Witness: Martin attacked Zimmerman

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jtdc

An opinion by a person posting on another forum who drinks the Kool-aid, and you buy into it?

It's one thing to have a thoughtful response based on existing evidence and sound reasoning, it is quite another for you to slam David simply because you prefer another flavor of Koolaid!

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It's one thing to have a thoughtful response based on existing evidence and sound reasoning, it is quite another for you to slam David simply because you prefer another flavor of Koolaid!

I would expect him to link to some renown "authority" like Alan Dershowitz, not some poster on another forum who has no more expertise than you or I.

As for recent evidence, I'm on the fence. That he gave the reenactment for the police would seem to indicate nothing to hide. I did that when I was accused. Later a lawyer chewed me out for trusting the police. It worked for me because that cop was good.

In Zimmerman's video he makes statements that as far as I have seen, are false. Some commentators say that may bite him. The discussions are interesting as if the Prosecution brings in some of those tapes it opens the Defense to bring in all of the tapes in lieu of Zimmerman taking the stand where he would be cross-examined.

Against Zimmerman's credibility, his wife transferred money out of that Internet account in increments. Zimmerman was involved as he talked to the bank manager on one occasion. Then the money was transferred back in as soon as he was out of jail. The money was apparently used to pay off credit cards, personal use, not defense funds.

In his reenactment tape he said that the reason he got out of the car "after" the police dispatcher told him not to go after the "suspect" was to find the address. The official recording of that call shows he was already out of the car and running when the dispatcher told him not to follow the suspect.

Zimmerman says he was not familiar with that street, the reason he did not know where he was at, yet he said he knew which house had been "robbed" and that the "suspect" wasn't from around there.

Zimmerman describes Martin circling his car, which he told the dispatcher. But that is not on the tapes. Since his recollection is the only version available, inconsistencies can be a very big thing.

His statement about the gun is suspicious as well. He "thought" Martin saw his gun while they were fighting. But he talked of Martin reaching in his jacket going for the gun which was on his waist. Why would Martin not go directly for the gun as Zimmerman did, if that what happened?

On the outside, the Police Chief was fired for not arresting Zimmerman that night. Political? Possible. But certainly shows there is not a unanimous opinion.

Is that what you were craving for?

[Rifleman]

[quote=jtdc;311319]I would expect him to link to some renown "authority" like Alan Dershowitz, not some poster on another forum who has no more expertise than you or I.[quote]

Why, it hasn't made a difference to you in the past.

As for recent evidence, I'm on the fence. That he gave the reenactment for the police would seem to indicate nothing to hide. I did that when I was accused. Later a lawyer chewed me out for trusting the police. It worked for me because that cop was good.

Of course, Who would have thought the Left was going to make it into a new Holocoust?

In Zimmerman's video he makes statements that as far as I have seen, are false. Some commentators say that may bite him. The discussions are interesting as if the Prosecution brings in some of those tapes it opens the Defense to bring in all of the tapes in lieu of Zimmerman taking the stand where he would be cross-examined.

I don't see how. Why would the Defense release the tapes if it were to hurt him?

Against Zimmerman's credibility, his wife transferred money out of that Internet account in increments. Zimmerman was involved as he talked to the bank manager on one occasion. Then the money was transferred back in as soon as he was out of jail. The money was apparently used to pay off credit cards, personal use, not defense funds.

So how does he do that in jail?

In his reenactment tape he said that the reason he got out of the car "after" the police dispatcher told him not to go after the "suspect" was to find the address. The official recording of that call shows he was already out of the car and running when the dispatcher told him not to follow the suspect.

Not everyone has total recall.

Zimmerman says he was not familiar with that street, the reason he did not know where he was at, yet he said he knew which house had been "robbed" and that the "suspect" wasn't from around there.

So where is the discrepancy, other than in your mind? The video was after the fact, and in daylight, yes he would then know the exact location the name of the street and the house where he, as an active Neighborhood watch member, would likely know which house was robbed. And Martin WASN'T from there, he was only there because he was suspended from school for totally innocent acts tyotally unrelateed to what happened that night.

Zimmerman describes Martin circling his car, which he told the dispatcher. But that is not on the tapes. Since his recollection is the only version available, inconsistencies can be a very big thing.

No, inconsistancies are quite normal, as few have a total understanding and awareness of what is going on at all times. Stress, and such distort relity such as the long noted phenomenum of seemingly suspending or slowing down time.

His statement about the gun is suspicious as well. He "thought" Martin saw his gun while they were fighting. But he talked of Martin reaching in his jacket going for the gun which was on his waist. Why would Martin not go directly for the gun as Zimmerman did, if that what happened?

From what I heard, hebelieved that Martin saw the gun because he told him he was going to die.

On the outside, the Police Chief was fired for not arresting Zimmerman that night. Political? Possible. But certainly shows there is not a unanimous opinion.

Totally political. It's like the accusation of Racial profiling, in order to justify a murder 2 charge, when there is no evidence of racial profiling. Like I noted the several times you stated that race isn't a part of this case. If Martin wasn't black, there would be no trial.

Is that what you were craving for?

No, a little more thoughtful a lot less Koolaid.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Why, it hasn't made a difference to you in the past.

