Jump to content
Guests feel free to register and post ×
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS FEEL FREE TO REGISTER AND POST ×
WELCOME NEW MEMBERS AND GUESTS ×

The Ultimate Trayvon Martin Thread


Recommended Posts

By the WAY, We can ALL AGREE, it was a tragedy, that this young man, with HIS attitude, and George Zimmerman, with HIS attitude, met up that night...But, it has been REPORTED A DOZEN TIMES,(not by the Liberal Media, OF COURSE-NEVER let the FACTS get in the way)

HOW GEORGE ZIMMERMAN HAD PREVIOUSLY ARGUED WITH THE POLICE, WHEN HE FELT THEY ABUSED THE RIGHTS OF A HOMELESS BLACK MAN, WHO THE POLICE, GEORGE THOUGHT, HAD UNFAIRLY HARRASSED OR BEATEN THIS BLACK MAN, AND HAD BEEN A TUTOR, FOR UNDERPRIVELIGED YOUNG BLACK CHILDREN, ON MANY OCCASIONS........

 

I NOTICE THE LIBERAL RACIST SLIME, ON HERE, NEVER MENTIONS THAT FACT........

 

Because its not a fact?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE EVIDENCE AGAINST CASEY ANTHONY IS STRONGER,CNN introduced her back intoo society like their heroin. Not heroine. She walked. Judges opinion is not proof of squat. Funny stuff you libs spew

 

At least Martin and Zimmerman are getting their day in court. That's the critical point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey dumbphuck he isn't using stand your ground cuz he was On the ground.

 

Hey dumbfuck, "Stand Your Ground" is a colloquialism, not a formal legal title of the statute.

 

The real "name" of the SYG statute is JUSTIFIABLE USE OF (deadly) FORCE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE EVIDENCE AGAINST CASEY ANTHONY IS STRONGER,CNN introduced her back intoo society like their heroin. Not heroine. She walked. Judges opinion is not proof of squat. Funny stuff you libs spew

 

How does Casey Anthony's case relate to the Murder of Trayvon Martin by the Coward George Zimmerman? George Zimmerman has already admitted he killed Trayvon Martin. The state only needs to show he wasn't acting in self defense, but stalked and menaced his victim causing Trayvon to fear for his life. That cancels any self defense case George could possibly offer. And now with credibility before the court totally shot, he's gonna have a very difficult, if not impossible, time convincing a judge or jury.

Edited by tech guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey dumbfuck, "Stand Your Ground" is a colloquialism, not a formal legal title of the statute.

 

The real "name" of the SYG statute is JUSTIFIABLE USE OF (deadly) FORCE.

 

Without duty to retreat. Zimmerman, after being mounted and ridden by Martin for two minutes, had no ability to retreat and therefore no duty to do so when his life became in danger. No ones life is at real risk in a standing fight. When it goes to the ground and someone is bashing anothers head on the ground it becomes deadly serious. This was clearly not murder 2, manslaughter would be a stretch. It was self defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without duty to retreat. Zimmerman, after being mounted and ridden by Martin for two minutes, had no ability to retreat and therefore no duty to do so when his life became in danger. No ones life is at real risk in a standing fight. When it goes to the ground and someone is bashing anothers head on the ground it becomes deadly serious. This was clearly not murder 2, manslaughter would be a stretch. It was self defense.

Irrelevant, as there is no evidence that any of that happened, other than the claims of a proven and compulsive liar.

 

Keep lying, tho. More KlanniePoints!

Edited by Isabel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lie.

 

Here - I'll go thru the motions: Provide your evidence.

 

There were 5 phone calls to 9-11 and at least 7 witnesses. All described a loud fight with someone getting their ass kicked and another yelling for help. This fight had to go on for quite some time for all those peopled to call the police. Witnesses describe one guy sitting on top of another punching him.

 

As Trayvon Martin has no wounds on him he was obviously not the one on the bottom getting punched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still no defense of Shellie?

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/perjury-charge-against-shellie-zimmerman-raises-more-questions-of-prosecutorial-overreaching/

 

Perjury charge against Shellie Zimmerman raises more questions of prosecutorial overreaching (Update: Prosecution misleadingly edited transcript)

 

Florida prosecutor Angela Corey has come under withering criticism from Alan Dershowitz for overcharging and leaving out important details in the Affidavit of Probable Cause filed in connection with the charge of Second Degree Murder lodged against George Zimmerman.

