Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Of course, I never denied that, whether or not Zimmerman continued to follow is what is in question.

So you agree there are unanswered questions to consider!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You keep trying to make "intent to follow" a crime. He is not charged with that either, nor is he charged with "Stalking".

When it results in death, it is a crime.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, they often give bad and biased advice. You have to make your own decisions.

Not what you said.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The 9-11 operator is not an "expert", they gave Zimmerman "advice" based upon the self interest of the police.

If Zimmerman was in immediate danger, you would be right. But since the police were only minutes away, it was good advice. And Zimmerman was less an expert than the officer at the other end of the phone line.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Well, you have confidence in the second Prosecutor because they charged Zimmerman, but not in the first Porsecutor because they didn't charge Zimmerman, why do you think?

With the second prosecutor there was/is still a search for the truth. The first had seemingly made his decision.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The only reason there might be a trial is to appease black activists.

So you also have reached a verdict with little evidence.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So how could he get a free pass now? All of that already happened.

I guess that ship has sailed.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

We should do away with "witch hunts".

By doing away with justice?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You weren't a witness.

Nor are you!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You ignore the facts.Only those that don't pass the smell test.

Is that all you have?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The prosecutor.

Show your evidence!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Just figured that out?

You did?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Yes, but it has to be circumstancial evidence that supports the verdict!

So you reach a verdict then choose evidence to support it. That doesn't surprise me.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

In what way, and how is it involved in this case? Zimmerman should be presumed guilty? Why, because he "appears" to be White"?

You just don't pay attention.

And everything is race to you.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

He has a school record.

But that's not a "criminal record".

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The Sanford Police Department didn't kill Martin, but they were targetted.

Because they looked the other way.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Why do I have to explain things in such a basic way? You can have two stories that actually correlate.

You can. But is it likely?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Of course not. However when Martin attacked, broke his nose, knocked him to the ground, and proceeded to bash his head repeatedly into the concrete, the uncertainty diminishes.

If that's what happened.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

There is no evidence of that, other than Zimmerman's testimony.

That we know of.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, shoot to wound but not permanantly or shoot to stop are difficult to achieve results. Only the "Lone Ranger" was able to consistantly use them. That's the main reason, you have to fear for your life in order to justify a shoot.

So where did, or would, Zimmerman keep his gun? If it was at his waist, pointed down, as most police officers have theirs, would the bullet be more likely to travel toward Marin's legs or his torso? To aim at his torso, he would have to rotate the gun, while struggling with Martin without prematurely pulling the trigger.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

When a single person is singled out to be prosecuted, the standard is violated.

Welcome to the real world. How many trails have you seen where several suspects are presented to the jury for the jury to determine which one is guilty.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Special Prosecutors should only be appointed in special circumstances. Had there been evidence, other than disposition of the case that Rev, Sharpton objects to, of Prosecutor conflict of interest, incompetance, or judicial wrongdoing, then there might have been justification for a special prosecutor to be appointed.

If none of those people was doing their job it could never get to that point.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Not just Zimmerman's words, the injuries, the testimony of the witnesses....

I have not seen the evidence for it to convince me that the evidence supports his words.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Then we assume Zimmerman remained on public property.

Since it was a gated community, does the city own the streets and sidewalks?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So how do you know this "not yet revealed evidence" exists?

I'm waiting for the trial.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That's not a crime either. Nor do you have evidence that Zimmerman initiated it.

He got out of his car. So the possibility exists and should be explored.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Martin soliciting for a lewd act with Zimmerman would also be a lesser charge, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Yet another smear on the person who cannot defend himself. You are a piece of work.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You're locked into a prosecution...

Because there is no clear evidence to support Zimmerman's claim.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Because that's the basis of Self defense laws. Expediancy!

But it is not automatically assumed that a person is covered by such laws.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Neither Zimerman or you have any idea of Martin's intentions as he assaulted Zimmerman.

And neither you or I know that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The facts are that Martin broke Zimmerman's nose and injured the back of his head.

Wrong!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

How do you give them a fair trial?

Jail Sharptongue and Jackass.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

How do you weigh speculation for validity?

Information, not speculation. However speculation about how the evidence fit is reasonable.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Not necessary, you already described it as "Killing another as a result of a sequence of events that Zimmerman initiated." Since the Murder 2 charge, that would mean that Zimmerman did so with Malice.

If that was "engineered" as you want to claim it wouldn't be Murder 2. The malice can come on the spur of the moment. But "engineered" in any form would be Murder 1.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I don't know what he exactly said, so how could I accept it with blindness?

You are willing to make up words he never said.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That doesn't mean he wasn't going to prosecute, but simply that for the time being he was going to release Zimmerman.

Accurate or not, it was reported that the police were telling Martin's family nothing about the investigation.

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jtdc

So you agree there are unanswered questions to consider!

Agreed! Don't need a trial to answer, if it can be answered.

When it results in death, it is a crime.

No it isn't! Do you suddenly believe YOU are the Florida legislature?

Not what you said.

Yes, I often have to expalin the basics when answering your posts.

If Zimmerman was in immediate danger, you would be right. But since the police were only minutes away, it was good advice. And Zimmerman was less an expert than the officer at the other end of the phone line.

9-11 Operators aren't necessarily police officers. And the police didn't arrive before Trayvon assaulted him.

With the second prosecutor there was/is still a search for the truth. The first had seemingly made his decision.

So it's "fair" and "equality under the law for a White Hispanic to be run through every Prosecutor in the State until you get one who is willing to indict him? What if that had been done to a black shooter who had defended himself?

So you also have reached a verdict with little evidence.

What has that got to do with a verdict? I haven't seen the evidence, the first prosecutor did, and saw no reason to indict, so, a second prosecutor was appointed. What evidence that has been reported, supports Zimmerman's claim of self defense, even if not fully.

I guess that ship has sailed.

Yes, long ago.

By doing away with justice?

A witch hunt is not justice. The accused "witch" gets punished. source

Nor are you!

I haven't claimed to be.

Is that all you have?

So Zimmerman's injuries are of no consequence?

Show your evidence!

The Prosecutor's staement regarding the indictment.

You did?

....

[/quote]So you reach a verdict then choose evidence to support it. That doesn't surprise me.[/quote]

What are you talking about? What circumstancial evidence exists to convict Zimmerman?

You just don't pay attention.

And everything is race to you.

How do I not pay attention, I asked you a specific question of why your statement about the presumption of innocence being misused and how it applies in this case. And in that matter, what reason other than his racer and the race of Trayvon would Zimmerman not merit that ideal? That's why Zimmerman is being prosecuted in the first place.

But that's not a "criminal record".

That's the great injustice of public school systems. They are unaccountable and can administer dicipline and adverse actions that follow people the rest of their life, yet there is no due process protection, for the accused. So here's Trayvon accused and punished without the school calling the police and giveng him a criminal record, yet the Black Community ignores that injustice. OTOH perhaps they are happy about it because Trayvon essentially got away with possible felonies.

Because they looked the other way.

No they didn't, they gathered the evidence and gave it to the prosecutor.

You can. But is it likely?

Yes, it's likely. It's the same story but from two different perspectives, unless one lies. There are always aspects of the story that the particular witness in unaware of or doesn't know, or one of perception. Think of the movie "Vantage Point" if you have seen it. The "players" in the movie have only their POV, which makes the movie interesting because you have to see everyone's "vantage point" to understand the entire set of events.

If that's what happened.

Huh? Punching and breaking a nose is NOT an attack? The witness of the injuries to Zimmerman didn't see Martin on top? What other scenario is likely?

That we know of.

So the lead Investigator was lying?

So where did, or would, Zimmerman keep his gun? If it was at his waist, pointed down, as most police officers have theirs, would the bullet be more likely to travel toward Marin's legs or his torso? To aim at his torso, he would have to rotate the gun, while struggling with Martin without prematurely pulling the trigger.

Obviously you are someone who hasn't even considered self defense with a gun. You can't just indiscriminately fire at an attacker, you are responsible for all the shots that "miss". The scenes from the movies where two struggle for a gun and the "hero" pulls the trigger as a desparation to stop the struggle are just Hollywood. The fact that Zimmerman fired only once and to the center of mass is evidence of responsible shooting.

Welcome to the real world. How many trails have you seen where several suspects are presented to the jury for the jury to determine which one is guilty.

Unrelated to my comment.

If none of those people was doing their job it could never get to that point.

No, you don't understand. Due Process is the Legal idea that Courts and State Prosecutors are not allowed to do things which compromise the rights of the citizen when he become the accused. Having a "Special Prosecutor" appointed without clear evidence of something wrong in the previous process is prejudicial and violates "Due Process". Zimmerman is being singled out for Prosecution. Unless every other accused is also singled out, Zimmerman doesn't have equal justice.

I have not seen the evidence for it to convince me that the evidence supports his words.

Well the first Prosecutor did, the second Prosecutor was only appointed to appease Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Since it was a gated community, does the city own the streets and sidewalks?

Yes, technically, other wise they couldn't arrest anyone.

I'm waiting for the trial.

I have "news" for you, the trial may not be unitl next year. I think that may be intentional in order to let the Black Community "forget a little" about it. I don't believe that it is a good strategy, If Obama isn't reelected, there will likely be riots anyway.

He got out of his car. So the possibility exists and should be explored.

It was, the lead investigator said there was no evidence of who started the fight. Getting out of a car is not evidence of starting a fight. I get out of my car several times a day.

Yet another smear on the person who cannot defend himself. You are a piece of work.

Martin talked with Zimmerman, so the possibilty exists and should be explored....

Because there is no clear evidence to support Zimmerman's claim.

Only according to your definition of "clear evidence".

But it is not automatically assumed that a person is covered by such laws.

Never said it was, that's why the First Prosecutor examined the investigation., and determined such from his expertise.

And neither you or I know that Martin assaulted Zimmerman.

Bringing back the "tree theory"? Is not Breaking the nose and doing something to cause bruises and multiple lacerations to the back of the head "Assault"? Source

Wrong!

So what did the witness see? How did Zimmerman get the injuries?

Jail Sharptongue and Jackass.

Alright! First time you have made sense this post.

Information, not speculation. However speculation about how the evidence fit is reasonable.

Even when it contradicts the evidence?

If that was "engineered" as you want to claim it wouldn't be Murder 2. The malice can come on the spur of the moment. But "engineered" in any form would be Murder 1.

You argue the point but the murder 2 charge isn't justified either.

You are willing to make up words he never said.

I already said, I don't know what he said.

Accurate or not, it was reported that the police were telling Martin's family nothing about the investigation.

How is that relevant?

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Agreed! Don't need a trial to answer, if it can be answered.

Then you prefer the prosecutor as judge and jury. Who then become the adversaries?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No it isn't! Do you suddenly believe YOU are the Florida legislature?

Absurd. You want to take everything in isolation. Each piece of evidence must show guilt all by itself. Each law can only affect one specific matter. No one would ever be convicted by your rules.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Yes, I often have to expalin the basics when answering your posts.

Welcome to my world. It is about the game with you. So there is no progression. Too much time devoted to semantics.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

9-11 Operators aren't necessarily police officers. And the police didn't arrive before Trayvon assaulted him.

If he had waited for police, as instructed, there would be no killing of an innocent human. He would not be in jeopardy.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So it's "fair" and "equality under the law for a White Hispanic to be run through every Prosecutor in the State until you get one who is willing to indict him?

More racism?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

What if that had been done to a black shooter who had defended himself?

Didn't we already discuss the inequity in the justice system?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

What has that got to do with a verdict?

What verdict? You don't even want a trial. So going with your bias against blacks, if a white mob lynches a black man and a white prosecutor says it is legal, that's fine with you?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I haven't seen the evidence, the first prosecutor did, and saw no reason to indict, so, a second prosecutor was appointed. What evidence that has been reported, supports Zimmerman's claim of self defense, even if not fully.

And we know very little evidence has been revealed. So you, like that first prosecutor, reached a verdict of "Not guilt", with very little evidence to go on. And because you don't want to be proved wrong, you want the matter closed.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

A witch hunt is not justice. The accused "witch" gets punished. source

You are declaring the prosecution to be the hunters and Zimmerman to be the witch. But Martin is the one who is dead.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I haven't claimed to be.

You sure speak as if you were there, claiming Zimmerman's version to be "fact".

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So Zimmerman's injuries are of no consequence?

Of course they are. They just aren't conclusive.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The Prosecutor's staement regarding the indictment.

So put it up. How many time have you made this general statement, avoiding having to back up your claim?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

What are you talking about? What circumstancial evidence exists to convict Zimmerman?

What circumstantial evidence exist to exonerate him? That is for a jury to decide. We haven't seen forensic evidence yet.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

How do I not pay attention, I asked you a specific question of why your statement about the presumption of innocence being misused and how it applies in this case.

NO YOU DIDN'T! You said "Zimmerman should be presumed guilty?" Who said that?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And in that matter, what reason other than his racer and the race of Trayvon would Zimmerman not merit that ideal? That's why Zimmerman is being prosecuted in the first place.

If Zimmerman had been killed by Martin, there would have been an arrest. It would not have taken demonstrations. If both were white, there would have been an arrest. So who is the racist? The prosecutor who looked the other way or the family wanting to know the truth?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That's the great injustice of public school systems. They are unaccountable and can administer dicipline and adverse actions that follow people the rest of their life, yet there is no due process protection, for the accused.

Or the victim! Women are raped and school administrators don't notify police. So a serial perpetrator will have no record. But the same is true of other institutions such as the Catholic Church who dealt with priest molest internally.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So here's Trayvon accused and punished without the school calling the police and giveng him a criminal record, yet the Black Community ignores that injustice. OTOH perhaps they are happy about it because Trayvon essentially got away with possible felonies.

You just love smearing people who can't defend themselves.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No they didn't, they gathered the evidence and gave it to the prosecutor.

How do you know that? They collected evidence until the prosecutor to them to stop. So we don't know what they might have found if they had continued.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Yes, it's likely. It's the same story but from two different perspectives, unless one lies.

And when there is no one to contradict you vantage point, you can get away with a lie much easier. So unless investigators are looking for the lie, they are not likely to find it.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Huh? Punching and breaking a nose is NOT an attack?

It might have been a defense against an attack.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The witness of the injuries to Zimmerman didn't see Martin on top?

At that point in time. But they didn't see who initiated the attack.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

What other scenario is likely?

Again PAY ATTENTION! If Zimmerman pointed his gun at Martin, Martin might have punched him and wrestled him to the ground in an attempt to get the gun away from him.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So the lead Investigator was lying?

About what? He said the evidence he has seen does not "conclude". The trial has yet to begin and we have yet to see all of the evidence.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Obviously you are someone who hasn't even considered self defense with a gun.

That being true, I am skeptical that I can trust you to give me the straight dope.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You can't just indiscriminately fire at an attacker, you are responsible for all the shots that "miss". The scenes from the movies where two struggle for a gun and the "hero" pulls the trigger as a desparation to stop the struggle are just Hollywood. The fact that Zimmerman fired only once and to the center of mass is evidence of responsible shooting.

Or a lucky shot. Amazing that he was able to kill Martin with a single shot, presumably with Martin on top of him "fighting for the gun", yet professional cops empty their weapons without hitting the target. And "hunters" need a spray of bullets to hit a deer.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Unrelated to my comment.

Not at all. You said "When a single person is singled out to be prosecuted, the standard is violated." Putting a single person before a jury is very similar.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, you don't understand. Due Process is the Legal idea that Courts and State Prosecutors are not allowed to do things which compromise the rights of the citizen when he become the accused. Having a "Special Prosecutor" appointed without clear evidence of something wrong in the previous process is prejudicial and violates "Due Process". Zimmerman is being singled out for Prosecution. Unless every other accused is also singled out, Zimmerman doesn't have equal justice.

Bull. Basically, until they have been found "Not guilt" by a court, or the statute of limitations has expired, they can be charged.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Well the first Prosecutor did, the second Prosecutor was only appointed to appease Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

If you keep crying those crocodile tears, you are going to raise the level of the oceans without the need for global warming.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I have "news" for you, the trial may not be unitl next year. I think that may be intentional in order to let the Black Community "forget a little" about it. I don't believe that it is a good strategy, If Obama isn't reelected, there will likely be riots anyway.

Zimmerman might plead out as well.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It was, the lead investigator said there was no evidence of who started the fight.

So they must present all the facts to a jury for their decision.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Getting out of a car is not evidence of starting a fight. I get out of my car several times a day.

To follow someone, who is "getting away"?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Martin talked with Zimmerman, so the possibilty exists and should be explored....

Did Zimmerman say that Martin solicited him for a lewd act? OR DID YOU MAKE THAT UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH?

And if Martin did say something like that, would that likely provoke a hot-head like Zimmerman to beat the crap out of him, and ultimately kill him? That "should be explored..."

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Only according to your definition of "clear evidence".

Better than yours.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Never said it was, that's why the First Prosecutor examined the investigation., and determined such from his expertise.

Yes you did. And I don't think it was his "expertise". More likely his bias as a member of the NRA.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Is not Breaking the nose and doing something to cause bruises and multiple lacerations to the back of the head "Assault"?

No! From your Source:

In criminal and tort law, an act, usually consisting of a threat

Did Zimmerman "threaten" Martin, thereby "assaulting him"?

No intent to cause battery or the fear or apprehension is required so long as the victim is placed in reasonable apprehension or fear.

No actual physical injury is needed to establish an assault,

So the fact that Martin had no injuries other than the gunshot wound does not mean he was not the one assaulted.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So what did the witness see? How did Zimmerman get the injuries?

I haven't heard of any of them witnessing Martin punching Zimmerman in the nose. I haven't heard of any one witnessing how the two ended up on the ground. The only thing I have heard that they witnessed is Martin on top slamming Zimmerman's head on the ground. That only indicates that Martin apparently had the advantage at that point. I have not heard of any witness to the shooting. So there seems to be only one part of his story supported by witnesses.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Alright! First time you have made sense this post.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Even when it contradicts the evidence?

Evidence contradicting evidence. Reason for a jury, huh?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You argue the point but the murder 2 charge isn't justified either.

How do you know? You haven't seen all the evidence. But you keep applying your "engineered" definition to Murder 2, when it in no way applies. Bogus!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I already said, I don't know what he said.

Then why did you make them up?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

How is that relevant?

Because it led them to believe nothing was going to be done about the killing of their son.

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jtdc

Then you prefer the prosecutor as judge and jury. Who then become the adversaries?

Look it is this way. A local "black" State Senator here in the DFW area wants to mandate in Texas that " a civilian review board, (essentially a Grand Jury) review every shooting. While he is representing it a "fair", he is essentially mandating another level of review for every shooting. Clearly, if prosecution is at the discretion of the local DA, this is basically a scheme to "get more shooters", making their chances of being exonerated less likely. If the DA is going after the shooter, thaqt is going to happen anyway.

Absurd. You want to take everything in isolation. Each piece of evidence must show guilt all by itself. Each law can only affect one specific matter. No one would ever be convicted by your rules.

How is what I said absurd? You want "intent to follow" a crime in order to justify imprisoning people who defend their life with a gun! Fine, but just get the Florida Legislature to agree with you and vote it in. It is wrong for a court to impose that sort of alw on Zimmerman especially AFTER the fact.

Welcome to my world. It is about the game with you. So there is no progression. Too much time devoted to semantics.

I don't believe in Progressivism. It's a "nice word" for Fascism.

If he had waited for police, as instructed, there would be no killing of an innocent human. He would not be in jeopardy.

What is the evidence that he could have waited? I mean you and your 20-20 hindsight are so sure that he should not have got out of the SUV, but Zimmerman isn't a fortune teller.

[quote]More racism?/quote]

Yes, aren't you tired of the racism already from the Prosecution?

Didn't we already discuss the inequity in the justice system?

So if the inequity is directed against Zimmerman, [that's Okay because ewe have already discussed it?!?

What verdict? You don't even want a trial. So going with your bias against blacks, if a white mob lynches a black man and a white prosecutor says it is legal, that's fine with you?

No it's not. That's not what happened. In fact, I tend to resent that kind of "ammoral relativity" made so infamous by radical DimocRATs. There is no evdence that Zimmerman had any racial anomousity towards Martin, and only shot him because Martin was injuring him and he feared for his life. You want to compare it with a KKK lynching and make me out as a racist, because I don't think it is anyway comparable. Your attacks on the NRA are similar to Bill Clinton insisting that they "have blood on their hands, and are responsible for "Blood in the streets." The truth is, governments murder far more of their own citizens than any group of criminals, and people who don't have the means to defend themselves are simply massacred.

And we know very little evidence has been revealed. So you, like that first prosecutor, reached a verdict of "Not guilt", with very little evidence to go on. And because you don't want to be proved wrong, you want the matter closed.

I would love nothing better than to be proven wrong, but we are way beyond that. If the evidence damned Zimmerman there would be no "need" to distort it against Zimmerman. Just this morning someone dug up an aledged 7 year old blog entry for Zimmerman supposedly "Racist" against 'Mexicans'" Naturally ABC reports it like it is valid.

You are declaring the prosecution to be the hunters and Zimmerman to be the witch. But Martin is the one who is dead.

You didn't read the link did you? I guess you somehow believe that the people prosecuted during the Salem Witch trial might have actually "been witches".

You sure speak as if you were there, claiming Zimmerman's version to be "fact".

No, I said the known evidence supports his version, a situation you won't even admit.

Of course they are. They just aren't conclusive.

