Advertisement

Turning Tales on Trayvon

topic posted Tue, March 27, 2012 - 1:59 PM by 
Share/Save/Bookmark
Anyone see those new stories about how it may just be that Trayvon instigated the physical altercation that got him shot?
posted by:
Advertisement
  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

    Wed, March 28, 2012 - 8:15 AM
    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

      Wed, March 28, 2012 - 12:14 PM
      There are three sides to this story: Zimmerman's side, Martin's side, and the truth.

      We know Zimmerman's side from what he has said in his own words.

      We do not know Martin's side. We will never know Martin's side, because he is dead.

      Zimmerman's side (as presented in the article) presents that Martin attacked him without any words being exchanged.

      Do you really believe that is the truth?
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

        Wed, March 28, 2012 - 4:48 PM
        >>>>>>>>Zimmerman's side (as presented in the article) presents that Martin attacked him without any words being exchanged.

        Do you really believe that is the truth?<<<<<<<


        It could be. It would help to know how Zimmerman told his story, though of course, I'm not suggesting that police questioning of people should be posted on YouTube! If the witness who (it is reported) saw Zimmerman on the ground being struck by Martin is to believed, there was a fight before the shooting. Did the fight *justify* the shooting? Don't know. Fights usually don't. It's much more complicated than the original spin: white guy shoots black guy out of racist hate.
        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

          Wed, March 28, 2012 - 9:08 PM
          <If the witness who (it is reported) saw Zimmerman on the ground being struck by Martin is to believed, there was a fight before the shooting.>
          The witness did not say who started the fight. Who started the fight?

          <It's much more complicated than the original spin: white guy shoots black guy out of racist hate.>
          Who's spin was that?
          The story is about profiling. The evidence against Zimmerman is his own words on the 911 call, before his confrontation with Martin.
          www.youtube.com/watch
          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

            Sat, March 31, 2012 - 8:49 AM
            "The story is about profiling. The evidence against Zimmerman is his own words on the 911 call, before his confrontation with Martin. "

            Zimmerman said he saw some hooded guy in the rain acting strange and checking out houses. He didn't mention race until the 911 dispatcher asked what race he was. How is that profiling?
        • Re: Skepticism anyone?

          Thu, March 29, 2012 - 9:55 AM
          << It's much more complicated than the original spin: white guy shoots black guy out of racist hate. >>

          There doesn't seem much that's very "complicated" about the former getting booked with *no* sign of the struggle he swore happened-

          usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2...shooting

          All the available evidence (as opposed to latrine lawyering and MSM paranoia) says Zimmerman and his self-appointed defenders are lying their asses off. Witness the sickening story of Zimmerman's media "pal" Joe Oliver-

          << Zimmerman’s “Black Friend” Exposed As Fraud

          From the time Trayvon Martin’s murder went viral on the Internet and on national news, Joe Oliver, a self-proclaimed friend of neighborhood-watchman-gone-wrong George Zimmerman and a former “CNN Weekend” anchor, has been popping up on newscasts across the country, defending Zimmerman against racism as if his life depends on it. On Lawrence O’Donnell‘s “Last Word” Tuesday night, though, the New York Times’ Charles Blow and the Washington Post’s Jon Capehart, exposed Oliver for what he really is: a fraud. >>

          newsone.com/nation/afish...ll-interview/

          THIS JUST IN- the mortician who handled Trayvon's body directly contradicts Zimmerman's little Dirty Harry fantasy-

          www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...og.html

          << George Zimmerman’s crumbling story, part 2: the mortician
          By Jonathan Capehart

          The killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman — the case where nothing makes sense, nothing — gained greater clarity in the last couple days. The story put forth by the Sanford Police Department (SPD) and by Zimmerman “friend” Joe Oliver is starting to crumble.

          The SPD video ABC News aired last night raised serious doubts about Zimmerman’s account of a life-and-death struggle. Then, Richard Kurtz, the funeral director of the mortuary that received Trayvon’s body, stepped forward last night on MSNBC’s “The Last Word” to knock another huge hole in Zimmerman’s story. The unarmed 17-year-old showed no signs of struggle.>

          www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...og.html

          Maybe the cops drove Zimmerman home to change his clothes and wash up, but I seriously doubt they could unbreak his nose or ungash his face.

          Maybe after this farce people will begin to wake up on how badly they're being hoodooed by the media and the gun lobby. More likely they'll go right on thinking themselves clever for being conned into disbelieving the obvious.
          • Mr. Zimmerman used the "Stand Your Ground " law as his legal defense for killing his alleged attacker. However, the reported facts, including the words of the 911 dispatcher, indicate that Mr. Zimmerman left the safety of his vehicle to physically approach someone whom he reported as suspicious looking. In this case, Mr. Zimmerman is trying to say that he was attacked, and used his weapon ( applying deadly force) to defend himself, but why did he exit his car to approach someone who was on foot if he felt threatened by the person walking?

            How could you feel threatened if you leave the safety of your vehicle to approach a "suspicious looking" pedestrian? Common sense would dictate that the unarmed pedestrian being followed by an unknown car would be more likely to feel threatened than the car rider with the gun.
            Let us have our guns. Let us sand our ground. Let us walk the streets without fear of molestation due to vigilante profiling. The guns are not the problem. Corrupt police, irrational fear of each other and bad information are more of a problem than guns.
            • "indicate that Mr. Zimmerman left the safety of his vehicle to physically approach someone"

              There is nothing on the 911 tape that supports that Zimmerman approached Martin. That's spin. Zimmerman claims the opposite and there is no evidence that contradicts that.
          • Re: Skepticism anyone?

            Sat, March 31, 2012 - 9:01 AM
            "THIS JUST IN- the mortician who handled Trayvon's body directly contradicts Zimmerman's little Dirty Harry fantasy-"

            Zimmerman claimed that Martin attacked Zimmerman, sucker punching him and knocking him to the ground, and then Martin then got on top of him and beat his head into the pavement. If it turns out that Zimmerman had injuries and Martin didn't, then that would support the proposition that Martin was the aggressor since there would be no evidence that he assaulted Zimmerman in response to Martin being himself assaulted. If Martin beat Zimmerman and not vice versa, why would MARTIN be the one with the injuries?

            Fact: The police report by officer Timothy Smith, the cop who arrested Zimmerman, says that he saw Zimmerman bleeding from his nose and back of his head.

            Fact: The same report says that Zimmerman was treated for his injuries by Sanford Fire Department paramedics.

            Fact: An eye witness said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, beating Zimmerman's head into the ground as Zimmerman called out for help. The witness said he (the witness) then went into his own house and locked the door, which corroborates Zimmerman's account that not only was Martin beating Zimmerman's head into the pavement, but no one would help him when he called out for help.

            Now as for that video of Zimmerman at the police department that supposedly doesn't show injuries, any bleeding and lacerations would have been cleaned up by the paramedics. So we have two options:

            1. That the cop, the Sanford Fire Department and the eye witness are all lying and in on a conspiracy to defend Zimmerman, or

            2. That a low resolution surveillance video of someone from a distance is a crappy way of doing amateur medical diagnosis of possible cleaned up lacerations.
            • Re: Skepticism anyone?

              Sat, March 31, 2012 - 6:20 PM
              <Fact: An eye witness said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, beating Zimmerman's head into the ground as Zimmerman called out for help.>

              While there are reportedly actually two witnesses that saw this same thing, it's not a fact until they've been questioned/deposed. So far, it's just some reporters saying that they talked to someone. We'll see. I have no reason to doubt this story - but I'll wait until it is a fact to call it a fact.

              <Now as for that video of Zimmerman at the police department that supposedly doesn't show injuries, any bleeding and lacerations would have been cleaned up by the paramedics.>

              There are actually shots easily available on the ol' internets showing two big cuts in Zimmerman's head.

              This is a shitty video of it:
              www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/...artin/

              Here's a better one:
              4.bp.blogspot.com/-Zc1QzJkV...07x264.jpg

              Then, there's another circulating from purportedly a cop's phone camera that more clearly shows two obvious cuts on the BACK of Zimmerman's head, supporting in some part that story.

              • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                Sat, March 31, 2012 - 7:30 PM
                When I said it was a fact, I was literal: It was a fact that the person said it; that doesn't mean necessarily that what he said is true.
              • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                Mon, April 2, 2012 - 4:17 PM
                <<There are actually shots easily available on the ol' internets showing two big cuts in Zimmerman's head.

                The cuts were not visible until the video was enhanced, this just came out. And while we can't say for certain that this was due to racism, we can say that it is obvious that Trayvon himself felt threatened by some creepy guy following him at night, not to mention that Zimmerman should have followed the police dispatchers advice and not followed him.
                • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                  Mon, April 9, 2012 - 12:21 AM
                  <The cuts were not visible until the video was enhanced, this just came out.>

                  Yup. Kinda shocking that people would opine before they had all of the information. Shocking! Here I am! Shocked!

                  <we can say that it is obvious that Trayvon himself felt threatened by some creepy guy following him at night, not to mention that Zimmerman should have followed the police dispatchers advice and not followed him.>

                  Irrelevant. Except to the MSMers.

                  <What "behavior" is Zimmerman claiming Trayvon was engaging in? I was under the impression that Zimmerman told 911 that he fit the description of a thief?>

                  You mean...someone walking late at night in a hoodie? If I saw that at night in an area where people's houses were being ripped off, I'd wonder, too. Sorry - someone in a suit jacket & tie simply does not "fit the description" quite as well.

                  <I think there is a clear difference between being suspicious of a person on your property and a person walking the street minding their own business.>

                  People in private housing areas consider the whole area to be their property.

                  <I think any reasonable person would feel threatened, and I think the idea that he felt threatened is backed up by the conversation he had with his girlfriend just before his death.>

                  Punching someone in the face for feeling threatened? That's assault.

                  <All I saw was a bald spot and a combover over a what you say is a mark that might be twenty years old or nonexistent. There appeared to be no fresh wound on that guy's head, nor a bandage nor stitches.>

                  So, Rockstar - you're saying that you don't know what those marks are? So...they COULD be what the cops said that they are, 'eh?

                  <Again, no sign of a nose wound and those things swell and bleed profusely.>

                  Not true at all. Not even a little bit. Not every broken nose is the same. I had my nose broken, and it either didn't bleed much or stopped almost immediately...got it? Is this REALLY how you make up your mind?

                  <Meaning whatever you hear on Hannity.>

                  Or what's in your head...like, "no sign of a nose wound and those things swell and bleed profusely."

                  <Let's see. Rockstar likes grainy video footage when it fits what he wants to believe, but dismisses it when it's made more clear when it doesn't.>

                  Yes. That about covers it.

                  <He dismisses what the arresting police officer said he saw, the fact that paramedics treated Zimmerman's injuries, and an eye witness who lives immediately adjacent to the shooting.>

                  That, too - except for the last part. We do not have any actual eye witnesses. No one has seen the police reports.

                  <Your automatic dismissal of his self-defense claim without a shred of evidence is completely driven by your left wingnut ideology.>

                  Yup. I've seen that all over the MSM & Facebook and such.




                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Skepticism anyone?

                    Mon, April 9, 2012 - 1:14 PM
                    <<You mean...someone walking late at night in a hoodie?

                    I am a bit busy at work right now and can't respond to all of these points until later. But I would like to make note that it was not that late at night (he was watching a game with his father), and it was raining so the hoodie issue is irrelevant being that anyone would put their hood up to protect themselves from the elements.

                    ><People in private housing areas consider the whole area to be their property.

                    I have not read all of the responses yet, but has it been determined that he was within the gated community when he was shot? Do we know for a fact that Zimmerman had not brandished his weapon before Trayvon punched him? There are a lot of unanswered questions in this case, and utlimately my position is that it should have been properly investigated in the first place. The lead police investigator did not find Zimmermans story to be credible, I would like to know what led him to that belief. It must be remembered that it was the DA that dropped the case, not the police.
                    • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                      Mon, April 9, 2012 - 1:25 PM
                      <But I would like to make note that it was not that late at night (he was watching a game with his father)>

                      It was too dark for at least ONE witness to see clearly through his window what was happening just 20 feet away.

                      <and it was raining so the hoodie issue is irrelevant being that anyone would put their hood up to protect themselves from the elements.>

                      The REASON that he was wearing a hoodie is irrelevant. He was covered. That was suspicious, just as someone walking through my alley behind my place in a hoodie in the dark would inspire my suspicions.

                      <I have not read all of the responses yet, but has it been determined that he was within the gated community when he was shot?>

                      Yes. Weeks ago.

                      <Do we know for a fact that Zimmerman had not brandished his weapon before Trayvon punched him?>

                      No, there's no way to know that. Only Zimmerman knows the answer to this question.

                      <Do we know for a fact that Zimmerman had not brandished his weapon before Trayvon punched him?>

                      Sure. But, it wasn't.

                      <The lead police investigator did not find Zimmermans story to be credible,>

                      So what? There's a difference between what police want to do and what a prosecutor will do. That's hardly relevant.
                      • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                        Mon, April 9, 2012 - 2:11 PM
                        <<<But I would like to make note that it was not that late at night (he was watching a game with his father)>

                        It was too dark for at least ONE witness to see clearly through his window what was happening just 20 feet away.<

                        You ever hear of the seasons, and the fact that the sun sets early during the winter months? The sun set at 6:22 P.M. in Florida on February 26th when Martin was shot. Dark does not necessitate late.

                        <<The REASON that he was wearing a hoodie is irrelevant. He was covered. That was suspicious

                        Bullshit, wearing a hood in the rain is not suspicious. Would you also contend that holding an umbrella in the rain is suspicous? Ludicrous to say the least.

                        <<<I have not read all of the responses yet, but has it been determined that he was within the gated community when he was shot?>

                        Yes. Weeks ago. >>

                        I did a bit of research and it turns out that Martin himself was staying in that same gated community. He was not an outsider, so why was it assumed by Zimmerman that he was? Why did you yourself assume that Martin did not belong?

                        <<<Do we know for a fact that Zimmerman had not brandished his weapon before Trayvon punched him?>

                        Sure. But, it wasn't.>>

                        Sure what? What "wasn't"? Your response does not make any sense, please read my question again or provide further clarification.

                        <<<The lead police investigator did not find Zimmermans story to be credible,>

                        So what? There's a difference between what police want to do and what a prosecutor will do. That's hardly relevant. <<

                        It would be relevant in determining if the lack of charges were motivated by the fact that Zimmerman's father is a respected retired judge, who in fact sat in on Zimmerman's questioning. I would like to hear the lead investigators story as to why he did not believe Martin. Again, you can't just dismiss everything you don't like as being not relevant.
                        • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                          Tue, April 10, 2012 - 1:23 PM
                          "I did a bit of research and it turns out that Martin himself was staying in that same gated community. He was not an outsider, so why was it assumed by Zimmerman that he was? Why did you yourself assume that Martin did not belong? "

                          He was visiting his dad at his dad's girlfriend's place during a ten day suspension from high school. There's no reason to assume that Zimmerman would be familiar with someone who was there no more than a few days, if that.

                          "Bullshit, wearing a hood in the rain is not suspicious."

                          I agree with that. However, walking around in the rain looking at houses while your face is covered by a hood might be (and that's what Zimmerman claimed Martin was doing), particularly if there had been recent break-ins.
                    • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                      Tue, April 10, 2012 - 12:35 PM
                      "but has it been determined that he was within the gated community when he was shot?"

                      Yes.

                      "Do we know for a fact that Zimmerman had not brandished his weapon before Trayvon punched him? "

                      No, but people are supposed to be charged with crimes based on evidence, not speculation. To charge Zimmerman, the burden of proof would be on the state, not Zimmerman.

                      " it should have been properly investigated in the first place"

                      You have no reason to assume it wasn't. Have you read all the reports of the initial investigation and all the evidentiary material that was at the disposal of the district attorney?

                      "It must be remembered that it was the DA that dropped the case, not the police. "

                      That's because whether to prosecute is ALWAYS the call of the district attorney, not the police, since it's the district attorney who has to try the case. In Florida law, someone claiming self defense can't even be charged unless there's sufficient evidence what he did was criminal, and that would require in this case sufficient evidence refuting Zimmerman's self-defense account. Cops aren't lawyers. District attorneys are.
            • Re: Skepticism anyone?

              Sun, April 1, 2012 - 6:13 PM
              << What really bothers the fuck out of me is the Lefty echo chamber>>

              HAHAHA!!

              Conservatives always say this whenever anyone to the left of El Rushbo says anything in public. Since far right dominance of public discourse is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, I suggest you not let it "bother" you overmuch.

              << That a low resolution surveillance video of someone from a distance is a crappy way of doing amateur medical diagnosis of possible cleaned up lacerations. >>

              1) Try LensCrafters. Glasses in about an hour, they say.

              2) Um, why is clear and perfectly viewable vid *not* superior (or at least the equal) to some um "witness" this tainted police force coughed up? In thsi matter, as in so many others, people seem determined to disbelieve the obvious and grasp at anything to support a pre-cooked opinion cheffed up by their political bosses.
              • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                Sun, April 1, 2012 - 8:32 PM
                "Try LensCrafters. Glasses in about an hour, they say. "

                Ah, so your amateur medical diagnosis of cleaned up wounds from a distance from a grainy surveillance video is more reliable than the observations of the cop who arrested Zimmerman, the paramedics who treated him, and the eye witness (discovered by at least two news sources, not "coughed up" by the police) who saw Martin on top of him beating his head into the ground. Got it.

                I guess the cop seen staring at the back of Zimmerman's head for four seconds in that surveillance video is admiring Zimmerman's haircut. Did LensCrafters provide you with your telescopic x-ray vision, or are superpowers a natural bi-product of white guilt?

                As the Tawana Brawley, Duke Lacrosse team and Jena 6 cases attest, why do we need to wait for investigations to conclude or wait for actual evidence of what happens in criminal cases when racial demagogues like Al Sharpton can instantly determine the truth with no evidence at all and then tell us what to think?
                • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                  Mon, April 2, 2012 - 8:42 AM
                  << Ah, so your amateur medical diagnosis >>

                  Um, *anyone* can tell if a nose is broken when you are treated to several crystal clear full-torso shots of the person. Knowing broken noses swell horribly takes about as much medical expertise as knowing they can also sneeze. This cheap rhetorical trick of trying to create confusion where none exists is just what all the far-right radio pundits have been doing in between rote vilification of women and the president.

                  Again, if I wanted Rush's or Hannity's views on this subject, I'd call in and make fun of them.

                  Zimmerman's physical state contradicts his story, which for some reason, you seem to have a great deal committed.

                  Again, try watching the vid with both eyes open and not shrieking "NO! IT *CAN'T* BE!" You seem to have *way* too much emotion invested in Zimmerman's increasingly bizarre pose of innocence.

                  Just like you had a lot invested in keeping Mumia on Death Row, despite ample evidence of judicial corruption and cop intimidation. Anyone else sense a pattern here?

                  <How can you know someone is innocent just by looking at him?>
                  It's a special gift I have.
                  But, I can't see you. Should I assume you're guilty? >>

                  HAHA!!

                  Don't use logic. It only causes ill-will around here.

                  << white guilt? >>

                  Don't make racist remarks if you don't want people to think you're a bigot. Sheesh. You'd think after Rushbo making a raving ass of himself that you guys would learn...

                  < racial demagogues like Al Sharpton>>

                  You drag the skin color of the person asking the questions into a political argument and turn right around to condemn Sharpton?

                  You seem to be arguing out of at least two sides of your mouth here...
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Skepticism anyone?

                    Mon, April 2, 2012 - 12:47 PM
                    Enhanced video shows injuries on Zimmerman's head. Oops. I guess you should get a refund on those x-ray glasses you got for those cereal box tops.

                    news.yahoo.com/video/us-2...804646.html

                    Damn! Reality keeps getting in the way of the race baiting demagogues who just want to be left alone to jump to their unsubstantiated conclusions.

                    "crystal clear full-torso shots of the person."

                    Crystal clear! Too funny. Fanatics really do see what they want to believe.

                    "Don't use logic. It only causes ill-will around here. "

                    HA! The race hucksters who jump to conclusions without a shred of supporting evidence talking about "logic."

                    "You'd think after Rushbo"

                    That's at least your second Limbaugh reference in one thread. You really need to work on your repertoire. Maybe you need to download the latest Al Sharpton talking points.

                    "You drag the skin color of the person asking the questions into a political argument..."

                    BWAHAHA! Race baiting "Hang Zimmerman" demagogues claiming it's the other side who brought race into the subject. Hilarity.
                    • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                      Mon, April 2, 2012 - 6:05 PM
                      << Enhanced video shows injuries on Zimmerman's head. >>

                      "Enhanced"? When are the news media performing police functions, Mister District Attorney? All I saw was a bald spot and a combover over a what you say is a mark that might be twenty years old or nonexistent. There appeared to be no fresh wound on that guy's head, nor a bandage nor stitches.

                      Again, no sign of a nose wound and those things swell and bleed profusely.

                      << Reality >>

                      Meaning whatever you hear on Hannity.

                      << Fanatics really do see what they want to believe. >>

                      Yeah. Like some armed blubbery fat man quaking for his life believed in the dire threat of a kid with a bag of Skittles. That's the lamest story since impeaching a president over a blow job and, sure enough, the same saps fall for it like Mother Goose.

                      << BWAHAHA! >

                      Weird.

                      << race hucksters>>

                      This is wingnut-speak for *what* again? Besides making you feel good, what could such 3rd grade bullshit actually mean? While you're at it, demonstrate what "white guilt could possibly be and prove I have it. I say it's the usual boilerplate cant you hear dished up whenever one finds whatever a conservative says unpersuasive. Kind of like "Stalinist" or One Worlder."

                      << Race baiting "Hang Zimmerman>>

                      Do yourself a favor and can the rote insults picked up off wingnut radio. Prove I advocated hanging anyone or did anything but show skepticism of the 24/7 wingnut media orthodoxy you're peddling. Isn't it possible you're reflexively defending this guy just because it's the fashionably conservative PC thing to do? Your arguments for Mumia's guilt seemed to amount to you thinking he was guilty of an extremely dubious and widely reviled murder charge simply because people you didn't like wanted him freed.

                      << How about we actually wait for evidence that should be forthcoming to come around, like medical reports and the autopsy?

                      Would it kill people to withhold judgment until then? >>

                      Likely not, as this entire investigation appears compromised in the good ole Dixie manner. Public opinion is going to have to turn this one around, I fear.
                      • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                        Tue, April 3, 2012 - 1:05 AM
                        Let's see. Rockstar likes grainy video footage when it fits what he wants to believe, but dismisses it when it's made more clear when it doesn't. He dismisses what the arresting police officer said he saw, the fact that paramedics treated Zimmerman's injuries, and an eye witness who lives immediately adjacent to the shooting.

                        Make all the sneering, snarky comments you like Rockstar, since that's really your only talent around here, but your constant references to Limbaugh and Hannity and all your other boogeymen don't substitute for evidence, nor do they eliminate evidence that doesn't fit what you want to believe.

                        "Like some armed blubbery fat man quaking for his life"

                        Right. Having your head beaten into the pavement cannot possibly threaten your life. Brian Stow must have been some pussy.

                        "Isn't it possible you're reflexively defending this guy just because it's the fashionably conservative PC thing to do?"

                        Oh what jaw dropping hypocrisy. Your reflexive acceptance of the Al Sharpton narrative was completely predictable. It's quite obvious you've jumped on that bandwagon because it's expected of lefty sheep. I don't know what happened that night. Maybe Zimmerman shouldn't have shot the kid and had no justification to do so. But a lot of people came to absolutist conclusions about the facts of that night without a shred of evidence and because it was the lefty thing to do. Your automatic dismissal of his self-defense claim without a shred of evidence is completely driven by your left wingnut ideology.
                        • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                          Tue, April 3, 2012 - 11:38 AM
                          I would also like to know what suspicious behavior Trayvon Martin was engaging in?
                          • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                            Tue, April 3, 2012 - 8:14 PM
                            <I would also like to know what suspicious behavior Trayvon Martin was engaging in?>
                            Trayvon was trying to figure out if he was being followed.
                            Once he was sure he was being followed, he tried to lose his pursuer.
                          • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                            Tue, April 3, 2012 - 10:42 PM
                            Zimmerman says what he thought were suspicious activities. He says he saw a hooded figure walking around in the rain looking at houses, and that after there had been several break-ins. In that context, was it unreasonable to think that was suspicious?

                            And again, even if it were unreasonable, that wouldn't have given Martin the right to attack Zimmerman if that's what happened.
                            • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                              Wed, April 4, 2012 - 1:20 AM
                              <was it unreasonable to think that was suspicious? And again, even if it were unreasonable, that wouldn't have given Martin the right to attack Zimmerman if that's what happened.>
                              Thinking Martin was suspicious was not ALL that happened.
                              Zimmerman was stalking Martin with a loaded weapon.
                              • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                                Wed, April 4, 2012 - 7:40 AM
                                Stalking is not the same as following. Stalking is repeatedly following someone with the intention of intimidating him. Was it unfair for Zimmerman to be following Martin? Perhaps. But if Martin got pissed off that he did, that didn't justify beating Zimmerman's head into the ground, if that's what happened.
                            • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                              Wed, April 4, 2012 - 10:47 AM
                              <<He says he saw a hooded figure walking around in the rain looking at houses, and that after there had been several break-ins. In that context, was it unreasonable to think that was suspicious?

                              Was he "walking around" or was he walking back to his house on the sidewalk? "Walking around" makes it sound like he was creeping arond the neighbrohood, when reality is such that we know he was actually talking on the phone to his girlfriend.

                              <<And again, even if it were unreasonable, that wouldn't have given Martin the right to attack Zimmerman if that's what happened.

                              You keep pretending that Trayvon knew the intentions of the guy following him in the dark.
                              • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                                Wed, April 4, 2012 - 7:37 PM
                                "Was he "walking around" or was he walking back to his house on the sidewalk? "Walking around" makes it sound like he was creeping arond the neighbrohood, when reality is such that we know he was actually talking on the phone to his girlfriend. "

                                You don't know how whether he was talking on the phone when Zimmerman observed him, and one can simultaneously look at houses while talking on the phone anyway.

                                "You keep pretending that Trayvon knew the intentions of the guy following him in the dark. "

                                No I'm not. All he could know is that the guy was following him. But observing someone follow you or even having suspicions about a guy doesn't justify beating his head into the ground.
                                • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                                  Thu, April 5, 2012 - 11:34 AM
                                  <<You don't know how whether he was talking on the phone when Zimmerman observed him

                                  Yes we do, he told his girlfriend on the phone that he was being followed.

                                  <<and one can simultaneously look at houses while talking on the phone anyway.

                                  Sure, but I think it makes it less likely. If someone is casing houses I would think their attention would be on a crime they want to engage in rather than speaking on the phone to your girlfriend.

                                  <<"You keep pretending that Trayvon knew the intentions of the guy following him in the dark. "

                                  No I'm not.<<

                                  And yet you are speaking as if he knew this guys intentions when you say that Zimmerman being suspicous of Trayvon does not give him a right to attack him. When reality is such that Trayvon could not possibly know if this guy was a kidnapper, a rapist, a murderer etc.
                                  • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                                    Thu, April 5, 2012 - 7:19 PM
                                    "Yes we do, he told his girlfriend on the phone that he was being followed. "

                                    But you don't know that the behavior Zimmerman was reporting (allegedly) was precisely when Martin was on the phone. Martin could have talked to his girlfriend before or after the behavior Zimmerman allegedly observed, or in between if Zimmerman wasn't observing him continuously. In fact, as the girlfriend reported talking to Martin up until the altercation, and as Zimmerman's 911 call was before the altercation, then for all we know Martin wasn't on his phone with his girlfriend until after Zimmerman's observation of him that he reported to 911.

                                    "Sure, but I think it makes it less likely. If someone is casing houses I would think their attention would be on a crime they want to engage in rather than speaking on the phone to your girlfriend. "

                                    Even if Zimmerman observed Martin on his phone, there's no reason for him to know that he was talking to his girlfriend, rather than perhaps somebody he was working with.

                                    "And yet you are speaking as if he knew this guys intentions when you say that Zimmerman being suspicous of Trayvon does not give him a right to attack him. When reality is such that Trayvon could not possibly know if this guy was a kidnapper, a rapist, a murderer etc. "

                                    Again Jeff, suspecting someone is a rapist or whatever does not give one a legal right to beat his head into the pavement. Mere suspicion is not enough to legally beat someone up (assuming Zimmerman's account). All Martin would know was that this guy was following him. That alone doesn't justify assault and battery.
                                    • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                                      Fri, April 6, 2012 - 11:27 AM
                                      <<But you don't know that the behavior Zimmerman was reporting (allegedly) was precisely when Martin was on the phone.

                                      But I do think it is a big clue that his girlfriend was on the phone with him from beginning to end of this incident, with Trayvon telling his girl when Martin began to follow him.

                                      <<Even if Zimmerman observed Martin on his phone, there's no reason for him to know that he was talking to his girlfriend, rather than perhaps somebody he was working with.

                                      True. But one would also think that if you were casing a house you would want to be silent rather than yacking on the phone.

                                      <<Again Jeff, suspecting someone is a rapist or whatever does not give one a legal right to beat his head into the pavement.

                                      What about if you are minor being followed by a grown man in the middle of the night? This is not about suspecting that Martin may be dangerous, he was engaging in very shady looking activity, circling the block and following Trayvon in the dark in a non-police vechicle. How could you not assume neafious intent? Personally I would feel threatened.
                                      • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                                        Fri, April 6, 2012 - 4:56 PM
                                        "But I do think it is a big clue that his girlfriend was on the phone with him from beginning to end of this incident, with Trayvon telling his girl when Martin began to follow him. "

                                        The incident. But the question was what was the allegedly suspicioius behavior Zimmerman alegedly observed. There's no evidence Martin was on the phone at any time that Zimmerman observed him. Just because Martin was on the phone with his GF, that doesn't mean he was on the phone for the entirety of his walk back from 7/11.

                                        "But one would also think that if you were casing a house you would want to be silent rather than yacking on the phone. "

                                        Unless you're discussing which houses to burglar with someone you're working with. I don't know burglar protocol.

                                        "What about if you are minor being followed by a grown man in the middle of the night? This is not about suspecting that Martin may be dangerous, he was engaging in very shady looking activity, circling the block and following Trayvon in the dark in a non-police vechicle. How could you not assume neafious intent? Personally I would feel threatened. "

                                        Again, none of that would legally justify beating the guy's head into the pavement.
                        • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                          Tue, April 3, 2012 - 8:23 PM
                          <Having your head beaten into the pavement cannot possibly threaten your life. Brian Stow must have been some pussy. >
                          Comparing what allegedly happened to Zimmerman, to the brutality that was done to Stow by two men is sick and twisted.
                          Not even remotely the same.
                          Spin to the max!
                          • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                            Tue, April 3, 2012 - 10:29 PM
                            Why is it sick and twisted? Stow had his head beaten into the pavement by an unarmed man which put him into a coma. Zimmerman claimed that Martin was beating his head into the pavement. If true (and I'm willing to grant that it may not be), then that constituted a threat to his life for the same reason it was a threat to Stow's life, particularly if, as Zimmerman claims, he repeatedly called out for help while he was being beaten but no one would help him. That account is supported by the eye witness living adjacent to the shooting site who said he saw Martin beating Zimmerman's head into the ground and Zimmerman calling out for help and the eye witness' response was to go into his house and lock the door.
                            • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                              Wed, April 4, 2012 - 1:02 AM
                              <Why is it sick and twisted? Stow had his head beaten into the pavement by an unarmed man which put him into a coma>
                              <Zimmerman claimed>
                              Claimed!!
                              Zimmerman was not even bruised.

                              Stow was, in fact, brutally beaten by two adult men. Stow's attackers cut and disable his tongue, put out an eye, slit his nose, ear and lip, put him in a coma, and were charged with assault with a deadly weapon.

                              Martin was a scared, unarmed seventeen-year-old kid, being followed by an adult who was armed with a deadly weapon on a rainy night.
                              When Martin asked why he was being followed. Zimmerman asked what he was doing there and reached into his jacket.
                              Zimmerman was an adult man with several assault charges on his record, including felony assault on a police officer.
                              Zimmerman was the one who posed a deadly threat.

                              Yes, your Stow spin is sick, twisted, and grossly perverted.
                              • Re: Skepticism anyone?

                                Wed, April 4, 2012 - 7:53 AM
                                "Claimed!! "

                                Yes. Do you have evidence his claim was false?

                                "Zimmerman was not even bruised. "

                                He was bloodied. That was reported by the officer who arrested him, by the fact that paramedics treated him, by the enhanced video, and the fact that an eye witness who lives adjacent to where the shooting took place said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating Zimmerman's head into the ground while Zimmerman called out for help. And bruises aren't necessarily going to show up within a half hour on a low resolution surveillance video, particularly on someone with a darker complexion. And he reportedly went the next day to a doctor to have his broken nose set. In contrast, the funeral director said he saw no injuries on Martin other than the gun shot wound, so all evidence points to Martin being the physical aggressor before being shot.

                                "Martin was a scared, unarmed seventeen-year-old kid, being followed by an adult who was armed with a deadly weapon on a rainy night. "

                                Perhaps. Or perhaps he was just pissed off. But even if he was scared, that wouldn't have given him a right to beat Zimmerman's head into the pavement. Are you really claiming that 17 year old malescan't pose a physical threat? Seriously?

                                "reached into his jacket."

                                You're spinning. He reached for his cell phone. There's no evidence his cell phone was inside his jacket.

                                "Zimmerman was an adult man with several assault charges on his record,"

                                One charge. You're spinning. And one charge, which was reduced, that Martin presumably didn't know about, so that's irrelevant to Martin's perception of a threat. Having a past assault charge against you doesn't give someone else the right to beat your head into the ground, nor does it justify a legal presumption that you're posing a threat in the present case.

                                "Yes, your Stow spin is sick, twisted, and grossly perverted. "

                                Only because it doesn't fit the narrative you want to believe.
        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

          Sat, March 31, 2012 - 8:48 AM
          "If the witness who (it is reported) saw Zimmerman on the ground being struck by Martin is to believed, there was a fight before the shooting. Did the fight *justify* the shooting?"

          Not necessarily. According to Zimmerman, he was sucker punched by Martin, knocking him to the ground, and then Martin got on top of him and beat his head into the pavement. That's not a "fight." That would be simple assault and battery if true. And could having your head beaten into the pavement cause death or serious bodily injury if that's what happened? Ask the Dodger beating victim Brian Stow who was put into a coma.
      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

        Thu, March 29, 2012 - 2:15 PM
        What really bothers the fuck out of me is the Lefty echo chamber. How basically they are lying or misrepresenting the facts in order to create a Lefty-centric narrative, which means that IF one disagrees with this Lefty echo chamber, one is not a Lefty. That bothers me a lot. Even on TV, on MSNBC, which for which I am a fan - they are spinning this Lefty manipulation. It's really a shame.

        <Did the fight *justify* the shooting? Don't know. Fights usually don't. It's much more complicated than the original spin: white guy shoots black guy out of racist hate.>

        Goddamned right. Exactly.

        <The evidence against Zimmerman is his own words on the 911 call, before his confrontation with Martin.>

        What evidence? Here we go...taking "evidence" and then spinning it. Exactly what "evidence" is this?

        <There doesn't seem much that's very "complicated" about the former getting booked with *no* sign of the struggle he swore happened->

        See? That's what I'm talking about. On one of the news channels today, they showed a tight shot of an obviously damaged head of Zimmerman, and there are reports FROM THE POLICE that he was seen by medical professionals BEFORE he was seen in that video. So - they would have cleaned him up. So, what you are doing here is just spreading misinformation. AND, now that you have done that, when the image that I spoke of comes out, you will have to dig in your heels and find another reason to insist that your take on this is right.

        <All the available evidence (as opposed to latrine lawyering and MSM paranoia) says Zimmerman and his self-appointed defenders are lying their asses off.>

        Only if you want to believe so.

        <Tuesday night, though, the New York Times’ Charles Blow and the Washington Post’s Jon Capehart, exposed Oliver for what he really is: a fraud. >>

        Another example. HOW was he "exposed [as] ... a fraud"? That's just text-book manipulation. You are reinforcing a narrative - but not showing HOW this 'fact' is true.

        <THIS JUST IN- the mortician who handled Trayvon's body directly contradicts Zimmerman's little Dirty Harry fantasy->

        No he didn't. He simply said that he did not see anything that would support Zimmerman's story. That IS NOT any contradiction.

        <Maybe the cops drove Zimmerman home to change his clothes and wash up, but I seriously doubt they could unbreak his nose or ungash his face.>

        See? "ungash his face". Where did anyone EVER say that there was a gash on Zimmerman's face? I have been following this very, very closely, and NEVER have I heard about a gash on Zimmerman's face.

        <why did he need to be shot? thats my big question. no one seems to have an answer for that one. that law in florida is just crazy.>

        That's the big question. We will never know really IF he needed to be shot, but the point is that the FL law - a law that's on the books in 32 other states - should really be looked at. It's a license to kill, with the burden on the person shot. Not really such a great idea, 'eh?
        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

          Thu, March 29, 2012 - 2:55 PM
          <What evidence? Here we go...taking "evidence" and then spinning it. Exactly what "evidence" is this?>
          Zimmerman calls 911. That's a number to be called in case of emergencies.
          He tells the operator that Martin looks like he's up to no good, but all Martin is doing is "walking around looking about."

          It is raining and Martin is wearing a hoody. Zimmerman has already described that Martin is Black. But repeats the fact.
          "Yeah, now he’s coming toward me. He’s got his hands in his waist band.

And he’s a Black male."

          Martin was alone. Yet Zimmerman says "These assholes they always get away"
          Zimmerman was profiling; placing Martin in a criminal group.

          pro·fil·ing  [proh-fahy-ling]
          noun
          the use of specific characteristics, as race or age, to make generalizations about a person, as whether he or she may be engaged in illegal activity.
          dictionary.reference.com/brows...filing
          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

            Sat, March 31, 2012 - 9:08 AM
            Suspecting someone is a criminal because of his behavior l is not profiling, Suspecting that he is just because he is black is. It remains to be demonstrated that Zimmerman's suspicions were because of Martin's race rather than his behavior.
          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

            Sat, March 31, 2012 - 5:59 PM
            <Martin was alone. Yet Zimmerman says "These assholes they always get away"
            Zimmerman was profiling; placing Martin in a criminal group.>

            Um...see what I mean? Why do you AUTOMATICALLY assume that Zimmerman meant black people? This is what I've been bitching about for weeks now. Those that want to use their own agenda & bias in order to take advantage of this kid's death need to take a rest. I understood that line to mean - and in the CONTEXT to his WHOLE discussion with 911 - the thieves that have been ripping off his neighborhood. Can you even consider for a moment that this is what he meant? At least CONSIDER that?

            Gerbil - that video is bullshit. A) there are close cuts on Zimmerman's head that show two large gashes. B) He was seen by medical personnel on the scene, so I am betting that he was cleaned up. C) One of the witnesses to the scene said that while he could not see much because it was so dark, the man that stood up after the shooting was holding his face, "forehead", I believe that he said. D) There was a grassy area on both sides of a sidewalk, so...so much for that meme that Zimmerman's head could not have been smashed against the cement, as he has stated. E) Trayvon's dad said that it was not his son screaming, 'Help!' F) Two more witnesses have reportedly stated that they saw Trayvon hit Zimmerman, who was knocked down, and then jump on Zimmerman while he was on the ground.

            So...don't we all think that we should wait for FACTS, instead of just bullshit meme-as-fact?

            <so I feel as if I have to say something about the shameful, quasi-state-sanctioned execution of Trayvon Martin.>

            Come on now. See what I mean?

            <Trayvon Martin was 17>

            A 6'2", 190# 17 year old football player. Let's be honest about who he was. Just saying 17 will form each individual's idea about what a 17 year old looks like.

            <This joker George Zimmerman then got out of his truck to (perhaps) scuffle with Trayvon>

            Wow.

            <and then shot him in cold blood, as far as anyone can figure>

            Wow.

            <while Trayvon was pleading for his life.>

            Wow. Even though Trayvon's father has stated that the cries for "Help!" were not by his son. See what happens? Parrots read this and then squak about it to others...creating this narrative that is bullshit.

            <Zimmerman claims it is his high-pitched voice we hear begging for his life between the firing of the first and the second shot, after which there is silence. Take a look at a picture of the man. I don’t even know what to say.>

            Then shut the fuck up.

            <He is racist as the day is long, as can be deduced from his thoughts on the nature of “being suspicious,” oh, and by his saying “fucking coons” while on the phone to the goddamn police dispatcher.>

            No one knows what he actually said. Others have said that he said "goons", as in the goons that have been ripping off the neighborhood.

            <The problem is the cops didn’t arrest Zimmerman at the scene.>

            Except that they detained him, and after detention, chose to release him. Most people don't even know that he was taken away in a squad car, hands cuffed behind him.

            <She urged him to run, but he said he was not going to run, he would just “walk fast.”>

            Reportedly, he also said that he was going to go confront his follower.

            I'm not even going forward with this bullshit anymore. Straight up bullshit.

            <Mr. Zimmerman used the "Stand Your Ground " law as his legal defense for killing his alleged attacker. However, the reported facts, including the words of the 911 dispatcher, indicate that Mr. Zimmerman left the safety of his vehicle to physically approach someone whom he reported as suspicious looking.>

            Not relevant. Maybe you should read the actual law as written? Here, since you could not take the time to do so:

            (FL)776.012Use of force in defense of person.—...a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
            (1)He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony;

            So, according to Zimmerman, this guy was on top of him beating his head into the ground. There's no point of law here saying that it was unlawful to follow ANYONE.

            <but why did he exit his car to approach someone who was on foot if he felt threatened by the person walking?>

            Who cares? It's not illegal? All that does is make Zimmerman a jerk. He committed no crime there.

            <How could you feel threatened if you leave the safety of your vehicle to approach a "suspicious looking" pedestrian?>

            Maybe because, as reported, Trayvon FIRST struck Zimmerman, which (reportedly) knocked him down, at which point, according to Zimmerman and two other witnesses (reportedly), Trayvon then jumped on top of Zimmerman and whupped his ass on the ground, at this point, Zimmerman screamed for help (according to Trayvon's father, who said that it was not his son's voice screaming).

            <Common sense would dictate that the unarmed pedestrian being followed by an unknown car would be more likely to feel threatened than the car rider with the gun.>

            A generalized feeling of threat is not enough, as evidenced by the ACTUAL LAW AS WRITTEN.
            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

              Sat, March 31, 2012 - 7:33 PM
              "A 6'2", 190# 17 year old football player. Let's be honest about who he was. Just saying 17 will form each individual's idea about what a 17 year old looks like."

              Where do people live? As if it's impossible for a 6'2" 17 year old male to be dangerous?!
              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                Sun, April 8, 2012 - 11:40 PM
                <Where do people live? As if it's impossible for a 6'2" 17 year old male to be dangerous?!>

                That's one of the big issues here. For weeks, no one knew that he was so tall, so big and a football player. They thought he was the kid in the photos that were on non-stop.

                <What is your source that Zimmerman said he was "sucker punched"?>

                This was probably covered days ago, but there are many reports - some from Zimmerman's father - saying that he was sucker-punched by Trayvon. Again...let's wait until there is some actual real investigation...IF that actually happens.

