" now.. Gotcha..Pointing a gun is all it takes.. That's enough.. If he's pointing a gun, he's dangerous. 'maybe if everyone does what he says, he won't shoot anyone'.. Well bud, 'Maybe' doesn't cut it for me. 'Maybe' he will shoot someone regardless.. He's obviously outside of reasonable thought if he's going to run into a public place waiving a gun.. What if he says he wants your wife/girlfriend/sister/daughter to come with him.. What if he decides after doing what he said, he's going to shoot the witnesses anyway.. What if he gets nervous and accidentally shoots someone..? As soon as that gun comes out, the situation deserves action..
There's no reasoning with MAD sweeney, let him continue to be mad with his blinders on.
 
What if I didn't want to give the robber my wallet.. He has a gun, and the intent is either to use it on me if I refuse, or to make me think he will.. So, if I don't want to give him my wallet, and because of that he would shoot me, am I allowed to shot him?

When someone points a gun at you, that's a threat.. A threat with deadly force. You are at that point certainly allowed to defend yourself with deadly force..

Sweeney's implied assertion is ridiculous..

I expect his response to this post to be equally ridiculous..

"what if he pointed the gun at you on accident?"

"What if your friend pointed a gun at you while cleaning it unintentionally?, Is that a threat?"

If I have a gun, and you point a gun at me during a robbery, better bet you're getting shot if I have the chance...
What implied assertion is that? I used the word' accidentally' because it was in the article posted. I should have expected you to only read into it what you wanted and completely miss the point. I said it depended on the tone or attitude or disposition of the robbers whether it not I would appreciate some yahoo turning a robbery into a shootout. But you're so dedicated to being stupid you can't even figure that out. You'd rather just go off into hyperbole land.
Anyone willing to shoot someone who threatens them with a gun is a "yahoo" now.. Gotcha..Pointing a gun is all it takes.. That's enough.. If he's pointing a gun, he's dangerous. 'maybe if everyone does what he says, he won't shoot anyone'.. Well bud, 'Maybe' doesn't cut it for me. 'Maybe' he will shoot someone regardless.. He's obviously outside of reasonable thought if he's going to run into a public place waiving a gun.. What if he says he wants your wife/girlfriend/sister/daughter to come with him.. What if he decides after doing what he said, he's going to shoot the witnesses anyway.. What if he gets nervous and accidentally shoots someone..? As soon as that gun comes out, the situation deserves action..
You "got" nothing. You clearly (and unsurprisingly) still don't get it. For all your cries about hyperbolic reactions to your posts, you can't even go one post without taking a supposition or statement to an extreme. Clearly then police procedure and gun tactical classes must surely teach to instantly fire at anyone with a gun no matter the odds or number of civilians around. Gotcha.

 
What if I didn't want to give the robber my wallet.. He has a gun, and the intent is either to use it on me if I refuse, or to make me think he will.. So, if I don't want to give him my wallet, and because of that he would shoot me, am I allowed to shot him?

When someone points a gun at you, that's a threat.. A threat with deadly force. You are at that point certainly allowed to defend yourself with deadly force..

Sweeney's implied assertion is ridiculous..

I expect his response to this post to be equally ridiculous..

"what if he pointed the gun at you on accident?"

"What if your friend pointed a gun at you while cleaning it unintentionally?, Is that a threat?"

If I have a gun, and you point a gun at me during a robbery, better bet you're getting shot if I have the chance...
What implied assertion is that? I used the word' accidentally' because it was in the article posted. I should have expected you to only read into it what you wanted and completely miss the point. I said it depended on the tone or attitude or disposition of the robbers whether it not I would appreciate some yahoo turning a robbery into a shootout. But you're so dedicated to being stupid you can't even figure that out. You'd rather just go off into hyperbole land.
Anyone willing to shoot someone who threatens them with a gun is a "yahoo" now.. Gotcha..Pointing a gun is all it takes.. That's enough.. If he's pointing a gun, he's dangerous. 'maybe if everyone does what he says, he won't shoot anyone'.. Well bud, 'Maybe' doesn't cut it for me. 'Maybe' he will shoot someone regardless.. He's obviously outside of reasonable thought if he's going to run into a public place waiving a gun.. What if he says he wants your wife/girlfriend/sister/daughter to come with him.. What if he decides after doing what he said, he's going to shoot the witnesses anyway.. What if he gets nervous and accidentally shoots someone..? As soon as that gun comes out, the situation deserves action..
There's no reasoning with MAD sweeney, let him continue to be mad with his blinders on.
Ok CIRCUS BOY. I find it hard to believe someone who is talking about differing scenarios is the one with blinders on and the circus clowns saying "see gun, shoot!" no matter what the situation are leveling that charge. Unsurprising though based on the CIRCUS TWINS.
 
What if I didn't want to give the robber my wallet.. He has a gun, and the intent is either to use it on me if I refuse, or to make me think he will.. So, if I don't want to give him my wallet, and because of that he would shoot me, am I allowed to shot him?

When someone points a gun at you, that's a threat.. A threat with deadly force. You are at that point certainly allowed to defend yourself with deadly force..

Sweeney's implied assertion is ridiculous..

I expect his response to this post to be equally ridiculous..

"what if he pointed the gun at you on accident?"

"What if your friend pointed a gun at you while cleaning it unintentionally?, Is that a threat?"

