Update #28 – George Zimmerman Will Be Acquitted – P.E.R.I.O.D.

Critical Thinking – Yesterday I posted a video  and CNN story that hit the “national news” of a Step-Father in a fenced back yard, with a baseball mitt, and a belt, and a young boy, with a baseball.

The video was not posted just to “stir emotion”…..  It was posted because there is a critical aspect to the Trayvon Martin case that people are overlooking.  Well, most people.    Bear with me.

Like the Trayvon Martin case, yesterday’s video, which drew the ire of many TreeHouse participants, was/is a media narrative.   The media narrative was “Step-Father beats Step-son for dropping ball while playing catch“.   That was the substance of the media construct, and it included a nice u-tube video to support it.

There is only one problem.   There is nothing, I repeat NOTHING, within that actual video to support that assertion.  Go back and look at it again.   Junior was not smacked for dropping the ball, in fact the ball never leaves his hand – nor do you even see in the video a game of catch – It is just not evident.   Again, go back and look at it.   There is NOTHING within that video to support a claim that “a boy was beaten by his step-father for dropping a ball while playing catch“.   Nothing.

Yet almost everyone accepted that fact.  Why?

The only thing that draws you to believe that was/is the accompanying narrative with the video.   If you just watched the video, without any predisposition toward what you are witnessing, you “might” draw that conclusion.   However, when you watch the video combined with the narrative you are CERTAIN to draw that conclusion.   But why?….

You see, it is the combination of the video along with the narrative that directs your evaluation and conclusion.   So ask yourself a question: which is having more of an influence upon me, the narrative OR the video?

What does this have to do with George Zimmerman?

Well, if there was a video of George watching Trayvon, and if there was video of George getting out of his truck and walking toward Trayvon, and if then Trayvon was shot, well, you might readily draw the conclusion that George Zimmerman got out of his truck to shoot Trayvon Martin.

If such a video existed, and if a narrative of “George  Zimmerman was on the hunt for a rabid negro dog to murder in cold blood“…. well, you see where this is headed…..

It is the narrative that draws the conclusion.   NOT what you actually witness.   This is the key distinction behind Critical Thinking as opposed to Cognitive Acceptance.

In this example George Zimmerman would be guilty based solely on the narrative.  But that would never happen right? …..  Wait, no…. huh,…. what?

So what’s my point?

Remember the video of Trayvon at the 7-11 and how we looked at it critically, evaluated the illogical narrative, and then based solely on it not making any sense whatsoever for a 17-year-old to walk a mile, in the rain, to get “iced tea” for himself and “skittles” for his *cough* brother, we were able to assemble the more fact based truth?   Remember that?

Would it surprise you to know that the FBI, the federal Department of Justice, the State Police, the Sanford Police Department, the State Attorney General’s office, the entire Law Enforcement apparatus et al, had no clue that Trayvon “stayed” at the 7-11 until 6:29pm?

Would that surprise you?

Well it’s true.

That’s right.   In the same way that many drew the conclusion of brutal step-dad beating step-son based solely on the scripted narrative you chose to believe, in that very same way the entire Law Enforcement apparatus never looked one iota into anything other than Trayvon leaving the 7-11 after he purchased his tea and skittles at 6:24pm.

Why?   Because it, the fact of it, did not fit their psyche of critical thinking.  The script was already written and Cognitive Acceptance of the 6:24 pm departure was embedded;  There was no need to look further.

The prosecution narrative of the Trayvon Shooting was drawn to conclusion with the introduction of the Probable Cause Affidavit.   There was/is no subsequent investigation, no ongoing inquiry, nor any follow-up on any aspect of the case which would lead them in a divergent direction from the case facts as they chose to know them at that moment.

In short they had investigated, researched, queried, questioned and summarized.   The prosecution investigation was/is done.    They were/are not going to do any further investigative research to undermine their own case, or change the facts to support a different conclusion that might lead to an acquittal for George Zimmerman.