So it's all about what's important to me now?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I don't see how. Why would the Defense release the tapes if it were to hurt him?

As I have pointed out in previous posts, Zimmerman can't present such material in his defense. He has to tell his story from the stand which exposes him to cross-examination. The idea which you and some others hold is that these latest videos support his story. But his lawyer can't present them. However if the Prosecution presents any part of them it opens the door for the Defense to present them.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So how does he do that in jail?

He and his wife had many telephone calls each day he was in jail. And at least one was to the bank by Zimmerman himself. It is much like a crime boss running the organization from in jail.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Not everyone has total recall.

And that is the problem with lying and putting it on record.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So where is the discrepancy, other than in your mind? The video was after the fact, and in daylight, yes he would then know the exact location the name of the street and the house where he, as an active Neighborhood watch member, would likely know which house was robbed.

But in the video he was saying this was what happened before he killed Martin. He said that Martin was looking at the house that had been robbed. But in the conversations he said he followed the "suspect" in his car. When he called the police dispatcher and didn't know his location he said he got out of his car to find an address. Why not backup to where the street signs were?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And Martin WASN'T from there, he was only there because he was suspended from school for totally innocent acts tyotally unrelateed to what happened that night.

Back to your mantra!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, inconsistancies are quite normal, as few have a total understanding and awareness of what is going on at all times. Stress, and such distort relity such as the long noted phenomenum of seemingly suspending or slowing down time.

But what he said to the police dispatcher was before he had a stressful encounter. And they are recorded, not left to memory. What he said on the reenactment video after contradicts what is borne out by the evidence.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

From what I heard, hebelieved that Martin saw the gun because he told him he was going to die.

So which came first? The chicken or the egg. He apparently said one thing in the interrogation and something else in the reenactment video.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Totally political. It's like the accusation of Racial profiling, in order to justify a murder 2 charge, when there is no evidence of racial profiling.

Again, the downfall of doing the reenactment video. On that he said he was taught to profile in the Neighborhood Watch orientation.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Like I noted the several times you stated that race isn't a part of this case.

Wrong! I said the law doesn't consider race.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If Martin wasn't black, there would be no trial.

So if it was a white guy that Zimmerman killed, they would just let it slide?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, a little more thoughtful a lot less Koolaid.

Well you were thirsty for more than I gave.

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jtdc

So it's all about what's important to me now?

No, you would complain and attack it either way.

As I have pointed out in previous posts, Zimmerman can't present such material in his defense. He has to tell his story from the stand which exposes him to cross-examination. The idea which you and some others hold is that these latest videos support his story. But his lawyer can't present them. However if the Prosecution presents any part of them it opens the door for the Defense to present them.

So what is wrong with cross examination? There are a variety of reasons a Defense Attorney will or won't put a defendant on the witness stand. And as I pointed out the last few times you have pointed it out, if the videos, which Zimmerman willingly made, are so inconsistant, why wouldn;t the prosecution present them? And if the prosecution doesn't have the evidence, (which it doesn't) there will be no need for the Defense to present Zimmerman's story.

He and his wife had many telephone calls each day he was in jail. And at least one was to the bank by Zimmerman himself. It is much like a crime boss running the organization from in jail.

Oh really? What crime was committed by having a paypal account? I haven't contributed, so I don;t know if there is some sort of representation that donations will be exclusively reserved to pay the defense lawyer. And is your wife calling you in prison also a crime? Why isn't Trayvon charged with calling his girlfriend? ut, I'm not surprised you would attach something sinister to Zimmerman's legal actions. You already have done so!

And that is the problem with lying and putting it on record.

No, you're labelling it lying.

But in the video he was saying this was what happened before he killed Martin. He said that Martin was looking at the house that had been robbed. But in the conversations he said he followed the "suspect" in his car. When he called the police dispatcher and didn't know his location he said he got out of his car to find an address. Why not backup to where the street signs were?

So where's the inconsistancy?

Back to your mantra!

But what he said to the police dispatcher was before he had a stressful encounter. And they are recorded, not left to memory. What he said on the reenactment video after contradicts what is borne out by the evidence.

Which is why any person should be careful of what they say to the police. Incomplete and innocent gaps in recollection will be used as evidence of perjury and cover up by a dishonest prosecutor. That's exactly what happened to Scooter Libby, and what almost happened to Alberto Gonzales. And why Obama claimed Executive priviledge regarding Fast & Furious.

So which came first? The chicken or the egg. He apparently said one thing in the interrogation and something else in the reenactment video.

Really? Ever watch the movie Vantage Point?

Again, the downfall of doing the reenactment video. On that he said he was taught to profile in the Neighborhood Watch orientation.

That would be as bogus as your "Intent to Follow" accusation being the same as criminal "Stalking". All Police and investigative agencies are "taught to profile." The FBI has a special division that specializes in profiling. One of my Sargeants in the Air Force was Puerto Rican and drove a red Camaro. He was stopped and nearly shot in Modesto before he realized that the police were seriously considering him a criminal. The report they recieved was that a Hispanoc Male in a red Camero had committed a murder.

Wrong! I said the law doesn't consider race.

Well wrong again!

So if it was a white guy that Zimmerman killed, they would just let it slide?