                <Zimmerman was not simply saying Martin's behavior was suspicious. He was assigning Martin to a criminal group, even though Martin had committed no crime. Zimmerman was profiling.>

                So, now you're psychic? He was "profiling" a kid walking through an area at night? At first, he could not tell the kid's color. It was only afterwards when he could - so that means that Zimmerman started to follow the kid BEFORE he knew the skin color, right?

                You'd have to KNOW what was in Zimmerman's heart to say that he was "profiling".

                Do you?


                <I've seen fights where someone gets decked with a single punch, that doesn't make it a sucker-punch.>

                Oh. Cool. We're devolving into what constitutes a "sucker-punch".

                <"An unnamed witness speaking on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" said the entirety of the scuffle he saw between the two took place on grass, challenging Zimmerman's claim that Martin had smashed his head against a sidewalk after punching him in the face>

                I saw that interview, and the guy DID NOT say that. He said that there was a concrete sidewalk running between the grass areas, and he could not see for sure where they were.

                <If you observe an innocent person's behavior, profile them, and put them in a criminal class it is wrong.>

                No, he was not put "in a criminal class". He was being followed because in the past, others HAD ripped off these homes. Someone exhibiting what could be taken as criminal behavior I suppose has been profiled...could be said to be profiled, but so the fuck what? If someone is walking in the dark dressed like that - before anyone knew the color of the person - that is grounds in an area that had seen a lot of break-ins in the past to be seen as suspicious. That is not at all surprising. Not a bit.

                <I think this "eyewitness" just might be full of shit. Cases of cops coercing eyewitnesses are legion->

                Way to poison the well. Yes, let's call the witnesses bullshit just ... uh ... because. Good idea. That's logical.

                <Ah, so your amateur medical diagnosis of cleaned up wounds from a distance from a grainy surveillance video is more reliable than the observations of the cop who arrested Zimmerman, the paramedics who treated him, and the eye witness (discovered by at least two news sources, not "coughed up" by the police) who saw Martin on top of him beating his head into the ground. Got it.>

                Yes, because to Rockstar he (still) insists that anything that goes against his pre-determined belief systems constitutes lies & conspiracy.

                <As the Tawana Brawley, Duke Lacrosse team and Jena 6 cases attest, why do we need to wait for investigations to conclude or wait for actual evidence of what happens in criminal cases when racial demagogues like Al Sharpton can instantly determine the truth with no evidence at all and then tell us what to think?>

                Exxxactly.

                <Um, *anyone* can tell if a nose is broken when you are treated to several crystal clear full-torso shots of the person.>

                THAT IS NOT TRUE AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!! NOT AT ALL!!!!!!! Holy fuck. Do you not ever watch any MMA? These guys get their noses broken ALL THE TIME, and it rarely looks "broken". The blood stops almost instantly when it's taken care of. You have just proven your worth.

                <lol @ goons>

                Yeah. To me - it does not sound like "goons". To me...there's what sounds like a distinctive "c".

                <Even if Zimmerman was unfair in judging Martin too quickly, if Zimmerman is right that Martin jumped him and beat his head into the ground, someone being suspicious of you doesn't give you the right to beat his head into the ground.>

                That's the main point. Even a guy that's racist. Someone following you is not a good enough reason to punch them. IF it turns out that Trayvon started the fight, there's no case - no reason to even TRY to prosecute. Maybe that's why the police never went that direction...maybe they have those witnesses? Would you agree that this is POSSIBLE?

                Wow. There's like........fifty more posts to go though.
                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                  Mon, April 9, 2012 - 1:18 AM
                  "Virtually any unwanted contact between two people that directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking."

                  Uhm, following is not contact. If Zimmerman's story is true, the only contact was initiated by Martin, not Zimmerman. And by your definition above, if he contacted Zimmerman with the purpose of fighting or intimidating Zimmerman so that the latter would stop following him, then it would be MARTIN who would fit your definition of stalking.

                  "You just don't want to accept that Zimmerman was stalking Martin. "

                  You're right, because no definition of stalking fits merely following someone. You offer definition after definition each of which fails to fit the facts. You keep pushing this ":stalking" meme simply because it's what you want to believe regardless of the facts.

                  What you don't seem to understand is that merely being followed doesn''t justfy beating a man's head into the ground, pavement or otherwise. So your unjustified "stalking" obsession is irrelevant.

                  ""In an affidavit filed by Crump, Trayvon Martin's girlfriend says he was afraid and attempting to get away from Zimmerman. However, the phone call was disconnected when it appears the phone was either dropped or knocked away from Martin."

                  Ah, a characterization by a reporter (and reporters have been so reliable on the facts in this case) about what an attorney's affidavit said about what a girl said that Martin said, even though no reporter who actually heard that recorded affidavit has actually quoted the girl saying that Martin said he was scared. Multiple level hearsay. Rock solid evidence you have there. Even though I have since found a number of people claim that the girl said that Martin was scared, I have yet to hear or read a single exact quotation of the girl actually saying that Martin said he was scared.

                  But nevertheless, once again, even if he worried about a guy following him, that wouldn't in itself give him the legal right to beat the guy's head into the pavement.

                  "I'll start with your repeated claim that someone witnessed Zimmerman's head being beaten into the pavement."

                  Speculation is conjecture based on no or insufficient evidence. I never said that someone witnessed Zimmerman's head being beaten into the pavement. I said that someone witnessed Martin beating Zimmerman's head into the ground. It's a fact that a witness said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him. Whether or not the person's account is true, that he asserted it is a fact. That's evidence. It's a fact that Zimmerman's arresting police officer said he saw blood from Zimmerman's nose and from the back of his head, and that paramedics treated Zimmerman's injuries at the scene. Injuries to his nose support the proposition that what the witness saw was Martin beating Zimmerman's head. Lacerations to the back of Zimmerman's head supports the proposition that his head was being beaten against something hard on the ground. I already quoted the witness saying he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him. Even if his account is false, it's a fact that that's what he said.

                  In contrast, you claim that Martin was scared of Zimmerman with no supporting evidence beyond multiple level hearsay and not even a direct quotation from the girlfriend. Speculation. You claim that Zimmerman confronted Martin rather than vice versa with no supporting evidence. Speculation. You claim that if Zimmerman did not have a gun, there would be no threat to life, but support that with no evidence. Speculation. You claim with no supporting evidence that Martin did not beat the crap out of Zimmerman. Speculation. You claimed with no evidence that Zimmerman was charged with domestic assault. Speculation. You claim with no evidence that Zimmerman reached into his jacket to get his cell phone and that’s when Martin attacked Zimmerman. Speculation. You claim that Martin had no injuries consistent with his beating Zimmerman when all the funeral director said was that he saw no injuries, not that there weren’t any (even though there needn’t be any on Martin if he was the one who assaulted Zimmerman as described by Zimmerman). Speculation. You claimed with no evidence other than a grainy, low resolution video that Zimmerman had no bruises, a video later clarified that showed injuries. Speculation. You claimed that the “suspicious” behavior Martin exhibited was that “Trayvon was trying to figure out if he was being followed. “ You weren’t there and no witness supports that, so that’s pure speculation.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                    Mon, April 9, 2012 - 2:44 AM
                    <So your unjustified "stalking" obsession is irrelevant.>
                    So...
                    Stalking is irrelevant? Following is irrelevant?

                    <I never said that someone witnessed Zimmerman's head being beaten into the pavement. I said that someone witnessed Martin beating Zimmerman's head into the ground.>
                    "That someone claimed to have witnessed Martin on top of Zimmerman beating the latter's head into the pavement. That's a fact backed by more than one news operation that interviewed the guy. "

                    What you falsely claimed was a fact is irrelevant?

                    <You claim that Zimmerman confronted Martin rather than vice versa with no supporting evidence.>
                    That you ask me to defend statements I did not make is irrelevant?

                    <In contrast, you claim that Martin was scared of Zimmerman with no supporting evidence beyond multiple level hearsay and not even a direct quotation from the girlfriend.>
                    The girlfriend's affidavit is irrelevant?
                    What Zimmerman said concerning Martin on his 911 call is irrelevant?

                    The only thing that's relevant is that Martin was beating Zimmerman. So he deserved to die?
                    Case closed.
                    I see no point in debating anything else here.
                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                      Mon, April 9, 2012 - 1:22 PM
                      <Stalking is irrelevant? Following is irrelevant?>

                      Yes.

                      <What you falsely claimed was a fact is irrelevant?>

                      It's not a falsity to repeat another claim.

                      <The girlfriend's affidavit is irrelevant?>

                      Yes, because even if it was allowed - it gives no reason to allow Trayvon to initiate violence, as reported.

                      <What Zimmerman said concerning Martin on his 911 call is irrelevant?>

                      Yes, because even if it was allowed - it gives no reason to allow Trayvon to initiate violence, as reported.

                      <The only thing that's relevant is that Martin was beating Zimmerman. So he deserved to die?>

                      "deserved" is your word. No one "deserved" to die, but LEGALLY, IF these witnesses are correct and are to be believed (as it appears that they were), Trayvon's reported initiation of violence is what caused his death, and Zimmerman did not deserve to be struck, either.

                      <I see no point in debating anything else here.>

                      HA!
                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                      Tue, April 10, 2012 - 12:30 PM
                      “Following is irrelevant? “

                      What part of “No one is entitled to beat someone’s head into the pavement just for being followed” do you not understand?

                      "What you falsely claimed was a fact is irrelevant? "

                      That you think it's false is more of your speculation. A witness said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating the latter. Zimmerman had injuries to the front and back of his head. Unless Martin was an octopus with arms that could beat both the front and back of Zimmerman's head at the same time, then that's evidence that Zimmerman's head was beaten onto a hard surface. If Zimmerman's head was beaten into the pavement, as the evidence suggests, and the witness said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating Zimmerman, then that's strong evidence that the witness saw Martin beating Zimmerman's head into a hard surface. As grass doesn't cut heads, I'm going with pavement. Claims made based on evidence are not speculation.

                      Having said that, I counted eight times I referred to the witness saying he saw Martin beat Zimmerman's head into the ground rather than the pavement and you found just one statement I made AFTER you laughed when I said I wasn't making assertions based on speculation where I said he said he saw him beat his head into the pavement., Yet you referred to my "repeated" claim that the witness said he saw Martin beat Zimmerman's head into the pavement. I guess we can add that to your erroneous claim that Zimmerman had multiple assault charges and count it to your propensity for exaggeration.

                      "The girlfriend's affidavit is irrelevant? "

                      You quoted nothing from the "affidavit" that has Martin saying he was scared. Again, speculation.

                      "The only thing that's relevant is that Martin was beating Zimmerman. So he deserved to die? "

                      If you had a gun and someone was on top of you beating your head into the pavement and he refused to stop and you had a gun, you know you'd use the gun. And you'd have a right to do so.

                      "I see no point in debating anything else here. "

                      I'm surprised you went as far as you did, since you obviously made up your mind before any relevant evidence came in.
                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                        Tue, April 10, 2012 - 2:21 PM
                        <<
                        What part of “No one is entitled to beat someone’s head into the pavement just for being followed” do you not understand?

                        And now you are doing the same thing, taking the shooter at face value in that all he did was follow Trayvon. Should we take the shooter at face value that it was the dead kid that initiated the violence? How do we know that Zimmerman did not in fact pull his gun on Travyon prior to the violence? How do we know that Zimmerman did not initiate the violence and Martin fought back and kicked his ass?

                        <<A witness said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating the latter.

                        That speaks nothing of who initiated the violence. I had a drunk guy attack me once which resulted in me on top beating his ass. It does not then follow that the person on top initiated the violence.

                        <<If you had a gun and someone was on top of you beating your head into the pavement and he refused to stop and you had a gun, you know you'd use the gun. And you'd have a right to do so.

                        What if you pulled the gun first and initiated the violence?
                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                          Wed, April 11, 2012 - 11:18 AM
                          "And now you are doing the same thing, taking the shooter at face value in that all he did was follow Trayvon."

                          I most certainly have not Jeff. Over and over I've said that I don't know what happened that night. But the burden of proof is on the state to have sufficient evidence that Zimmerman acted unlawfully in order to charge him. Since Zimmerman's account has him acting lawfully in self-defense (if his account were true), then to demonstrate that he acted lawfully, the state would have to have evidence that counters his account. Peter had repeatedly been focusing on the fact that Zimmerman had been following Martin. But merely following Martin doesn't counter Zimmerman's account, since IF Zimmerman's account were true, merely being followed wouldn't have given Martin the right to beat Zimmerman's head into the pavement. That doesn't mean I'm taking Zimmerman's account at face value. It means I'm noting the illogic of simply citing Zimmerman following Martin as a counter to Zimmerman's claim that Martin beat his head into the pavement.

                          "What if you pulled the gun first and initiated the violence? "

                          If I answer your question, will you finally answer mine?

                          "That speaks nothing of who initiated the violence."

                          True, but if in the end no evidence identifies who started it, then tie goes to the person who enjoys a legal presumption of innocence.
                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                            Wed, April 11, 2012 - 11:53 AM
                            <<"And now you are doing the same thing, taking the shooter at face value in that all he did was follow Trayvon."

                            I most certainly have not Jeff.>>

                            Ron: "What part of “No one is entitled to beat someone’s head into the pavement just for being followed” do you not understand?"

                            Is the above statement an indication that you think Zimmerman was only following him?

                            <<But merely following Martin doesn't counter Zimmerman's account

                            I never indicated that it did.

                            <<IF Zimmerman's account were true, merely being followed wouldn't have given Martin the right to beat Zimmerman's head into the pavement.

                            OK, that sentence is better. : )

                            <<That doesn't mean I'm taking Zimmerman's account at face value.

                            OK, I believe you being that you are in the habit of being honest. Unlike some others in this thread....

                            <<It means I'm noting the illogic of simply citing Zimmerman following Martin as a counter to Zimmerman's claim that Martin beat his head into the pavement.

                            I never put forth any such citation.

                            <<True, but if in the end no evidence identifies who started it, then tie goes to the person who enjoys a legal presumption of innocence.

                            I absoultely agree. But right now we are postulating about possibilities, subsequently the points I have raised are valid to discuss. Regardless of Andrews attempts to dismiss as "irrelevant" that which does not fit his theme.
                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                              Wed, April 11, 2012 - 2:40 PM
                              "Ron: "What part of “No one is entitled to beat someone’s head into the pavement just for being followed” do you not understand?"

                              Is the above statement an indication that you think Zimmerman was only following him? "

                              No. A sound argument needs justifiable premises and the conclusion must be supported by the premises. One can attack an argument's soundness either by disputing the truth or credibility of the premises or by saying that even if the premises are true, they don't logically support the conclusion. Doing the latter doesn't commit one to accepting the truth of the premises. My argument was attacking the relevance of the assertion that Zimmerman was following Martin. I was attacking the validity of Peter's presumed argument, not assuming the truth of any particular premise.

                              "I never indicated that it did. "

                              Then why is it relevant?

                              Have to run to work. Will continue this later
                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                Wed, April 11, 2012 - 3:00 PM
                                << I was attacking the validity of Peter's presumed argument, not assuming the truth of any particular premise.

                                Gotcha.

                                <<"I never indicated that it did. "

                                Then why is it relevant? <<

                                I never indicated that following Martin in and of itself was relevant to a court case. But it is relevant in determining the mistakes Zimmerman made in his role as a neighborhood watchman, he violated what are basic principles of the watch programs. Something I myself am aware of being that I helped to start a program on my own block.
                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                        Tue, April 10, 2012 - 5:51 PM
                        <Claims made based on evidence are not speculation.>

                        Generally...I'd agree with you on this one. BUT! Because we - the general public - have not heard directly from any of the reported witnesses that saw Trayvon initiate this conflict, it's all speculation, is it not? We've not heard from the police, nor any other investigators with some kinds of facts. So...is this not speculation? Reportedly, Trayvon first struck Zimmerman (Zimmerman's previous actions before that moment being IRRELEVANT to the point of law), knocked him down, got on top of him and was banging his head on the pavement, that we know WAS there, at which point they were rolling around this area, part grass & part cement. That's what we have heard. The specifics past what has been reported in the press? We know that Zimmerman had cuts on the back of his head, not because because it was reported, but because we saw them. We know that Trayvon is dead. That's about it. Those are the unquestioned facts. All else is speculation for a) how the cuts got there & b) what finally caused Zimmerman to shoot Trayvon, since un-named witnesses' statements are not facts UNTIL they have become 'facts' through investigation, right?

                        One 'fact' that I'm interested in following is how two voice experts have stated clearly that the voice screaming "Help!" was not Zimmerman. WHY, if it was not Zimmerman (as it sounds to me) yelling this, was Trayvon screaming? Is it possible that Trayvon DID initiate the conflict (as reported), but was losing the fight, and was shot while fighting Zimmerman? Sure, I suppose.

                        <I'm surprised you went as far as you did, since you obviously made up your mind before any relevant evidence came in.>

                        Which is what most of the MSM has allowed to be the going belief on this story. Basically, this is the story: Black minor killed by non-black so an injustice & coverup has happened.

                        <Have you read all the reports of the initial investigation and all the evidentiary material that was at the disposal of the district attorney?>

                        Boy, is THAT a good question.




                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                          Tue, April 10, 2012 - 6:23 PM
                          <<Generally...I'd agree with you on this one. BUT! Because we - the general public - have not heard directly from any of the reported witnesses that saw Trayvon initiate this conflict, it's all speculation, is it not?

                          Ummmm.....there has not been ANY witness testimony put forth that indicates they witnessed the initiation of the conflict, let alone that they specifically witnessed Trayvon initiate the violence. Every witness I have heard indicates they observed the midst of the struggle, or the immediate aftermath in the wake of the shooting. The aftermath has Zimmerman on top of the dead body of Trayvon Martin, straddling him according to two women that were interviewed on Anderson Cooper.

                          <<it's all speculation, is it not?

                          Exactly my point, which is why you should not speak definitively that Trayvon initiated the violence. Because when you do you are taking the shooter at face value.

                          <<We've not heard from the police, nor any other investigators with some kinds of facts.

                          The police have leaked what they wanted to leak. I would still like to know specifically why the lead investigator doubted Zimmerman's story.

                          <<Reportedly, Trayvon first struck Zimmerman

                          According to who? Just Zimmerman word right?

                          <knocked him down, got on top of him and was banging his head on the pavement

                          Again, that is the world according to Zimmerman. How do you know that Zimmerman did not initiate the violence, but that Martin ultimately was winning out? How do you know that Zimmerman did not pull his pistol first and that Martin subsequently reacted in fear? When did the pistol come out?

                          <<One 'fact' that I'm interested in following is how two voice experts have stated clearly that the voice screaming "Help!" was not Zimmerman.

                          Maybe because it was indeed Zimmerman that initiated the violence, which would make sense if Trayvon were screaming for help. Especially if Zimmerman had pulled his gun, Martin may have been trying to get him to drop it, especially if Zimmerman first pulled the gun then the violence ensued. These are scenarious that should be explored if at all possible.

                          <<WHY, if it was not Zimmerman (as it sounds to me) yelling this

                          You can tell the difference between Zimmerman and Martin's screams?

                          <<Is it possible that Trayvon DID initiate the conflict (as reported), but was losing the fight, and was shot while fighting Zimmerman?

                          Absolutely that is possible. But tell me, why do you reject the possiblity of the scenario being flip flopped, with Zimmerman initiating violence and even possibly having his gun drawn?

                          <<<Have you read all the reports of the initial investigation and all the evidentiary material that was at the disposal of the district attorney?>

                          Boy, is THAT a good question. <<

                          If anyone has a link to that i would love to read it.

                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                          Tue, April 17, 2012 - 1:00 PM
                          Andrew: "Because we - the general public - have not heard directly from any of the reported witnesses that saw Trayvon initiate this conflict".

                          Where is this report of witnesses that seen Trayvon initiate the conflict Andrew? You repeat this over and over and yet I can't find one report to verify your statement. Please provide something beyond "I heard it on TV" so that it can indeed be verified. This would be a very important claim if there were such witness reports.
                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                        Tue, April 10, 2012 - 10:30 PM
                        Ron,

                        <What part of “No one is entitled to beat someone’s head into the pavement just for being followed” do you not understand?>
                        What part of I never claimed that Zimmerman's head was beat into the pavement just for following Trayvon do you not understand?

                        <the witness said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman>
                        “When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point,” John said.
                        www.wnd.com/2012/03/witn...ed-zimmerman/

                        "in the grass" is the quote from the witness John.

                        <the witness said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating Zimmerman, then that's strong evidence that the witness saw Martin beating Zimmerman's head into a hard surface As grass doesn't cut heads, I'm going with pavement.>
                        The witness said grass.
                        But grass does not support your speculation, so you're going with pavement?

                        <you found just one statement I made AFTER you laughed when I said I wasn't making assertions based on speculation where I said he said he saw him beat his head into the pavement.>
                        Are you suggesting your claim that a witness saw Martin beating Zimmerman's head into the pavement isn't speculation?
                        Are you suggesting you only claimed a witness saw Martin beating Zimmerman's head into the pavement once?

                        <However, walking around in the rain looking at houses while your face is covered by a hood might be [suspicious] (and that's what Zimmerman claimed Martin was doing>
                        Did Zimmerman claim Trayvon was looking at houses while his face was covered, or is that speculation?

                        <you know you'd use the gun. And you'd have a right to do so.>
                        Now you think you know what I'd do.

                        No, I don't have a right to take a human life, as Zimmerman did.

                        <I'm surprised you went as far as you did>
                        I went as far as I did because I THINK:
                        An innocent young man was killed.
                        The investigation has been poorly handled and the law that is apparently being used to justify the killing sucks.
                        It sucks that a thread has been devoted to making it Trayvon's fault.
                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                          Wed, April 11, 2012 - 3:22 AM
                          "What part of I never claimed that Zimmerman's head was beat into the pavement just for following Trayvon do you not understand?"

                          So why is constant reference to Zimmerman following Martin relevant? Zimmerman claimed that Martin was beating his head into the pavement. The only relevance of bringing up Zimmerman's following of Martin as a rejoinder is if you're claiming that following someone at least in some circumstances justifies beating the follower's head into the pavement.

                          "Now you think you know what I'd do. "

                          Yes, because I know you're not an idiot, and I presume you're not suicidal.

                          ""in the grass" is the quote from the witness John. "

                          Wrong. He said the guy doing the beating was laying in the grass, not the guy being beaten.

                          " the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass"

                          "The witness said grass. "

                          The witness said the guy doing the beating was lying in the grass after the shooting. He didn't say Martin's head was beaten into the grass.

                          "But grass does not support your speculation, so you're going with pavement? "


                          So grass causes lacerations? Again, grass doesn't cut heads, and he didn't say Martin was beating Zimmerman's head into the grass. You're misreading the quotation. And making a claim based on evidence is not speculation.Zimmerman was seen with Martin on top of him with Martin beating Zimmerman. Zimmerman had lacerations on the back of his head. Those two facts corroborate Zimmerman's claim that Martin was beating his head into the pavement.

                          "Are you suggesting your claim that a witness saw Martin beating Zimmerman's head into the pavement isn't speculation? "

                          Yes, because it's based on evidence. Claims backed by evidence are not speculation, by definition of speculation.

                          "Are you suggesting you only claimed a witness saw Martin beating Zimmerman's head into the pavement once? "

                          After you had "ROFL" in response to my claim that none of my assertions were based on speculation, I went through the thread looking at every time I made a claim about what the witness said. I found eight occasions when I said the witness said he saw Martin beating Zimmerman's head into the ground rather than the pavement. I missed the one you found, but the one you found was made after you made your "ROFL" comment, so wasn't applicable to your reaction.


                          "An innocent young man was killed."

                          That he was innocent is completely your speculation and entirely wishful thinking. You weren't there and no witness can back this claim that Martin was "innocent."

                          "It sucks that a thread has been devoted to making it Trayvon's fault."

                          What if it was Martin's fault? Do you just dismiss that possibility out of hand?
                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                            Wed, April 11, 2012 - 10:43 PM
                            <Zimmerman claimed that Martin was beating his head into the pavement. The only relevance of bringing up Zimmerman's following of Martin as a rejoinder>
                            What are you talking about? Here's how it started

                            April 4, 2012 - 1:20 AM
                            <was it unreasonable to think that was suspicious? And again, even if it were unreasonable, that wouldn't have given Martin the right to attack Zimmerman if that's what happened.>
                            >>Thinking Martin was suspicious was not ALL that happened.
                            Zimmerman was stalking Martin with a loaded weapon.<<

                            My "rejoinder" was regarding just thinking.

                            >>"Now you think you know what I'd do. "<<
                            <Yes...>
                            We'll you're wrong. I do not share Zimmerman's disregard for human life.

                            <The witness said the guy doing the beating was lying in the grass after the shooting. He didn't say Martin's head was beaten into the grass.>
                            The witness didn't say anyone's head was beaten. That's purely your speculation.

                            <You're misreading the quotation.>
                            Actually, you're the one misreading then misrepresenting my responses.

                            <Those two facts corroborate Zimmerman's claim that Martin was beating his head into the pavement.>
                            No they don't.

                            <I missed the one you found, but the one you found was made after you made your "ROFL" comment>
                            And before my repeated comment.

                            <You weren't there and no witness can back this claim that Martin was "innocent.">
                            You weren't there, no witness has backed the claim that Martin beat Zimmerman's head into the pavement.
                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                              Thu, April 12, 2012 - 10:34 AM
                              "Zimmerman was stalking Martin with a loaded weapon."

                              But you identified no evidence that Martin even knew Zimmerman had a loaded weapon, so how is that relevant?

                              "We'll you're wrong. I do not share Zimmerman's disregard for human life"

                              You're not a mind reader. You don't know Zimmerman's attitude towards human life. So you're saying that if you had a gun and a guy has you pinned on the ground and is beating your head into the pavement and he won't stop despite your repeated cries for help (the hypothetical, based on Zimmerman's account), then you would rather let him beat you to death or into a coma rather than use the gun. Noted. But pardon me if I don't believe that you're either stupid or suicidal.

                              "The witness didn't say anyone's head was beaten"

                              You don't know that. That's your speculation. And heads don't beat lacerations and bloody noses into themselves.

                              "Actually, you're the one misreading then misrepresenting my responses. "

                              I said that the witness said he saw Martin beating Zimmerman's head into the ground. You tried to refute that by pointing out that the witness said he saw MARTIN on the grass after he was shot. That Martin ended up on the grass doesn't contradict the notion that Martin was beating Zimmerman's head into the ground before he was shot.

                              ""No they don't. "

                              Simply denying evidence doesn't make it disappear. You weren't there so you don't know what happened. Mere wishful thinking that the narrative you want to believe is true doesn't make it true or eliminate contrary evidence. In any court in this country, a witness saying he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating Zimmerman and evidence that Zimmerman had injuries to the front and back of his head would be considered corroborating evidence of an account of Martin being on top of Zimmerman beating the latter's head into the pavement. Perhaps you don't understand what "corroborating evidence" means.

                              "And before my repeated comment. "

                              Except you referred to my "repeated" claim that the witness said he saw Martin beating Zimmerman's head into the pavement, when all you could find was one occasion of me saying that, compared to all eight other occasions of me saying that the witness said he saw Martin beating Zimmerman's head into the ground.

                              "You weren't there, no witness has backed the claim that Martin beat Zimmerman's head into the pavement."

                              Like I said already, the "John" witness plus injuries to the front and back of Zimmerman's head support that claim. In contrast, you have provided no evidence to support your assumption that Martin was innocent and Zimmerman didn't act in justifiable self-defense.

                              At this point, charges have been filed, so there's no point in further discussing this case before more evidence comes in. I just hope that a fair trial is possible in light of all the race baiting, inflammatory stoking of racial tensions by Sharpton and his ilk, exacerbated by an enabling mainstream media broadcasting distortion after distortion and unsubstantiated claim after unsubstantiated claim.
                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                Thu, April 12, 2012 - 10:18 PM
                                <But you identified no evidence that Martin even knew Zimmerman had a loaded weapon, so how is that relevant?>
                                Martin didn't know about Zimmerman's 911 call. It's still contains relevant information about Zimmerman.

                                You have argued that Zimmerman shot Martin because he was afraid Martin would get his gun. So is the gun relevant?
                                You have presented no evidence that Martin knew this. Nor evidence that Zimmerman thought this.
                                You are playing hypocritical word games. I just don't always call you on it.
                                Perhaps I should. :)

                                >"We'll you're wrong. I do not share Zimmerman's disregard for human life"<
                                <You're not a mind reader.>
                                ROFLOL You know this how?
                                Funny coming from the man who claims he knows what I would do with a gun. Are you a mind reader?

                                <You don't know Zimmerman's attitude towards human life.>
                                I know Zimmerman carried a loaded gun and shot and killed a kid.

                                <But pardon me if I don't believe that you're either stupid or suicidal.>
                                Neither do I. Refusing to kill another human doesn't make me stupid or suicidal.

                                >"The witness didn't say anyone's head was beaten"<
                                <You don't know that. That's your speculation.>
                                No, it's you denying the quote from the witness you presented.

                                < And heads don't beat lacerations and bloody noses into themselves.>
                                Have you got a witness to present?

                                <I said that the witness said he saw Martin beating Zimmerman's head into the ground.>
                                No, you wrote the "pavement". Are you retracting that now?

                                < You tried to refute that by pointing out that the witness said he saw MARTIN on the grass after he was shot.>
                                I pointed out that the witness quote you presented mentions only grass.
                                It does not mention pavement, or heads, at all.
                                You're obviously able to make these distinctions but it seems you are being rather dishonest about it now.

                                <That Martin ended up on the grass doesn't contradict the notion that Martin was beating Zimmerman's head into the ground before he was shot.>
                                Neither does what the witness actually said he saw support your speculative claim concerning what the witness saw.

                                <Simply denying evidence doesn't make it disappear.>
                                There is no evidence to make disappear.

                                <In any court in this country, a witness saying he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating Zimmerman and evidence that Zimmerman had injuries to the front and back of his head would be considered corroborating evidence of an account of Martin being on top of Zimmerman beating the latter's head into the pavement.>
                                Is the injury on the back of Zimmerman's head consistent with pavement, or a sprinkler head, or Zimmerman grabbing and scratching his head after he realized he killed Martin, or...?

                                <Except you referred to my "repeated" claim that the witness said he saw Martin beating Zimmerman's head into the pavement, when all you could find was one occasion of me saying that>
                                You mentioned the witness twice in the post I was responding to, and the pavement about four times.

                                < In contrast, you have provided no evidence to support your assumption that Martin was innocent and Zimmerman didn't act in justifiable self-defense.>
                                Trayvon was an innocent kid walking home from the store. If you and Zimmerman want to claim otherwise, that's not for me to prove.

                                <At this point, charges have been filed>
                                Yes.
                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                  Fri, April 13, 2012 - 12:47 AM
                                  "No, you wrote the "pavement"."

                                  No, with respect to what I said the witness "John" said he observed, I wrote "ground" eight times and "pavement" once. You focused on the once while erroneously claiming that I repeatedly said "pavement." Nevertheless, there's evidence he saw him beat his head into the pavement.

                                  "No, it's you denying the quote from the witness you presented. "

                                  Yes, I deny the witness said he saw Martin beat Zimmerman in the grass, because that's not what he said. You twisted what he said because what he actually said didn't fit what you would like to believe. He said he saw Martin lying in the grass after he was shot. He didn't say that he saw Martin beat Zimmerman in the grass.

                                  "There is no evidence to make disappear."

                                  Again, pretending evidence doesn't exist just because it doesn't fit what you'd like to believe doesn't make it disappear. The witness saying he saw Martin beat Zimmerman is evidence. The arresting police officer's report that he saw bleeding from Zimmerman's nose and the back of his head is evidence. The report of paramedics treating Zimmerman's wounds is evidence. As much as you'd obviously really like such evidence to not exist, it exists, your wishful thinking notwithstanding.

                                  "Is the injury on the back of Zimmerman's head consistent with pavement, or a sprinkler head, "

                                  Oh, so having your head beaten into a sprinkler head so much that that it causes lacerations is not dangerous?

                                  "or Zimmerman grabbing and scratching his head after he realized he killed Martin, or...? "

                                  Now you're just being ridiculous

                                  "You have argued that Zimmerman shot Martin because he was afraid Martin would get his gun."

                                  I never argued this. If at this point you still don't understand my point, then there's no point in continuing.

                                  "Trayvon was an innocent kid walking home from the store"

                                  That he was innocent is more speculation. How about waiting for actual evidence? It should be forthcoming.

                                  For the record, I've never assumed that Zimmerman's story was true. Unlike you, I don't presume to know enough about what happened that night to make conclusions, since I wasn't there, and I don't have the psychic abilities you think you do. I just recognized the legal obligation of the state to refute his self-defense story, and attacked the relevance of your constant references to Zimmerman following Martin.
                                  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                    Fri, April 13, 2012 - 8:52 AM
                                    <with respect to what I said the witness "John" said he observed>
                                    You are speculating and calling it evidence.

                                    <He said he saw Martin lying in the grass after he was shot.>
                                    And the witness quote doesn't mention pavement, or ground, only grass.

                                    <The arresting police officer's report that he saw bleeding from Zimmerman's nose and the back of his head is evidence.>
                                    I have never denied this evidence.

                                    <Oh, so having your head beaten into a sprinkler head so much that that it causes lacerations is not dangerous?>
                                    Who had their head beaten into ? so much that that it caused lacerations?

                                    <Now you're just being ridiculous>
                                    But witnesses saw Zimmerman grab his head apparently in shock. That's evidence!

                                    Of course, the difference may be that I know when I'm being ridiculous. ;)

                                    <attacked the relevance of your constant references to Zimmerman following Martin.>
                                    Easy to do if you dismiss Trayvon's girlfriend's statements.
                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                      Fri, April 13, 2012 - 11:21 AM
                                      "You are speculating and calling it evidence. "

                                      Observed bleeding from the front and abck of Zimmerman's head and medical treatment is not speculation.

                                      "And the witness quote doesn't mention pavement, or ground, only grass. "

                                      He said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him. How can he be on top of him beating him if Zimmerman was not already on the ground? Do you think he may have meant that he saw Martin standing on the shoulders of a completely erect Zimmerman while he beat Zimmerman downward? Oh, no, you can't mean that, since that would require Martin to be beating Zimmerman's head, which you don't want to believe happened. So maybe Zimmerman was doing a handstand (a typical neighborhood watch maneuver when encountering people) and Martin was standing on top of Zimmerman's feet beating Zimmerman's groin. And Zimmerman hurt his own head when he lost his grip and fell on his head, and fell in a way that he rolled, hurting his nose as well as the back of his head. Maybe they were Cirque du Soleil partners practicing and things got out of hand.

                                      Sheesh. Obviously if Martin was on top of Zimmerman and was beating Zimmerman as "John" claims he saw and Zimmerman had injuries to the front and back of his head, and Zimmerman had a wet back from being on the grass, as the arresting officer observed, then the most likely explanation consistent with those propositions (though of course the witness may have been wrong or lying) is that Martin was on top of Zimmerman while the latter was on his back and was beating Zimmerman's head into a hard surface.

                                      "But witnesses saw Zimmerman grab his head apparently in shock. That's evidence! "

                                      Right. He grabbed his head so hard in shock that he caused lacerations and bleeding. He gave himself a face palm so hard it bloodied his nose ::eyes roll::

                                      "Easy to do if you dismiss Trayvon's girlfriend's statements. "

                                      I haven't dismissed any of her statements, particularly as nothing what she claims to have witnessed (rather than her speculation) contradicts Zimmerman's self-defense claim.

                                      "Who had their head beaten into ? so much that that it caused lacerations? "

                                      ::sigh::
                                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                        Fri, April 13, 2012 - 12:51 PM
                                        <How can he be on top of him beating him if Zimmerman was not already on the ground? Do you think he may have meant that he saw Martin standing on the shoulders of a completely erect Zimmerman while he beat Zimmerman downward?>
                                        Thought you'd try and spin it into something stupid like this. I just didn't want to say it so you could deny it. ;)

                                        <then the most likely explanation consistent with those propositions (though of course the witness may have been wrong or lying) is that Martin was on top of Zimmerman while the latter was on his back and was beating Zimmerman's head into a hard surface.>
                                        Again, no evidence has been presented that ANY witness saw Martin beating Zimmerman's head.

                                        The police video may show what has been described as a single laceration. Not a multiple laceration scenario as you suggested.
                                        The most likely explanation, that can be supported by what both witnesses observed, is that Zimmerman cut his head on some object in the grass, possibly a sprinkler head.

                                        <Sheesh>
                                        Geepers Creepers!
                                        You have presented no witnesses to a pavement beating. You have presented no evidence of multiple lacerations to the back of Zimmerman's head.

                                        No matter what kind of word games you like to play, those claims are just speculation.
                                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                          Sat, April 14, 2012 - 1:05 AM
                                          "Thought you'd try and spin it into something stupid like this."

                                          Well, if you make a stupid suggestion, don't feign surprise when it's treated absurdly. You have yet to even suggest a plausible explanation for the reports of Zimmerman's head injuries.
                                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                            Sat, April 14, 2012 - 10:22 AM
                                            <Well, if you make a stupid suggestion, don't feign surprise when it's treated absurdly.>
                                            I wasn't surprised by your absurd response. Didn't pretend to be.

                                            The context was equating "ground" with "pavement" vs equating "ground" with "grass", not whether they were horizontal or vertical. I have not even disputed that Martin was seen on top of Zimmerman.

                                            The question is whether ANY witness has claimed they observed Martin hitting Zimmerman in the head, or beating his head against anything, pavement, ground, or grass. The only witness statement describing a surface, that has been quoted, is "John" saying "the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass"

                                            Perhaps Zimmerman was covering his head, as Martin was throwing body punches.

                                            <You have yet to even suggest a plausible explanation for the reports of Zimmerman's head injuries.>
                                            What head injuries?
                                            The head injuries that don't appear on the police video?
                                            The possible single laceration on the "enhanced" video?
                                            Or something else?
                                            Do you have a medical report/statement concerning Zimmerman's head injuries, or are you encouraging me to speculate?

                                            Perhaps Martin punch Zimmerman in the nose and Zimmerman stumbled back then fell to the ground and hit his head on something that cut it.
                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                              Sun, April 15, 2012 - 12:54 AM
                                              "What head injuries?"

                                              I'm not sure of the value of a continued discussion with someone with such short term memory problems. Only the head injuries frequently mentioned here and identified by the arresting officer.

                                              "Do you have a medical report/statement concerning Zimmerman's head injuries, or are you encouraging me to speculate? "

                                              Try reading the police report

                                              "Perhaps Martin punch Zimmerman in the nose and Zimmerman stumbled back then fell to the ground and hit his head on something that cut it. "

                                              And then Martin followed up and climbed on Martin and continued to beat him? You're accepting all that as an explanation for the head injuries plus what "John" saw?
                                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                Sun, April 15, 2012 - 3:07 AM
                                                <I'm not sure of the value of a continued discussion with someone with such short term memory problems.>
                                                I remember you wrote:
                                                <You don't know how he beat Zimmerman's head into the ground (if that happened).>
                                                I don't know IF he beat Zimmerman's head into the ground.
                                                I remember you wrote:
                                                <The only punch clearly claimed was a single one that hit Zimmerman>

                                                <Only the head injuries frequently mentioned here>
                                                Claims made with no supporting evidence.

                                                <and identified by the arresting officer.>
                                                The police report mention bleeding from the nose and back of the head.

                                                <Try reading the police report >
                                                I have.

                                                I offered a plausible explanation that accounts for Zimmerman's head injuries, as described in the police report, and accounts for what has been reported that "John" saw.
                                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                  Mon, April 16, 2012 - 10:35 AM
                                                  "Claims made with no supporting evidence. "

                                                  You mean besides what the arresting police officer said he saw as reported in his police report and the fact that paramedics were reported treating his injuries, both of which constitute evidence?

                                                  "I remember you wrote:
                                                  <The only punch clearly claimed was a single one that hit Zimmerman> "

                                                  So what? Beating someone's head into the pavement doesn't require punching. If he grabbed his head and rammed it into the pavement, that would amount to beating his head into the pavement but wouldn't involve punching.

                                                  "The police report mention bleeding from the nose and back of the head. "

                                                  Yes. Head injuries. Unless you're suggesting Zimmerman's head randomly bleeds from the front and back for no apparent reason.

                                                  "<Try reading the police report >
                                                  I have. "

                                                  Then why did you ask "What head injuries?"

                                                  "I offered a plausible explanation that accounts for Zimmerman's head injuries, as described in the police report, and accounts for what has been reported that "John" saw. "

                                                  So according to you, a plausible account is that Martin decked Zimmerman with a punch, Zimmerman fell back and hit his head against a sprinkler head, causing bleeding, and then Martin climbed on top of Zimmerman and continued to beat him. But you think that's consistent with Martin being completely innocent and not consistent with Zimmerman fearing for his life?
                                                  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                    Mon, April 16, 2012 - 10:36 PM
                                                    >Claims made with no supporting evidence.<
                                                    <You mean besides what the arresting police officer said...?>
                                                    Yes.
                                                    No evidence supporting the claim presented here that Martin broke Zimmerman's nose, or caused a head wound that required 12 stitches.

                                                    <Then why did you ask "What head injuries?">
                                                    Because I didn't know which alleged injuries you were referring to.

                                                    <So according to you, a plausible account is...>
                                                    No, that's according to you.

                                                    Apparently, you think the presumption of innocence only applies to Zimmerman.

                                                    It's a fact that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin.
                                                    If you want me to believe that Martin was shot and killed because he was guilty of a crime, you have to prove it.
                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                      Tue, April 17, 2012 - 2:47 AM
                                                      "No evidence supporting the claim presented here that Martin broke Zimmerman's nose, or caused a head wound that required 12 stitches. "

                                                      I never claimed his head wound required 12 stitches, so your criticism doesn't apply to any claim of mine. I said he had head wounds, to which you responded that I made such claims without evidence, when in fact there is in fact evidence he had head wounds.

                                                      "No, that's according to you. "

                                                      It was your scenario

                                                      "Apparently, you think the presumption of innocence only applies to Zimmerman. "

                                                      It applies to people charged with a crime. Has there been anyone else charged with a crime here?

                                                      "If you want me to believe that Martin was shot and killed because he was guilty of a crime, you have to prove it. "

                                                      Well, I don't need nor desire to convince you of anything. What I do know however is that if the state is justified in charging Zimmerman with a crime, then it bears the burden of proof, not Zimmerman, and it specifically bears the burden of disproving Zimmerman's self-defense claim. You've provided zero evidence to help in that cause.
                                                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                        Tue, April 17, 2012 - 7:46 AM

                                                        <I said he had head wounds, to which you responded that I made such claims without evidence, when in fact there is in fact evidence he had head wounds.>
                                                        Your claim is false. This is how it really went.
                                                        <You have yet to even suggest a plausible explanation for the reports of Zimmerman's head injuries.>
                                                        >What head injuries?<
                                                        <Only the head injuries frequently mentioned here>
                                                        >Claims made with no supporting evidence.<

                                                        <It was your scenario>
                                                        This claim is also false.

                                                        <It applies to people charged with a crime.>
                                                        You applied it to Zimmerman when he was not charged with a crime.
                                                        So, like I said, Trayvon was an innocent kid walking home from the store.

                                                        <Well, I don't need nor desire to convince you of anything.>
                                                        LOL
                                                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                          Tue, April 17, 2012 - 10:10 AM
                                                          "This is how it really went. "

                                                          Right, and did I ever mention 12 stitches? No. That was just you putting words in my mouth. I mentioned head injuries, and in fact there is evidence of head injuries, so obviously you're wrong.