Then why did the media try to cover them up? I suppose you didn't look up the definition of "Assault" either. The only way Martin, hyp[othetically had he lived would NOT be guilty of the crime of Assault, would be if he hadn't been the one to give those injuries to Zimmerman. So this would then get back to the time between the 9-11 call and the fight. So how did Zimmerman get those injuries? Is it possible to break your own nose and use your hands to bang your own head into the pavement? If another perp actually attacked Zimmerman and gave him those injuries, why didn;t Zimemrman shoot him (or her) instead? Why didn;t the witnesses spot the actual perp? How did Martin get the best of Zimmerman oin top beating his head into the pavement and NOT injure him? I suppose that is your definition of "aren;t conclusive".

So put it up. How many time have you made this general statement, avoiding having to back up your claim?

I couldn't get the PDF to download on my Dial up and 3 year old computer. Look it up yourself.

What circumstantial evidence exist to exonerate him? That is for a jury to decide. We haven't seen forensic evidence yet.

I guess you don't understand how the Justice system works. It's the duty of the Prosecution, since it has made the unsupported charge of Murder 2, to come up with the evidence, circumstancial or otherwise to prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So what if there is NO cricumstancial nor forensic evidence to convict Zimerman? (And that is far more likely) Will you then renounce your current position on the matter?

NO YOU DIDN'T! You said "Zimmerman should be presumed guilty?" Who said that?

It was a rhetorical and direct question, why do you refuse to answer?

[quote]If Zimmerman had been killed by Martin, there would have been an arrest. It would not have taken demonstrations. If both were white, there would have been an arrest. So who is the racist? The prosecutor who looked the other way or the family wanting to know the truth?{/quote]

First there was an arrest. and there was questioning. Martin does not qualify legally to carry concealed like Zimmerman was. If he had been severly injured like Zimmerman was, and Zimmerman in pristine condition other than the gunshot wound, and Martin claiming he went for the gun to save his life, believing that Zimmerman was a criminal trying to murder him, I don't believe he would have been charged. Happens all the time, happened here in Texas.

Or the victim! Women are raped and school administrators don't notify police. So a serial perpetrator will have no record. But the same is true of other institutions such as the Catholic Church who dealt with priest molest internally.

Well, that has changed, the Catholic Church can't cover it up anymore.

You just love smearing people who can't defend themselves.

No, the circumstances of Martin's suspension are public, I didn't report or distort them. If Martin hadn't been in possesion of pot, apparantly stolen Women's jewelry, and hadn't defaced school property caught on film, he wouldn't have been in Sanford to assault Zimmerman. That isn't a smear, it is fact
.

How do you know that? They collected evidence until the prosecutor to them to stop. So we don't know what they might have found if they had continued.

That's not true. The Coroner's report wasn't in. Are you saying the Coronor stopped his autopsy when he heard the Prosecutor wasn't going to prosecute? So every investigator on every case should investigate until they find things? How long should that be? A year?

And when there is no one to contradict you vantage point, you can get away with a lie much easier. So unless investigators are looking for the lie, they are not likely to find it.

So what evidence is there that Zimmerman lied? I thought your theory was that he "Intended to follow Martin" and since Martin "died", that's makes him guilty regardless of his story. You are beggining to sound a lot like Osi and his defense of Evolution, that "proof" will be found. So, you criticized the intiial Prosecutor and the initial investigator for NOT revealing evidence to the family of Martin, yet you seem confident that the second Prosecutor, who is apparantly also hiding eviednce of Zimmerman being guilty of Murder 2, from the public. I happen to believe they aren't really hiding it, they just don't have any! And if there were real evidence that damned Zimmerman, it would have already been leaked and reported, and reported gleefully, like all the previous "misinformation! Then the new Prosecutor could sidestep all the well deserved criticism from fellow attorney's for the witch hunt she is conducting. If however, the prosecution's case relies on legal trickery and the Murder 2 chargew is simply "posturing" hoping to threaten Zimmerman into a plea for a lessor charge, then of course they would keep that secret, "TOP SECRET!"

It might have been a defense against an attack.

What attack? Zimmerman's "attack" was with a gun, and stopped the fight, Martin would have to go back in time before he was killed to launch his "defensive nose breaking and skull bashing. Was Martin in possesion of a temporal distortion device? Did police check for one? If so, why didn't Martin go back and avoid his death by avoiding the fight?

At that point in time. But they didn't see who initiated the attack.

Yes, we have to look at the timeline. Martin's "self defense" resulted in a broken nose and multiple lacerations to Zimmerman's head, and maybe other injuries not reported, concussion, we don't know. While Zimmerman;s viscious racist attack on an innocent "child" Martin resulted in a single gunshot to the chest, with an immediate cease to "hostilities." So what action by Zimmerman justified Martin's self defense? And there is that pesky statement by the lead investigator that you quoted, saying there was no evidence of who started the fight, which totally disregards Zimmerman's story.

Again PAY ATTENTION! If Zimmerman pointed his gun at Martin, Martin might have punched him and wrestled him to the ground in an attempt to get the gun away from him.

That doesn't really change things that much. The prosecution would ave to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Zimmerman made a plausable threat against Martin without any previous threat made by Martin against Zimmerman. Instead Martin "going for the gun" would in Zimmerman's mind, justify the shot. It goes beyond reason, however, why Martin would go for the face and head of Zimmerman while NOT going for the gun, which is the immediate and deadly threat. The Act of Martin rushing Zimmerman in order to get his gun WOULD bring the "Stand your ground law into play.

About what? He said the evidence he has seen does not "conclude". The trial has yet to begin and we have yet to see all of the evidence.

Well, he is ignoring the evidence of Zimmerman's story, so if what you say is true, he is lying!

That being true, I am skeptical that I can trust you to give me the straight dope.

Why, what have I misled you about? Self Defense with a gun is a risky business, even in the best of jurisdictions.

Or a lucky shot. Amazing that he was able to kill Martin with a single shot, presumably with Martin on top of him "fighting for the gun", yet professional cops empty their weapons without hitting the target. And "hunters" need a spray of bullets to hit a deer.

No, I don't think so. Otherwise, Zimmerman would have likely taken multiple shots until he was "darn" sure Martin was unable to keep bashing his skull in. I don;t know where you got your "Ancedotal evidence of cops "not hitting their target, or "hunters sprayng bullets." The most infamous police shooting I have recently heard of was in regards to mutliple firings by the police on an actaully innocent "suspect". But they didn't miss, they hit him numerous times, even embarrassinlg numerous. And I don't know how a hunter "Sprays bullets" from a bolt action rifle the most common type of hunting gun. ANd even if they are able to do so, many states have magazine limits of three for deer, the tactic wouldn't be more effective than using a scope and a single well placed shot. Additionally, most hunting ammo has reached $40 for a box of 20. Could get expensive! I buy the surplus ammuntion at $200 for 440 rounds, but I don't hunt with it.

p

Not at all. You said "When a single person is singled out to be prosecuted, the standard is violated." Putting a single person before a jury is very similar.

Yes it is, you are playing stupid! Due process involves strict procedures to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected. When procedures are violated to prosecute a single individual or even a group of individuals, procedures that are followed for everyone else, that violates the standard. Otherwise, technically, a prosecutor could prosecute a certain individual losing every case until he happened to get a guilty charge, Fortunately I don't
believe that subsequent judges, even the liberal acticvist ones, would tolerate it, because it violate due process. .

Bull. Basically, until they have been found "Not guilt" by a court, or the statute of limitations has expired, they can be charged.

Then what is the rationale for appointing a "Special Prosecutor"? The real Prosecutor could charge him at any time! Does Florida appoint a special prosecutor every time the real prosecutor decides that he doesn't have enough evidence to justify wasting taxpayer money having a trial?

If you keep crying those crocodile tears, you are going to raise the level of the oceans without the need for global warming.

Oh That's a mature comment!

Zimmerman might plead out as well.

It won't be because of the preponderance of circumstancial or forensic evidence, it will be because he was essentially threatened by the Special Prosecutor.

So they must present all the facts to a jury for their decision.

So there are no facts to present as to who started the fight.

To follow someone, who is "getting away"?

Yes, I follow people sometimes, that isn't a crime.

Did Zimmerman say that Martin solicited him for a lewd act? OR DID YOU MAKE THAT UP OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH?

No, I said, just because it's not charged, doesn't mean it didn't happen, isn't that YOUR standard? Perhaps it's some of that circumstancial evidence or forensic evidence the prosecution is going to present. Perhaps it's the basis of a potential Civil Rights charge against Zimmerman by Holder when the kangaroo court case currently fails. You know homophobia. If the investigators had spent more than a half hour investigating the case, they might have discovered that homophobia connection....

And if Martin did say something like that, would that likely provoke a hot-head like Zimmerman to beat the crap out of him, and ultimately kill him? That "should be explored..."

See? When the "speculation [is] about how the evidence fit[s], [it] is reasonable". [Especially if it is against Zimmerman]

Better than yours.

I didn't attempt to define "Clear evidence".

Yes you did. And I don't think it was his "expertise". More likely his bias as a member of the NRA.

Then why wasn't that bias used as rationale when the Special Prosecutor was appointed?

No! From your Sourceid Zimmerman "threaten" Martin, thereby "assaulting him"?

We don't know. We do know that Martin injured Zimmerman, a clear case of Assault from the part of the source you cherry picked over.

3.Any attack .
4.The act of inflicting bodily injury upon another. See also mayhem.

So the fact that Martin had no injuries other than the gunshot wound does not mean he was not the one assaulted.

The fact that Zimmerman DID have injuries means he was assaulted.

I haven't heard of any of them witnessing Martin punching Zimmerman in the nose. I haven't heard of any one witnessing how the two ended up on the ground. The only thing I have heard that they witnessed is Martin on top slamming Zimmerman's head on the ground. That only indicates that Martin apparently had the advantage at that point. I have not heard of any witness to the shooting. So there seems to be only one part of his story supported by witnesses.

So Martin DID have a temporal device? So what happened to the perp who actually assaulted Zimmerman? Seesm forensic evidence could indicate that Martin broke the nose and tried to bust the skull. Seems you m,ight want that evidence suppressed. I was also unaware that Zimmerman doing the shooting was still inquestion.

One from em too!

Evidence contradicting evidence. Reason for a jury, huh?

No, speculation contradicting evidence.

How do you know? You haven't seen all the evidence. But you keep applying your "engineered" definition to Murder 2, when it in no way applies. Bogus!

I don't know, it's the legal opinion or several expert attorneys. I can express an opinion without the assuption that it is known. You have!

Then why did you make them up?

It's speculation on how the evidence fits.

Because it led them to believe nothing was going to be done about the killing of their son.

If Zimmerman had a justified shoot, what should be done about the killing of their son? Bogus charges of murder 2? Prosecution without a real case? A legal strategy of attempting to extort Zimmerman into a plea deal when they know he is innocent? Why doesn't the new Prosecutor release the legendary "damning evidence against Zimmerman?" Obviously, Martin's family is NOT concerned with actual evidence or guilt, they want blood! That's why they hold new conferences with Rev, Sharpton!

[David]

‘Justice for Trayvon’: 15 Whites Beaten By Gangs of Black Thugs… So Far
And the case hasn't even made it to trial yet.

SOURCE

[FoundingFather]

Originally Posted by David

‘Justice for Trayvon’: 15 Whites Beaten By Gangs of Black Thugs… So Far
And the case hasn't even made it to trial yet.

SOURCE

Pretty disgusting. Where is "The Uniter" now when one is really needed?

[Fox]

I recall after 9/11 the media was obsessed with stories about Muslims living in fear of backlash against their community. Now the media could care less about backlash. Go figure.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Look it is this way. A local "black" State Senator here in the DFW area wants to mandate in Texas that " a civilian review board, (essentially a Grand Jury) review every shooting. While he is representing it a "fair", he is essentially mandating another level of review for every shooting. Clearly, if prosecution is at the discretion of the local DA, this is basically a scheme to "get more shooters", making their chances of being exonerated less likely. If the DA is going after the shooter, thaqt is going to happen anyway.

Didn't answer the question, did it? If we are to trust the DA, the DA needs to be trustworthy. If the DA didn't charge and the Martin's could sue him, maybe he would do his job. But he is protected. Of course there is the problem of the other side that, like doctors, they are too thorough on every case to CYA. Then the review board would probably be more economical.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

How is what I said absurd? You want "intent to follow" a crime in order to justify imprisoning people who defend their life with a gun!

It is a puzzle. You generally can't solve a puzzle with only one piece. That's what's absurd about you wanting each piece of evidence to be conclusive.

Killing can be Murder 1, Murder 2, Manslaughter, etc. or accidental. following can be looked at in degrees as well. Stalking is an illegal degree of "following". And much of it comes down to "intent".

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Fine, but just get the Florida Legislature to agree with you and vote it in. It is wrong for a court to impose that sort of alw on Zimmerman especially AFTER the fact.

Making more up? I said it should be a consideration, not that following should be a felony.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I don't believe in Progressivism. It's a "nice word" for Fascism.

More of the same? I say "progression" and you think and respond to "progressivism". Semantics!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

What is the evidence that he could have waited?

What could he accomplish? He wasn't an armed guard who could arrest the person he was following. He, according to you, lost sight of the person before he got out of the car.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I mean you and your 20-20 hindsight are so sure that he should not have got out of the SUV, but Zimmerman isn't a fortune teller.

Right! He did not observe a crime being committed. No crime was reported. So he was apparently channeling his defective clairvoyance.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Yes, aren't you tired of the racism already from the Prosecution?

So you are saying the first prosecutor was racist, letting Martin's killer go free?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So if the inequity is directed against Zimmerman, [that's Okay because ewe have already discussed it?!?

Facts, not opinion please.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

There is no evdence that Zimmerman had any racial anomousity towards Martin,

He saw the guy "acting strange". The guy could have been dancing to music in his ear-piece.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

and only shot him because Martin was injuring him and he feared for his life.

Which would have not happened if he didn't judge the guy to be suspicious.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You want to compare it with a KKK lynching and make me out as a racist, because I don't think it is anyway comparable.

You made up smears about the victim. "Martin soliciting for a lewd act".

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Your attacks on the NRA are similar to Bill Clinton insisting that they "have blood on their hands, and are responsible for "Blood in the streets."

If you support a prosecutor who won't prosecute a "white" who killed a "black", the shoe fits.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The truth is, governments murder far more of their own citizens than any group of criminals, and people who don't have the means to defend themselves are simply massacred.

And you want more of that? That justifies doing it again?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I would love nothing better than to be proven wrong, but we are way beyond that.

Not me. I want to be proven right so I know my finely honed investigative skills are still intact.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If the evidence damned Zimmerman there would be no "need" to distort it against Zimmerman.

Pardon me if I mentioned this in this thread before. There was a woman cop recently convicted of killing her partner many years ago. They never scrutinized her because she was one of them. But after they got a clue, they looked back at the failure of their investigation, and she was found guilty by a jury. The evidence can't damn Zimmerman. It is inanimate. Investigators must use it to paint a picture. I don't know what is being distorted, if anything. Prosecutors have not falsely claimed that it incriminates Zimmerman. Neither did they falsely claim that it exonerates Zimmerman.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Just this morning someone dug up an aledged 7 year old blog entry for Zimmerman supposedly "Racist" against 'Mexicans'" Naturally ABC reports it like it is valid.

Not the prosecutor, was it?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You didn't read the link did you? I guess you somehow believe that the people prosecuted during the Salem Witch trial might have actually "been witches".

I knew you would exploit the words rather than the thought.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, I said the known evidence supports his version, a situation you won't even admit.

Really? So I didn't say "The only thing I have heard that they witnessed is Martin on top slamming Zimmerman's head on the ground"?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Then why did the media try to cover them up? I suppose you didn't look up the definition of "Assault" either.

You are really getting ignorant. I guess when I quoted from your link, I didn't bother to read any of it. You're an embarrassment.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The only way Martin, hyp[othetically had he lived would NOT be guilty of the crime of Assault, would be if he hadn't been the one to give those injuries to Zimmerman.

Wrong! If he was defending himself, he wouldn't be guilty of assault.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So this would then get back to the time between the 9-11 call and the fight. So how did Zimmerman get those injuries? Is it possible to break your own nose and use your hands to bang your own head into the pavement?

Yes!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If another perp actually attacked Zimmerman and gave him those injuries, why didn;t Zimemrman shoot him (or her) instead?

Your whole premise is that Martin attacked Zimmerman. For you, Martin had no right to defend himself, punching him in the nose or banging his head on the ground. But Zimmerman had every right to kill Martin to defend himself.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Why didn;t the witnesses spot the actual perp?

More fantasy?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

How did Martin get the best of Zimmerman oin top beating his head into the pavement and NOT injure him? I suppose that is your definition of "aren;t conclusive".

I would say you are catching on. But clearly you are only being sarcastic.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I couldn't get the PDF to download on my Dial up and 3 year old computer. Look it up yourself.

So you didn't read it (because your computer is 3 years old. By the way, mine is about 9 years old.) and you can't even post the link where you apparently couldn't read it.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I guess you don't understand how the Justice system works. It's the duty of the Prosecution, since it has made the unsupported charge of Murder 2, to come up with the evidence, circumstancial or otherwise to prove Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

And that is done at trial, which has yet to happen.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So what if there is NO cricumstancial nor forensic evidence to convict Zimerman? (And that is far more likely) Will you then renounce your current position on the matter?

And suffer the humiliation of being wrong? Of course, if I'm still alive when that actually happens. Unfortunately I am convinced the OJ is guilty. But I think the police and prosecution screwed up bad, and allowed undeniable evidence to be or seem to be contaminated, thereby getting a Not Guilty. I feel this case might have been on that same track. Unlike the OJ case, we know who killed Martin. It is looking for the evidence to support that it was justified. And since Martin wasn't doing something criminal at the outset, I am to believe that with no history of violent crime, he attacked Zimmerman for no other reason than that Zimmerman was following him. I want more than Zimmerman's word on that.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It was a rhetorical and direct question, why do you refuse to answer?

Well, if it was "rhetorical" A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point and without the expectation of a reply.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If he had been severly injured like Zimmerman was, and Zimmerman in pristine condition other than the gunshot wound, and Martin claiming he went for the gun to save his life, believing that Zimmerman was a criminal trying to murder him, I don't believe he would have been charged. Happens all the time, happened here in Texas.

Possible. But so is the possibility that Martin was defending himself from being shot by Zimmerman. We only have Zimmerman's word that he only shot after Martin tried to get his gun. Forensic evidence might tell more about that. But I guess we won't see that until trial.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Well, that has changed, the Catholic Church can't cover it up anymore.

That's one. But schools, military, police and several other organizations are not in that category.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, the circumstances of Martin's suspension are public, I didn't report or distort them. If Martin hadn't been in possesion of pot,

Wrong, from what I have heard. A dog hit on his back pack, but no drugs were found.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

apparantly stolen Women's jewelry,

"Apparently"?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

and hadn't defaced school property caught on film

I hadn't heard that one. But I haven't' read everything everyone has said about the case.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

he wouldn't have been in Sanford to assault Zimmerman. That isn't a smear, it is fact

It is only your belief that Martin assaulted Zimmerman, not a fact. If the foregoing is true, Martin wouldn't have been in Sanford to be killed by Zimmerman.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That's not true. The Coroner's report wasn't in. Are you saying the Coronor stopped his autopsy when he heard the Prosecutor wasn't going to prosecute?

That was already in police custody. I'm talking of evidence that might have been collected at the scene of the possible crime, since the facts were not clear, and are still not clear.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So every investigator on every case should investigate until they find things? How long should that be? A year?

Jimmy Hoffa is still an open case. They just tore up a building looking for the remains of the kid who was the first on the milk cartons. Detectives spent a lot of time looking for Bruno Magli Shoes. When you don't have the answer, you keep looking.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So what evidence is there that Zimmerman lied?

His apparent statements to police versus his testimony in the Bail Hearing about his perceived age of Martin. It could be a simple mistake, or evidence of an intention to lie.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I thought your theory was that he "Intended to follow Martin" and since Martin "died", that's makes him guilty regardless of his story.

I thought you had a higher I.Q. than that.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You are beggining to sound a lot like Osi and his defense of Evolution, that "proof" will be found.

You argument is getting so weak you have to resort to vicious smears?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

yet you seem confident that the second Prosecutor, who is apparantly also hiding eviednce of Zimmerman being guilty of Murder 2, from the public.

If you have evidence of that, you'd better call Holder.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I happen to believe they aren't really hiding it, they just don't have any! And if there were real evidence that damned Zimmerman, it would have already been leaked and reported, and reported gleefully, like all the previous "misinformation!

Quickly backing away from you slander of the Special Prosecutor? If there were a specific piece that, alone, would have proved guilt or innocence, I'm sure they would have.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If however, the prosecution's case relies on legal trickery and the Murder 2 chargew is simply "posturing" hoping to threaten Zimmerman into a plea for a lessor charge, then of course they would keep that secret, "TOP SECRET!"

Could be. When I was sued in Federal Court for $10 million plus, when the end of the case came their loss was actually only about $250,000. I would like honesty in the system. But that is not what it is about. It is about money for lawyers, judges and anybody else associated with the business of law.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

What attack? Zimmerman's "attack" was with a gun, and stopped the fight, Martin would have to go back in time before he was killed to launch his "defensive nose breaking and skull bashing.

No, you'd have to go back in time to see the truth. But at least you now admit the Zimmerman attacked Martin with a gun.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Was Martin in possesion of a temporal distortion device? Did police check for one?

Not with their lackluster investigation.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If so, why didn't Martin go back and avoid his death by avoiding the fight?

Because he was dead before he could dial in the code.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Yes, we have to look at the timeline. Martin's "self defense" resulted in a broken nose and multiple lacerations to Zimmerman's head, and maybe other injuries not reported, concussion, we don't know.