 

… snip …

 

Now Corey has brought a charge of felony perjury against Zimmerman’s wife, Shellie,  based on testimony during George’s bond hearing with regard to their financial resources. … snip …

 

There certainly is a case which can be made that the Court was not fully informed of the financial situation, and that is part of the reason the Judge revoked bond under the standards applicable to release pending trial.

 

But that bond standard is very different from a criminal charge of perjury, which requires proof of a specific material false statement which the person believes not to be true at the time of testimony.

 

… snip …

 

So it is fair to ask, having charged perjury, what is the specific false statement made by Shellie Zimmerman?

 

The Criminal Information (embedded at the bottom of this post) does not say. Instead, the accompanying Affidvit recites testimony, phone call transcripts, and evidence of money received and transferred. Again, that all is relevant to whether George deceived the Court at the bond hearing.

 

But nowhere in the criminal Information or Affidavit of Probable Cause is a specific sentence or set of words identified as false with an explanation of why it was false.

 

I think there is a reason for this. Many of the answers of Shellie were non-committal. Since the prosecution does not specify which statements were false, here are some possibilities taken from the testimony quoted in the Affidavit of Probable  Cause:

 

Q. Other major assets that you have which you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond?
A. None that I know of.

What are “major assets”? Isn’t that a matter of opinion? Similarly, what does “reasonably” mean? Isn’t that also a matter of judgment, not a fact? The same lack of clarity accrues to “liquidate.” If the alleged funds already were liquid, the funds could not be liquidated again.

 

Q. I have discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband George declared indigent for cost, have I not?
A. Yes, you have.
Q. And is – - are you of any financial means where you can assist in those costs?
A. Uhrn, not- – not that I’m aware of.

This question by defense counsel brings into play another conversation — not recited in the Information — as to what was in the pending motion and the discussions outside of court. What was her understanding of who owned the funds, what they could be used for, and whether they were her funds (“are you of any financial means”). If the funds belonged to George or to his defense fund, they were not Shellie’s financial means.

 

Q: I understand that you do have other family members present with you, and I’ll ask some more questions of them, but have you had discussions with them of at least trying to pull together some funds to accomplish a bond?
A: We have discussed that—
Q: Okay
A: —-trying to pull together the members of the family to scrape up anything that we possibly can.

It’s not clear at all what could be false about this, unless Shellie did not actually have discussions with family members. Again, possible deception, but not a false statement.

 

Here is the entire segment quoted in the Affidavit of Probable Cause from the prosecution’s examination of Shellie (emphasis mine):

 

Q. And you mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your husband to make a bond amount, that you all had no money, is that correct?
A. To my knowledge, that is correct.
Q: Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his behalf created?
A: I’m aware of that website.
Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was —
A: Currently, I do not know.
Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
A: I do not.

Notice the specific wording of the questions and answers. I think the best case for perjury was the response to the question whether “you all had no money.” (added) The way the question was structured, however, the question was whether Shellie previously said that there was “no money,” not that at the time of the question there was no money.

 

But in the very next question the issue of the website fundraising was raised, and she said she doesn’t “currently” know how much is “in that website right now” or how much was raised “as a result.” The word “currently” suggest that at the moment she was testifying she didn’t know, which may have been correct. Similarly the denial that she had “an estimate” would only be false if at the time of testifying Shellie had an estimate. [see Update below]

 

It may sound like I’m nitpicking the questions and answers, but that’s what’s at issue in a perjury prosecution.

 

This Court has held that statements alleged to be perjurious must be of “empirical fact” and not of opinion, belief or perception…. One of the essential elements of perjury in official proceedings is that the person making the statement does not believe it to be true… The questions posed to elicit perjured testimony must be asked with the appropriate specificity necessary to result in an equally specific statement of fact.

Cohen v. State, 985 So.2d 1207 (Fla. App. 3 Dist. 2008)(citations omitted).

 

Instead of specifying the words which constituted empirical statements of fact that knowingly were false and why, the prosecution presents testimony and then evidence, and only generally and vaguely states that a false statement was made.

 

I am not excusing the conduct of the Zimmermans as to the bond hearing. I understand why the Judge feels he was deceived.

 

I am questioning the bringing of a felony perjury charge without greater specificity of the false statements, particularly while the alleged perjurer’s husband is awaiting trial in a highly publicized case.