                                                          "You applied it to Zimmerman when he was not charged with a crime."

                                                          I applied it to Zimmerman when people wanted him charged with a crime. That's what the protests were all about. If nobody wanted him charged with a crime there wouldn't be an issue. Obviously Martin can't be charged with a crime. But if people wanted Zimmerman charged and prosecuted for a crime, then they would have to face the reality that the state bears the burden of proof, not Zimmerman.

                                                          "So, like I said, Trayvon was an innocent kid walking home from the store. "

                                                          Again, that he was innocent is just your unsupported speculation. A presumption of innocence is not an assumption that an individual is in fact innocent. It's merely an identification of who bears the burden of proof in a criminal case. If the state wanted to charge someone with a crime, saying the person to be charged is presumed innocent is just to say that the state bears the burden to prove otherwise. If defendants were always assumed innocent, then there could never be convictions. I've never claimed that Zimmerman is in fact innocent. I wasn't there and I don't know and I'm not a psychic and no one else is. But since the state has the burden of proof to show sufficient evidence indicating that he probably committed a crime, then the state has the burden under Florida law to prove that Zimmerman's self-defense claim is false and he acted unlawfully. If you're claiming that Martin was innocent, then you're making a claim of factual innocence based on nothing other than speculation and wishful thinking.

                                                          "This claim is also false. "

                                                          I asked you for an explanation for how Zimmerman got the reported injuries which is consistent with account by the "John" witness, and you're the one who came up with the scenario of Martin hitting Zimmerman who then fell and allegedly hit his head against a sprinkler and then Martin getting on top of Zimmerman and continuing to beat him. To suggest that scenario and then to dismiss self-defense and assume that Martin was innocent is a triumph of wishful thinking and blind speculation.

                                                          And laugh all you want and roll on the ground or whatever you want to do with your lols and your rofls, but if you spent more time actually presenting evidence to back your unsubstantiated claims you might actually produce something more than the laughable argument you've presented so far. I don't argue around here to convince anyone I'm arguing with. This in't a private conversation. But when someone makes a false claim or an unsound argument about an issue I find important, I point it out, lest others believe that such unsound arguments have weight because they go unchallenged.
                                                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                            Tue, April 17, 2012 - 10:00 PM
                                                            <This in't a private conversation.>
                                                            If you understand this, then don't treat my responses like this is a private conversation. This is a public thread with multiple people posting.

                                                            <But when someone makes a false claim or an unsound argument about an issue I find important, I point it out, lest others believe that such unsound arguments have weight because they go unchallenged.>
                                                            Bullshit. You challenge what doesn't agree with you agenda.
                                                            Or you'd also be challenging a lot of what Andrew posts.

                                                            <Right, and did I ever mention 12 stitches? No.>
                                                            Did you challenge the claim?

                                                            <That was just you putting words in my mouth.>
                                                            No that was just you putting Andrew's words in your mouth, not me.

                                                            You have a very bad habit of making false claims about what I've written. I'd explain what I think you do this, but we're not supposed to make personal comments. In any case, it's so easy to prove they are false.

                                                            <I applied it to Zimmerman when people wanted him charged with a crime.>
                                                            I applied it to Martin when people in this tribe accused him of a crime.

                                                            <If you're claiming that Martin was innocent, then you're making a claim of factual innocence based on nothing other than speculation and wishful thinking.>
                                                            I'm free to write what I THINK. I know this is hard for you to accept.
                                                            You and Zimmerman have ZERO evidence to support the claim that Martin was other than an innocent kid walking home from the store.

                                                            <I asked you for an explanation for how Zimmerman got the reported injuries which is consistent with account by the "John" witness, and you're the one who came up with the scenario of Martin hitting Zimmerman who then fell and allegedly hit his head against a sprinkler and then Martin getting on top of Zimmerman and continuing to beat him.>
                                                            Now quote what we actually wrote, and I'll show you how you're twisting it to suit you're agenda.

                                                            You keep making false claims about what I've presented.
                                                            I can think whatever I want to think. This is not a court of law, and I don't have to treat Tribe like it is.
                                                            That's why I don't attack the second hand accounts that you have presented. So, unless you plan to start quoting Zimmerman statements regarding what happened, as I see it, you're speculating then complaining because I don't agree with your if/speculation or hearsay claims about what happened.
                                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                              Wed, April 18, 2012 - 1:13 PM
                                                              "Bullshit. You challenge what doesn't agree with you agenda. "

                                                              Bullshit, since unlike you. I'm not claiming to know things that happened that night when I wasn't there and there is no evidence to support such assumptions.

                                                              "Or you'd also be challenging a lot of what Andrew posts. "

                                                              Only if I'm actually reading them. I eat up enough of my time responding to people who respond to me without dedicating my entire life to this Tribe by responding to everyone who posts.

                                                              "Did you challenge the claim? "

                                                              Your reference was the first time I saw it. Because I had not challenged a previous claim I was unaware of does not mean I asserted it. That should be obvious to anyone without an agenda.

                                                              "No that was just you putting Andrew's words in your mouth, not me. "

                                                              I never accepted Andrew's claim, so this is an obvious lie.

                                                              "You have a very bad habit of making false claims about what I've written."

                                                              Except I haven't. You have a very bad habit of making false and unsupported generalizations.

                                                              "You and Zimmerman have ZERO evidence to support the claim that Martin was other than an innocent kid walking home from the store. "

                                                              I never assumed he wasn't innocent. I don't know one way or the other. Unlike you, I'm refraining from opining on a subject about which I have no evidence, since unlike you, I'm not psychic. I do know however who bears the burden of proof in such matters, and it's not Zimmerman.
                                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                              Wed, April 18, 2012 - 1:21 PM
                                                              And yes Peter, this isn't a court of law and you have the right to opinions with no necessity to back such opinions with fact. But if you're clinging on to claims with no evidence about a man's guilt, then the only reason for doing so is that it fits a political agenda you have that has nothing to do with the actual facts.
                                                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                Sun, April 22, 2012 - 10:22 AM
                                                                <And yes Peter, this isn't a court of law and you have the right to opinions with no necessity to back such opinions with fact. But if you're clinging on to claims with no evidence about a man's guilt...>
                                                                What are you talking about? I said Martin was an innocent kid walking home from the store.
                                                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                  Tue, April 24, 2012 - 1:15 AM
                                                                  " I said Martin was an innocent kid walking home from the store. "

                                                                  A claim about which you have no evidence, and which implies Zimmerman's guilt.
                                                                  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                    Tue, April 24, 2012 - 7:54 AM
                                                                    <A claim about which you have no evidence, and which implies Zimmerman's guilt.>
                                                                    Apparently, you dismiss the girlfriend's statements.
                                                                    I don't. And neither has the prosecution.

                                                                    The statement of Trayvon innocently walking home implies Zimmerman's guilt concerning what?
                                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                      Thu, April 26, 2012 - 12:19 AM
                                                                      "Apparently, you dismiss the girlfriend's statements. "

                                                                      The girlfriend said nothing and indicated that she witnessed nothing that contradicts Zimmerman's claim that Martin was beating Zimmerman's head into the pavement when he shot. If Martin was doing so and was doing so illegally, then nothing of what the girlfriend said she heard contradicts that fact.

                                                                      "The statement of Trayvon innocently walking home implies Zimmerman's guilt concerning what? "

                                                                      If Martin were innocent, then Zimmerman did not legally have a right to shoot him, since he would only have that right if Martin were illegally threatening Zimmerman's life. Hence your unsubstantiated assertion of Martin's innocence logically entails an unsubstantiated inference as to Zimmerman's guilt.
                                                                  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                    Tue, April 24, 2012 - 12:22 PM
                                                                    Martin is not on trial, there is no evidence he was engaged in any crime, so he is innocent.
                                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                      Thu, April 26, 2012 - 12:25 AM
                                                                      "Martin is not on trial, there is no evidence he was engaged in any crime, so he is innocent."

                                                                      That not only involves a false premise but is a non-sequitur. The injuries to Zimmerman's head, the account of the "John" witness plus Zimmerman's account constitute evidence of Martin's guilt (though not necessarily conclusive proof of course), contradicting your second assertion, and just because Martin is not on trial does not mean he was innocent.
                                                                  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                    Tue, April 24, 2012 - 9:23 PM
                                                                    <A claim about which you have no evidence, and which implies Zimmerman's guilt.>

                                                                    Yup. Some though will say, 'No way! That in no way implies anything!'. BUT...passively, it obviously does. Subconsciously, maybe, too.

                                                                    <<"there may be evidence demonstrating that Zimmerman started the altercation.">>

                                                                    <Well, at this point at least, the prosecution's lead investigator testified that they have no such evidence.>

                                                                    I do believe that was the info that caused me to start talking about aliens & 911 conspiracies. I mean, there may be evidence that aliens directed Zimmerman to do it, too, or that Trayvon knew too much about the explosives planted in the Twin Towers. I mean...there may be evidence demonstrating this...

                                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                      Tue, April 24, 2012 - 11:32 PM
                                                                      >I said Martin was an innocent kid walking home from the store.<
                                                                      <<A claim about which you have no evidence, and which implies Zimmerman's guilt.>>
                                                                      <Yup.>
                                                                      Guilt concerning what?

                                                                      <Some though will say, 'No way! That in no way implies anything!'.>
                                                                      I meant it to imply that Martin wasn't drunk or high, and wasn't breaking into houses.
                                                                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                        Thu, April 26, 2012 - 12:27 AM
                                                                        "I meant it to imply that Martin wasn't drunk or high, and wasn't breaking into houses."

                                                                        But he may have illegally beat Zimmerman, which would have made him not innocent.
                                                                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                          Thu, April 26, 2012 - 8:33 AM
                                                                          <he may have illegally beat Zimmerman, which would have made him not innocent.>
                                                                          Zimmerman got out of his car during the 911 call and ran after Martin.
                                                                          Rather than meet the police at the mailboxes he asked if they could call him and he'll tell them where he was, indicating his intent to continue after Martin.
                                                                          Zimmerman was later heard arguing with Martin.
                                                                          Zimmerman states that Martin didn't use violence until Zimmerman reached into his pocket.
                                                                          It was reasonable for Martin to be scared and believe that Zimmerman was reaching for a weapon (especially if he had already seen the gun) and violence was necessary to defend himself.

                                                                          The evidence supports SYG for Martin rather than Zimmerman.
                                                                          So, according to Florida law, Martin may have legally beat Zimmerman, which would mean he was innocent.
                                                                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                            Thu, April 26, 2012 - 8:45 AM
                                                                            <<Zimmerman states that Martin didn't use violence until Zimmerman reached into his pocket.

                                                                            Can you show us this statement from Zimmerman Peter? If true it could be a very important point. Meaning that Martin himself was fearing for his own life, a strange man creeping on him in the dark and then possibly pulling a weapon on him? If this is true, then Martin would be justified in beating Zimmerman so as to avoid being shot by a stranger. I have said this from the beginning, Martin in reality may have himself been justified under the Stand Your Ground Law.
                                                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                              Thu, April 26, 2012 - 11:12 PM
                                                                              "Trayvon walks off. Zimmerman said he started running between the buildings. Zimmerman gets out of his car. He comes around the building. Trayvon is hiding behind the building, waiting on him. Trayvon approaches him and says, ‘What's your problem, homes?' Zimmerman says ‘I don't have a problem.'

                                                                              "Zimmerman starts to reach into his pocket to get his cellphone, and at that point Trayvon attacked him. He says Trayvon hits him.
                                                                              www.reuters.com/article/20...0UK20120403
                                                                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                Fri, April 27, 2012 - 11:20 AM
                                                                                A stranger following you in a dark alley, the only safe thing would be to assume that Zimmerman had nefarious intent and that he was possibly reaching for a weapon.
                                                                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                  Sat, April 28, 2012 - 12:41 AM
                                                                                  "A stranger following you in a dark alley, the only safe thing would be to assume that Zimmerman had nefarious intent and that he was possibly reaching for a weapon."

                                                                                  What wildly unsupported assumptions. "The only thing?!" So it's not at all possible that Martin was in fact checking out houses and might have been aware that his walking around in the rain checking out houses in a gated community where he didn't live might arouse suspicion and that Zimmerman was following him because he was suspicious of Martin? And it's not at all possible that it was clear to Martin that Zimmerman was reaching for his cell phone and Martin just decked Zimmerman because he saw the opportunity for a sucker punch when he saw Zimmerman distracted by reaching for his phone and the only reason he attacked Zimmerman was because he was pissed at being followed? I'm not saying that all that is true, but it certainly is possible; but you say it's not possible? Come on Jeff.
                                                                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                            Sat, April 28, 2012 - 1:14 AM
                                                                            "Zimmerman got out of his car during the 911 call and ran after Martin. "

                                                                            You don't know that. You can't cite any witnesses who said they saw him run after Martin, and Zimmerman certainly hasn't acknowledged that.

                                                                            "Rather than meet the police at the mailboxes he asked if they could call him and he'll tell them where he was, indicating his intent to continue after Martin. "

                                                                            Non-sequitur. Zimmerman at first agreed to meet at the mail boxes, but previously he said that he didn't know where he was at the moment

                                                                            Police dispatcher: "Alright, what address are you parked in front of? "

                                                                            Zimmerman: "Um, I don’t know. It’s a cut-through so I don’t know the address."

                                                                            Since he didn't know precisely where he was, he may have thought it was just easier to figure out where he was first and then tell the police where he was when they got there. More unsupported speculation from your part.

                                                                            "Zimmerman was later heard arguing with Martin. "

                                                                            So? And Martin was later heard arguing with Zimmerman. How does that fact support the culpability of either?

                                                                            "Zimmerman states that Martin didn't use violence until Zimmerman reached into his pocket."

                                                                            Where has Zimmerman said he reached into his pocket? The account by his father was that he said he reached for his cell phone with no mention of his pocket. It could have been visibly on his belt. The claim that he was reaching into his pocket was from a police officer and could have been his interpretation of what Zimmerman said. And since when does reaching for a cell phone constitute grounds for beating someone's head into the ground?

                                                                            "It was reasonable for Martin to be scared and believe that Zimmerman was reaching for a weapon (especially if he had already seen the gun) and violence was necessary to defend himself. "

                                                                            Wild speculation. You have no evidence of what went through Martin's mind when the altercation began, whether it be fear or anger at being followed, and you have ZERO evidence that Martin saw a gun or was at all aware that Zimmerman had one before beating Zimmerman.

                                                                            "The evidence supports SYG for Martin rather than Zimmerman. "

                                                                            Your wild speculation doesn't constitute evidence. You have zero evidence that Martin reasonably feared for his life when he beat Zimmerman, which is a prerequisite for SYG. Even the prosecution's lead attorney acknowledged that the prosecution has no evidence of who started the the physical altercation.

                                                                            "Martin may have legally beat Zimmerman"

                                                                            Sure he may have. But "may have" without supporting evidence is called "speculation."
                                                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                              Sat, April 28, 2012 - 8:54 AM
                                                                              >Zimmerman got out of his car during the 911 call and ran after Martin.<
                                                                              <You don't know that. >
                                                                              I can hear it on the 911 tape. Just before the operator asks Zimmerman if he's following Martin.

                                                                              <Since he didn't know precisely where he was, he may have thought it was just easier to figure out where he was first and then tell the police where he was when they got there. More unsupported speculation from your part.>
                                                                              Zimmerman initially agreed to meet the police at the mailboxes, not his current location. You have no idea what Zimmerman was thinking. You have no claim by Zimmerman that he went to look for an address. The police told Mr. Martin that Zimmerman said he went after Trayvon.

                                                                              Your claim that Zimmerman was trying to figure out the address of his current location is unsupported speculation on your part. Why do you complain when others speculate then present unsupported speculation as an argument?

                                                                              <Where has Zimmerman said he reached into his pocket?... And since when does reaching for a cell phone constitute grounds for beating someone's head into the ground?>
                                                                              Since SYG.
                                                                              Where has Zimerman said his head was beat into the ground?

                                                                              <Wild speculation.>
                                                                              No, it's a reasonable assumption given the context. I didn't saw Martin saw a gun, or thought that Zimmerman was reaching for a gun.

                                                                              <You have zero evidence that Martin reasonably feared for his life when he beat Zimmerman, which is a prerequisite for SYG. >
                                                                              You are wrong about SYG, and what SYG requires.
                                                                              Martin did not use deadly force (as Zimmerman did) so SYG doesn't require that he feared for his life. And it doesn't require that Zimmerman threw the first blow. If the events occurred as the police explained it to Mr. Martin, it seems Trayvon would have had SYG on his side.

                                                                              776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.
                                                                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                Sun, April 29, 2012 - 1:55 AM
                                                                                "I can hear it on the 911 tape. Just before the operator asks Zimmerman if he's following Martin. "

                                                                                You can hear running? You can hear rapid footsteps?

                                                                                "Zimmerman initially agreed to meet the police at the mailboxes, not his current location"

                                                                                I acknowledged that, and he changed his mind. You have no idea why other than what you'd like to believe.

                                                                                "You have no idea what Zimmerman was thinking."

                                                                                I know that, and neither do you, but you're the one making conclusions about what he was thinking, not me.

                                                                                "You have no claim by Zimmerman that he went to look for an address."

                                                                                The prosecution's lead investigation thinks differently:

                                                                                "O'MARA: And then he said he went back around and went towards his car, did he not? In his statement.

                                                                                GILBREATH: In his statement after he was told not to talk by the dispatcher.

                                                                                O'MARA: Got you.

                                                                                GILBREATH: He says that he continued on to find a street sign and then went back to his car. "

                                                                                transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI...r.02.html

                                                                                "Your claim that Zimmerman was trying to figure out the address of his current location is unsupported speculation on your part. "

                                                                                I never claimed he was. I said it was possible to contradict your assured declaration of his intent. You're the one making definitive conclusions about what was going on in the minds of those two, not me.

                                                                                "Why do you complain when others speculate then present unsupported speculation as an argument? "

                                                                                Where have I said definitively that Zimmerman was justified in shooting Martin? Where have I said definitively why Martin or Zimmerman did anything that night? Where have I said definitively that I agree with any of Zimmerman's account? Over and over again I've emphasized that we don't know enough to make substantive conclusions since the evidence that's available to the public is unclear, but you're the one, not me, who keeps making definitive declarations of guilt based on nothing other than what you'd like to believe.

                                                                                "Since SYG. "

                                                                                Nope. Seeing someone reach for a cell phone does not give grounds for a reasonable fear for one's life, otherwise people would be killing each other left and right given how ubiquitous cell phones are.

                                                                                "No, it's a reasonable assumption given the context. "

                                                                                An assumption based on no evidence is blind speculation. The context we know of is perfectly consistent with Martin beating the crap out of Zimmerman because he was pissed at being followed. I'm not saying I know that's the case, but neither do you. Again and again you keep making claims of fact about what happened that night with zero evidence and based solely on what you'd like to believe.

                                                                                "Where has Zimerman said his head was beat into the ground?"

                                                                                Question: "Did he not describe to the police that Mr. Martin had him on the ground and kept bashing his head on the concrete over and over and just physically beating him with his hands?

                                                                                GILBREATH (prosecution's lead investigator): "He has said that, yes. "

                                                                                transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRI...r.02.html

                                                                                "You are wrong about SYG, and what SYG requires. "

                                                                                Sorry. You're wrong. What you quoted was not the stand your ground law but a general self-defense provision. The following is from Florida's SYG law (section 776.013(d)(3):

                                                                                "A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

                                                                                www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm





                                                                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                  Sun, April 29, 2012 - 2:38 PM
                                                                                  <but you're the one, not me, who keeps making definitive declarations of guilt>
                                                                                  "Guilt"?

                                                                                  It doesn't seem to matter what I write. You apparently feel the need to contradict me even when I write "I THINK" and "may".
                                                                                  But I'll play your word game ;)

                                                                                  <You can hear running?>
                                                                                  Yes, I hear what sounds to me like Zimmerman getting out of his car and running after Trayvon.
                                                                                  Apparently the operator also hears Zimmerman going after Martin.

                                                                                  <I acknowledged that, and he changed his mind. You have no idea why other than what you'd like to believe.>
                                                                                  It seems Zimmerman told to the police that he continued after Martin, just as he stated that he looked for a street sign.

                                                                                  I have made declarations based on evidence, but you dismiss evidence that doesn't agree with your position, then claim I'm speculating based on nothing.

                                                                                  <The context we know of is perfectly consistent with Martin beating the crap out of Zimmerman because he was pissed at being followed.>
                                                                                  "perfectly consistent"?
                                                                                  I'm sorry but I just laugh when I read this stuff.
                                                                                  I find it LOL funny that you think it's okay to speculate about Martin being pissed off. It's perfectly consistent with you defending Zimmerman and dismissing the girlfriend's statement concerning Martin being afraid.

                                                                                  >"Where has Zimerman said his head was beat into the ground?"<
                                                                                  <Question: "Did he not describe to the police that Mr. Martin had him on the ground and kept bashing his head on the concrete over and over and just physically beating him with his hands?>
                                                                                  I figured you'd refer to this.
                                                                                  And I think it's funny that when I present something like this you dismiss it as multiple levels of hearsay.
                                                                                  You even challenge what the police investigator told Mr. Martin.

                                                                                  <GILBREATH (prosecution's lead investigator): "He has said that, yes. ">
                                                                                  "O'MARA: And you are one of the investigators on this case? 

                                                                                  GILBREATH: Yes.

                                                                                  O'MARA: I would you consider yourself one of the lead investigators? How do you determine your involvement, how do you define your involvement?

                                                                                  GILBREATH: I'm one of the two investigators working on the case with the state attorney's office.

                                                                                  You apparently read the transcript, so why did you insert "(prosecution's lead investigator)" when Gilbreath explained who he was?"
                                                                                  I think I know why, because it's perfectly consistent with your MO. I just want to hear how you respond. ;)

                                                                                  <What you quoted was not the stand your ground law but a general self-defense provision.>
                                                                                  No, what we both quoted is from chapter 776, concerning the justifiable use of force, which constitutes what is referred to as Florida's Stand Your Ground law.
                                                                                  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan...ground_law
                                                                                  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                    Sun, April 29, 2012 - 9:40 PM
                                                                                    OK, this is getting repetitive and going nowhere. I have better things to do and we all can just wait for further court proceedings and further evidence. My bottom line position: There is not enough public evidence to know whether or not either Zimmerman or Martin was justified in their actions. So I guess we'll have to let the system figure it out. As for public evidence however, there is certainly not nearly enough evidence for 2nd degree murder, as there's no evidence of a depraved mind showing no regard for human life.

                                                                                    Maybe there's a case for manslaughter if self-defense can be refuted, but 2nd degree sure looks like overcharging. And if he gets acquitted or the case gets tossed because of insufficient evidence for 2nd degree, and there are riots as a result, then the prosecution can be blamed for raising expectations.

                                                                                    This is no Rodney King case. We had video of Rodney King getting the crap beaten out of him. There is no video or evidence of who started the physical altercation between Martin and Zimmerman (based on what the prosecution's own lead investigator has acknowledged) and no public evidence as to the nature of the physical altercation, as to whether Zimmerman was in reasonable fear of his life.

                                                                                    And the provision I cited is literally the stand your ground law. It even explicitly refers to standing your ground. Again, what you cited Peter is from general self-defense law in Florida. Just because it refers to self-defense doesn't make it the Stand Your Ground law. The SYG law was added to the section on self-defense.
                                                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                      Mon, April 30, 2012 - 11:12 PM
                                                                                      <OK, this is getting repetitive and going nowhere.>
                                                                                      Because we see things so differently.
                                                                                      We don't even agree on what constitutes Florida's SYG law.

                                                                                      <My bottom line position: There is not enough public evidence to know whether or not either Zimmerman or Martin was justified in their actions.>
                                                                                      Apparently they each felt justified, or they wouldn't have acted as they did.

                                                                                      <So I guess we'll have to let the system figure it out.>
                                                                                      I have no confidence in the system.

                                                                                      <As for public evidence however, there is certainly not nearly enough evidence for 2nd degree murder, as there's no evidence of a depraved mind showing no regard for human life.>
                                                                                      But there is precedent for how the state of Florida has charged others in the past, and now they can't appear to show favoritism.
                                                                                      So they have to overcharge Zimmerman as they usually do.

                                                                                      <Maybe there's a case for manslaughter if self-defense can be refuted, but 2nd degree sure looks like overcharging. And if he gets acquitted or the case gets tossed because of insufficient evidence for 2nd degree, and there are riots as a result, then the prosecution can be blamed for raising expectations.>
                                                                                      Now here's my speculation. ;)
                                                                                      Corey was given the Zimmerman case in an effort to redeem her public image after the fall out from her decision to prosecute 12 year old Cristian Fernandez as an adult, with first degree murder (which means he could face life in prison without parole).
                                                                                      The second degree murder charge was a political move, in that it is necessary to look to the public like Corey was being as tough on Zimmerman as she has been on others. But she blew it. The sloppy charging statement suggests Corey's heart really isn't in the case.
                                                                                      "Ovecharging" like a second degree murder charge is common in less public cases, because it's a strategy to help the state avoid having to go to trial. It's the way the plea system works. The accused agrees to plead guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter because most accused would have a long wait in jail for a murder trial, and there's no disputing the fact that they killed someone.
                                                                                      But if Corey charged Zimmerman with manslaughter, it would look like Corey was being soft on Zimmerman when compared to her past charging history. So the charge was second degree murder. And Zimmerman doesn't have to sit in jail, so he probably won't plead guilty to manslaughter. And the state probably won't get a second degree murder conviction.

                                                                                      <This is no Rodney King case. We had video of Rodney King getting the crap beaten out of him.>
                                                                                      And the system found King's beaters not guilty.
                                                                                      So why expect something different concerning Zimmerman?

                                                                                      <Again, what you cited Peter is from general self-defense law in Florida.>
                                                                                      Again, you are mistaken. I gave you the SYG link.
                                                                                      If we must be technical (because of narrow thinking and word games):
                                                                                      The SYG law is not a defense. The SYG law is an immunity.
                                                                                      Self defense is an affirmative defense, and not an immunity.
                                                                                      s. 776.032 explains that the immunity (commonly referred to as the SYG law) applies to both s. 776.012 and s. 776.013
                                                                                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                        Tue, May 1, 2012 - 9:11 AM
                                                                                        It should be noted that trials are not based on just the evidence that has been leaked to the public, so this idea of "There is not enough public evidence" is really meaningless to the case.
                                                                                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                          Fri, May 11, 2012 - 1:55 AM
                                                                                          "It should be noted that trials are not based on just the evidence that has been leaked to the public, so this idea of "There is not enough public evidence" is really meaningless to the case."

                                                                                          It's meaningful to a public discussion, since we are having a discussion of what we know, and are not the triers of fact.
                                                                                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                        Fri, May 11, 2012 - 2:00 AM
                                                                                        Peter, as far as speculation goes (regarding the 2nd degree murder overcharging), that's some mighty smart speculation. Hats off to some good analysis.

                                                                                        But...

                                                                                        Did they both think they were justified? I'm not so sure. Sometimes people do bad things and know they're bad but still do them.

                                                                                        As for SYG law, I don't know what a "SYG link" is. Criminal law is contained in codes (as well as the cases interpreting them). If what you originally cited was what from a link by someone who claimed that they were linking SYG law, then if they think what you quoted was SYG law, they were mistaken. Again, just because it's part of general justifiable use of force provisions in the criminal code, doesn't mean it's SYG law. SYG law (the code section I specifically cited) was added to the code sections dealing with justifiable use of force, but that doesn't mean all those code sections are SYG law.
                                                                                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                          Sun, May 13, 2012 - 3:36 AM
                                                                                          <Hats off to some good analysis.>
                                                                                          Thanks, Ron.

                                                                                          <But...>
                                                                                          But, I knew it couldn't last... ;) hahaha

                                                                                          <Sometimes people do bad things and know they're bad but still do them.>
                                                                                          Perhaps that is why Zimmerman apologized to Trayvon's parents.

                                                                                          Why fight rather than going for a weapon?
                                                                                          When one is facing an armed attack threat, the last advice I would give would be to attempt to gain control of a holstered weapon. When facing a perceived threat, whether armed or unarmed, I think the objective should be to disable the threat as quickly as possible. If one chooses to do this physically, a punch to the nose can be highly effective, even if the nose is not broken.

                                                                                          <SYG law (the code section I specifically cited) was added to the code sections dealing with justifiable use of force, but that doesn't mean all those code sections are SYG law.>
                                                                                          The act amending Florida's code was filed on April 26, 2005 (session 2005-27), to take effect on October 1, 2005.
                                                                                          The act created 776.013, amended 776.012 and 776.031, "providing that a person is justified in using deadly force under certain circumstances; declaring that a person has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be and the force is necessary to prevent death, great bodily harm, or the commission of a forcible felony" and created 776.032.
                                                                                          archive.flsenate.gov/data/se...36er.pdf

                                                                                          Apparently, according to the Florida state senate archives, all four sections constitute what is commonly called Florida's SYG law.
                                                                                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                            Sun, May 13, 2012 - 11:16 PM
                                                                                            "Perhaps that is why Zimmerman apologized to Trayvon's parents. "

                                                                                            Or perhaps he just felt bad about killing a kid, regardless of justification.

                                                                                            "When one is facing an armed attack threat, the last advice I would give would be to attempt to gain control of a holstered weapon. When facing a perceived threat, whether armed or unarmed, I think the objective should be to disable the threat as quickly as possible. If one chooses to do this physically, a punch to the nose can be highly effective, even if the nose is not broken."

                                                                                            Except according to one witness Martin didn't just deck Zimmerman, but was on top of him after Zimmerman was on the ground and was beating him for some time, which would be absolutely suicidal if he knew Zimmerman had a gun. If someone pulls a gun on you, you either do what they say or disarm them of the gun as fast as possible. I studied gun disarmament from an Israeli special forces trainer and that's precisely what he advised. Pulling a trigger takes a lot less time than fighting with someone for over a minute (as I mentioned, one 911 call has screaming going on for about a minute, not counting the screaming that went on before the call which led to the person making the call). The back of Zimmerman's head had multiple wounds. That would not be from just falling down and hitting your head once. It makes little sense to be beating on someone head for an extended period of time when you know the guy can grab his gun and shoot in a split second - unless you didn't know he had a gun at first.

                                                                                            “Apparently, according to the Florida state senate archives, all four sections constitute what is commonly called Florida's SYG law. “

                                                                                            Not really. You had quoted 776.012. As your source demonstrates, that code section predates the introduction of the SYG law and remains pretty much intact with some very minor clarifications after passing of the act. As your source points out, the act’s primary force was the creation of section 776.013, which expanded the Castle doctrine (the idea that one should not have to retreat in one’s home) to the streets, thus creating the “stand your ground” rule in places other than one’s home. 776.013 is what I quoted. The act also created 776.032 which dealt with immunity from prosecution and wasn’t the focus of our dispute, which was the requirements for using force under SYG. Just because the act made some minor clarifying amendments to other sections doesn't mean those other sections were then considered SYG law.
                                                                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                              Mon, May 14, 2012 - 3:02 AM
                                                                                              <Or perhaps he just felt bad about killing a kid, regardless of justification.>
                                                                                              Perhaps.

                                                                                              <which would be absolutely suicidal>
                                                                                              Just because Trayvon or I don't respond to a threat the way you would doesn't mean we're suicidal.

                                                                                              <If someone pulls a gun on you, you either do what they say or disarm them of the gun as fast as possible.>
                                                                                              How does this apply? Who made the claim that Zimmerman had a drawn weapon, and was making demands of Trayvon?

                                                                                              <Pulling a trigger takes a lot less time than fighting with someone for over a minute (as I mentioned, one 911 call has screaming going on for about a minute>
                                                                                              We were not discussing a drawn weapon.
                                                                                              And there is debate concerning who was screaming for help.

                                                                                              <It makes little sense to be beating on someone head for an extended period of time when you know the guy can grab his gun and shoot in a split second - unless...>
                                                                                              you don't believe the guy can grab his gun and shoot you in a split second, you were not trained in how to disarm the guy by Israeli special forces, you got off a punch before the weapon was drawn, and you believe you have the advantage.

                                                                                              <Not really. You had quoted 776.012. >
                                                                                              Which was amended to state that one "does not have a duty to retreat".
                                                                                              Like I said, we don't agree on what constitutes the SYG law.


                                                                                              <The act also created 776.032 which dealt with immunity from prosecution and wasn’t the focus of our dispute, which was the requirements for using force under SYG.>
                                                                                              My focus concerning Trayvon and SYG was innocence and legal immunity.
                                                                                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                Thu, May 17, 2012 - 12:49 AM
                                                                                                "How does this apply? Who made the claim that Zimmerman had a drawn weapon, and was making demands of Trayvon? "

                                                                                                Assuming that the eye witness who lived adjacent to the shooting site is telling the truth, Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating Zimmerman and Zimmerman was calling for help. Additionally, I read that Zimmerman carried his gun in a waist holster. Also assuming Martin was on top of Zimmerman when Zimmerman shot Martin (which can be confirmed or refuted by forensics), here are some possible alternative scenarios:

                                                                                                1. Zimmerman pulled a gun and Martin decided to attack Zimmerman in response, ignore the gun and raining blows on Zimmerman's head, ignoring the fact that Zimmerman could just pull the trigger.

                                                                                                2. Zimmerman didn't pull the gun (yet) but Martin thought he was going to and so, rather than try to wrestle the gun away or try to intercept the gun, he decided to waste his time beating Zimmerman's head when Zimmerman could simply reach to his waist and shoot Martin.

                                                                                                3. Zimmerman didn't pull the gun (yet) but Martin thought he was going to and so tried to wrest the gun away at first but gave up and turned his attention to beating Zimmerman's head repeatedly when Zimmerman could just grab the gun and shoot in a fraction of a second

                                                                                                4. Martin did not know Zimmerman had a gun. How then could he be justified in remaining on top of Zimmerman beating Zimmerman’s head repeatedly? How if he didn’t know Zimmerman had a gun could he be on top of Zimmerman beating the latter’s head and have a reasonable fear for his life or a fear of any imminent peril from Zimmerman?

                                                                                                Presently, the prosecution admitted that they have no evidence of who started the physical altercation. If they still don't at trial, then a jury would have to weigh the likelihood of alternative scenarios. The prosecution also the burden of proving their case beyond reasonable doubt. It seems (to me at least) wildly implausible that it is beyond reasonable doubt that Martin was responding to knowledge that Zimmerman had a gun - if not, then where's the evidence that he was beating Zimmerman in response to some threat to himself?

                                                                                                Feel free to add any other possible scenarios.

                                                                                                “you don't believe the guy can grab his gun and shoot you in a split second, you were not trained in how to disarm the guy by Israeli special forces, you got off a punch before the weapon was drawn, and you believe you have the advantage. “

                                                                                                You either think the guy’s out or you don’t. If you do, why are you continuing to beat his head? If you think he’s not out then you must realize that he can grab his gun in a second. Who doesn’t know that a gun can be fired in a second?

                                                                                                "Which was amended to state that one "does not have a duty to retreat".

                                                                                                But that's not the section of 776.012 you quoted. I had argued that appeal to SYG required a reasonable fear for one’s life. You argued that “SYG doesn't require that he(Martin) feared for his life.” To support that you quoted the unamended section of 776.012 that predated SYG law. However, the AMENDED part dealing with not having the duty to retreat is the following:

                                                                                                “However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
                                                                                                (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
                                                                                                (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.”
                                                                                                (776.012(1)(2))

                                                                                                So even if you do include the amended section of 776.012 into SYG law, the part that’s amended pertains to use of deadly force by someone who has an imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury.

                                                                                                So either you’re referring to the part of 776.012 that doesn’t require fear of death or serious bodily injury, in which case you’re appealing to the unamended section of 776.012 that predates SYG law, or else you’re assuming that Martin, while being on top of Zimmerman beating Zimmerman in the head, was using deadly force and feared for his (Martin’s) death or serious bodily injury while he was beating Zimmerman in the head.

                                                                                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                  Thu, May 17, 2012 - 10:50 PM
                                                                                                  <Assuming that the eye witness who lived adjacent to the shooting site is telling the truth, Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating Zimmerman and Zimmerman was calling for help.>

                                                                                                  Having followed this very closely, I have yet to hear of a witness that specifically stated that Trayvon was on top. I have heard from one witness DIRECTLY (well, through TV), and have read a few other statements about how people saw two men struggling/fighting, but no one to my memory has said that they specifically saw the difference between the two on the ground. I'm not saying that it does not exist - just that to my memory, I do not remember someone stating that.

                                                                                                  <1.>

                                                                                                  Obviously not.

                                                                                                  <2. & 3.>

                                                                                                  In all probability...not.

                                                                                                  <4.>

                                                                                                  Yeah. That is my guess.

                                                                                                  <The prosecution also the burden of proving their case beyond reasonable doubt.>

                                                                                                  Or...just convince one person that Zimmerman is a violent racist who deserves to be in jail...


                                                                                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                  Fri, May 18, 2012 - 12:17 AM
                                                                                                  <Presently, the prosecution admitted that they have no evidence of who started the physical altercation.>
                                                                                                  Not "the prosecution".
                                                                                                  One of the investigators (who does not consider himself the lead investigator) explained at a bail hearing that he did not have all of the facts, and did not know for a fact who threw the first blow, as that information came from Zimmerman's statements.

                                                                                                  <Feel free to add any other possible scenarios.>
                                                                                                  "Zimmerman said, he reached for his cell phone, and then Martin punched him in the nose. Zimmerman said Martin pinned him to the ground and began slamming his head onto the sidewalk, leading to the shooting."
                                                                                                  articles.cnn.com/2012-04-2...ag-order/3

                                                                                                  Trayvon punched Zimmerman and pinned him (restricting his movements). Trayvon did not believe ZImmerman could get to his weapon, so he continued to punch Zimmerman and call for help. Zimmerman was able to get free, draw his gun and shoot Trayvon.

                                                                                                  <If you think he’s not out then you must realize that he can grab his gun in a second.>
                                                                                                  Not if he's pinned, and/or you think he can't reach the weapon (in his pocket?).

                                                                                                  <But that's not the section of 776.012 you quoted.>
                                                                                                  LOL. You've read the law. Or are you now claiming that you're ignorant?

                                                                                                  I quoted what was relevant to the nature of believed/perceived threat required for the SYG immunity. 776.012 was amended before Zimmerman shot Martin. I have given several references for it, including Florida State Senate archives.

                                                                                                  I could argue that 776.013 doesn't apply in this case, because that subparagraph is intended for home protection. But I'll leave that kind of silliness to you,

                                                                                                  <So even if you do include the amended section of 776.012 into SYG law>
                                                                                                  It's all SYG law.

                                                                                                  <the part that’s amended pertains to use of deadly force by someone who has an imminent fear of death or serious bodily injury.>
                                                                                                  Yep.

                                                                                                  <So either you’re referring to the part of 776.012 that doesn’t require fear of death or serious bodily injury>
                                                                                                  Nope.
                                                                                                  Fear of death OR serious bodily injury.

                                                                                                  <or else you’re assuming that Martin, while being on top of Zimmerman beating Zimmerman in the head, was using deadly force>
                                                                                                  Nope.
                                                                                                  But if Trayvon had beaten Zimmerman to death, his attorney could have appealed to 776.012 for immunity from prosecution
                                                                                                  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                    Fri, May 18, 2012 - 12:02 PM
                                                                                                    "Trayvon punched Zimmerman and pinned him (restricting his movements). Trayvon did not believe ZImmerman could get to his weapon, so he continued to punch Zimmerman and call for help. Zimmerman was able to get free, draw his gun and shoot Trayvon. "

                                                                                                    What's more likely? A guy gets on top of another guy and rains blows on his head not knowing that the guy beneath has a gun, or a guy gets on top of another guy, rains blows on his head, knows the latter has a gun but leaves the gun alone, and just hopes the latter can't get to his gun? As the prosecution has the burden of proving the elements of their charge beyond reasonable doubt, they would have a hell of a time demonstrating that the latter situation is much more likely than the former.

                                                                                                    <But that's not the section of 776.012 you quoted.>
                                                                                                    LOL. You've read the law. Or are you now claiming that you're ignorant? "

                                                                                                    Apparently you are. Again, I claimed that one needed a reasonable fear of death (or serious bodily injury) in order to appeal to the SYG protections. You directly contradicted that and appealed to the unamended section of 776.012 that said that one only has to fear imminent illegal activity before using non-lethal force, rather than fearing death. But that section predates SYG law and hence is not the new SYG law. You then later referred to the amended part (776.012 has two major parts) of 776.012 that added that one didn't have the duty to retreat. But THAT part deals with the requirement of needing a fear of death or serious bodily injury. So which is it? Are you referring to the part of 776.012 that was amended by the SYG act that you now claim make it part of SYG law? Because if you are, that section requires the action to be lethal and requires fear of death or serious bodily injury, contradicting your earlier claim that that wasn't necessary. If you're instead referring to the part that DOESN'T require fear of death or serious bodily injury, then you're talking about something that predates SYG law and is thus not SYG law, contradicting your claim that what you were referring to was SYG law. So either what's arguably SYG law supports my position, or your're not referring to SYG law. Either way your original position regarding SYG law was wrong.

                                                                                                    "I quoted what was relevant to the nature of believed/perceived threat required for the SYG immunity."

                                                                                                    The part you most recently quoted regarding the addition of no duty to retreat requires fear of death or serious bodily injury, so your earlier claim that SYG law didn't require that was obviously false.

                                                                                                    And just because one part of a code is amended by an act, doesn't mean the entire section becomes part of the act. The Patriot Act amended countless parts of the criminal code - that didn't make the entire criminal code equivalent to the Patriot Act. Bills that contain major provisions often add other amendments to other sections to clarify things, sometimes on barely related matters. That's the sloppy nature of acts. But popular perception and the media tries to simply the act to its core element.
                                                                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                      Fri, May 18, 2012 - 2:28 PM
                                                                                                      Ron, beyond Zimmerman's own account, has there been any other source for the idea that Martin struck first reported by the media?
                                                                                                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                        Fri, May 18, 2012 - 7:00 PM
                                                                                                        Like I already said, I'm aware of no such witness.

                                                                                                        However, as far as physical evidence, the autopsy revealed no injuries on Martin besides the gun shot wound other an injury to his knuckle (compared to several injuries to Zimmerman's face and head). Also, given that guys with guns usually try not to engage in hand to hand combat - doing so would run the risk of the other guy getting your gun, and having a gun in the first place is supposed to be to give you the ultimate protection and allows the gun carrier to not have to rely on hand to hand combat, the circumstantial evidence seems to support that Martin attacked Zimmerman and not vice versa.
                                                                                                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                          Sat, May 19, 2012 - 5:56 PM
                                                                                                          <Like I already said, I'm aware of no such witness.>

                                                                                                          Neither am I - I just am relating the story that I heard, which you heard, but short of the word, "witness". Now he's trying to say that what you heard was a report from Zimmerman himself. The problem with that is that a) at first, he did not want to admit that we heard this report, and b) that now he knows which report it was, and that c) it came from Zimmerman.

                                                                                                          Obviously, if neither of us remember where we heard that, then how in the world can he say that it came from Zimmerman?