Consider – Treeper “CrossThread”, a member of our community, sent Mark NeJame, the legal analyst for CNN and Orlando based attorney who directed George Zimmerman to Mark O’Mara, a link to the video research we had done along with the video compilation of Treeper Diwataman.   He received this response from NeJame:

Founder and Senior Partner Nejame, LaFay, Jancha, Ahmed, Barker & Joshi, P.A. CNN Legal Analyst

Thanks for the email and inquiry. I did read the online article and viewed the video(s).

I think that some very interesting points are raised in it and apparently a significant amount of time was put into it as well.

I am bothered by some of the generalizations made by the host. Also, I’m not certain at all that I buy the “conspiracy” concept about TM and the other patrons at the store. Nothing that they did suggested any criminal or questionable activity. I do find it interesting with the suggestion that TM did seem to reappear.

I really need to spend more time with the site and video. I think as discovery comes out in the case, this video may make a bit more sense…one way or the other.

Thanks for getting it to me. I do appreciate it.
There will be lots of ups and downs for both sides in the case. Be prepared for a tumultuous time with it.

Thanks again.
Mark

NeJame Law

The problem for NeJame is he’s now aware of exculpatory evidence and he is a “legal media analyst”.  What to do?…. What to do?….  Yikes.

Setting aside the dilemma this places Mark NeJame in, and his obvious concern about his exposure to sunlight, what you recognize is something we have independently confirmed.   The prosecution team, “Team Skittles” et al has no idea what actually transpired that night beyond their pre-scripted determinations.

We were able to independently confirm that law enforcement had no idea about the “Three Stooges”, nor the purchase “blunts for Trayvon” and potential quid-pro-quo sale of Marijuana to the stooges.

They did not know because there was no need to find out based on their original determinations.  They already had their mind made up.    However, Team Freedom consisting of George Zimmerman, his family and representatives, are well aware of “Curly” and the 3 stooges.

This is KEY and central to the upcoming acquittal.   Why?

Because simply the questioning of the 3 Stooges will reveal (note I want to say *has revealed* but retain prudence) factual possessions that Trayvon carried on his person when he left the 7-11 but WERE NOT on him physically when he encountered George.

This specifically and directly undermines the entire prosecution narrative because it reflects the factual reality of Trayvon going ‘somewhere after he ran’ and then ‘returning’ to confront George.

Within this “going somewhere then return” to the physical location of the encounter the entire case against George Zimmerman falls apart, collapses and disintegrates in front of the tearful eyes of a prosecution about to be covered in egg faced embarrassment.

This case will never make it to trial in any form.   The only matter being determined  RIGHT NOW is how to acquit George Zimmerman without violence as a consequence of the insufferable rush to judgement and narration selling.

Who is going to take the blame for a false construct and investigation.? and who is going to be allowed to save face?

That expose’ is about to come right up…   “cue the fat lady”.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Death Threats, media bias, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Predictions, Tip Line, Trayvon Martin, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

663 Responses to Update #28 – George Zimmerman Will Be Acquitted – P.E.R.I.O.D.

  1. ArkansasMimi says:

    Published: 1:04 pm
    Updated: 1:16 pm
    Assistant State Attorney appointed in Zimmerman case

    TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — The State of Florida has appointed a new Assistant State Attorney in the case against George Zimmerman.

    Assistant State Attorney Richard W. Mantei has been appointed to handle the investigation, prosecution and representation of the State of Florida. He will join the team led by State Attorney Angela B. Corey in the case against the neighborhood watch volunteer charged with killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.

    Martin died last February in Sanford after a scuffle with Zimmerman. Zimmerman pled not guilty to second-degree murder and is claiming self-defense in the case. He is currently at the Seminole County Jail.