If I have a gun, and you point a gun at me during a robbery, better bet you're getting shot if I have the chance...
What implied assertion is that? I used the word' accidentally' because it was in the article posted. I should have expected you to only read into it what you wanted and completely miss the point. I said it depended on the tone or attitude or disposition of the robbers whether it not I would appreciate some yahoo turning a robbery into a shootout. But you're so dedicated to being stupid you can't even figure that out. You'd rather just go off into hyperbole land.
Anyone willing to shoot someone who threatens them with a gun is a "yahoo" now.. Gotcha..Pointing a gun is all it takes.. That's enough.. If he's pointing a gun, he's dangerous. 'maybe if everyone does what he says, he won't shoot anyone'.. Well bud, 'Maybe' doesn't cut it for me. 'Maybe' he will shoot someone regardless.. He's obviously outside of reasonable thought if he's going to run into a public place waiving a gun.. What if he says he wants your wife/girlfriend/sister/daughter to come with him.. What if he decides after doing what he said, he's going to shoot the witnesses anyway.. What if he gets nervous and accidentally shoots someone..? As soon as that gun comes out, the situation deserves action..
There's no reasoning with MAD sweeney, let him continue to be mad with his blinders on.
Ok CIRCUS BOY. I find it hard to believe someone who is talking about differing scenarios is the one with blinders on and the circus clowns saying "see gun, shoot!" no matter what the situation are leveling that charge. Unsurprising though based on the CIRCUS TWINS.
Im not the least bit surprised by the pro zimmereman crowds ''shoot first and ask questions later '' attitude.
 
"Is there anything that you would have done differently in retrospect?"

"No sir."

:wall:

:crazy:

Try this one... "I should have stayed in the car and let the police do their job."

 
What if I didn't want to give the robber my wallet.. He has a gun, and the intent is either to use it on me if I refuse, or to make me think he will.. So, if I don't want to give him my wallet, and because of that he would shoot me, am I allowed to shot him?

When someone points a gun at you, that's a threat.. A threat with deadly force. You are at that point certainly allowed to defend yourself with deadly force..

Sweeney's implied assertion is ridiculous..

I expect his response to this post to be equally ridiculous..

"what if he pointed the gun at you on accident?"

"What if your friend pointed a gun at you while cleaning it unintentionally?, Is that a threat?"

If I have a gun, and you point a gun at me during a robbery, better bet you're getting shot if I have the chance...
What implied assertion is that? I used the word' accidentally' because it was in the article posted. I should have expected you to only read into it what you wanted and completely miss the point. I said it depended on the tone or attitude or disposition of the robbers whether it not I would appreciate some yahoo turning a robbery into a shootout. But you're so dedicated to being stupid you can't even figure that out. You'd rather just go off into hyperbole land.
Anyone willing to shoot someone who threatens them with a gun is a "yahoo" now.. Gotcha..Pointing a gun is all it takes.. That's enough.. If he's pointing a gun, he's dangerous. 'maybe if everyone does what he says, he won't shoot anyone'.. Well bud, 'Maybe' doesn't cut it for me. 'Maybe' he will shoot someone regardless.. He's obviously outside of reasonable thought if he's going to run into a public place waiving a gun.. What if he says he wants your wife/girlfriend/sister/daughter to come with him.. What if he decides after doing what he said, he's going to shoot the witnesses anyway.. What if he gets nervous and accidentally shoots someone..? As soon as that gun comes out, the situation deserves action..
There's no reasoning with MAD sweeney, let him continue to be mad with his blinders on.
Ok CIRCUS BOY. I find it hard to believe someone who is talking about differing scenarios is the one with blinders on and the circus clowns saying "see gun, shoot!" no matter what the situation are leveling that charge. Unsurprising though based on the CIRCUS TWINS.
Im not the least bit surprised by the pro zimmereman crowds ''shoot first and ask questions later '' attitude.
Im not the least bit surprised the law agrees with us either.
 
"Is there anything that you would have done differently in retrospect?""No sir." :wall: :crazy: Try this one... "I should have stayed in the car and let the police do their job."
Seriously - WTF.Try: "I wish I would have never seen him."Try: "I wish we could have both walked away from this."Does this guy have any remorse what-so-ever?
 
"Is there anything that you would have done differently in retrospect?""No sir." :wall: :crazy: Try this one... "I should have stayed in the car and let the police do their job."
Seriously - WTF.Try: "I wish I would have never seen him."Try: "I wish we could have both walked away from this."Does this guy have any remorse what-so-ever?
This was all God's plan. Who is he to question that?
 
"Is there anything that you would have done differently in retrospect?""No sir." :wall: :crazy: Try this one... "I should have stayed in the car and let the police do their job."
Seriously - WTF.Try: "I wish I would have never seen him."Try: "I wish we could have both walked away from this."Does this guy have any remorse what-so-ever?
My closing argument would be that exchange on a five-minute loop. Dude is completely effing crazy.
 
DNA TALK.

http://my.firedoglake.com/mason/2012/05/21/dna-and-gsr-update-on-george-zimmerman-case/

Summary of DNA and GSR Evidence*

1. Trayvon Martin’s shirt (ME-8)

Four stains tested positive for blood. Trayvon Martin is the source of two stains. George Zimmerman is the source for another and the fourth stain is a mixed sample containing DNA from both individuals.