                                                                                                          <the circumstantial evidence seems to support that Martin attacked Zimmerman and not vice versa.>

                                                                                                          Yup.
                                                                                                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                            Sun, May 20, 2012 - 11:57 PM
                                                                                                            Andrew, I'm coming to the conclusion that all this could have been avoided if Zimmerman's attorneys hadn't bungled their representation of Zimmerman from the start. They neglected to put out a full fledged public defense of Zimmerman until the day they publicly said they were no longer defending him, even though by that point there was a full fledged media effort to convict Zimmerman in the public eye that Zimmerman's attorneys said they were well aware of. By that point, people who already committed to their initial conclusions about Zimmerman's guilt would have been harder to convince otherwise. People are more likely to be dissuaded before they publicly commit to a side in an emotional public issue, and less likely to change one they've publicly committed.

                                                                                                            Imagine if from the start Zimmerman's attorneys started granting interviews where they repeatedly cited the eye witness who said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating the latter. Imagine if from the start they made public the cell phone photo of the back of Zimmerman's head, which would have contradicted the initial claims that that grainy police video contradicted the injury claims, plus made public the police report of a police officer saying he saw bleeding from Zimmerman's nose and the back of his head and that he was treated by paramedics. Imagine if from the start they presented photos of Zimmerman and Martin as they most recently were rather than an eight year old booking photo of Zimmerman to be juxtaposed against a photo of Martin as a 13 year old that was provided by Martin's public relations team. Imagine if from the start they contradicted the oft made claim that Zimmerman was 50-100 pounds heavier than Martin and pointed out that Martin was a 6+ foot football player and had several inches on Zimmerman.

                                                                                                            If they did all that from the start, they could have made the case look like a case of a guy beating another guy's head into the pavement and refusing to stop until the guy getting beaten decided to shoot his assailant before losing consciousness? You think in that case there would have been this uproar?
                                                                                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                              Mon, May 21, 2012 - 3:35 PM
                                                                                                              <You think in that case there would have been this uproar?>

                                                                                                              Yes, but the volume would surely be lower. Remember, Al Sharpton and the rest of the idiocy-chorus wanted Zimmerman to be guilty, so they ignored ALL information that went against their agenda & bias.

                                                                                                              BUT...it would have forestalled many who now have to backtrack, which is difficult for those that already put their neck out there. Notice how now there is no mention of this whole case. NOT because; in my opinion, there's no more facts coming out, but because the facts that are coming out are 'difficult' for the narrative that so many were promoting.
                                                                                                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                                Tue, May 22, 2012 - 2:02 PM
                                                                                                                <<but because the facts that are coming out are 'difficult' for the narrative that so many were promoting.

                                                                                                                You should consider the possibility that the evidence that has been selectively leaked has been done so by Zimmerman's lawyers in order to help their case moving forward. As opposed to the evidence being leaked somehow bein demonstrative of the overall case and evidence.
                                                                                                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                                  Wed, May 23, 2012 - 1:32 AM
                                                                                                                  <You should consider the possibility that the evidence that has been selectively leaked has been done so by Zimmerman's lawyers in order to help their case moving forward.>

                                                                                                                  Anything is possible. Aliens may be in charge of all of this, too.

                                                                                                                  <Andrew says you did,>

                                                                                                                  Oh, Lordy. When Ron stated, "Yes, I've seen the stories.", I crazily took it to mean that he heard the same stories as I did, which I related in this opening line: "Anyone see those new stories about how it may just be that Trayvon instigated the physical altercation that got him shot?"

                                                                                                                  So, Jeff - twist this all that you'd like. I stated that, Ron stated, "Yes, I've seen the stories". Deal. He said one thing and meant one thing and I read what he wrote and understood that to mean that he saw the same stories. Deal.

                                                                                                                  <...and is now claiming he was not trying to speak for you.>

                                                                                                                  Ron does well enough on his own. He does not need me speaking for him.

                                                                                                                  <That after initially stating that the police said there were eye witnesses that seen Martin start the fight, which was clearly false.>

                                                                                                                  Well, it's being "clearly false" or not is not relevant. That's the report that I heard. Deal.

                                                                                                                  <Andrew is conflating the middle of the fight where witnesses seen Martin on top with the initiation of the fight.>

                                                                                                                  No I am not. You have no idea what I heard, nor do you have any idea what I am saying. I heard what I heard so deal.

                                                                                                                  <Were those reports you initially heard based on Zimmerman's account and this circumstantial evidence you are speakin of?>

                                                                                                                  Yeah. Ron. Go back months and find those news items. Get on it man!

                                                                                                                  <Whatever circumstantial evidence you are speaking of, clearly it is not the secret insourced reports Andrew claimed existed.>

                                                                                                                  You have no idea what Ron heard, nor do you have any idea what I heard...so...deal. You have no idea.

                                                                                                                  <I have demonstrated that you did just that.>

                                                                                                                  Oh, Jeff. By stating my memory of what he wrote, that is not speaking for Ron. Jeff jeff jeff.

                                                                                                                  <So if you don't know what the reporters statement was based on, how can you claim it was not based on Zimmerman's own account?>

                                                                                                                  I have no idea what it was based upon. None. Neither do you. The only difference is that you try to tell us that you know, while I continually say that I have no idea.

                                                                                                                  <First you claimed their were reports of the police stating witnesses seen Martin strike first.>

                                                                                                                  Perhaps so. At this point I have no idea nor nor memory of what exactly the report said. It was probably one line in an otherwise long news item.

                                                                                                                  <Then you ignore your own claims about these witnesses, changing your story to the idea that there were unsourced reports outside of Zimmerman's own claims of Martin striking first.>

                                                                                                                  I stated repeatedly that I don't know where these reports came from. Over and over. You tried to say definitively that they came from Zimmerman, I just stated that you don't know that since you don't even know which news item this was from.

                                                                                                                  <Now you are claiming you don't remember what the reports were based on, thereby contradicting your own claim that these reports were not based on Zimmerman's account.>

                                                                                                                  Nope. I just stated that you don't know what the fuck y'r talking about in trying to assign these news items to Zimmerman's statements.

                                                                                                                  <That would be headline news, and yet no such headline exists that anyone can find.. The problem here is your inability to admit your own errors.>

                                                                                                                  HA!

                                                                                                                  <You said you had not even looked, have you since employed the use of Google?>

                                                                                                                  I have employees, yet none of them will do this for me. Can you suggest the language that I should use to cajole them to do this on their off time? Threats? Pleas? Should I bribe them? Engange them in a dare? What do you suggest?

                                                                                                                  <So now you admit that your claims are doubtful>

                                                                                                                  HA! OF COURSE! Did you see my first statement? It was a question. No definitive statement there, bucko.

                                                                                                                  <this after stating it is a fact that the police indicated there were witnesses that seen the initiation of the fight.>

                                                                                                                  That's what the report said as I reported. Deal.

                                                                                                                  <If a cop told a reporter this it would be headline news. You overstated your case, this much is 100% clear.>

                                                                                                                  Ha! You made a mountain out of a molehill. Me? I am stupid enough to encourage you.

                                                                                                                  <After ALL of this back and forth you did not try to use Google even once? VERY odd Andrew.>

                                                                                                                  I'm a strange fellow.

                                                                                                                  <I am not even going to read any further,>

                                                                                                                  Thank god for that.

                                                                                                                  <I have never in my life seen anyone try so hard to avoid having to admit their obvious errors.>

                                                                                                                  Because I did not say any error. Relating what was my memory is not an error. It's an error of what was reported.

                                                                                                                  <I am going to post our exchange again,>

                                                                                                                  Yes you will. You have no control over it. You are my marionette.

                                                                                                                  As for re-posting it. Thanks. I am glad that you spent all that time doing that. Now, dance!

                                                                                                                  <Ron, at the very least it would be appreciated if you were to take a look at my reposting as to what my disagreement with Andrew was actually about.>

                                                                                                                  Yes. Ron. Please make all this effort that Jeff took worth it for him. Give him a word of encouragement.

                                                                                                                  <Clearly the exchange demonstrates that Andrew overstated his case, something that should not be ignored because Andrew leans toward your arguments.>

                                                                                                                  Is that him subconsciously or manipulatively goading you? I can't tell.
                                                                                                                  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                                    Wed, May 23, 2012 - 12:01 PM
                                                                                                                    <<<You should consider the possibility that the evidence that has been selectively leaked has been done so by Zimmerman's lawyers in order to help their case moving forward.>

                                                                                                                    Anything is possible. Aliens may be in charge of all of this, too.<<

                                                                                                                    We are and always have been discussing REASONABLE possibilities, so please do stop with the idiotic alien comparisons.

                                                                                                                    <<So, Jeff - twist this all that you'd like.

                                                                                                                    I am not going to get sucked in to your constant backpedaling any further, our discussion, your words, and my words, are plain for everyone to see. And what is clear is that the only one twisting and distorting things.... is you. This was the core of your claim and our primary point of disagreement. It can't be denied. Andrew: You don't even know about the two witnesses that say that they saw Trayvon first punch Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground and then jumping on top of him. Shame on you. "LOL".

                                                                                                                    Jeff: When you say you that Trayvon struck first, you are taking Zimmerman at face value. Primarily because there is ZERO witness testimony as to who struck first.

                                                                                                                    Andrew: the police have stated that they have witnesses who SAW Trayvon strike Zimmerman first, and then jump on him after Zimmerman fell to the ground.

                                                                                                                    You are also pretending that your memory is somehow perfect and without fault, and that you could not possibly of made a mistake, misunderstood, or even misheard what you are claiming was reported. Your claims would have been headline news, headline news is easy to google, and yet this report can't be found. The conclusion is clear, case closed.
                                                                                                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                            Mon, May 21, 2012 - 1:18 PM
                                                                                                            <<<Like I already said, I'm aware of no such witness.>

                                                                                                            Neither am I <<

                                                                                                            Are you now admitting that you were wrong when you stated that there were reports that the police had witnesses that seen Martin initiate the fight? Because thusfar I have not seen you admit this error.

                                                                                                            <<at first, he did not want to admit that we heard this report

                                                                                                            False. I never indicated that we had not heard reports of Zimmerman's account, this is a given being that we discussed Zimmerman's account from the get go. Ron can attest to this simple fact. I simply denied your claims about witnesses that seen the initiation of the fight, and I highly doubt your claims that there is some secret source for reports of the initiation of the fight (something Ron never agreed with).
                                                                                                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                          Mon, May 21, 2012 - 12:42 PM
                                                                                                          <<Like I already said, I'm aware of no such witness.

                                                                                                          Much as I have been trying to tell Andrew, but he is pretending to speak for you. Now regarding reports you heard of Zimmerman striking first, what were those reports based on? Are you unaware of what those reports are based on? Andrew spoke for you and said you were unaware of where these reports came from. Or do you in fact know that thusfar the only basis for these reports happen to be Zimmerman's own account?

                                                                                                          Andrew stated: "Ron & I both heard report(s) about Trayvon starting/instigating the altercation. We don't know where that/those report(s) came from."

                                                                                                          My understanding is that every report of Martin striking first is based on Zimmerman's account alone. First Andrew stated that the police indicated there were witnesses that stated Martin struck first. I proved that to be false. Now he is saying there is some unkown secret source of information about Martin striking first, a source that the media has yet to specify. I have not seen nor can I find any such claims as to a secret source. Is it as Andrew says? Did you hear reports of some secret source?
                                                                                                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                            Mon, May 21, 2012 - 4:27 PM
                                                                                                            <Much as I have been trying to tell Andrew, but he is pretending to speak for you.>

                                                                                                            Ha. How ironical. While incorrectly stating that I am "pretending to speak for" Ron, you pretend to speak for me.

                                                                                                            No, I have never tried to speak for Ron. I have just stated exactly his agreement with me that he heard of this same news story - short of any memory of whether or not a "witness" was reported or not.

                                                                                                            <Now regarding reports you heard of Zimmerman striking first, what were those reports based on?>

                                                                                                            Uh...a reporter's statement? I don't recall where they heard that information.

                                                                                                            <Are you unaware of what those reports are based on?>

                                                                                                            Of course. I never suggested that I remembered. It was CNN/MSNBC or NPR. Those were the only news outlets that I was listening to at the time.

                                                                                                            <My understanding is that every report of Martin striking first is based on Zimmerman's account alone.>

                                                                                                            Yet...you can't quote where that "understanding" came from. Kind of like how I can't find a link to the report & statement in question. Interesting. More irony on a rainy Seattle Monday.

                                                                                                            <First Andrew stated that the police indicated there were witnesses that stated Martin struck first.>

                                                                                                            To my memory, yes. I do believe that the word "witness" was used. Deal.

                                                                                                            <I proved that to be false.>

                                                                                                            How could you prove my memory false? HA!

                                                                                                            <Now he is saying there is some unkown secret source of information about Martin striking first, a source that the media has yet to specify.>

                                                                                                            Nice strawman. Par for your course.

                                                                                                            <I have not seen nor can I find any such claims as to a secret source.>

                                                                                                            Yes. Neither can I. But, then again, I have not spend untold hours listening/watching three news outlets to try to find that one/couple mention(s) to which you've taken such umbrage.

                                                                                                            <If there was a secret source or witness regarding Martin striking first it would be headline news.>

                                                                                                            You DO recognize that it was probably a reporter(s) jumping the gun or relating erroneous information, right? Or, like me....he could have been INTENTIONALLY LYING! YEAH!

                                                                                                            <If there was a secret source or witness regarding Martin striking first it would be headline news.>

                                                                                                            Which is EXACTLY what I stated. Interesting. The only difference being the word "witness(s)". Ha! How hys-ter-ical.

                                                                                                            <And as far as we know these reports only have one source, Zimmerman himself.>

                                                                                                            Again, since neither of us know where these reports came from, how in the world would Ron or I know this...or you, this point? Do you not understand this? Some reporter reporting this does not mean that it came form a 'secret source' or some conspiracy to disparage Trayvon. Perhaps...they were just wrong...?

                                                                                                            <Ron has repeatedly indicated that the only eye witness that has thusfar been reported regarding the initiation of the fight was Zimmerman's himself.>

                                                                                                            But that has NOTHING to do with the report. No one knows where that reporter(s) got the info that we both had heard. Those two things are irrelevant to each other.

                                                                                                            <A source by the way that could only possibly be an additional eye witness account.>

                                                                                                            Strawman or some kind of fallacy. It could have been a cop telling the reporter that. It could have been a reporter making a mistake in their reporting. To suggest that the "only possibly be an additional eye witness account." is laughable.

                                                                                                            <So through this entire discussion you have not even tried to use google to verify as to if you are possibly mistaken?>

                                                                                                            A) Correct.
                                                                                                            B) I am not mistaken. Ron also heard the same thing, short of his memory of the word "witness" being used.
                                                                                                            C) Dance Monkey! Dance!

                                                                                                            <I would suggest doing your due diligence, you are not so infallible as you are pretending.>

                                                                                                            Wow. Another fallacy. I am "pretending" infallibility, 'eh? Good to know.

                                                                                                            <Except Ron has never said he does not "know where they came from".>

                                                                                                            Yes he did. He stated that he did not recall where he heard that report.

                                                                                                            <Why are you pretending to speak for Ron?>

                                                                                                            I never have spoken for Ron. I am simply relating my memory of that point. That's it.

                                                                                                            <Ron said he heard reports of Martin striking first,>

                                                                                                            Yep. Which I heard, too. And, neither of us recalled where we heard that report(s).

                                                                                                            <he never said he did not know what those reports were based on,>

                                                                                                            Correct, because that was never an issue until YOU made it an issue. Both of us simply related that we heard this report(s). You are the one that pushed it past that, saying that this never happnened, and then - in order to allow you to carry on, you focused on the word "witness(es)".

                                                                                                            <and he certainly never said those reports were not based on Zimmerman's own account.>

                                                                                                            True. I never stated anything about his statements about this, so I don't understand why you're even bringing it up.

                                                                                                            <You are inserting your own words in to his mouth.>

                                                                                                            That's your imagination or a voice in your head. I surely have never done that. All that I have ever written here is that Ron stated that he heard this same information, WITHOUT the world "witness(es)". So..............where's my putting words in his mouth? You quoted him, right? So...I'm just relating EXACTLY what he stated.

                                                                                                            <I never refused to admit that we heard Zimmerman's own account,>

                                                                                                            Good for me, I never said a word about Zimmerman's own account. My statement was about a report(s) stating that Trayvon struck first. This statement had NOTHING to do with anything that Zimmerman had stated.

                                                                                                            <1.) Your false assertion that the police said there were witnesses that seen the initiation of the fight.>

                                                                                                            It's not a false assertion if it's my memory. So, either:

                                                                                                            1) I am lying
                                                                                                            or,
                                                                                                            2) I am NOT lying, and that was my memory.

                                                                                                            Deal.

                                                                                                            <2.) Your assertion that there is some secret source of information that reporters have put forth as to the initiation of the fight. >

                                                                                                            HA! YOU used the word "secret". Not me. Now you are blaming ME for YOUR words? Classic Jeff.

                                                                                                            <3.) Your assertion that Ron agrees with you regarding these reports of a secret source of information regarding the initiation of the fight.>

                                                                                                            HA! Now y'r just making shit up.

                                                                                                            <Are you now admitting that you were wrong when you stated that there were reports that the police had witnesses that seen Martin initiate the fight?>

                                                                                                            No. I am not aware of any "such witness". I AM though aware of my memory of a report(s) that stated that Trayvon struck first. That's been my one singular point this whole time, which you have changed to something about this "secret source".

                                                                                                            <Because thusfar I have not seen you admit this error.>

                                                                                                            That's because I have made no error. You have, but just don't recognize it. I cannot make an error relating to what is my memory...unless I am lying.

                                                                                                            <False. I never indicated that we had not heard reports of Zimmerman's account,>

                                                                                                            Again, if you again quote the original statements by myself & Ron, there was no discussion about "Zimmerman's account" until YOU brought it up. So...that's immaterial. And, irrelevant.

                                                                                                            <I simply denied your claims about witnesses that seen the initiation of the fight,>

                                                                                                            Deny all that you want. That was my memory. Deal.

                                                                                                            <I highly doubt your claims that there is some secret source for reports of the initiation of the fight (something Ron never agreed with).>

                                                                                                            Who first used this phrase, "secret source"? Me? If so, I was mocking you.




                                                                                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                              Tue, May 22, 2012 - 2:46 PM
                                                                                                              <<No, I have never tried to speak for Ron.

                                                                                                              I have demonstrated that you did just that.

                                                                                                              <<<Now regarding reports you heard of Zimmerman striking first, what were those reports based on?>

                                                                                                              Uh...a reporter's statement? I don't recall where they heard that information. <<

                                                                                                              So if you don't know what the reporters statement was based on, how can you claim it was not based on Zimmerman's own account? You are contradicting yourself here Andrew.

                                                                                                              <<<Are you unaware of what those reports are based on?>

                                                                                                              Of course. I never suggested that I remembered.<<

                                                                                                              Your story keeps changing. First you claimed their were reports of the police stating witnesses seen Martin strike first. That claim is clearly false. Then you ignore your own claims about these witnesses, changing your story to the idea that there were unsourced reports outside of Zimmerman's own claims of Martin striking first. Now you are claiming you don't remember what the reports were based on, thereby contradicting your own claim that these reports were not based on Zimmerman's account. You can't seem to keep your story straight bud.

                                                                                                              <<<First Andrew stated that the police indicated there were witnesses that stated Martin struck first.>

                                                                                                              To my memory, yes. I do believe that the word "witness" was used. Deal. <<

                                                                                                              That would be headline news, and yet no such headline exists that anyone can find.. The problem here is your inability to admit your own errors.

                                                                                                              <<<I have not seen nor can I find any such claims as to a secret source.>

                                                                                                              Yes. Neither can I.<<

                                                                                                              You said you had not even looked, have you since employed the use of Google?

                                                                                                              <<You DO recognize that it was probably a reporter(s) jumping the gun or relating erroneous information, right?

                                                                                                              So now you admit that your claims are doubtful, this after stating it is a fact that the police indicated there were witnesses that seen the initiation of the fight. I means seriously bud, take a look at the exchange between you and I that I posted, you even went so far as to try and ridicule me for my lack of knowledge on the case. And now it seems you either repeated erroneous information or overstated your case. Again, revisit our exchange, and take a look at your tone, and your statements of fact about the case, and how you spoke to me for doubting the information you were peddling.

                                                                                                              <<<If there was a secret source or witness regarding Martin striking first it would be headline news.>

                                                                                                              Which is EXACTLY what I stated. <<

                                                                                                              You never stated any such thing.

                                                                                                              <<The only difference being the word "witness(s)". Ha! How hys-ter-ical.

                                                                                                              Our entire disagreement was in regards to your claims of WITNESSES seeing the intiation of the fight, as my posting of our conversation proves without a shadow of a doubt. You remind me of Christians claiming the earth is only 5,000 years old, this in spite of the evidence in front of their face.

                                                                                                              <<It could have been a cop telling the reporter that.

                                                                                                              If a cop told a reporter this it would be headline news. You overstated your case, this much is 100% clear.

                                                                                                              <<To suggest that the "only possibly be an additional eye witness account."

                                                                                                              You yourself have suggested that the only possible way to prove that Martin did not initiate the fight would be through eye witness accounts. You are inconsistent.

                                                                                                              <<<So through this entire discussion you have not even tried to use google to verify as to if you are possibly mistaken?>

                                                                                                              A) Correct. <<

                                                                                                              Sounds to me like you are avoiding having to face finding out that you made a huge mistake and overstated your case. After ALL of this back and forth you did not try to use Google even once? VERY odd Andrew.

                                                                                                              <<I am not mistaken. Ron also heard the same thing

                                                                                                              Ron, take a look at the exchange between Andrew and I that I posted, look closely at Andrews claims. Is this what you agree with?

                                                                                                              I am not even going to read any further, your backpedaling and changing of your story, even now ignoring the core of our disagreement that hinged on the witnesses you claimed existed, is pure idiocy. I have never in my life seen anyone try so hard to avoid having to admit their obvious errors. I am going to post our exchange again, constrast that with how vague your claims have become through your backpedaling process.




                                                                                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                              Tue, May 22, 2012 - 2:49 PM
                                                                                                              Since you want to conveniently forget what our disagreement was about, I thought you might want to look at it again being that you were to afraid to face it previously. Your words, not sure why you are running away from them now.

                                                                                                              Andrew: You don't even know about the two witnesses that say that they saw Trayvon first punch Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground and then jumping on top of him. Shame on you. "LOL".

                                                                                                              Jeff: When you say you that Trayvon struck first, you are taking Zimmerman at face value. Primarily because there is ZERO witness testimony as to who struck first.

                                                                                                              Andrew: the police have stated that they have witnesses who SAW Trayvon strike Zimmerman first, and then jump on him after Zimmerman fell to the ground.

                                                                                                              Jeff: <In other words, thusfar we have heard from ZERO eye witnesses that observed the beginninf of the fight, ie., who struck first. FAIL!.

                                                                                                              Andrew: FAIL! No, YOU have heard "ZERO eye witnesses". I have heard SPECIFIC REPORTS of witnesses who SPECIFICALLY saw Trayvon punch Zimmerman.

                                                                                                              Jeff: I just read the link and it turns out I was correct, the police NEVER indicated that the witnesses observed the beginning of the fight.

                                                                                                              Andrew: Sorry. Not true. I have seen it written that there are two witnesses that saw Trayvon hit Zimmerman in the face, and then jump on him as Zimmerman fell. Will this come out in the court? We will see.

                                                                                                              Jeff: If the latter is true, will you concede that you were wrong?

                                                                                                              Andrew: OF COURSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My ENTIRE argument has been based on reported WITNESSES, and on statements made by people that I HAVE HEARD, or video that I HAVE SEEN. Not one bit was my own supposition or speculation. Not one bit...unlike some.

                                                                                                              (take note that these witnesses are your ENTIRE argument)

                                                                                                              Andrew: We don't know, but what we DO know is that they have made these statements...so using the AVAILABLE INFORMATION...NOT some fantasy or guesstimation or supposition or fantasysland wishfulthinking...what we have is the statements by the POLICE who said that there are WITNESSES who say that Trayvon STRUCK FIRST. The veracity of those statements will come out now, in court. Uh oh...did they just make that up?"

                                                                                                              Andrew: What part of the numerous instances of citations of mentions of witnesses OTHER THAN ZIMMERMAN don't you understand?

                                                                                                              Andrew: Now you feel badly about that, right? All you had to do is commit to your own Google search. I have found multiple mentions of these witnesses, along with hearing it on TV multiple times

                                                                                                              Andrew: Multiple reports of witnesses stating that Trayvon struck first. We'll see what they say in court.

                                                                                                              Andrew: I have based 100% of my opinion on reports from the police and from evidence that I could SEE or HEAR.

                                                                                                              Jeff: When you say you that Trayvon struck first, you are taking Zimmerman at face value. Primarily because there is ZERO witness testimony as to who struck first. Contrary to your FALSE claims otherwise

                                                                                                              Andrew: Oh, Jeff. Jeff jeff jeff. I'm making a notation of this, so when those witnesses come out (as expected, as reported), what will you say then?

                                                                                                              Andrew: Yes. The police could be lying.<<

                                                                                                              Jeff: The police never stated that witnesses observved Trayvon throwing the first punch. It never happened, you are delusional

                                                                                                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                            Tue, May 22, 2012 - 12:05 AM
                                                                                                            "Now regarding reports you heard of Zimmerman striking first, what were those reports based on?"

                                                                                                            I didn't say I heard reports of Martin striking first. I said I had heard news stories about how Martin MAY have instigated the physical altercation that got him shot. That possibility certainly arises from not only Zimmerman's account but also circumstantial evidence corroborating Zimmerman's account.
                                                                                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                              Tue, May 22, 2012 - 2:09 PM
                                                                                                              <<I didn't say I heard reports of Martin striking first.

                                                                                                              Andrew says you did, and is now claiming he was not trying to speak for you. He is claiming that you and him both heard reports about unsourced information of martin striking first. That after initially stating that the police said there were eye witnesses that seen Martin start the fight, which was clearly false. I think it is much as I originally thought, Andrew is conflating the middle of the fight where witnesses seen Martin on top with the initiation of the fight.

                                                                                                              << I said I had heard news stories about how Martin MAY have instigated the physical altercation that got him shot. That possibility certainly arises from not only Zimmerman's account but also circumstantial evidence corroborating Zimmerman's account.

                                                                                                              Were those reports you initially heard based on Zimmerman's account and this circumstantial evidence you are speakin of? What is this circumstantial evidence that points to Martin initiating the violence? Martin winning the fight and doing damage to Zimmerman in no way speaks to who may of initiated the violence. Whatever circumstantial evidence you are speaking of, clearly it is not the secret insourced reports Andrew claimed existed.
                                                                                                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                                Tue, May 22, 2012 - 2:47 PM
                                                                                                                I can't speak for Andrew or what Andrew has said about me, so please only take my word for what I've said. Again, I was referencing reports of what MAY have happened. Corroborating evidence which is consistent with key parts of an account count as evidence of the truth of the account. Corroborating evidence doesn't need to back up every element of the account. Injuries on Zimmerman and lack of injuries on Martin plus a witness who said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating the latter corroborate Zimmerman's account, even if that corroborating evidence doesn't directly point to who started the fight (apart from Zimmerman's account). Corroborating facts overall support an account because people who lie or are mistaken often include details that are contradicted by extraneous evidence. if whatever evidence available is consistent with the account, then that supports (probabilistically) the account as a whole (by and large), and certainly is sufficient to conclude that Martin MAY have instigated the violence.
                                                                                                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                                  Tue, May 22, 2012 - 2:51 PM
                                                                                                                  Being that most lies are a mixture of truth and falsehoods, one part of the story being true does not demonstrate the the entire story is true. In other words, there is no actual evidence beyond Zimmerman's own account that Martin struck first.

                                                                                                                  <<Injuries on Zimmerman and lack of injuries on Martin plus a witness who said he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman beating the latter corroborate Zimmerman's account

                                                                                                                  It corroborates part of Zimmerman's account, not the entire account.
                                                                                                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                                  Tue, May 22, 2012 - 2:56 PM
                                                                                                                  Ron, at the very least it would be appreciated if you were to take a look at my reposting as to what my disagreement with Andrew was actually about. If I had overstated my case to such an extent you would be all over it. Clearly the exchange demonstrates that Andrew overstated his case, something that should not be ignored because Andrew leans toward your arguments.
                                                                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                      Sun, May 20, 2012 - 7:17 PM
                                                                                                      <and just hopes the latter can't get to his gun?>
                                                                                                      Trayvon didn't just hope.
                                                                                                      You repeatedly exclude information that doesn't fit the scenario you're selling.

                                                                                                      <But that's not the section of 776.012 you quoted.>
                                                                                                      <But that section predates SYG law and hence is not the new SYG law.>
                                                                                                      LOL
                                                                                                      First you attempt to exclude subchapters from the law, now you're attempting to exclude sentences from subchapter.

                                                                                                      <Either way your original position regarding SYG law was wrong.>
                                                                                                      No, it's not. ;)
                                                                                                      You're just attempting to distort what I wrote, by taking it out of context.
                                                                                                      Trayvon did not use deadly force. Zimmerman did.

                                                                                                      <But popular perception and the media tries to simply the act>
                                                                                                      No, you are the one attempting to narrow the scope of the law.
                                                                                                      I am discussing what is commonly called Florida's SYG "law", not what you may call Florida's SYG "act".
                                                                                                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                        Sun, May 20, 2012 - 11:39 PM
                                                                                                        "You repeatedly exclude information that doesn't fit the scenario you're selling. "

                                                                                                        Like what? In your scenario, Martin's hoping he has sufficient control of Zimmerman even though by pounding his head he's obviously not holding him nor controlling his gun - hence he can only hope that Zimmerman can't get to his gun. Less likely than that he just didn't know Zimmerman had a gun.

                                                                                                        "First you attempt to exclude subchapters from the law, now you're attempting to exclude sentences from subchapter."

                                                                                                        I excluded parts that weren't part of the new SYG law. The part your originally quoted predated SYG law and you've done nothing to contradict that. First, you attempt to claim that a subsection is part of SYG law, and then later to back that claim, you appeal to a different part of that subsection that doesn't support your initial claim. Once again, a fact that you continue to conveniently ignore is that the very section of the subsection you quoted as adding the amendment about not having to retreat requires a fear of death or serious bodily injury, contradicting your claim that SYG law (even assuming that that section should be included in SYG law) doesn't require that.

                                                                                                        "I am discussing what is commonly called Florida's SYG "law", not what you may call Florida's SYG "act". "

                                                                                                        You're the one who quoted the legislative proceedings to back your claim. Quoting legislative proceedings doesn't necessarily entail that any amended subsection is part of what is eventually enacted as SYG law.

                                                                                                        Here are two Florida criminal defense attorneys with a combined 21 years as former state prosecutors describing Florida's Stand Your Ground law. Guess what? They say the law is codified in 776.013, precisely the subsection I've asserted as codifying SYG, and not your quoted subsection.

                                                                                                        www.hessingerlaw.com/Article...Law.aspx
                                                                                                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                          Mon, May 21, 2012 - 8:32 AM
                                                                                                          <Like what?>
                                                                                                          Like the police told Trayvon's father that after Trayvon first punched Zimmerman, he pinned him.

                                                                                                          <Here are two Florida criminal defense attorneys with a combined 21 years as former state prosecutors describing Florida's Stand Your Ground law. Guess what?>
                                                                                                          The link you provided agrees with what I have stated concerning 776.012 and the immunity.
                                                                                                          "This new law expands upon Florida's preexisting castle doctrine and permits one to stand their ground anywhere. Florida Statutes 776.032(1) then holds in pertinent part:
                                                                                                          A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force...
                                                                                                          This language makes clear that the law provides a true immunity and not merely an affirmative defense."
                                                                                                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                            Mon, May 21, 2012 - 11:47 PM
                                                                                                            "Like the police told Trayvon's father that after Trayvon first punched Zimmerman, he pinned him. "

                                                                                                            What is the "that" you're referring to? You're being unclear.


                                                                                                            "A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force... "


                                                                                                            The link I provided said that SYG law is encapsulated in 776.013, as I've correctly stated and you denied. The above reference says that immunity also applies to force permitted in 776.012. However, what you apparently are unaware of is that in general self-defense law, one normally has a duty to retreat. The traditional exception has been in one's home, where the "Castle Doctrine" states that in his home, an individual does not have a duty to retreat, The relevant section of 776.012 that refers to the SYG immunity in question deals with the section attached to the "no duty to retreat" amendment you previously quoted. That section deals with perceptions of threats to one's life or serious bodily harm. You previously quoted the section of 776.012 that deals with non-lethal force in the face of mere imminent unlawful action, short of fear of death - however, since that section doesn't include a "no duty to retreat" provision, that section still requires a duty to retreat, and hence is not SYG law. But the "no duty to retreat" amendment doesn't apply to that part of the section. It applies to the subsection provisions that follow it. To quote it:

                                                                                                            "However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

                                                                                                            (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

                                                                                                            (2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013." (776.012)

                                                                                                            So the "no duty to retreat" provision deals explicitly with cases involving fear of death or great bodily harm, not mere unlawful activity. Meaning I was right and you were wrong.

                                                                                                            That is why every summation of SYG law includes reference to fear of death or serious bodily injury. You are simply wrong in your legal analysis. Your original reference was to pre SYG law that still required a duty to retreat, and hence is not SYG law.
                                                                                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                              Tue, May 22, 2012 - 12:46 AM
                                                                                                              <What is the "that" you're referring to? You're being unclear.>
                                                                                                              You're being obtuse.

                                                                                                              <The link I provided said that SYG law is encapsulated in 776.013>
                                                                                                              No, it does not.

                                                                                                              <however, since that section doesn't include a "no duty to retreat" provision, that section still requires a duty to retreat,>
                                                                                                              Again you are wrong, concerning Florida law.

                                                                                                              <So the "no duty to retreat" provision deals explicitly with cases involving fear of death or great bodily harm, not mere unlawful activity. Meaning I was right and you were wrong.>
                                                                                                              Nope.
                                                                                                              Meaning you are misrepresenting what I write and apparently ignorant concerning Florida's laws.

                                                                                                              Trayvon did not use deadly force. Zimmerman did.
                                                                                                              "A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force."
                                                                                                              What part of the above sentence do you not understand?
                                                                                                              What part do you think does not apply to Trayvon Martin?
                                                                                                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                                Wed, May 23, 2012 - 1:00 AM
                                                                                                                <"the prosecution has admitted that they have no evidence of who even started the altercation">
                                                                                                                What is the "that" you're referring to?

                                                                                                                <Like what?>
                                                                                                                >Like the police told Trayvon's father that after Trayvon first punched Zimmerman, he pinned him.<
                                                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                              Sat, April 28, 2012 - 8:00 PM
                                                                              <And since when does reaching for a cell phone constitute grounds for beating someone's head into the ground?>

                                                                              My feeling there is that a case (a bad case) could be made that the FEAR of someone reaching on their person in the dark would cause someone already concerned to react in violence in an attempt to defend themselves. Now...I'm not saying that this is a) a good idea, or b) a good argument, or c) a lawful act... I'm just saying we'd hear similar parroted, propaganda & bias-led nonsense as heard here from those here that for one reason or another want to go down that road.

                                                                              <You have no evidence of what went through Martin's mind when the altercation began, whether it be fear or anger at being followed, and you have ZERO evidence that Martin saw a gun or was at all aware that Zimmerman had one before beating Zimmerman.>

                                                                              Yup. It's amazing though how people will form an argument around what they WANT Trayvon to have felt, in order to justify their feelings about the legal standing of Zimmerman using the SYG law.

                                                                              <776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force.>

                                                                              Uh...the key phraseology there is, "...to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force." The most important word there being, "reasonably". As far as I know, it's never been found that someone simply reaching on to their person is in and of itself enough reason to react with violence. Police do it, but then...they are able to form an argument for why their actions were "reasonable". Just some kid punching and then beating their head into the ground the person who was walking behind them I cannot imagine would be found to be "reasonable".
                                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                      Wed, April 25, 2012 - 9:19 AM
                                                                      <<I do believe that was the info that caused me to start talking about aliens & 911 conspiracies.

                                                                      We are speaking of reasonable scenarios and possibilities regarding the events of that night. Scenarios that are certainly not comarable to alien and 9-11 truther idiocy.

                                                                      <<I mean, there may be evidence that aliens directed Zimmerman to do it, too, or that Trayvon knew too much about the explosives planted in the Twin Towers

                                                                      What a stupid comparison.
                                                                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                        Wed, April 25, 2012 - 12:58 PM
                                                                        <We are speaking of reasonable scenarios and possibilities regarding the events of that night.>

                                                                        You missed my point. The reason I brought that up was because if we're not going to talk about facts that have been recorded & reported, then we may as well talk about aliens & 9/11 conspiracies. Sure, go ahead - bring up suppositions all that you like, but they are as relevant as are my joking points. To you, they are relevant, but they aren't UNTIL we hear some facts. So, bring them up all that you like...but...they're not relevant except as supposition & points of wonderment.

                                                                        <The idea that Zimmerman may have initiated the fight is a plausible scenario.>

                                                                        So what? There are MANY "plausible scenarios", right? Why entertain ANYTHING that is not recorded & reported except just for supposition & a point of wonderment? Do it - knock yourself out. But, know that it's irrelevant at this point.

                                                                        <The idea that Aliens directed Zimmerman to shoot Martin is not plausible by any stretch of the imagination.>

                                                                        I don't know about that. They have a very sick sense of humor, those aliens. And, those 9/11 conspirators are just nefarious! They'll do anything to shut people up!

                                                                        <<She wrote me & Gerbil and told us. "LOL">

                                                                        <who wrote who now?>

                                                                        Tandy wrote me and said that she was leaving because she's tired of the "arguments that just go around in circels", while saying that she wrote you too.

                                                                        <and now it seems she may not have actually written you as Andrew has claimed.>

                                                                        "...has claimed..." Jesus, Jeff. Are you really going to go down that road? Are you really going to hold me responsible for what some person on the internet says? Jesus. You will just harp on ANYTHING that you can if it hits your argument g-spot. This is turning into a vision of a mental sickness. Everything that you can't confirm or accept is now a lie. You really need to analyze your motives or get some professional help.
                                                                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                          Wed, April 25, 2012 - 1:27 PM
                                                                          <<The reason I brought that up was because if we're not going to talk about facts that have been recorded & reported, then we may as well talk about aliens & 9/11 conspiracies.

                                                                          You yourself have spoken at length about possible scenarios surrounding the events of that night. So not only is your comparison ludicrous, it is another example of your habit of dismissing anything that is inconvenient to your argument. For instance, is it a fact that witnesses seen the initiation of the fight between Zimmerman and Martin? You repeatedly made this claim and yet are unable to provide us with your source. Hypocrite.

                                                                          << Sure, go ahead - bring up suppositions all that you like, but they are as relevant as are my joking points

                                                                          How do investigators.....investigate? They develop hypothesis and explore possible scenarios for that which is unkown, these scenarios are then investigated to determine the facts. Reality is such that these sorts of questions are integral to any investigation, so to claim that it is not relevant is to demonstrate yet again that you have no understanding of what comprises basic investigative work.

                                                                          <<<The idea that Zimmerman may have initiated the fight is a plausible scenario.>

                                                                          So what?<<

                                                                          Exploring plausible scenarios is basic to any investigation, subsequently it is relevant to discuss. What is not relevant are your idiotic comparisons to aliens.

                                                                          <<But, know that it's irrelevant at this point.

                                                                          Irrelevant to what exactly?

                                                                          <<Tandy wrote me and said that she was leaving because she's tired of the "arguments that just go around in circels", while saying that she wrote you too.

                                                                          Suuuuuuuuure....you did...I mean...she did....LOL

                                                                          <<Are you really going to hold me responsible for what some person on the internet says?

                                                                          Yes, because you are that person. :)

                                                                          <<This is turning into a vision of a mental sickness.

                                                                          A mental sickness now is it? Wow, talk about exaggerated B.S. Sorry, but I am not on Aderol, you on the other hand are. So the question is, are you taking it as a presecription for a "mental sickness"? Or are you using recreationally?

                                                                          <<Everything that you can't confirm or accept is now a lie

                                                                          Actually, you expect me to take your word at face value, rather than you actually being able to demonstrate certain claims. And then you act all outraged when I challenge you on it. If we all just took each others word, rather than asking others to verify their claims, we would all be 9-11 truthers.

                                                                          <<You really need to analyze your motives or get some professional help.

                                                                          Yes, I need professional help because I outed an Alt on tribe.net *rolls eyes*.....hillarious dude! :)~
                                                                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                            Thu, April 26, 2012 - 5:37 PM
                                                                            <Suuuuuuuuure....you did...I mean...she did....LOL>

                                                                            Got it. More paranoia.

                                                                            <Yes, because you are that person. :)>

                                                                            I see. Because I said one thing similar...your keen ability to suss out alts & psychic premonitions has decided that I am Tandy? Poor, poor Jeff.

                                                                            <A mental sickness now is it?>

                                                                            Yes. It's classifiable. Having paranoid delusions is classified.

                                                                            <I am not on Aderol, you on the other hand are.>

                                                                            So...I'm Tandy AND on Aderol? Wow. The paranoid delusions continue.

                                                                            <Or are you using recreationally?>

                                                                            Oh, my goodness. You have now started to create this reality where I am Tandy, and as me - I take Aderol? Dude, I have never taken any medication like that in my life. You are cracking me up.

                                                                            <Actually, you expect me to take your word at face value, rather than you actually being able to demonstrate certain claims.>

                                                                            Dude, HOW THE FUCK could I demonstrate that this is the truth? Want the password? Ha. (No, I will not give you my password.)

                                                                            <And then you act all outraged when I challenge you on it.>

                                                                            No. I am shocked at this evidence of paranoid delusion.

                                                                            <Yes, I need professional help because I outed an Alt on tribe.net *rolls eyes*.....hillarious dude! :)~>

                                                                            Jeff. You have not "outed an Alt". That is your paranoid delusion, same with this nonsense about Aderol. You are; quite frankly, cracking up.
                                                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                              Fri, April 27, 2012 - 11:16 AM
                                                                              <<I see. Because I said one thing similar...

                                                                              Take out the constant "hahahahahah" and almost everything you say is similar. But that is ok bud, I am ready to move beyond your Alt., I just find it funny. :)

                                                                              <<<A mental sickness now is it?>

                                                                              Yes. It's classifiable. Having paranoid delusions is classified. <<

                                                                              Yes, that is it, I am now a paranoid delusional headcase that needs mental help, LMAO!!! Talk abut exaggerated B.S.

                                                                              <<<I am not on Aderol, you on the other hand are.>

                                                                              So...I'm Tandy AND on Aderol? Wow. The paranoid delusions continue. <

                                                                              Dude, you TOLD ME you were on aderol.
                                                                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                Fri, April 27, 2012 - 7:23 PM
                                                                                <Dude, you TOLD ME you were on aderol.>

                                                                                Dude, I GUARANTEE you I never said that. GUARANTEE it. 100%. That's some crazy delusion, or, at best, a ghost memory. I've never taken any of those drugs in my life. Not a once.
                                                                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                  Mon, April 30, 2012 - 2:01 PM
                                                                                  <<Dude, I GUARANTEE you I never said that. GUARANTEE it. 100%. That's some crazy delusion, or, at best, a ghost memory. I've never taken any of those drugs in my life. Not a once.

                                                                                  Then what did you mean when you said you were on "addy" when pointed out your confusion? I interpreted that as Aderol and you did not deny it.
                                                                                  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                    Mon, April 30, 2012 - 2:17 PM
                                                                                    Andrew: "I'm on atty.

