Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Everything you just said is irrelevant as it pertains to that argument.

Reading comprehension fail on your part. From the OP: "or that he exited his vehicle after being told to stay inside the vehicle"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No at all. 911 dispatcher to Zimmerman while he is sitting in his vehicle: "We don't need you to do that" .

 

That's a patent lie. Your either disingenuous or too ignorant of the facts to warrant a seat in this discussion.

 

I'll let you pick.

 

Andrew

@LawSelfDefense

Facebook: Law of Self Defense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. So you are asking if after Martin reportedly came to the truck and circled it, and the dispatcher asked Zimmerman questions about which way Martin ran off and where he was headed, if Zimmerman got out of the truck and answered the questions based on his observations?

 

Yes.

 

My turn.

 

Simple question: Is it illegal to get out of a truck in your own gated community?

That depends on whether your intent is to confront somebody you're been asked to stay away from.

 

cc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Zimmerman follow Martin, or did he not follow Martin? There's only one correct answer to the question.

 

Why do you imagine that question is relevant?

 

In any case, the same people who argue that the dispatcher had the authority to "order" Zimmerman not to follow Martin ignore the fact that he then must have had the authority to oblige Zimmerman to answer his question--which way did Martin run? It's right there on the non-emergency call recording.

 

Andrew

@LawSelfDefense

Facebook: Law of Self Defense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That depends on whether your intent is to confront somebody you're been asked to stay away from.

Zimmerman was already out of the truck at that point, and the person doing the asking (1) had no legal authority to ask, (2) was listened to by Zimmerman anyway.

 

So, your answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading comprehension fail on your part. From the OP: "or that he exited his vehicle after being told to stay inside the vehicle"

None of which is relevant. The question in the whole case is a simple one. Did a man armed with a weapon, follow and shoot an unarmed man with no weapon? Given the fact the defense will use the self defense argument, all they need to show now is how Zimmerman felt threatened from his position at a safe distance from an unarmed man while he himself was armed, in a vehicle easily allowing him to flee, and on the phone with the police all at the sametime. Remember now, the defense isn't using the stand your ground law as a defense, so any part of that law is not in play here. Again, take all the time you need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of which is relevant.

And yet still misused, even within this thread.

Given the fact the defense will use the self defense argument, all they need to show now is how Zimmerman felt threatened from his position at a safe distance from an unarmed man while he himself was armed, in a vehicle easily allowing him to flee, and on the phone with the police all at the sametime.

Wrong, and shows your complete lack of understanding law. The onus is on the prosecution, not the defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

That's a patent lie. Your either disingenuous or too ignorant of the facts to warrant a seat in this discussion.

 

I'll let you pick.

 

Andrew

@LawSelfDefense

Facebook: Law of Self Defense

 

You stated in your post that you have put together the "relevant" part of the tape that supports your argument. Unfortunately for you, you don't get to decide which part of the tape is relevant. The judge in the case does, and the jury will hear the whole tape. Which by the way is just one small part of the evidence. The jury won't be deciding the case based upon any one part of the 911 recording. Much to the defenses dismay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much to the defenses dismay.

So you admit the 911 tape is not detrimental to Zimmerman, despite your efforts to claim otherwise. Good to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet still misused, even within this thread.

Wrong, and shows your complete lack of understanding law. The onus is on the prosecution, not the defence.

Correct, and the prosecution in a 2nd degree murder case in which the defense is claiming the defendant acted in self defense merely has to show the defendant was never in any danger of having to defend himself had he not approached the person he claimed to have had to defend himself from. Believe it or not, the prosecutor actually gets to present evidence to the court, and the evidence in this case is quite overwhelming. Martin was nowhere near Zimmerman, never approached Zimmerman, had no idea Zimmerman existed until Zimmerman entered himself into the situation. This isn't that hard. You might be able to muddy the water on an internet site, but those waters aren't going to be so muddy when the prosecution presents all of the evidence to a jury that won't have the luxury of being influenced by the psycho babble you just presented here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin was nowhere near Zimmerman,

Wrong

never approached Zimmerman,

Wrong again, if Zimmerman's testimony is correct that Martin circled the truck Zimmerman was sitting in, while he was first on the 911 call.

had no idea Zimmerman existed until Zimmerman entered himself into the situation.

Not illegal

This isn't that hard.