2. Trayvon Martin’s hoodie (ME 12)

Two stains test positive for blood. Trayvon is the source of one and no DNA result on the other.

No DNA results foreign to Trayvon Martin are found on both lower sleeves.

Two holes were discovered in the area of the “upper left chest” (one in each item of clothing) that exhibited characteristics consistent with a contact gunshot.

3. My thoughts

Given the lack of George Zimmerman’s DNA on the hoodie, the presence of blood contributed by George Zimmerman on the shirt that he was wearing underneath the hoodie indicates the hoodie was not covering the portion of the shirt where the bloodstain was located. Difficult to draw any additional conclusions without knowing the location of the bloodstains on the shirt (e.g., whether the hoodie was pulled up exposing the shirt or the shirt was extended below the hoodie or how this could have happened)

No DNA results foreign to Trayvon Martin are found on both lower sleeves suggesting that Trayvon was not beating Zimmerman.

The two holes obviously came from the same shot and there is a potential conflict between the location of the wound (1 inch left of the midline and 1/2 inch below the nipple) and the location of the two holes (upper chest area).

There also is a potential conflict created by the medical examiner’s conclusion that the muzzle of the gun was 2 to 4 inches away (an intermediate distance) when the fatal shot was fired compared the firearm’s analyst who concluded that the muzzle of the gun was in contact with the clothing.

Marilyn, who comments at my law blog, suggested Zimmerman was restraining Martin by gripping his clothing with one hand and fired the gun with the other as Martin was attempting to get away. This could explain how the upper part of both items of clothing could have been pulled down as well as a few inches away from Martin’s chest when Zimmerman fired the fatal shot. It also might explain how Zimmerman’s blood might have gotten on the shirt, but not the hoodie.

I think we lack sufficient evidence to draw that conclusion at this point, but it’s certainly possible. Might also explain how the shot went straight in without angling up or down, left or right.

Of course, if it happened this way, the shooting definitely was not in self-defense.

4. George Zimmerman’s shirt (DMS-16) and jacket (DMS-19).

Gunshot Residue (GSR) was found on the jacket in the form of 1 particle of lead found on the upper back portion of the right sleeve.

Twelve bloodstains on the shirt were contributed by George Zimmerman, according to DNA analysis.

Thirteen bloodstains on the jacket contain Zimmerman’s DNA. Trayvon Martin’s DNA is present in four of them (mixed samples) and his DNA was detected in one mixed sample where the other contributor could not be identifies.

5. My thoughts

We do not know the size of any of these bloodstains. but I imagine some are quite small because they probably were deposited by high velocity blood spatter from the gunshot, which resembles a fine spray.

The pattern of blood spatter may establish where the wound was in relation to the jacket when the fatal shot was fired and help to establish the relative positions of the two individuals.

The only conclusion one can draw regarding the presence of GSR is that the object in question was in a shooting environment at some time.

GSR can be wiped or washed off, and one cannot tell how long it has been present, so we probably cannot reliably draw any conclusions from the presence of the single particle of lead on the upper back portion of the right sleeve of his jacket.

I forgot to add the DNA analysis about Trayvon Martin’s fingernail scrapings.

Right hand (ME-2A): tested positive for blood containing Trayvon Martin’s DNA.

Left hand (ME-2B): no result.

By the way, the numbering system, which in this instance is ME-2 A&B, means the medical examiner’s office obtained the fingernail clippings in two envelopes labeled A & B at the autopsy and submitted them into evidence in one larger envelope as Exhibit ME-2.

Other exhibits are typically numbered with the officer’s initials who placed them into evidence.

*The information in this article comes from the lab reports in the document dump.

1. Lab Report March 26, 2012 (p. 104)

2. Supplementary Lab Report May 9, 2012 (p. 110)

3. Lab Report March 22, 2012 (p. 122)

4. Lab Report March 28, 2012 (p. 124)

 
"Is there anything that you would have done differently in retrospect?""No sir." :wall: :crazy: Try this one... "I should have stayed in the car and let the police do their job."
Seriously - WTF.Try: "I wish I would have never seen him."Try: "I wish we could have both walked away from this."Does this guy have any remorse what-so-ever?
This was all God's plan. Who is he to question that?
I know this is a really good wtf quote, but I don't think he was talking about the entire encounter being Gods plan. Iirc, the interviewer was asking him about what he was thinking at the point in which he started fearing for his life and what he thought about his chances of getting out of it alive. Then Z said the Gods plan line. It's used slightly out of context a lot IMO. However if everything is Gods Plan then theoretically you should never be scared for your life since you're dead when God wants you to be.
 
So where are we at here?
:goodposting:Can anyone (who isn't a complete idiot and yes, I know that eliminates most of you in this thread) give a brief summary of where this is at?
The judge, prosecution and defense all seem comfortable delaying matters. This may be to help the media lose interest. It seems to be working. Some predict a trial in late 2013.The Zimmermans and Martins have launched web sites to raise money. Discovery by the prosecution is expected to complete sometime in August. They have missed every due date but no one is complaining. It's been trickling in with no smoking guns. After that the defense will be given a similar amount of time for discovery. It will take months. They have stated this is an SYG case, so they will be filing a motion to dismiss sometime after discovery.The defense has asked the current judge to step down because Zimmerman feels he cannot give him a fair trial given some of the things he's said and written. Judge Lester is on vacation and has about two weeks to decide if he should stay with the case or recuse himself. Everything else is awaiting that decision. If he stays the defense may appeal the decision to try to have another court replace him. The judge may also throw George back in the clink for violating bond by contacting the Martins during a television interview. That would be funny. It's all funny, but I'm trying not be a complete idiot.
 
