George W. hates Ted Cruz

[tomdalton22]

I thought I remembered from Zimmermans trial the testimony of some girl that Trey von was texting with claiming that Trey von had texted her that Zimmerman was following him and making him nervous.

The theft and graffiti are more significant than being stupid on social media.

I guess I had thought he had just gotten into a couple of fights in middle school; I got into a few fights at that age in school myself.

That is more thuggish than I had heard; I guess I'm a little surprised he was allowed to continue in school athletics. I don't think back in my day anyone would've been allowed to have done so.

I think she was discredited when she lied about writing a letter to Trayvon's mom

 

[tinselwolverine]

I think she was discredited when she lied about writing a letter to Trayvon's mom

Because it would be assumed she was lying about the phone conversation and texts with Trayvon?

If that's the case, maybe she was lying about that; maybe she wasn't.

Rachel Jeantel testimony, Huff Post

ABC News

 

[tomdalton22]

Because it would be assumed she was lying about the phone conversation and texts with Trayvon?

If that's the case, maybe she was lying about that; maybe she wasn't.

Rachel Jeantel testimony, Huff Post

ABC News

from what I remember she said she wrote a letter to his mom about what happened. The letter was in cursive. On the stand she couldn't read the letter because she said she couldn't read or write in cursive. Also, the texts were gone. If it were me and my friend got killed right after he sent me some texts about some guy "chasing him"...I think I would keep the texts.

Edit...Just read the story. Now it is coming back to me.

Sounds like Trayvon was a racist!

 

[tinselwolverine]

at the time of the trial I thought I heard that they were texts Also, the texts were gone. If it were me and my friend got killed right after he sent me some texts about some guy "chasing him"...I think I would keep the texts.

At the time of the trial I thought she testified that they were texts but looking back at the links that I posted They appear to have been telephone conversations.

EDIT: I don't remember anything about verification as to whether the two were actually on the phone with each other or not, but that certainly could have been discovered.

 

[tomdalton22]

At the time of the trial I thought she testified that they were texts but looking back at the links that I posted They appear to have been telephone conversations.

I thought they were texts too...it's been a long time since that trial.

 

[tinselwolverine]

EDIT: I don't remember anything about verification as to whether the two were actually on the phone with each other or not, but that certainly could have been discovered.

As I think about it, it would seem to me that the prosecution would have verified the phone records of the calls actually having taken place before calling her to the witness stand.

 

[Michchamp]

Because it would be assumed she was lying about the phone conversation and texts with Trayvon?

If that's the case, maybe she was lying about that; maybe she wasn't.

Rachel Jeantel testimony, Huff Post

ABC News

We discussed this case extensively, but it was so long ago you cam forgive the racist republitard posters here for forgetting that the prosecution sandbagged their own case.

the AD undermined his own witness (Jeantel) at trial... you don't do that if you're looking to convict. and everything discediting her was circumstantial... none of the inconsistencies in her story directly related to the phone conversation she had with Trayvon Martin.
the AD basically hung her out to dry.

 

[Gulo Blue]

We discussed this case extensively, but it was so long ago you cam forgive the racist republitard posters here for forgetting that the prosecution sandbagged their own case.

the AD undermined his own witness (Jeantel) at trial... you don't do that if you're looking to convict. and everything discediting her was circumstantial... none of the inconsistencies in her story directly related to the phone conversation she had with Trayvon Martin.
the AD basically hung her out to dry.

There was never anything 100% conclusive about who initiated the violence, but Zimmerman's story was BS. He didn't walk past the front of a house, around to the back of a house, just looking for a house number. I suspect he was in the wrong, but I'm not sure the proof was sufficient to convict, even with a better DA.

 

[Spartanmack]

I thought I remembered from Zimmermans trial the testimony of some girl that Trey von was texting with claiming that Trey von had texted her that Zimmerman was following him and making him nervous.

The theft and graffiti are more significant than being stupid on social media.