Sure! Where have you been the past 3 months?

Well you were thirsty for more than I gave.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, you would complain and attack it either way.

And I did about Dershowitz. But he is a know quantity unlike the guy David linked to.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So what is wrong with cross examination? There are a variety of reasons a Defense Attorney will or won't put a defendant on the witness stand. And as I pointed out the last few times you have pointed it out, if the videos, which Zimmerman willingly made, are so inconsistant, why wouldn;t the prosecution present them?

Therein lies the trap for both sides. Sandusky just forwent taking the stand for a similar reason. The Prosecution would want to question him to find cracks in his story. Video and other recordings can't be questioned. So they can hope to create enough doubt to force him to take the stand. For Zimmerman, the more inconsistencies the more he would have to explain if he took the stand. They could put Martin's girlfriend on the stand and have her testify that Zimmerman attacked Martin. Then what? There is no testimony other than what Zimmerman can give to contradict that. If the Defense rested with only her version of the events, unchallenged, how much doubt would the jury have?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And if the prosecution doesn't have the evidence, (which it doesn't) there will be no need for the Defense to present Zimmerman's story.

Well then, you have nothing to worry about.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Oh really? What crime was committed by having a paypal account?

You really like to play dumb! Why is Zimmerman's wife facing perjury charges? You try to argue that he didn't control that account. But the evidence doesn't support you. And since the telephone recordings and records show him conspiring with his wife to hide the money, and that he kept that information from his attorney, it's legal technicalities that protected him from perjury.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I haven't contributed, so I don;t know if there is some sort of representation that donations will be exclusively reserved to pay the defense lawyer.

The site is no longer so I can't look to see what was represented.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And is your wife calling you in prison also a crime?

If it is to conspire to commit a crime, yes!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Why isn't Trayvon charged with calling his girlfriend?

Because he's dead?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

ut, I'm not surprised you would attach something sinister to Zimmerman's legal actions. You already have done so!

So I've used my one suspicion. Now he must go free even if he murdered Martin?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, you're labelling it lying.

Yes. It seems to have been manufactured after the fact.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So where's the inconsistancy?

Try re-reading my question.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Really? Ever watch the movie Vantage Point?

I may have, but I don't recall. What's your point?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

That would be as bogus as your "Intent to Follow" accusation being the same as criminal "Stalking". All Police and investigative agencies are "taught to profile."

But his claims were that he didn't profile.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Well wrong again!

???

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jtdc

And I did about Dershowitz. But he is a know quantity unlike the guy David linked to.

And thus, unlike the Special Prosecutor, has no personal "stakes" in the trial. even though he is liberal, he has been shown correct on the Second Amendment, and on a number of issues. Corey, OTOH is unprofessional and sggressive.

Therein lies the trap for both sides. Sandusky just forwent taking the stand for a similar reason. The Prosecution would want to question him to find cracks in his story. Video and other recordings can't be questioned. So they can hope to create enough doubt to force him to take the stand. For Zimmerman, the more inconsistencies the more he would have to explain if he took the stand. They could put Martin's girlfriend on the stand and have her testify that Zimmerman attacked Martin. Then what? There is no testimony other than what Zimmerman can give to contradict that. If the Defense rested with only her version of the events, unchallenged, how much doubt would the jury have?

No, she would be broken down on cross examination because she had no way of knowing that from the phone call. Perhaps the Prosecution would put her on the stand for that very purpose and subtly accuse the defense of racism.

Well then, you have nothing to worry about.

Unless the jury pool has been contaminated.

You really like to play dumb! Why is Zimmerman's wife facing perjury charges? You try to argue that he didn't control that account. But the evidence doesn't support you. And since the telephone recordings and records show him conspiring with his wife to hide the money, and that he kept that information from his attorney, it's legal technicalities that protected him from perjury.

Play dumb? You attributed evil intentions to Zimmerman's wife visiting him in jail. Or paying bills with the money.

The site is no longer so I can't look to see what was represented.

Yet you stated that it was restricted.

If it is to conspire to commit a crime, yes!

So you assume that if there was a conversation, there was a conspiracy? Seems like the accusations of Racial Profiling and Stalking.

Because he's dead?

No, because that wasn't his crime.

So I've used my one suspicion. Now he must go free even if he murdered Martin?

One suspicion?

Yes. It seems to have been manufactured after the fact.

So you have no evidence of it being lying yet you claim you do.

Try re-reading my question.

I did already. You assert that because Zimmerman didn't "back up" to where the street signs were, he is inconsistant. No at the time he was on the phone to the police, he didn;t want to lose sight of Martin, yet Martin did elude him.

I may have, but I don't recall. What's your point?

People see things from one perspective, while the full truth is unknown. The perspective of events also changes over time as people reflect. Nor were the questions the same So why would anyone even expect the video and the interrogation to be the same? And Zimmerman was amazingly niave. Massod Ayob, a writer for Guns and Ammo magazine, always suggest caution after a justified shooting. Prosecutors and Plaintiff Lawyers often go to great lengths and skirt the bounds of professional ethics, or exceed them if they can get away with it, to get a conviction or judgement against the defendant.

But his claims were that he didn't profile.

In fact, he didn't! Martin was apparantly the only stranger out in the rain.