                                                                                    Jeff: "Aderol? Could this be the reason you are rushing through your research and making so many critical errors?"

                                                                                    I mentioned Aderol a number of times trying to understand what "I'm on atty" means, it is the only drug I could correlate to "atty". And being that you never denied it I made the assumption that my interpretation was correct. You should have corrected it earlier if incorrect.
                                                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                      Mon, April 30, 2012 - 3:12 PM
                                                                                      OMFG this stuff is too hilarious to resist.

                                                                                      Andrew: "My opinion is that it's not relevant, but it's up to a judge. I've been consistent all along. I'm on atty."

                                                                                      To anyone that's not stuck in some bizarro android wanna-be-but-failing-logician bullshit, Andrew made an obvious typo, and when taken in context it's pretty obvious that he's saying "I'M NO ATTORNEY," since he's used the "atty" abbrevation repeatedly in this thread...

                                                                                      ...and even moreso considering that "atty" is a STANDARD abbreviation for "attorney," not Adderall, which doesn't even have a "T" in the name... making your "assumption" that much more, as you would say, "illogical" (or, as I would say, "fucking stupid.")

                                                                                      The only reason you're constantly berating people to "write with accuracy" is because you're too dense to figure out something as simple as this, and you seem to need everything spelled out in the most specific and minute detail, lest you have to use one iota of common sense and forfeit a masturbatory argument about what the meaning of "is" is.

                                                                                      Case in point:

                                                                                      >>Yes, Martin should have asked Zimmerman this question like an 18th century English nobleman *dripping sarcasm*. Do you realize how stupid that sounds?

                                                                                      What's really sad (and somewhat perplexing) is that you apparently don't realize how stupid *you* sound.

                                                                                      How much of your superfluous disruption must readers wade through, thanks to your unbridled inability (or unwillingness) to comprehend the obvious?

                                                                                      >>And being that you never denied it I made the assumption that my interpretation was correct. You should have corrected it earlier if incorrect

                                                                                      Or maybe he just thought such idiocy didn't dignify a response (though I'm guessing he just didn't catch it).

                                                                                      And for all your whining about people following the "rules" of the tribe, you were pretty quick to throw (what you erroneously assumed to be) someone's prescriptions back in their face. Nothing "personal" there, right?

                                                                                      Pathetic.
                                                                                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                        Mon, April 30, 2012 - 5:01 PM
                                                                                        Yes, please do help Andrew blame his own piss poor writing on me, that is totally logical...*dripping sarcasm*. "I am on atty" is OBVIOUSLY "I am no attorney".....Yeah right, what a stretch! When someone says they are "on" something, that typically = a drug. I even asked for clarification. Sorry bud, it is obvious you are just excercising your petty grudge here. But have fun barking at thin air if it suits your fancy. I am sure you will come back with more drivel in an attempt to insult me, par for the course. :)
                                                                                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                          Tue, May 1, 2012 - 8:22 AM
                                                                                          >>Yes, please do help Andrew blame his own piss poor writing on me

                                                                                          No, I blame Andrew for his own typos. I blame you for being unable (or unwilling) to recognize the obvious, and then for taking your false assumption and running with it.

                                                                                          I only casually browsed the thread, and I was able to figure out the typo right away.

                                                                                          Of course, I might just have understood the typo because I'm one of Andrew's alts. I mean... he's one of my alts... I mean... uh... we're both Tandy's alts.
                                                                                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                            Tue, May 1, 2012 - 8:42 AM
                                                                                            You are definately not either of their Alts being that you are not so easily confused, and neither do you use the same exact language as they both do, not to mention the penchent for constantly trying to psychologically evaluate me. Cuz you know, I need professional help because I am asking questions appropriate to a murder investigation such as this, lol.
                                                                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                              Tue, May 1, 2012 - 3:33 PM
                                                                                              >>Cuz you know, I need professional help because I am asking questions appropriate to a murder investigation such as this, lol.

                                                                                              I don't believe that was ever the implication.
                                                                                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                Tue, May 1, 2012 - 3:44 PM
                                                                                                It was certainly Andrews implication, asking appropriate questions, disagreeing with him, outing alts, these are all signs that one needs actual pyschological help. It is amature phsycological hour it seems.
                                                                                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                Wed, May 2, 2012 - 3:52 AM
                                                                                                <I don't believe that was ever the implication.>

                                                                                                Don't bother. I think that it's as we thought, frankly.
                                                                                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                  Wed, May 2, 2012 - 3:01 PM
                                                                                                  <<So...when I say that I heard that, I heard it.

                                                                                                  You have never answered the following question: Why can't you justfuckinggoogleit?
                                                                                                  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                    Wed, May 2, 2012 - 8:25 PM
                                                                                                    <You have never answered the following question: Why can't you justfuckinggoogleit?>

                                                                                                    So...when I say that I heard that, I heard it. Deal.

                                                                                                    Wait...you DO recognize that just because someone can not prove to you a truth...that's still a truth, right? You are the human version of that saying about a tree falling in a forest and if it makes noise or not.
                                                                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                      Thu, May 3, 2012 - 8:25 AM
                                                                                                      <<<You have never answered the following question: Why can't you justfuckinggoogleit?>

                                                                                                      So...when I say that I heard that, I heard it. Deal. >>>

                                                                                                      What show? What channel? Who was the host? Why are you unable to google it?

                                                                                                      <<Wait...you DO recognize that just because someone can not prove to you a truth...that's still a truth, right?

                                                                                                      Providing a link and demonstrating ones claims is standard practice on this site, I don't accept as "truth" that which can't be demonstrated.

                                                                                                      <You are the human version of that saying about a tree falling in a forest and if it makes noise or not.

                                                                                                      That does not even make sense.
                                                                                                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                        Sat, May 5, 2012 - 2:37 AM
                                                                                                        <What show? What channel? Who was the host? Why are you unable to google it?>

                                                                                                        Awwww...

                                                                                                        <Providing a link and demonstrating ones claims is standard practice on this site, I don't accept as "truth" that which can't be demonstrated.>

                                                                                                        My care level just crept up to a '1'. WHICH!...so you can feel something, is better than what is was yesterday.


                                                                                                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                          Mon, May 7, 2012 - 11:17 AM
                                                                                                          What show? What channel? Who was the host? Why are you unable to google it? Why are you unable to answer these simple questions?
                                                                                                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                            Tue, May 8, 2012 - 1:09 PM
                                                                                                            RON! He's talking to you! Why don't you answer! You must be lying!
                                                                                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                              Tue, May 8, 2012 - 1:20 PM
                                                                                                              It is clear I am talking to you Andrew. This entire thread, started by you, is based on a claim that you are unable to demonstrate. My questions are simple and to the point, why you are avoiding them is beyond me.
                                                                                                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                                Fri, May 11, 2012 - 7:07 PM
                                                                                                                <It is clear I am talking to you Andrew.>

                                                                                                                He and I said the exact same thing. Thus - you are speaking to both of us.

                                                                                                                <My questions are simple and to the point, why you are avoiding them is beyond me.>

                                                                                                                Ron, why are you avoiding answering Jeff's question?

                                                                                                                <All that is certainly not definitive, but it certainly does constitute evidence that Martin "may" have instigated the altercation.>

                                                                                                                Ron, what makes this point seem more likely than not, is that IF Zimmerman had pulled our or otherwise brandished his weapon BEFORE any physical altercation AFTER Trayvon instigated the communication between the two, then; yeah, does it not seem odd that Trayvon would not have simply taken the gun away from ZImmerman, or, tried to get a'hold of the gun INSTEAD of beating his head against the ground? Seems that if any of us were to be jumping someone that brandished a gun at us, we'd spend as much time as possible with our hands on the gun, and not doing ANYTHING ELSE.

                                                                                                                <Andrew specifically claimed that there were reports indicating that witnesses seen Martin initiate the fight.>

                                                                                                                Yep. Which Ron has also remarked he heard. So, you've called me a liar about that - is he a liar too? I guess so.

                                                                                                                <Everything is on the internet these days, one would think that if it existed we could find it.>

                                                                                                                Ron, I don't care to spend my time making Jeff happy. Can you please spend hours listening to radio & old TV stories about this case and find what you heard? Thanks.

                                                                                                                <If these reports exist, then why can't anybody find them?>

                                                                                                                The ONLY obvious answer to this question is that Ron & I are lying. Surely there can be no other.

                                                                                                                <And yet none of us can find any such reports.>

                                                                                                                Yes. Surely it's a conspiracy. The goddamned Rosicrucians & Templars are going at it again. Damn.

                                                                                                                <<Why would Martin waste his time beating on Zimmerman's head when he was on top of Zimmerman rather than going for the gun?

                                                                                                                <Actually Zimmerman indicated that he shot Martin because he thought he was going for his gun.>

                                                                                                                So...NOW you are taking Zimmerman's statements are worthy of consideration? You've spend most of your time casting aspersions on his statements, but now that it would HELP your point, all of a sudden...that one statement is believable? Interesting.

                                                                                                                Even past that hysterical point, that's not the point that we were discussing, anyway. The point is that: Why, IF Trayvon instigated the violence BECAUSE he saw a gun that Zimmerman MAY have been brandishing, WHY did he not try to get the gun INSTEAD of beating Zimmerman's head against the ground? Past any statements that Zimmerman stated for why he felt in fear for his life - we are not discussing that at this point, WHY would Zimmerman NOT have gone for the gun IF it was brandished?
                                                                                                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                                  Fri, May 11, 2012 - 11:02 PM
                                                                                                                  "So...NOW you are taking Zimmerman's statements are worthy of consideration? You've spend most of your time casting aspersions on his statements, but now that it would HELP your point, all of a sudden...that one statement is believable? Interesting. "

                                                                                                                  I think it's legitimate to do so. Statements made contrary to the personal interests of the person making them are considered more weighty than statements made supporting one's personal interests.
                                                                                                                  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                                    Sun, May 13, 2012 - 2:26 PM
                                                                                                                    <I think it's legitimate to do so.>

                                                                                                                    He's either legitimately believable or not. Either they are lying or they are telling their truth. One can't believe one side because it suits one's personal agenda, but then disbelieve another because it suits one's personal agenda.

                                                                                                                    <But it looks like it was just a matter of you being confused as to the nature of the progression of comments and replies.>

                                                                                                                    That's very...nice of you. Personally, I think that it was a 'gotcha' point for him, but...perhaps he's just confused.

                                                                                                                    <As I previously acknowledged, I know of no such witnesses other than Zimmerman.>

                                                                                                                    Neither do I. However, as stated on that early day, I DID hear reports of such a thing in the first days of the rise of this story. Was it from witnesses? I don't know. My assumption is that it WAS someone's early assumption/reporting that caused this comment to be made. What was the actual reason for this reporting? Lordy only knows.

                                                                                                                    <Yes, I went back and misread Andrews initial stateemt.>

                                                                                                                    Holy god. Jeff just walked on water.

                                                                                                                    <Andrew claimed that you agreed with him and that you had also seen reports of witnesses seeing Martin throwing the first punch,>

                                                                                                                    I don't know if I specifically stated "first punch", I do believe that generally I used the word "instigated". I don't remember at this moment if the report(s) stated punching or what.

                                                                                                                    <Now Andrew, can you see that Ron is not saying the same thing as you, ie, reports of witnesses seeing Martin initiate the violence?>

                                                                                                                    Ah...shit. So close. So close. Yes he is.

                                                                                                                    I wrote, "Anyone see those new stories about how it may just be that Trayvon instigated the physical altercation that got him shot?"

                                                                                                                    To that, Ron replied, "Yes, I've seen the stories."

                                                                                                                    So...if you want to figure out how to find one word that MAY prove you right in some fantastical realm of your mind, imagining what I meant or what Ron meant, please do. In fact, I encourage you to spend your life doing so. Hinging on the words like; in this case, "witnesses", is really your 'thing', so...have at it. I suggest that you go through the hundreds of comments and find out who first used the word "witnesses(s)".

                                                                                                                    <As I see now that is a false claim Andrew.>

                                                                                                                    Nope. We both heard/saw; if not the exact same report, something similar. Lord only knows what sources both of us saw in order to honestly state this claim. You are now going to go down that dark, dark road about the word "witnesses" and who first used that word. My integrity feels safely ensconced in my body about this, because if there were "reports", my assumption at this moment is that someone heard/saw reports by witnesses about the instigation/initiation of violence by Trayvon. Whether or not they were legitimate reports - that's a wholly different subject. As we have seen now, A LOT changed after those first days. So...have at it, man. I honestly encourage you to spend hours on this.

                                                                                                                    <Where you and I part ways is in regards to your claim that there are reports of WITNESSES seeing Martin initiate the violence,>

                                                                                                                    I KNEW that word would be your hinge-point. Love it.

                                                                                                                    <a claim for which Ron does not agree.>

                                                                                                                    Ron saw similar report(s) that I did. If it came from "witnesses" or an alien or the reporter made it up...I do not know.

                                                                                                                    <And now it it seems no such reports exist.>

                                                                                                                    But, the reportage DID. As related by both myself AND Ron...with or without the word "witness(es)".

                                                                                                                    <What channel did you see these reports? What station? Who was the host? Why are you unable to google it if it exists?>

                                                                                                                    HA! Oh, Jeff. Jeff jeff jeff.

                                                                                                                    Ron, please go through Youtube for me. It will only take you ten or so hours to look at everything from CNN/MSNBC/NPR/ETC. on those days to find it. Thanks, I just don't have time to prove it to Jeff in such a manner for which he will finally stop harping about this point.

                                                                                                                    <<Andrew specifically claimed that there were reports indicating that witnesses seen Martin initiate the fight.>>

                                                                                                                    So...you have found the first instance of the word "witnesses"? Are you saying that YOU instigated the first use of that word? Really? If that's so...my "yep" was just...what...? Just going along with you? Assuming that if this reporter(s) stated this heresay, then that it would be from a "witness(es)"? I suppose that's a good assumption, because if WE BOTH heard this, with or without the word "witness", it's a pretty good assumption that it came from someone's reporting that, somewhere, a witness saw this. You mean...a reporter would have jumped the gun!? No! Say it ain't so!

                                                                                                                    <Zimmerman's statements were always worthy of consideration, I just don't think we should automatically take the shooter at face value.>

                                                                                                                    Way to use those words. "worth of consideration", when before, you were calling ALL his statements in question.

                                                                                                                    <I thought such speculation was equivalent to alien investigations Andrew?>

                                                                                                                    You're starting to get it. Thank you. It's taken a while, but now you get it.

                                                                                                                    <It is Zimmerman himself that claim both was happening at the same time.>

                                                                                                                    No, he could have had his head bashed against the ground, and THEN Trayvon went for the gun. It seems hard to imagine that IF Zimmerman had FIRST brandished the weapon as you proffered as a possibility, that Trayvon would have ignored the gun, banged Zimmerman's head against the ground, and THEN, would have RETURNED to trying to get the weapon.

                                                                                                                    <<<WHY would Zimmerman NOT have gone for the gun IF it was brandished?>>

                                                                                                                    <Illogical. If Zimmerman had already brandished his gun, then why would Zimmerman then go for his own gune? I think you are confused.>

                                                                                                                    Obviously, I meant Trayvon.
                                                                                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                                      Sun, May 13, 2012 - 3:15 PM
                                                                                                                      <I think it's legitimate to do so.>

                                                                                                                      He's either legitimately believable or not. >>

                                                                                                                      Not all evidence is given the same weight as Ron has so eloquently pointed out.

                                                                                                                      <<Either they are lying or they are telling their truth

                                                                                                                      The real world is not black and white Andrew, reality is that a mixture of truth and lies would typically be where reality would fall, as opposed to being all lies. As a matter of fact, the best lies are sprinkled throughout with truth, as opposed to 100% fabrication.

                                                                                                                      <<I think that it was a 'gotcha' point for him

                                                                                                                      What do you mean? Please elaborate.

                                                                                                                      <<Neither do I. However, as stated on that early day, I DID hear reports of such a thing in the first days of the rise of this story. Was it from witnesses? I don't know.

                                                                                                                      I am confused, did you hear reports of WITNESS testimony of Martin initiating the violence or not? If you did hear such reports, what channel? What news host? Why can't we google this info?

                                                                                                                      <<Holy god. Jeff just walked on water

                                                                                                                      Interesting that I have went from being the devil in your eyes to now being your lord and pesonal savior. You are forgiven my son, say 5 Hail Jeffries and flog yourself and you will be forgiven. :)~

                                                                                                                      <<I don't know if I specifically stated "first punch", I do believe that generally I used the word "instigated".

                                                                                                                      While you also used the term "instigated", you also spoke of reports of witnesses seeing Martin INITIATE the conflict. Let's review how this specific disagreement began:

                                                                                                                      Andrew: "Because we - the general public - have not heard directly from any of the reported witnesses that saw Trayvon initiate this conflict"

                                                                                                                      Jeff: "Ummmm.....there has not been ANY witness testimony put forth that indicates they witnessed the initiation of the conflict, let alone that they specifically witnessed Trayvon initiate the violence. "

                                                                                                                      Andrew: "it's all speculation, is it not?"

                                                                                                                      Jeff: "Exactly my point, which is why you should not speak definitively that Trayvon initiated the violence. Because when you do you are taking the shooter at face value"

                                                                                                                      Andrew: Reportedly, Trayvon first struck Zimmerman

                                                                                                                      Jeff: "According to who? Just Zimmerman word right?" Where is this report of witnesses that seen Trayvon initiate the conflict Andrew?

                                                                                                                      There are other instances of you making he same claim in other threads Andrew, but you get the gist of it.


                                                                                                                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                                        Mon, May 14, 2012 - 12:23 AM
                                                                                                                        <Not all evidence is given the same weight as Ron has so eloquently pointed out.>

                                                                                                                        Sooo...the defining factor to whether or not you'll believe him is...what...? If it goes along with your opinion?

                                                                                                                        <I am confused, did you hear reports of WITNESS testimony of Martin initiating the violence or not?>

                                                                                                                        You have my original statement. Read it again. That's my statement.

                                                                                                                        <If you did hear such reports, what channel? What news host? Why can't we google this info?>

                                                                                                                        Ron, can you spend a few hours on this?

                                                                                                                        <While you also used the term "instigated", you also spoke of reports of witnesses seeing Martin INITIATE the conflict.>

                                                                                                                        Initiate/Instigate - whatever word I used. That's the word. Use that one.

                                                                                                                        <Andrew: "Because we - the general public - have not heard directly from any of the reported witnesses that saw Trayvon initiate this conflict">

                                                                                                                        I'm glad that you are spending your valuable time on this. I dig that. Really I do. So, yes - reportedly; as I mentioned, some reporter for some reason thought/heard that Trayvon instigated/initiated the conflict. How'd they get that report? Who knows. Witnesses? Who knows. Not me.

                                                                                                                        <100% proof that our disagreement revolved around the word "witnesses", you even tried to falely indicate that this info came from the Police.>

                                                                                                                        Who knows. Not me.

                                                                                                                        <If the police stated that these witnesses exist it would of been ALL OVER THE NEWS.>

                                                                                                                        Yup. Well, it was in the news when I saw it and related it here. Sorry, I ain't a'gonna go and listen to every news channel to make myself be right. That would be sick & sad...

                                                                                                                        <Ron was not agreeing with this Andrew, as you erroneously stated.>

                                                                                                                        No, Ron agreed that he heard reports that Trayvon initiated/instigated the conflict. Just like I said. Get caught up on as many words as you like.

                                                                                                                        <"When one is facing an armed attack threat, the last advice I would give would be to attempt to gain control of a holstered weapon.>

                                                                                                                        Seriously? People here are now experts at disarming an armed attacker? Seriously? This shit has seriously devolved.


                                                                                                                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                                          Mon, May 14, 2012 - 8:01 AM
                                                                                                                          <<Sooo...the defining factor to whether or not you'll believe him is...what...?

                                                                                                                          As to if I believe Zimmerman's account or not will be determined once I see and hear the totality of evidence. We are not yet at that point.

                                                                                                                          <<Ron, can you spend a few hours on this?

                                                                                                                          Why would Ron spend a few hours researching something that he never asserted? The assertion that the police indicated there were witnesses that seen Martin throw the first punch is yours and yours alone. In addition, a simple google search should not take a few hours".

                                                                                                                          <<Initiate/Instigate - whatever word I used. That's the word. Use that one.

                                                                                                                          As I demonstrated, you claimed that the police indicated that witnesses seen Martin strike Zimmerman first. So again, your backpedaling claims about Martin "initiating" or "instigating" the conversation is irrelevant to that specific claim of the initiation of violence.

                                                                                                                          <<
                                                                                                                          <100% proof that our disagreement revolved around the word "witnesses", you even tried to falely indicate that this info came from the Police.>

                                                                                                                          Who knows. Not me.>>

                                                                                                                          Umm....you specifically said you know. Andrew: "but what we DO know is that they have made these statements...so using the AVAILABLE INFORMATION...NOT some fantasy or guesstimation or supposition or fantasysland wishfulthinking...what we have is the statements by the POLICE who said that there are WITNESSES who say that Trayvon STRUCK FIRST. "

                                                                                                                          I am completely dumbfounded that you can't admit your obvious error.

                                                                                                                          <<If the police stated that these witnesses exist it would of been ALL OVER THE NEWS.>

                                                                                                                          Yup. Well, it was in the news when I saw it and related it here.<<

                                                                                                                          If it was in the news we would be able to find it. The simple fact is that you are mistaken, a claim such as this would be on the internet, it is not, so obviously it never happened.

                                                                                                                          <<Sorry, I ain't a'gonna go and listen to every news channel to make myself be right. That would be sick & sad...

                                                                                                                          Join the 21st centur and try google dude.

                                                                                                                          <<<Ron was not agreeing with this Andrew, as you erroneously stated.>

                                                                                                                          No, Ron agreed that he heard reports that Trayvon initiated/instigated the conflict. Just like I said<<

                                                                                                                          Not just like you said, your claim included the police indicating witnesses seen Trayvon strike first. Ron flat out said he does not agree with this clear and definitive statemement from you, and obviously it is your claim of" witnesses" that I disagreed with. So why pretend that our disagreement was other than it was Andrew?

                                                                                                                          <<Get caught up on as many words as you like.

                                                                                                                          Without your claims of "witnessses" you and I would not have had disagreement in that regard. Clearly you have failed here and clearly you are avoiding your obvious errors in overstating your case: "but what we DO know is that they have made these statements...so using the AVAILABLE INFORMATION...NOT some fantasy or guesstimation or supposition or fantasysland wishfulthinking...what we have is the statements by the POLICE who said that there are WITNESSES who say that Trayvon STRUCK FIRST. "
                                                                                                                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                                            Mon, May 14, 2012 - 7:04 PM
                                                                                                                            <Why would Ron spend a few hours researching something that he never asserted?>

                                                                                                                            Yes he did. Just like I did. You are the one hinged on the word "witnesses". We BOTH agree that we heard some reportage that Trayvon instigated/initiated the violence. Witnesses or not. Get on it, Ron.

                                                                                                                            <So again, your backpedaling claims about Martin "initiating" or "instigating" the conversation is irrelevant to that specific claim of the initiation of violence.>

                                                                                                                            Nope. We BOTH heard that same reporting. A reporter stated it. I heard it. Deal.

                                                                                                                            <Andrew: "but what we DO know is that they have made these statements...so using the AVAILABLE INFORMATION...NOT some fantasy or guesstimation or supposition or fantasysland wishfulthinking...what we have is the statements by the POLICE who said that there are WITNESSES who say that Trayvon STRUCK FIRST. ">

                                                                                                                            Yup. The reporter reported that there was a report about Travon instigating/initiating the violence. Deal.

                                                                                                                            <I am completely dumbfounded that you can't admit your obvious error.>

                                                                                                                            I am completely dumbfounded that you are hinged on the word "witnesses". Reporter + saying Travon instigated/initiated violence = you being insufferable.

                                                                                                                            <The simple fact is that you are mistaken, a claim such as this would be on the internet, it is not, so obviously it never happened.>

                                                                                                                            Except Ron heard it. With or without saying the word "witness". He heard it. Deal.

                                                                                                                            <Join the 21st centur and try google dude.>

                                                                                                                            Don't get caught up in it. It's not going to last.

                                                                                                                            Now, take your use of the word "witnesses" as lube, and use it up.
                                                                                                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                                              Mon, May 14, 2012 - 7:57 PM
                                                                                                                              This is 100% proof, it can't be denied. You referenced these witnesses numerous times, making the claim repeatedly, and even indicating that these witnesses will come out in court. And I repeatedly disagreed with your claims. Your words and my responses prove that I am correct, read them..

                                                                                                                              Andrew: You don't even know about the two witnesses that say that they saw Trayvon first punch Zimmerman, knocking him to the ground and then jumping on top of him. Shame on you. "LOL".

                                                                                                                              Jeff: When you say you that Trayvon struck first, you are taking Zimmerman at face value. Primarily because there is ZERO witness testimony as to who struck first.

                                                                                                                              Andrew: the police have stated that they have witnesses who SAW Trayvon strike Zimmerman first, and then jump on him after Zimmerman fell to the ground.

                                                                                                                              Jeff: <In other words, thusfar we have heard from ZERO eye witnesses that observed the beginninf of the fight, ie., who struck first. FAIL!.

                                                                                                                              Andrew: FAIL! No, YOU have heard "ZERO eye witnesses". I have heard SPECIFIC REPORTS of witnesses who SPECIFICALLY saw Trayvon punch Zimmerman.

                                                                                                                              Jeff: I just read the link and it turns out I was correct, the police NEVER indicated that the witnesses observed the beginning of the fight.

                                                                                                                              Andrew: Sorry. Not true. I have seen it written that there are two witnesses that saw Trayvon hit Zimmerman in the face, and then jump on him as Zimmerman fell. Will this come out in the court? We will see.

                                                                                                                              Jeff: If the latter is true, will you concede that you were wrong?

                                                                                                                              Andrew: OF COURSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My ENTIRE argument has been based on reported WITNESSES, and on statements made by people that I HAVE HEARD, or video that I HAVE SEEN. Not one bit was my own supposition or speculation. Not one bit...unlike some.

                                                                                                                              (take note that these witnesses are your ENTIRE argument)

                                                                                                                              Andrew: We don't know, but what we DO know is that they have made these statements...so using the AVAILABLE INFORMATION...NOT some fantasy or guesstimation or supposition or fantasysland wishfulthinking...what we have is the statements by the POLICE who said that there are WITNESSES who say that Trayvon STRUCK FIRST. The veracity of those statements will come out now, in court. Uh oh...did they just make that up?"

                                                                                                                              Andrew: What part of the numerous instances of citations of mentions of witnesses OTHER THAN ZIMMERMAN don't you understand?

                                                                                                                              Andrew: Now you feel badly about that, right? All you had to do is commit to your own Google search. I have found multiple mentions of these witnesses, along with hearing it on TV multiple times

                                                                                                                              Andrew: Multiple reports of witnesses stating that Trayvon struck first. We'll see what they say in court.

                                                                                                                              Andrew: I have based 100% of my opinion on reports from the police and from evidence that I could SEE or HEAR.

                                                                                                                              Jeff: When you say you that Trayvon struck first, you are taking Zimmerman at face value. Primarily because there is ZERO witness testimony as to who struck first. Contrary to your FALSE claims otherwise

                                                                                                                              Andrew: Oh, Jeff. Jeff jeff jeff. I'm making a notation of this, so when those witnesses come out (as expected, as reported), what will you say then?

                                                                                                                              Andrew: Yes. The police could be lying.<<

                                                                                                                              Jeff: The police never stated that witnesses observved Trayvon throwing the first punch. It never happened, you are delusional

                                                                                                                              This exchange even happened in THIS THREAD. It goes on and on like that, CLEARLY our disagreement was in regards to these WITNESSES you claimed existed, and clearly that is what I was asking reference for. Case closed.

                                                                                                                              uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...8daa17c3



                                                                                                                              • Ron did not agree with any of this.

                                                                                                                                Mon, May 14, 2012 - 8:04 PM
                                                                                                                                READ THIS EXCHANGE
                                                                                                                                • Re: Ron did not agree with any of this.

                                                                                                                                  Tue, May 15, 2012 - 8:06 PM
                                                                                                                                  no
                                                                                                                                  • Re: Ron did not agree with any of this.

                                                                                                                                    Wed, May 16, 2012 - 9:36 AM
                                                                                                                                    I have never in my life seen anyone try so hard to avoid having to admit they were wrong. The idea that Martin struck first came from one place and one place only, Zimmerman himself. I have never disagreed that Zimmerman put fortht his account. My disagreement was ALWAYS with your assertion about witnesses, and that the cops said these witnesses exist. Case closed.
                                                                                                                                    • Re: Ron did not agree with any of this.

                                                                                                                                      Wed, May 16, 2012 - 6:54 PM
                                                                                                                                      <The idea that Martin struck first came from one place and one place only, Zimmerman himself.>

                                                                                                                                      You don't know that. Can you prove that, or will you admit that you just made that up?

                                                                                                                                      <My disagreement was ALWAYS with your assertion about witnesses, and that the cops said these witnesses exist. Case closed.>

                                                                                                                                      HA! Y'r like one of those parents with ugly kids that makes them go to all the beauty pageants, dresses them all up and then when they don't win, still insists that their kid is the hottest.
                                                                                                                                      • Re: Ron did not agree with any of this.

                                                                                                                                        Thu, May 17, 2012 - 1:29 AM
                                                                                                                                        <The idea that Martin struck first came from one place and one place only, Zimmerman himself.>

                                                                                                                                        You don't know that. Can you prove that, or will you admit that you just made that up?>>

                                                                                                                                        Thusfar the only source for the media reports that Martin struck first has come from Zimmerman's statements to the police, and then the police subsequently leaking those statements to the press. There has been no other reported source for that claim. Could there be witnesses that we don't yet know about? Sure, but thusfar the media reporting that story only has one source, Zimmerman. This is an absolute and indisputable fact, as Ron himself will tell you.

                                                                                                                                        Now a real instance of making stuff up is when you claimed the POLICE said there are witnesses that seen Martin strike first. Except......the police never said that did they? That is headline stuff you are talking about there bud, and yet no such headlines exist. Go figure.

                                                                                                                                        <<HA! Y'r like one of those parents with ugly kids that makes them go to all the beauty pageants, dresses them all up and then when they don't win, still insists that their kid is the hottest.

                                                                                                                                        Illogical. Yourrepeated use of the word "witnesses" and your claims about those witnesses, and my denials about these witnesses proves without a shadow of a doubt.......that our disagreement hinged on the claims about these witnesses. No way around it bud.
                                                                                                                                        • Re: Ron did not agree with any of this.

                                                                                                                                          Thu, May 17, 2012 - 11:00 PM
                                                                                                                                          <Thusfar the only source for the media reports that Martin struck first has come from Zimmerman's statements to the police, and then the police subsequently leaking those statements to the press.>

                                                                                                                                          You don't know that. Ron & I both heard report(s) about Trayvon starting/instigating the altercation. We don't know where that/those report(s) came from. You don't, I don't...none of us here know. Yet...you will say it was from "Zimmerman's statements to the police"? With or without any witnesses statements, we KNOW that there were report(s) on the TV or radio (Ron and I both heard it/them) about this... SO, you don't know. You speak as if you know, but you don't. You have just created a narrative. You have just stated something that someone else could quote...which is the kind of thing that got us into this problem all along, anyway.

                                                                                                                                          <Sure, but thusfar the media reporting that story only has one source, Zimmerman. This is an absolute and indisputable fact, as Ron himself will tell you.>

                                                                                                                                          At this point - yes. But, since both Ron & I heard a different story earlier...with or without the word "witnesses".

                                                                                                                                          <Now a real instance of making stuff up is when you claimed the POLICE said there are witnesses that seen Martin strike first.>

                                                                                                                                          You're conflating two issues.

                                                                                                                                          1) Ron & I heard a report(s) that Trayvon had instigated the fight. That we know. There's no question about that.
                                                                                                                                          2) Your issue is with my use of the word "witness(es)". To my memory, that report(s) mentioned witness(es). Deal. Ron does not remember that. Fine with me.
                                                                                                                                          • Re: Ron did not agree with any of this.

                                                                                                                                            Fri, May 18, 2012 - 2:23 PM
                                                                                                                                            <<<Thusfar the only source for the media reports that Martin struck first has come from Zimmerman's statements to the police, and then the police subsequently leaking those statements to the press.>

                                                                                                                                            You don't know that.<<

                                                                                                                                            Yes we do. The ONLY reports from the media about Martin striking first are based on Zimmerman's account. No other source has been put forth by the media.

                                                                                                                                            <<Ron & I both heard report(s) about Trayvon starting/instigating the altercation.

                                                                                                                                            Everyone heard those reports, they are based on Zimmerman's account, not the police referencing other witness accounts as you falsely asserted.. If there was another source for this account it would be headline news.

                                                                                                                                            <<We don't know where that/those report(s) came from.

                                                                                                                                            Find me a media account with an anonymous source or witness and I will concede you are correct. Thusfar EVERY media account of Martin striking first is based on Zimmerman's account alone. Which is why you can't find any media accounts that say otherwise.

                                                                                                                                            <<we KNOW that there were report(s) on the TV or radio (Ron and I both heard it/them) about this...

                                                                                                                                            Yes, reports of Zimmerman's account. As Ron will attest to. So please stop pretending that Ron agrees with your false police/witness accounts, he already stated he does not.

                                                                                                                                            <<You have just created a narrative.

                                                                                                                                            Creating a false narrative = indicating the police stated that there are witnesses that seen Martin throw the first punch. When reality is such that the police said no such thing. As a matter of fact, the police and the procecutors conceded that the ONLY witness to the intitiation of the fight is Zimmerman himself.

                                                                                                                                            <<<Sure, but thusfar the media reporting that story only has one source, Zimmerman. This is an absolute and indisputable fact, as Ron himself will tell you.>

                                                                                                                                            At this point - yes.<<

                                                                                                                                            Which is exactly what I am saying. This means that you were wrong in your assertion about the police stating there was a witness that seen Martin throw the first punch. Could new witnesses come forward that did see this? Sure, but thusfar that has not happened that we now of. Face it, you made a mistake and overstated your case, indicating there were reports that don't in fact exist.

                                                                                                                                            <<But, since both Ron & I heard a different story earlier

                                                                                                                                            Yes, Zimmerman's story. As Ron will tell you being that he has stated that the ONLY source for the idea that Martin struck first......is Zimmerman himself.

                                                                                                                                            <<Ron & I heard a report(s) that Trayvon had instigated the fight.

                                                                                                                                            Yes, reports based on Zimmerman's account. Are you trying to say there is a secret source of information? Please show us the media reports that indicate there is a secret source for this report beyond Zimmerman's account. If there were, it would be headline news, and yet no such headlines exist. You fucked up bud.
                                                                                                                                            • Re: Ron did not agree with any of this.

                                                                                                                                              Sat, May 19, 2012 - 5:52 PM
                                                                                                                                              <Yes we do. The ONLY reports from the media about Martin striking first are based on Zimmerman's account. No other source has been put forth by the media.>

                                                                                                                                              Really You are connected to 100% of the reporters out there reporting on this story? Wow. You are really in the know!

                                                                                                                                              <<Ron & I both heard report(s) about Trayvon starting/instigating the altercation.

                                                                                                                                              <Everyone heard those reports, they are based on Zimmerman's account, >

                                                                                                                                              Since neither Ron nor I have sourced & followed up on where that report(s) came from, how can you say that "they are based on Zimmerman's account"? Because you can only find his account? Really? Maybe someone made it up? Maybe someone made a mistake in their reportage? How can you be so sure that "they are based on Zimmerman's account"? Have you followed up on EVERY mention? Really? Cite that, would you? I understand that the tens of thousands of reports are hard to cite every one, so I will give you a few days on that one before I start calling you a psychic.

                                                                                                                                              <If there was another source for this account it would be headline news.>

                                                                                                                                              Or, at least it was...when Ron & I heard it...

                                                                                                                                              <Which is why you can't find any media accounts that say otherwise.>

                                                                                                                                              Or...I have not looked. I'd say that's it.

                                                                                                                                              <Yes, reports of Zimmerman's account.>

                                                                                                                                              Um...since we have not sourced what Ron & I heard.......that'd be pretty difficult to say, don't you think? In fact, I don't remember them naming any source - maybe Ron does.

                                                                                                                                              <As Ron will attest to.>

                                                                                                                                              No he hasn't.

                                                                                                                                              <So please stop pretending that Ron agrees with your false police/witness accounts, he already stated he does not.>

                                                                                                                                              Ron does not remember a mention of a witness - but he DID remember hearing the same story that I did. Sorry, Champ.

                                                                                                                                              <This means that you were wrong in your assertion about the police stating there was a witness that seen Martin throw the first punch.>

                                                                                                                                              No. I was referring to another part of that statement. There WERE report(s) of Trayvon throwing the first punch, but neither Ron nor I know where they came from, and Ron does not remember a statement about a "witness" - but he DOES remember the report. BUT, neither of us remember where it was, and SURELY none of us know if it came from Zimmerman or not, as your psychic vibe is telling you.

                                                                                                                                              <Face it, you made a mistake and overstated your case, indicating there were reports that don't in fact exist.>

                                                                                                                                              Except...that Ron & I heard that news story. You can insert the words "reports" or whatever, but I heard what I heard, I represented what I heard, and if you want to call me a liar (as you have) or, as you suggest "overstated your case", please do. That's your issue. Not mine.

                                                                                                                                              <<<But, since both Ron & I heard a different story earlier

                                                                                                                                              <Yes, Zimmerman's story.>

                                                                                                                                              Again, neither Ron nor I remember where the story came from - so there's no way that we could possibly know where it came from if we donm't even know where it came from in the first place and neither us remember any sourcing.

                                                                                                                                              Deal.

                                                                                                                                              <As Ron will tell you being that he has stated that the ONLY source for the idea that Martin struck first......is Zimmerman himself.>

                                                                                                                                              You'll have to quote that. I don't believe that's what he said.

                                                                                                                                              <Yes, reports based on Zimmerman's account.>

                                                                                                                                              You keep saying that even though a) you refused to at first admit that we actually heard that, so b) now you say that we DID, and you now know where we heard it? If Ron & I don't remember where we heard that, how can you be so sure?
                                                                                                                                              • Re: Ron did not agree with any of this.

                                                                                                                                                Mon, May 21, 2012 - 12:54 PM
                                                                                                                                                <<<Yes we do. The ONLY reports from the media about Martin striking first are based on Zimmerman's account. No other source has been put forth by the media.>

                                                                                                                                                Really You are connected to 100% of the reporters out there reporting on this story?<<

                                                                                                                                                If there was a secret source or witness regarding Martin striking first it would be headline news. And neither has Ron agreed that there was a secret source for this information, which by the way could only be eye witness testimony. Ron simply agreed that there are reports of Martin striking first. And as far as we know these reports only have one source, Zimmerman himself. Is that correct Ron? Is Andrew mistaken in speaking for you?

                                                                                                                                                <<Since neither Ron nor I have sourced & followed up on where that report(s) came from, how can you say that "they are based on Zimmerman's account"?

                                                                                                                                                Ron has repeatedly indicated that the only eye witness that has thusfar been reported regarding the initiation of the fight was Zimmerman's himself. And now you are incorrectly saying that Ron has agreed with your assertion that there is some secret additional source that has been reported. A source by the way that could only possibly be an additional eye witness account. Such an account would be headline news, and yet no such account can be found. Everything else is nothing but diversion from this simple fact.

                                                                                                                                                <<<Which is why you can't find any media accounts that say otherwise.>

                                                                                                                                                Or...I have not looked. I'd say that's it.<<

                                                                                                                                                So through this entire discussion you have not even tried to use google to verify as to if you are possibly mistaken? I would suggest doing your due diligence, you are not so infallible as you are pretending.

                                                                                                                                                <<I don't remember them naming any source - maybe Ron does.

                                                                                                                                                Thusfar the only source for the initiation of the fight that Ron has put forth has been Zimmerman himself. Ron has not spoken on some secret source as you have falsely asserted he has.

                                                                                                                                                <<WERE report(s) of Trayvon throwing the first punch, but neither Ron nor I know where they came from

                                                                                                                                                Except Ron has never said he does not "know where they came from". Why are you pretending to speak for Ron?

                                                                                                                                                <<neither of us remember where it was, and SURELY none of us know if it came from Zimmerman or not,

                                                                                                                                                Again, Ron never said this. Ron said he heard reports of Martin striking first, he never said he did not know what those reports were based on, and he certainly never said those reports were not based on Zimmerman's own account. You are inserting your own words in to his mouth. How about if you let Ron speak for himself?

                                                                                                                                                <<<Yes, reports based on Zimmerman's account.>

                                                                                                                                                You keep saying that even though a) you refused to at first admit that we actually heard that, <<

                                                                                                                                                You are confused, I never refused to admit that we heard Zimmerman's own account, I have recognized that from the get go. What I am denying is 1.) Your false assertion that the police said there were witnesses that seen the initiation of the fight. and 2.) Your assertion that there is some secret source of information that reporters have put forth as to the initiation of the fight. and 3.) Your assertion that Ron agrees with you regarding these reports of a secret source of information regarding the initiation of the fight.

                                                                                                                                                Now, how about instead of speaking for Ron you allow him to speak for himself in that regard. Ron?




                                                                                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                                      Sun, May 13, 2012 - 3:50 PM
                                                                                                                      100% proof that our disagreement revolved around the word "witnesses", you even tried to falely indicate that this info came from the Police. If the police stated that these witnesses exist it would of been ALL OVER THE NEWS.

                                                                                                                      Andrew: "but what we DO know is that they have made these statements...so using the AVAILABLE INFORMATION...NOT some fantasy or guesstimation or supposition or fantasysland wishfulthinking...what we have is the statements by the POLICE who said that there are WITNESSES who say that Trayvon STRUCK FIRST. "

                                                                                                                      uspolitics.tribe.net/thread/...8daa17c3

                                                                                                                      Ron was not agreeing with this Andrew, as you erroneously stated.
                                                                                                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                                  Sat, May 12, 2012 - 10:58 PM
                                                                                                                  <<He and I said the exact same thing.

                                                                                                                  As I see now that is a false claim Andrew. Yes, there were reports that martin may have initiated the violence, which is all Ron is recognizing. Where you and I part ways is in regards to your claim that there are reports of WITNESSES seeing Martin initiate the violence, a claim for which Ron does not agree. And now it it seems no such reports exist. So my question to you and you alone still remains. What channel did you see these reports? What station? Who was the host? Why are you unable to google it if it exists?
                                                                                                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                                  Sat, May 12, 2012 - 11:13 PM
                                                                                                                  <Andrew specifically claimed that there were reports indicating that witnesses seen Martin initiate the fight.>

                                                                                                                  <<Yep. Which Ron has also remarked he heard. So, you've called me a liar about that - is he a liar too? I guess so.

                                                                                                                  I should know better and read more closely for myself, it turns out that is not what Ron was indicating he heard. As you can see by Ron's most recent words, he has heard no such reports of WITNESSES seeing martin initiate the violence. As Ron pointed out, he has not followed our conversation in it's entirety and that is certainly not what he was agreeing with as you falsely claimed.

                                                                                                                  <<><So...NOW you are taking Zimmerman's statements are worthy of consideration

                                                                                                                  Zimmerman's statements were always worthy of consideration, I just don't think we should automatically take the shooter at face value.