Trayvon Martin the drug dealer - gold caps, multiple tats?

His Facebook and Twitter accounts have both been deleted, gee I wonder why :rolleyes:

What's the theory on the 10-day suspension again? 10-days is an awfully long time to get suspended from school.
Try going back 200 pages or so, Sparky. Or post the SYG law again and enlighten everyone.
Ah right, you already discussed it so it is irrelevant, please link the post proving he is not a drug dealer. :rolleyes: While you are at it, include a link explaining why his twitter, facebook and myspace pages have all disappeared?

ETA - was the incident where his older brother claims Trayvon swung at a bus driver resolved, was that a case of mistaken identity?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trayvon Martin the drug dealer - gold caps, multiple tats?

His Facebook and Twitter accounts have both been deleted, gee I wonder why :rolleyes:

What's the theory on the 10-day suspension again? 10-days is an awfully long time to get suspended from school.
Try going back 200 pages or so, Sparky. Or post the SYG law again and enlighten everyone.
Ah right, you already discussed it so it is irrelevant, please link the post proving he is not a drug dealer and stating what the 10 day suspension was for? :rolleyes: While you are at it, include a link explaining why his twitter, facebook and myspace pages have all disappeared?

ETA - was the incident where he swung at a bus driver resolved, was that a case of mistaken identity?
Bite me. Do your own research, stop posting stuff that was debunked 200 pages ago. I might as well ignore you, you aren't adding anything to the thread.
 
So where are we at here?
:goodposting:Can anyone (who isn't a complete idiot and yes, I know that eliminates most of you in this thread) give a brief summary of where this is at?
The judge, prosecution and defense all seem comfortable delaying matters. This may be to help the media lose interest. It seems to be working. Some predict a trial in late 2013.The Zimmermans and Martins have launched web sites to raise money. Discovery by the prosecution is expected to complete sometime in August. They have missed every due date but no one is complaining. It's been trickling in with no smoking guns. After that the defense will be given a similar amount of time for discovery. It will take months. They have stated this is an SYG case, so they will be filing a motion to dismiss sometime after discovery.The defense has asked the current judge to step down because Zimmerman feels he cannot give him a fair trial given some of the things he's said and written. Judge Lester is on vacation and has about two weeks to decide if he should stay with the case or recuse himself. Everything else is awaiting that decision. If he stays the defense may appeal the decision to try to have another court replace him. The judge may also throw George back in the clink for violating bond by contacting the Martins during a television interview. That would be funny. It's all funny, but I'm trying not be a complete idiot.
A non sucky summary without too much commentary.
 
debunked :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

translation: I'm not going to answer each of your points because you are right
Let us know when you come up with something new. Or keep posting unsubstantiated rumor and claiming you're "right". Or read the thread from the beginning. These are your choices.
What is unsubstantiated about a friend sending him public messages about "pick up the phone" "we got business to talk" "...need a plant", I listed my sources. Or about his brother commenting on taking a swing at a bus driver? Oh I get it, since he was never arrested for those incidents then they never happened. :rolleyes: Did he have a job to pay for those tats and gold caps?Removing all of his social media accounts just makes Martin and his family look shady. What are they hiding? Pictures of him showing off all of his tats and gold caps? Maybe that is why they released a picture of him that is over a year old that makes him look more innocent?

How many people here:

A) Ever been suspended from high school

B) Received a 10-day suspension

C) Had multiple tattoos at the age of 17

D) Had gold caps in their teeth at the age of 17

He was no angel.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
debunked :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

translation: I'm not going to answer each of your points because you are right
Let us know when you come up with something new. Or keep posting unsubstantiated rumor and claiming you're "right". Or read the thread from the beginning. These are your choices.
What is unsubstantiated about a friend sending him public messages about "pick up the phone" "we got business to talk" "...need a plant", I listed my sources. Or about his brother commenting on taking a swing at a bus driver? Oh I get it, since he was never arrested for those incidents then they never happened. :rolleyes: Did he have a job to pay for those tats and gold caps?Removing all of his social media accounts just makes Martin and his family look shady. What are they hiding? Pictures of him showing off all of his tats and gold caps? Maybe that is why they released a picture of him that is over a year old that makes him look more innocent?

How many people here:

A) Ever been suspended from high school

B) Received a 10-day suspension

C) Had multiple tattoos at the age of 17

D) Had gold caps in their teeth at the age of 17

He was no angel.
We've been over all this numerous times, but I still don't understand why it's important. Why would it be important to you? The question is not whether Martin was a nice kid or a punk, but whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense. How does this information, even if true, contribute in any possible way to deciding whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense? I don't see it.
 