Because almost all your "observations" aren't based in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You stated in your post that you have put together the "relevant" part of the tape that supports your argument. Unfortunately for you, you don't get to decide which part of the tape is relevant. The judge in the case does, and the jury will hear the whole tape. Which by the way is just one small part of the evidence. The jury won't be deciding the case based upon any one part of the 911 recording. Much to the defenses dismay.

 

So, go ahead and show me the part of the recording that you feel is relevant and that changes in any way my fact-based conclusions.

 

I'll wait. *yawn* Well, a little while.

 

Andrew

@LawSelfDefense

Facebook: Law of Self Defense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you admit the 911 tape is not detrimental to Zimmerman, despite your efforts to claim otherwise. Good to know.

Oh it's detrimental alright and will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman followed Martin. Which blows a self defense case right out of the water. Just hope that in your lifetime some wannaabe hero doesn't follow somebody close to you and murders them with a gun and then claim it was self defense like a coward. And have no illusions in your mind, Zimmerman is a murderer and a coward. He's lucky this isn't the 1800's. In those days the only fact that would be relevant is a man with a gun shot another man without gun. Case closed get the rope. But in the world of cowardice in which we live today, people like you exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh it's detrimental alright and will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman followed Martin.

Again, not illegal, and arguably prompted by the questions from the dispatcher.

So, go ahead and show me the part of the recording that you feel is relevant and that changes in any way my fact-based conclusions.

I doubt he is even aware of what is actually on the recording, given that he has a hard time sticking to the facts of the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh it's detrimental alright and will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman followed Martin. Which blows a self defense case right out of the water. Just hope that in your lifetime some wannaabe hero doesn't follow somebody close to you and murders them with a gun and then claim it was self defense like a coward. And have no illusions in your mind, Zimmerman is a murderer and a coward. He's lucky this isn't the 1800's. In those days the only fact that would be relevant is a man with a gun shot another man without gun. Case closed get the rope. But in the world of cowardice in which we live today, people like you exist.

So martin busted zipper heads beak and head after he was shot?

 

Did zipper head inflict those wounds on himself...?

 

And wrong on your analogy ...

If you were getting your asz kicked and shot the gun kicking your asz ... no hangman's rope.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, not illegal, and arguably prompted by the questions from the dispatcher.

I doubt he is even aware of what is actually on the recording, given that he has a hard time sticking to the facts of the case.

 

I've already put him on ignore. Boy, I've only been here a few minutes and he self-declared quick. :-)

 

Andrew

@LawSelfDefense

Facebook: Law of Self Defense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did Zimmerman really “racially profile” Martin?

Hard to do when someone doesn't know the race of the person in question (Um, he looks black), and as Storm Rebel points out, it's not illegal to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lmao!!

 

It is what it is.

 

Apparently, an unarmed black teenager went to a store, and while on the way home minding his own business, he discovered somebody was stalking after him. He being 17 alone at nigt in a strange town at night likely freaked the fuhk out and tried to run he tried to hide and in his flight or fight response he found he had no other option but to fight for his life and was shot and killed by the guy who went out on patrol that night armed looking for (and finding) a suspect breaking no laws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder why a guy with a weapon would be screaming?

Uh, because he was in the process of receiving two black eyes, a broken nose, lacerations on the back of his head, and a slight back injury?

Wonder why the screaming stopped right after the gun shot?

If you are correct, perhaps he was no longer in the process of receiving two black eyes, a broken nose, lacerations on the back of his head, and a slight back injury?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Hey folks,
First a quick reminder that I'll be providing live, all-day coverage of Day 6 of jury selection for the Zimmerman trial over at Legal Insurrection. We'll provide live video streaming, a rolling Twitter feed of selected contributors, real-time posts of breaking events, and of course our wildly popular end-of-day wrap up. *I don't have a link for you until we go live, but we'll start coverage as soon as the Court goes into session, usually right at 9AM.
Now, to the meat of this post: Myth Busters: Did Zimmerman really "racially profile" Trayvon Martin, and was that alleged racial motivation the "depraved mind" element that makes this killing qualify as murder in the second degree?
NBC News produced a version of the recording of Zimmerman's non-emergency call to the police in which he appeared to volunteer, unsolicited, the fact that Martin was black. (NBC is currently being sued by Zimmerman for this act of malice.)
Fortunately, you don't have to rely on anyone else's "opinion" on the matter. In my newest blog post I have placed a copy of both the relevant snippet of that call and a transcript of what was said (for convenience):
Myth Busters: Did Zimmerman really “racially profile” Martin?
Take a listen/look and see what you think. Did Zimmerman racially profile Martin? *Based on the facts in evidence, I'd have to say that myth is . . . BUSTED!
Andrew
@LawSelfDefense
Facebook: Law of Self Defense

 

Hello Shill. Or should I say digital door to door salesman. I thought the mods were supposed to get rid of these sorts of things. What's next allowing people to sell WOW gold?