I guess I had thought he had just gotten into a couple of fights in middle school; I got into a few fights at that age in school myself.

That is more thuggish than I had heard; I guess I'm a little surprised he was allowed to continue in school athletics. I don't think back in my day anyone would've been allowed to have done so.

Zimmerman was following Martin in his car while on the phone with police. Presumably, that is when Martin was on the phone with his friend Rachel telling her he's being followed. At some point Zimmerman tells the 911 operator he's following the guy and the operator says something like 'we don't need you to do that' and Zimmerman replies 'OK' - the transcript of the call is available to anyone who knows how to use google. He even tells the 911 operator he doesn't want to give his personal address because he doesn't know where the kid is - like he could be listening to him and get his address. After that it's unclear what took place, but based on the physical evidence and Zimmerman's testimony validated by 2 lie detector tests taken the next day, it's entirely plausible (actually highly likely) that Martin surprised Zimmerman by assaulting him, the scuffle ensues, Zimmerman, being a tubby wimp like michturd is getting his ass whipped and says Martin told him 'you're gonna die tonight' as he's kicking his ass. Zimmerman draws his legal concealed weapon, shoots and kills Martin. But according to Turd, in order to believe that instead of his entirely speculative rendition of what he THINKS happened, you have to be racist.

 

[Spartanmack]

We discussed this case extensively, but it was so long ago you cam forgive the racist republitard posters here for forgetting that the prosecution sandbagged their own case.

the AD undermined his own witness (Jeantel) at trial... you don't do that if you're looking to convict. and everything discediting her was circumstantial... none of the inconsistencies in her story directly related to the phone conversation she had with Trayvon Martin.
the AD basically hung her out to dry.

Yes, the prosecution sandbagged their own case that they brought after local law enforcement, the DA and the FBI decided there wasn't enough evidence to detain Zimmerman or charge him with murder, manslaughter or even violating Martin's civil rights. The special prosecutor brought in who was determined to indict before even looking at the case sandbagged the case. That's hilarious. The closest thing they have to any evidence is a girl who gave multiple different stories about a phone conversation she was having with Trayvon from 245 miles away, and you think that's rock solid evidence that was wasted due to an incompetent prosecutor. She is more believable than the guy who was there and passed multiple lie detector tests. Do you really have no idea how ridiculous that sounds? The absolute best part about this is if Rachel Jenteal was white and a witness for the defense, you'd be pounding the table about how untrustworthy the dumb, uneducated, racist redneck was and how easy it is to see through her lies.

So according to you, the lack of a conviction had nothing to do with the lack of evidence to support an indictment, the well documented physical evidence, Zimmerman successfully passing 2 lie detector tests and the complete lack of evidence to support the charges. It was the incompetence of the prosecutor. Good speculation passed of as fact without anything to back it up. You make up your entire narrative then have the nerve to accuse others of "forgetting" the details of the case. Just more michtard smoke and mirrors. You're either one of the worst lawyers on the planet or possibly a really good unethical lying scumbag lawyer - but probably just a really bad, unethical lying scumbag lawyer. I'll give you this, the things you say often make me laugh out loud so thanks for that.

 

[Spartanmack]

There was never anything 100% conclusive about who initiated the violence, but Zimmerman's story was BS. He didn't walk past the front of a house, around to the back of a house, just looking for a house number. I suspect he was in the wrong, but I'm not sure the proof was sufficient to convict, even with a better DA.

There was nothing 100% conclusive BUT you're able to determine with a fair degree of certainty that Zimmerman's story was "BS" even though he passed 2 lie detector tests the day after the incident. Even if he was still following Martin, despite him saying "OK" when the cops told him they didn't need him to follow him, you suspect he was in the wrong. Are you saying it's OK to assault someone for following you, when you have every opportunity in the world to flee? Or are you saying you believe Zimmerman assaulted Martin despite passing those 2 lie detector tests the day after the incident - one in which he was asked directly "did you confront the guy you shot" to which he responds "no" and "were you in fear for your life when you shot the guy?" to which he responds "yes" among several other questions. And the conclusion of the examiner after both tests was that Zimmerman told "substantially the complete truth" but that's not good enough.