 

Just more questions as to how this prosecution is being handled.

 

Update: Per a commenter, it appears that the above testimony was selectively edited by the prosecution to leave out the following exchange (deleted testimony in bold):

 

Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was —

 

A: Currently, I do not know.

 

Q: Who would know that?

 

A: That would be my brother-in-law.

 

Q: And is he — I know he’s not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?

 

A: I’m sure that we could probably get him on the phone.

 

Q: Okay.  So he’s not there now.

 

A: No, he is not, sir.

 

Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?

 

A: I do not.

The deleted transcript language certainly gives a very different context to the issue of whether Shellie knew how much was available or had an “estimate.”  She offered to get the person who knew on the phone, but the prosecution didn’t take her up on that.

 

Note that in the Affidavit of Probable Cause the prosecution did not use an ellipsis or any other indication to show that words were omitted.

As one of the commentors asked … prosecution or persecution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

*deleted senseless drivel*

As one of the commentors asked … prosecution or persecution?

 

Bwah, ha, ha, ha,,,,, She LIED to the court, the judge and the justice system. And the neoZimmercons want to excuse it.....

 

 

 

Bwah, ha, ha, ha,,,,,, neoZimmercons have no respect for the Constitution or Justice.

 

Bwah, ha, ha, ha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bwah, ha, ha, ha,,,,, She LIED to the court, the judge and the justice system. And the neoZimmercons want to excuse it.....

 

 

 

Bwah, ha, ha, ha,,,,,, neoZimmercons have no respect for the Constitution or Justice.

 

Bwah, ha, ha, ha

 

Saying "I don't know the exact amount in the newly established defense fund account but we can call the person who does." Is a lie? Damn this whole case is a witch hunt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

PROSECUTOR: I know what you are trying to tell me but if you could describe to me how you could tell he was scared.

 

GIRLFRIEND: His voice was getting kind of low.

 

PROSECUTOR: So you could tell he was emotional, like somebody who was in fear?

Objection...leading the witness.

 

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah. I hear some like 'bump.' You could hear someone had bumped Trayvon. I could hear the grass.

 

PROSECUTOR: OK. So you could hear there was something going on, like something hitting something?

 

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah. I could hear the grass thing.

 

ZIMMYS LAWYER: OK in your affidavit you stated You could hear someone had bumped Trayvon is that correct ?

 

GIRLFRIEND: Yeah !

 

ZIMMY LAWYER: well how do you know you weren't hearing Trayvon bumping Mister Zimmerman !

 

GIRLFRIEND: I just know.

 

ZIMMYS LAWYER: OK ! How ?

 

GIRLFRIEND: I just know !

 

ZIMMYS LAWYER: OK...You also said in your affidavit you could hear the grass. Is that correct ?

 

GIRLFRIEND: yeah.

 

ZIMMYS LAWYER: OK, could you please describe to me what kind of sound grass makes ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without duty to retreat. ...

 

According to Florida statute 776.041, the aggressor has a duty to retreat. A creep who is stalking and chasing a child is the aggressor. As the aggressor, he not only had the duty to retreat, he had a duty to have exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger in the first place.

 

Stalking and chasing someone you just described to the dispatcher as potentially armed and dangerous is the OPPOSITE of avoiding danger, it's the complete willingness to head straight into it. (Because he was stupid enough to think it would get him kudos and possibly a job with SPD who were about to arrive), not to mention he may have been agitated and manic due to the combination of Adderall and Temazepam. (and no, being hopped up on Adderall does not absolve him of the crime).

 

You don't get to incite and provoke someone into fighting for their own safety and then shoot them because you're losing the fight that YOU provoked.

 

He provoked the fight by stalking and chasing a child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to Florida statute 776.041, the aggressor has a duty to retreat. A creep who is stalking and chasing a child is the aggressor. As the aggressor, he not only had the duty to retreat, he had a duty to have exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger in the first place.

 

Stalking and chasing someone you just described to the dispatcher as potentially armed and dangerous is the OPPOSITE of avoiding danger, it's the complete willingness to head straight into it. (Because he was stupid enough to think it would get him kudos and possibly a job with SPD who were about to arrive), not to mention he may have been agitated and manic due to the combination of Adderall and Temazepam. (and no, being hopped up on Adderall does not absolve him of the crime).

 

You don't get to incite and provoke someone into fighting for their own safety and then shoot them because you're losing the fight that YOU provoked.