    Zimmerman’s next hearing is scheduled for June 29, 2012.

    http://www.actionnewsjax.com/mostpopular/story/Assistant-State-Attorney-appointed-in-Zimmerman/T-VpUYJV_UWxLNdZBjxI7g.cspx

    Like

    • Thanks for this…. I just caught wind of it a few hours ago…. This will be a research thread for tomorrow. Thanks again 🙂

      Ohhhhhhh sibilj……… SIBILJ !! 😀

      Like

    • ytz4mee says:

      Interesting that the media has decided to tone down the rhetoric a notch. Now Martin “died in a scuffle”….hmmm… that’s a long way from “hunted him down and shot him like a dog”, isn’t it?

      Mantei is an interesting addition. He withdrew the state’s request for death penalty charges when it became obvious the state couldn’t prove premeditation. As prosecutor, he still got a conviction, but for life, not death.

      Like

      • Somuchtolearn says:

        With the added term of scuffle does that mean they might put an involuntary manslaughter charge on there hoping to get him on that. Since many felt that was the mistake in the Casey trial

        Like

    • ejarra says:

      Does this mean that BLDR is gone or demoted? If true, what a shame. He was just a charming fellow.

      Like

    • ctdar says:

      What next after Dershowitz meltdown, Corey gonna conveniently take time off
      to be with her family on previous planned vacation?

      Like

    • howie says:

      Corey must be going to withdraw. Conflict of interest. Crumpster is probably under the gun at the Bar. Bondi is getting nervous. Best to get Corey out of the way if the whip comes down. Parks is going crazy and the rest of the firm is afraid they will be held liable. That would seem about right if what we hear is correct. Scott is probably in a panic.

      Like

    • James Crawford says:

      The State of Florida appointed a new attorney to “assist” (meaning “muzzle”) Corey because the case is imploding.

      The cornerstone of the charging document was the interview with Dee-Dee. The State had uncritically accepted Dee Dee’s statements because Crumpy had released the PDF files of TM’s alleged TMobile bill to authenticate that the conversations occurred. Thanks to all of the Treepers, we know that Dee-Dee wasn’t TM’s GF, she was mildly shocked but not distraught to learn that TM had been shot, and she was vacillating about which fast food joint to eat at the time that Crumpy claims she was freaking so bad that she had to go to the hospital rather than the wake. After getting a look at Double Dee Dee, I find it difficult to believe that she would pay much attention to a skinny little momma’s boy with no athletic or musical skills that might make him rich. The autopsy reveals that there was nothing remarkable about TM that might motivate a smoking hot babe like Double Dee Dee to go out with him.

      My guess is that the prosecution now has true copies of the TMobile bill that confirm that the PDF files provided by Crump are false. This makes the prosecution look stupid, of course. However; by charging GZ based on an interview with a witness whose credibility that they either knew or should have known was near zero, they are guilty of criminal negligence. The problem now is not how to proceed with prosecution but how to dismiss the case without destroying to many political careers or provoking the race riots that Crump and crew have incited.

      Corey is toast.

      BDLR is also toast.

      My guess is that Crump will be disbarred and that GZ is going to get a massive pay off from his law firm for defamation.

      Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton will crawl back under their rocks

      BHO and the Congressional Black caucus might salvage their careers by recanting and demonizing crump

      Like

      • John Galt says:

        “The State had uncritically accepted Dee Dee’s statements”

        IMHO, if a full, complete, and impartial investigation is conducted, the ultimate findings will be much worse that that.

        Like

        • 2ntense says:

          Do you think there will actually be a full, complete and impartial disclosure of the shenanigans? I don’t. If they toss this out… they will cash out quickly. The fewer people know what actually happened the better chance they have of perpetrating the same fraud again.

          Like

          • John Galt says:

            I don’t see a graceful exit strategy. They dismiss the charges against GZ and how do they explain that? With no explanation, there will be riots. If the 3 stooges investigation is published in detail, it blows Dee Dee’s story away. It is immediately obvious that Dee Dee isn’t the brains of the outfit. If Dee Dee is pressured and talks, the whole house of cards comes down. Matt Gutman flips: “I told you that he prodded her and that they wouldn’t let anyone else question her. Another ABC exclusive, I should get a Pulitzer for exposing this scheme!”