                                                                                                                  <<IF Trayvon instigated the violence BECAUSE he saw a gun that Zimmerman MAY have been brandishing, WHY did he not try to get the gun INSTEAD of beating Zimmerman's head against the ground?

                                                                                                                  I thought such speculation was equivalent to alien investigations Andrew? You are very inconsistent. That said, you will have to ask Zimmerman being that he said both, 1.) Martin was beating his head in the ground and 2.) He thought Martin was going for the gun. It is Zimmerman himself that claim both was happening at the same time. Ultimately it seems you are raising a point against Zimmerman and not Martin.

                                                                                                                  <<WHY would Zimmerman NOT have gone for the gun IF it was brandished?

                                                                                                                  Illogical. If Zimmerman had already brandished his gun, then why would Zimmerman then go for his own gune? I think you are confused.
                                                                                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                            Tue, May 1, 2012 - 2:23 PM
                                                                                            <I blame you for being unable (or unwilling) to recognize the obvious, and then for taking your false assumption and running with it.>

                                                                                            And, it was SO obvious. But, there's no mileage with this one. He's not going to apologize, so...let's move on.

                                                                                            <Of course, I might just have understood the typo because I'm one of Andrew's alts. I mean... he's one of my alts... I mean... uh... we're both Tandy's alts.>

                                                                                            Shhhh. The Tandy Overlord may be listening.

                                                                                            <either do you use the same exact language>

                                                                                            Huh? I should read Tandy's verbiage. She must be a frigg'n GENIUS!

                                                                                            <not to mention the penchent for constantly trying to psychologically evaluate me.>

                                                                                            Um...if that was a criteria for an alt, there'd be plenty of my alts here, for sure...

                                                                                            <You were so wound up in your vitriolic conversations with Elo that you spoke to me in the same hostile manner, I politely pointed this out and you still continued to speak to me in that way.>

                                                                                            Ever the victim.

                                                                                            <I know Ron>

                                                                                            Really? "know"? I've been on Tribe with you longer than Ron has been here. Yet...you "know" him? Dude, you've just been deferential to him. I've not lied yet & won't. So...when I say that I heard that, I heard it. That should be the beginning & end to it. Yet...you just ran with it because in doing so it fulfilled some odd need that you had. THAT you should investigate. BUT....don't do it on my account. Your integrity is your own measure.

                                                                                            <Now, I concede that what I initially mistook as dishonesty on your part may in reality be confusion,>

                                                                                            Yes, because Ron & I were confused. That must be it.

                                                                                            <if you are ready to let go of the constant hostile language you have been directed at me, I can stop responding in kind and we can try to have a civil discussion.>

                                                                                            HA! Dude, I've tried to proffer that many a'time. Thing is, I don't think that you even RECOGNIZE when you are insulting.
                                                                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                              Tue, May 1, 2012 - 3:41 PM
                                                                                              <<And, it was SO obvious.

                                                                                              Obviously not, Abraxas is just excercising his pre-existing grudge.

                                                                                              <<He's not going to apologize, so...let's move on.

                                                                                              What is there to apologize for? As I already indicated, there are very real and valid reasons for someone to have to take Aderol. Something you might of noticed if you had actually taken the time to read what is written.

                                                                                              <<Um...if that was a criteria for an alt, there'd be plenty of my alts here, for sure...

                                                                                              Did I say that was a criteria for an Alt? Of course not. But you are the only two people that try your hand at amature hour in pyschoanalysis. Alts are common, thinking you may be an alt is obviously not a sign that I need psychological help. Talk about over exaggerated drama queen B.S.!

                                                                                              <<<You were so wound up in your vitriolic conversations with Elo that you spoke to me in the same hostile manner, I politely pointed this out and you still continued to speak to me in that way.>

                                                                                              Ever the victim. <<

                                                                                              Illogical, I did not label myself a victim in any way. What I did do was correctly point out why my language became more heated with you. You had asked what happened, there is your answer. It is what it is, and if you want to ignore my civility proposal than expect more of the same and stop whining about it.

                                                                                              <<Really? "know"? I've been on Tribe with you longer than Ron has been here. Yet...you "know" him?

                                                                                              Yes, believe it or not some people become friends, some people not, which is an idea that is not dependent upon how long one has been present on tribe.net. For instance, you have never invited me to visit have you?

                                                                                              <<So...when I say that I heard that, I heard it.

                                                                                              You have never answered the following question: Why can't you justfuckinggoogleit?

                                                                                              <<Yes, because Ron & I were confused. That must be it.

                                                                                              None of us are above the possibility of being confused and/or making errors. Again, if it it can't be found on google than it likely never happened. You misheard, or just heard some yahoo making the same mistake as you.

                                                                                              <<HA! Dude, I've tried to proffer that many a'time.

                                                                                              Oh yea? Prove it.

                                                                                              <<Thing is, I don't think that you even RECOGNIZE when you are insulting.

                                                                                              Such as? Personally I think you have thin skin, so you think any disagreement with you is an insult. Even going so far as to say "you don't know how your actions are affecting others". Odd thing to say being that I have taken no action against you, only disagreed with you. And if you are adversely affected by anothers words on tribe.net, then you have bigger problems than dealing with me bud.

                                                                                              That said, rather than accepting my offer you have chosent to continue speaking in a snarky and hostile manner. Exactly what I expected from you.
                                                                                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                Tue, May 1, 2012 - 3:59 PM
                                                                                                >><<And, it was SO obvious.

                                                                                                >>Obviously not, Abraxas is just excercising his pre-existing grudge.

                                                                                                Ahahaha... right... and I just randomly guessed the exact meaning of his post before he even clarified.

                                                                                                >>What is there to apologize for?

                                                                                                Um... making a baseless assumption and then running with it, repeatedly implying that what you thought was his personal medical prescription was the reason behind his style of posts.

                                                                                                <<He's not going to apologize, so...let's move on.

                                                                                                -sigh- Yeah, he's never apologized for his plagiarism, lies, or perpetual condescension, so I guess there's not much point in hoping for one now. Oh well. (and no, Jeff, I will not "be specific," because I've already done so in other threads, but you prefer to ignore it)
                                                                                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                                  Wed, May 2, 2012 - 2:55 PM
                                                                                                  <<Um... making a baseless assumption and then running with it

                                                                                                  You mean baseless assumptions like the idea that I am crazy and in need of professional pyschological help? The basis of my assumption was that he indicated "I am on" something, so regardless of your understanding of the abreviation for attorney, there was a basis, one he helped pereptuate by not reading my request for clarification. And while I recognize my own mistake, he will never recognize the idea that it is ludicrous to think he can engage in amature psychoanalysis hour.

                                                                                                  P.S. Forgetting a link dies not = plagarism, period.
                                                                                  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                    Mon, April 30, 2012 - 4:21 PM
                                                                                    <<Then what did you mean when you said you were on "addy" when pointed out your confusion? I interpreted that as Aderol and you did not deny it.>>

                                                                                    <Andrew: "I'm on atty.>

                                                                                    That's what you meant? Wow. Um...that was a typo. That means, "I'm no atty". Again...interestingly...you are unable to contexualize sarcasm... Hmm... I mean, why would I; totally appropos of NOTHING, make such a non-sequitor? Odd. Hmm...

                                                                                    <You should have corrected it earlier if incorrect.>

                                                                                    Don't confuse my lack of care for your truths.

                                                                                    <Andrew made an obvious typo, and when taken in context it's pretty obvious that he's saying "I'M NO ATTORNEY," since he's used the "atty" abbrevation repeatedly in this thread...>

                                                                                    Exactly. 100%. So obvious.

                                                                                    <How much of your superfluous disruption must readers wade through, thanks to your unbridled inability (or unwillingness) to comprehend the obvious?>

                                                                                    I don't think that he's able to understand sarcasm or contextualize the meaning of when some kind of nuanced point is used. For instance, my point about aliens or 9/11 was meaning that if he wanted to bring up something that is outside of the FACTS that we knew about - if he wanted to bring in his own supposition - we may as well talk about aliens or 9/11, because they are just as relevant. There's facts that we know, and then every supposition that we can invent. But, he did not understand that point - even though I made it as insane and ridiculous as possible to MAKE THE POINT. Another example of his not understanding a nuanced, sarcastic point in context... Innnnnnteresting.

                                                                                    <Or maybe he just thought such idiocy didn't dignify a response (though I'm guessing he just didn't catch it).>

                                                                                    Exactly.




                                                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                      Mon, April 30, 2012 - 5:19 PM
                                                                                      <<That's what you meant? Wow. Um...that was a typo

                                                                                      Then why not say so when I asked the first time dude? I tried to discuss it with you repeatedly and you ignored it every time I brought it up.

                                                                                      <<Don't confuse my lack of care for your truths.

                                                                                      Take more care so that we don't have to interpret what you are writing. And if there is a question about what you have written, answer it. "sorry, typo" is pretty simple to write bud.

                                                                                      <<For instance, my point about aliens or 9/11 was meaning that if he wanted to bring up something that is outside of the FACTS that we knew about

                                                                                      And yet you yourself bring up things that exist outside the facts as we know them, including THIS thread you started. So your comparison STILL falls flat. You can't speculate about something you think you heard, but is not verified, but then dismiss any questions that are inconvient to your own position as being equivalent to conspiracy theories.

                                                                                      <<There's facts that we know, and then every supposition that we can invent.

                                                                                      I did not invent any supposition, I asked quesitons that are appropriate to ask in a Murder investigation. You yourself have postulated about such questions, such as who initiated the violence. So please do stop the blatant hypocrisy.

                                                                                      <<though I'm guessing he just didn't catch it

                                                                                      Yeah, I only mentioned it like 5 times or so, he just did not catch it....LOL! The reason Andrew keeps making so many mistakes in this discussion is because he admittedly does not read everything that is written in response to his claims.
                                                                                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                        Mon, April 30, 2012 - 8:11 PM
                                                                                        <Then why not say so when I asked the first time dude?>

                                                                                        Surely the ONLY reason could be that ... well, whatever you are tying to say. I mean, it could not be that I don't read everything that you write, right? I mean, whenever is the most obvious answer really the answer!?

                                                                                        <And if there is a question about what you have written, answer it. "sorry, typo" is pretty simple to write bud.>

                                                                                        It's always someone else's fault. Got it.

                                                                                        <When you came back in to this tribe I was nothing but respectful to you, you did not return that respect in kind, you were insulting and hostile in the language you directed at me.>

                                                                                        You really think that, don't you?

                                                                                        <Two totally different people, two totally different histories in regards to honesty and straightforward debate, or lack thereof.>

                                                                                        Yet...we still said the EXACT SAME THING.
                                                                                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                          Tue, May 1, 2012 - 8:52 AM
                                                                                          <<I mean, it could not be that I don't read everything that you write, right?

                                                                                          Maybe you should so that you are not so easily confused, that way I don't have to constantly repeat that which I have already written.

                                                                                          <<It's always someone else's fault. Got it.

                                                                                          Nope, we both made mistakes here. I work under the assumption that you are actually reading what is written.

                                                                                          <<You really think that, don't you?

                                                                                          It is an absolute fact. You were so wound up in your vitriolic conversations with Elo that you spoke to me in the same hostile manner, I politely pointed this out and you still continued to speak to me in that way.

                                                                                          <<Yet...we still said the EXACT SAME THING.

                                                                                          So what? I know Ron, he is straightforward and honest, not to mention he knows how to disagree without being disagreeable. Now, I concede that what I initially mistook as dishonesty on your part may in reality be confusion, as I have repeatedly noted in our conversations. If you are going to respond to what I write, I would suggest actually reading what I write so that you are not so easily confused. In addition, if you are ready to let go of the constant hostile language you have been directed at me, I can stop responding in kind and we can try to have a civil discussion. I am game if you are, the ball is in your court.
                                                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                              Fri, April 27, 2012 - 11:19 AM
                                                                              Let's review what started this discussion shall we Andrew?

                                                                              Andrew: "Anyone see those new stories about how it may just be that Trayvon instigated the physical altercation that got him shot?"

                                                                              Not only did none of us see this supposed news story, and not only are you unable to provide us with your source, the very basis of this thread you have started is......irrelevant and equivalent to alien investigations according to the standards you are now trying to set forth. Care to address what is blatant hypocrisy on your part Andrew?
                                                                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                Sat, April 28, 2012 - 12:44 AM
                                                                                Jeff: "Let's review what started this discussion shall we Andrew?

                                                                                Andrew: "Anyone see those new stories about how it may just be that Trayvon instigated the physical altercation that got him shot?"

                                                                                Not only did none of us see this supposed news story..."

                                                                                In direct response to Andrew's question, I said this: "Yes, I've seen the stories." And I had.
                                                                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                  Mon, April 30, 2012 - 1:35 PM
                                                                                  <<In direct response to Andrew's question, I said this: "Yes, I've seen the stories." And I had.

                                                                                  Then I think you are making the same mistake Andrew has, ie., conflating Zimmerman being on top with the initiation of the fight. Either that or you both heard some yahoo making the same exact mistake. I can't find one story of one witness indicating they seen the initiation of the fight, and if it was reported by a reputable source then it should be googlable. :)

                                                                                  Regardless, when it is convenient to Andrews argument he pretends that asking appropriate questions about that which we don't know is comparable to asking questions about aliens. When reality is such that he himself has postulated at length based on these reports he thinks he heard, which by his own standards is comparable to asking questions about aliens and conspiracy theories.
                                                                                  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                    Mon, April 30, 2012 - 4:21 PM
                                                                                    <Then I think you are making the same mistake Andrew has, ie., conflating Zimmerman being on top with the initiation of the fight. >

                                                                                    Wait...let me get this straight. I was a liar, but Ron just is...mistaken? Got it.

                                                                                    <and if it was reported by a reputable source then it should be googlable. :)>

                                                                                    Nice smiley face. Look at how you respond differently to those to whom you wish to be differential. Interesting. Same exact thing said, two wholly different responses.


                                                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                      Mon, April 30, 2012 - 5:24 PM
                                                                                      <<Wait...let me get this straight. I was a liar, but Ron just is...mistaken? Got it.

                                                                                      I conceded that you may have simply been mistake, pay attention. In addition, Ron is an honest man, I have not had that experience in debating you.

                                                                                      <<Look at how you respond differently to those to whom you wish to be differential.

                                                                                      I give respect to those that return it. When you came back in to this tribe I was nothing but respectful to you, you did not return that respect in kind, you were insulting and hostile in the language you directed at me. When it comes to me, you get what you give, as Ron can attest to.

                                                                                      << two wholly different responses.

                                                                                      Two totally different people, two totally different histories in regards to honesty and straightforward debate, or lack thereof.
                                                                                  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                    Fri, May 11, 2012 - 1:47 AM
                                                                                    "Then I think you are making the same mistake Andrew has, ie., conflating Zimmerman being on top with the initiation of the fight. "

                                                                                    How can my acknowledging that I had seen stories that it "may" have been Martin who instigated the altercation entail that I made a mistake Jeff? Are you that certain of what happened that night that you think it's a mistake to even acknowledge that one is aware that Martin "may" have been the instigator of the altercation? How can you be so certain when even the prosecution has acknowledged that they have no evidence (apart from Zimmerman's account) of who started the altercation?

                                                                                    "I can't find one story of one witness indicating they seen the initiation of the fight,"

                                                                                    Actually you're wrong, because you're aware of Zimmerman's account. Though he obviously is biased, his account can be weighed by corroborating evidence, such as the fact that Zimmerman had injuries on the front and back of his head, whereas the funeral director saw no injuries on Martin other than the gun shot wound. If the theory is that Martin was reacting to seeing a gun rather than just beating the crap out of someone who pissed him off, then why would the altercation last that long (one 911 call has screaming lasting for about a minute, not including the screaming that led to the person making the call in the first place). Why would Martin waste his time beating on Zimmerman's head when he was on top of Zimmerman rather than going for the gun? All that is certainly not definitive, but it certainly does constitute evidence that Martin "may" have instigated the altercation.
                                                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                      Fri, May 11, 2012 - 6:39 PM
                                                                                      <<How can my acknowledging that I had seen stories that it "may" have been Martin who instigated the altercation entail that I made a mistake Jeff?

                                                                                      Certanly there were stories about the possibility of Martin initiating the violence. But that is not what Andrew and I are disagreeing about. Andrew specifically claimed that there were reports indicating that witnesses seen Martin initiate the fight. I can't find any such witness accounts, and neither can I find any reports that there were any such witness. Everything is on the internet these days, one would think that if it existed we could find it.

                                                                                      <<Are you that certain of what happened that night that you think it's a mistake to even acknowledge that one is aware that Martin "may" have been the instigator of the altercation?

                                                                                      I did not even hint at such a thing. I have repeatedly indicated that Martin may have instigated the violence. What I am questioning is the claim that there were witnesses that seen Martin initiate the fight, I can find no such reports by any media source. If these reports exist, then why can't anybody find them?

                                                                                      <<How can you be so certain when even the prosecution has acknowledged that they have no evidence (apart from Zimmerman's account) of who started the altercation?

                                                                                      I have expressed no such certainty. You are jumping to conclusions here: 1.) I doubt the claim that there are reports where witnesses indicated they seen Martin start the fight. 2.) You are then jumping to the conclusion that this means I don't think Martin started the fight. 1.) and 2.) are not the same thing.

                                                                                      <<"I can't find one story of one witness indicating they seen the initiation of the fight,"

                                                                                      Actually you're wrong, because you're aware of Zimmerman's account.<<

                                                                                      It is quite obvious that Andrew and myself were speaking about eye witnesses other than the defendent, those that could possibly corroberate or deny Zimmerman's account. Andrew specifically claimed that there were media reports of witnesses that seen Martin initiate violence against Zimmerman, people other than the defendent. And yet none of us can find any such reports.

                                                                                      <<Why would Martin waste his time beating on Zimmerman's head when he was on top of Zimmerman rather than going for the gun?

                                                                                      Actually Zimmerman indicated that he shot Martin because he thought he was going for his gun.

                                                                                      <<he obviously is biased, his account can be weighed by corroborating evidence

                                                                                      Certainly, I never indicated otherwise.
                                                                                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                        Fri, May 11, 2012 - 11:06 PM
                                                                                        Jeff: “Certanly there were stories about the possibility of Martin initiating the violence. But that is not what Andrew and I are disagreeing about. Andrew specifically claimed that there were reports indicating that witnesses seen Martin initiate the fight. “

                                                                                        You’ve confusing things. This is the progression of comments on point. You had said this earlier:

                                                                                        “Jeff: "Let's review what started this discussion shall we Andrew? “

                                                                                        Then you quoted Andrew’s OP question as follows:

                                                                                        Andrew: "Anyone see those new stories about how it may just be that Trayvon instigated the physical altercation that got him shot?"

                                                                                        Andrew’s question above was not whether anyone had seen stories of witnesses who said they saw Martin initiate the altercation. His question was whether anyone had seen news stories about how it may have been that Martin instigated the physical altercation that got him shot. In direct response to the question above, you said this:

                                                                                        Jeff: “Not only did none of us see this supposed news story..."

                                                                                        That was incorrect, as I had said that I had seen such stories. So in response to your erroneous claim above, I said this:

                                                                                        Me: “In direct response to Andrew's question, I said this: "Yes, I've seen the stories." And I had.”

                                                                                        In reply to this, you said this:

                                                                                        Jeff: “Then I think you are making the same mistake Andrew has.”

                                                                                        When all I did was answer Andrew’s question above that I had seen the stories about how Martin MAY HAVE instigated the physical altercation. Nothing in Andrew’s question above that I directly answered (and you even quoted verbatim) said anything about stories of eye witnesses who said they saw Martin starting the physical altercation.



                                                                                        “I have expressed no such certainty. You are jumping to conclusions here”

                                                                                        No I’m not. I’m responding to your confusion as to the progression of comments and replies. All I had said was that I had seen news stories about how Martin MAY HAVE initiated the physical altercation and in direct response to that you accused me of making some kind of mistake. Criticizing being aware of a possibility struck me as surprisingly close minded. But it looks like it was just a matter of you being confused as to the nature of the progression of comments and replies.


                                                                                        Me: “Actually you're wrong, because you're aware of Zimmerman's account.<<


                                                                                        Jeff: “It is quite obvious that Andrew and myself were speaking about eye witnesses other than the defendant”

                                                                                        Like I said previously, I have not followed closely your exchanges with Andrew. I was only responding to your claim that you were not aware of any witnesses who claimed that Martin started the physical altercation. As a literal matter, that’s incorrect, since Zimmerman is a witness - a witness with a stake in the matter obviously, and his credibility should be weighed accordingly, but he clearly is a witness.

                                                                                        “Andrew specifically claimed that there were media reports of witnesses that seen Martin initiate violence against Zimmerman, people other than the defendent. And yet none of us can find any such reports. “

                                                                                        OK fine. I have no dog in that fight. As I previously acknowledged, I know of no such witnesses other than Zimmerman.


                                                                                        “Actually Zimmerman indicated that he shot Martin because he thought he was going for his gun. “

                                                                                        At the time he shot him, which was well after the physical altercation had progressed for some time. I don’t believe that Zimmerman ever said that Martin initiated the physical altercation in reaction to seeing a gun.


                                                                                        Me: <<he obviously is biased, his account can be weighed by corroborating evidence


                                                                                        Jeff: “Certainly, I never indicated otherwise. “

                                                                                        I never suggested you indicated otherwise. I was just pointing out that he is in fact a witness who said he saw Martin initiate the physical altercation, regardless of his credibility or lack thereof.
                                                                                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                                          Sat, May 12, 2012 - 10:53 PM
                                                                                          Yes, I went back and misread Andrews initial stateemt. Bit regardless of whether Andrew started out with the claim at the outset or not, he did go on to indicate that there were reports that witnesses seen Martin throw the first punch. As far as I can find no such reports exist, and it is that claim I have been taking exception to this entire time. Andrew claimed that you agreed with him and that you had also seen reports of witnesses seeing Martin throwing the first punch, I should have looked at the words more closely and not taken Andrew at his word. So for that I apologize.

                                                                                          Now Andrew, can you see that Ron is not saying the same thing as you, ie, reports of witnesses seeing Martin initiate the violence?

                                                                                          <<I have not followed closely your exchanges with Andrew

                                                                                          I get that now. Our long conversation about Andrews claim that there were reports of witnesses seeing the initiation of the fight precipitated this leg of the conversation by some bit.
                                                                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                          Wed, April 25, 2012 - 1:39 PM
                                                                          Let's review what started this discussion shall we Andrew?

                                                                          Andrew: "Anyone see those new stories about how it may just be that Trayvon instigated the physical altercation that got him shot?"

                                                                          Not only did none of us see this supposed news story, and not only are you unable to provide us with your source, the very basis of this thread you have started is......irrelevant and equivalent to alien investigations according to the standards you are now trying to set forth. Hypocrite.
                                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                      Wed, April 25, 2012 - 9:24 AM
                                                                      <<I mean...there may be evidence demonstrating this...

                                                                      Do you understand the concept of plausible scenarios Andrew? The idea that Zimmerman may have initiated the fight is a plausible scenario. The idea that Aliens directed Zimmerman to shoot Martin is not plausible by any stretch of the imagination.
                                                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                            Wed, April 18, 2012 - 10:02 AM
                                                            <<But when someone makes a false claim or an unsound argument about an issue I find important, I point it out, lest others believe that such unsound arguments have weight because they go unchallenged.

                                                            Much like I have done with Andrews unsubstantiated claims. I know you answered my question regarding Andrews claims, but you have allowed false and unsubstantiated claims by Andrew to go virtually unchallenged. Granted, I have not been paying much attention to posts from Peter, so I guess you could say the same of me if he is indeed making unsubstantiated claims.
                                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                              Wed, April 18, 2012 - 1:00 PM
                                                              "but you have allowed false and unsubstantiated claims by Andrew to go virtually unchallenged."

                                                              Sorry Jeff, but what I have posted has eaten a lot of my spare time. I don't have time to read and respond to everyone and eat even more of my time. (Sorry Andrew), but I typically don't read Andrew's posts or anyone else who's not responding to me, unless skimming through the thread I see something of note.
                                  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                    Fri, April 13, 2012 - 9:10 AM
                                    <<That he was innocent is more speculation. How about waiting for actual evidence? It should be forthcoming.

                                    Martin is not on trial, they will not be determining either his innocence or guilt.
                                  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                    Sun, April 15, 2012 - 9:34 AM
                                    <I never argued this. If at this point you still don't understand my point, then there's no point in continuing.>

                                    Yeah. Five minutes you'll never get back.

                                    <How about waiting for actual evidence? It should be forthcoming.>

                                    AND! Novel, too.


                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                    Mon, April 9, 2012 - 1:17 PM
                    <<If Zimmerman's story is true, the only contact was initiated by Martin, not Zimmerman.

                    And that is a big "IF" being that we only have one side of the story. Why did the lead investigator not find Zimmerman's story credible? Why did he want Zimmerman brought up on charges? These are important questions that remain unanswered.
                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                      Tue, April 10, 2012 - 12:37 PM
                      Jeff, but those questions don't justify the widespread public claims by individuals like Sharpton and Jackson and United States Congresspersons and many others including supposedly objective mainstream news reporters that Zimmerman "murdered" Martin and should be charged with such.
                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                        Tue, April 17, 2012 - 1:06 PM
                        <<And that is a big "IF" being that we only have one side of the story. Why did the lead investigator not find Zimmerman's story credible? Why did he want Zimmerman brought up on charges? These are important questions that remain unanswered.

                        <<Jeff, but those questions don't justify the widespread public claims by individuals like Sharpton and Jackson and United States Congresspersons and many others including supposedly objective mainstream news reporters that Zimmerman "murdered" Martin and should be charged with such.

                        I am not trying to justify the public claims of others, nor do I agree with those that prematurely declare innocence or guilt. My questions are directly related to the case itself and exist outside the paradigm of those that want to play on the hype of this case.
            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

              Sat, March 31, 2012 - 7:36 PM
              "<Zimmerman claims it is his high-pitched voice we hear begging for his life between the firing of the first and the second shot, after which there is silence. Take a look at a picture of the man. I don’t even know what to say.> "

              This "high pitched" notion that the screams couldn't have been from an adult male. Martin was 17, not 10. He was physically an adult and likely long past puberty, so there's no reason for a 6'2" physically adult male to sound like a young child. There's no reason on the basis of the sound of the cries alone to assume it's one guy or the other.
            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

              Sat, March 31, 2012 - 11:40 PM
              <Why do you AUTOMATICALLY assume that Zimmerman meant black people?>
              I did not AUTOMATICALLY assume, nor did I say, that Zimmerman meant Black people, you did.

              <I understood that line to mean - and in the CONTEXT to his WHOLE discussion with 911 - the thieves that have been ripping off his neighborhood.>
              EXACTLY!
              Zimmerman was not simply saying Martin's behavior was suspicious. He was assigning Martin to a criminal group, even though Martin had committed no crime. Zimmerman was profiling.
              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                Sun, April 1, 2012 - 1:30 AM
                "Zimmerman was not simply saying Martin's behavior was suspicious. He was assigning Martin to a criminal group, even though Martin had committed no crime. Zimmerman was profiling."

                There is nothing wrong with profiling on the basis of behavior. It's only wrong if it's on the basis of race, and you have provided no evidence he profiled on the basis of race.
                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                  Sun, April 1, 2012 - 3:02 AM
                  <Your turn. Where's your evidence Zimmerman claimed there was a fight?>
                  I never said Zimmerman claimed there was a fight.
                  You said Zimmerman claimed he was sucker-punched, not me. I've seen fights where someone gets decked with a single punch, that doesn't make it a sucker-punch. If Zimmerman didn't make that claim, it's your spin.

                  "An unnamed witness speaking on CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" said the entirety of the scuffle he saw between the two took place on grass, challenging Zimmerman's claim that Martin had smashed his head against a sidewalk after punching him in the face -- causing him to shoot the 17-year-old dead in self-defense.

                  In reference to the size difference between 28-year-old Zimmerman and Martin, the witness described the fight as being between a "larger man" and a "boy." While the witness said he was not able to see who was on top of the other as the two scuffled, he said "there wasn't a lot of movement" immediately before he heard a gunshot."
                  www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03...nse-claims/

                  <There is nothing wrong with profiling on the basis of behavior. It's only wrong if it's on the basis of race, and you have provided no evidence he profiled on the basis of race.>
                  Why do you keep asking me for evidence regarding claims that you make up?

                  If you observe an innocent person's behavior, profile them, and put them in a criminal class it is wrong.
                  Zimmerman was profiling. You don't believe he was wrong to do so. I do.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                    Sun, April 1, 2012 - 12:50 PM
                    " the fight as being between a "larger man" and a "boy." "

                    Martin had five inches on Zimmerman. Do you know which one the witness assumed was a boy?
                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                      Sun, April 1, 2012 - 3:45 PM
                      Zimmerman had about 50 lbs on Martin and they were on the ground. Do you know which one the witnessed assumed was a boy?
                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                        Sun, April 1, 2012 - 4:55 PM
                        Which is larger?

                        6' 2" 150 lbs
                        www.google.com/imgres

                        5' 9" 200 lbs
                        www.google.com/imgres
                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                          Sun, April 1, 2012 - 6:04 PM
                          I think this "eyewitness" just might be full of shit. Cases of cops coercing eyewitnesses are legion-

                          << Eyewitness misidentification is the single greatest cause of wrongful convictions nationwide, playing a role in more than 75% of convictions overturned through DNA testing.

                          While eyewitness testimony can be persuasive evidence before a judge or jury, 30 years of strong social science research has proven that eyewitness identification is often unreliable. Research shows that the human mind is not like a tape recorder; we neither record events exactly as we see them, nor recall them like a tape that has been rewound. Instead, witness memory is like any other evidence at a crime scene; it must be preserved carefully and retrieved methodically, or it can be contaminated.>>

                          Cops and prosecutors have quite a fetish for eyewitness "evidence." Social scientists and DNA research, less so.

                          Then again, if you're *emotionally committed* to this far-Right media narrative of Poor Armed George vs. Big Bad Unarmed Trayvon, then there's no limit to the dung to be peddled for truth-

                          << The problem is that the government of Sanford, Florida has given its official sanction to any white guy* who failed out of mall cop school, and sits home at night jerking off to back issues of Guns and Ammo, and has appointed himself neighborhood defender, to shoot a black teenager armed with candy, and walk away from the scene. >>

                          That seems to be the issue- an ever-growing number of wingnuts and paranoids (whipped on by partisan paranoia that dominates the public airwaves) want to declare open season on "scary" candy-wielding young people. This is little more than than the usual "conservative" social engineering you get in the South, only without the bedsheets with eyeholes.
                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                            Sun, April 1, 2012 - 6:05 PM
                            < When witnesses get it wrong
                            In case after case, DNA has proven what scientists already know — that eyewitness identification is frequently inaccurate. In the wrongful convictions caused by eyewitness misidentification, the circumstances varied, but judges and juries all relied on testimony that could have been more accurate if reforms proven by science had been implemented. The Innocence Project has worked on cases in which:

                            • A witness made an identification in a “show-up” procedure from the back of a police car hundreds of feet away from the suspect in a poorly lit parking lot in the middle of the night.

                            • A witness in a rape case was shown a photo array where only one photo of the person police suspected was the perpetrator was marked with an “R.”

                            • Witnesses substantially changed their description of a perpetrator (including key information such as height, weight and presence of facial hair) after they learned more about a particular suspect.

                            • Witnesses only made an identification after multiple photo arrays or lineups — and then made hesitant identifications (saying they “thought” the person “might be” the perpetrator, for example), but at trial the jury was told the witnesses did not waver in identifying the suspect.

                            Variables impacting accuracy of identifications
                            Leading social science researchers identify two main categories of variables affecting eyewitness identification: estimator variables and system variables.

                            Estimator variables are those that cannot be controlled by the criminal justice system. They include simple factors like the lighting when the crime took place or the distance from which the witness saw the perpetrator. Estimator variables also include more complex factors, including race (identifications have proven to be less accurate when witnesses are identifying perpetrators of a different race), the presence of a weapon during a crime and the degree of stress or trauma a witness experienced while seeing the perpetrator.

                            System variables are those that the criminal justice system can and should control. They include all of the ways that law enforcement agencies retrieve and record witness memory, such as lineups, photo arrays and other identification procedures. System variables that substantially impact the accuracy of identifications include the type of lineup used, the selection of “fillers” (or members of a lineup or photo array who are not the actual suspect), blind administration, instructions to witnesses before identification procedures, administration of lineups or photo arrays, and communication with witnesses after they make an identification. >>

                            www.innocenceproject.org/under...on.php
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                    Sun, April 1, 2012 - 6:00 PM
                    "If you observe an innocent person's behavior, profile them, and put them in a criminal class it is wrong. "

                    How can you know someone is innocent just by looking at him? And what's wrong with thinking someone's behavior is suspicious?
                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                      Sun, April 1, 2012 - 11:40 PM
                      <Why do you believe that?>
                      I've read reports of Martin weighing 140 to 160 lbs. I've read reports of Zimmerman weighing 170 to 250 pounds. I split the difference and said "about 50 pounds".

                      <How can you know someone is innocent just by looking at him?>
                      It's a special gift I have.
                      But, I can't see you. Should I assume you're guilty?

                      <And what's wrong with thinking someone's behavior is suspicious?>
                      I think, your behavior is suspicious.
                      I think, you're determined to defend a murderer.
                      Is anything wrong with thinking that?
                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                        Mon, April 2, 2012 - 12:51 PM
                        Ah, so if you see someone in your backyard in the middle of the night, you shouldn't consider that suspicious, because maybe he just made a mistake and walked into the wrong yard.

                        Even if Zimmerman was unfair in judging Martin too quickly, if Zimmerman is right that Martin jumped him and beat his head into the ground, someone being suspicious of you doesn't give you the right to beat his head into the ground.
                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                          Mon, April 2, 2012 - 1:17 PM
                          <Ah, so if you see someone in your backyard in the middle of the night, you shouldn't consider that suspicious, because maybe he just made a mistake and walked into the wrong yard.>
                          It would depend on how drunk he was. ;)

                          <someone being suspicious of you doesn't give you the right to beat his head into the ground.>
                          I agree.
                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                            Mon, April 2, 2012 - 3:23 PM
                            And certain elements of the MSM continue to try to unjustifiably flame the racial nature of this matter. The Today Show was caught doctoring Zimmerman's 911 call to make it look like Zimmerman was saying he thought Martin was suspicious because he was black.

                            www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/...306359

                            NBC has since launched an internal investigation of the matter.

                            Another thing that reporters keep repeating without justification is the oft reported claim that the 911 dispatcher told Zimmerman to not follow Martin by Zimmerman continued to do so anyway. The way the 911 call plays out, Zimmerman acknowledged that he had been following Martin, but when the dispatcher said that the police didn't need him to do that, Zimmerman responded with "O.K." Zimmerman claims that he then was walking back to his truck when he was approached by Martin, and I've seen no evidence to contradict that.
                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                              Mon, April 2, 2012 - 3:28 PM
                              Haven't we learned anything from Duke Lacrosse and Tawana Brawley, or for that matter, the non race related Richard Jewel Olympic bombing matter? Just because the usual suspect race baiting demagogues like Sharpton jump on a bandwagon doesn't mean their accusations are true and they know facts about something that happened when they weren't there and no actual eye witness is backing their claims.

                              How about we actually wait for evidence that should be forthcoming to come around, like medical reports and the autopsy?

                              Would it kill people to withhold judgment until then?
                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                              Mon, April 2, 2012 - 4:39 PM
                              << Zimmerman claims that he then was walking back to his truck when he was approached by Martin, and I've seen no evidence to contradict that.

                              Do you have this portion of Zimmermans account or a link to it? I was not aware that Zimmerman got out of his vehicle before the 911 call.
                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                Mon, April 2, 2012 - 5:47 PM
                                <The way the 911 call plays out, Zimmerman acknowledged that he had been following Martin, but when the dispatcher said that the police didn't need him to do that, Zimmerman responded with "O.K." Zimmerman claims that he then was walking back to his truck when he was approached by Martin, and I've seen no evidence to contradict that.>
                                Phone records indicate Martin's girlfriend called him at 7:12. So that call began about 9 minutes after Zimmerman was told by the 911 dispatcher he didn't need to follow Martin. They talked for a while. The last words she heard Trayvon say were "What are you following me for?"
                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                  Tue, April 3, 2012 - 11:35 AM
                                  <<Phone records indicate Martin's girlfriend called him at 7:12. So that call began about 9 minutes after Zimmerman was told by the 911 dispatcher he didn't need to follow Martin. They talked for a while. The last words she heard Trayvon say were "What are you following me for?"

                                  And Zimmerman asked what he was doing in his neighborhood, speaking as if this kid did not belong in the area. My question is, what reason did Zimmerman have to assume that this kid was not from the same neighborhood?
                                  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                    Tue, April 3, 2012 - 10:35 PM
                                    Well Jeff, he may not have seen the kid before. He was by all accounts a pretty active neighborhood watch guy in a gated community who may have known who his neighbors were. But even if his suspicions were unfair, if Zimmerman's account is true (and again I'm willing to grant that it may not be), being unfairly suspected doesn't give you the right to beat the guy's head into the ground.

                                    This reminds me of an incident in the 80s when a Filipino friend of mine and I were walking through a high end department store. We were doing nothing other than walking through when an old white lady walked up to my friend and said with a sneer, "I'm watching you." Grossly unfair and racist, but that wouldn't have given my friend the right to beat the old lady's head into the ground.
                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                      Wed, April 4, 2012 - 10:39 AM
                                      <<Well Jeff, he may not have seen the kid before. He was by all accounts a pretty active neighborhood watch guy in a gated community who may have known who his neighbors were.

                                      And yet Zimmerman was outside of his "gated community" being that Trayvon was walking on a public street.

                                      <<being unfairly suspected doesn't give you the right to beat the guy's head into the ground.

                                      We can't pretend that Trayvon could know the intentions of his stalker, all he could possibly know is that a strange man was following him.

                                      << "I'm watching you." Grossly unfair and racist, but that wouldn't have given my friend the right to beat the old lady's head into the ground

                                      So you are comparing an old lady in a department store to a grown man following a minor in the dark?
                                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                        Wed, April 4, 2012 - 7:39 PM
                                        "And yet Zimmerman was outside of his "gated community" being that Trayvon was walking on a public street."

                                        You don't know that. From what I understand and every account of the series of events I've seen, it all took place within the gated community.

                                        "We can't pretend that Trayvon could know the intentions of his stalker, all he could possibly know is that a strange man was following him. "

                                        That still doesn't give one a right to beat the guy's head into the pavement.

                                        "So you are comparing an old lady in a department store to a grown man following a minor in the dark? "

                                        So are you saying that if a grown man followed you in the dark, that would give you the right to beat his head into the pavement? It certainly wouldn't give you a legal right to do so.
                                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                          Wed, April 4, 2012 - 8:47 PM

                                          <Stalking is not the same as following. Stalking is repeatedly following someone with the intention of intimidating him.>
                                          "Stalking is a term commonly used to refer to unwanted and obsessive attention by an individual or group to another person. Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person and/or monitoring them."
                                          en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking

                                          Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon. Trayvon tried to lose the man, but Zimmerman kept stalking, the kid he considered an "asshole" to make sure he didn't get away. No, they were not playing follow the leader.

                                          <Do you have evidence his claim was false?>
                                          I have presented evidence your comparison to Stow is false.

                                          <In contrast, the funeral director said he saw no injuries on Martin other than the gun shot wound, so all evidence points to Martin being the physical aggressor before being shot.>
                                          No bruised or scraped knuckles. No evidence of beating anyone to the point of threatening their life.
                                          Only in the land of spin does no injuries equate to being the physical aggressor.

                                          <The police report also had Martin at 160.>
                                          The police report also had Martin at 6'0". If the police report is accurate how did you come up with "Martin had five inches on Zimmerman"?

                                          <Or perhaps he was just pissed off.>
                                          Trayvon's girlfriend, who was on the phone with him, said he was scared.

                                          <One charge. You're spinning.>
                                          Assault on a Police Officer + Domestic Assault = Assaults Plural

                                          <He reached for his cell phone. There's no evidence his cell phone was inside his jacket.>
                                          Of course, it might have been in Zimmerman's waistband next to his 9mm.
                                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                            Wed, April 4, 2012 - 10:55 PM
                                            "Zimmerman was stalking Trayvon."

                                            You're not consistent with your own citation. From your own quotation, stalking is unwanted "AND OBSESSIVE" attention. Single case of following is not obsessive. Again from your own link:

                                            "Pathé and Mullen describe stalking as "a constellation of behaviours in which an individual inflicts upon another repeated unwanted intrusions and communications".[5]

                                            Stalking can be defined as the willful and repeated following, watching and/or harassing of another person. Unlike other crimes, which usually involve one act, stalking is a series of actions that occur over a period of time."

                                            A single instance of following is not a "constellation of behaviors." A single instance of following is not "repeated unwanted intrusions and communications." A single instance of following is not "a series of actions that occur over a period of time."

                                            Being followed does not give you a legal right to beat your follower's head into the pavement.

                                            "I have presented evidence your comparison to Stow is false. "

                                            Apples and oranges. Aside from the fact that you provided zero evidence the case was different than Stow other than your insistence that it was, I was referring to the fact that Zimmerman claimed that Martin attacked him and beat his head into the pavement. You responded by noting that that was Zimmerman's claim (even though it's also supported by a witness account plus injuries to Zimmerman's head), so I asked what evidence you had that Zimmerman's claim was false. You've provided none. The burden of proof would be on the police to have sufficient evidence that Zimmerman's claim was false, because if it were true, then he would have a self-defense claim. If they don't have evidence to contradict Zimmerman's claim, then they don't have probable cause that he committed a crime, and hence don't have probable cause to charge him with a crime.

                                            "No bruised or scraped knuckles."

                                            You don't know how he beat Zimmerman's head into the ground (if that happened). If he grabbed Zimmerman's head and slammed it into the ground repeatedly, then that wouldn't produce bruised or scraped knuckles. The only punch clearly claimed was a single one that hit Zimmerman, and if he hit Zimmerman on the nose (which would account for the report of a broken nose), that wouldn't produce scraped knuckles.

                                            "No evidence of beating anyone to the point of threatening their life."

                                            Well quite obviously if he beat someone ELSE to the point of threatening his life, the injuries would be more on the person he beat, rather than himself. If Zimmerman had injuries from a beating and Martin had none, then that would support a scenario where the physical altercation was one sided with Martin executing the beating on Zimmerman but not vice versa. There should be medical reports (and an autopsy report) coming out eventually. No point trying to be conclusive about the matter at this point.

                                            "Only in the land of spin does no injuries equate to being the physical aggressor. "

                                            Only in the land of being obsessed with a particular narrative does that make any sense. If A beat the crap out of B but B didn't lay a glove on A, then obviously B would have more injuries than A. If all A did was punch B in the nose and then grabbed B's head and rammed it into the pavement while B didn't strike A at all, then there's absolutely no reason to see any injuries on A at all. And even if he did continue to punch Zimmerman on the nose while on the ground, noses aren't bone. There's no reason to get scrapes from beating a nose.

                                            "The police report also had Martin at 6'0". If the police report is accurate how did you come up with "Martin had five inches on Zimmerman"? "

                                            Because I got the height from ABC News. But since the police report had the height at 6 foot, I'm willing to grant that there's some ambiguity on his height.