'timschochet said:
'Jojo the circus boy said:
'TexanFan02 said:
'Jojo the circus boy said:
debunked :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

translation: I'm not going to answer each of your points because you are right
Let us know when you come up with something new. Or keep posting unsubstantiated rumor and claiming you're "right". Or read the thread from the beginning. These are your choices.
What is unsubstantiated about a friend sending him public messages about "pick up the phone" "we got business to talk" "...need a plant", I listed my sources. Or about his brother commenting on taking a swing at a bus driver? Oh I get it, since he was never arrested for those incidents then they never happened. :rolleyes: Did he have a job to pay for those tats and gold caps?Removing all of his social media accounts just makes Martin and his family look shady. What are they hiding? Pictures of him showing off all of his tats and gold caps? Maybe that is why they released a picture of him that is over a year old that makes him look more innocent?

How many people here:

A) Ever been suspended from high school

B) Received a 10-day suspension

C) Had multiple tattoos at the age of 17

D) Had gold caps in their teeth at the age of 17

He was no angel.
We've been over all this numerous times, but I still don't understand why it's important. Why would it be important to you? The question is not whether Martin was a nice kid or a punk, but whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense. How does this information, even if true, contribute in any possible way to deciding whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense? I don't see it.
You can say that about 90 percent of the stuff in this thread. I am still waiting for the first piece of information that would establish there is some probable cause to believe this was not self-defense.
 
You can say that about 90 percent of the stuff in this thread. I am still waiting for the first piece of information that would establish there is some probable cause to believe this was not self-defense.
To be fair the fact that Zimmerman may have pursued him after instructed not to could mean he is partly at blame.
 
You can say that about 90 percent of the stuff in this thread. I am still waiting for the first piece of information that would establish there is some probable cause to believe this was not self-defense.
To be fair the fact that Zimmerman may have pursued him after instructed not to could mean he is partly at blame.
Doesn't matter. It may add moral blame, but legally all that really matters is what was going on when he pulled the trigger.
 
'Jojo the circus boy said:
'TexanFan02 said:
'Jojo the circus boy said:
debunked :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

translation: I'm not going to answer each of your points because you are right
Let us know when you come up with something new. Or keep posting unsubstantiated rumor and claiming you're "right". Or read the thread from the beginning. These are your choices.
What is unsubstantiated about a friend sending him public messages about "pick up the phone" "we got business to talk" "...need a plant", I listed my sources. Or about his brother commenting on taking a swing at a bus driver? Oh I get it, since he was never arrested for those incidents then they never happened. :rolleyes: Did he have a job to pay for those tats and gold caps?Removing all of his social media accounts just makes Martin and his family look shady. What are they hiding? Pictures of him showing off all of his tats and gold caps? Maybe that is why they released a picture of him that is over a year old that makes him look more innocent?

How many people here:

A) Ever been suspended from high school

B) Received a 10-day suspension

C) Had multiple tattoos at the age of 17

D) Had gold caps in their teeth at the age of 17

He was no angel.
UGH :wall:
 
'Jojo the circus boy said:
'TexanFan02 said:
'Jojo the circus boy said:
debunked :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

translation: I'm not going to answer each of your points because you are right
Let us know when you come up with something new. Or keep posting unsubstantiated rumor and claiming you're "right". Or read the thread from the beginning. These are your choices.
What is unsubstantiated about a friend sending him public messages about "pick up the phone" "we got business to talk" "...need a plant", I listed my sources. Or about his brother commenting on taking a swing at a bus driver? Oh I get it, since he was never arrested for those incidents then they never happened. :rolleyes: Did he have a job to pay for those tats and gold caps?Removing all of his social media accounts just makes Martin and his family look shady. What are they hiding? Pictures of him showing off all of his tats and gold caps? Maybe that is why they released a picture of him that is over a year old that makes him look more innocent?

How many people here:

A) Ever been suspended from high school

B) Received a 10-day suspension

C) Had multiple tattoos at the age of 17

D) Had gold caps in their teeth at the age of 17

He was no angel.
:timewarp:
 
'timschochet said:
'Jojo the circus boy said:
'TexanFan02 said:
'Jojo the circus boy said:
debunked :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

translation: I'm not going to answer each of your points because you are right
Let us know when you come up with something new. Or keep posting unsubstantiated rumor and claiming you're "right". Or read the thread from the beginning. These are your choices.
What is unsubstantiated about a friend sending him public messages about "pick up the phone" "we got business to talk" "...need a plant", I listed my sources. Or about his brother commenting on taking a swing at a bus driver? Oh I get it, since he was never arrested for those incidents then they never happened. :rolleyes: Did he have a job to pay for those tats and gold caps?Removing all of his social media accounts just makes Martin and his family look shady. What are they hiding? Pictures of him showing off all of his tats and gold caps? Maybe that is why they released a picture of him that is over a year old that makes him look more innocent?