???

The law DOES consider race.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And thus, unlike the Special Prosecutor, has no personal "stakes" in the trial. even though he is liberal, he has been shown correct on the Second Amendment, and on a number of issues.

But, as you say, he is a liberal which indicates defective thinking.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Corey, OTOH is unprofessional and sggressive.

I can't defend her. But if she is the pivotal factor, every one she is against should be acquitted?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, she would be broken down on cross examination because she had no way of knowing that from the phone call.

If she stated truthfully what she heard on the phone, that is for the jury to decide. While trying to break her down is the tactic used, that wouldn't be getting at the truth. But that's seems to be law.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Perhaps the Prosecution would put her on the stand for that very purpose and subtly accuse the defense of racism.

It would be interesting. I know nothing of Zimmerman's attorney. But after Zimmerman's bail was revoked the attorney didn't seem to be in spin-mode. So maybe he has integrity.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Unless the jury pool has been contaminated.

By the truth?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Play dumb? You attributed evil intentions to Zimmerman's wife visiting him in jail.

Was she arrested for "visiting" her husband in jail? Or was it for her perjury?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Or paying bills with the money.

But she told the court she had no money! You continue to play dumb!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Yet you stated that it was restricted.

After the Bail Hearing when Zimmerman's attorney learned of the account and money in it.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So you assume that if there was a conversation, there was a conspiracy?

Yes. I have heard some of the tapes and seen some of the transcripts which seems conspiratorial.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Seems like the accusations of Racial Profiling and Stalking.

This guy seems to be bad all around. But this is what you hang your hat on. Like your neighbor in Texas who went to your other neighbor's house with a gun, a camera, and a cell-phone, claiming he was in fear for his life and shot the guy to death. You probably defend him because he claimed protection under SYG laws even though he was on your neighbor's property and he was the aggressor.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, because that wasn't his crime.

So you are admitting he didn't commit a crime.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

One suspicion?

Well, you seemed to have put a limit on me.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So you have no evidence of it being lying yet you claim you do.

No, the evidence of the lie is in the conflicting recordings. Since he made the statements in both instances, one has to be false. Did he intentionally lie?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No at the time he was on the phone to the police, he didn;t want to lose sight of Martin, yet Martin did elude him.

But he lost sight of Martin about when the Police Office on the phone told him not to pursue. Why didn't he get back in his car a find a street sign, if he wasn't following (stalking) Martin? It would have been faster that walking over to the next street.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So why would anyone even expect the video and the interrogation to be the same?

Not the same, but consistent. And stating that he told the Police Officer that Martin walked around his car, when he didn't, and saying the officer told him not to follow (stalk) Martin before he got out of his car, when in fact it was after he got out of his car and ran after Martin, that puts his testimony in question, along with other matters of honesty.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

In fact, he didn't!

You don't have proof of that, only the statement of a guy with questionable integrity.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Martin was apparantly the only stranger out in the rain.

And Zimmerman followed him down a street he was not familiar with from inside his car.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The law DOES consider race.

Which law applying to Zimmerman, be it Second Degree Murder or the SYG law, mentions race?

[David]

DRUDGE REPORT ‏@DRUDGE_REPORT

ZIMMERMAN PASSED POLICE LIE DETECTOR.

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by David

DRUDGE REPORT ‏@DRUDGE_REPORT

ZIMMERMAN PASSED POLICE LIE DETECTOR.

Yes, the "Media Prosecutors" ABC and Huffington post, bound this news tem with a restatement of the "Chief Investigator who is now going back to the beat, in order to minimize the impact. Both insisted upon reporting that the passed test would not be admissable in court.

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jtdc

But, as you say, he is a liberal which indicates defective thinking.

This entire thread you have been agreeing with Liberals, except Dershowitz, so what does that indicate about you?

I can't defend her. But if she is the pivotal factor, every one she is against should be acquitted?

She never should have been on this case.

If she stated truthfully what she heard on the phone, that is for the jury to decide. While trying to break her down is the tactic used, that wouldn't be getting at the truth. But that's seems to be law.

You seem to be confused. She could testify about what she heard on the phone, but she wouldn't be allowed to draw conclusions about what she heard.

It would be interesting. I know nothing of Zimmerman's attorney. But after Zimmerman's bail was revoked the attorney didn't seem to be in spin-mode. So maybe he has integrity.

Unike the Prosecutor.

By the truth?

So when has the "truth" been reported by the media?

Was she arrested for "visiting" her husband in jail? Or was it for her perjury?

Perjury, so why do you continue to attach something sinister to normal acts?

But she told the court she had no money! You continue to play dumb!

And so she will be charged, but it's a separate charge.

After the Bail Hearing when Zimmerman's attorney learned of the account and money in it.

What does that comment have to do with whether or not the account was restricted?

Yes. I have heard some of the tapes and seen some of the transcripts which seems conspiratorial.

So why isn't George being charged with conspiracy?

This guy seems to be bad all around. But this is what you hang your hat on. Like your neighbor in Texas who went to your other neighbor's house with a gun, a camera, and a cell-phone, claiming he was in fear for his life and shot the guy to death. You probably defend him because he claimed protection under SYG laws even though he was on your neighbor's property and he was the aggressor.

