Several Questions about the Trayvon Martin Case...

[USFREEDOM911]

There is also evidence that he did confront him. It also makes little sense that Trayvon would have confronted Mr. Zimmerman otherwise and I'm a firm believer in Occums razor.

Then show the evidence; because all you've done is to keep saying, but have offered nothing of substance.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Bullshit. If I'm walking down the street and you are following me and then confront me by asking me "what are you doing here?" as there is evidence of this occuring, then my response would be "Fuck you, leave me alone" and if you did not, I'd probably bust you in the nose. Either way, you provoked that confrontation. Not that this justifies a violent response but that doesn't change the fact that you would have provoked the confrontation which would not have occurred had you just simply left me alone.

Your "time line" of what you believe to have occured is bullshit; because the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E shows that it did not happen that way.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

So the testimony that Trayvons girl friend heard Mr. Zimmerman ask him "What are you doing here" isn't evidence?

You seem to forget the part where Martin confronts Zimmerman and asks him a question first.
Why is that?
Is it because you're mentally challanged, or is it that you just want to recreate things to fit your world?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

There is also evidence that he did confront him. It also makes little sense that Trayvon would have confronted Mr. Zimmerman otherwise and I'm a firm believer in Occums razor.

The simplest explanation is that you are a moron. Hence we should ignore the nonstop bullshit you continue to spew on the topic.

 

[zappasguitar]

You truly are a buffoon. I have stated several times that I think Zimmerman should have manslaughter charges against him at a minimum. That is not going to stop me from correcting people like Mutt who proclaim something is 'indisputed' when in reality it is heavily disputed.

So you have at times questioned Martin's innocence as I have stated.

 

[Damocles]

So you have at times questioned Martin's innocence as I have stated.

Questioning the guilt of another is not the same thing as questioning the innocence of Martin. If you mean that I must believe in the guilt of Zimmerman or be "questioning the innocence" of Martin then your meaning is absurd.

 

[zappasguitar]

I have no conclusion on this particular case at all and have no overt or covert need to question the innocence of anybody but that of the person charged. Finding out what happened on that night is paramount to making such a conclusion, my questions on this were for clarity, not for "blame". They were questions, not assertions. There is a reason for that.

I may not be prepared, as many seem to be, to declare the guilt of the accused, but that doesn't mean I believe Trayvon was "guilty" of anything at all.

WOW...that was some tapdance you just did.

Believing he was "guilty" and "questioning his innocence" are completely different lines of thought. I never said you believed Martin guilty, only that you've questioned his innocence.

 

[zappasguitar]

Bullshit. If I'm walking down the street and you are following me and then confront me by asking me "what are you doing here?" as there is evidence of this occuring, then my response would be "Fuck you, leave me alone" and if you did not, I'd probably bust you in the nose. Either way, you provoked that confrontation. Not that this justifies a violent response but that doesn't change the fact that you would have provoked the confrontation which would not have occurred had you just simply left me alone.

Why is that point so hard for some here to understand?

 

[Damocles]

WOW...that was some tapdance you just did.

Believing he was "guilty" and "questioning his innocence" are completely different lines of thought. I never said you believed Martin guilty, only that you've questioned his innocence.

I have not questioned the guilt or innocence of Trayvon, only of Zimmerman. He is the only accused. While I do not, at this time, believe that there is enough evidence to come to a conclusion that is still not a question of Trayvon's innocence or guilt.

 

[zappasguitar]

Your "time line" of what you believe to have occured is bullshit; because the E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E shows that it did not happen that way.

Then cite it and prove him wrong...

 

[zappasguitar]

You seem to forget the part where Martin confronts Zimmerman and asks him a question first.
Why is that?
Is it because you're mentally challanged, or is it that you just want to recreate things to fit your world?

Martin turned and questioned Zimmerman because Zimmerman WAS FOLLOWING HIM.

 

[Phantasmal]

Martin turned and questioned Zimmerman because Zimmerman WAS FOLLOWING HIM.

Meanwhile, a probable cause affidavit has been filed in the second-degree murder case. In the two-page document, prosecutors offer little new information about the shooting.

However, they said in the affidavit that "Zimmerman confronted Martin," an apparent contradiction of Zimmerman's version of the events that led to the shooting.

The document says Trayvon's mother identified the screams for help heard in a 911 call as those of her son. It also reveals that investigators interviewed a "friend" of Trayvon's who was talking to him in the leadup to the shooting.

Based on the description, it appears the friend was the girl described by Martin family attorneys as his girlfriend.

"During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening," the affidavit said. "The witness advised that Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn't know why."

Martin tried to run home, the affidavit says, but was followed by Zimmerman. "Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin."

The affidavit goes on to say that "Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher" who told him to stop, and "continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home."