So why do you suspect Zimmerman was in the wrong? What evidence do you have to support this? Or is it perhaps just a biased hunch? I get that michturd read that Zimmerman wanted to be a cop and michturd thinks all cops are racist murderers so naturally he is programmed to spin his fiction as fact and accuse people who disagree of being racist. If you can show some evidence to support that I'm all ears. I followed this story very closely almost from the beginning and it didn't take much effort at all to see how wildly inaccurately this story was being reported in the media. The press tried so hard to convict this guy in the eyes of the public and virtually everything they said was either inaccurate, grossly exaggerated or taken way out of context. Even in the reporting on the lie detector tests, they try to make you think the results are unreliable. George Zimmerman is not some kind of criminal mastermind able to defeat fairly sophisticated scientific interrogation methods. If he was lying, he would have failed the tests.

 

[Gulo Blue]

There was nothing 100% conclusive BUT you're able to determine with a fair degree of certainty that Zimmerman's story was "BS" even though he passed 2 lie detector tests the day after the incident. Even if he was still following Martin, despite him saying "OK" when the cops told him they didn't need him to follow him, you suspect he was in the wrong. Are you saying it's OK to assault someone for following you, when you have every opportunity in the world to flee? Or are you saying you believe Zimmerman assaulted Martin despite passing those 2 lie detector tests the day after the incident - one in which he was asked directly "did you confront the guy you shot" to which he responds "no" and "were you in fear for your life when you shot the guy?" to which he responds "yes" among several other questions. And the conclusion of the examiner after both tests was that Zimmerman told "substantially the complete truth" but that's not good enough.

So why do you suspect Zimmerman was in the wrong? What evidence do you have to support this? Or is it perhaps just a biased hunch? I get that michturd read that Zimmerman wanted to be a cop and michturd thinks all cops are racist murderers so naturally he is programmed to spin his fiction as fact and accuse people who disagree of being racist. If you can show some evidence to support that I'm all ears. I followed this story very closely almost from the beginning and it didn't take much effort at all to see how wildly inaccurately this story was being reported in the media. The press tried so hard to convict this guy in the eyes of the public and virtually everything they said was either inaccurate, grossly exaggerated or taken way out of context. Even in the reporting on the lie detector tests, they try to make you think the results are unreliable. George Zimmerman is not some kind of criminal mastermind able to defeat fairly sophisticated scientific interrogation methods. If he was lying, he would have failed the tests.

Why are you asking for evidence and claiming that I'm certain? I haven't said anything to suggest I'm the kind of person that would think that I know what happened.

Having a suspicion is different from asserting that you know something.

I'm guessing, at some point in your life, you've seen two people in conflict, both thinking the other person started it. Happens all the time. So I don't have any problem believing that Zimmerman could have passed a lie detector while being wrong about how big his role was in the incident. I also think his story, when compared to a map, doesn't make any sense. Do I know who initiated contact, of course not. Who escalated the violence and how much, of course not. But, I think Zimmerman's story, in comparison to the map, shows that he can pass a lie detector while telling a story that doesn't make sense. And it's entirely possible they were both in the wrong. What part of Zimmerman's story explains why he was behind the houses?

 

[Gulo Blue]

I could be remembering it wrong, but I thought Zimmerman claimed he wasn't following Martin when Martin attacked him and he was only out looking for a house number to give the police. But why do you go from your car on the road into peoples' backyards where Martin's body was found to find a house number?

 

[Spartanmack]

Why are you asking for evidence and claiming that I'm certain? I haven't said anything to suggest I'm the kind of person that would think that I know what happened.

Having a suspicion is different from asserting that you know something.