How many people here:

A) Ever been suspended from high school

B) Received a 10-day suspension

C) Had multiple tattoos at the age of 17

D) Had gold caps in their teeth at the age of 17

He was no angel.
We've been over all this numerous times, but I still don't understand why it's important. Why would it be important to you? The question is not whether Martin was a nice kid or a punk, but whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense. How does this information, even if true, contribute in any possible way to deciding whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense? I don't see it.
The prosecution is going to paint the picture of an innocent black male, a high school football player who never caused any problems was going to buy some skittles when out of nowhere this evil "white" man profiled him, attacked him, and then shot him.I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure the history of Martin as described above will contradict the prosecution's description of Martin. :shrug:

Given the lack of substantial evidence that would put Zimmerman at fault, I have a hard time understanding why some of the people in this thread feel so strongly that Zimmerman acted inappropriately after it appears he was brutally assaulted by Martin. People can argue all day that Zimmerman should not have approached him, asked him why he was in his neighborhood (which Martin did not live but was visiting), why Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after Martin started "walking faster" as described from what I have read. It doesn't change what happened next. I guess we'll see what the court decides what happened next but I find it pretty ludicrous that Zimmerman would call the police and THEN assault the guy he called about BEFORE shooting him. In my opinion there must have been a catalyst to cause him to shoot Martin and while Zimmerman might not be the most intelligent guy the basis of his story adds up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'timschochet said:
'Jojo the circus boy said:
'TexanFan02 said:
'Jojo the circus boy said:
debunked :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

translation: I'm not going to answer each of your points because you are right
Let us know when you come up with something new. Or keep posting unsubstantiated rumor and claiming you're "right". Or read the thread from the beginning. These are your choices.
What is unsubstantiated about a friend sending him public messages about "pick up the phone" "we got business to talk" "...need a plant", I listed my sources. Or about his brother commenting on taking a swing at a bus driver? Oh I get it, since he was never arrested for those incidents then they never happened. :rolleyes: Did he have a job to pay for those tats and gold caps?Removing all of his social media accounts just makes Martin and his family look shady. What are they hiding? Pictures of him showing off all of his tats and gold caps? Maybe that is why they released a picture of him that is over a year old that makes him look more innocent?

How many people here:

A) Ever been suspended from high school

B) Received a 10-day suspension

C) Had multiple tattoos at the age of 17

D) Had gold caps in their teeth at the age of 17

He was no angel.
We've been over all this numerous times, but I still don't understand why it's important. Why would it be important to you? The question is not whether Martin was a nice kid or a punk, but whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense. How does this information, even if true, contribute in any possible way to deciding whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense? I don't see it.
The prosecution is going to paint the picture of an innocent black male, a high school football player who never caused any problems was going to buy some skittles when out of nowhere this evil "white" man profiled him, attacked him, and then shot him.I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure the history of Martin as described above will contradict the prosecution's description of Martin. :shrug:

Given the lack of substantial evidence that would put Zimmerman at fault, I have a hard time understanding why some of the people in this thread feel so strongly that Zimmerman acted inappropriately after it appears he was brutally assaulted by Martin. People can argue all day that Zimmerman should not have approached him, asked him why he was in his neighborhood (which Martin did not live but was visiting), why Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after Martin started "walking faster" as described from what I have read. It doesn't change what happened next. I guess we'll see what the court decides what happened next but I find it pretty ludicrous that Zimmerman would call the police and THEN assault the guy he called about BEFORE shooting him. In my opinion there must have been a catalyst to cause him to shoot Martin and while Zimmerman might not be the most intelligent guy the basis of his story adds up.
Too bad his statements don't add up or jibe with each other. You're also conveniently leaving out Zimmerman's own violent past, history of deceiving the court, mental health and meds and you're acting as if he's some totally innocent, unassuming honest watchman.
 
'timschochet said:
'Jojo the circus boy said:
'TexanFan02 said:
'Jojo the circus boy said:
debunked :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

translation: I'm not going to answer each of your points because you are right
Let us know when you come up with something new. Or keep posting unsubstantiated rumor and claiming you're "right". Or read the thread from the beginning. These are your choices.
What is unsubstantiated about a friend sending him public messages about "pick up the phone" "we got business to talk" "...need a plant", I listed my sources. Or about his brother commenting on taking a swing at a bus driver? Oh I get it, since he was never arrested for those incidents then they never happened. :rolleyes: Did he have a job to pay for those tats and gold caps?Removing all of his social media accounts just makes Martin and his family look shady. What are they hiding? Pictures of him showing off all of his tats and gold caps? Maybe that is why they released a picture of him that is over a year old that makes him look more innocent?

How many people here:

A) Ever been suspended from high school

B) Received a 10-day suspension

C) Had multiple tattoos at the age of 17

D) Had gold caps in their teeth at the age of 17

He was no angel.
We've been over all this numerous times, but I still don't understand why it's important. Why would it be important to you? The question is not whether Martin was a nice kid or a punk, but whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense. How does this information, even if true, contribute in any possible way to deciding whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense? I don't see it.
The prosecution is going to paint the picture of an innocent black male, a high school football player who never caused any problems was going to buy some skittles when out of nowhere this evil "white" man profiled him, attacked him, and then shot him.I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure the history of Martin as described above will contradict the prosecution's description of Martin. :shrug:

Given the lack of substantial evidence that would put Zimmerman at fault, I have a hard time understanding why some of the people in this thread feel so strongly that Zimmerman acted inappropriately after it appears he was brutally assaulted by Martin. People can argue all day that Zimmerman should not have approached him, asked him why he was in his neighborhood (which Martin did not live but was visiting), why Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after Martin started "walking faster" as described from what I have read. It doesn't change what happened next. I guess we'll see what the court decides what happened next but I find it pretty ludicrous that Zimmerman would call the police and THEN assault the guy he called about BEFORE shooting him. In my opinion there must have been a catalyst to cause him to shoot Martin and while Zimmerman might not be the most intelligent guy the basis of his story adds up.
Too bad his statements don't add up or jibe with each other. You're also conveniently leaving out Zimmerman's own violent past, history of deceiving the court, mental health and meds and you're acting as if he's some totally innocent, unassuming honest watchman.
Plus he just discovered "The Wagist", a site set up to put out pro-Zimmerman speculation, and who have admitted to sloppy and inaccurate reporting, but continued to do it.
 