                                            abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon...ghter/story

                                            "Trayvon's girlfriend, who was on the phone with him, said he was scared. "

                                            Hearsay via a girlfriend would never be admitted in court. A prosecution needs admissible evidence to charge someone with a crime and put him on trial. He may have been scared, pissed, or both (or some other emotion, since none of us are clairvoyants), or went from one emotion to the other.

                                            "Assault on a Police Officer + Domestic Assault = Assaults Plural "

                                            Again you're spinning. He was never charged with domestic assault. He and his ex-fiance sought for and received restraining orders against each other. A restraining order is not a criminal charge of any sort, assault or otherwise. It requires no more evidence than an accusation and is basically a court just telling someone to stay away from someone else to avoid any trouble.

                                            "Of course, it might have been in Zimmerman's waistband next to his 9mm. "

                                            It might have been. Or it might not have been. It might have been obvious he was reaching for his cellphone and Martin just punched Zimmerman because he was pissed at being followed, or maybe he thought he was going to call the cops and was pissed that he was when he wasn't doing anything wrong(or any other) . Neither you nor I know which scenario is correct, but people are supposed to be charged with crimes based on evidence, not speculation.
                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                              Thu, April 5, 2012 - 12:09 AM
                                              <From your own quotation, stalking is unwanted "AND OBSESSIVE">
                                              "George Zimmerman, according to neighbors in the gated community in Sanford, Fla., where he lived, seemed to have an obsession with black males."
                                              www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-...27.html

                                              <I was referring to the fact that Zimmerman claimed that Martin attacked him and beat his head into the pavement. You responded by noting that that was Zimmerman's claim (even though it's also supported by a witness account plus injuries to Zimmerman's head), so I asked what evidence you had that Zimmerman's claim was false. >
                                              There are no witnesses supporting the claim that Zimmerman's head was beat into the pavement. Two witnesses have testified that the two men were fighting on grass, not pavement.

                                              <Well quite obviously if he beat someone ELSE to the point of threatening his life, the injuries would be more on the person he beat, rather than himself.>
                                              Zero evidence that Zimmerman received life threatening injuries.
                                              Nothing even remotely similar to the Stow case.

                                              <If A beat the crap out of B...>
                                              Martin did not beat the crap out of Zimmerman...
                                              Spin spin spin!

                                              <Hearsay via a girlfriend would never be admitted in court.>
                                              The girlfriend's testimony concerning her conversation with Trayvon is not inadmissable.

                                              <He was never charged with domestic assault.>
                                              I stand corrected.
                                              Zimmerman's ex-fiancée reported that he open handed smacked her in the mouth. The Florida police reported that Zimmerman committed felony assault on a police officer. It has also been reported that Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin.
                                              Zimmerman has not been prosecuted for any of these offenses.

                                              <Neither you nor I know which scenario is correct, but people are supposed to be charged with crimes based on evidence, not speculation.>
                                              For someone who complains about other people's speculation, you're full of it.

                                              If you want to stop speculation, perhaps you should first stop your speculation that Trayvon was an angry Black man, who beat Zimmerman to the point of threatening his life, because of what he was thinking.
                                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                Thu, April 5, 2012 - 10:37 AM
                                                First of all, I'm frankly amazed that you would actually think that the characterization of Zimmerman (with no specific evidence provided in support) in a commentary in a left wing website by an author who clearly made up his mind regarding Zimmerman actually constitutes evidence.

                                                You haven't provided any evidence that Zimmerman repeatedly followed and/or intruded into the life of Martin over a period of time, which given the definitions you yourself linked, means that in his one case of following Martin, he wasn't stalking him. Speculation by a guy in a commentary on a left wing website about Zimmerman's attitude towards blacks doesn't constitute evidence Zimmerman stalked Martin.

                                                EVEN IF (and I'm not granting it's the case, since you haven't provided any evidence to support the contention) Zimmerman had a racist predilection to prejudge African Americans, you've provided no evidence that Martin was aware of that, and so would be irrelevant regarding Martin's perception of a threat. No one has a legal right to beat a guy's head into the pavement just because others suspect the guy is a racist.

                                                "There are no witnesses supporting the claim that Zimmerman's head was beat into the pavement."

                                                Grass doesn't cause lacerations to the back of someone's head. Zimmerman claims that his head was being beaten into the pavement. For the police to have a case to charge Zimmerman, they would have to have evidence that contradicts that. You haven't provided any.

                                                "Zero evidence that Zimmerman received life threatening injuries. "

                                                Well, there's certainly plenty of evidence he received injuries. Whether the process of receiving such injuries amounted to a threat to his life is a subjective thing to some degree. If Zimmerman perceived such a threat given a fear of being beaten unconscious or worse, then that would justify self-defense unless there's evidence that such a perception was unreasonable. Do you have any evidence that it was unreasonable, other than your suspicions and the narrative you obviously really want to believe?

                                                You seem to have the burden of proof issue in reverse. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove his innocence. It would be the burden on the state to prove he's guilty, and to have probable cause that he committed a crime for the state to arrest him, and evidence reaching "beyond reasonable doubt" for a prosecutor to take the matter to trial.

                                                "Zero evidence that Zimmerman received life threatening injuries.
                                                Nothing even remotely similar to the Stow case. "

                                                So, to make it comparable to Stow, if Martin was beating Zimmerman's head into the pavement, are you saying that Zimmerman should have waited until Martin put him into a coma before pulling his gun? You don't understand how silly that sounds? If someone was beating your head into the pavement and you were crying out for help but no one helped (which is Zimmerman's story, and the burden is on you and others who agree with you to prove that account is false to justify the arrest and trial of Zimmerman) and you were carrying a gun, would you really not pull the gun? Would you really wait until he beat you unconscious, which would also have allowed your attacker to get the gun?

                                                "Martin did not beat the crap out of Zimmerman...
                                                Spin spin spin! "

                                                You don't know that. You haven't seen any medical reports of Zimmerman. According to Zimmerman, and supported by an eye witness, Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating Zimmerman's head into the ground while he called out for help and no one helped him. If a guy is on top of you beating you and you're carrying a gun, the fact that you're carrying a gun would actually exacerbate the danger of the situation, since if the attacker has the advantage, he could take your gun.

                                                "The girlfriend's testimony concerning her conversation with Trayvon is not inadmissable. "

                                                It certainly would be if she was repeating what Martin said. That would be hearsay. Hearsay is "A statement made out of court that is offered in court as evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted." If she would be saying what Martin said, that would be hearsay, and presumptively inadmissible. There are a few exceptions to the hearsay rule. Perhaps one might apply.

                                                "Zimmerman's ex-fiancée reported that he open handed smacked her in the mouth. "

                                                And Zimmerman claims that she was the aggressor. He said, she said.. And irrelevant in the case at hand, since Martin wouldn't have been aware of that and so would not factor that into any perception of a threat, and claims in a domestic dispute are irrelevant as to whether Zimmerman unjustifiably shot Martin.

                                                " It has also been reported that Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin.
                                                Zimmerman has not been prosecuted for any of these offenses. "

                                                It's only a chargeable criminal offense if there's evidence the shooting was unjustified. Still waiting for that evidence.

                                                "If you want to stop speculation, perhaps you should first stop your speculation that Trayvon was an angry Black man, who beat Zimmerman to the point of threatening his life, because of what he was thinking. "

                                                I've never said anything about Martin's race. You are the one who just introduced it. So if you have concerns about racist presumptions, perhaps you should look in a mirror.

                                                I don't know what happened that evening. Perhaps Zimmerman's shooting wasn't justified, but people should be judged on criminal matters on the basis of evidence, not speculation. Nothing of what I've asserted has been based on speculation. All I've been saying is that if Zimmerman's account is correct, and so far a lot of evidence is consistent with his account (a witness observing Martin on top of Zimmerman beating Zimmerman's head into the ground, the police officer who arrested Zimmerman noting bleeding from Zimmerman's nose and the back of his head, paramedics treating Zimmerman, enhanced video of Zimmerman showing wounds in the back of his head, a funeral director noting no injuries on Martin in contrast to Zimmerman's injuries), then for the state to file charges of some crime that Zimmerman allegedly committed, they would have to have evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's account as well as all that evidence that supports his account.

                                                If not, then how about waiting for sufficient evidence (and there should be a lot more evidence forthcoming, such as an autopsy report and Zimmerman's medical reports, as well as forensic evidence regarding blood splatter to indicate their relative positions, as well as a more proper court order for Zimmerman to submit a voice sample of him screaming like what was heard on the 911 tapes in order to do a more traditional comparison, rather than from a pitching his newfangled voice identification software that's been around for less than a month and that processes voice samples in ways contrary to traditional methods) before jumping to absolutist conclusions about what happened that night?

                                                Whenever these kinds of stories come out, I always have the same reaction: What exactly is the available evidence out there? Does it support the narratives going around? When people were running around declaring Richard Jewel guilty of the Olympic Park bombing just because the FBI labeled him a suspect, I inquired into the basis for the search warrant for his house (the search found no evidence of anything). The only evidence they had to justify that search was that Jewel fit an FBI profile because he had had security training (him and hundreds of thousands of other males), and so I was outraged at how people would so rapidly judge the guy with no supporting evidence other than the suspicions of some.
                                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                  Sat, April 7, 2012 - 12:28 AM
                                                  <You haven't provided any evidence that Zimmerman repeatedly followed and/or intruded into the life of Martin over a period of time>
                                                  An animal can stalk his prey once, then kill it. It's still stalking.
                                                  Zimmerman said concerning Trayvon "These assholes they always get away."
                                                  In Zimmerman's mind there was a relational history. He was stalking Trayvon so he wouldn't get away like "assholes"/Trayvons always do.
                                                  Zimmerman stalked Trayvon, then killed him.

                                                  <Speculation by a guy in a commentary...>
                                                  No, reporting what Zimmerman's neighbors have stated.

                                                  I realize this is the "Turn the Tales of Trayvon" thread.
                                                  And the only Tale the police have is Zimmerman's.
                                                  And this is not a court of law.

                                                  <Zimmerman doesn't have to prove his innocence.>
                                                  If Trayvon's family sues for wrongful death he sure will.

                                                  The only way of knowing what Trayvon thought or felt, is through his girlfriend. You may dismiss her statements, I do not.
                                                  Trayvon said he was aware he was being followed, on a dark rainy night, and he was scared. Trayvon tried to lose a man who considered him an asshole, but couldn't. Zimmerman pursued Trayvon until he was confronted. There is no evidence that Zimmerman identified himself as being with the Neighborhood Watch.

                                                  <If a guy is on top of you beating you and you're carrying a gun, the fact that you're carrying a gun would actually exacerbate the danger of the situation, since if the attacker has the advantage, he could take your gun.>
                                                  Yes, the undeniable life threatening element was Zimmerman's 9mm. If Zimmerman did not have the gun there would have been no life threat, or loss of life.
                                                  Do you know when Trayvon first saw Zimmerman's gun?

                                                  <According to Zimmerman, and supported by an eye witness, Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating Zimmerman's head into the ground while he called out for help and no one helped him.>
                                                  Who witnessed Zimmerman's head being beat into pavement, or into the ground?
                                                  Was that before or after Trayvon saw Zimmerman's 9mm?
                                                  Trayvon can't tell us. Because he's dead.

                                                  <Would you really wait until he beat you unconscious, which would also have allowed your attacker to get the gun?>
                                                  Do you really believe fear of being shot with your own gun gives you the right to to kill someone?

                                                  <Nothing of what I've asserted has been based on speculation.>
                                                  ROFLOL
                                                  More words games
                                                  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                    Sun, April 8, 2012 - 2:29 AM
                                                    "An animal can stalk his prey once, then kill it. It's still stalking. "

                                                    So the definitions you yourself linked didn't work so now you're going Wild Kingdom? Human stalking and non-human stalking are apples and oranges. Animals stalk their prey to eat them. Are you claiming that Zimmerman planned on eating Martin? Perhaps you're claiming that Zimmerman followed Martin with the intention of killing him. Well that would require evidence of intent, wouldn't it, which you don't have.

                                                    If in the end you've watered down the concept of "stalking" to the idea of simply intentionally following someone, then any substance to that label evaporates. No one has a legal right to beat someone's head into the ground (if that's what happened) simply for being followed.

                                                    "Zimmerman said concerning Trayvon "These assholes they always get away."

                                                    Right. He obviously thought Martin was up to no good, and was speaking to the police when he said that. So obviously if Martin was up to criminal activity, Zimmerman didn't want him to get away with it. Did that mean he wanted to kill him rather than just have the police stop him (since again, he was on the phone with police arranging for the police to meet him regarding Martin)? Again, where's the evidence for assumption of the former?

                                                    "No, reporting what Zimmerman's neighbors have stated. "

                                                    He didn't report what Zimmerman's neighbors had stated. He quoted absolutely no one. He made a generalized claim about what neighbors said but provided no actual single quotation by anyone to back it up. A commentator's characterization based on no actual evidence is not itself evidence, and it's absurd for you to continue to cite a COMMENTARY as evidence.

                                                    "And this is not a court of law. "

                                                    Well, if you want the police to arrest Zimmerman and take him to trial, then you want him taken into a court of law. But for that to happen, the police need actual evidence, not your speculation, and you've indicated none. Again, burden of proof is in the accuser. A man isn't supposed to be presumed guilty just because him being so fits a narrative you really want to believe.

                                                    "If Trayvon's family sues for wrongful death he sure will. "

                                                    Nope. The burden would still be on the plaintiff's to prove their case. Do you really want to live in a country where people are presumed guilty until proven innocent?

                                                    "The only way of knowing what Trayvon thought or felt, is through his girlfriend. You may dismiss her statements, I do not. "

                                                    It's not a matter of dismissing. It's a matter of admissible evidence. If she makes assertions of what Martin said to prove the truth of what Martin said, then that would be hearsay and presumptively inadmissible. But as I previously acknowledged, perhaps there's an applicable exception. You've identified none however, so the presumption still stands.

                                                    "Trayvon said he was aware he was being followed, on a dark rainy night, and he was scared. Trayvon tried to lose a man who considered him an asshole, but couldn't. Zimmerman pursued Trayvon until he was confronted. "

                                                    Again you're spinning. I've looked at every account of what the girlfriend reported that I could find and I haven't seen anywhere where she claimed that Martin was scared. Is that more of your speculatition and wishful thinking, or do you have evidence of what she actually said to back that up? She did say she advised him to run but he said he didn't want to, which could be interpreted as his wanting to stand his ground against Martin. But again, merely being followed provides no legal justification to beat the follower's head into the pavement.

                                                    Furthermore, you have no evidence it was Zimmerman who confronted Martin rather than vice versa. Yes Zimmerman followed Martin initially. But he claimed that in the end it was Martin who approached Zimmerman, and you have no evidence beyond what you want to believe that his account is false.

                                                    "Yes, the undeniable life threatening element was Zimmerman's 9mm. If Zimmerman did not have the gun there would have been no life threat, or loss of life. "

                                                    Again, you don't know that. You don't know what would have happened to Zimmerman if Martin continued to beat Zimmerman's head into the pavement, if that's what happened. Spin, spin, spin. And if it was legal for Zimmerman to carry a gun, then he had every right to do so. If Zimmerman's account is correct (and you have no evidence that contradicts it, while there's evidence that supports it), then had Martin not attacked Zimmerman, there would have been no loss of life.

                                                    "Do you know when Trayvon first saw Zimmerman's gun? "

                                                    No, but neither do you. Again you seem to think that the accused has the burden to prove his innocence rather than the other way around.

                                                    "There is no evidence that Zimmerman identified himself as being with the Neighborhood Watch. "

                                                    So what? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And even if he didn't, not identifying yourself doesn't give the other guy the right to beat your head into the pavement.

                                                    "Who witnessed Zimmerman's head being beat into pavement, or into the ground? "

                                                    From a local news report:

                                                    "A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities.

                                                    "The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

                                                    John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

                                                    "And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point.""

                                                    www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/new...ercation

                                                    "Was that before or after Trayvon saw Zimmerman's 9mm? "

                                                    I have no idea, and neither do you.

                                                    "Trayvon can't tell us. Because he's dead. "

                                                    Yes, killings have an unfortunate side effect of preventing the person killed from being able to defend himself. If a woman kills an attempted rapist, the would be rapist wouldn't be around to defend himself from accusations by the woman. But just because someone is dead and can't defend himself doesn't mean he was innocent. If Martin was beating Zimmerman's head into the pavement and wouldn't stop after repeated pleas by Zimmerman, and did so after Zimmerman did nothing to justify the attack, then Martin abandoned any right to stay around to defend himself if Zimmerman killed him in self-defense.

                                                    "Do you really believe fear of being shot with your own gun gives you the right to to kill someone?"

                                                    If someone is on top of me beating my head into the pavement and won't stop, damn straight I have that right.

                                                    "ROFLOL "

                                                    And when you're done laughing and get up off the floor, perhaps you can identify which assertions I've made that were based on speculation. I've basically asserted the following:

                                                    That you have presented no evidence that Martin justifiably attacked Zimmerman out of self-defense. That's fact, not speculation.

                                                    That if the state wanted to charge Zimmerman with a crime, then the state has the burden of proof to provide evidence justifying charging Zimmerman, rather than Zimmerman having the burden to prove his innocence. That's fact, not speculation.

                                                    That the police officer who arrested Zimmerman reported that Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and the back of his head. That's straight from his police report., not speculation. It may be a false report, but it's a fact that that's what he reported.

                                                    That that same police report reported that paramedics treated Zimmerman's injuries. That's right in the report, not speculation.

                                                    That someone claimed to have witnessed Martin on top of Zimmerman beating the latter's head into the pavement. That's a fact backed by more than one news operation that interviewed the guy. His claims may be false, but it's a fact that that's what he claimed, not speculation.

                                                    So what assertion have I made that's based on speculation? Give it your best shot.
                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                      Sun, April 8, 2012 - 10:13 AM
                                                      <So the definitions you yourself linked didn't work so now you're going Wild Kingdom?>
                                                      No, the link I presented states.
                                                      "According to a 2002 report by the National Center for Victims of Crime, "Virtually any unwanted contact between two people that directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking."

                                                      You just don't want to accept that Zimmerman was stalking Martin.

                                                      <I've looked at every account of what the girlfriend reported that I could find and I haven't seen anywhere where she claimed that Martin was scared. >
                                                      You find what you want to find LOL
                                                      "In an affidavit filed by Crump, Trayvon Martin's girlfriend says he was afraid and attempting to get away from Zimmerman. However, the phone call was disconnected when it appears the phone was either dropped or knocked away from Martin."
                                                      www.cbsatlanta.com/story/17...-new-high

                                                      <And when you're done laughing and get up off the floor, perhaps you can identify which assertions I've made that were based on speculation.>
                                                      I'll start with your repeated claim that someone witnessed Zimmerman's head being beaten into the pavement.

                                                  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                    Mon, April 9, 2012 - 2:28 AM
                                                    <The only way of knowing what Trayvon thought or felt, is through his girlfriend. You may dismiss her statements, I do not. >

                                                    Peter, of course you do not. You have already decided what happened. That sure is easier than having to wait for the facts, 'eh?

                                                    <he was scared.>

                                                    Did he tell his GF that?

                                                    <There is no evidence that Zimmerman identified himself as being with the Neighborhood Watch.>

                                                    You'll probably want to notice that there's not much evidence of anything here. You may want to pay more attention to that reality.

                                                    <Do you know when Trayvon first saw Zimmerman's gun?>

                                                    Do you?

                                                    <Who witnessed Zimmerman's head being beat into pavement, or into the ground?>

                                                    Reportedly two witnesses.

                                                    <Do you really believe fear of being shot with your own gun gives you the right to to kill someone?>

                                                    Absolutely. 100%
                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                      Mon, April 9, 2012 - 2:47 AM
                                                      <Please show me where it's lawful to commit assault on someone because you "assume nefarious intent". No? Still can't? >
                                                      >Do you really believe fear of being shot with your own gun gives you the right to to kill someone?<
                                                      <Absolutely. 100%>
                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                      Mon, April 9, 2012 - 1:54 PM
                                                      <<That sure is easier than having to wait for the facts, 'eh?

                                                      How can we wait for facts that are not even being properly investigated?
                                                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                        Mon, April 9, 2012 - 8:19 PM
                                                        <How can we wait for facts that are not even being properly investigated?>

                                                        How do you know that it's "not even being properly investigated"? Have you seen the investigation notes? I have not...but if you have...

                                                        <Bullshit, wearing a hood in the rain is not suspicious.>

                                                        So says you. You're now the judge AND jury? Or, just jury or judge? Maybe defense atty?

                                                        <Would you also contend that holding an umbrella in the rain is suspicous?>

                                                        No. Someone covering up his head so as to not have his head at all visible is more suspicious than someone with an umbrella. In my opinion.

                                                        <He was not an outsider, so why was it assumed by Zimmerman that he was? Why did you yourself assume that Martin did not belong?>

                                                        Strawman. I never assumed that Trayvon did not belong. And, it's irrelevant WHY Zimmerman first followed Trayvon. He was not breaking any law in doing so that I am aware of, or that ANY of the legal minds that have opined about this for weeks have come up with. But, you may have some legal reasoning that they did not come up with?

                                                        <It would be relevant in determining if the lack of charges were motivated by the fact that Zimmerman's father is a respected retired judge, who in fact sat in on Zimmerman's questioning.>

                                                        Sure, if you want to go down the road of conspiracy. That's not part of any court case, so it's irrelevant.

                                                        <I would like to hear the lead investigators story as to why he did not believe Martin.>

                                                        Why are you assuming that the investigator "did not believe Martin"? Maybe he believed one or the other, but still found enough questions lacking answers. I'd like to hear, too. I'm sure that he'll write a book.

                                                        <Again, you can't just dismiss everything you don't like as being not relevant. >

                                                        I dismiss things as irrelevant when they are irrelevant, such as why it would be relevant that Zimmerman followed Trayvon.

                                                        And, racists are allowed to follow people. That ain't illegal.
                                                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                          Tue, April 10, 2012 - 2:14 PM
                                                          <<<How can we wait for facts that are not even being properly investigated?>

                                                          How do you know that it's "not even being properly investigated"?>.

                                                          Ummmm....because the DA dropped the case! A dropped case by definition means it is not being investigated.

                                                          <<<Bullshit, wearing a hood in the rain is not suspicious.>

                                                          So says you. You're now the judge AND jury?<<

                                                          Are you trying to say that a judge would find fault with a person covering their head when it is raining? What a ludicrous assertion.

                                                          <<No. Someone covering up his head so as to not have his head at all visible is more suspicious than someone with an umbrella. In my opinion.

                                                          So now you are saying that Trayvon was covering his head to hide his face, instead of covering his head from the rain? Now you are just making shit up.

                                                          <<And, it's irrelevant WHY Zimmerman first followed Trayvon. He was not breaking any law in doing so

                                                          You are again working under the assumption that all Zimmerman did was follow him, thereby taking the shooter at his word.

                                                          <<<I would like to hear the lead investigators story as to why he did not believe Martin.>

                                                          Why are you assuming that the investigator "did not believe Martin"?<<

                                                          Because he said so, he wanted manslaughter charges and the DA is the one that dropped it. So again, I would like to know WHY the lead investigator did not find Zimmerman's story credible. abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon...ghter/story

                                                          <<And, racists are allowed to follow people. That ain't illegal.

                                                          Wow, you are doing it yet again, taking Zimmerman at face value that he only followed Trayvon. Why do you automatically believe the shooter?
                                                          IF Zimmerman initiated the violence, and IF he were brought up on murder or mansluaghter charges, a racial motivation would go toward determining if a hate crime had been committed.
                                                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                            Wed, April 11, 2012 - 3:27 AM
                                                            "Ummmm....because the DA dropped the case! A dropped case by definition means it is not being investigated. "

                                                            Wrong. DAs decline to file charges all the time after investigations indicate that there is not enough evidence to prosecute. Just because a DA declines to prosecute doesn't mean there was no investigation. You're neglecting the possibility that a sufficient investigation was done and the DA concluded that there was insufficient evidence to counter Zimmerman's story and that Zimmerman's story was likely true. If his story was deemed likely true, then they would not have probable cause for charging Zimmerman and certainly not enough evidence reach the level of evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
                                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                              Wed, April 11, 2012 - 11:36 AM
                                                              Ron, do you concede that there is not one eye witness we have heard from so far that indicates they observed who threw the first punch? Contrary to Andrews claims otherwise? I respect your honesty, even when we disagree.
                                                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                Wed, April 11, 2012 - 10:07 PM
                                                                "Ron, do you concede that there is not one eye witness we have heard from so far that indicates they observed who threw the first punch?"

                                                                I know of no such witness, and I've been trying to keep abreast of whatever witnesses have been identified in the media.
                                                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                  Thu, April 12, 2012 - 1:46 PM
                                                                  <<"Ron, do you concede that there is not one eye witness we have heard from so far that indicates they observed who threw the first punch?"

                                                                  I know of no such witness, and I've been trying to keep abreast of whatever witnesses have been identified in the media. <<

                                                                  Thank you. Many people are conflating witnesses seeing Martin on top of Zimmerman with the actual initiation of the violence, they are assuming that because Martin was on top he must have thrown the first punch. When the possibility does exist that Zimmerman himself could have initiated the violence and Martin ended up kicking his ass.
                                                                  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                    Sun, April 15, 2012 - 3:18 PM
                                                                    <When the possibility does exist that Zimmerman himself could have initiated the violence and Martin ended up kicking his ass.>

                                                                    Of course. That possibility was one from the get-go.

                                                                    <Actually, falsifying witness testimony to bolster your argument is called "self reinforcement". I have done no such thing.>

                                                                    oh, Jeff. Jeff jeff jeff. I have not falsified any testimony - reporting what has been said is not "falsifying witness testimony". YOU on the other hand, are including all sorts of speculation, reasons, possibilities & hearsay as an argument that you are using to move people towards your opinion.

                                                                    <You are making the same mistake others are making and then quoting these peoples errors to reinforce your own mistatements.>

                                                                    No, I would never have posted any info there if you did not accuse me of lying. Lying! Ha! Like I give a fuck enough to have to lie to manipulate the conversation? Pleeeeez. I'm vacationing in East Hampton, about to go to a really nice dinner in town. I REALLY don't give a fuck that you think I have chosen to lie...

                                                                    <Andrew: "but what we DO know is that they have made these statements...... what we have is the statements by the POLICE who said that there are WITNESSES who say that Trayvon STRUCK FIRST." FALSE.>

                                                                    No - my statement is not false. I DID read/hear reports of this in the beginning of when this whole thing started. Whether the statements were false is a totally different issue. Don't blame me if those reports were erroneous. We report all the time what in the end results in all sorts of erroneous statements. Does that mean that someone is "lying"? Nope.

                                                                    <This shows "how you act".>

                                                                    Jeff, you are a very, very unpleasant person. If simply repeating what one hears/reads makes for "how you act", well............guilty as charged!

                                                                    <Face it, you fucked up.>

                                                                    Nope. Repeating what someone stated as fact/belief is not fucking up. It's reporting. For instance, if I repeated someone saying that you had really, really bad halitosis - would that be me fucking up? I don't have a horse in the race, so maybe you do, maybe not? Who knows? Not me - but it'd not be fucking up to repeat that statement.

                                                                    <If you don't want to be humiliated, don't try to mislead either me or the members of this tribe.>

                                                                    Tragic. Just...tragic.

                                                                    <"And the witness quote doesn't mention pavement, or ground, only grass. ">

                                                                    Yes, yes he does. If you find the actual recorded voice of one witness, he says that there is a concrete sidewalk that goes behind/between the buildings, with grass on either side, and he said that he could not see where they actually were. Assumingly, the conflict started on the sidewalk, and moved to the grass.


                                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                      Mon, April 16, 2012 - 1:44 PM
                                                                      <<<When the possibility does exist that Zimmerman himself could have initiated the violence and Martin ended up kicking his ass.>

                                                                      Of course. That possibility was one from the get-go. <<

                                                                      And yet it was one you clearly were not willing to entertain, as is demonstrated by the fact that you have repeatedly put forth eye witness accounts of Martin on top as proof that Martin swung the first punch. Would you like me to show you your own words as proof? Or is your memory serving you better now? What you are calling "reports" speak not mention of witnesses seeing the first punch, only the same mistaken assumption that Martin being on top means he threw the first punch. Tell me, where is this "report" that says the police have a witness who saw the first punch? It does not exist does it?

                                                                      << I have not falsified any testimony - reporting what has been said is not "falsifying witness testimony".

                                                                      Except.......you DID NOT report what was "seen", you MADE IT UP! NOBODY has reported seeing Martin throw the first punch. It is FALSE, and even the guy who you claim is on your side does not agree with your false assertions. FAIL.

                                                                      <<YOU on the other hand, are including all sorts of speculation

                                                                      Yes, and I admit that it is all speculation being that none of us know what really happened. ANY investigation would speculate about the things I have asked questions about. You on the other hand keep repeating falsehoods, even Ron recognizes they are false. So man up and admit your error so you don't continue to look foolish.

                                                                      <<as an argument that you are using to move people towards your opinion.

                                                                      My opinion is that all possibilities should be considered and investigated. Do you not agree that this is the job of the police and the DA? As opposed to declaring there is not enough evidence to prosecute before any key witnesses have even been interviewed, and then releasing the shooter within the first 24 hours of his detainment. If the evidence demonstrates that Zimmerman is innocent I will hail it as the justice system working. If the evidence demosntrates that Zimmerman is guilty of murder, then I will say that justice has been done. In other words, I want a full investigation and a fair trail, nothing more nothing less.

                                                                      <<No, I would never have posted any info there if you did not accuse me of lying.

                                                                      I demonstrated that you lied, it is a proven and verifiable fact. Unless the problem is not your honesty, but a lack of basic comprehension. And that is a possibility, so I should not call your lies a "fact".....sorry. Either way, you have failed miserably and are not even aware of it.

                                                                      <<I give a fuck enough to have to lie to manipulate the conversation?

                                                                      If this is true, then tell me, why did you post some anonymous guys post on a thread discussing a blog as proof of witness testimony? Seems a rather desperate measure for someone who does not care to manipulate the conversation. Seriously dude, why did you use it?

                                                                      <<I REALLY don't give a fuck that you think I have chosen to lie...

                                                                      And yet you keep ranting about it....go figure...LMAO!!!

                                                                      <<<Andrew: "but what we DO know is that they have made these statements...... what we have is the statements by the POLICE who said that there are WITNESSES who say that Trayvon STRUCK FIRST." FALSE.>

                                                                      No - my statement is not false. I DID read/hear reports of this in the beginning of when this whole thing started. >>

                                                                      The statement is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. You made a statement in the definitive about statements by the "POLICE" that never happened. As a matter of fact, there were not even ANY REPORTS of the police having said this. So even your "reportedly" claim does not pan out. Unless of course by "reportedly" you mean yourself? WTF?

                                                                      <<Whether the statements were false is a totally different issue. Don't blame me if those reports were erroneous.

                                                                      What reports? Show us. Show us the reports that say the Police indicated witnesses saw Martin swing first. Show me an ACTUAL REPORT of what you claim you read, but are seemingly unable to provide. Step up to the plate.

                                                                      <<If simply repeating what one hears/reads makes for "how you act", well............guilty as charged!

                                                                      Where did you read your claims? Show us.

                                                                      <<Jeff, you are a very, very unpleasant person.

                                                                      Yes, I am very unpleasent when I am lied to, deal with it. The fact is that people like Ron do not purposefully promote false information so as to bolster their argument. Him and I disagree quite often, and yet have enough respect for each other that we are friends on Facebook and know a bit about each others personal lives. Reality is such that I am a very likeable and presonable fella, unless you lie to me.

                                                                      <<Repeating what someone stated as fact/belief is not fucking up.

                                                                      Who, beyond some anonymous dude on the internet are you speaking of? Who made these statements? Who "reported" that the police had witnesses that seen Martin throw the first punch? Anxiously awaiting your answer.

                                                                      <<<If you don't want to be humiliated, don't try to mislead either me or the members of this tribe.>

                                                                      Tragic. Just...tragic. <<

                                                                      Hardly. What is in reality tragic is the death of this young man.
                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                      Wed, April 11, 2012 - 11:31 AM
                                                      <<<Do you really believe fear of being shot with your own gun gives you the right to to kill someone?>

                                                      Absolutely. 100% >>

                                                      Do you believe that fear of being shot with a strangers gun gives you the right to lash out in fear and bash that persons head in the concrete, attempting to get them to drop the weapon? Would that scenario justify Martins actions in your eyes?
                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                              Thu, April 5, 2012 - 8:13 AM
                                              <Because I got the height from ABC News. >
                                              I just read your ABC source:
                                              "Zimmerman is described as 5-foot-9 and well over 200 pounds while Martin was 6-foot-3 and 150 pounds."

                                              <You're not consistent with your own citation.>
                                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                Thu, April 5, 2012 - 10:43 AM
                                                A person can lose or gain weight over time. Have you ever heard of a 17 year old growing shorter?

                                                Again, based on that video, no way Zimmerman is NOW "well over 200 pounds." I'm his height and a bit over 200 and much fatter than he is.
                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                              Thu, April 5, 2012 - 11:52 AM
                                              <<You're not consistent with your own citation. From your own quotation, stalking is unwanted "AND OBSESSIVE" attention. Single case of following is not obsessive.

                                              I would contend that Zimmerman was obsessed with playing cowboy, he was a habitual caller to the cops and did so while primarily focusing on young black males, calling the police 46 times since January 1st. Zimmerman also went door-to-door asking residents to be on the lookout, specifically referring to young black men. The lead investigator in to this case wanted charges brought against Zimmerman, but the DA refused. And while some might be quick to accuse Zimmerman of profiling, it is also a very real possibility that this is exactly what he was doing, so it should not be dismissed out of hand.
                                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                Thu, April 5, 2012 - 7:26 PM
                                                "I would contend that Zimmerman was obsessed with playing cowboy"

                                                And how would you know that?

                                                "he was a habitual caller to the cops"

                                                Maybe there was a lot of criminal and/or suspicious activity to report. How do you know there wasn't?

                                                "primarily focusing on young black males"

                                                How do you know he primarily focused on young black males?

                                                "Zimmerman also went door-to-door asking residents to be on the lookout, specifically referring to young black men"

                                                How do you know that he was asking about young black men in general, rather than responding to a specific case of specific young black males that may have been observed recently?

                                                "The lead investigator in to this case wanted charges brought against Zimmerman, but the DA refused"

                                                So what? Cops all the time want arrests, but the DA's job is to know whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute. A cop's suspicions are not sufficient evidence. What the investigator wanted is not evidence of anything other than what the investigator wanted.

                                                "And while some might be quick to accuse Zimmerman of profiling, it is also a very real possibility that this is exactly what he was doing, so it should not be dismissed out of hand."

                                                I don't dismiss it out of hand. It is certainly possible. But people shouldn't be arrested and charged with crimes based on suspicions - it has to be based on evidence. Remember who bears the burden of proof here. It's the state. Zimmerman doesn't have to prove his innocence.
                                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                  Mon, April 9, 2012 - 2:24 AM
                                                  <How do you know he primarily focused on young black males?>

                                                  Ron, why even go in that direction? Even if Zimmerman IS an unrepentant racist, that gives Trayvon no right to strike him without cause...as reported.

                                                  So, it's not at all relevant. The ONLY thing that it does is create for those that want Zimmerman to be guilty more reason to believe that he's guilty. More reason for Al Sharpton to demonize Zimmerman - rightfully or not.

                                                  <But people shouldn't be arrested and charged with crimes based on suspicions>

                                                  Interestingly enough, Ron, Jeff's & his MSMer's suspicions about Zimmerman are enough for the world to suggest that he should be arrested and charged.

                                                  <No. Merely being followed, regardless of your suspicions, would not give you the right to beat the guy's head into the pavement.>

                                                  Much less punch someone in the face.

                                                  <True. But one would also think that if you were casing a house you would want to be silent rather than yacking on the phone.>

                                                  Jeff! Didn't we just talk about this? Supposition, my man! Who the fuck cares what "one would also think"? I don't care. One can guess all that one likes about another's actions. But...that's all supposition. That's all guesstimation...supposition.

                                                  <What about if you are minor being followed by a grown man in the middle of the night?>

                                                  So what, Jeff. Find me a law saying that you can strike someone who is simply following you.

                                                  oh...wait...you can't

                                                  <Personally I would feel threatened.>

                                                  Yeah? And you'd hit the person? You'd commit an assault?

                                                  <Again, one could only assume nefarious intent on the part of Martin if you were in Trayvon's shoes.>

                                                  Please show me where it's lawful to commit assault on someone because you "assume nefarious intent". No? Still can't?

                                                  <In other words, Trayvon himself may well have believed his own life was in danger.>

                                                  And Jesus may have come back from the dead today, twenty-some hundred years ago, too. You really wanna continue to create this narrative?

                                                  <Again, none of that would legally justify beating the guy's head into the pavement.>

                                                  True, Ron. But, to Jeff - it's enough reasoning to create a story which would allow him to have formulated this narrative around his bias in this case.

                                                  <People aren't supposed to be arrested and put on trial on mere possibilities and suspicions.>

                                                  Jeff, please read that line a few times.
                                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                  Mon, April 9, 2012 - 2:49 PM
                                                  <<"I would contend that Zimmerman was obsessed with playing cowboy"

                                                  And how would you know that? <<

                                                  Because every indication is that he was super agressive in his self appointed patrols, not to mention that a lot of his plethora of 911 calls happened before he was even in the position of neighborhood watchman. Throw in a gun and his obvious confrontational attitude as a neighborhood watch man and it gives us a few clues as to his mind set.

                                                  <<"primarily focusing on young black males"

                                                  How do you know he primarily focused on young black males? >>

                                                  But starting in 2011, Zimmerman’s calls increasingly focused on what he considered “suspicious” characters walking around the neighborhood—almost all of whom were young black males.

                                                  On April 22, 2011, Zimmerman called to report a black male about “7-9” years old, four feet tall, with a “skinny build” and short black hair. There is no indication in the police report of the reason for Zimmerman’s suspicion of the boy.

                                                  On Aug. 3 of last year, Zimmerman reported a black male who he believed was “involved in recent” burglaries in the neighborhood.

                                                  And on Oct. 1 he reported two black male suspects “20-30” years old, in a white Chevrolet Impala. He told police he did “not recognize” the men or their vehicle and that he was concerned because of the recent burglaries.

                                                  Despite the frequency of his calls to the police, Zimmerman had only become a member of the neighborhood watch in September 2011. In fact, Twin Lakes’ neighborhood watch itself did not exist before then, according to Wendy Dorival, volunteer coordinator for the Sanford Police Department.
                                                  • This post was deleted by Gerbil
                                                  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                    Tue, April 10, 2012 - 1:45 PM
                                                    "Because every indication is that he was super agressive in his self appointed patrols""

                                                    What do you mean "every indication?" That's not evidence. That's spin. Please provide evidence to back that up.

                                                    And he wasn't "self-appointed", as if oft claimed. He was chosen by his neighbors as the neighborhood watch coordinator and the HOA called him the neighborhood watch "captain."

                                                    "But starting in 2011, Zimmerman’s calls increasingly focused on what he considered “suspicious” characters walking around the neighborhood—almost all of whom were young black males. "

                                                    Please provide evidence to back such claims. How do you know his focus was almost exclusively on young black males? Being "suspicious" obviously doesn't necessarily equate with "black." Citing four black males he called about does not necessarily mean he focused almost exclusively on black males.


                                                    "Despite the frequency of his calls to the police, Zimmerman had only become a member of the neighborhood watch in September 2011. In fact, Twin Lakes’ neighborhood watch itself did not exist before then, according to Wendy Dorival, volunteer coordinator for the Sanford Police Department. "

                                                    So what? You're really faulting him for being concerned about crime in his neighborhood when there had been recent break-ins? as long as he didn't do anything illegal, I'd be more comfortable with a neighborhood watch captain being more alert and suspicious than less, particualrly if there had been recent break-ins.

                                                    "Despite the frequency of his calls to the police"

                                                    The police did not consider the frequency of his calls excessive.

                                                    Jeff, please address my hypothetical I addressed to you earlier. Suppose someone (let's say he was white) broke into someone's house in your neighborhood and raped and killed some woman. Suppose it turns out that the neighborhood watch captain admitted that he saw the assailant wandering around alone in the neighborhood in the rain that night with his hood pulled over his head, checking out houses, but didn't follow him (even though he was armed) nor did he call the police or alert anyone, because he thought doing so would be unfair since he didn't see any evidence of the guy committing a crime yet, even though there had recently been break-ins. Would it be unfair of the family of the victim to be mad at him for not being more suspicious of the guy when he saw him and either should have called the police, followed him, or both?
                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                      Tue, April 10, 2012 - 4:29 PM
                                                      <<Jeff, please address my hypothetical I addressed to you earlier.

                                                      Your hypothetical is illogical being that nobody, myself included, has asserted Zimmerman should not have called the police if he thought Martin "fit the description". Now in regards to if I would expect a neighborhood watchman to "follow" and confront someone he sees as suspicious, the answer to that would be no being that is the job of the police.

                                                      I also have another question. Why did Zimmerman get out of his vehicle rather than continuing to follow Martin with his vehicle, as it seems he was doing initially? What was the motive for leaving the vehicle if not to confront Trayvon in some manner?
                                                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                        Tue, April 10, 2012 - 8:49 PM
                                                        <I also have another question. Why did Zimmerman get out of his vehicle rather than continuing to follow Martin with his vehicle, as it seems he was doing initially? What was the motive for leaving the vehicle if not to confront Trayvon in some manner?>

                                                        Jesus, Jeff. You STILL have not even made yourself aware of the facts?

                                                        Jeff, where Trayvon walked, after leaving the street, was a sidewalk BETWEEN houses, which was not accessible by a car. So, his motive? To follow the guy that he called the cops about.

                                                        Oh...he was not "on patrol" when he saw Trayvon. He was thus allowed to carry a weapon, as per FL law.

                                                        ANOTHER hole in your bias-filled narrative & wishful thinking.
                                                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                          Wed, April 11, 2012 - 11:45 AM
                                                          <<Jesus, Jeff. You STILL have not even made yourself aware of the facts? Jeff, where Trayvon walked, after leaving the street, was a sidewalk BETWEEN houses, which was not accessible by a car. So, his motive? To follow the guy that he called the cops about.

                                                          Well, unlike you I don't just make up eye witness testimony. I ask questions about that which I don't understand. Regardless, you are once again taking Zimmerman at face value being that you can't possibly know Zimmerman's "motive" for leaving his vehicle. He may well of intended on confronting Martin as opposed to just following him. Sorry, I won't just take the shooters word for it, which is basically the entirety of my position.

                                                          <<Oh...he was not "on patrol" when he saw Trayvon. He was thus allowed to carry a weapon, as per FL law.

                                                          See, it is you that is ignorant of the law being that Zimmerman can legally carry his gun even when on patrol. What is NOT recommended is that a watch patrol man confront or follow a suspect, especially with a gun.

                                                          <<ANOTHER hole in your bias-filled narrative & wishful thinking.