I'm guessing, at some point in your life, you've seen two people in conflict, both thinking the other person started it. Happens all the time. So I don't have any problem believing that Zimmerman could have passed a lie detector while being wrong about how big his role was in the incident. I also think his story, when compared to a map, doesn't make any sense. Do I know who initiated contact, of course not. Who escalated the violence and how much, of course not. But, I think Zimmerman's story, in comparison to the map, shows that he can pass a lie detector while telling a story that doesn't make sense. And it's entirely possible they were both in the wrong. What part of Zimmerman's story explains why he was behind the houses?

You said emphatically that his story was BS - that implies a fair degree of certainty. As for your other point, both people probably do say the other guy started it but I don't agree they both believe it - usually one of them is lying to avoid getting in trouble.

Looking at the map and reading the transcript of the call, it's not hard to see how his story makes sense. I was mistaken that he got out of his car just to look for an address - he was also following Martin on foot, but that doesn't make him a criminal or even indicate he was looking to confront him. He followed Martin through what he called a "pass through" (the space between buildings that leads to the sidewalk, probably an easement) and lost sight of him. The cop tells him he doesn't need to follow him and Zimmerman says OK. He then tells the operator he doesn't know exactly where he is because he's on the sidewalk that runs through the development (he's in a common area, not chasing Martin through back yards) and can't see an address. So instead of giving an exact address, he directs the operator to tell the police to meet him at a particular spot. So is it so hard to believe that as he's walking back to his car to go and meet the police, Martin surprises him, starts beating the crap out of him and as Zimmerman said, tells him "you're gonna die tonight"? Considering the only injury Martin suffered was the gun shot and scratches on his knuckles (indicating he was striking Zimmerman and probably struck the ground) - he doesn't have scratches on his head or body, no bruises or any defensive wounds indicating Zimmerman assaulted him and the fact Zimmerman passed 2 lie detectors, it seems more than likely he's telling the truth.

 

[Gulo Blue]

You said emphatically that his story was BS - that implies a fair degree of certainty. As for your other point, both people probably do say the other guy started it but I don't agree they both believe it - usually one of them is lying to avoid getting in trouble.

Looking at the map and reading the transcript of the call, it's not hard to see how his story makes sense. I was mistaken that he got out of his car just to look for an address - he was also following Martin on foot, but that doesn't make him a criminal or even indicate he was looking to confront him. He followed Martin through what he called a "pass through" (the space between buildings, probably an easement) and lost sight of him. The cop tells him he doesn't need to follow him and Zimmerman says OK. He then tells the operator he doesn't know exactly where he is because he's on the sidewalk between houses (he's not chasing him through back yards) and can't see an address. So instead of giving an exact address, he directs the operator to tell the police to meet him at a particular spot. So is it so hard to believe that as he's walking back to his car to go and meet the police, Martin surprises him, starts beating the crap out of him and as Zimmerman said, tells him "you're gonna die tonight"? Considering the only injury Martin suffered was the gun shot and scratches on his knuckles (indicating he was striking Zimmerman and probably struck the ground) - he doesn't have scratches on his head or body, no bruises or any defensive wounds indicating Zimmerman assaulted him and the fact Zimmerman passed 2 lie detectors, it seems more than likely he's telling the truth.

His story about where he was and why was BS. I can say that and not claim to know who escalated the situation to violence. I think you've got the story wrong. I think he was in front of the houses when he said he was looking for the address and there was no explanation as to why he went behind the houses.

Not based on just the phone call, which didn't include all the details he added when he reenacted it the next day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#George_Zimmerman.27s_account_of_events

Zimmerman eventually left his truck and walked down the sidewalk between Twin Trees Lane to Retreat View Circle and gave police an address on Retreat View Circle.[172] He told investigators that he was not following Martin but was "just going in the same direction he was" to find an address, but admitted that he had also left his truck to try to see in which direction Martin had gone.[168]

 

[Michchamp]

Yes, the prosecution sandbagged their own case that they brought after local law enforcement, the DA and the FBI decided there wasn't enough evidence to detain Zimmerman or charge him with murder, manslaughter or even violating Martin's civil rights. ...

this is a complete mistatement of the underlying case history, and also demonstrates your complete ignorance of criminal procedure.