'timschochet said:
'Jojo the circus boy said:
'TexanFan02 said:
'Jojo the circus boy said:
debunked :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

translation: I'm not going to answer each of your points because you are right
Let us know when you come up with something new. Or keep posting unsubstantiated rumor and claiming you're "right". Or read the thread from the beginning. These are your choices.
What is unsubstantiated about a friend sending him public messages about "pick up the phone" "we got business to talk" "...need a plant", I listed my sources. Or about his brother commenting on taking a swing at a bus driver? Oh I get it, since he was never arrested for those incidents then they never happened. :rolleyes: Did he have a job to pay for those tats and gold caps?Removing all of his social media accounts just makes Martin and his family look shady. What are they hiding? Pictures of him showing off all of his tats and gold caps? Maybe that is why they released a picture of him that is over a year old that makes him look more innocent?

How many people here:

A) Ever been suspended from high school

B) Received a 10-day suspension

C) Had multiple tattoos at the age of 17

D) Had gold caps in their teeth at the age of 17

He was no angel.
We've been over all this numerous times, but I still don't understand why it's important. Why would it be important to you? The question is not whether Martin was a nice kid or a punk, but whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense. How does this information, even if true, contribute in any possible way to deciding whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense? I don't see it.
The prosecution is going to paint the picture of an innocent black male, a high school football player who never caused any problems was going to buy some skittles when out of nowhere this evil "white" man profiled him, attacked him, and then shot him.I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure the history of Martin as described above will contradict the prosecution's description of Martin. :shrug:

Given the lack of substantial evidence that would put Zimmerman at fault, I have a hard time understanding why some of the people in this thread feel so strongly that Zimmerman acted inappropriately after it appears he was brutally assaulted by Martin. People can argue all day that Zimmerman should not have approached him, asked him why he was in his neighborhood (which Martin did not live but was visiting), why Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after Martin started "walking faster" as described from what I have read. It doesn't change what happened next. I guess we'll see what the court decides what happened next but I find it pretty ludicrous that Zimmerman would call the police and THEN assault the guy he called about BEFORE shooting him. In my opinion there must have been a catalyst to cause him to shoot Martin and while Zimmerman might not be the most intelligent guy the basis of his story adds up.
Too bad his statements don't add up or jibe with each other. You're also conveniently leaving out Zimmerman's own violent past, history of deceiving the court, mental health and meds and you're acting as if he's some totally innocent, unassuming honest watchman.
Plus he just discovered "The Wagist", a site set up to put out pro-Zimmerman speculation, and who have admitted to sloppy and inaccurate reporting, but continued to do it.
Jo Jo is off base here its comical and sad all at once
 
'timschochet said:
'Jojo the circus boy said:
'TexanFan02 said:
'Jojo the circus boy said:
debunked :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

translation: I'm not going to answer each of your points because you are right
Let us know when you come up with something new. Or keep posting unsubstantiated rumor and claiming you're "right". Or read the thread from the beginning. These are your choices.
What is unsubstantiated about a friend sending him public messages about "pick up the phone" "we got business to talk" "...need a plant", I listed my sources. Or about his brother commenting on taking a swing at a bus driver? Oh I get it, since he was never arrested for those incidents then they never happened. :rolleyes: Did he have a job to pay for those tats and gold caps?Removing all of his social media accounts just makes Martin and his family look shady. What are they hiding? Pictures of him showing off all of his tats and gold caps? Maybe that is why they released a picture of him that is over a year old that makes him look more innocent?

How many people here:

A) Ever been suspended from high school

B) Received a 10-day suspension

C) Had multiple tattoos at the age of 17

D) Had gold caps in their teeth at the age of 17

He was no angel.
We've been over all this numerous times, but I still don't understand why it's important. Why would it be important to you? The question is not whether Martin was a nice kid or a punk, but whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense. How does this information, even if true, contribute in any possible way to deciding whether or not Zimmerman acted in self-defense? I don't see it.
The prosecution is going to paint the picture of an innocent black male, a high school football player who never caused any problems was going to buy some skittles when out of nowhere this evil "white" man profiled him, attacked him, and then shot him.I'm no lawyer but I'm pretty sure the history of Martin as described above will contradict the prosecution's description of Martin. :shrug:

Given the lack of substantial evidence that would put Zimmerman at fault, I have a hard time understanding why some of the people in this thread feel so strongly that Zimmerman acted inappropriately after it appears he was brutally assaulted by Martin. People can argue all day that Zimmerman should not have approached him, asked him why he was in his neighborhood (which Martin did not live but was visiting), why Zimmerman continued to follow Martin after Martin started "walking faster" as described from what I have read. It doesn't change what happened next. I guess we'll see what the court decides what happened next but I find it pretty ludicrous that Zimmerman would call the police and THEN assault the guy he called about BEFORE shooting him. In my opinion there must have been a catalyst to cause him to shoot Martin and while Zimmerman might not be the most intelligent guy the basis of his story adds up.
Too bad his statements don't add up or jibe with each other. You're also conveniently leaving out Zimmerman's own violent past, history of deceiving the court, mental health and meds and you're acting as if he's some totally innocent, unassuming honest watchman.
Plus he just discovered "The Wagist", a site set up to put out pro-Zimmerman speculation, and who have admitted to sloppy and inaccurate reporting, but continued to do it.
Jo Jo is off base here its comical and sad all at once
50 pages from now he'll discover the Fox interview and change his mind.