Because police released Zimmerman before collecting evidence like his clothing and drug testing him.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So what action by Zimmerman justified Martin's self defense?

Pointing a gun at Martin saying he was going to shoot him. Didn't Zimmerman claim that Martin threatened him by saying [you've got problems now]?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And there is that pesky statement by the lead investigator that you quoted, saying there was no evidence of who started the fight, which totally disregards Zimmerman's story.

Even in a Grand Jury hearing, as I understand it, the defense is not allowed to put on a defense. So Zimmerman's self-serving statement is not admissible.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That doesn't really change things that much. The prosecution would ave to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Zimmerman made a plausable threat against Martin without any previous threat made by Martin against Zimmerman.

And that is why it should be left to a jury rather than a prosecutor to decide.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Instead Martin "going for the gun" would in Zimmerman's mind, justify the shot.

Well, if justification in the killer's mind is what matters, most would go free.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It goes beyond reason, however, why Martin would go for the face and head of Zimmerman while NOT going for the gun, which is the immediate and deadly threat.

Who, other than Zimmerman, says he did? He might have grabbed Zimmerman's hand, then punched him in the nose trying to get Zimmerman to release the gun. That would go along with slamming Zimmerman's head against the ground as well. If he knocked him unconscious, Zimmerman would no longer be able to shoot him.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The Act of Martin rushing Zimmerman in order to get his gun WOULD bring the "Stand your ground law into play.

For Martin!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Well, he is ignoring the evidence of Zimmerman's story, so if what you say is true, he is lying!

It is not trial yet. As I have said and heard, Zimmerman's statement cannot be admitted in lieu of his testimony.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Why, what have I misled you about?

You are dense. Look back through this thread. Of course you can probably see nothing wrong in all you have said.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, I don't think so. Otherwise, Zimmerman would have likely taken multiple shots until he was "darn" sure Martin was unable to keep bashing his skull in.

Forensics should clarify that picture.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I don;t know where you got your "Ancedotal evidence of cops "not hitting their target, or "hunters sprayng bullets."

Then why do they want automatic weapons? I still laugh about the Rodney King Second "Simi Valley Trial" of the officers. One expert viewing the video of the beating interprets that when they hit him then draw back their hand or baton for the next strike, they're "assessing" the situation to determine if another strike is necessary.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The most infamous police shooting I have recently heard of was in regards to mutliple firings by the police on an actaully innocent "suspect". But they didn't miss, they hit him numerous times, even embarrassinlg numerous.

But their lack of confidence in their own skills is why they empty their guns.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And I don't know how a hunter "Sprays bullets" from a bolt action rifle the most common type of hunting gun. ANd even if they are able to do so, many states have magazine limits of three for deer, the tactic wouldn't be more effective than using a scope and a single well placed shot. Additionally, most hunting ammo has reached $40 for a box of 20. Could get expensive! I buy the surplus ammuntion at $200 for 440 rounds, but I don't hunt with it.

Then why the push to legalize automatic weapons. And why is the NRA against the limits on magazine capacity?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Yes it is, you are playing stupid! Due process involves strict procedures to ensure that the rights of the accused are protected.

Yet the prosecutor is not required to proceed on an assumption of innocence.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Then what is the rationale for appointing a "Special Prosecutor"?

Because the trail will get cold.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The real Prosecutor could charge him at any time! Does Florida appoint a special prosecutor every time the real prosecutor decides that he doesn't have enough evidence to justify wasting taxpayer money having a trial?

When somebody cries "foul", and the state finds holes in the investigation, they should.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Oh That's a mature comment!

Well, you want to play to emotions.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It won't be because of the preponderance of circumstancial or forensic evidence, it will be because he was essentially threatened by the Special Prosecutor.

The basis of most pleas.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So there are no facts to present as to who started the fight.

Right! Only evidence. The jury, who cannot be witnesses, have to be convinced as to what to believe or not believe about what the evidence indicates.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, I said, just because it's not charged, doesn't mean it didn't happen, isn't that YOUR standard?

No! Go back and read what I said about that.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I didn't attempt to define "Clear evidence".

Of course. You just want Zimmerman's story unchallenged.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Then why wasn't that bias used as rationale when the Special Prosecutor was appointed?

But, according to you, it was.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

We don't know. We do know that Martin injured Zimmerman, a clear case of Assault from the part of the source you cherry picked over.

Only if he was the victim. But since Martin ended up dead, obviously he was the victim.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The fact that Zimmerman DID have injuries means he was assaulted.

No, it just means he was in a fight. And apparently, from witnesses as well, he was losing. So he used and extra advantage he had hidden on him.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So Martin DID have a temporal device?

You're really getting into the time-travel thing.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So what happened to the perp who actually assaulted Zimmerman?

You must be stuck in that other time-line. I haven't heard that Zimmerman mentioned anything about a mysterious shadow punching him in the nose. Was that you in an out of phase mode instigating the fight?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Seesm forensic evidence could indicate that Martin broke the nose and tried to bust the skull.

If only they had kept him in custody and treated him and verify that he did indeed have a broken nose.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Seems you m,ight want that evidence suppressed.

Done!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I don't know, it's the legal opinion or several expert attorneys.

Did your Guru Alan Dershowitz apply "engineered" to Second Degree Murder?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It's speculation on how the evidence fits.

But it is not "evidence". You made up something that contradicts what your favorite guy said. That's a bogus argument. If he hadn't said, then you could put it as a possibility. But I guess it's like your unknown attacker fantasy.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If Zimmerman had a justified shoot, what should be done about the killing of their son?

Hopefully the evidence would convince them. But there seems to be no evidence presented yet. Only Zimmerman's account that their son attacked him for no reason.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

A legal strategy of attempting to extort Zimmerman into a plea deal when they know he is innocent?

Only Zimmerman knows if that is true. But there you are taking his word as fact.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Why doesn't the new Prosecutor release the legendary "damning evidence against Zimmerman?"

She doesn't want to to poison the jury pool.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Obviously, Martin's family is NOT concerned with actual evidence or guilt, they want blood!

Unfortunately seldom do survivors accept such facts. But if society does, the damage they can do is limited.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That's why they hold new conferences with Rev, Sharpton!

Again, throw him in jail.

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jtdc

Didn't answer the question, did it? If we are to trust the DA, the DA needs to be trustworthy. If the DA didn't charge and the Martin's could sue him, maybe he would do his job. But he is protected. Of course there is the problem of the other side that, like doctors, they are too thorough on every case to CYA. Then the review board would probably be more economical.

I think I know what you are implying, it has little to do with what I stated, Local Rep. West wants another layer or ;ega; review and procedure in order to make it more difficult for someone to get a ruling when they use a gun to defend their life or the life of their family. The real DA in Florida is probably elected, I don't know for sure, but how more accountable can you get? The current prosecutor isn't accountable to the people of Sanford, which is the point anyway. Now if you are also implying that the duly elected DA of Sanford isn't trustworthy, then THAT is a smear.

It is a puzzle. You generally can't solve a puzzle with only one piece. That's what's absurd about you wanting each piece of evidence to be conclusive.

I have much more than one piece of a puzzle.

Killing can be Murder 1, Murder 2, Manslaughter, etc. or accidental. following can be looked at in degrees as well. Stalking is an illegal degree of "following". And much of it comes down to "intent".

Killing can also be justified as a part of self defense. "Stalking" is only stalking if it is habitual, or involves a threat. Your problem is you think "Intent to follow", i.e. intent to perform a legal act, should be a crime. Move to Florida, change the law legitimately~!

Making more up? I said it should be a consideration, not that following should be a felony.

Why? The performance or intent to perform legal acts should be considered towards a conviction?

More of the same? I say "progression" and you think and respond to "progressivism". Semantics!

Please, if you were actually interested in the progression of this debate, you wouldn't be repeating the same old tired and invalid arguments. However when one is dealing with another so loose on definitions and arguments, Samantics can be quite important.

What could he accomplish? He wasn't an armed guard who could arrest the person he was following. He, according to you, lost sight of the person before he got out of the car.

He was in the "Neighborhood Watch, they watch things to help protect lives and property. That's what I heard,. however, the main reason I don't bother posting links is that the reported information is so much in question.

Right! He did not observe a crime being committed. No crime was reported. So he was apparently channeling his defective clairvoyance.

So you are Against Neighborhood Watch volunteers reporting suspicious people to police?

So you are saying the first prosecutor was racist, letting Martin's killer go free?

No, the second. They're also the DA equivalent of "a hanging judge".

Facts, not opinion please.

Well, it's not my opinion exclusively!

He saw the guy "acting strange". The guy could have been dancing to music in his ear-piece.

Why? Because he was "black"? I thought he was talking to his girlfriend.

Which would have not happened if he didn't judge the guy to be suspicious.

If Trayvon hadn't been "caught" and suspended, this would have not happened. If Trayvon had called 9-11 instead of taking the law into his own hands, this might have not haooened. If Trayvon had simply gone straight home this might not have happened....

You made up smears about the victim. "Martin soliciting for a lewd act".

No I didn't, I used your very own criteria of "if it's a possibility, it should be considered or investigated.

If you support a prosecutor who won't prosecute a "white" who killed a "black", the shoe fits.

Zimmerman isn't white, he's Hispanic. And he looks Hispanic. I wouldn't support any "DA" who prosecuted or refused to prosecute with any race as a consideration. The only type of DA that would be worse that that person would be a DA who prosecutes or refuses to prosecute based solely on POLITICS!

And you want more of that? That justifies doing it again?

No I want less of that and less government injusitce.

Not me. I want to be proven right so I know my finely honed investigative skills are still intact.

Good luck with that.

Pardon me if I mentioned this in this thread before. There was a woman cop recently convicted of killing her partner many years ago. They never scrutinized her because she was one of them. But after they got a clue, they looked back at the failure of their investigation, and she was found guilty by a jury. The evidence can't damn Zimmerman. It is inanimate. Investigators must use it to paint a picture. I don't know what is being distorted, if anything. Prosecutors have not falsely claimed that it incriminates Zimmerman. Neither did they falsely claim that it exonerates Zimmerman.

Who killed Martin is not in question. Thus the nature of the evidence had little to do with it, they simply never investigated her. In this case there was an investigation and he evidence found favored Zimmerman's story. Nor is investigation an exact science. Investigations HAVE to limit the scope of their investigation or nothing gets done, and they have to do so quickly or evidence gets contaminated. In this case it was reported that there was rain, so the "crime scene" was on an even shorter deadline, no pun intended.

Not the prosecutor, was it?

So, it's OKAY, because the Prosecutor didn't do it? The series of fraud and misreporting has enflamed the black community against Zimmerman. Therefore, the intense political pressure, therefore the appointment of a "Special Prosecutor" in the first place.

I knew you would exploit the words rather than the thought.

Oh? I can exploit the thought too! A witch hunt is a term meaning a trial or apprehension where someone is going to be prosecuted no matter what the charge. And Yes, that is almost exactly what I mean, except that Zimmerman is 'the accused wtich", not an actual witch.

Really? So I didn't say "The only thing I have heard that they witnessed is Martin on top slamming Zimmerman's head on the ground"?

That's only the evidence based upon testimony, there are actual injuries to Zimmerman, evidence that also supports his story.

You are really getting ignorant. I guess when I quoted from your link, I didn't bother to read any of it. You're an embarrassment.

You cherry picked it.

Wrong! If he was defending himself, he wouldn't be guilty of assault.

No, right! The justification for his "defending himself" occured AFTER he injured Zimmerman.

Yes!

NO!

Your whole premise is that Martin attacked Zimmerman. For you, Martin had no right to defend himself, punching him in the nose or banging his head on the ground. But Zimmerman had every right to kill Martin to defend himself.

No, that's not what I wrote at all. The actions of Zimmerman that would justify Martin defending himself occured AFTER he injured Zimmerman. And NO, Martin had no right to the gun, sorry that's leftist gun laws. Zimmerman had a license to authorize him to be armed on public property.

More fantasy?

You seem to enjoy fantasy, where's the perp that actually injured Zimmerman?

I would say you are catching on. But clearly you are only being sarcastic.

Sarcasm is clearly appropriate.

So you didn't read it (because your computer is 3 years old. By the way, mine is about 9 years old.) and you can't even post the link where you apparently couldn't read it.

No, I didn't read it, I had already heard it live.

And that is done at trial, which has yet to happen.

And Normally the preponderance of evidence is initially evaluated by either a hearing or a Grand Jury, to avoid the State using endless and wirthless procedures to prosecute people who there is not cause to prosecute, which is probably why THIS prosecutor avoided an embarrasing possibliity of Zmmerman being "no-billed". Even the other people on your side admit the obvious! i.e. that the Murder 2 charge is hoped to be "leverage to extort a plea or to convict on a lesser charge. Well that isn;t "justice" that is legal wrangling, the kind that has given attorneys a bad name.

And suffer the humiliation of being wrong? Of course, if I'm still alive when that actually happens. Unfortunately I am convinced the OJ is guilty. But I think the police and prosecution screwed up bad, and allowed undeniable evidence to be or seem to be contaminated, thereby getting a Not Guilty. I feel this case might have been on that same track. Unlike the OJ case, we know who killed Martin. It is looking for the evidence to support that it was justified. And since Martin wasn't doing something criminal at the outset, I am to believe that with no history of violent crime, he attacked Zimmerman for no other reason than that Zimmerman was following him. I want more than Zimmerman's word on that.

No, in the OJ case, they had an actual case, they "blew" the prosecution, and the threats of another riot kept everyone in line. In this prosecution they don't have a case.

Well, if it was "rhetorical" A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point and without the expectation of a reply.

I know what "rhetorical" means, I didn't expect an answer and you didn't answer it.

Possible. But so is the possibility that Martin was defending himself from being shot by Zimmerman. We only have Zimmerman's word that he only shot after Martin tried to get his gun. Forensic evidence might tell more about that. But I guess we won't see that until trial.

We can't see what doesn't exist. If it was a "shoddy" investigation, like you contend, they missed that and rain washed it away. Zimmerman may have only believed that Martin was going for his gun insted of killing him by cracking his skull, that doesn't mean it was true.

That's one. But schools, military, police and several other organizations are not in that category.

Well I think the school should have called the police on Martin for his crimes. For some reason Martin thought he could get away clean with beating a Hispanic to death.

Wrong, from what I have heard. A dog hit on his back pack, but no drugs were found.

Well. my source was sympathetic to Martin, but I don't believe much of anything regarding this case. I hope you visited the angry Black woman site, the lead picture at the heading of the site, i.e. the ABW using an illustration to imply "whites can kiss her ***" was funny, and it is clear she IS a Woman and she IS angry. Anyway I think that source was regarding the discount of Zimmerman;s injuries.

"Apparently"?

Oh? Martin was a cross dresser? Didn't hear it from me.

I hadn't heard that one. But I haven't' read everything everyone has said about the case.

It's hard to know what sources to trust.

It is only your belief that Martin assaulted Zimmerman, not a fact. If the foregoing is true, Martin wouldn't have been in Sanford to be killed by Zimmerman.

No, causing injury to another person IS an assault. Shooting Martin was also an assualt, but not necessarily a crime of assault. No, if the School had called the police, Martin wouldn't have been in Sanford.

That was already in police custody. I'm talking of evidence that might have been collected at the scene of the possible crime, since the facts were not clear, and are still not clear.

There are reports it was raining, evidence gets washed away in rain, that's the facts Jack. Investigation is a process, and skills and intuition vary. I'm sure Florida allows a jurisdiction to be assisted in certain matters beyond their resources or expertise. However, when or whether to call, is still an individual matter. Since the aledged crime scene was washing away, they probably did the best they could. In hours, there was no evidence left to find. Similarly you can;t prosecute on evidence that doesn;t exist, and it is unethical to abuse evidence when it indicates something else. Fatcs are OFTEN not clear and sometimes never become clear, which is why some cases remain unsolved.

Jimmy Hoffa is still an open case. They just tore up a building looking for the remains of the kid who was the first on the milk cartons. Detectives spent a lot of time looking for Bruno Magli Shoes. When you don't have the answer, you keep looking.

No you don't. Are we to tear down the Empire State building because a murder would be committed there? At some point, in some cases, the investigators stop, and move on if they encounter a lack of evidence. Believe me, they WANT TO find evidence that "damns" Zimmerman, it would then vindicate their witch hunt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

His apparent statements to police versus his testimony in the Bail Hearing about his perceived age of Martin. It could be a simple mistake, or evidence of an intention to lie.

He now has an "attorney".

I thought you had a higher I.Q. than that.

Thank you!

You argument is getting so weak you have to resort to vicious smears?

What?

If you have evidence of that, you'd better call Holder.

What good would that do?

Quickly backing away from you slander of the Special Prosecutor? If there were a specific piece that, alone, would have proved guilt or innocence, I'm sure they would have.

No, I'm not backing away nor is it slander. Why do you suppose the Special Prosecutor avoided a Grand Jury?

Could be. When I was sued in Federal Court for $10 million plus, when the end of the case came their loss was actually only about $250,000. I would like honesty in the system. But that is not what it is about. It is about money for lawyers, judges and anybody else associated with the business of law.

Or POLITICS!

No, you'd have to go back in time to see the truth. But at least you now admit the Zimmerman attacked Martin with a gun.

Yes, it was justified!

Not with their lackluster investigation.

Another Smear?

Because he was dead before he could dial in the code.

That would lock him into an eternal time loop.

Because police released Zimmerman before collecting evidence like his clothing and drug testing him.

Need a warrant for that... And need probable cause for a warrant. Sorry, they're like that in America.

Pointing a gun at Martin saying he was going to shoot him. Didn't Zimmerman claim that Martin threatened him by saying [you've got problems now]?

That doesn't help Martin's case.

Even in a Grand Jury hearing, as I understand it, the defense is not allowed to put on a defense. So Zimmerman's self-serving statement is not admissible.

It's designed to prevent witch hunts which is probably why the Special Prosecutor avoided it.

And that is why it should be left to a jury rather than a prosecutor to decide.

No, you don't understand. Normally the Porsecutor decides and then it goes to a grand jury. Then there is a trail. The Special Prosecutor was the one that refused to allow the decison for a trail to be left to a jury. You are arguing my POV unwittingly.

Well, if justification in the killer's mind is what matters, most would go free.

All citizens who defend their life legally with a gun should go free.

Who, other than Zimmerman, says he did? He might have grabbed Zimmerman's hand, then punched him in the nose trying to get Zimmerman to release the gun. That would go along with slamming Zimmerman's head against the ground as well. If he knocked him unconscious, Zimmerman would no longer be able to shoot him.

How do you slam someone's head against the ground with one hand?

For Martin!

No. Thanks to Leftist gun control laws, Martin couldn't legally defend himself with a gun.

It is not trial yet. As I have said and heard, Zimmerman's statement cannot be admitted in lieu of his testimony.

How is that relevant? The lead investigator was in the investigation phase.

You are dense. Look back through this thread. Of course you can probably see nothing wrong in all you have said.

Another smear?

Forensics should clarify that picture.

In what way?

Then why do they want automatic weapons? I still laugh about the Rodney King Second "Simi Valley Trial" of the officers. One expert viewing the video of the beating interprets that when they hit him then draw back their hand or baton for the next strike, they're "assessing" the situation to determine if another strike is necessary.

They ALREADY HAVE automatic weapons! Police, not hunters.

But their lack of confidence in their own skills is why they empty their guns.

Zimmerman didn't.

Then why the push to legalize automatic weapons. And why is the NRA against the limits on magazine capacity?

No, the push was to BAN automatic weapons. And the NRA isn't against limits on magazine capacity for hunting rifles. The ban on automatic weapons in Unconstitutional.

Yet the prosecutor is not required to proceed on an assumption of innocence.

They are required to follow a strict procedure, and not deviate.

Because the trail will get cold.

How can an imaginary trail get cold?

When somebody cries "foul", and the state finds holes in the investigation, they should.

The "cry of foul" was invalid, and there is no jusitification to do so. It compromises due process to install an additional procedure for only Zimmerman!. The black community was going nuts because the media was reporting falsely. If the investigation had "holes" in it, a serious allegation, the police department is at fault, not the DA.

Well, you want to play to emotions.

And you don't?

The basis of most pleas.

So why the phony plea for justice from the Special Prosecutor? They want a conviction or to extort a plea deal for the accused "witch"!

Right! Only evidence. The jury, who cannot be witnesses, have to be convinced as to what to believe or not believe about what the evidence indicates.

But there is no evidence of who started the fight, unless Zimmerman testifies.

No! Go back and read what I said about that.

I did:

He got out of his car. So the possibility exists and should be explored.

The possibility [that Martin made a lewd remark to Zimmerman] exists and should be explored. Your standard. There is no evidence that he did, but your statement disregarded the existance of such evidence.

Of course. You just want Zimmerman's story unchallenged.

Why should it be challenged, if there is no evidence to justify it?

But, according to you, it was.

What? I said the Special Prosecutor was only appointed because of political pressure. You said the investigation was at fault. The DA didn't conduct the investigation. So make up your mind!

Only if he was the victim. But since Martin ended up dead, obviously he was the victim.

Zimmerman WAS the victim of an Assault. A bank robber shot by police is not a victim.

No, it just means he was in a fight. And apparently, from witnesses as well, he was losing. So he used and extra advantage he had hidden on him.

And it's legal to do so, and he had a license to carry concealed. You see, your problem is realy with idiotic gun laws passed by leftists. In some states, Arizona for example, it is legal to carry holstered. Had it been legal for Zimmerman to carry openly, Martin might not have fought with him. But your crazy leftist antigun friends try to prevent it.