            What can the State say? “Sorry, we’re sloppy and stupid.”

            Like

      • howie says:

        I sure hope so. The judge seems overboard for Corey and Sharpton. I wish they would appeal him. I don’t think Mr. Z should have to sit in jail.

        Like

  2. ArkansasMimi says:

    Is it common to add new ASAs? Could it have something to do with DLR and all his misshaps? OR his DD interview. First thing I thought of was all of you guys/gals SUPER SLEUTHING here.

    Like

  3. DawnDoe says:

    Hmmm. I was cautiously optimistic about GZ’s case being thrown out, but now it’s not looking so great. But maybe it’s a last ditch effort on the prosecution’s part?

    Like

  4. Hdfb007 says:

    Could any of this new speculation of dismisal be tied to possible liver toxicology reports coming in from TM? Connecting the dots?

    Like

  5. Sandusky says:

    OK, i’m calling it a night now, having had about 8 hours of sleep in the last 72 hours. But tonight I’ll go to sleep with a smile on my face, thanks to Sundance and all the other Treepers who have fought so hard to see justice prevail.

    So goodnight to some amazing people whom I’m privileged to have met on the Net…and…I just gotta say…WOLVERINES!

    Like

  6. John Galt says:

    Can Brian Beckman have his rank restored now?

    “I and my co workers could rewrite the book on whether our urban youth are victims of racist profiling, or products of their (expletive) ignorant, pathetic welfare dependent excuses for parents, but like Mrs. Corey (prosecutor Angela Corey), we speak only the truth. They are just misunderstood little church going angels and the ghetto hoodie look doesn’t have anything to do with why people wonder if they’re about to get jacked by a thug.”

    http://ghostshirtpapers.blogspot.com/2012/05/trayvon-martin-and-brian-beckman.html

    Like

  7. HadEnough! says:

    Does anyone know if TM was found to have the change on his person… the dollar bills he recieved back at the 7-11. THIS would allow us to determine if he gave that money to one of the boys to buy him a cigar. Has the report of what was found on TM been released yet?

    Like

  8. Diwataman says:

    Just a little response I did to Mark NeJame

    Like

    • howie says:

      Good on ya Dman. He prolly went as far as he could. His minders at CNN are in a panic. He likes his checks from CNN. He knows.

      Like

    • Bill says:

      First I like to thank you for the enlightening entertaining video and how you discovered Trayvon’s connection to the three stooges. I really enjoyed the viewing.

      Now, this video feed was part of the prosecution discovery evidence, so whoever saved it has to know about the connection (trayvon and stooges). I’m betting the investigator or whoever talked to the clerk a long time ago. The clerk told him about the connection and the video is evidence of the connection.

      What you ingeniously did (and dare I say brilliantly) was solve this puzzle backward without the other evidence of the clerk’s interview etc. This other stuff should be buried(i think) with the other evidence.

      Maybe the prosecution doesn’t want to broadcast the fact that Trayvon bought or took drugs but its in the evidence dump.

      Like

      • howie says:

        It would be Brady material. Requiring disclosure. But you might have missed the information that there was no investigation by any state or federal agency in to this issue and was not in the discovery.

        Like

  9. elvischupacabra says:

    Dayyyyyum, Treepers!! Y’all been busy in my absence!!

    This is a fantastic thread!!! Keep up the good work and the righteous struggle!

    Like

  10. THEIFAM says:

    How did TM know that GZ was even still out in the community if he went home to stash his pot? Was he so infuriated with the fact that he had to stash it that it didn’t matter to him that he could be wasting his time looking for a man that was no longer anywhere to be found?

    And why did he run in the first place? If he thought GZ was a cop it is highly unlikely that he would have gone back out there to challenge a police officer. If he didn’t think GZ was a cop, then why would he have to stash his weed? What authority would a non cop have to stop and search TM? If he thought that GZ had called the cops then why not even knowing whether GZ was still there and believing that the cops are on their way would he risk going back out there to physically confront a person who had just called the police?