Zimmerman, the affidavit says, "confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."

According to the affidavit: "Trayvon Martin's mother has reviewed the 911 calls and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin's. Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2871270/posts?page=1

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Meanwhile, a probable cause affidavit has been filed in the second-degree murder case. In the two-page document, prosecutors offer little new information about the shooting.

However, they said in the affidavit that "Zimmerman confronted Martin," an apparent contradiction of Zimmerman's version of the events that led to the shooting.

The document says Trayvon's mother identified the screams for help heard in a 911 call as those of her son. It also reveals that investigators interviewed a "friend" of Trayvon's who was talking to him in the leadup to the shooting.

Based on the description, it appears the friend was the girl described by Martin family attorneys as his girlfriend.

"During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening," the affidavit said. "The witness advised that Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn't know why."

Martin tried to run home, the affidavit says, but was followed by Zimmerman. "Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin."

The affidavit goes on to say that "Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher" who told him to stop, and "continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home."

Zimmerman, the affidavit says, "confronted Martin and a struggle ensued."

According to the affidavit: "Trayvon Martin's mother has reviewed the 911 calls and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin's. Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest."

What did you expect the Prosecuter to say??

"We don't really have anything; but are preceding, only because the public outcry casts us in a bad light and hurt our feelings."

 

[Phantasmal]

What did you expect the Prosecuter to say??

"We don't really have anything; but are preceding, only because the public outcry casts us in a bad light and hurt our feelings."

Well, they are the ones with the evidence. You, on the other hand, have nothing.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Well, they are the ones with the evidence. You, on the other hand, have nothing.

So that means they would never-ever try to make themselves look like they actually had something.

 

[Phantasmal]

So that means they would never-ever try to make themselves look like they actually had something.

A good prosecutor would make sure the evidence is there and from what I have read this woman is a good prosecutor. Are you suggesting they are pressing charges without sufficient evidence and what is your proof?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

A good prosecutor would make sure the evidence is there and from what I have read this woman is a good prosecutor. Are you suggesting they are pressing charges without sufficient evidence and what is your proof?

I guess the LaCross fiasco has left your memory.

On April 11, 2007, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper dropped all charges and declared the three players innocent. Cooper stated that the charged players – Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans – were victims of a "tragic rush to accuse." The initial prosecutor for the case, Durham County's District Attorney Mike Nifong, who was labeled a "rogue prosecutor" by Cooper, withdrew from the case in January 2007 after the North Carolina State Bar filed ethics charges against him. That June, Nifong was disbarred for "dishonesty, fraud, deceit and misrepresentation", making Nifong the first prosecutor in North Carolina history to lose his law license based on actions in a case. Nifong was found guilty of criminal contempt and served one day in jail. Mangum never faced any charges for her false accusations as Cooper declined to prosecute her.

Do you have any evidence that would suggest that Nifong should have been suspect, from the beginning?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

A good prosecutor would make sure the evidence is there and from what I have read this woman is a good prosecutor. Are you suggesting they are pressing charges without sufficient evidence and what is your proof?

I would think the proximity of the shooting to either Zimmerman's car or the complex could be very telling. If it was close to Zimmerman's car, then his statement would appear to be correct, the further from his car the shooting occurred, the less likely his statement is true.

I am curious to see what they are basing the 'Zimmerman confronted Martin' on given that both Martin and the girlfriend stated that it was Martin that initiated the verbal exchange.

 

[Annie]

These are questions I have run across that I haven't understood.

He was living with his father at the time, left to go get stuff from the store and return, yet nobody reported him missing for three days and then it was his mother who reported it.

How is it his body remained at the coroner's office as a John Doe, unclaimed, for so many days? If he was on a call with his girlfriend at the time how is it she didn't report it when she could no longer get in touch with Trayvon? If you were on the phone with your girlfriend/boyfriend who was telling you he was being followed by somebody nefarious and they disappeared would you not report it to somebody? Why does Trayvon's family not give the code to access the phone records for Trayvon's phone? (They may have trusted him more than I would a 17 year old, but believe me I will have access to my kid's phone when and if I decide to get them one.)

It may be that some of my information is off, but this is stuff I have gleaned from interviews of people involved. There is a bunch of stuff that doesn't make sense there to me.

Problem with this case from the get go. Time frame, obvious problem with

trying by media.

Thank you, if true, being Damo I'm quite sure it is. Thank you!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

A good prosecutor would make sure the evidence is there and from what I have read this woman is a good prosecutor. Are you suggesting they are pressing charges without sufficient evidence and what is your proof?

define 'good' prosecutor. because i've come across a few prosecutors that have tried a grandmother as a meth dealer because she crossed a state line to buy a box of allergy medicine.