 

He provoked the fight by stalking and chasing a child.

 

And you do not lose the right to defend your life because you foolishly followed someone who decided to attempt to kill you for the offense/misunderstanding. Zimmerman may or may not have started the physical side of their encounter, its unknown. Its certainly not able to be proven beyond reasonable doubt which makes the charge of murder an over reach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying "I don't know the exact amount in the newly established defense fund account but we can call the person who does." Is a lie? Damn this whole case is a witch hunt.

 

Riiiiight. She declared in court she and George were INDIGENT, while in the few days before court she and George had moved large amounts of cash from his account to hers and to his sister's account.

 

There is no excusing what she and George did, and there is no excuse for her lies told before the court. But just like a whoring neocon, you'll condone breaking the LAW and LYING to the court because, well, you a lying little neocon whore.

 

If liars, deceivers and murderers are witches, you may be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you do not lose the right to defend your life because you foolishly followed someone

 

If you provoked the situation, (as Zimmerman did by stalking and chasing someone) you might choose to use deadly force to defend yourself, but it's not a justifiable homicide. You go to jail or are given the death sentence for it.

 

The point is, you have to suffer the ramification of your choices.

 

Besides, Trayvon wasn't trying to kill him, Zimmerman had a bruised nose and a couple of boo-boos on his head.

 

A situation he provoked of his own accord and is solely responsible for.

 

Zimmerman may or may not have started the physical side of their encounter, its unknown.

 

It doesn't matter who threw the first punch.

 

The provoking, inciting event was Zimmerman choosing to chase and stalk someone, namely Trayvon, causing them to feel concern for their personal safety.

Edited by Wolffe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying "I don't know the exact amount in the newly established defense fund account but we can call the person who does." Is a lie?

 

Yeah. Too bad for you and Shellie that's not even close to what she asserted.

 

The fact that you just had to make that shit up shows how guilty she and Zimmy truly are.

Edited by Wolffe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey dumbfuck, "Stand Your Ground" is a colloquialism, not a formal legal title of the statute.

 

The real "name" of the SYG statute is JUSTIFIABLE USE OF (deadly) FORCE.

Is all this necessary ?

 

Please see signature below:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were 5 phone calls to 9-11 and at least 7 witnesses. All described a loud fight with someone getting their ass kicked and another yelling for help. This fight had to go on for quite some time for all those peopled to call the police. Witnesses describe one guy sitting on top of another punching him.

So you have no evidence of what you claimed - that Martin was "bashing" Zimmie's head into the ground, or that he was a threat to Zimmie's life.

 

As Trayvon Martin has no wounds on him he was obviously not the one on the bottom getting punched.

 

So you have no evidence of what you claimed - that Martin was "bashing" Zimmie's head into the ground, or that he was a threat to Zimmie's life.

Edited by Isabel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As Trayvon Martin has no wounds on him he was obviously not the one on the bottom getting punched.

 

Oh, I see - you MAKE IT UP. LOLOLOL.

 

Thats a simple deduction based on witnesses observations and physical evidence. You do not have to believe a word of Zimmermans testimony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you do not lose the right to defend your life because you foolishly followed someone who decided to attempt to kill you for the offense/misunderstanding.

Irrelevant, as that didn't happen.

 

Zimmerman may or may not have started the physical side of their encounter, its unknown. Its certainly not able to be proven beyond reasonable doubt which makes the charge of murder an over reach.

 

Yes, it is, and no, it isn't.

 

Thats a simple deduction based on witnesses observations and physical evidence. You do not have to believe a word of Zimmermans testimony.

So you have no evidence of what you claimed - that Martin was "bashing" Zimmie's head into the ground, or that he was a threat to Zimmie's life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One witness saw the fight take place only on the grass 4 feet from the sidewalk. Not one witness saw Zim's head hit the sidewalk, not one.

Then again, I am sure the investigators will check the sidewalk for blood after Zim (the liar) making that statement. That is what investigators do. When more evidence comes out or when the jury trial begins, we should hear about any blood evidence found or not found on the sidewalk.

 

Speaking of evidence, they found blood DNA on Zim that was not Zim's and was not Trayvon's. I'll go looking for a link where I read that.

 

http://axiomamnesia.com/2012/05/19/trayvon-case-evidence-zimmerman-gunshot-residue-gun-multiple-dna-contributers/

 

Edited by Byia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...