You're really getting into the time-travel thing.

It's the only possibility that allows your posts to make sense.

You must be stuck in that other time-line. I haven't heard that Zimmerman mentioned anything about a mysterious shadow punching him in the nose. Was that you in an out of phase mode instigating the fight?

Well, if it's a possibility, it should be investigated. Where have I heard that before?

If only they had kept him in custody and treated him and verify that he did indeed have a broken nose.

I heard, unverified, that Zimmerman went to a doctor the next day.

Done!

Done?

Did your Guru Alan Dershowitz apply "engineered" to Second Degree Murder?

No, he wasn't THAT kind.

But it is not "evidence". You made up something that contradicts what your favorite guy said. That's a bogus argument. If he hadn't said, then you could put it as a possibility. But I guess it's like your unknown attacker fantasy.

No, I was helping you with YOUR fantasy. To justify Martin attacking Zimmerman or disqualify Zimmerman form claiming self defense, Martin would have either NOT been the one to injure Zimmerman, [i.e. another attacker] or Martin would have to go back in time in an attempt to jusitfy his self defense against Zimmerman since it occured first. Because, a verbal threat doesn't justify a deadly response or serious injury. Similarly Zimmerman could not be really justified with deadly force, if Martin only made a lewd suggestion.

Hopefully the evidence would convince them. But there seems to be no evidence presented yet. Only Zimmerman's account that their son attacked him for no reason.

Wishful thinking. A comment by Trayvon's mother seems to indicate she is proud of her son;s attack, even though it got him killed. And their association with Rev Sharpton is another reason to suspect, just ask the police officer slandered by Sharpton, or learn about the deceased owners and customers of a certain Jewish Cleaers,

Only Zimmerman knows if that is true. But there you are taking his word as fact.

Seems to me the Special Prosecutor knows that they are conducting that type of legal strategy. The rest of us, even the supporters of the witch hunt, are fairly sure.

She doesn't want to to poison the jury pool.

It's already poisoned. She poisoned it further with her public statement when she announced the charges.

Unfortunately seldom do survivors accept such facts. But if society does, the damage they can do is limited.

More wishful thinking.

Again, throw him in jail.[/quote]

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I think I know what you are implying, it has little to do with what I stated, Local Rep. West wants another layer or ;ega; review and procedure in order to make it more difficult for someone to get a ruling when they use a gun to defend their life or the life of their family.

I know nothing of your Rep. West. It appears more like Anti-gun rather than a lack of confidence in the DA.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The real DA in Florida is probably elected, I don't know for sure, but how more accountable can you get?

Ignorance! Judge Rose Bird, on the California Supreme Court, overturned the Death Penalty. Many who had been sentence to never walk free in society again had to be release as their sentences had to be commuted to 20 years under law. The current first black president has implemented laws and EO that the damage doesn't go away when he is voted out of office. And none of these will be held accountable.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The current prosecutor isn't accountable to the people of Sanford, which is the point anyway. Now if you are also implying that the duly elected DA of Sanford isn't trustworthy, then THAT is a smear.

They haven't let us see the evidence as to whether he is or isn't yet.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I have much more than one piece of a puzzle.

You haven't present them.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Killing can also be justified as a part of self defense. "Stalking" is only stalking if it is habitual, or involves a threat. Your problem is you think "Intent to follow", i.e. intent to perform a legal act, should be a crime. Move to Florida, change the law legitimately~!

Driving a car is legal. But if you lose control of it, you can be charged with Manslaughter. And before you jump in and say not Murder 2, if you go into a rage and kill that person with the car, it can be Murder 2. You don't have to have planned to kill.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Why? The performance or intent to perform legal acts should be considered towards a conviction?

Yes! I'm not going to add that I think you are getting it because you are either being sarcastic or you just don't get it.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Please, if you were actually interested in the progression of this debate, you wouldn't be repeating the same old tired and invalid arguments. However when one is dealing with another so loose on definitions and arguments, Samantics can be quite important.

You retread the same arguments hoping I will give a different answer.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

He was in the "Neighborhood Watch, they watch things to help protect lives and property.

Duh! Nothing in there about arrest.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That's what I heard,. however, the main reason I don't bother posting links is that the reported information is so much in question.

Sadly the Internet can be helpful in verifying something. But it has become an inventory of misinformation and false information. But you attributed what you said to the DA. So now you are defending yourself that you used what someone else made up?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So you are Against Neighborhood Watch volunteers reporting suspicious people to police?

Of course not. In his previous history that is what he did. He did not get out of his car, he let police do the investigating. This time he didn't.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, the second. They're also the DA equivalent of "a hanging judge".

So you are slandering the Special prosecutor who merely brought it to trail, did not give a verdict?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Well, it's not my opinion exclusively!

You are just part of the lynch mob!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Why? Because he was "black"? I thought he was talking to his girlfriend.

Well, that can make a teenager act strange as well. So should it be alright to kill anybody who's acting strange while talking to their girlfriend?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If Trayvon hadn't been "caught" and suspended, this would have not happened. If Trayvon had called 9-11 instead of taking the law into his own hands, this might have not haooened. If Trayvon had simply gone straight home this might not have happened....

It is Bush's fault, huh?

"If Trayvon hadn't been "caught" and suspended, this would have not happened." So you blaming Martin for not being a skilled criminal?

"If Trayvon had called 9-11 instead of taking the law into his own hands, this might have not haooened." It would have made no difference as the police had been called and did not get there in time to stop Zimmerman from killing him.

"If Trayvon had simply gone straight home this might not have happened...." That was the direction he was headed in before Zimmerman began "stalking" him.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No I didn't, I used your very own criteria of "if it's a possibility, it should be considered or investigated.

Mine was exploring what is known, not making up something that has not been alleged by anybody, except you.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Zimmerman isn't white, he's Hispanic.

So that matters to you?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I wouldn't support any "DA" who prosecuted or refused to prosecute with any race as a consideration. The only type of DA that would be worse that that person would be a DA who prosecutes or refuses to prosecute based solely on POLITICS!

I saw a person who killed another who had committed no crime. And I saw a DA who didn't do a thorough investigation.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No I want less of that and less government injusitce.

Looking the other way only invites more of it.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Good luck with that.

Thanks!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

In this case there was an investigation and he evidence found favored Zimmerman's story.

They did not collect Zimmerman's clothing for forensic evidence. They did not test Zimmerman for drugs, They did not verify that Zimmerman's nose was broken. So how much more evidence did they not collect?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Nor is investigation an exact science. Investigations HAVE to limit the scope of their investigation or nothing gets done, and they have to do so quickly or evidence gets contaminated.

They certainly limited this investigation. Zimmerman's statement, a couple of witness statements and a body is about all they collected.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So, it's OKAY, because the Prosecutor didn't do it?

You are trying to blame the prosecutor for what ABC news did.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That's only the evidence based upon testimony, there are actual injuries to Zimmerman, evidence that also supports his story.

It only support the facts that the two men were fighting. That, like who killed martin, is undisputed.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You cherry picked it.

Wouldn't that imply that I DID READ IT?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The actions of Zimmerman that would justify Martin defending himself occured AFTER he injured Zimmerman.

According to Zimmerman, not any evidence.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And NO, Martin had no right to the gun, sorry that's leftist gun laws.

So you have no right to grab the gun from a criminal trying to kill you if you do not have a license to carry?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You seem to enjoy fantasy, where's the perp that actually injured Zimmerman?

You are blurring the line between fantasy and reality. Maybe you should get an MRI.

You ask why witnesses weren't asked about a figment of your imagination.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Sarcasm is clearly appropriate.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, I didn't read it, I had already heard it live.

You heard a PDF?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Even the other people on your side admit the obvious! i.e. that the Murder 2 charge is hoped to be "leverage to extort a plea or to convict on a lesser charge. Well that isn;t "justice" that is legal wrangling, the kind that has given attorneys a bad name.

The evidence for Murder 2 may be harder to prove. That doesn't mean it is not justified.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, in the OJ case, they had an actual case

They had no surveillance of O.J. at the scene of the crime, no witnesses to the crime or O.J. at or near the scene of the crime. It was only a theory and circumstantial evidence such as the time he left for the airport. Here we have witnesses, 911 calls, calls to Martins girlfriend, and police arriving on the scene about a minute after the killing. There is far more of a case than in the O.J. case.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I know what "rhetorical" means, I didn't expect an answer and you didn't answer it.

Then why did you respond with "why do you refuse to answer?"

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If it was a "shoddy" investigation, like you contend, they missed that and rain washed it away.

Duh!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

For some reason Martin thought he could get away clean with beating a Hispanic to death.

More of your racism!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Oh? Martin was a cross dresser? Didn't hear it from me.

The evidence that you wrote it is right here!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, causing injury to another person IS an assault. Shooting Martin was also an assualt, but not necessarily a crime of assault.

So slamming another's head is a crime but shooting them isn't?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, if the School had called the police, Martin wouldn't have been in Sanford.

Another of your "if"s.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

There are reports it was raining, evidence gets washed away in rain, that's the facts Jack.

But rain can create mud. And mud can be tracked. Besides, Zimmerman's clothing didn't wash away. But that and a drug test an X-Rays to verify that his nose was broken at that time, were not affected by the rain.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Investigation is a process, and skills and intuition vary.

True! In the O.J. case a glove was found, not by following a trail, but by willingness to walk through cobwebs in the dark to find a glove (that didn't fit ), miles from the crime scene.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I'm sure Florida allows a jurisdiction to be assisted in certain matters beyond their resources or expertise. However, when or whether to call, is still an individual matter. Since the alleged crime scene was washing away, they probably did the best they could. In hours, there was no evidence left to find.

So you are admitting that Zimmerman might have lied.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Similarly you can;t prosecute on evidence that doesn;t exist, and it is unethical to abuse evidence when it indicates something else.

You mean like "Bruno Magli Shoes" which O.J. said didn't exist? And note that that evidence was discovered after the criminal trial.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Fatcs are OFTEN not clear and sometimes never become clear, which is why some cases remain unsolved.

You mean a person could be charged long after the fact?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No you don't. Are we to tear down the Empire State building because a murder would be committed there?

"Justice for all".

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Believe me, they WANT TO find evidence that "damns" Zimmerman, it would then vindicate their witch hunt. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

Monty Python is your evidence?

Of course you are talking of the Special Prosecutor who is trying to find the truth, not the first prosecutor who just wanted to bury the facts?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

He now has an "attorney".

What point are you trying to make? He had the right to remain silent when questioned by police. He was not obligated to take the stand at his bail hearing.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

What good would that do?

None. But you could feel good about yourself.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, I'm not backing away nor is it slander. Why do you suppose the Special Prosecutor avoided a Grand Jury?

Because she saw no evidence of First Degree Murder!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Yes, it was justified!

You said "attack", not "defend". Remember your definitions?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Another Smear?

No, a fact! Remember you fantasy attacker? What if Zimmerman missed. Since they didn't take his gun and test it they don't know the the bullet in Martin is actually from Rifleman's "Fantasy Attacker".

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That would lock him into an eternal time loop.

No, someone else would have to go back in time to save him. Maybe the code was on a piece of paper that he dropped during the fight, that was not discovered until the rain washed the writing off, because the investigators didn't do a thorough search.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Need a warrant for that... And need probable cause for a warrant.

Dead body!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That doesn't help Martin's case.

If it was true.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, you don't understand. Normally the Porsecutor decides and then it goes to a grand jury. Then there is a trail. The Special Prosecutor was the one that refused to allow the decison for a trail to be left to a jury. You are arguing my POV unwittingly.

But there is going to be a trail. There wouldn't have been one if left to the original prosecutor.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

All citizens who defend their life legally with a gun should go free.

Agreed. But that should be based on evidence, not just their word.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

How do you slam someone's head against the ground with one hand?

He raises it up, you push it down. He raises it up, you push it down.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No. Thanks to Leftist gun control laws, Martin couldn't legally defend himself with a gun.

But that law was pushed by the Right-wing NRA.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

How is that relevant? The lead investigator was in the investigation phase.

So what? You said "he is ignoring the evidence of Zimmerman's story". That "story" is not evidence. It is not a proven fact.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Another smear?

A fact!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

In what way?

Well, for one thing they can show if there is more than one bullet in Martin. Since they didn't collect Zimmerman's gun, they apparently didn't verify how many shots were fired from it.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

They ALREADY HAVE automatic weapons! Police, not hunters.

But the hunters want them.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Zimmerman didn't.

Maybe, if they had collected the gun as evidence, they would have found Martin's fingerprints on the trigger, indicating suicide or accidental shooting. But because of their incompetent investigation we will never know.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, the push was to BAN automatic weapons. And the NRA isn't against limits on magazine capacity for hunting rifles. The ban on automatic weapons in Unconstitutional.

In your opinion!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

They are required to follow a strict procedure, and not deviate.

But not the presumption of innocence!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

How can an imaginary trail get cold?

Well, the trail to that imaginary attacker....

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The "cry of foul" was invalid, and there is no jusitification to do so.

What evidence do you have of that?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It compromises due process to install an additional procedure for only Zimmerman!.

Like this is the first time a Special Prosecutor, which is lawful, has ever been used.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If the investigation had "holes" in it, a serious allegation, the police department is at fault, not the DA.

The police allegedly wanted to keep Zimmerman in custody. So now you want to fault them because of the poor, non-expert, conclusion of the original prosecutor? You been studying the first black president.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And you don't?

I haven't!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

But there is no evidence of who started the fight, unless Zimmerman testifies.

Yet! The evidence has to be presented to the jury first. Maybe it will show what you don't believe is true.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I did:

The possibility [that Martin made a lewd remark to Zimmerman] exists and should be explored. Your standard. There is no evidence that he did, but your statement disregarded the existance of such evidence.

There is hard evidence that Zimmerman got out of his car to pursue Martin. There is no evidence, not even Zimmerman's claim, that Martin made a "lewd remark".

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Why should it be challenged, if there is no evidence to justify it?

Because a human is dead and deserves more investigation than just taking the word of the person who killed him, as fact .

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The DA didn't conduct the investigation. So make up your mind!

But you said the DA is an "expert". The fact is the DA allegedly stopped the investigation against the wishes of the police.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Zimmerman WAS the victim of an Assault.

Only according to his words. No evidence to support that.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

A bank robber shot by police is not a victim.

I don't see what that has to do with it.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And it's legal to do so, and he had a license to carry concealed.

So the purpose of the law is to allow you to pick fight so you can use the gun legally?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You see, your problem is realy with idiotic gun laws passed by leftists.

No, my problem is with gun lovers who think the law covers them even when they are the attackers.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Had it been legal for Zimmerman to carry openly, Martin might not have fought with him.

I agree! However you just contradicted yourself:

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Look, if you want to claim that knowing someone is armed, like the police, is a deterant to those armed being attacked, go ahead. It doesn;t happen to be true.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It's the only possibility that allows your posts to make sense.

I'm glad you are so open-minded.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I heard, unverified, that Zimmerman went to a doctor the next day.

But that would not show if his nose was broken in the time he was fighting with Martin.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Done?

Since the original DA stopped the investigation, suppression of evidence was accomplished.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, I was helping you with YOUR fantasy.

No, my fantasy was about a tree.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

To justify Martin attacking Zimmerman or disqualify Zimmerman form claiming self defense, Martin would have either NOT been the one to injure Zimmerman,

Or he could claim self-defense.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Because, a verbal threat doesn't justify a deadly response or serious injury.

Zimmerman could be in trouble.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Similarly Zimmerman could not be really justified with deadly force, if Martin only made a lewd suggestion.

But only you are making that allegation.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Wishful thinking. A comment by Trayvon's mother seems to indicate she is proud of her son;s attack, even though it got him killed.

So now you believe that Martin's mother talked to Trayvon after he had been shot? Does her opinion count in the trial?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And their association with Rev Sharpton is another reason to suspect, just ask the police officer slandered by Sharpton, or learn about the deceased owners and customers of a certain Jewish Cleaers,

Nothing to do with the facts in the case.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Seems to me the Special Prosecutor knows that they are conducting that type of legal strategy.

Of course. It is not a hard-evidence case.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

More wishful thinking.

Well, O.J. is still alive.

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jtdc

I know nothing of your Rep. West. It appears more like Anti-gun rather than a lack of confidence in the DA.

That's the bigger point! New Black Fascists masquerading as civil rights leaders have the same goals as the old fascists.

Ignorance! Judge Rose Bird, on the California Supreme Court, overturned the Death Penalty. Many who had been sentence to never walk free in society again had to be release as their sentences had to be commuted to 20 years under law. The current first black president has implemented laws and EO that the damage doesn't go away when he is voted out of office. And none of these will be held accountable.

That's the nature of our system. It's BHO who is unde4rmining the system by openly violating the Separation of powers and Constitutional restraints.

They haven't let us see the evidence as to whether he is or isn't yet.

What charges or dicipline has been brought against the original DA? You whine about BHO and "Judge" Bird, yet applaude a similar action being performed in Florida to witch hunt a single guy.

You haven't present them.

Yes I have you simply declare I don't have more than one piece.

Driving a car is legal. But if you lose control of it, you can be charged with Manslaughter. And before you jump in and say not Murder 2, if you go into a rage and kill that person with the car, it can be Murder 2. You don't have to have planned to kill.

Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin AFTER he had sustained numerous injuries at Trayvon's hand. This is like charging the driver of the car with murder 2 in the absence of evidence of a loss of control or a rage.

Yes! I'm not going to add that I think you are getting it because you are either being sarcastic or you just don't get it.

And I won't add, you approve only because you want a conviction.

You retread the same arguments hoping I will give a different answer.

No, I hope you will become enlightened.

Duh! Nothing in there about arrest.

There is no evidence Zimmerman attempted to arrest Martin.

Sadly the Internet can be helpful in verifying something. But it has become an inventory of misinformation and false information. But you attributed what you said to the DA. So now you are defending yourself that you used what someone else made up?

I heard what the Special Porsecutor said, I can't get the PDF to open. But nearly everything reported by a second hand source should be suspect.

Of course not. In his previous history that is what he did. He did not get out of his car, he let police do the investigating. This time he didn't.

How was he investigating?

So you are slandering the Special prosecutor who merely brought it to trail, did not give a verdict?

No slander, Truth.

You are just part of the lynch mob!

It's YOUR side, (the side that advocates a trial) that declared the Special Prosecutor went for Murder 2 in order to get a conviction or plea on a lessor charge. I agree! Her talk about "justice" and NOT responding to political pressure was a lie.

Well, that can make a teenager act strange as well. So should it be alright to kill anybody who's acting strange while talking to their girlfriend?

No, Zimmerman didn't do that nor would he have a justified shoot for just shootong someone acting strange. The attack and the injuries sustained by Zimmerman are the "smoking gun, (Pun INTENDED) I'm more concerned about your stereotypng of black youth as dancing to music.

It is Bush's fault, huh?

"If Trayvon hadn't been "caught" and suspended, this would have not happened." So you blaming Martin for not being a skilled criminal?

"If Trayvon had called 9-11 instead of taking the law into his own hands, this might have not haooened." It would have made no difference as the police had been called and did not get there in time to stop Zimmerman from killing him.

"If Trayvon had simply gone straight home this might not have happened...." That was the direction he was headed in before Zimmerman began "stalking" him.

How is that Bush's fault, it's Trayvon's! If someone is "Stalking you", or if you believe they are, you don't attack them, you call the police! You see, there was a law passed standardizing emergency response all over the country. Anyone almost anywhere in the US can call the same number "9-11" and receive emergencty assistance.

And when you attack and injure someone with a gun, they have justification to shoot you. Perhaps, if Trayvon;s school had reported his crimes to the police, Trayvon would have hopefully not attacked someone with a gun. .

Mine was exploring what is known, not making up something that has not been alleged by anybody, except you.

Really? Because you and the "angry black woman", or Reverand Sharpton make up the same thing, that justifies it?

So that matters to you?

You're the one who made a comparison involving a white and black situation.

I saw a person who killed another who had committed no crime. And I saw a DA who didn't do a thorough investigation.

Someone trying to injure or kill another is a crime, so wrong in the first respect. Second, wrong again, the DA doesn't conduct the investigation, the police do. You are willing to go off on the original DA because you don't agree with his assessment. HE had seen the investigation report, YOU haven't! . Third, you don;t know the investigation wasn't thorough, you simply believe that because you cling to fraudulent reports from the media.

Looking the other way only invites more of it.

So quit doing that!

Thanks!

You'll need it!

They did not collect Zimmerman's clothing for forensic evidence. They did not test Zimmerman for drugs, They did not verify that Zimmerman's nose was broken. So how much more evidence did they not collect?/quote]

Why? The nature of the shooting wasn;t in question, and it was raining according to reports. To drug test Zimmerman, they would have to have probable cause to get a warrant. How many times do you have to be told that? And you don't know that Zimmerman's broken nose wasn't verified, he was reportedly "cleaned up by a paramedic." So apparantly you agree with Sharpton in that respect too!

That you're aware of. Yet you go after the DA?

No, I'm not, they are abusive in separate abuses. ABC for misreporting and purposely inflaming the black community, and the Special Prosecutor for abuse of power. However, if ABC and the ohters had not done what they did, there might not be a specal Porsecutor to abuse her power.

Not true.

Not with comprehension.

Injuries!

Talk to Senator Schumer about that.

No, sarcasm! You insist that Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman before Zimmerman shot him by self defense, yet Zimmerman was not jsitifed in defending himself from Martin AFTER he had sustained injuries. So if Martin didn;t attack Zimmerman, there must be another perp, Sarcasm!

And you slander the police department because they didn't find evidence that doesn't exist. And you then slander the actual DA who has juridiction, for not doing the investigation himself and then not prosecuting based on evidence that doesn't exist.