 

[Michchamp]

His story about where he was and why was BS. I can say that and not claim to know who escalated the situation to violence. I think you've got the story wrong. I think he was in front of the houses when he said he was looking for the address and there was no explanation as to why he went behind the houses.

Not based on just the phone call, which didn't include all the details he added when he reenacted it the next day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#George_Zimmerman.27s_account_of_events

never mind all that: you don't even need to get into the details at this point in time; the whole thing reeks of a targeted killing. It should have immediately been sent to the DA, who should've charged Zimmerman with murder right away. his self defense claim should not have been spoon fed to a jury through sympathetic cops and a sandbagging DA specially appointed by Charlie Crist (who was not from the area and didn't have to worry about being accountable to anyone for fucking this case up beyond recognition).

that's how it's supposed to work. the cops don't get to decide whether or not a guy was justified in killing someone. you take a life, you're charged with murder, and you have the burden of proving self defense at trial. In some cases maybe the DA decides it's not worth the cost of the trial after a thorough investigation, but that's the DA's call, not the cops.

 

[Spartanmack]

this is a complete mistatement of the underlying case history, and also demonstrates your complete ignorance of criminal procedure.

again, more conjecture presented as fact without source or explanation. Worst. Lawyer. Ever.

 

[Spartanmack]

never mind all that: you don't even need to get into the details at this point in time; the whole thing reeks of a targeted killing. It should have immediately been sent to the DA, who should've charged Zimmerman with murder right away. his self defense claim should not have been spoon fed to a jury through sympathetic cops and a sandbagging DA specially appointed by Charlie Crist (who was not from the area and didn't have to worry about being accountable to anyone for fucking this case up beyond recognition).

that's how it's supposed to work. the cops don't get to decide whether or not a guy was justified in killing someone. you take a life, you're charged with murder, and you have the burden of proving self defense at trial. In some cases maybe the DA decides it's not worth the cost of the trial after a thorough investigation, but that's the DA's call, not the cops.

No. That is absolutely wrong. You are not automatically charged with murder if you take a life. You're a fucking lawyer, how can you come up with this shit? You need more than a dead body to charge someone with murder. And you accuse others of being completely ignorant of criminal procedure. Do they teach law at second tier law schools? And by the way, George Zimmerman was taken into custody the night of the shooting.

And while we're accusing people of not knowing the history of the case, Charlie Crist was not governor of Florida then. Rick Scott appointed Angela Corey to the case. It's true though that Rick Scott was not from the area, but that's totally irrelevant. If you meant to say that Angela Corey was not from the area, that's also irrelevant. But what's not irrelevant is the fact that Corey was bound and determined to charge Zimmerman with murder after the State Attorney's office had already reviewed the case and chose not to indict. The fact that you think she sandbagged it rather than simply lost it because the evidence didn't support the charges is complete and total nonsense. She desperately wanted to give your side what they wanted - Zimmerman's head on a platter. She just didn't have a strong case regardless of what it "reeks of" to you. By the way, is that some kind of legal term or standard for evidence? It reeks, hang 'em high!

 

[Spartanmack]

His story about where he was and why was BS. I can say that and not claim to know who escalated the situation to violence. I think you've got the story wrong. I think he was in front of the houses when he said he was looking for the address and there was no explanation as to why he went behind the houses.

Not based on just the phone call, which didn't include all the details he added when he reenacted it the next day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#George_Zimmerman.27s_account_of_events

I don't think I have the story wrong. When asked for an address, Zimmerman says "I don't know, it's a cut through so I don't know the address" which indicates he's probably already on foot behind the houses, on the sidewalk that runs between the backs of buildings - hence, no addresses. If he was in front of the houses on the road, he'd be able to get an address.

http://archive.hlntv.com/interactive/2013/06/17/zimmerman-trayvon-map-interactive