    Finally, if he was at home, why would he bring the can of juice and candy back with him. Chad has stated that the candy was for him. Neither the candy nor the juice had been opened. He was at home according to your theory. What purpose did it serve to bring the bag of juice and candy back out to the community to look for a man that might not have even been there but who might have called the police.

    I know that O’Mara and West are eminently more qualified and skilled than to advance such ludicrous theories for their client.

    Like

    • howie says:

      Your questions have merit. Unless TM already knew who GZ was.

      Like

    • John Galt says:

      “I know that O’Mara and West are eminently more qualified and skilled than to advance such ludicrous theories for their client.”

      Da Nile much?

      Like

      • howie says:

        Did Chad state the candy was for him? I must have missed that. I thought the “Bag of Juice” and mixins for Purple Drank was in his Hoodie pouch.

        Like

        • minpin says:

          The Crumpy story was that when TM was leaving to go to 711, Chad asked him to bring him back a bag of skittles.

          Like

          • Angel says:

            This was an interesting video for two reason: Looking at the body language of Chad, he seems to have a smirk on his face as if he has to restrain himself from laughing when he talks about asking TM to bring him skittles back from the store. He seems to be amused here. Look really closely at the 50 second mark to about the 1:10 mark.

            The announcer states that Tracy Martin, Brandy, and Chad went to dinner but not Trayvon?

            Thought the video was interesting for those reasons and also, I forgot, how guarded Brandy’s demeanor seemed to be. I could be reading that one wrong though.

            No analysis of what it means, just my observations.

            Like

            • Angel says:

              Correction: the video only mentions Tracy and Brandy went to dinner, not Chad.

              Like

            • JE_Reading says:

              Angel – Reading this video a bit differently. To me, Chad appears as any child or young teen that is not accustomed to a televised interview would – a bit nervous and self-conscious (e.g. a nervous smile). There is clearly some tension between Chad and Brandy. My guess is the stress is specific to the interview and what will or won’t be divulged in the way of responses. On the “skittles” response, I saw less smirk than I did a planned / practiced dialogue (as opposed to candid, genuine answers). Although Brandy, in comparison, had a very solemn look on her face, it wasn’t until the last 3rd of the interview that even a glimmer of genuine emotion entered in to her responses – probably because both she and her son were passed the parts that covered the crime itself and more exclusive to feeling rather than detail.

              Like

      • Aussie says:

        Deifam is sitting right in the middle of the Da Nile

        Like

      • THEIFAM says:

        So why don’t you answer the questions I presented for us?

        Like

    • howie says:

      Why was TM calling the stooges earlier in the day if what we are learning is correct?

      Like

      • minpin says:

        I don’t know howie.

        The defense has the telephone records, even though they have not been released to the public. The phone records of TM, GZ and DeeDee are some of the discovery that the pros. has been fighting to have sealed. O’Mara has also asked that those records remain sealed. O’Mara has been saying that he just wants everything to calm down. Didn’t he say something to the affect that if this info. gets out it will cause more tensions? Didn’t DLR say that if the police interviews with GZ were released that it will damage the prosecutions case?

        I have no reason to believe that TM didn’t call at least one of the 3 stooges. Wasn’t he watching out of the door at 711, as though waiting for someone? I would be shocked if the 711 clerk wasn’t interviewed by the defense team. With the video of TM’s purchase, where he seemingly can’t stand up, without leaning on and holding the counter, would bring interesting testimony from the clerk. The blunt issue would also be discussed, no doubt.

        Remember how Crumpy came out saying that TM was on the phone with DeeDee for a gazillion hours that day? Wouldn’t it be interesting if that was not true. Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out that the call at 7:12 wasn’t even from DeeDee, but from someone else in that area. No names or numbers were ever released by Crumpy.