And continues to be....

I heard a radio broadcast.

Nobody believes it is justified. Not even on the jtdc/Sharpton arrest side.

OJ was found innocent. OJ had no injuries sustained nor are there witnesses who verified the time aroundthe shooting. There is no apparant motive and no probable cause.

That ALSO makes a point!

Want a donut, Homer?

So then why did Martin attack? Would he have attacked if Zimmerman had been black?

So why was he in possession of woman's jewelry?

Not if you shoot them after you head is being slammed into the concrete. It's called: "self defense". Let me illustrate. Police, the racists, arrest a youth that "looks' like BHO's son. After he is in handcuffs, they slam his head into the concrete. Crime? Yes! Now the same youth instead is seen acting in what the police believe to be suspicious and ask him about it. This time the youth lunges for the police's gun, and they shoot him, Crime? NO!

Hey, I'm an beginner, you;re the "king of If's".

Oh, so in order to have possible evidence against Zimmerman which might not have been evidence at all, you want constitutional rightsd violated that would have resulted in whatever evidence found, thrown out? Are you also mad they didn't sodimize him with a broomhandle or tazer him? ?

I don't think Zimmerman was wearing gloves.

What does that have to do with my statement you quoted? As for Zimmerman, a "lie" is an intentional deception. He initially believed Martin to be a criminal, but didn't know whether or not he was. After he was attacked, he probaly REALLY thought Martin was a criminal because such an attack is a criminal act. The point is, certain acts are only crimes when there is intent. For instqance, if Zimmerman had a gun, but no license, defending himself with that gun would have been a criminal act, but NOT murder 2, because he would then have no legal standing to carry concealed on public property. Like Malice or hate can elevate a killing to murder, a belief that someone is trying to take your life can justify a defenseive shoot.

Evidence discovered after the DA made his decision could have resulted in the DA with actual jurisdiction changing his mind and charging Zimmermen. It HAS to be discovered first.

You didn't know?

Maybe there is evidence at your house.

The Special Prosecutor is claiming that Zimmerman weighs the same as a duck.

Zimmemran's original attorneys bailed on him and trashed him in thew process.

I doubt it.

[quose]Because she saw no evidence of First Degree Murder!

That's the point, she saw no evidence of Second degree murder either!

You said "attack", not "defend". Remember your definitions?

Now who's concerned about semantics?

No, a fact! Remember you fantasy attacker? What if Zimmerman missed. Since they didn't take his gun and test it they don't know the the bullet in Martin is actually from Rifleman's "Fantasy Attacker".

No, it's your fantasy attacker. You insisted that Martin was justified in defending against an attack by Zimmerman before Zimmerman attacked. so, for that to be true and Martin to be justified, Martin would have to have a temporal device or another attacker attacked and cause injuries to Zimmerman. Me, I believe that the winesses seeing Martin on top injuring Zimmerman, and the shot they heard after witnessing the Martin attack, as well as the injuries themselves, show Zmmerman was justified in shooting Martin in self defense. That's why the police didn't investigate, there was no evidence that another attacker was present. However, you come along and insist that when police didn't find evidence that wasn't in question, that they had a shoddy or lackluster investigation and then you blame it on the DA.

No, someone else would have to go back in time to save him. Maybe the code was on a piece of paper that he dropped during the fight, that was not discovered until the rain washed the writing off, because the investigators didn't do a thorough search.

If Martin didn't go back in time, then he wasn't justified in trying to severly injure Zimmerman as self defense!

Dead body!

You're not the Supreme Court.

If it was true.

.....

But there is going to be a trail. There wouldn't have been one if left to the original prosecutor.

Exactly! The Special Prosecutor was only appointed to have a trial! That again agress with my POV.

Agreed. But that should be based on evidence, not just their word.

So how did that NOT happen in this case? There are witnesses and there are injuries to Zimmerman.

He raises it up, you push it down. He raises it up, you push it down.

Why would Zimmerman raise his head up to be pushed down by Martin?

But that law was pushed by the Right-wing NRA.

The NRA isn't "right wing" trust me. But they don't push leftist gun control laws.

So what? You said "he is ignoring the evidence of Zimmerman's story". That "story" is not evidence. It is not a proven fact.

The story is evidence. If Zimmerman had confessed to murdering Martin that would be evidence of his guilt, would it not? Goes the other way too.

A fact!

I thought it was the DA's fault, according to you? Do you know "for a fact" that the Sanford Police investigation was "lackluster"?

Well, for one thing they can show if there is more than one bullet in Martin. Since they didn't collect Zimmerman's gun, they apparently didn't verify how many shots were fired from it.

I didn't know that was in question. But if there were, and you knew from Zimmerman's story that he shot Martin in self defense, you would know they came from the same gun with a spectal analysis, you wouldn;t have to have the gun. And if you think about it, you couldn't know from possessing the gun, if two shots had been fired from it. The gun might not have been loaded to full capacity.

But the hunters want them.

Not to hunt.

Maybe, if they had collected the gun as evidence, they would have found Martin's fingerprints on the trigger, indicating suicide or accidental shooting. But because of their incompetent investigation we will never know.

That wasn't in question.

In your opinion!

No, fact, the NRA doesn't challenge magazine capacity laws regarding hunting rifles.

But not the presumption of innocence!

No, the procedure requires the presumption of innocence.

Well, the trail to that imaginary attacker....

Or the imaginary second bullet,

What evidence do you have of that?

The media misreported the incident. They said Zimmerman wasn;t arested, he wasn;t injured, he made a racial slur, he's white, the investigation only wnet on for an hour, all of this stuff that wasn;t true. The people then cried "foul" with no jusitfication to do so, the basis of their cry was fraudulent.

Like this is the first time a Special Prosecutor, which is lawful, has ever been used.

The purpose in this case isn't lawful and violates due process.

The police allegedly wanted to keep Zimmerman in custody. So now you want to fault them because of the poor, non-expert, conclusion of the original prosecutor? You been studying the first black president.

On what grounds? You're the one who faulted them!

I haven't!

You have!

Yet! The evidence has to be presented to the jury first. Maybe it will show what you don't believe is true.

So, you claim, the evidence that doesn't show who started the fight, WILL show who started the fight after being presented to a jury? Is it majic?

There is hard evidence that Zimmerman got out of his car to pursue Martin. There is no evidence, not even Zimmerman's claim, that Martin made a "lewd remark".

The word is "spot". Why would someone get out of the car if they believed that Martin was really a criminal? Yet they might if they believed they were far enough away to "spot" him. And considering ALL the dead leads you wanted the police to investigate, the possiblilty of Martin making a lewd remark to Zimmerman might as well be one of them. Besides, you don't believe Zimmerman anyway. Maybe he is lying about the lewd remark.

Because a human is dead and deserves more investigation than just taking the word of the person who killed him, as fact .

We have gone over this, there's the witnesses and the injuries, and the general situation.

But you said the DA is an "expert". The fact is the DA allegedly stopped the investigation against the wishes of the police.

DA's get to do that. They are board certified attorneys the police are law enforcement. So what is it, Did the DA stop the investigation or go against the wishes of the police to hold Zimmerman? So you don't even know exaclty what you are accusing the DA of, I guess the Florida Governor doesn't either. If the police conductied such a "horrible investigation, which you insist is fact, what fault is it of the DA? How could he possibly prosecute on the basis of such a bad investigation? And if police held Zimmerman for 48 hours, the legal limit, they couldn't do so again.

Only according to his words. No evidence to support that.

No, not only, there are witnesses and there are physical injuries.

I don't see what that has to do with it.

You insisted Martin was "the victim".

So the purpose of the law is to allow you to pick fight so you can use the gun legally?

No. You're making an assumption in this case that there is no evidence for.

No, my problem is with gun lovers who think the law covers them even when they are the attackers.

GO FIND SOME!

I agree! However you just contradicted yourself:

The second quote was contradictory, by itself. there should be a "not" before deterant. Clearly, if open carry is a deterant, the mystery of concealed carry can be a deterant.

I'm glad you are so open-minded.

Thanks!

But that would not show if his nose was broken in the time he was fighting with Martin.

The paramedic saw it already.

Since the original DA stopped the investigation, suppression of evidence was accomplished.

There is no evidence the Da stopped the investigation.

No, my fantasy was about a tree.

That's your original fantasy. Your latest involves Martin being justified in self defense before he was attacked.

Or he could claim self-defense.

Who's taking statements out of context now?

Zimmerman could be in trouble.

Except, Zimmerman was injured by Martin.

But only you are making that allegation.

It wasn't an allegation it was sarcasm going over your head.

So now you believe that Martin's mother talked to Trayvon after he had been shot? Does her opinion count in the trial?

Where did you get that? That's pretty pathetic to try to and defend Trayvon's mother, the loose cannon, as channeling her son.

Nothing to do with the facts in the case.

On the contrary, there is only the chance of a trial because of the threat of riots and violence because of Reverand Sharpton.

Of course. It is not a hard-evidence case.

That isn't the strategy of Justice, it's the strategy of witch hunts.

Well, O.J. is still alive.

What has that to do with the quote? Riots didn't occur after the OJ trial because OJ wasn't convicted.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

What charges or dicipline has been brought against the original DA?

Don't know. They have not released much information. The police chief stepped down temporarily and then offered his resignation. Why? Was it just the placate the racist threatening riots? Was it because he disagreed with the DA stopping the investigation? I don't know. I do know few in government ever get held responsible for what they do or don't do. Especially at the top.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Yes I have you simply declare I don't have more than one piece.

They don't show who started the fight or who said what to who. A broken nose is not conclusive as to how. The bloodied back of Zimmerman's head doesn't show who was the aggressor. So it is going to be all of the evidence presented at trial that might paint a clearer picture.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin AFTER he had sustained numerous injuries at Trayvon's hand. This is like charging the driver of the car with murder 2 in the absence of evidence of a loss of control or a rage.

A gun against fists! What evidence would you expect to find on Martin? You can't show that Martin wasn't defending himself against Zimmerman threatening him with the gun.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And I won't add, you approve only because you want a conviction.

So you are writing a lot of nothing.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

There is no evidence Zimmerman attempted to arrest Martin.

So he just shot him.

I suppose he could have made a "Citizen's Arrest". But there was no crime.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

How was he investigating?

He intended to follow Martin to see where he was going. But that wasn't his job as Neighborhood "Watch".

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I'm more concerned about your stereotypng of black youth as dancing to music.

But they do, whether there is music or not.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

How is that Bush's fault, it's Trayvon's!

You're blaming Trayvon who cannot defend himself. So the prosecutor must speak for him.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If someone is "Stalking you", or if you believe they are, you don't attack them, you call the police! You see, there was a law passed standardizing emergency response all over the country. Anyone almost anywhere in the US can call the same number "9-11" and receive emergencty assistance.

Martin had only a minute from the time he allegedly told his girlfriend he was being followed and when he was dead. Not much time to dial a 9-11 call when you are being threatened with death by Zimmerman.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And when you attack and injure someone with a gun, they have justification to shoot you.

But when you threaten someone with a gun, they have no right to defend themselves, according to your logic.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Perhaps, if Trayvon;s school had reported his crimes to the police, Trayvon would have hopefully not attacked someone with a gun.

Trayvon had a gun?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Really? Because you and the "angry black woman", or Reverand Sharpton make up the same thing, that justifies it?

What?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You're the one who made a comparison involving a white and black situation.

You didn't make a comparison, you stated an unnecessary fact.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Someone trying to injure or kill another is a crime, so wrong in the first respect.

That is not a proven fact, only an allegation.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

HE had seen the investigation report, YOU haven't! .

A report was completed an hour after the death?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Third, you don;t know the investigation wasn't thorough, you simply believe that because you cling to fraudulent reports from the media.

You're right, I don't know. And you don't know that it was thorough because they haven't made it public yet. But I don't think if it was thorough, a Special Prosecutor would have been brought in.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Why? The nature of the shooting wasn;t in question, and it was raining according to reports.

"Not in question"? There were no witnesses to the shooting or what initiated the fight. There was no video. Only the testimony of the killer. It should have been in question.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

To drug test Zimmerman, they would have to have probable cause to get a warrant. How many times do you have to be told that?

To repeat, they had a dead body with no corroborating evidence of the circumstances.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And you don't know that Zimmerman's broken nose wasn't verified, he was reportedly "cleaned up by a paramedic."

But that has not been verified officially. The word remains that Zimmerman was treated the next day for that.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That you're aware of. Yet you go after the DA?

That's their fault. And the fact that the governor appointed a Special Prosecutor indicates that there was a question by more then me, that the DA may have not done a thorough job.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

However, if ABC and the ohters had not done what they did, there might not be a specal Porsecutor to abuse her power.

Or maybe a Special Prosecutor to look for the truth!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Not true.

What else does it "prove"?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Not with comprehension.

That wasn't your accusation!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Injuries!

No evidence has been yet shown that support that.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You insist that Martin was justified in attacking Zimmerman before Zimmerman shot him by self defense

WRONG AGAIN! I said it is a possibility. And I don't buy the "self defense".

Originally Posted by Rifleman

yet Zimmerman was not jsitifed in defending himself from Martin AFTER he had sustained injuries.

We don't know that Zimmerman was not the aggressor.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And you slander the police department because they didn't find evidence that doesn't exist.

Because it might have existed when they stopped the investigation.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

OJ was found innocent.

And you agree that his is innocent!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So then why did Martin attack? Would he have attacked if Zimmerman had been black?

No evidence that he did attack Zimmerman.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So why was he in possession of woman's jewelry?

Maybe he was a cross-dresser.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Oh, so in order to have possible evidence against Zimmerman which might not have been evidence at all, you want constitutional rightsd violated that would have resulted in whatever evidence found, thrown out?

Why couldn't they collect the evidence in compliance with the Constitution? Just because evidence might not prove valuable, it should have be collected?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

What does that have to do with my statement you quoted?

If evidence washed away, that is to say there was evidence there that might have proved Zimmerman to have lied.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

He initially believed Martin to be a criminal, but didn't know whether or not he was.

So he shot him just to be safe?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Evidence discovered after the DA made his decision could have resulted in the DA with actual jurisdiction changing his mind and charging Zimmermen. It HAS to be discovered first.

Or maybe the Special Prosecutor saw something the original DA missed. After all she took much more than an hour to study the evidence.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Zimmemran's original attorneys bailed on him and trashed him in thew process.

What does that have to do with ANYTHING? They did not represent him when he first spoke to police. They did not represent him when he voluntarily testified at his Bail Hearing. Is this another of your "Blame Bush" dodges?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That's the point, she saw no evidence of Second degree murder either!

Do you have facts to support your claim?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Now who's concerned about semantics?

Because there is a big difference from "attacking" and "defending"!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You insisted that Martin was justified in defending against an attack by Zimmerman before Zimmerman attacked.

No evidence to show that Zimmerman did not initially attack Martin.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Me, I believe that the winesses seeing Martin on top injuring Zimmerman, and the shot they heard after witnessing the Martin attack, as well as the injuries themselves, show Zmmerman was justified in shooting Martin in self defense.

But you have no verification of what happened before that point in time.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That's why the police didn't investigate, there was no evidence that another attacker was present.

So now you admit they didn't investigate?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If Martin didn't go back in time, then he wasn't justified in trying to severly injure Zimmerman as self defense!

Wrong! Time travel has nothing to do with it. It is the evidence in this time-line.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You're not the Supreme Court.

Is that the only court who can issue a warrant?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So how did that NOT happen in this case? There are witnesses and there are injuries to Zimmerman.

Which don't show him to be truthful.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Why would Zimmerman raise his head up to be pushed down by Martin?

Why does anybody fight back?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The NRA isn't "right wing" trust me. But they don't push leftist gun control laws.

The first black president says they are! And Bible thumpers too!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The story is evidence.

The prosecutor has the option of using it against him. But Zimmerman cannot use it in his defense. He must tell that story from the stand.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If Zimmerman had confessed to murdering Martin that would be evidence of his guilt, would it not? Goes the other way too.

It doesn't.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Do you know "for a fact" that the Sanford Police investigation was "lackluster"?

Yes! They didn't collect his gun or clothing as evidence in a potential crime!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I didn't know that was in question.

You can fill me in. In the old Six-Shooter, the casing stayed in the gun, Many newer guns eject spent casings. Did the police note the location of the ejected casing? Did they look for more casings? Did they check the gun to see how many rounds were missing from the clip? Maybe they did. But I haven't heard yet.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

But if there were, and you knew from Zimmerman's story that he shot Martin in self defense, you would know they came from the same gun with a spectal analysis, you wouldn;t have to have the gun.

Then why do they want a gun to match marking to verify which gun fired a specific round?

Besides, maybe Zimmerman was trying to cover up another crime. Maybe he had punched Martin in the chest, which would leave a mark. So he shot him there to cover that evidence that he attacked Martin.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And if you think about it, you couldn't know from possessing the gun, if two shots had been fired from it. The gun might not have been loaded to full capacity.

A reason to make a thorough search for ejected cartridges. They might indicate a "running battle".

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Not to hunt.

Ah-ha!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That wasn't in question.

Because they accepted Zimmerman's story as fact before collecting and analyzing all evidence.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, the procedure requires the presumption of innocence.

No, it does not. Only in the trial is that the standard. Otherwise why have bail? If you have presumption of innocence, what right is there for them to demand money from you for your freedom?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The media misreported the incident. They said Zimmerman wasn;t arested, he wasn;t injured, he made a racial slur, he's white, the investigation only wnet on for an hour, all of this stuff that wasn;t true. The people then cried "foul" with no jusitfication to do so, the basis of their cry was fraudulent.

But none of them is the prosecution or court.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The purpose in this case isn't lawful and violates due process.

Then prosecute them!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

On what grounds? You're the one who faulted them!

There was a dead body, and an on-going investigation. His story was not corroborated.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So, you claim, the evidence that doesn't show who started the fight, WILL show who started the fight after being presented to a jury? Is it majic?

No, that's the Judaical process. It can involve examination and cross-examination of witnesses and experts, which can bring about an evolution of what happened.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Why would someone get out of the car if they believed that Martin was really a criminal?

So he believed Martin was not a criminal but wanted to follow him anyway, even after instructed not to? Besides, your argument is bogus because Zimmerman did indicate the guy was acting suspicious. That was his reason for pursuing him.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And considering ALL the dead leads you wanted the police to investigate, the possiblilty of Martin making a lewd remark to Zimmerman might as well be one of them. Besides, you don't believe Zimmerman anyway. Maybe he is lying about the lewd remark.

So you are saying Zimmerman might have lied to investigators? You think that when Zimmerman told them that Martin said [You have a problem now], he lied because actually Martin propositioned him? Well, that could come out in trial on cross-examination, couldn't it? A reason for the trial.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

We have gone over this, there's the witnesses and the injuries, and the general situation.

And much to be filled in.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So you don't even know exaclty what you are accusing the DA of, I guess the Florida Governor doesn't either.

The reason you investigate is to find out the truth.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If the police conductied such a "horrible investigation, which you insist is fact, what fault is it of the DA?

Because he is allegedly the one who stopped the investigation, causing the investigation to be flawed.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

How could he possibly prosecute on the basis of such a bad investigation?

That would be a problem. If he took it to trial and put the officers on the stand and asked them why they didn't look for casings, and they responded "Because you stopped us" he would have a good reason for not wanting to charge Zimmerman. It's called a "conflict of interest".

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And if police held Zimmerman for 48 hours, the legal limit, they couldn't do so again.

Presumably they would have time to analyze most of the evidence, and check the application of the laws. The DA probably didn't have time to crack the law books in that hour, but relied on his memory of the law.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, not only, there are witnesses and there are physical injuries.

That only supports that the two men were fighting. Not why, or who initiated the fight.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You insisted Martin was "the victim".

He's dead. So he is more of a victim that Zimmerman. And you keep painting Martin as the "attacker". But the evidence does not corroborated Zimmerman's story on that.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No. You're making an assumption in this case that there is no evidence for.

Not the case, but your defective thinking.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

GO FIND SOME!

Those gun fanatics?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Clearly, if open carry is a deterant, the mystery of concealed carry can be a deterant.

"Can be" not "Is a deterrent".

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The paramedic saw it already.

Did he testify that he knew the nose was broken? Or did he just note Zimmerman had a nose bleed?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

There is no evidence the Da stopped the investigation.

That's the rumor. Granted I was not there. So I can't verify that.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Your latest involves Martin being justified in self defense before he was attacked.

WRONG AGAIN! He might have been defending against Zimmerman's original attack.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Who's taking statements out of context now?

Not out of context. Just not accepting you line of bull.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Except, Zimmerman was injured by Martin.

They were fighting. Apparently Martin was better at fisticuffs than Zimmerman, so Zimmerman pulled his gun.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It wasn't an allegation it was sarcasm going over your head.

But it's gone on for so many posts.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Where did you get that? That's pretty pathetic to try to and defend Trayvon's mother, the loose cannon, as channeling her son.

You're pretty pathetic dragging a grieving mother into this as if she was a witness.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

On the contrary, there is only the chance of a trial because of the threat of riots and violence because of Reverand Sharpton.

So justice would not have been served but for the heroic actions of Shartongue?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That isn't the strategy of Justice, it's the strategy of witch hunts.

Witch hunts, of course, being the work of fine Christians!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

What has that to do with the quote? Riots didn't occur after the OJ trial because OJ wasn't convicted.

Your original statement was "Obviously, Martin's family is NOT concerned with actual evidence or guilt, they want blood!" Is that to say that even if found not guilty, they would try to kill Zimmerman? My point was that many think O.J. is guilty of double homicide, but apparently no one has tried to kill him.