Another bad comparison? You accuse of "profiling", even though Trayvon was the only one out that evening. And then you, and Corey associate THAt with racial profiling without any evidence of racial profiling. You aquaitn Zimmemran tryin to keep an eye on Trayvon, the one he just reported to the police with "Stalking", even though the evideince and the nature of the action is totally different. And I have no idea of who or what you are comparing, and Texas doesn't even have a SYG law! And that is your real beef. You hate guns and therefore want SYG laws to end. So if a Black teenager attacks you you shouldn't shoot him until after you are dead.

So you are admitting he didn't commit a crime.

No. talking on the phone to your girlfriend or wife isn't a crime, unless I suppose, you are George Zimmerman. However, trying to beat another person to death is a crime!

Well, you seemed to have put a limit on me.

Perhaps with the actual evidence being released, you have had to cull your suspicions when you discovered they were based on false reporting.

No, the evidence of the lie is in the conflicting recordings. Since he made the statements in both instances, one has to be false. Did he intentionally lie?

Apparantly not, he passed a lie detector test.

But he lost sight of Martin about when the Police Office on the phone told him not to pursue. Why didn't he get back in his car a find a street sign, if he wasn't following (stalking) Martin? It would have been faster that walking over to the next street.

[

Your reasoning is typical 20/20 hindsight. much like the rehash of what the "lead investigator' said. He "determined" that Zimmerman had "two chances to "difuse" the encounter, and because Zimmermean didn't, therefore, he should be charged with Manslaughter. However, there is no guarantee, given the teenager's rage, that either would have worked.

Not the same, but consistent. And stating that he told the Police Officer that Martin walked around his car, when he didn't, and saying the officer told him not to follow (stalk) Martin before he got out of his car, when in fact it was after he got out of his car and ran after Martin, that puts his testimony in question, along with other matters of honesty.

No you are confusing "your interpretation of what he said" with inconsistancy. And is something we have gone over before, Ad nauseum!

You don't have proof of that, only the statement of a guy with questionable integrity.

How could Zimmerman have "Profiled" Martin when Martin was the only one out wandering in the rain?

And Zimmerman followed him down a street he was not familiar with from inside his car.

Well Martin was trying hard to "lose him".

Which law applying to Zimmerman, be it Second Degree Murder or the SYG law, mentions race? [/quote]

Florida HAS hate crimes laws, didn't you know? Anyway, that fact should make you suspicious, even more so than anything Zimmerman said. There is no evidence that Zimmerman committed a hate crime, yet that is the basis of the prosecutioon for Murder 2, i.e. that he stalked Martin and profiled him because he was black.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

This entire thread you have been agreeing with Liberals, except Dershowitz, so what does that indicate about you?

That I'm not locked into an ideology!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

She never should have been on this case.

She wouldn't have been if the original police/prosecutor had done their jobs right.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

She could testify about what she heard on the phone, but she wouldn't be allowed to draw conclusions about what she heard.

So why would she break down? She would seem to have little to say. But it could be devastating.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So when has the "truth" been reported by the media?

Surely they must have made a mistake once or twice.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Perjury, so why do you continue to attach something sinister to normal acts?

Because that's why she lied.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And so she will be charged, but it's a separate charge.

But Zimmerman was a knowing part of that conspiracy.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

What does that comment have to do with whether or not the account was restricted?

Because that's when it became restricted.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So why isn't George being charged with conspiracy?

He's got more serious problems at this point. They can wait.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Another bad comparison? You accuse of "profiling", even though Trayvon was the only one out that evening. And then you, and Corey associate THAt with racial profiling without any evidence of racial profiling.

That too dumb to respond to.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And I have no idea of who or what you are comparing, and Texas doesn't even have a SYG law!

Well that guy thought there was.

Stand-your-ground defense falls short in Texas

Christian Science Monitor*
A man who claimed Texas' version of a stand-your-ground law allowed him to fatally shoot a neighbor after an argument about a noisy party ...

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And that is your real beef. You hate guns and therefore want SYG laws to end. So if a Black teenager attacks you you shouldn't shoot him until after you are dead.

Right. But only if he is black. If he's white-Hispanic you can shoot him first.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No. talking on the phone to your girlfriend or wife isn't a crime, unless I suppose, you are George Zimmerman.

You're catching on.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

However, trying to beat another person to death is a crime!

Good 'Ole Texas! Another case where a man killed the man raping his 4 year old daughter. Under Texas law, if he shot the man to death he would be okay. But since he killed the guy with his fists, he could go to jail.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Perhaps with the actual evidence being released, you have had to cull your suspicions when you discovered they were based on false reporting.

Naw. It seems to be going both ways.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Apparantly not, he passed a lie detector test.

So he's a pathological liar.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Your reasoning is typical 20/20 hindsight. much like the rehash of what the "lead investigator' said. He "determined" that Zimmerman had "two chances to "difuse" the encounter, and because Zimmermean didn't, therefore, he should be charged with Manslaughter.

And if the officer would have done that, we would have nothing to write about.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

However, there is no guarantee, given the teenager's rage, that either would have worked.