        Suppose the defense has already tried to depose DeeDee, and she refused to participate. She has refused to talk with the police, and would only talk to DLR. If she refuses to talk with the defense, is the case over and done at that point? She is the state’s star witness.

        Like

        • John Galt says:

          “If she refuses to talk with the defense, is the case over and done at that point?”

          I think the 5th Amendment is the only way she can refuse to talk if under subpoena. Then the State has to give her immunity to overcome her 5th Amendment rights if they want her to be able to testify. Next comes contempt. So yeah, I’m thinking that the State probably drops the charges if Dee Dee clams up.

          Like

        • THEIFAM says:

          Zimmerman is the state’s star witness.

          Like

          • howie says:

            The States star prosecutor is about to disappear I bet. There is no way she can stay after Dershowitz ripped her to shreds. I would bet the state is going to have to reduce the charges to Manslaughter on its own if Omara is worth his Salt. Otherwise the nightmare would end. Maybe they are doing a slow meltdown as opposed to a sudden shock.

            Like

            • Jello333 says:

              There’s no more evidence to support manslaughter than there is 2nd-degree murder. So I HOPE that if they change the charges, that GZ supporters don’t all go, “Ok, that’s better.” That will NOT be better. If all of a sudden people start assuming that a manslaughter charge is “reasonable”, then that’s a BIG problem!

              Like

    • James Crawford says:

      TM knew GZ was not a cop because he didn’t get apprehended at gun point or shot when he kept reaching for his waist as if to draw a weapon as he circled GZ’s vehicle.

      TM might have recognized GZ as the neighborhood watch guy that he had threatened earlier or he might have just figured that he was someone who was disrespecting him by profiling him.

      TM probably thought GZ was on the phone with the cops but figured that the cops would not be coming because GZ hadn’t seen him commit an actual crime other than tresspassing.

      If TM was planning on assaulting GZ, he would know that someone would call the cops and they would respond to an assault. It was therefore necessary for him to stash any contraband including pot, the stogie, and cough syrup to mix his drank. If the cops did respond, then there would be no evidence that he wasn’t the sweet, innocent child that Crumpy portrays him as.

      Notice that TM did not attack GZ until after GZ got off the phone with the cops.

      Like

      • John Galt says:

        Dee Dee might have actually said something other than “run”. Maybe something like, “Yo a mamma’s boy Tray, beat dat punk azz crackah’s azz.” Hence her failure to report the call to police and her feelings of guilt.

        Like

        • As I’ve been saying all along!

          Like

        • Jamie O'Connor says:

          Dee Dee’s failure to call the cops or tweet about what happened the next day about that fateful night truly raises some questions. It just doesn’t seem plausible that if Dee Dee was on the phone with TM and she knew he was being followed and scared to death to the point that Dee Dee was telling him to run…..run…..run…..that she would not have felt the need to share her fears with her family or friends at that time or even the next day in in her oh so many tweets.

          Like

      • howie says:

        A gang prospect only 17?

        Like

      • THEIFAM says:

        You are assuming he did in fact reach for his waistband, and GZ never told the dispatcher that TM was circling the vehicle.

        Any claim that at some point TM became the aggressor and attacked GZ requires you to completely reject everything DD has stated under oath. That claim also forces you to answer why did he run in the first place? To stash his weed from a person you say he knew wasn’t a cop?

        TM was not trespassing. He was legitimately in the gated community as a guest of Brandi Green. According to DD he did not think GZ was a cop but some creepy crazy man. You don’t have to hide your weed from a creepy crazy man. If it had been his intent to beat GZ up, he would have done so without regard to the weed he might have possessed.

        If he is stashing everything, why didn’t he stash the juice and the candy? You are already conceding that he was ready to be caught by the police so he stashed the drugs. So why did he bring a bag of juice and candy back to assault GZ?