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jtdc

Don't know. They have not released much information. The police chief stepped down temporarily and then offered his resignation. Why? Was it just the placate the racist threatening riots? Was it because he disagreed with the DA stopping the investigation? I don't know. I do know few in government ever get held responsible for what they do or don't do. Especially at the top.

You are correct, in stating that you don't know. The Police Chief of Sanford was effectively suspended by a vote of No Confidence by the Sanford City COuncil. Because there was no cause for that and no evidence or incompetance, the Chief later offered his resignation. And YES! It was to placate threats of riots. And it has nothing to do with the DA.

They don't show who started the fight or who said what to who. A broken nose is not conclusive as to how. The bloodied back of Zimmerman's head doesn't show who was the aggressor. So it is going to be all of the evidence presented at trial that might paint a clearer picture.

How lame is that argument? A trained investigator, so skilled he's the lead investigator and he declares that there is no evidence of who started the fight. So jurists, who AREN'T going to see all the available evidence, only the admissable evidence are going to determine that Zimemrman started the fight without evidence of him doing so?

A gun against fists! What evidence would you expect to find on Martin? You can't show that Martin wasn't defending himself against Zimmerman threatening him with the gun.

Besides there being NO evidence of what you are CLAIMING is a possibility, An injury on Martin, other than the gunshot wound, is what I would expect to find on Martin. That would be evidence to justify a possibility of Martin using self defense. But not for jtdc, he wants the lack of evidence to be evidence against Zimmerman. And the nature of your aledged "threat" wouldn't make it necessarily criminal. If I am being rushed by a person unknown, and I try to warn him that I am armed and I will shoot if he comes nearer, that is not criminal threat. Since there is no evidence of either, and it would be suicide for Martin to rush someone he knew to be armed, the point you are making is moot.

So you are writing a lot of nothing.

In your eyes. This is somewhat a public forum, and people who aren't closed minded can benefit.

So he just shot him.

I suppose he could have made a "Citizen's Arrest". But there was no crime.

Assault with injury is a crime.

He intended to follow Martin to see where he was going. But that wasn't his job as Neighborhood "Watch".

Why wouldn't it be? Prevent a potential burgulary.

But they do, whether there is music or not.

So you admit it?

You're blaming Trayvon who cannot defend himself. So the prosecutor must speak for him.

It's not the Prosecutor's job to speak for Trayvon, nor is it ethical.

Martin had only a minute from the time he allegedly told his girlfriend he was being followed and when he was dead. Not much time to dial a 9-11 call when you are being threatened with death by Zimmerman.

What's that? 15 seconds a button? Seems he had enough time and dexterity to seriously injure Zimmerman.

But when you threaten someone with a gun, they have no right to defend themselves, according to your logic.

Not my logic, your side's gun laws. There is no evidence that Zimmerman threated Martin with a gun. But no, a minor can't legally defend themselves with a gun in public. There MIGHT be some consideration, (but NOT in this case) of a hypothetical situation where a minor could prove a criminal attacked him and he managed to take the gun away and shoot the criminal, but NOT in California. There they tried to prosecute a parolee, that did that very thing. In this situation, with serious injuries on Zimmerman as well as a fatal gunshot wound and no injuries on Trayvon, there would be nothing to corraborate that Trayvon was in fear for his life.

Trayvon had a gun?

He did? Who said that? Trayvon's mother?

What?

Can't you understand? You said I was the only one making up things, because you seem to believe that if multiple people make up the same thing as you, that validates it.

You didn't make a comparison, you stated an unnecessary fact.

That's because you make comparisons of things that are mostly unrelated. We are to believe, that Zimmerman shot Trayvon because he was black. But Zimmerman isn't white, he's Hispanic which is another minority group that is supposedly victimized by the evil white race. So your comparison is invalid.

That is not a proven fact, only an allegation.

So. We can never know if Trayvon intended to kill Zimmerman, but the injuries are sufficient for Zimmerman to believe that his life was in danger.

A report was completed an hour after the death?

That is not a proven fact, only an allegation

You're right, I don't know. And you don't know that it was thorough because they haven't made it public yet. But I don't think if it was thorough, a Special Prosecutor would have been brought in.

Being made public has nothing to do with the thoroughness of the investigation. Neither does bringing in a special prosecutor.

"Not in question"? There were no witnesses to the shooting or what initiated the fight. There was no video. Only the testimony of the killer. It should have been in question.

Repetition doesn't make it true. A witness heard the shooting, after witnessing the injuried being administered to Zimmemrman. Plus there are the injuries. And there is the testimony of the shooter.

To repeat, they had a dead body with no corroborating evidence of the circumstances.

They had witnesses to Trayvon attacking Zimmerman and they had the injuries sustained by Zimmerman.

But that has not been verified officially. The word remains that Zimmerman was treated the next day for that.

So what is the deal? Zimmerman wouldn't have known in the seconds he was brutally attacked the exact nature and severity of his injuries. If the injuries weren't important ABC News wouldn't have tried to "report" that Zimmerman had no injuries. They wanted to trash Zimmerman enough that they had to report that he HAD been arrested.

That's their fault. And the fact that the governor appointed a Special Prosecutor indicates that there was a question by more then me, that the DA may have not done a thorough job.

No it doesn't. If there hadn't been threats of violence and racism, then nothing would have happened. And why appoint a special Prosecutor when the police department is at fault? Instead, classic signs of a witch hunt, indiscriminate accusations and scape-goating.

Or maybe a Special Prosecutor to look for the truth!

Not the truth, a strategy to witch hunt prosecute.

What else does it "prove"?

That Martin was injuring Zimmerman, hence the justification for self defense. .

That wasn't your accusation!

It wasn't that long, you could have read the entire link.

No evidence has been yet shown that support that.

Look, the ABC News video of the arrest was bogus in that it was reported that Zimmemran had little or no injuries. A possibly broken nose and multiple lacerations on the back of Zimmerman's head are evidence. Nor is there a question, except in your mind, that Trayvon caused the injuries to Zimmerman.

WRONG AGAIN! I said it is a possibility. And I don't buy the "self defense".

Yet you'll use the mere "possibility" without any evidence to justify prosecuting Zimemrmn when there IS evidence to support his story.

We don't know that Zimmerman was not the aggressor.

There is no evidence that he was. And there is actually "no evidence".

Because it might have existed when they stopped the investigation.

Near impossible. To imply that Zimmmerman was able in a few seconds between the time the witness heard the shot and then witnessed Trayvon on the ground to sanitize the scene while Trayvon was unable to dial 9-11 in an entire minute, anfd that investigators would be able to find some form of evidence to support that, is ridiculous.

And you agree that his is innocent!

So what? It was OJ.

No evidence that he did attack Zimmerman.

Witnesses and injuries to Zimmerman.

Maybe he was a cross-dresser.

Then he would have a basis for a civil rights suit against the school.

Why couldn't they collect the evidence in compliance with the Constitution? Just because evidence might not prove valuable, it should have be collected?

Yes, that pesky 4th Amendment, why couldn't they just ignore that.

If evidence washed away, that is to say there was evidence there that might have proved Zimmerman to have lied.

And of what would be the nature of that evidence? A surveliance tape might, but it wouldn't wash away. C'mon you made up stuff before you could make up stuff again!

So he shot him just to be safe?

No, he shot him because Martin gave him reason to believe he was trying to kill him.

Or maybe the Special Prosecutor saw something the original DA missed. After all she took much more than an hour to study the evidence.

Yes, she saw the only reason she had the job in the first place was to make sure Zimmerman was prosecuted. That took about 30 seconds, the amount of time Martin could have dialed 9-11 at least four times.

What does that have to do with ANYTHING? They did not represent him when he first spoke to police. They did not represent him when he voluntarily testified at his Bail Hearing. Is this another of your "Blame Bush" dodges?

Okay. When he was first arrested, he wasn't charged with anything.

Do you have facts to support your claim?

Expert attorneys and even your Sharpton side thinks Murder 2 is a ploy to get a conviction on a very weak case.

Because there is a big difference from "attacking" and "defending"!

There isn't evidence to support the claim that Martin was "defending". But there is evidence to support that Zimmerman was defending. He had sustained injuries and witnesses saw that he was losing the fight, and Trayvon had no other injuries than the gunshot wound.

No evidence to show that Zimmerman did not initially attack Martin.

No evidence to show that he did, but evidence that Martin attacked.

But you have no verification of what happened before that point in time.

Okay. let's humor you and change terms. Zimmerman's story was partially verfied by witnesses and actual injuries sustained by him at the hand of Martin, which had to occur before he shot Martin, which ended the matter. Not your theory, your possibility, there is no evidence and zero verification of what happened in that respect. yet you insist, because the police didn't find any evidence or verification, that they botched the investigation and therefore the DA, who had nothing to do with it, should be fired from the case and replaced by an attack dog lawyer who will be guaranteed to conduct a witch hunt.

So now you admit they didn't investigate?

They didn't investigate another attacker.

Wrong! Time travel has nothing to do with it. It is the evidence in this time-line.

Where, what evidence?

Is that the only court who can issue a warrant?

Why do I have to repeat well known legal procedures?

Which don't show him to be truthful.

How?

Why does anybody fight back?

They wouldn't be allowed under your rules.

The first black president says they are! And Bible thumpers too!

Is Obama your new reference for truth?

The prosecutor has the option of using it against him. But Zimmerman cannot use it in his defense. He must tell that story from the stand.

No, its optional, he doesn't even have to take the stand. It's still evidence.

It doesn't.

More semantics. Is the definition of evidence that important to you?

Yes! They didn't collect his gun or clothing as evidence in a potential crime!

They have the option regarding the gun, not the clothing or unwarranted blood tests.

You can fill me in. In the old Six-Shooter, the casing stayed in the gun, Many newer guns eject spent casings. Did the police note the location of the ejected casing? Did they look for more casings? Did they check the gun to see how many rounds were missing from the clip? Maybe they did. But I haven't heard yet.

Zimmerman wouldn't have had time to dispose of additional casings even were he to be able to find them. Extra bullets would be found in Martin's body, or had they exited, there would be a wound cavity. The idea of checking for missing ronds from the "clip" which is properly called a "magazine", wouldn't tell anything. There are revolvers that fire 45 ACP, but not ones that fire 9mm Luger or Parabellum. Had the magazine of a semiauto pistol not been loaded to capacity, it would tell nothing and the extra shots could have been verified without the gun, which being used in the shooting was not in question.Examining the gun, as i said before would not indicate the number of rounds fired from it. I believe this is simply another wild goose chase perpetuated by you in order to justify a malicious prosecution of Zimmerman.

Then why do they want a gun to match marking to verify which gun fired a specific round?

Often the specific weapon used is in question. The ATF has, in the past, taken custody of weapons in order to abuse them and hopefully cause them to break or malfunction and go full auto, and thus justifiy a federal gunn charge against an unwitting dupe. Even cities and towns get in the act, taking custody of firearms for the purposes of stealing them from their rightful owners. The "investigation" of the DC snipers resulted in numerous such siezures.

Besides, maybe Zimmerman was trying to cover up another crime. Maybe he had punched Martin in the chest, which would leave a mark. So he shot him there to cover that evidence that he attacked Martin.

You're obviously neither a fighter nor a shooter. Chest punches are ineffective, and a chest shot against a murderous Martin in the dark and rain would be very difficult.

A reason to make a thorough search for ejected cartridges. They might indicate a "running battle".

So Martin has time for a "running battle" for which there is no evidence, but NOT to dial 9-11?

Ah-ha!

Is there some significance?

Because they accepted Zimmerman's story as fact before collecting and analyzing all evidence.

There is no evidence they did that. You want them to investigate for facts not in question.

No, it does not. Only in the trial is that the standard. Otherwise why have bail? If you have presumption of innocence, what right is there for them to demand money from you for your freedom?

You get the money back.

But none of them is the prosecution or court.

That's why the special Prosecutor was appointed! The procedure is polluted even before it starts.

Then prosecute them!

I can't, I won't be granted "standing".

There was a dead body, and an on-going investigation. His story was not corroborated.

So witnesses don't exist, and no injuries were sustained by Zimmerman?

No, that's the Judaical process. It can involve examination and cross-examination of witnesses and experts, which can bring about an evolution of what happened.

Truth doesn't evolve. Evidence doesn't evolve.

So he believed Martin was not a criminal but wanted to follow him anyway, even after instructed not to? Besides, your argument is bogus because Zimmerman did indicate the guy was acting suspicious. That was his reason for pursuing him.

Do you want me to take your quotes out of context to make it appear you said something contradictory? Spotting as opposed to following, for which evidence is lacking, would make quite a differnece because if someone beleived a peson to be a criminal, they would unlikely expose themselves to possible attack.

So you are saying Zimmerman might have lied to investigators? You think that when Zimmerman told them that Martin said [You have a problem now], he lied because actually Martin propositioned him? Well, that could come out in trial on cross-examination, couldn't it? A reason for the trial.

No you believe he is lying without evidence to believe so. I'm being sacastic.

And much to be filled in.

Yes, you want it filled in with heresay.

The reason you investigate is to find out the truth.

The DA doesn't conduct the investigation, and the governor didn't investigate the DA.

Because he is allegedly the one who stopped the investigation, causing the investigation to be flawed.

So what pertinant facts support your allegation?

That would be a problem. If he took it to trial and put the officers on the stand and asked them why they didn't look for casings, and they responded "Because you stopped us" he would have a good reason for not wanting to charge Zimmerman. It's called a "conflict of interest".

But that would have to have actually occured.

Presumably they would have time to analyze most of the evidence, and check the application of the laws. The DA probably didn't have time to crack the law books in that hour, but relied on his memory of the law.

No, that only happens in the preparation for the trial, and often paralegals do the footwork.

That only supports that the two men were fighting. Not why, or who initiated the fight.

There is no evidence of who started the fight other than Zimerman's story. We know that Zimmerman sustained injuries at the hands of Martin and that Martin was standing over Zimmerman. You know what? I'm not going to answer that false premise again.

He's dead. So he is more of a victim that Zimmerman. And you keep painting Martin as the "attacker". But the evidence does not corroborated Zimmerman's story on that.

Not the case, but your defective thinking.

How is it defective thinking to challenge theories for which there is no evidence?

Those gun fanatics?

Where?

"Can be" not "Is a deterrent".

No, proven, but not 100%. There will still be crimianls starting out who forget the victim might be armed.

Did he testify that he knew the nose was broken? Or did he just note Zimmerman had a nose bleed?

There hasn't been a trial.

That's the rumor. Granted I was not there. So I can't verify that.

Why am I not surprised?

WRONG AGAIN! He might have been defending against Zimmerman's original attack.

Not out of context. Just not accepting you line of bull.

OUT OF CONTEXT!

They were fighting. Apparently Martin was better at fisticuffs than Zimmerman, so Zimmerman pulled his gun.

But it's gone on for so many posts.

Yes, you keep walking right into it.

You're pretty pathetic dragging a grieving mother into this as if she was a witness.

She dragged herself into it claiming it was Trayvon whining for help on the recording. She then praised Trayvon for beting Zimmerman, and then, in an unguarded moment of truth declared he shooting to be an accident.

So justice would not have been served but for the heroic actions of Shartongue?

Your new hero!

Witch hunts, of course, being the work of fine Christians!

No Puritans, a type of Protestant nearly as bad as the unreformed Catholic Church.

Your original statement was "Obviously, Martin's family is NOT concerned with actual evidence or guilt, they want blood!" Is that to say that even if found not guilty, they would try to kill Zimmerman? My point was that many think O.J. is guilty of double homicide, but apparently no one has tried to kill him.

Zimmerman has a bounty on his head, and certain Blacks are hunting down random and innocent white people and beat them within an inch of their life to "avenge" Trayvon. White people aren't even involved, George is Hispanic. So you are telling me you don't see the difference? It's similar to your other defective comparisons.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And it has nothing to do with the DA.

So you say.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

How lame is that argument? A trained investigator, so skilled he's the lead investigator and he declares that there is no evidence of who started the fight.

That's right, no "conclusion".

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So jurists, who AREN'T going to see all the available evidence, only the admissable evidence are going to determine that Zimemrman started the fight without evidence of him doing so?

That's what juries do.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Besides there being NO evidence of what you are CLAIMING is a possibility, An injury on Martin, other than the gunshot wound, is what I would expect to find on Martin.

What "you" would expect.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That would be evidence to justify a possibility of Martin using self defense.

Muhammad Ali was able to keep his face just out of reach of his opponents, thereby not getting hit. You assume that both men were equally skilled at street fighting.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

But not for jtdc, he wants the lack of evidence to be evidence against Zimmerman.

No! The lack of evidence creates questions about Zimmerman's statements.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And the nature of your aledged "threat" wouldn't make it necessarily criminal. If I am being rushed by a person unknown, and I try to warn him that I am armed and I will shoot if he comes nearer, that is not criminal threat.

As usual your opinion is skewed with your presumption that Zimmerman's version is fact. If Zimmerman pulled his gun, he would not need to say a word.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Since there is no evidence of either, and it would be suicide for Martin to rush someone he knew to be armed, the point you are making is moot.

If a guy is reaching for a gun, do you wait until he has it pointed at you to start defending yourself?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Assault with injury is a crime.

But there is no evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. Only Zimmerman's words.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Why wouldn't it be? Prevent a potential burgulary.

He had called for the police. That is their job. He had observed and reported. That was his job.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It's not the Prosecutor's job to speak for Trayvon, nor is it ethical.

The prosecutor's job is justice for both Martin and Zimmerman. Is Martin supposed to hire a lawyer to put out his story? In a criminal matter it is "The People versus" the defendant. And the victim is one of those people the prosecutor represents.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

What's that? 15 seconds a button? Seems he had enough time and dexterity to seriously injure Zimmerman.

Typical absurdity! On minute included wrestling with Zimmerman, bashing his head against the ground. You make it like he had nothing to do in that minute except dial his phone.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Not my logic, your side's gun laws.

No, your lopsided interpretation that only licensed gun owners are allowed to defend themselves.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

There is no evidence that Zimmerman threated Martin with a gun.

And there is no evidence that he didn't threaten Martin with his gun.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

But no, a minor can't legally defend themselves with a gun in public. There MIGHT be some consideration, (but NOT in this case) of a hypothetical situation where a minor could prove a criminal attacked him and he managed to take the gun away and shoot the criminal, but NOT in California. There they tried to prosecute a parolee, that did that very thing.

So your authority is a case against a felon being prohibited from having a gun? All this to push your opinion that a 17 year-old assaulted by a man with a gun can't grab that gun and shoot the attacker?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

He did? Who said that? Trayvon's mother?

Answer a question with three questions?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You said I was the only one making up things, because you seem to believe that if multiple people make up the same thing as you, that validates it.

If two witnesses made up that Zimmerman attacked Martin, and only Zimmerman testified that Martin attacked him, yeah!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

We are to believe, that Zimmerman shot Trayvon because he was black. But Zimmerman isn't white, he's Hispanic which is another minority group that is supposedly victimized by the evil white race. So your comparison is invalid.

But Hispanics don't hate blacks, do they?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So. We can never know if Trayvon intended to kill Zimmerman, but the injuries are sufficient for Zimmerman to believe that his life was in danger.

Except that Zimmerman's gun was sufficient reason for Martin to believe his life was in danger.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That is not a proven fact, only an allegation

I'm waiting for the facts. Meantime I speculation on what I have read.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Being made public has nothing to do with the thoroughness of the investigation.

It would be evidence.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Repetition doesn't make it true.

Then you repeat, yet again "A witness heard the shooting, after witnessing the injuried being administered to Zimmemrman. Plus there are the injuries. And there is the testimony of the shooter."

Originally Posted by Rifleman

They had witnesses to Trayvon attacking Zimmerman and they had the injuries sustained by Zimmerman.

You repeat your spin again. They witnessed a fight. But as you claim the prosecutor had no evidence of who attacked who, starting the fight.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If there hadn't been threats of violence and racism, then nothing would have happened.

And a possibly innocent 17 year old would have been murdered and the perpetrator would have never been held accountable.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And why appoint a special Prosecutor when the police department is at fault?

Back to your repeat spin mode.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That Martin was injuring Zimmerman, hence the justification for self defense. .

Repeat spin mode.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It wasn't that long, you could have read the entire link.

You were wrong and hate to admit it.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Yet you'll use the mere "possibility" without any evidence to justify prosecuting Zimemrmn when there IS evidence to support his story.

Repeating your spin cycle again. it only "possibly" supports a part of his story.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

There is no evidence that he was. And there is actually "no evidence".

Repeating your spin cycle.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Near impossible. To imply that Zimmmerman was able in a few seconds between the time the witness heard the shot and then witnessed Trayvon on the ground to sanitize the scene while Trayvon was unable to dial 9-11 in an entire minute, anfd that investigators would be able to find some form of evidence to support that, is ridiculous.

I didn't say he tried to sanitize the scene. He didn't need to because they didn't look.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Witnesses and injuries to Zimmerman.

Spin cycle, yet again.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And of what would be the nature of that evidence?

Shoe imprints verifying where Zimmerman and Martin walked.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, he shot him because Martin gave him reason to believe he was trying to kill him.

After Martin, defending himself from Zimmerman's gun threat, got an advantage over Zimmerman.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Okay. When he was first arrested, he wasn't charged with anything.

But you are saying these lawyers are at fault for letting him talk to police when they hadn't even been retained yet.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

There isn't evidence to support the claim that Martin was "defending".