Two threads started, OOh my blog,ooh my channel. If posters who have been here for longer are not allowed to run other sites in their siggy etc; how is this okay?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey folks,

 

One of the many untruths in the Zimmerman case that has been vigorously disseminated and ingrained into the public consciousness is that Zimmerman "chased/followed" Martin against police orders, or that he exited his vehicle after being told to stay inside the vehicle, or other variations of this theme.

 

This narrative has continued, with the full-hearted support of the mainstream media and its hundreds of "investigative reporters" despite the fact that even a cursory review of the evidence clearly shows this narrative to be patently false.

 

We know this because we have a real-time audio recording of the events in the form of Zimmerman's non-emergency phone call to the Sanford Police Department to report a suspicious person in his neighborhood.

 

I've prepared an audio clip of the relevant part of that non-emergency call, as well as an annotated transcript of what I hear in that audio clip, and posted them to my Law of Self Defense blog here.

 

When I listen to that audio not only do I NOT hear Zimmerman disobeying the dispatcher's instructions, I hear him exiting the vehicle specifically to answer the dispatcher's explicit question.

 

Take a listen/look and let me know what YOU think. Personally, I think this myth is . . . BUSTED.

 

Andrew

@LawSelfDefense

Facebook: Law of Self Defense

Not so fast counselor. You have only analyzed this evidence from Zimm's perspective and not from that of the victim. That would be disingenuous if done deliberately. You have left out the other important facts. What motivated TM to circle Zimm's vehicle? What motivated TM to assault Zimm? If Zimm was not following TM then TM could not have seen Zimm as threatening enough to circle his vehicle. Why would TM have chosen to do that to Zimm without cause? What was his motivation if not done out of fear and self preservation then what? How would TM have known Zimm had any interest in him if he was not followed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zimmerman was a self appointed viliglante armed to kill quickly,

zimm profiled a black kid who had his hood up on a rainy day.

zimm called the police and was told he did not need to follow the kid and

police were on the way.

zimm kept up his stalking,

zimm told police they (black suspects) always get away.

zimm was NOT going to let this one get away.

zimm had a history of interference in police business, this makes his

act of killing the kid a RICO act as well as a hate crime as well as a stalking crime,

as well as a assault crime as well as premeditated murder as well as felony murder

combining the felonies of stalking, rico, hate crime with homicide.

 

OJ got off because of moon rock racists in CA,

casey anthony got off because of moron white trash women in FL

So, zimmerman will probably get off because of father was a judge and mother is clerk of the court

as well as because of the composition of the jury venire of white racist moonrocks in central FL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, because he was in the process of receiving two black eyes, a broken nose, lacerations on the back of his head, and a slight back injury?

If you are correct, perhaps he was no longer in the process of receiving two black eyes, a broken nose, lacerations on the back of his head, and a slight back injury?

Ummmmmm....highly unlikely.

 

Yes, Zipgun got his ass kicked good but it kinda sounds like when he did manage to pin the kid and the kid saw the gun he started screaming for his life.

 

And if it was Zipgun screaming, why would he stop immediately after the gun shot? How could he have calmed himself so fast?

 

It's more likely that the screams would have changed to"OH MY GOD CALL 911 I HAD TO SHOOT HIM/

 

I just hope the procecution poses those questions to the jury, to give them something to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but it kinda sounds like when he did manage to pin the kid and the kid saw the gun he started screaming for his life.

Considering eyewitness puts the man on top wearing a white shirt, aka Martin, I'd like to know where it "kinda sounds like" that.

 

zimmerman was a self appointed viliglante armed to kill quickly,

zimm profiled a black kid who had his hood up on a rainy day.

zimm called the police and was told he did not need to follow the kid and

police were on the way.

zimm kept up his stalking,

zimm told police they (black suspects) always get away.

zimm was NOT going to let this one get away.

zimm had a history of interference in police business, this makes his

act of killing the kid a RICO act as well as a hate crime as well as a stalking crime,

as well as a assault crime as well as premeditated murder as well as felony murder

combining the felonies of stalking, rico, hate crime with homicide.

Your "poetry" attempt here has no basis in reality.

Share this post


Link to post
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.


×
×
  • Create New...