 
That's right keep dodging all my points to insult me, just goes to prove my point.

You state all my points were unsubstantiated, I back it up with sources and then you attempt to discredit the domain names that are merely digging up archived social media records that the Martin family conveniently shutdown.

Good luck discrediting his own words on Facebook and Twitter /deafears

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Too bad his statements don't add up or jibe with each other. You're also conveniently leaving out Zimmerman's own violent past, history of deceiving the court, mental health and meds and you're acting as if he's some totally innocent, unassuming honest watchman.
I've stated time and again Zimmerman has problems, it doesn't change the fact that Martin was beating the life out of him when he shot him.
 
Too bad his statements don't add up or jibe with each other. You're also conveniently leaving out Zimmerman's own violent past, history of deceiving the court, mental health and meds and you're acting as if he's some totally innocent, unassuming honest watchman.
I've stated time and again Zimmerman has problems, it doesn't change the fact that Martin was beating the life out of him when he shot him.
One punch.
 
Too bad his statements don't add up or jibe with each other. You're also conveniently leaving out Zimmerman's own violent past, history of deceiving the court, mental health and meds and you're acting as if he's some totally innocent, unassuming honest watchman.
I've stated time and again Zimmerman has problems, it doesn't change the fact that Martin was beating the life out of him when he shot him.
If that was beating the life outa someone i should have been in jail for attempted murder 100 times over hahaha.Im not insulting you , just take the time you took to find that crap out about treyvon, and find out the truth. Half that stuff you posted is Internet hearsay (people went so far as to post pics that werent even treyvon , just to disparage him)and the other half is easily explained or isnt as bad it appears to be (suspensions for example).
 
'Jojo the circus boy said:
'TexanFan02 said:
'Jojo the circus boy said:
debunked :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

translation: I'm not going to answer each of your points because you are right
Let us know when you come up with something new. Or keep posting unsubstantiated rumor and claiming you're "right". Or read the thread from the beginning. These are your choices.
What is unsubstantiated about a friend sending him public messages about "pick up the phone" "we got business to talk" "...need a plant", I listed my sources. Or about his brother commenting on taking a swing at a bus driver? Oh I get it, since he was never arrested for those incidents then they never happened. :rolleyes: Did he have a job to pay for those tats and gold caps?Removing all of his social media accounts just makes Martin and his family look shady. What are they hiding? Pictures of him showing off all of his tats and gold caps? Maybe that is why they released a picture of him that is over a year old that makes him look more innocent?

How many people here:

A) Ever been suspended from high school

B) Received a 10-day suspension

C) Had multiple tattoos at the age of 17

D) Had gold caps in their teeth at the age of 17

He was no angel.
what does this have to do with anything in regards to this case?
 
'Jojo the circus boy said:
'TexanFan02 said:
'Jojo the circus boy said:
debunked :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

translation: I'm not going to answer each of your points because you are right
Let us know when you come up with something new. Or keep posting unsubstantiated rumor and claiming you're "right". Or read the thread from the beginning. These are your choices.
What is unsubstantiated about a friend sending him public messages about "pick up the phone" "we got business to talk" "...need a plant", I listed my sources. Or about his brother commenting on taking a swing at a bus driver? Oh I get it, since he was never arrested for those incidents then they never happened. :rolleyes: Did he have a job to pay for those tats and gold caps?Removing all of his social media accounts just makes Martin and his family look shady. What are they hiding? Pictures of him showing off all of his tats and gold caps? Maybe that is why they released a picture of him that is over a year old that makes him look more innocent?

How many people here:

A) Ever been suspended from high school

B) Received a 10-day suspension

C) Had multiple tattoos at the age of 17

D) Had gold caps in their teeth at the age of 17

He was no angel.
what does this have to do with anything in regards to this case?
I believe he`s discussing what kind of character treyvon had, was he capable of trying to murder zimmy. I have posted similiar info about what type of person zimmy may be based on previous actions on his part. Of course none of this has any legal bearing on the facts in this case.Its just for discussion. I dont think treyvon or zimmerman are bad people to begin with, just made bad decisions on the night in question.
 
Too bad his statements don't add up or jibe with each other. You're also conveniently leaving out Zimmerman's own violent past, history of deceiving the court, mental health and meds and you're acting as if he's some totally innocent, unassuming honest watchman.
I've stated time and again Zimmerman has problems, it doesn't change the fact that Martin was beating the life out of him when he shot him.
Treyvon Martin... How would the SYG law stand to protect Treyvon? If Treyvon had noticed he was being followed, and if he elected to flee his pursuer he would have every right to do so. He would also have every right to turn and to confront his pursuer. That would be “standing your ground.” So the rumored testimony of this eyewitness who said he saw Zimmerman on the ground with Treyvon pummeling him does not necessarily implicate Treyvon. If he was standing his ground he was acting within the law.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top