If George had stayed in his car, he would not have provoked Martin. After all, Martin went away. He was not threatening Zimmerman. Zimmerman had to hunt him down to provoke him.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No you are confusing "your interpretation of what he said" with inconsistancy. And is something we have gone over before, Ad nauseum!

Well, there is the police recording. That can't be misinterpreted.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

How could Zimmerman have "Profiled" Martin when Martin was the only one out wandering in the rain?

He said they always get away. Who?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Well Martin was trying hard to "lose him".

Depends on which story by Zimmerman you are hearing. The one where Martin circled his car or the one where he was just walking in the rain.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Florida HAS hate crimes laws, didn't you know?

But those are not involved in this case, are they?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Anyway, that fact should make you suspicious, even more so than anything Zimmerman said.

???

Originally Posted by Rifleman

There is no evidence that Zimmerman committed a hate crime, yet that is the basis of the prosecutioon for Murder 2, i.e. that he stalked Martin and profiled him because he was black.

But the Feds....

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jtdc

That I'm not locked into an ideology!

On gun control you are!

She wouldn't have been if the original police/prosecutor had done their jobs right.

Yes, you have been pushing that garbage all along. So firstwe "heard" that Zimmerman hadn't even been arrestedand that the "investigation only laster 4 hours That the local DA shut it down that very night. ANd I agree, AT THE TIME none of this was known and it was speculation that Zimmerman had been let off. And we didn't know either, at the time, the level of misinformation that was being repeated by the media in their attewmpt to blow it up into a major race issue, But now we know! So what part of the "jobs" did the police and the DA not do right? They interogated Zimmerman for almost the entire four hours, and apparantly Zimmerman agreed to voluntarily make an additional "tape" and recreation of the incident. The actual DA, didn;t make the call, nor was any call made to not prosecute. And there was actually a Grand Jury scheduled to hear the case to recommend whether or not the case would move forward. It was actually the Special Prosecutor that killed that for her own nefarious purposes. So now, what job wasn't done right! Interviewing the little perjurer girlfriend who "heard Zimmerman murder 2 Trayvon over the phone?

So why would she break down? She would seem to have little to say. But it could be devastating.

Because it is impossible to tell exactly what is going on over the phone.

Surely they must have made a mistake once or twice.

Sarcasm?

Because that's why she lied.

So, Zimmerman's wife lied, that must mean Zimmerman murdered Trayvon, even though the evidence indicates otherwise?

But Zimmerman was a knowing part of that conspiracy.

What conspiracy?

Because that's when it became restricted.

If the fund became restricted, only at the time of the bail rehearing, then it was unrestricted before then, when Zimerman's wife was paying bills and expenses with it.

He's got more serious problems at this point. They can wait.

So you claim, without evidence. that the Special Prosecutor was appointed because he didn't do his job right, (which is untrue, he was persuaded to give up the case) yet the Special Prosecutor can't even bring an indictment against Geroge Zimmerman for Conspiracy? And Why not? Her specialty is bringing up charges without having a case or evidence to back it up. Perhaps Conspiracy requires a Grand Jury, and she doesn;t want anything to do with them!

That too dumb to respond to.

Apparantly, STILL over your head!

Well that guy thought there was.

No, Texas has The Castle Doctrine. So "that" guy found out didn't he?

Right. But only if he is black. If he's white-Hispanic you can shoot him first.

I guess I can still beat the black teenager to death? As long as I don't shoot him?

You're catching on.

Yes, "The only "good" White Hispanic, is a dead White Hispanic" according to "AL". But what about the "White Black", or "White African" born in Kenya, but possessing a fake birth Certificate?

Good 'Ole Texas! Another case where a man killed the man raping his 4 year old daughter. Under Texas law, if he shot the man to death he would be okay. But since he killed the guy with his fists, he could go to jail.

Yes, that's another of the crazy laws you and the libtards are responsible for. You remember, like the ones that don't allow Trayvon to defend himself with a gun, if he had been the one being beat to death instead of the one trying to beat Zimmerman to death. And here's another of you liberal folks crazy laws: In Dallas Texas, you can carry a gun in your car legally, but not a toy gun!

Naw. It seems to be going both ways.

Only for you, that's why you still alledge that the police and the DA botched the investigation.

So he's a pathological liar.

A patholigical liar is not necessarily going to pass.

And if the officer would have done that, we would have nothing to write about.

What are you talking about? The officer doesn't charge people the DA does.

If George had stayed in his car, he would not have provoked Martin. After all, Martin went away. He was not threatening Zimmerman. Zimmerman had to hunt him down to provoke him.

Provoke? "Hunt down?" So getting out of your car is provocative? So how was Zimmerman supposed to know beforehand, that "Black Teenaged Occassional pot smokers, and burglary suspects consider it highly offensive to get out of your car? So, are you saying that if I get out of my car, in the normal routine of the day near a black Teenaged occassional pot smoker/ burglary suspect, they are justified in trying to beat me to death?

So let me ask you a hypothetical question: If I approached President Obama ( the nation's #1 White/Black man), and punched him in the nose, blackened both his eyes, injured his back, and then proceeded to beat his head into the floor..... Would the Secret Service shoot me?

Well, there is the police recording. That can't be misinterpreted.

Sure it can, you're doing it!

He said they always get away. Who?

Criminals from other nights.