And there isn't evidence that he wasn't defending himself, aside from Zimmerman's statement which isn't admissible.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

But there is evidence to support that Zimmerman was defending. He had sustained injuries and witnesses saw that he was losing the fight, and Trayvon had no other injuries than the gunshot wound.

More repeating of the spin cycle. Only evidence that Zimmerman could have been defending.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No evidence to show that he did, but evidence that Martin attacked.

More spin. Only evidence of what could have been, not what was.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Zimmerman's story was partially verfied by witnesses and actual injuries sustained by him at the hand of Martin, which had to occur before he shot Martin, which ended the matter.

Now, let's see how long before you stray from those "facts".

Originally Posted by Rifleman

yet you insist, because the police didn't find any evidence or verification, that they botched the investigation and therefore the DA, who had nothing to do with it, should be fired from the case and replaced by an attack dog lawyer who will be guaranteed to conduct a witch hunt.

Because that DA stopped the investigation.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

They wouldn't be allowed under your rules.

No, it is your rule that Martin could not legally take Zimmerman's gun and use it to defend against Zimmerman.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, its optional, he doesn't even have to take the stand. It's still evidence.

The defense cannot use it to defend him. You are wrong.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Zimmerman wouldn't have had time to dispose of additional casings even were he to be able to find them.

He didn't need to if the police didn't look.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Extra bullets would be found in Martin's body, or had they exited, there would be a wound cavity.

But if, like cops seem to often do, he shot multiple times, which witnesses only heard a single shot, the bullets would not necessarily be in Martin's body if they missed. But spent cartridges would be in the area.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I believe this is simply another wild goose chase perpetuated by you in order to justify a malicious prosecution of Zimmerman.

Or thoroughness!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Often the specific weapon used is in question. The ATF has, in the past, taken custody of weapons in order to abuse them and hopefully cause them to break or malfunction and go full auto, and thus justifiy a federal gunn charge against an unwitting dupe. Even cities and towns get in the act, taking custody of firearms for the purposes of stealing them from their rightful owners. The "investigation" of the DC snipers resulted in numerous such siezures.

All that and you didn't answer the question.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You're obviously neither a fighter nor a shooter.

Thank you!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So Martin has time for a "running battle" for which there is no evidence, but NOT to dial 9-11?

Right!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You want them to investigate for facts not in question.

Right. They should have questioned Zimmerman's story.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You get the money back.

After you spend many times that on lawyers.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So witnesses don't exist, and no injuries were sustained by Zimmerman?

They had not been questioned/examined before the DA made a determination that there was no crime.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Truth doesn't evolve. Evidence doesn't evolve.

But awareness of it and understanding of it does.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Spotting as opposed to following, for which evidence is lacking, would make quite a differnece because if someone beleived a peson to be a criminal, they would unlikely expose themselves to possible attack.

The 911 recording indicates he was running after Martin before the operator suggested he stop. "Spotting" would seem to be more stationary.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Yes, you want it filled in with heresay.

If it is the truth. Martin cannot testify. So his girlfriend and other would have to speak for him. But you don't want their words.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The DA doesn't conduct the investigation, and the governor didn't investigate the DA.

Right! They looked at his conclusions and disagreed with him.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So what pertinant facts support your allegation?

I'm waiting.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

But that would have to have actually occured.

It is alleged to have occurred.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, that only happens in the preparation for the trial, and often paralegals do the footwork.

No, it is also done when determining whether or not to take someone into custody.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You know what? I'm not going to answer that false premise again.

But you did.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

How is it defective thinking to challenge theories for which there is no evidence?

It's not. Neither is questioning the statement of the perpetrator of a killing.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

There hasn't been a trial.

But there was a hearing which you seem to take as a verdict.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So you are telling me you don't see the difference?

Of course. O.J. was considered innocent by blacks and guilty by whites. The blacks will put a bounty on whites, not blacks. They will ignore the verdict of courts unless it is a black found not guilty.

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jtdc

So you say.

How would the vote of "no Confidence have anything to do with the DA?

That's right, no "conclusion".

I didn't write, "no conclusion, I wrote, no evidence.

That's what juries do.

Then those juries are unjust. If evidence as to an event that would determine that the accused is guilty, but it doesn't exist, then that is reasonable doubt.

What "you" would expect.

Yes, if they had actually found such an injury, that would have been cause to bring Zimmerman back into the station for additional questioning. Tha;ts what is known as probable cause.

Muhammad Ali was able to keep his face just out of reach of his opponents, thereby not getting hit. You assume that both men were equally skilled at street fighting.

Martin was obviously faster, stronger, and more aggressive. And he didn't stop until Zimmerman had to shoot him. So hypothetically a man rapes a woman, obviously he is more skilled at street fighting, than most women. SO the woman being injured, accuses him of rape, while the man without a scratch on him claims it was consensual. The injuries to the woman are evidence that a rape occured. If the woman has a gun, and shoots tha man before he can actually rape her, her injuries and his non-injuries would be evidence of another justified shoot.

No! The lack of evidence creates questions about Zimmerman's statements.

No, the lack of evidence is a lack of evidence. You're lijke Osi and the evolution theory, Puncuated Equillibrium. He and "they" insist, that the lack of evidence, i.e. interspecial fossils are actually evidence of Evolution. I think I should have ignored this post.

As usual your opinion is skewed with your presumption that Zimmerman's version is fact. If Zimmerman pulled his gun, he would not need to say a word.

No my opinion is that there is some evidence that Zimerman's version is fact, but no evidence that he has lied. What you quoted, (once again) has little to do with your reply. For one, there is no evidence that Zimmerman assaulted Martin before Martin assaulted him. Second, hypothetically only, such a warning by a licensed CCL holder, to a preceived threat, would not be a criminal threat.

If a guy is reaching for a gun, do you wait until he has it pointed at you to start defending yourself?

What could anyone do in the time it takes to draw a gun? (about 1/2 a second) Martin had time to punch knock down, get on top and beat Zimmerman's head into the concrete multiple times. And if you believe Trayvon's mother, Trayvon was calling "help", "help". Somehow if it was actually Martin, and "going for the gun that Zimmerman threatened him with 10 or 15 seconds earlier, (hypothetically of course) then why didn't he scream, "He's got a gun, and he's trying to kill me"! Now THAT would be evidence to back your fantasy theory, if that would have been what had occured.

But there is no evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman. Only Zimmerman's words.

He had called for the police. That is their job. He had observed and reported. That was his job.

And he was trying to observe again.

The prosecutor's job is justice for both Martin and Zimmerman. Is Martin supposed to hire a lawyer to put out his story? In a criminal matter it is "The People versus" the defendant. And the victim is one of those people the prosecutor represents.

There is no "Story" for Martin, only what evidence exists. What you are misrepresenting as the Prosecutor's "job", would be a Plaintiff attorney's job in a civil suit.

Typical absurdity! On minute included wrestling with Zimmerman, bashing his head against the ground. You make it like he had nothing to do in that minute except dial his phone.

Typical "changing the subject", we are talking about the time between. And "wrestling"?

No, your lopsided interpretation that only licensed gun owners are allowed to defend themselves.

Apparantly licensed gun owners are no longer allowed to defend themselves against young black attackers. But once again that is not what I said. If you were "caught" defending you life on a public street with an unlicensed gun you were carrying concealed, you will likely be charged and convicted of manslaughter, even if the shoot was justified. Your side's gun laws! Oh and don't let me get started on minors who are caught with handguns which they can't legally possess until they are 21!

And there is no evidence that he didn't threaten Martin with his gun.

So your authority is a case against a felon being prohibited from having a gun? All this to push your opinion that a 17 year-old assaulted by a man with a gun can't grab that gun and shoot the attacker?

You just said that: "there is no evidence that he didn't threaten Martin with his gun", so imagine the shoe on the other foot, and that Martin had beat Zimmerman within an inch of his life, and then gotten the gun and shot him. No injuries, no evidence that Zimmerman made such a threat. Martin would be in serious trouble, and it would be because of your side's gun laws.

Answer a question with three questions?

It was a leading question.

If two witnesses made up that Zimmerman attacked Martin, and only Zimmerman testified that Martin attacked him, yeah!

You don't want justice?

But Hispanics don't hate blacks, do they?

It's an individual thing. The "other thing" is only a stereotype.

Except that Zimmerman's gun was sufficient reason for Martin to believe his life was in danger.

I'm waiting for the facts. Meantime I speculation on what I have read.

It would be evidence.

[The investigation being made public] would be evidence how?

Then you repeat, yet again "A witness heard the shooting, after witnessing the injuried being administered to Zimmemrman. Plus there are the injuries. And there is the testimony of the shooter."

You repeat your spin again. They witnessed a fight. But as you claim the prosecutor had no evidence of who attacked who, starting the fight.

And what you repeat, is why I whiste....

And a possibly innocent 17 year old would have been murdered and the perpetrator would have never been held accountable.

I'm very sorry you disapprove of our Constitution and the Justice system it created, which has been overthrown to a certain extent by DimocRATs. You seem to be implying that Rioting and violence is justified in order to force the State to presecute someone for which the evidence of guilt doesn't exist.

Back to your repeat spin mode.

It's not a spin. The Special Prosecutor wasn't appointed because the Sanford Police Department was at fault, she was appointed to prosecute and convict Zimmerman in order to appease black rioters.

Repeat spin mode.

No, just facts.

You were wrong and hate to admit it.

No, the difference between your "possible assault" for which there is no evidence to have happened between actual Assault for which there IS evicence. Therefore, your confusion = evidence you didn't read the entire link.

Repeating your spin cycle again. it only "possibly" supports a part of his story.

Oh I don't repeat the spin cycle since I got a new washer.

Repeating your spin cycle.

I didn't say he tried to sanitize the scene. He didn't need to because they didn't look.

There is no evidence they didn't look.

Spin cycle, yet again.

Shoe imprints verifying where Zimmerman and Martin walked.

Wouldn't necessarilty show in wet grass.

After Martin, defending himself from Zimmerman's gun threat, got an advantage over Zimmerman.

You can tell Zimmerman made a gun threat, (an actual criminal gun threat, from footprints?

But you are saying these lawyers are at fault for letting him talk to police when they hadn't even been retained yet.

That's not what I said.

And there isn't evidence that he wasn't defending himself, aside from Zimmerman's statement which isn't admissible.

But you said earlier:

The prosecutor has the option of using it against him. But Zimmerman cannot use it in his defense. He must tell that story from the stand.

So how can it be not admissiable if the Porsecution can use it? And if the Poor execution uses it, then the Defense can cross examine. See this exists because of your constant spin. You contend something I now just whistle about, then you quoted the Lead Investigator, (why I don't know since he screwed up the investigation according to you) who said there is no evidence of what I am just whistling about, to which I rightly stated, IS evidence in and of itself. Now you change your statemnt slightly going from it "not being evidence" to it "not being admissable."

More repeating of the spin cycle. Only evidence that Zimmerman could have been defending.

No, I usually repeat the "wash cycle", or I will repeat the "dry cycle", but not the spin cycle. Oh yeah before I forget...

More spin. Only evidence of what could have been, not what was.

Now, let's see how long before you stray from those "facts".

You're the one straying from those facts.

Because that DA stopped the investigation.

You said that was a rumor. There was also a rumor that Zimmerman made a racial slur, another rumor that he stated without being asked that Martin was black. There was another rumor that he wasn't even arrested and questioned. Another rumor stated that he was not even injured. A person defending those rumors could state: "They must be true, why else would they be reported?"

No, it is your rule that Martin could not legally take Zimmerman's gun and use it to defend against Zimmerman.

No, it's the law. I'm not a legislator nor am I an activist judge, so I can't write the laws. IF they were to change, and your side is trying at this very minute to change them, many people would decide NOT to defend themselves with a gun because they would likely be charged with murder or another felony because they were attacked by a criminal, or even an "innocent" 17 year old.

The defense cannot use it to defend him. You are wrong.

I didn't say that I said it is still "evidence".

He didn't need to if the police didn't look.

How would he know they weren't going to look? Earlier youj stated his clarvoyence was defective,.

But if, like cops seem to often do, he shot multiple times, which witnesses only heard a single shot, the bullets would not necessarily be in Martin's body if they missed. But spent cartridges would be in the area.

Again, how would he know that the witnesses wouldn't hear multiple shots, or even know that he didn't hit Martin multiple times? Seems to me, an evil Zimmerman intent on killing a black, would not risk being proven to be lying, by not being shown to be a liar with his initial "story". Or he simply could be telling the truth. All this for jtdc trying to justify the Special Prosecutor witch hunt.

Or thoroughness!

Okay, a very thorough wild goose chase perpetuated by jtdc to justify a maliscious porsecution by the Special Prosecutor.

All that and you didn't answer the question.

I did:

Often the specific weapon used is in question.

When an actual "legitimate" prosecution is being conducted, they need to directly link the "actual crime" with an actual weapon, and then they need to actually link that weapon to the criminal being accused. Some police departments, most often the "blue" ones, will always take the weapon because they intended on keeping it.

Thank you!

Well watch out for 17 year olds hyped on tea and skittles.

Right!

Yes that dialing 9-11, such a time consuming chore.

Right. They should have questioned Zimmerman's story.

I guess they gave him the tour of the police station, and threw a party in his honor there.

After you spend many times that on lawyers.

You "don't" get that back..

They had not been questioned/examined before the DA made a determination that there was no crime.

That tour and party took up alot of time.

But awareness of it and understanding of it does.

You said an evolution of what happened. What happened, happened!

The 911 recording indicates he was running after Martin before the operator suggested he stop. "Spotting" would seem to be more stationary.

I thought he was in his car when he called 9-11. Perhaps it took so for him to dial 9-11 he ran out of gasoline waiting, and had to continue on foot.

If it is the truth. Martin cannot testify. So his girlfriend and other would have to speak for him. But you don't want their words.

I have nothing to do with it, and what she might say, since she wasn't on the phone at the proper time is unl;ikley to be helpful.

Right! They looked at his conclusions and disagreed with him.

NO, they looked at the threat of riots and accusations of racism.

I'm waiting.

You will be probably waiting forever....

It is alleged to have occurred.

So was the allegation that Zimmerman made a racial slur. On that allegation, the POTUS directed that the Attorney General of the United States investigate the case for civil rights violations.

No, it is also done when determining whether or not to take someone into custody.

EVERY TIME? How do you know?

But you did.

It's not. Neither is questioning the statement of the perpetrator of a killing.

Then why did you accuse me of defective thinking?

But there was a hearing which you seem to take as a verdict.

Verdict? Did the paramedic testify at the "hearing"?

Of course. O.J. was considered innocent by blacks and guilty by whites. The blacks will put a bounty on whites, not blacks. They will ignore the verdict of courts unless it is a black found not guilty.

If you "don't" see the difference, then why don't you think there's a good chance Zimmerman would be or will be killed?

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

How would the vote of "no Confidence have anything to do with the DA?

The DA had better connections so they decided to make the chief the sacrificial lamb.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I didn't write, "no conclusion, I wrote, no evidence.

But we all draw conclusion from the evidence. And they often differ.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Then those juries are unjust. If evidence as to an event that would determine that the accused is guilty, but it doesn't exist, then that is reasonable doubt.

They will listen to more than you and Zimmerman's lawyer.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Yes, if they had actually found such an injury, that would have been cause to bring Zimmerman back into the station for additional questioning. Tha;ts what is known as probable cause.

But by then Zimmerman was lawyered up and in hiding. Unless he gave up his tight, they have to try in trial.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, the lack of evidence is a lack of evidence. You're lijke Osi and the evolution theory, Puncuated Equillibrium. He and "they" insist, that the lack of evidence, i.e. interspecial fossils are actually evidence of Evolution.

I didn't say it proved anything. I said it is a reason for questions. The lack of evidence of evolution does not prove it doesn't exist, just that there is no conclusive proof.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I think I should have ignored this post.

But you didn't Is your judgment defective?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No my opinion is that there is some evidence that Zimerman's version is fact,

Well, that's a slightly softer pronouncement than you have been pushing.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

but no evidence that he has lied.

In your opinion.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

What you quoted, (once again) has little to do with your reply. For one, there is no evidence that Zimmerman assaulted Martin before Martin assaulted him.

That we are aware of.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Second, hypothetically only, such a warning by a licensed CCL holder, to a preceived threat, would not be a criminal threat.

I didn't speculate about that. Just pulling the weapon can say it all.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

What could anyone do in the time it takes to draw a gun? (about 1/2 a second)

Some jump for cover.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Martin had time to punch knock down, get on top and beat Zimmerman's head into the concrete multiple times.

He would only need time to throw the punch. That would stop Zimmerman from being able to point the gun at him. After that would be a fight for the gun.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And if you believe Trayvon's mother, Trayvon was calling "help", "help". Somehow if it was actually Martin, and "going for the gun that Zimmerman threatened him with 10 or 15 seconds earlier, (hypothetically of course) then why didn't he scream, "He's got a gun, and he's trying to kill me"! Now THAT would be evidence to back your fantasy theory, if that would have been what had occured.

I agree. Another question to look into.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And he was trying to observe again.

By pursuing him.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

There is no "Story" for Martin, only what evidence exists.

Pieced together it might tell his story.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

What you are misrepresenting as the Prosecutor's "job", would be a Plaintiff attorney's job in a civil suit.

No! In a criminal case the Prosecutor acts as adversary to the defense. They are not obligated to present both sides.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Typical "changing the subject", we are talking about the time between. And "wrestling"?

You bogusly made it like Martin had nothing to do in that last minute of his life except to dial his phone.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Apparantly licensed gun owners are no longer allowed to defend themselves against young black attackers.

Back to race?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

But once again that is not what I said. If you were "caught" defending you life on a public street with an unlicensed gun you were carrying concealed, you will likely be charged and convicted of manslaughter, even if the shoot was justified.

What a distortion. I talked about a potential victim grabbing the gun from the perp attacking him. And you turn it to carrying a gun without a license.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You just said that: "there is no evidence that he didn't threaten Martin with his gun", so imagine the shoe on the other foot, and that Martin had beat Zimmerman within an inch of his life, and then gotten the gun and shot him. No injuries, no evidence that Zimmerman made such a threat. Martin would be in serious trouble, and it would be because of your side's gun laws.

No, it would be for lack of evidence. If the gun was registered to Zimmerman, then Martin would not likely have been carrying illegally.It would be a matter of believing he story just as you want Zimmerman's story believed.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You don't want justice?

No. It's to show that two lies can outweigh one truth. But what is believed become the effective truth whether it is the truth or not.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

[The investigation being made public] would be evidence how?

Won't know if or how until it is out there.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I'm very sorry you disapprove of our Constitution and the Justice system it created, which has been overthrown to a certain extent by DimocRATs. You seem to be implying that Rioting and violence is justified in order to force the State to presecute someone for which the evidence of guilt doesn't exist.

No, I'm not implying that at all. But you don't trust the justice system. So you don't want it to make it to court. The protests and riot shouldn't affect it. But neither should they be necessary to get justice.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It's not a spin. The Special Prosecutor wasn't appointed because the Sanford Police Department was at fault, she was appointed to prosecute and convict Zimmerman in order to appease black rioters.

Your opinion. Your spin.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Oh I don't repeat the spin cycle since I got a new washer.

So the spin is automatic?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

There is no evidence they didn't look.

No evidence they did either.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Wouldn't necessarilty show in wet grass.

Wet grass doesn't spring up as the leaves tend to be glued together by the moisture. Additionally, depending on the soil, mud will glue the grass down. That would leave a trail showing if Zimmerman was on the sidewalk, where rain would wash them away, or that he deviated from the route he said he took.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You can tell Zimmerman made a gun threat, (an actual criminal gun threat, from footprints?

No. But we could see where to two were before the fight began.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That's not what I said.

You said he had lawyers. He didn't when he first talked to the police.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

But you said earlier: So how can it be not admissiable if the Porsecution can use it?

I said the defense can't use it.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And if the Poor execution uses it, then the Defense can cross examine.

That is correct. If the "Poor execution" brings it in, they might indeed be "poor".

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You're the one straying from those facts.

I never strayed to them.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You said that was a rumor. There was also a rumor that Zimmerman made a racial slur, another rumor that he stated without being asked that Martin was black. There was another rumor that he wasn't even arrested and questioned. Another rumor stated that he was not even injured. A person defending those rumors could state: "They must be true, why else would they be reported?"

But you see, through examination some proved true and some proved false. That what the trial will be about.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, it's the law.

Prove it!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

How would he know they weren't going to look? Earlier youj stated his clarvoyence was defective,

Well maybe he did "sanitize the scene."

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Then why did you accuse me of defective thinking?

You've showed it.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Verdict? Did the paramedic testify at the "hearing"?

You've already ruled him innocent.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If you "don't" see the difference, then why don't you think there's a good chance Zimmerman would be or will be killed?

But I do.

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jtdc

The DA had better connections so they decided to make the chief the sacrificial lamb.

And you have evidence" of that?

But we all draw conclusion from the evidence. And they often differ.

That doesn't justify your conclusion, especially when you have an obvious bias, and you are basing it on the lack of evidence. .

They will listen to more than you and Zimmerman's lawyer.

Still doesn't make it just. You see, most people want a justice system that is actually just.

But by then Zimmerman was lawyered up and in hiding. Unless he gave up his tight, they have to try in trial.

He was hiding because the New Black Panthers had put out a contract on his life. But they still could have called hin inot the station, and he could have declined to answer. But all of that is hypothetical because no other injuries were found on Martin.

I didn't say it proved anything. I said it is a reason for questions. The lack of evidence of evolution does not prove it doesn't exist, just that there is no conclusive proof.

Sure, Questions! But some questions can never be answered. I don't know why you want people tried in the United States simply because there are "questions".