                                                          The only wishful thinking going on is by you being that you made up evidence and now apparrantly believe your own lie.
                                                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                          Wed, April 11, 2012 - 2:46 PM
                                                          So tell me Andrew, now that Zimmerman is going to be charged, and now that an arrest is imminent, and now that the special prosecutor has indicated they dio indeed have new information in the case, don't you feel silly for pretending that the general public knows the totality of the evidence? Shit dude, we did not even know the totality of the evidence from the initial investigation, let alone the most recent inquiries in to the case. Will you concede that you were wronog? Can you now admit that you completely misrepresented the eye witness testimony that has been released to the public? There is nothing wrong with admitting your errors, and in reality it elevates you in peoples eyes. So I would encourage you to step foward and not ignore this, or make excuses.
                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                      Tue, April 10, 2012 - 5:02 PM
                                                      <<And he wasn't "self-appointed", as if oft claimed. He was chosen by his neighbors as the neighborhood watch coordinator and the HOA called him the neighborhood watch "captain."

                                                      George Zimmerman not a member of recognized neighborhood watch organization

                                                      When 28-year-old George Zimmerman was discovered by Sanford, Florida police standing over the body of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, they accepted Zimmerman's claim that he killed in self-defense as a neighborhood watch captain. Now, through a statement released by the National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) -- the parent organization of USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch -- it has been revealed that Zimmerman was not a member of any group recognized by the organization. Zimmerman violated the central tenets of Neighborhood Watch by following Martin, confronting him and carrying a concealed weapon.

                                                      "In no program that I have ever heard of does someone patrol with a gun in their pocket," Carmen Caldwell, the Executive Director of Citizens' Crime Watch of Miami-Dade, told theGrio. "Every city and municipality has their own policies. Here in Miami-Dade we train people only to be the eyes and ears of their communities. Not to follow and most definitely not to carry a weapon."

                                                      Despite this, Zimmerman admitted that he had fired a weapon on the night of the incident. In addition, the non-emergency call Zimmerman placed on February 26 before the shooting revealed he had been pursuing Martin by car before accosting the youth on foot -- all direct violations of Neighborhood Watch policies.

                                                      "The alleged action of a 'self-appointed neighborhood watchman' last month in Sanford, FL significantly contradicts the principles of the Neighborhood Watch Program," NSA Executive Director Aaron D. Kennard, Sheriff (ret.) said in the press statement. "NSA has no information indicating the community where the incident occurred has ever even registered with the NSA Neighborhood Watch program."

                                                      The USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch Program manual advises volunteers about how to notice basic things about persons deemed to be suspicious such as height, weight, style of dress, and hair color. Local law enforcement agents also work with official groups to tailor specifications concerning how to discern potential criminal activity depending on the particular communities they are in. In this way, Neighborhood Watch has assured theGrio that the potential for racial profiling is curtailed. In Zimmerman's case, he would have recognized that Trayvon Martin was a non-suspicious part of the citizenry had he received proper training. The complex where he was killed is middle class and mixed race.

                                                      But registration with the USAonWatch-Neighborhood Watch Program -- which would have provided this training -- is not a requirement for forming a group.

                                                      "We've got approximately 25,000 neighborhood watches registered now, and the neighborhood watches out there far exceed that number," Chris Tutko, the Director of Neighborhood Watch for the National Sheriffs' Association told theGrio. "We give people the ability to register if they want to. What registration does is give groups a repository of resources." Registration also pairs groups with local law enforcement mentors, who sometimes run background checks on members.

                                                      But it's not mandatory," Tutko continued. "A group of people can get together in an apartment building and say, 'we're going to watch out for each other.' And that's it."

                                                      As Zimmerman acted as part of an unofficial group (or perhaps alone), he was free to make decisions without the benefit to his community of being vetted by police. Ultimately leaders of individual groups -- if they are official groups -- are responsible for asking police to run routine checks on new members. Sometimes this lack of precaution is a resource issue.

                                                      "When you are dealing with thousands of volunteers -- people who have said we are going to step up to the plate and help make our neighborhood better -- if it's someone that I or an officer has an uncomfortable feeling about, or a neighbor might come up and say 'that person really isn't safe,' we check it out," Caldwell said. "We try to be careful about who becomes part of the Neighborhood Watch."

                                                      But some areas lack the necessary police resources to conduct background checks on all Neighborhood Watch volunteers, because they are strapped for cash, Caldwell continued. Another pitfall is that Neighborhood Watch training does not involve any psychological evaluation.

                                                      Yet, Tutko believes that if Zimmerman had tried to join or start a registered group, he would have been stopped. The fact that Zimmerman was known to have made over 40 calls to police to report suspicious activities in recent months would have raised suspicions of him. "If the police were called that many times, you look at what the end game was," he said. "Was there anything found? If nothing was found, that person needs to be counseled, or reeducated, or otherwise told you are not going to be allowed on the Neighborhood Watch."

                                                      Zimmerman also called himself the "captain" of his neighborhood watch leading many to question whether it is some sort of militaristic organization, which might have emboldened Martin's killer to use violence. "When you say 'block captain'? To me that's an administrative person, someone who puts together schedules," Tutko clarified. "But certainly you're not the person in charge, and no one will be following orders from this person."

                                                      All of these factors point to the benefits of registering Neighborhood Watch groups, who receive training, vetting, and work intimately with police. "It comes down to [knowing] the person that's out there. If you're not partnering with a law enforcement agency, who vets these people? How do we know? We could be sitting talking in a meeting, talking about going on vacation, and our alarms and locks, and the person in the meeting, who is a member of the neighborhood watch, could be the person who is going to break into your house -- and we don't know that," Tutko warned.

                                                      The tragedy of Trayvon Martin's death at the hands of someone who claimed to be a Neighborhood Watch captain will not alter the structure of the organization. Yet, "Our condolences go out to the family, because this was not necessary," Tutko said of the Trayvon Martin shooting.

                                                      "The only change will be to use this as an example of what not to do," he confirmed.

                                                      "Neighborhood Watch -- the way we teach it, and the way it has always been -- is based on the premise that we don't carry weapons, nor do we intervene in any incidences," the leader continued. "Because what that does is escalate a situation and makes a volunteer another victim. We'll use this sad event as a bad example, but we won't be changing any literature or protocols."

                                                      For Caldwell, Martin's death might strengthen the resolve of Neighborhood Watch volunteers to do good.

                                                      "Does this put a blemish on Neighborhood Watch? At first I thought it might," Caldwell concluded. "But the people that are truly trained, that are part of Neighborhood Watch, know that this is more the exception to the rule, than anything else," she said of Martin's shooting.

                                                      "And they know what the right program is, and what the wrong program is. This has made people stronger and more determined that they get people involved in the right way. They want to reinforce the philosophy of Neighborhood Watch."

                                                      "When you are dealing with thousands of volunteers -- people who have said we are going to step up to the plate and help make our neighborhood better -- if it's someone that I or an officer has an uncomfortable feeling about, or a neighbor might come up and say 'that person really isn't safe,' we check it out," Caldwell said. "We try to be careful about who becomes part of the Neighborhood Watch."

                                                      But some areas lack the necessary police resources to conduct background checks on all Neighborhood Watch volunteers, because they are strapped for cash, Caldwell continued. Another pitfall is that Neighborhood Watch training does not involve any psychological evaluation.

                                                      Yet, Tutko believes that if Zimmerman had tried to join or start a registered group, he would have been stopped. The fact that Zimmerman was known to have made over 40 calls to police to report suspicious activities in recent months would have raised suspicions of him. "If the police were called that many times, you look at what the end game was," he said. "Was there anything found? If nothing was found, that person needs to be counseled, or reeducated, or otherwise told you are not going to be allowed on the Neighborhood Watch."

                                                      Zimmerman also called himself the "captain" of his neighborhood watch leading many to question whether it is some sort of militaristic organization, which might have emboldened Martin's killer to use violence. "When you say 'block captain'? To me that's an administrative person, someone who puts together schedules," Tutko clarified. "But certainly you're not the person in charge, and no one will be following orders from this person."

                                                      All of these factors point to the benefits of registering Neighborhood Watch groups, who receive training, vetting, and work intimately with police. "It comes down to [knowing] the person that's out there. If you're not partnering with a law enforcement agency, who vets these people? How do we know? We could be sitting talking in a meeting, talking about going on vacation, and our alarms and locks, and the person in the meeting, who is a member of the neighborhood watch, could be the person who is going to break into your house -- and we don't know that," Tutko warned.

                                                      The tragedy of Trayvon Martin's death at the hands of someone who claimed to be a Neighborhood Watch captain will not alter the structure of the organization. Yet, "Our condolences go out to the family, because this was not necessary," Tutko said of the Trayvon Martin shooting.

                                                      "The only change will be to use this as an example of what not to do," he confirmed.

                                                      "Neighborhood Watch -- the way we teach it, and the way it has always been -- is based on the premise that we don't carry weapons, nor do we intervene in any incidences," the leader continued. "Because what that does is escalate a situation and makes a volunteer another victim. We'll use this sad event as a bad example, but we won't be changing any literature or protocols."

                                                      For Caldwell, Martin's death might strengthen the resolve of Neighborhood Watch volunteers to do good.

                                                      "Does this put a blemish on Neighborhood Watch? At first I thought it might," Caldwell concluded. "But the people that are truly trained, that are part of Neighborhood Watch, know that this is more the exception to the rule, than anything else," she said of Martin's shooting.

                                                      "And they know what the right program is, and what the wrong program is. This has made people stronger and more determined that they get people involved in the right way. They want to reinforce the philosophy of Neighborhood Watch."

                                                      www.thegrio.com/specials/t...ization.php
                                                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                        Wed, April 11, 2012 - 11:12 AM
                                                        "George Zimmerman not a member of recognized neighborhood watch organization "

                                                        This is a misleading title. The article does not go on to support that. It goes on to say that he was not a member of any neighborhood watch program recognized by the National Sheriff's Association, but it indeed was recognized by the Sanford police department. Why should it be assumed that the National Sheriff's Association must recognize every neighborhood watch program? He was chosen by his neighbors to be the neighborhood watch captain, recognized by the Sanford police department as the neighborhood watch coordinator, and explicitly referred to in a Home Owner's Association newsletter as the neighborhood watch captain and advised residents to inform him of any complaints they may make to the police.
                                                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                          Wed, April 11, 2012 - 11:57 AM
                                                          I am simply pointing out that organized neighborhood watch programs teach against the exact actions that Zimmerman took. IF the neighborhood had a proper program recognized in the state then he would have recied proper training. As it is, Zimmerman himself just created his own group, of which he was the only member.
                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                      Tue, April 10, 2012 - 7:38 PM
                                                      <<"Because every indication is that he was super agressive in his self appointed patrols"">>

                                                      <What do you mean "every indication?" That's not evidence. That's spin. Please provide evidence to back that up.>


                                                      Not to poison the well here, but that's the kind of thing that Sharpton and his ilk said ad infinitum. Nonstop, those that followed this story heard that. There are a couple problems with that kind of thinking - past the spin & intentional/passive propaganda about this story. A) Beyond trying to define in a criminal manner what constitutes "super agressive", I'd like to point out that this is not illegal. At all. B) Even assuming that he was "super agressive", so what? What does that have to do with whomever started the violence? Keep in mind, even if Zimmerman DID initiate the violence, that is not covered by the SYG law, so any degree of "agressive" is not relevant. As I understand the law (and I have a beginner's understanding, to be sure), if Zimmerman was to have punched Trayvon in the face first - that is not in and of itself covered by the SYG law. It takes a reasonable fear for one's life in order to cause it to be relevant. If we were in FL, and I kicked you in the shin - you could not shoot me for that. BUT, if I kicked you in the shin and then jumped on top of you and beat your head into the ground? Well, you'd THEN be allowed to use any means at your disposal to stop me from doing so, including shooting me as I beat your head into the concrete.

                                                      <How do you know his focus was almost exclusively on young black males?>

                                                      Ron, he could have been a known white supremacist and it's not be relevant, as I understand it. It's not illegal to be a bigot and follow someone - even to the degree of initiating some communication between the two. That's more spin, is it not? I don't think that it's relevant to the main point, which is that someone initiated violence, and one of the two, fearing for his life, shot the other.
                                                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                        Wed, April 11, 2012 - 9:21 AM
                                                        <<n, he could have been a known white supremacist and it's not be relevant, as I understand it. It's not illegal to be a bigot and follow someone - even to the degree of initiating some communication between the two.

                                                        And yet it would be relevant if it were found that Zimmerman did indeed initiate the violence. IF he were found guilty of murder or manslaughter charges, and IF it were found to be racially motivated, that may well constitute a hate crime under United States law.. Why you keep ignoring this is beyond me Andrew.
                                                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                          Wed, April 11, 2012 - 4:52 PM
                                                          <Why you keep ignoring this is beyond me Andrew.>

                                                          I ignore it because it has NOTHING to do with the discussion at hand. Sure, there are TONS of things that MAY be relevant IF there is a witness seeing Zimmerman initiating the violence. Zimmerman's use of the word "coon", if it can be proven, would then POSSIBLY be admissible as some kind of evidence of a race-related crime. POSSIBLY, but that's a very, very dense point of law for which none of us can pretend to be experts.

                                                          <I have barely spoken about Zimmerman's violent past, so I am unsure why you are focusing on this aspect. >


                                                          Except, of course, you have been one of the only people to do it at all, "barely" or not.

                                                          <Are you under the impression that hate crime laws do not exist in this country? If that is the case, you are 100% mistaken.>

                                                          There has to be EVIDENCE that there was some kind of "hate crime". Just being a racist does not cause a "hate crime". There has to be a proven INTENT, and even using a racial slur - if that's what he said - I will assume is NOT ENOUGH to call it a hate crime.

                                                          <eality is that you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth, you indicate on the one hand that it is definately not relevant, but then go on to say that determination is up to the judge. Which is it?>

                                                          My opinion is that it's not relevant, but it's up to a judge. I've been consistent all along. I'm on atty.

                                                          <That possibility means it is fair game to discuss, regardless of your wish to ignore that which is inconvenient to your argument.>

                                                          "fair game" is a long way from a REASONABLE reason to discuss. Peter's arguments, vacuous as they are, are also "fair game"... That's y'r measure? How far into ridiculous would an argument have to go in order to be past "fair game"?

                                                          <That is an assumption on your part,>

                                                          No, it's NOT an "assumption". I have based 100% of my opinion on reports from the police and from evidence that I could SEE or HEAR. I have heard not one bit of evidence that suggests that Zimmerman had pulled his weapon BEFORE the initiation of conflict, reportedly by Trayvon.

                                                          <the entirety of the details of this case have not been released>

                                                          Yet, it HAS been released - discussed - about the witnesses that SAW Trayvon initiate the conflict.

                                                          <So tell me, where did you get access to the internal files of the justice department, the police department, and the DA? Because I would love to read this inside information you have.>

                                                          Just read what is available, that's all that you need.

                                                          <What struck me is that you did not actually quote any witnesses, just the "corroberation" assertion by the police.>

                                                          Yes. The police could be lying. They could be part of this big conspiracy. Everyone could be lying. True. Sure.

                                                          <If any of these witnesses indicate that they actually witnessed Trayvon strike first, then I will concede that I was wrong.>

                                                          Purportedly, already they HAVE. All you have to do is READ the information already present. I have not seen their actual statements, but others have, the police have stated that they have witnesses who SAW Trayvon strike Zimmerman first, and then jump on him after Zimmerman fell to the ground. Did they tell the truth? Who knows? Do these people really exist? Who knows? BUT! We have THAT more than we have the fantasy that you are presenting. So...who will I listen to? Reports of witnesses, or your fantasies & scenarios?

                                                          <If the latter is true, will you concede that you were wrong?>

                                                          OF COURSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! My ENTIRE argument has been based on reported WITNESSES, and on statements made by people that I HAVE HEARD, or video that I HAVE SEEN. Not one bit was my own supposition or speculation. Not one bit...unlike some.

                                                          <I just read the link and it turns out I was correct, the police NEVER indicated that the witnesses observed the beginning of the fight.>

                                                          Sorry. Not true. I have seen it written that there are two witnesses that saw Trayvon hit Zimmerman in the face, and then jump on him as Zimmerman fell. Will this come out in the court? We will see.

                                                          <media reporters in Florida spoke to “John” who told the reporters that Zimmerman was on the bottom, screaming for help, and was being attacked by Trayvon who was on top of him. All witnesses provided similar stories>

                                                          Yup. As I stated. The question is, does the Stand Your Ground law cover those who initiated the conflict, or any time through a conflict where one feels one's life is in danger? Look at this point of law: 776.041; 2(a) "Use of force by aggressor. —The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

                                                          (1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

                                                          (2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

                                                          (a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;..."

                                                          As I read that, even if they can prove that Zimmerman DID initiate the violence, 2(a) seems to cover him.

                                                          <In other words, thusfar we have heard from ZERO eye witnesses that observed the beginninf of the fight, ie., who struck first. FAIL!.

                                                          FAIL! No, YOU have heard "ZERO eye witnesses". I have heard SPECIFIC REPORTS of witnesses who SPECIFICALLY saw Trayvon punch Zimmerman. Is it true? Don't know, but I DO know that there are no reports as far as I know that say the opposite, so I am working along with the info that is available.

                                                          <when reality is such that you were WRONG.>

                                                          Sadly for everyone, I am not.

                                                          www.dailykos.com/story/201...d-for-Him-
                                                          'In fact, based on the statement from Trayvon's girlfriend, Trayvon initiated the conversation by asking "Why are you following me?". To which George responds "What are you doing here?" - and the line goes dead." So...there you are. That's according to Daily Kos. You wanna argue with them? Go at it man.

                                                          "What is known, through a witness statement, is that Martin struck first physically. He punched Zimmerman in the nose, breaking it. Zimmerman went down and Martin jumped on top of him slamming his head into the ground causing a wound that required 12 stitches. That action alone made Martin guilty of aggravated battery, which by law is justification for using deadly force for self defense...and a witness saw Martin physically attack Zimmerman first…and that Zimmerman was the one yelling for help, not Martin."
                                                          eclectablog.com/2012/03/on...lawadi.html

                                                          Did it really happen like that? Were the police honest about these witnesses? We don't know, but what we DO know is that they have made these statements...so using the AVAILABLE INFORMATION...NOT some fantasy or guesstimation or supposition or fantasysland wishfulthinking...what we have is the statements by the POLICE who said that there are WITNESSES who say that Trayvon STRUCK FIRST. The veracity of those statements will come out now, in court.

                                                          media.cmgdigital.com/shared/...port.pdf
                                                          "The one witness that has spoken to the press corroborates part of Zimmerman’s story that he was physically attacked by Martin and that it was Zimmerman who was screaming for help."

                                                          Uh oh...did they just make that up? Basically, we have statements about Trayvon initiating conflict...but nothing going the other way. So...why are you insisting that this did not happen? Why are you creating so much space between these reports & what you seem to hope is the actual reality?

                                                          <Regardless of my disagreement with Ron here, I do trust him to be honest and forthright. Not so much with you and your self serving debate tactics.>

                                                          HA! Oooooooooooooooooooooooooook.

                                                          <True, but if in the end no evidence identifies who started it, then tie goes to the person who enjoys a legal presumption of innocence.>

                                                          Is that ALSO "self serving debate tactics"? You know, using logic & points of actual LAW (which is all that I've done here)?

                                                          <So I am 100% correct in that you are conflating witness testimony with Zimmermans testimony.>

                                                          Too bad for you. Since...............that's not what I have done.

                                                          <What part of "that is the account that Zimmerman gave the police" don't you understand?>

                                                          What part of the numerous instances of citations of mentions of witnesses OTHER THAN ZIMMERMAN don't you understand?

                                                          <Exactly. Which means we can't pretend that the public knows the sum total of eye witness testimony.>

                                                          Welcome to the party. I've been saying this all along.

                                                          <Tell me Andrew, why do you keep repeating this false claim?>

                                                          Now you feel badly about that, right? All you had to do is commit to your own Google search. I have found multiple mentions of these witnesses, along with hearing it on TV multiple times. Oops.

                                                          <You also keep pretending that the public has the sum total of the evidence in this case.>

                                                          Strawman. I have said over and over that we DO NOT have all of the information available to the police. Another example of how you argue. You just make shit up.

                                                          <Strike that, you already have egg on your face being that you were caught fabricating witness testimony, so have at that egg sandwhich.>

                                                          Oh, Jeff. Jeff jeff jeff.

                                                          <I was speaking of the initial investigation, not the "present investigation".>

                                                          How was it not "proper"? Care to cite the improprieties?

                                                          <When you say you that Trayvon struck first, you are taking Zimmerman at face value. Primarily because there is ZERO witness testimony as to who struck first. Contrary to your FALSE claims otherwise.>

                                                          Oh, Jeff. Jeff jeff jeff. I'm making a notation of this, so when those witnesses come out (as expected, as reported), what will you say then?

                                                          <I am and always have been speaking of the intial investigation and the flaws that were inherent in their work.>

                                                          Funny. Ironic and funny. You rail about me making shit up, but then you say this without ANY care to substantiate this claim.

                                                          <Of course the information is not found by the court, it is found by the investigation.>

                                                          Only if there are witnesses to that fact. So far - no mention of such witnesses that I have seen.

                                                          <The reverse is also true, as far as we know there are not witnesses that have stated Martin initiated the violence. Contrary to your false claims.>

                                                          Like a dog who poos indoors, I am saving these statements to rub in y'r face.

                                                          <There you go again, Not one witness indicates they seen who threw the first punch. You can't just make evidence up, you ARE going to get caught when you lie here Andrew.>

                                                          [future tense = face -> poo]

                                                          <Do you believe that fear of being shot with a strangers gun gives you the right to lash out in fear and bash that persons head in the concrete, attempting to get them to drop the weapon? Would that scenario justify Martins actions in your eyes?>

                                                          Of course, but unfortunately for you, there's no report that Zimmerman brandished his weapon before being punched in the face.

                                                          <So tell me Andrew>

                                                          I can just picture you at your computer, having put some serious thought into whatever is coming up next...excitedly tappity-tapping away at your computer.

                                                          <now that Zimmerman is going to be charged, and now that an arrest is imminent, and now that the special prosecutor has indicated they dio indeed have new information in the case, don't you feel silly for pretending that the general public knows the totality of the evidence?>

                                                          Do you feel silly with that strawman? I NEVER said that "...the general public knows the totality of the evidence". Oooops.

                                                          <Will you concede that you were wronog?>

                                                          Gee...maybe when we hear the actual evidence - short of the reports of the evidence, which is what I have stated like......oh, 50 times now.

                                                          <Can you now admit that you completely misrepresented the eye witness testimony that has been released to the public?>

                                                          Not at all. Multiple reports of witnesses stating that Trayvon struck first. We'll see what they say in court.

                                                          <There is nothing wrong with admitting your errors, and in reality it elevates you in peoples eyes. So I would encourage you to step foward and not ignore this, or make excuses.>

                                                          So transparent.





                                                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                            Wed, April 11, 2012 - 5:31 PM
                                                            I am getting ready to head home, but I want to make a few quick points regarding your links and the continued dishonest manner that you are discussing this issue. The rest of your points I will once again destroy later. :)`

                                                            1.) www.dailykos.com/story/201...d-for-Him-
                                                            'In fact, based on the statement from Trayvon's girlfriend, Trayvon initiated the conversation by asking "Why are you following me?". To which George responds "What are you doing here?" - and the line goes dead." So...there you are. That's according to Daily Kos. You wanna argue with them? Go at it man.

                                                            Who spoke first speaks nothing of who swung the first punch. So why would I argue against the Daily Kos when I have never even denied that Martin spoke first? How is the above even an appropriate response in demonstrating your claim that witnesses indicate Martin struck first? You are losing it man....LOL!

                                                            2.) "What is known, through a witness statement, is that Martin struck first physically. He punched Zimmerman in the nose, breaking it. Zimmerman went down and Martin jumped on top of him slamming his head into the ground causing a wound that required 12 stitches. That action alone made Martin guilty of aggravated battery, which by law is justification for using deadly force for self defense...and a witness saw Martin physically attack Zimmerman first…and that Zimmerman was the one yelling for help, not Martin."
                                                            eclectablog.com/2012/03/on...lawadi.html

                                                            Ummm....that is just a response by some anonymous dude on a blog discussion, which carries as much weight as our own statements on here tribe.net. That is NOT witness testimony, that is some anonymous dudes opinion. You are only serving to dig your hole even deeper. Admit your error and stop desperately trying to find something to save your ego.

                                                            <<Did it really happen like that? Were the police honest about these witnesses?

                                                            Ummm....the Police never indicated that there is a witness that seen Trayvon throw the first punch. Which is why you are now relying on anonymous posts of some dudes opinion on a discussion about a blog, it was not even in the blog itself. FAIL yet again dude.

                                                            <<but what we DO know is that they have made these statements...... what we have is the statements by the POLICE who said that there are WITNESSES who say that Trayvon STRUCK FIRST. The veracity of those statements will come out now, in court.

                                                            I just read the entire PDF of the report you provided and it does not even discuss witness testimony. When and where did the police EVER indicate that a witness seen Trayvon strike first? Because you have failed to provide us with ANY evidence that this assertion is true. FAIL AGAIN!

                                                            3.) "The one witness that has spoken to the press corroborates part of Zimmerman’s story that he was physically attacked by Martin and that it was Zimmerman who was screaming for help."

                                                            Umm......that quote is not from an eye witness or even a reporter, it is also from the same blog dude! How about if you take a moment to consider that maybe you made a mistake, and then do your research from that standpoint. Rather than desperately googling information to back up your story? It will save you a TON of humiliation.

                                                            4.) Basically, we have statements about Trayvon initiating conflict

                                                            Except we don't. Asking "why are you following me" is NOT an initiation of either violence or conflct, it is an appropriate question to ask some strange dude following you in the dark.

                                                            Seriously bud, you are not even going to get Ron to agree with the baseless assertions you are putting forth, and then desperately trying to fit the evidence around those baseless assertions. FAIL!!!

                                                            Some people can't see when they are mistaken. Ron, can you help Andrew out here?
                                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                              Thu, April 12, 2012 - 1:24 AM
                                                              Jeff, what you are doing is called "self reinforcement". You have NO IDEA if you are right, but you have done all that you could to insist that I'm right. What have I done? All I have done is repeat what has been reported about the numerous witnesses that reportedly SAW the altercation. In fact, I have used the word "reportedly" over and over again when Ron stated that there were these witnesses. Reportedly. And, I'm still holding out on that. You don't know - only those reported witnesses. So, while you can THINK...nay, IMAGINE that you have found holes in what you imagine is MY "lies", all you are doing is AGAIN showing how you act.

                                                              Jeff, IF these witnesses come forward, IF these reported witnesses say what has been related...what the fuck will you say then? Oh, you'll backpedal. Like you always do. Lordy, I was gone for how long? A year? And you're just the same, same sad person. Go and argue with someone, Jeff. Enjoy.
                                                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                Thu, April 12, 2012 - 2:21 PM
                                                                <<Jeff, what you are doing is called "self reinforcement".

                                                                Actually, falsifying witness testimony to bolster your argument is called "self reinforcement". I have done no such thing.

                                                                <<You have NO IDEA if you are right

                                                                About what specifically?

                                                                <<All I have done is repeat what has been reported about the numerous witnesses that reportedly SAW the altercation.

                                                                Except nobody from a legitimate source has reported any such thing. And just for your own clarification, some anonymous dude commenting on a blog is NOT a legitimate source.

                                                                <<So, while you can THINK...nay, IMAGINE that you have found holes in what you imagine is MY "lies", all you are doing is AGAIN showing how you act.

                                                                I don't have to "imagine" being that your words are here for everyone to read. You are making the same mistake others are making and then quoting these peoples errors to reinforce your own mistatements. Just because Martin was on top in the middle of the fight does not mean he initiated the violence. Let me show you just a few of the the flat out false statements you have made:

                                                                Andrew: "but what we DO know is that they have made these statements...... what we have is the statements by the POLICE who said that there are WITNESSES who say that Trayvon STRUCK FIRST." FALSE.

                                                                Andrew: "Basically, we have statements about Trayvon initiating conflict" FALSE.

                                                                This shows "how you act".

                                                                <<Jeff, IF these witnesses come forward, IF these reported witnesses say what has been related...what the fuck will you say then?

                                                                Recognize the validity of their statements and continue to hold my head high. Why? Because I never indicated that there are not any eye witnesses to the initiation of the conflict, just that such information has not been released by either the police or the witnesses themselves as you have falsely indicated. Face it, you fucked up.

                                                                << And you're just the same, same sad person. Go and argue with someone, Jeff. Enjoy.

                                                                Yes, the same sad person that does not allow others to put forth false statements. If you don't want to be humiliated, don't try to mislead either me or the members of this tribe. Simple as that.
                                                              • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                Thu, April 12, 2012 - 3:51 PM
                                                                SANFORD, Fla. — After weeks in hiding, George Zimmerman made his first courtroom appearance Thursday in the shooting of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, and prosecutors outlined their murder case in court papers, saying the neighborhood watch volunteer followed and confronted the black teenager after a police dispatcher told him to back off.

                                                                The brief outline, contained in an affidavit filed in support of the second-degree murder charges, appeared to contradict Zimmerman's claim that Martin attacked him after he had turned away and was returning to his vehicle.

                                                                In the affidavit, prosecutors also said that Martin's mother identified cries for help heard in the background of a 911 call as her son's. There had been some question as to whether Martin or Zimmerman was the one crying out.

                                                                The account of the shooting was released as Zimmerman, 28, appeared at a four-minute hearing in a jailhouse courtroom, setting in motion what could be a long, drawn-out process, or an abrupt and disappointingly short one for the Martin family because of the strong legal protections contained in Florida's "stand your ground" law on self-defense.

                                                                During the hearing, Zimmerman stood up straight, held his head high and wore a gray jail jumpsuit. He spoke only to answer "Yes, sir" twice after he was asked basic questions from the judge, who was not in the courtroom but on closed-circuit TV. The defendant's hair was shaved down to stubble and he had a thin goatee. His hands were shackled in front of him.

                                                                He did not enter a plea; that will happen at his arraignment, which was set for May 29.

                                                                To prove second-degree murder, prosecutors must show that Zimmerman committed an "imminently dangerous" act that showed a "depraved" lack of regard for human life. The charge carries a mandatory sentence of 25 years in prison and a maximum of life.

                                                                The special prosecutor in the case, Angela Corey, has refused to explain exactly how she arrived at the charge. But in the affidavit, prosecutors said Zimmerman spotted Martin while patrolling his gated community, got out of his vehicle and followed the young man.

                                                                Prosecutors interviewed a friend of Martin's who was talking to him over the phone moments before the shooting. His parents' lawyer has said that Martin was talking to his girlfriend back in Miami.

                                                                "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."

                                                                During a recorded call to a police dispatcher, Zimmerman "made reference to people he felt had committed and gotten away with break-ins in his neighborhood. Later while talking about Martin, Zimmerman stated `these a------s, they always get away' and also said `these f-----g punks,' said the affidavit, available at . apne.ws/Itn7Nu

                                                                It continued: "When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and that the responding officer would meet him. Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home."

                                                                "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued," prosecutors said in their account.

                                                                The account provided no details on the struggle other than to say that witnesses heard numerous calls for help and that Martin's mother reviewed the 911 recordings and recognized her son's cry.

                                                                Zimmerman told authorities that Martin attacked him as he going back to his vehicle, punched him in the face, knocked him down and began slamming head against the sidewalk.

                                                                At Thursday's hearing, the case was assigned to Circuit Judge Jessica Recksiedler, a 39-year-old former assistant state attorney from Sanford who was elected to the bench in 2010. Zimmerman is being held without bail at the county jail.

                                                                For all the relief among civil rights activists over the arrest, legal experts warned there is a real chance it could get thrown out before it ever goes to trial because of Florida's "stand your ground" law, which gives people a broad right to use deadly force without having to retreat from a fight.

                                                                At a pretrial hearing, Zimmerman's lawyers would only have to prove by a preponderance of evidence – a relatively low legal standard – that he acted in self-defense in order to get a judge to toss out the second-murder charges. And if that fails and the case does go to trial, the defense can raise the argument all over again.

                                                                There's a "high likelihood it could be dismissed by the judge even before the jury gets to hear the case," Florida defense attorney Richard Hornsby said. Karin Moore, an assistant professor of law at Florida A&M University, said the law "puts a tremendous burden on the state to prove that it wasn't self-defense."

                                                                Zimmerman's attorney, Mark O'Mara, said his client will plead not guilty. At some point soon, the lawyer is expected to ask the judge for a hearing on "stand your ground."

                                                                "It is going to be a facet of this defense, I'm sure," O'Mara said in an interview. "That statute has some troublesome portions to it, and we're now going to have some conversations and discussions about it as a state. But right now it is the law of Florida and it is the law that is going to have an impact on this case."

                                                                Martin family and their lawyer acknowledged the arrest is just a first step.

                                                                "I think that it will start the process that we are pushing for," said Martin's father, Tracy Martin, "but we can't just stop because we have an arrest. We got to keep pushing to get a conviction, and after a conviction we have to certainly continue to push to get a stiff sentence."

                                                                Martin family attorney Ben Crump said he wants to make the repeal or the amending of "stand your ground" laws in Florida and other states to be a big part of Trayvon Martin's legacy. "We're not the wild, wild west," Crump said.

                                                                As for Zimmerman, O'Mara said after the court appearance: "He is tired. He has gone through some tribulations. He is facing second-degree murder charges now. He is frightened. That would frighten any of us."

                                                                "He has a lot of hatred focused on him right now," the defense attorney said. "I'm hoping that the hatred settles down now that we're moving forward."

                                                                www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...70.html
                                                                • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                  Fri, April 13, 2012 - 1:07 AM
                                                                  "When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that "

                                                                  Well, we know that's false, since we all have access to his call. The dispatcher (a female btw, not a "he", unless it's a "he" with a very effeminate voice) said that they didn't "need" Zimmerman to follow Martin. She didn't "instruct" him not to follow Martin. Even if Zimmerman did continue to follow Martin (which I don't think has been established by evidence available in the public realm), Zimmerman could have reasonably interpreted the comment to mean that the police didn't need him to follow Martin, but that he was still going to go beyond the call of duty and give the police additional help beyond what they said they needed.

                                                                  ""Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued," prosecutors said in their account.

                                                                  The account provided no details on the struggle other than to say that witnesses heard numerous calls for help and that Martin's mother reviewed the 911 recordings and recognized her son's cry. "

                                                                  That's it? So where's even the accusation of evidence supporting 2nd degree murder? Even if Zimmerman was the one who confronted Martin, it doesn't follow that Martin didn't therefore hit Zimmerman and beat his head into the ground and refuse to stop even after Zimmerman repeatedly called out for help.

                                                                  "At a pretrial hearing, Zimmerman's lawyers would only have to prove by a preponderance of evidence – a relatively low legal standard – that he acted in self-defense in order to get a judge to toss out the second-murder charges."

                                                                  Really? That's a REALLY low standard of evidence. Barring any fear of political repercussions, there's a real chance this could be tossed. But with all the heat surrounding this case, a judge may not toss it even if he believes that a preponderance of the evidence supports Zimmerman's story. That would be a shame if that were the case.
                                                                  • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                    Fri, April 13, 2012 - 9:13 AM
                                                                    <<but that he was still going to go beyond the call of duty and give the police additional help beyond what they said they needed.

                                                                    Which would = vigilante cowboy.

                                                                    <<That's it? So where's even the accusation of evidence supporting 2nd degree murder?

                                                                    Is the trial not the place for this evidence to come out?
                                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                      Fri, April 13, 2012 - 11:02 AM
                                                                      "Which would = vigilante cowboy."

                                                                      So wanting to help the police equals "vigilante cowboy?" Would you really want to live in a world where people didn't want to help police, thinking that doing so amounted to being a "vigilante cowboy?"

                                                                      Vigilante: from the Oxford English Dictionary: "a member of a self-appointed group of citizens who undertake law enforcement in their community without legal authority, typically because the legal agencies are thought to be inadequate."

                                                                      Providing additional help to the police does not per se fit the above definition, since helping the legal authorities out does not equate with acting without legal authority, nor does it constitute undertaking law enforcement.

                                                                      And I have no idea what you mean by "cowboy." Was he shooting his gun into the air screaming "Wahoo!" as he herded cattle? Pardon me, but that label sounds like pure hype.

                                                                      "Is the trial not the place for this evidence to come out? "

                                                                      Trials are not supposed to be fact finding enterprises. A prosecutor is supposed to have sufficient grounds for filing a charge before he files charges. A charging affidavit is like a civil complaint. It doesn't have to lay out all the evidence. But it's supposed to make allegations that, if true, would support whatever the charge is. If it doesn't, then like a civil complaint, the other side can ask the judge to toss it on the grounds that even if everything the other side said in its filing papers is true, there is no basis for a case. As written, this charging affidavit does not even allege facts that would support a 2nd degree murder charge, and as such is legally deficient. Have you seen the Alan Dershowitz interview on this matter?

                                                                      www.mediaite.com/tv/harvar...unethical/

                                                                      If in fact the prosecutor doesn't have evidence to back 2nd degree murder (and she hasn't even alleged in her affidavit that she does have such) and is overcharging for political or negotiation purposes, then she is being unethical, at least for the reason that by charging Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder, Zimmerman can't post bond and must remain in jail for several weeks until a hearing. if he was charged with manslaughter, he could have been out on bond already. Depriving the accused of civil liberties for political purposes or without sufficient evidence to justify it would, if true, be grossly unethical.

                                                                      And contrary to your assessment of her press conference, Mr. Dershowitz for one thought it came across as more of a political campaign speech.

                                                                      Dershowitz brought up a good point. According to him, nowhere else in the western world are judges and prosecutors elected, giving them political motives for pursuing various cases and appealing to various groups who may have declared interests in the outcome of various criminal cases. Michael Nifong clearly pursued the Duke Lacrosse players for political reasons, and repeatedly gave political speeches before African American groups where he touted his prosecution of the players.
                                                                      • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                        Fri, April 13, 2012 - 11:53 AM
                                                                        <<So wanting to help the police equals "vigilante cowboy?"

                                                                        Yes, in particular being that such actions were discouraged by the police and are against standard watch procedure. They did not need his help, they did not need him to act in the capacity of a policeman by following and possibly confronting a suspect.

                                                                        <<Providing additional help to the police does not per se fit the above definition

                                                                        The Police did not need his help, as they told him.

                                                                        <<And I have no idea what you mean by "cowboy." Was he shooting his gun into the air screaming "Wahoo!" as he herded cattle? Pardon me, but that label sounds like pure hype.

                                                                        What is pure hype is your mischaracterization of what I meant by "cowboy".

                                                                        <<"Is the trial not the place for this evidence to come out? "

                                                                        Trials are not supposed to be fact finding enterprises.<<

                                                                        Is the point of a trial not to determine what is factual and what is not factual? You gather evidence before the trial, that evidence is submitted at trial, and the veracity of the evidence is then evaluated, wiht the determination as to what is true and what is not true to be decided by a jury and/or judge.

                                                                        <<But it's supposed to make allegations that, if true, would support whatever the charge is.

                                                                        I do believe the prosecutor made several allegations in the charging statement, essentially contradicting Zimmermans story and indicating that he lied to police about the events of that night. Primarly that Zimmerman chased Martin down, got out of his vehicle and followed him, and then confronted Martin after the Police recommend that he not do that. Not to mention that they are indicating that the screams for help were from Trayvon.
                                                                        • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                          Sat, April 14, 2012 - 1:13 AM
                                                                          "The Police did not need his help, as they told him. "

                                                                          That doesn't make it "vigilantism."

                                                                          "What is pure hype is your mischaracterization of what I meant by "cowboy". "

                                                                          What are you talking about? I haven't characterized it. I've asked you what you meant by it? You've just repeatedly used the word without any explanation of what you mean by it. It just comes across as using a value laden pejorative for spin purposes.

                                                                          "Is the point of a trial not to determine what is factual and what is not factual?"

                                                                          No. The purpose of a trial is to see whether the state satisfies its burden of proof and justifies its deprivation of the civil liberties of the accused. A prosecutor is supposed to have determined to her or his satisfaction what the relevant facts of the case were, based on discovered evidence, before he or she tries to take the matter to trial. Ethically, a prosecutor is supposed to be convinced that evidence reaches the standard of beyond reasonable doubt before pushing the matter for trial.
                                                                          • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                            Mon, April 16, 2012 - 12:58 PM
                                                                            <<"The Police did not need his help, as they told him. "

                                                                            That doesn't make it "vigilantism." >>

                                                                            Sure, if you look at it in a vacuum. But we must evaluate the totality of his actions.

                                                                            Vigilantism: Taking the law into one's own hands and attempting to effect justice according to one's own understanding of right and wrong; action taken by a voluntary association of persons who organize themselves for the purpose of protecting a common interest, such as liberty, property, or personal security/
                                                                            legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilantism

                                                                            <<What are you talking about? I haven't characterized it.

                                                                            Clearl you did. Ron:" "Was he shooting his gun into the air screaming "Wahoo!" as he herded cattle? Pardon me, but that label sounds like pure hype. "

                                                                            <<You've just repeatedly used the word without any explanation of what you mean by it.

                                                                            Then maybe you should ask your question in an appropriate manner, at least if you are interested in my actual answer. As opposed to asking a question, assuming the answer is in the affirmative, and then calling that which you are falsely attributing to me as "hype".

                                                                            << Ethically, a prosecutor is supposed to be convinced that evidence reaches the standard of beyond reasonable doubt before pushing the matter for trial.

                                                                            And you don't believe the prosecutor is convinced?
                                                                            • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                              Mon, April 16, 2012 - 9:58 PM
                                                                              "Vigilantism: Taking the law into one's own hands and attempting to effect justice according to one's own understanding of right and wrong; action taken by a voluntary association of persons who organize themselves for the purpose of protecting a common interest, such as liberty, property, or personal security/ "

                                                                              That doesn't support your assertion Jeff, since simply providing assistance to the police does not per se constitute taking the law into one's own hand, or attempting to effect justice according to one's understanding of right and wrong,

                                                                              "Clearl you did. Ron:" "Was he shooting his gun into the air screaming "Wahoo!" as he herded cattle? Pardon me, but that label sounds like pure hype. "

                                                                              The first sentence was a sarcastic question, not a characterization. The second sentence wasn't a characterization at all, rather than just my reaction to the value laden label )"cowboy") given that you hadn't explained what you meant by it. Again, rather than characterize your term, I was simply expressing that I was completely at a loss as to what you meant by it, given that you hadn't defined it.

                                                                              "Then maybe you should ask your question in an appropriate manner, at least if you are interested in my actual answer"

                                                                              Hey, what's wrong with a little sarcasm? It wasn't personal, and you know what my question was.

                                                                              " and then calling that which you are falsely attributing to me as "hype". "

                                                                              You used the term "cowboy." That term is what I called hype. That I noted your use of the term is thus not a false attribution. Obviously I didn't literally think you meant that you believed that Zimmerman was herding cattle.

                                                                              "And you don't believe the prosecutor is convinced?"

                                                                              I don't know. Why should I be? You don't think it's beyond possibility that she knows she doesn't have a case, thinks that the case will be dismissed or else lost before a jury (at which point she could just blame the judge or the jury), and just charged Zimmerman for the political benefit of doing so?
                                                                    • Re: Turning Tales on Trayvon

                                                                      Sun, April 15, 2012 - 2:54 PM
                                                                      <Is the trial not the place for this evidence to come out?>

                                                                      Dude, this is not a TV show. Trials are generally not "You can't handle the truth!" venues. Both sides put together their information - collected previously, not at court. Lawyers will bring their info up with witnesses, and then try to discredit the other side's witnesses. They don't collect evidence at court.

                                                                      <Trials are not supposed to be fact finding ent