Depends on which story by Zimmerman you are hearing. The one where Martin circled his car or the one where he was just walking in the rain.

I think the "waiting in the rain" occured before Martin circled the car. You know, "lying in wait"!

But those are not involved in this case, are they?

Silly you! A Hate Crime is used to add punishment to the other crime. If you were to spray paint words on a fence or sidewalk, that would be vandalism, and probably a misdemaenor, but if you were to spray paint words disparaging another person race, if different from your, or sexual orientation, (only if that person is gay) then it becomes a felony. In this case they are implying a hate crime to justify a murder 2 charge.

???

The fact is that it indicates that the Special Prosecutor is trying to prosecute on the basis of the emotional abhorance of a racial murder, NOT on the evidence and the facts,.

But the Feds....

Oh the FEDS! What credibility do the FEDS have? They hand guns over to Mexican drug gangs to murder their own people with. They refuse to prosecute Black Racists who interfere with the rights of whites to vote! Now I suspect, the "threat of a Federal Hate Crme conviction resulting in the death penalty, was an attempt to scare Zimmerman so bad, he copped a plea with Corey on her fraudulent case, rather than go through another trial where the Feds might actually kill him. "Or", perhaps Holder hates White/Hispanic citizens who exercise their Constitutional rights , SO bad, HE WANTS HIM DEAD!!!!

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Rifleman

On gun control you are!

Your obsession, not mine.

Rant by Rifleman
Yes, you have been pushing that garbage all along. So firstwe "heard" that Zimmerman hadn't even been arrestedand that the "investigation only laster 4 hours That the local DA shut it down that very night. ANd I agree, AT THE TIME none of this was known and it was speculation that Zimmerman had been let off. And we didn't know either, at the time, the level of misinformation that was being repeated by the media in their attewmpt to blow it up into a major race issue, But now we know! So what part of the "jobs" did the police and the DA not do right? They interogated Zimmerman for almost the entire four hours, and apparantly Zimmerman agreed to voluntarily make an additional "tape" and recreation of the incident. The actual DA, didn;t make the call, nor was any call made to not prosecute. And there was actually a Grand Jury scheduled to hear the case to recommend whether or not the case would move forward. It was actually the Special Prosecutor that killed that for her own nefarious purposes.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So now, what job wasn't done right! Interviewing the little perjurer girlfriend who "heard Zimmerman murder 2 Trayvon over the phone?

More of your bias on display.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Because it is impossible to tell exactly what is going on over the phone.

But so little to remember.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Sarcasm?

Humor based on facts, yes.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So, Zimmerman's wife lied, that must mean Zimmerman murdered Trayvon, even though the evidence indicates otherwise?

His credibility is all he has to support what you think the evidence shows. The evidence does not tell what happened without his story.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

What conspiracy?

Hiding his wealth from the court. Are you that ignorant?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

If the fund became restricted, only at the time of the bail rehearing, then it was unrestricted before then, when Zimerman's wife was paying bills and expenses with it.

Correct! So as they considered it/used it as their money, how could they lie to the court about being unaware of that wealth.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

(which is untrue, he was persuaded to give up the case)

You say without evidence!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

yet the Special Prosecutor can't even bring an indictment against Geroge Zimmerman for Conspiracy? And Why not?

Zimmerman is in custody! There is plenty of time to gather evidence before the statute of limitations expires. And of course the part you like, they have that as a backup just in case they don't get him on the murder (Scooter Libby, Martha Stewart).

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Her specialty is bringing up charges without having a case or evidence to back it up.

Yes, many prosecutors walk away from a case if it isn't "open and shut".

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Perhaps Conspiracy requires a Grand Jury, and she doesn;t want anything to do with them!

Well, yeah! It takes more than one person, such as Zimmerman and his wife!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Apparantly, STILL over your head!

Okay. To exploit your stupidity:

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You accuse of "profiling", even though Trayvon was the only one out that evening.

Does "profiling" require more than one?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And then you, and Corey associate THAt with racial profiling without any evidence of racial profiling.

On the original Police Dispatcher recording Zimmerman identified Martin as black. He didn't volunteer that observation, but he had already made that conclusion. Then he added about Martin not belonging there and that "they" always get away. So it was not without evidence!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

No, Texas has The Castle Doctrine.

I see! So by giving it a different title, it's nowhere near the same thing.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So "that" guy found out didn't he?

But his murder happened before Zimmerman's murder. So he wasn't influenced by the Zimmerman case. His defense was the same "I fear for my life". But the jury didn't believe him. And he had more evidence than Zimmerman has.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I guess I can still beat the black teenager to death? As long as I don't shoot him?

Well, that would be "like force"!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Yes, "The only "good" White Hispanic, is a dead White Hispanic" according to "AL". But what about the "White Black", or "White African" born in Kenya, but possessing a fake birth Certificate?

They are Presidential material!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Yes, that's another of the crazy laws you and the libtards are responsible for.

You don't know me at all. I think you should be able to shoot car thieves, burglars, rapists and anybody else who violates another. But I want there to be evidence to validate that who they killed was a criminal.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

You remember, like the ones that don't allow Trayvon to defend himself with a gun, if he had been the one being beat to death instead of the one trying to beat Zimmerman to death.