But you didn't Is your judgment defective?

Well, that's a slightly softer pronouncement than you have been pushing.

As opposed to your sides view for which there is no evidence.

In your opinion.

Then show evidence that he has lied!

That we are aware of.

Of course! The first DA broke into the Sanford police evidence room and destroyed it. The lead investigator lied about it because he was in cahoots with the KKK.

I didn't speculate about that. Just pulling the weapon can say it all.

You speculated about everything else.

Some jump for cover.

Nope, the 1/2 second is over before you even notice.

He would only need time to throw the punch. That would stop Zimmerman from being able to point the gun at him. After that would be a fight for the gun.

No, in the 1/2 second, (this is only hypothetical, because there is no evidence whatsoever that Zimmerman drew the gun on him before being pummmeled knocked to the ground, and having his head beat into the concrete before he could aim) Martin would only have time to react to the gun being pulled, Zimmerman could have shot before Martin threw a punch.

I agree. Another question to look into.

Perhaps the same "garbler" that garbled Zimmerman;s recording and made him seem to have uttered a racial slur, knocked out Martin's only evidence of his murder.

By pursuing him.

Who can you pursue someone you have lost sight of? You know, Martin is darkskined and he was wearing dark clothing, and it was dark and rainy out.

Pieced together it might tell his story.

Yes, but his story might be: Oh heck! that dude has a gun, I shouldn;t have attacked him!"

No! In a criminal case the Prosecutor acts as adversary to the defense. They are not obligated to present both sides.

No witholding exculpory evidence is cause for dismissal for Prosecutor misconduct. They don't represent the victim, they represent the interests of the State.

You bogusly made it like Martin had nothing to do in that last minute of his life except to dial his phone.

Yes, he was so busy, beating the hell out of Zimmerman!

Back to race?

Black mobs ONLY riot when black youth are involved.

What a distortion. I talked about a potential victim grabbing the gun from the perp attacking him. And you turn it to carrying a gun without a license.

Zimmerman is licensed to carry, Martin is not, and is too young to even qualify. It is a federal crime to leave a gun unattended where a minor, in this case someone under 21!, where they can gain access to it. Your side's antigun laws make it harder for everyone to defend their lives, those are simply the facts.

No, it would be for lack of evidence. If the gun was registered to Zimmerman, then Martin would not likely have been carrying illegally.It would be a matter of believing he story just as you want Zimmerman's story believed.

No, there's plenty of evidence. Zimmerman's gun is his, and with numerous injuries to Zimmerman and no injuries on Martin, he would have some serious explaining as to why he killed Zimmerman when there was no evidence he was in fear for his life. His reaction should have been, hypothetically to hold the gun on Zimmerman and use his cell phone to call police.

No. It's to show that two lies can outweigh one truth. But what is believed become the effective truth whether it is the truth or not.

You made your point, however, it is invalid in this case. There aren't witnesses that contradict what Zimmerman said. It seems all of your scenarios are similarly flawed.

Won't know if or how until it is out there.

It doesn't matter. The racial extortionists only care about one result. You see, when the media was reporting the exact opposite of the truth, they all only increased their call for "justice". but when the actual information came out, they claimed it didn't matter, (or some people denied it existed altogether.)

No, I'm not implying that at all. But you don't trust the justice system. So you don't want it to make it to court. The protests and riot shouldn't affect it. But neither should they be necessary to get justice.

I have nothing to do with that. I have NO influence, I have NO say. It is irrelevant regarding "what I want". The decision to prosecute or not was up to the actual DA. But after weeks of threats and protests, and "out of the blue", a Special Prosecutor is appointed, and "low and behold", a Prosecution for Murder 2, the highest possible without taking a chance on a Grand Jury examining the "evidence" which alledgedly doesn't exist, to decide if a trail is even warranted.

Your opinion. Your spin.

You're in DENIAL!

So the spin is automatic?

Of course.

No evidence they did either.

Of course there is, they didn't find it.

Wet grass doesn't spring up as the leaves tend to be glued together by the moisture. Additionally, depending on the soil, mud will glue the grass down. That would leave a trail showing if Zimmerman was on the sidewalk, where rain would wash them away, or that he deviated from the route he said he took.

I don't know Zimmerman said he took a certain route. What if he was on the sidewalk or the street until the time Martin knocked him down and assaulted him? What if there was a rock garden or flagstones? St. Augustine is much more susceptable to leaving footprints than rye or bluegrass, which swell when wet. Mud can smear when someone runs making tracking a specific type of footprint impossible. According to you, Zimmemran;s statement isn't evidence anyway, so even assuming he was incredibly specific about each step he took, and asuming the footprint evidence even existed or was distinguishable, it's a very big stretch. Of course, the Sanford police didn't investigate it anyway, so it still doesn't exist.

No. But we could see where to two were before the fight began.

Not if they were on the sidewalk. And it probably isn't significant.

You said he had lawyers. He didn't when he first talked to the police.

He wasn't charged.

I said the defense can't use it.

Not true! If the Prosecution were to enter it into evidence, the Defense could use it.

That is correct. If the "Poor execution" brings it in, they might indeed be "poor".

Very true. Yet, if they don't enter Zimmerman's story into evidence, then they can't contend he lied. "Oh what a tangled web we weave when first The Prosecution practise[s] to deceive".

I never strayed to them.

But you called them "facts".

But you see, through examination some proved true and some proved false. That what the trial will be about.

I think you have the conception of a trial somewhat skewed. A jury is only supposed to consider the evidence presented to it, not speculation or pre-conceived notions, speculations, or opinions. What the DA did or didn;t do, is irrelevant to the charges broufght against Zimmerman, and will never be examined by the jury because they never will be presented.

Prove it!

source

It is unlawful for:....

•A minor less than 18 years of age to possess a firearm, other than an unloaded firearm at his home, unless engaged in lawful activities.....

Well maybe he did "sanitize the scene."

Sounds like a cop out to me.

You've showed it.

You already said, "it's not".

You've already ruled him innocent.

The paramedic IS innocent. I was just trying to find out is he testifies at the hearing.

But I do.

So there is a difference!

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And you have evidence" of that?

Of course! They did it!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That doesn't justify your conclusion, especially when you have an obvious bias, and you are basing it on the lack of evidence. .

No, it is based on possibilities that need to be eliminated.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Still doesn't make it just. You see, most people want a justice system that is actually just.

And you want a justice system that doesn't try anybody when there isn't crystal clear evidence.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

He was hiding because the New Black Panthers had put out a contract on his life.

Which came first the chicken or the egg? We have another case brewing in Virginia where two reporters were beaten up by blacks. I see where you get you "local authority" from. In that state the Attorney General stated that he does not have the authority in that state to intervene in the county's investigation. It's not that way in Florida. So if that black mob lynched that white couple, and the Sheriff concluded no law was broken, it would seem that only the Feds could intervene.

But there seem to be similarities. Police changed what the violation was. They apparently dragged their feet in the investigation. Was there a DA behind it?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

But they still could have called hin inot the station, and he could have declined to answer.

He could have at the beginning.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

But all of that is hypothetical because no other injuries were found on Martin.

Spin cycle!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I don't know why you want people tried in the United States simply because there are "questions".

Because "a possibly innocent 17 year old would have been murdered and the perpetrator would have never been held accountable."

There is a case where a man's wife fell and died in the bathroom. He said she died because of a tanning spray she was using. The coroner, not convince of the innocence of the husband, found a mark which convinced him, and the man is now charged with murder. Google. There was "no evidence" until the coroner looked for it.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

As opposed to your sides view for which there is no evidence.

Back to the spin cycle!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Then show evidence that he has lied!

Your learning curve is non-existent.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So what evidence is there that Zimmerman lied?

I know, you didn't use the exact same words both times so, for you, it's not repeating yourself.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Of course! The first DA broke into the Sanford police evidence room and destroyed it. The lead investigator lied about it because he was in cahoots with the KKK.

Great theory. Was used in the O.J. trial. But I didn't say it. So don't blame me for your fertile imagination (or was it plagiarism?).

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You speculated about everything else.

Then document what I did say. But don't attribute to me which you know are your own lies.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Nope, the 1/2 second is over before you even notice.

So we are in the old West with quick-draw shootouts? Has Zimmerman been tested for his quick-draw skills?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Martin would only have time to react to the gun being pulled, Zimmerman could have shot before Martin threw a punch.

By punching him in the nose!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Who can you pursue someone you have lost sight of? You know, Martin is darkskined and he was wearing dark clothing, and it was dark and rainy out.

More racism?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No witholding exculpory evidence is cause for dismissal for Prosecutor misconduct.

So what exculpatory evidence did they withhold?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

They don't represent the victim, they represent the interests of the State.

The victim has no other representation.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Yes, he was so busy, beating the hell out of Zimmerman!

So you admit he couldn't dial 911!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Zimmerman is licensed to carry, Martin is not, and is too young to even qualify. It is a federal crime to leave a gun unattended where a minor, in this case someone under 21!, where they can gain access to it.

Then Zimmerman is in trouble. He should have left the gun in his car. Because, according to his own apparent words, Martin saw the gun and reached for it.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Zimmerman's gun is his, and with numerous injuries to Zimmerman and no injuries on Martin, he would have some serious explaining as to why he killed Zimmerman when there was no evidence he was in fear for his life.

Of course you don't have the same standard for the guy who actually did kill another.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

His reaction should have been, hypothetically to hold the gun on Zimmerman and use his cell phone to call police.

So you say he should have held a gun, he isn't supposed to touch, on Zimmerman's head and call police, but Zimmerman is OK to kill Martin without being obligated to the same standard?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You made your point, however, it is invalid in this case. There aren't witnesses that contradict what Zimmerman said. It seems all of your scenarios are similarly flawed.

You apparently missed the point, which it that all could be wrong.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It doesn't matter. The racial extortionists only care about one result. You see, when the media was reporting the exact opposite of the truth, they all only increased their call for "justice". but when the actual information came out, they claimed it didn't matter, (or some people denied it existed altogether.)

So you don't care about justice, just how the racists react to the case?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I don't know Zimmerman said he took a certain route. What if he was on the sidewalk or the street until the time Martin knocked him down and assaulted him?

Then there should be none of his footprints, leading to that point, on the grass.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

What if there was a rock garden or flagstones? St. Augustine is much more susceptable to leaving footprints than rye or bluegrass, which swell when wet. Mud can smear when someone runs making tracking a specific type of footprint impossible.

I would expect investigators to testify to such facts.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

According to you, Zimmemran;s statement isn't evidence anyway,

In court!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

so even assuming he was incredibly specific about each step he took, and asuming the footprint evidence even existed or was distinguishable, it's a very big stretch.

His father said he walked over to the next street. Now, since it was raining I would expect him to stay on the sidewalk (unless he was stalking somebody).

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Of course, the Sanford police didn't investigate it anyway, so it still doesn't exist.

And if they didn't, such evidence is lost. You can follow footprints in the snow. But if you wait for the blizzard to pass, they evidence will be lost forever.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Not if they were on the sidewalk. And it probably isn't significant.

Or very significant. But you wouldn't ask because it might not go the way you want.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

He wasn't charged.

So you were wrong.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Not true! If the Prosecution were to enter it into evidence, the Defense could use it.

You keep ignoring that I already said that, several times. But your learning curve is, again, evidently non-existent.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Very true. Yet, if they don't enter Zimmerman's story into evidence, then they can't contend he lied.

Right! Then he will have killed a man and presented no explanation.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

But you called them "facts".

They are!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

What the DA did or didn;t do, is irrelevant to the charges broufght against Zimmerman, and will never be examined by the jury because they never will be presented.

Then Zimmerman's attorney will be "poor".

Originally Posted by Rifleman

source

From your source:

It is unlawful for:
[snip]
A minor less than 18 years of age to possess a firearm, other than an unloaded firearm at his home, unless engaged in lawful activities.

Like defending himself from a attack by an armed assailant?

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jtdc

Of course! They did it!

Not the action the reason.

No, it is based on possibilities that need to be eliminated.

If there is no evidence you can't eliminate it.

And you want a justice system that doesn't try anybody when there isn't crystal clear evidence.

No, I want a Justice system that follows due process.

Which came first the chicken or the egg? We have another case brewing in Virginia where two reporters were beaten up by blacks. I see where you get you "local authority" from. In that state the Attorney General stated that he does not have the authority in that state to intervene in the county's investigation. It's not that way in Florida. So if that black mob lynched that white couple, and the Sheriff concluded no law was broken, it would seem that only the Feds could intervene.

Oh the "mob" called the police and admitted that they beat the two reporters in self defense, and have injuries to prove it?

But there seem to be similarities. Police changed what the violation was. They apparently dragged their feet in the investigation. Was there a DA behind it?

There is more evidence to support Zimmerman's story than similarities. The only similarities are the appeasement of black mobs.

He could have at the beginning.
Spin cycle!

But he didn't.

Because "a possibly innocent 17 year old would have been murdered and the perpetrator would have never been held accountable."

He wasn't "possibly innocent", he beat Zimmerman. I guess you haven't heard, Zimmerman had a broken nose and multiple lacerations on the back of his head.

There is a case where a man's wife fell and died in the bathroom. He said she died because of a tanning spray she was using. The coroner, not convince of the innocence of the husband, found a mark which convinced him, and the man is now charged with murder. Google. There was "no evidence" until the coroner looked for it.

But that isn't what you want, you want people charged BEFORE evidence is found.

Back to the spin cycle!

No, no spin. You think perhaps a repetitive phrase will cover you? "A possibility" with no evidence should not be "explored by a jury.

Your learning curve is non-existent.I know, you didn't use the exact same words both times so, for you, it's not repeating yourself.

I am onlty repetitive because you insist on repeating the same old garbage.

Great theory. Was used in the O.J. trial. But I didn't say it. So don't blame me for your fertile imagination (or was it plagiarism?).

You wouldn't recognize sarcasm if it bit you in the ....

Then document what I did say. But don't attribute to me which you know are your own lies.

I haven't lied, so how could I know what they are?

So we are in the old West with quick-draw shootouts? Has Zimmerman been tested for his quick-draw skills?

New styled automatic pistols are faster than the old six shooters.

By punching him in the nose!

Then he would have been shot then, not after his attack. Zimmerman would have no lacerations on the back of his head, So your speculation is inaccurate.

More racism?

No that's a physical appearance. You stereotyped him as dancing to music.

So what exculpatory evidence did they withhold?

The entire investigation!

The victim has no other representation.

Correct!

So you admit he couldn't dial 911!

No, he decided to beat the h*** out of Zimmerman instead!

Then Zimmerman is in trouble. He should have left the gun in his car. Because, according to his own apparent words, Martin saw the gun and reached for it.

No, unattended! Zimmerman prevented Martin from reaching the gun.

Of course you don't have the same standard for the guy who actually did kill another.

That's the State of Florida's standard, I have nothing to do with it. The "same" standard doesn't apply. Tell it to Sharpton and Schumer!

So you say he should have held a gun, he isn't supposed to touch, on Zimmerman's head and call police, but Zimmerman is OK to kill Martin without being obligated to the same standard?

It's not the same standard! Zimmerman is licensed to carry concealed in public and owns the gun he was carrying. He sustained numerous injuries before using his legally owned and possessed gun. In your hypothetical, Martin spies the gun, beats the heck out of Zimerman, takes the gun and then kills Zimmerman. That wouldn't be justified. That is aggravated robbery and murder.

You apparently missed the point, which it that all could be wrong.

No, I saw your point, it's extremely weak.

So you don't care about justice, just how the racists react to the case?

I wouldn't care about them if the State wasn't appeasing the racists.

Then there should be none of his footprints, leading to that point, on the grass.

Let's use your logic. They didn't find them so they must not have been there.

I would expect investigators to testify to such facts.

They won't unless such is pertinant.

In court!

I just explained how it could be evidence incourt.

His father said he walked over to the next street. Now, since it was raining I would expect him to stay on the sidewalk (unless he was stalking somebody).

I didn't see walking in the grass as an indication of "Stalking".

And if they didn't, such evidence is lost. You can follow footprints in the snow. But if you wait for the blizzard to pass, they evidence will be lost forever.

It rarely snows in Florida.

Or very significant. But you wouldn't ask because it might not go the way you want.

If I was trying to impose "the way I want", I would riot because that's all that the Special Prosecutor and the Florida State Justice system respond to.

So you were wrong.

No, he wasn't charged until a Special Prosecutor was appointed.

You keep ignoring that I already said that, several times. But your learning curve is, again, evidently non-existent.

It's not "my laerning curve" it's what you are trying to pass as facts. You quoted the lead investigator. I said he was lying because Zimmerman apparantly told the police Martin attacked him, because that statement is evidence. You them went into this prolonged debate on that the defense couldn;t use Zimmerman's statement, to which I replied on at least two occassions, that it is still evidence and if the Prosecution introduces it as evidence, they can also use it. Either way Zimmerman;s statement is evidence, and WE KNOW your insistance that someone who shoots aq "possibly innocent" 17 yo. should not be relied upon.

Right! Then he will have killed a man and presented no explanation.

Then the Prosecution has no case. Dismissed! Oh. we have a dead body? How was he killed? No gun? No shooter? Oh, but if you introduce the gun, and the "shooter" you would have to reference Zimmerman's statement where he had the gun and admitted shooting Martin in self defense.

They are!

Then why did you never "stray to them"?

Then Zimmerman's attorney will be "poor".

Really? How?

From your source:

Like defending himself from a attack by an armed assailant?

It's not a lawful activity.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, I want a Justice system that follows due process.

That seems to be what they are doing. Just not the way you want.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Oh the "mob" called the police and admitted that they beat the two reporters in self defense, and have injuries to prove it?

Where did you see that?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

He wasn't "possibly innocent", he beat Zimmerman.

They he should have waited for the police and had charges file against him. Instead, he played judge, jury and executioner, all in about a minute.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I guess you haven't heard, Zimmerman had a broken nose and multiple lacerations on the back of his head.

In case you haven't heard, Martin was killed for walking in the rain.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

But that isn't what you want, you want people charged BEFORE evidence is found.

You want licensed gun owners to be able to kill without consequence.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, no spin. You think perhaps a repetitive phrase will cover you? "A possibility" with no evidence should not be "explored by a jury.

If it is not a "possibility", it is usually pleaded out with no jury involvement.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I am onlty repetitive because you insist on repeating the same old garbage.

You are the leader in that.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You wouldn't recognize sarcasm if it bit you in the ....

Unfortunately writing leaves out voice inflections and facial expressions. So most people add Smileys.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I haven't lied, so how could I know what they are?

You just make things up.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

New styled automatic pistols are faster than the old six shooters.

So? Police have theirs strapped in. They will open the strap when they think they will be to using it. A concealed weapon is not in a side holster where it can be quickly accessed. Did Zimmerman unstrap his because he expected to use it? Was there a Pit bull roaming nearby in the rain? Or did he have to fumble with the strap before he could get that gun out in that "1/2 second"?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Then he would have been shot then, not after his attack. Zimmerman would have no lacerations on the back of his head, So your speculation is inaccurate.

You skip a lot of facts to get to that point. Did he just punch him in the nose and magically was then on top of him when the witnesses saw him?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No that's a physical appearance. You stereotyped him as dancing to music.

That's age discrimination, not racism.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, unattended! Zimmerman prevented Martin from reaching the gun.

So he claims. So to protect the youth from hurting himself with a gun, he shot him with it. Unfortunately that what police and other government employees do all too often.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That's the State of Florida's standard, I have nothing to do with it. The "same" standard doesn't apply. Tell it to Sharpton and Schumer!

So you don't have the spine to stand up for your own words.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It's not the same standard! Zimmerman is licensed to carry concealed in public and owns the gun he was carrying.

But not to kill someone illegally with it.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

He sustained numerous injuries before using his legally owned and possessed gun.

So he got mad and got revenge. Second Degree Murder!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

In your hypothetical, Martin spies the gun, beats the heck out of Zimerman, takes the gun and then kills Zimmerman.

WRONG AS USUAL! My hypothetical was that Zimmerman drew his gun and threatened Martin with it. Martin beat the heck out of Zimmerman trying to disarm him.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That wouldn't be justified. That is aggravated robbery and murder.

Not if my hypothetical was the fact.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, I saw your point, it's extremely weak.

So you responded with "spin"!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Let's use your logic. They didn't find them so they must not have been there.

Did they look?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I didn't see walking in the grass as an indication of "Stalking".

Of course. You don't see anything that might indicate that you guy is guilty.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It rarely snows in Florida.

So they shouldn't delay an investigation.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If I was trying to impose "the way I want", I would riot because that's all that the Special Prosecutor and the Florida State Justice system respond to.

Waiting to see that.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, he wasn't charged until a Special Prosecutor was appointed.

He might have gotten away with murder.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

it is still evidence and if the Prosecution introduces it as evidence, they can also use it.

But the defense can't introduce it.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Either way Zimmerman;s statement is evidence,

But not admissible by the defense.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Then the Prosecution has no case. Dismissed!

WRONG! They have a body and the person who killed Martin. The defense must explain that.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Oh. we have a dead body? How was he killed? No gun? No shooter? Oh, but if you introduce the gun, and the "shooter" you would have to reference Zimmerman's statement where he had the gun and admitted shooting Martin in self defense.

No! You have the gun. Witnesses show Zimmerman to be the person who was the shooter. But under the Best Evidence Rules, Zimmerman will have to take the stand to testify that it was self defense. At that point he is open to cross examination.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Really? How?

If the attorney doesn't question the detectives, it would be a poor defense.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It's not a lawful activity.

Defending yourself is not lawful? That's what this is all about. The question is who was protecting themselves from who?