You were the one who said Martin couldn't even touch a gun because he was a minor. I do not subscribe to that limitation. In this case, Zimmerman didn't try to defend himself in like manner, he shot him to death.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

And here's another of you liberal folks crazy laws: In Dallas Texas, you can carry a gun in your car legally, but not a toy gun!

Another of your phony charges. I'm not a Texan! You can't hang that stupidity on me.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

A patholigical liar is not necessarily going to pass.

Since they depend on your conscience if you don't feel guilty, like Zimmerman, it won't register as a lie. I think it was "Robocop" where the Robocop was asked if a guy was lying and he responded that it was inconclusive because he was a lawyer. He never tells the truth.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

What are you talking about? The officer doesn't charge people the DA does.

I have to spell everything out for you every time? If I just say "Sanford" as the whole organization, would that help you? The officer apparently didn't do all he should have done, the police chief apparently didn't do all he should have done and the DA (s) apparently didn't do all they should have done. One incompetent city!

Another rant by Rifleman
Provoke? "Hunt down?" So getting out of your car is provocative? So how was Zimmerman supposed to know beforehand, that "Black Teenaged Occassional pot smokers, and burglary suspects consider it highly offensive to get out of your car?

Originally Posted by The rant by Rifleman continues

So, are you saying that if I get out of my car, in the normal routine of the day near a black Teenaged occassional pot smoker/ burglary suspect, they are justified in trying to beat me to death?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

So let me ask you a hypothetical question: If I approached President Obama ( the nation's #1 White/Black man), and punched him in the nose, blackened both his eyes, injured his back, and then proceeded to beat his head into the floor..... Would the Secret Service shoot me?

Yes! But the country would thank you and make you their new hero.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Sure it can, you're doing it!

No, you can misinterpret what it means, but what is heard is kind of indisputable. But what is recalled by a human is very suspect.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Criminals from other nights.

Who he was grouping Martin with. Based on what evidence?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

I think the "waiting in the rain" occured before Martin circled the car. You know, "lying in wait"!

Another Rifleman distortion? I clearly said "walking in the rain", not "WAITING".

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Silly you! A Hate Crime is used to add punishment to the other crime. If you were to spray paint words on a fence or sidewalk, that would be vandalism, and probably a misdemaenor, but if you were to spray paint words disparaging another person race, if different from your, or sexual orientation, (only if that person is gay) then it becomes a felony.

But that hasn't been charged in this case, has it?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

In this case they are implying a hate crime to justify a murder 2 charge.

Really? And you have proof of that?

Originally Posted by Rifleman

The fact is that it indicates that the Special Prosecutor is trying to prosecute on the basis of the emotional abhorance of a racial murder, NOT on the evidence and the facts,.

It is you who focuses on race, repeatedly. He is charged with murder, not "murder of a black man". Race may be a factor, but his crime is killing a human being!

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Oh the FEDS! What credibility do the FEDS have?

Hey, Eric Holder and the first black taxer in-chief, would take offense at that.

More Rifleman rant
They hand guns over to Mexican drug gangs to murder their own people with. They refuse to prosecute Black Racists who interfere with the rights of whites to vote! Now I suspect, the "threat of a Federal Hate Crme conviction resulting in the death penalty, was an attempt to scare Zimmerman so bad, he copped a plea with Corey on her fraudulent case, rather than go through another trial where the Feds might actually kill him.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

"Or", perhaps Holder hates White/Hispanic citizens who exercise their Constitutional rights , SO bad, HE WANTS HIM DEAD!!!!

He isn't one of Holder's "People".


Thing not going Zimmerman's way. No bail! And this is allegedly the judge who will weight the Stand Your Ground Law application.

[David]

Zimmerman released on bond for second time

SOURCE

[jtdc]

Ankle monitor, 6:00 pm to 6:00 am curfew, no bank account, can't go near airport? Sounds like a sex offender. He might have avoided all this if he had not misled the court. This publicity sure isn't helping his original case. But he's "free".

How did he go from "poverty" to swinging a million dollar bond?

[schaabdl]

$1M bond = $100K (strange math) - probably raised that and more in defense fund I would think

[Rifleman]

Originally Posted by jtdc

Ankle monitor, 6:00 pm to 6:00 am curfew, no bank account, can't go near airport? Sounds like a sex offender. He might have avoided all this if he had not misled the court. This publicity sure isn't helping his original case. But he's "free".

How did he go from "poverty" to swinging a million dollar bond?

Of course! He was doomed from the time the News Media got involved in prosecuting the case. If he gets past the state the feds are going to execute him.

[xman charl]

I wonder if some wealthy person posted the cash for the bond?

I was telling my wife, the more money the judge wants, the more cash people will send in to his web site. Seems like he will be able to hire 4 or 5 lawyers for his defense.

Ain't America great? From rags to riches, or crook to book...


xman

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

$1M bond = $100K (strange math) - probably raised that and more in defense fund I would think

My understanding is the remainder must be covered by collateral. My read is there has been an additional $20 to 50 k donated to his fund, now handled by his attorney. Knowing that he will cost his family $1m if he skips is much more of an anchor than the first round. And I presume there are fees to the bondsman, probably a percentage. So it is costly either way.