        Like

        • Aussie says:

          it is not hard to reject what Dee Dee said because it is in fact a lot of concocted lies. Crump has a lot to do with Dee Dee… that is a real signal that something is not right with what she claims….. especially when she never tweeted about talking to TM on the day that he died.

          Like

          • 2ntense says:

            Aussie, darling, it’s hard not to LAUGH out loud when reading the transcript of Dee Dee’s interview. She’s all over the place when BDLR isn’t giving her the answer first.

            Like

            • Aussie says:

              Exactly. She has absolutely no credibility as a witness. That is why they have to try and destroy the credibilty of both George and Shellie Zimmerman.

              Like

    • John Galt says:

      “And why did he run in the first place?”

      Unprovoked flight: recognized as a reliable indicator of criminality for thousands of years.

      Proverbs 28:1 The wicked flee though no one pursues, but the righteous are as bold as a lion.

      Illinois v. Wardlow – 528 U.S. 119 (1999):

      An individual’s presence in a “high crime area,” standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion of criminal activity, but a location’s characteristics are relevant in determining whether the circumstances are sufficiently suspicious to warrant further investigation, Adams v. Williams, 407 U. S. 143,144,147-148. In this case, moreover, it was also Wardlow’s unprovoked flight that aroused the officers’ suspicion. Nervous, evasive behavior is another pertinent factor in determining reasonable suspicion, e. g., United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 885, and headlong flight is the consummate act of evasion.

      Like

      • THEIFAM says:

        First of all Zimmerman was pursuing him. So that Proverb does not apply to this situation. Zimmerman admitted as such so we don’t have to speculate. In fact he had been following in his car according to TM communicated to DD.

        Second people also run because they are afraid. O’Mara is going to have hard time cross examining DD on TM’s fear especially since his fear’s were realized. How can you question a person’s fear of a man who ultimately kills them minutes later?

        Third Zimmerman’s suspicion was shaped way before TM started running, and in the cases that you cited, none of the defendants deemed suspicious were being followed by a civilian. They are highly distinguishable for that reason.

        Cite a case where reasonable suspicion was found when a person is being followed by an unknown stranger who is non law enforcement who then runs from this stranger.

        Like

    • Susiejoe says:

      It does not sound that you have looked at a layout of the complex. TM was staying at one end of a long sidewalk. The encounter occurred at the other end of that sidewalk where it intersected with another sidewalk forming the shape of a T. According to TM’s girlfriend, he told her he was by his dad’s place. He told her he had lost GZ, and then saw him. He didn’t have to go looking. He caught sight of George as George walked down the sidewalk into the intersection of that T. George did not see him. George actually had lost sight of TM as he would have considering the layout and position of buildings so you cannot say he was following.

      TM had “checked” out George when he was sitting in his truck. This is stated in the police phone call George made. TM most likely determined that George was not a cop. Also in that phone call, George states that TM had something in his hand but he could not tell what it was. Possibly that was the watermelon juice but unlikely as that had been put inside of TM’s hoodie pocket. Why did TM run? Initially to lose George and get to his dads. He most likely had not made a decision to attack George at that point.

      Now, he is at his dad’s back porch when he spies GZ. He would only stash his stuff when he decided to confront GZ. Why again you ask? Even if he had figured that George was not a cop, he was a “white” guy who dared to spy on him. GZ also could get him in trouble – he is already suspended and was caught with jewelry at the school. He didn’t need another tattler. Very possible that what TM had been carrying in his hand was something stolen along the way of his walk. That has never been identified and does not appear to be any of the items found on or near him at the crime scene. Now, TM did not know the cops were on their way. That question should actually be directed at GZ as to why he would bother confronting TM when he knew the cops were on their way. But then, he didn’t intentionally.

      Now, the juice and candy were in TMs pockets. TM was not concerned about those or didn’t think about them. If you watched the 7-11 video, getting to his pockets was a major feat. What ever the reason, he simply did not take the time to remove them from his pockets. What he had to get rid of was most likely whatever it was that he was carrying in his hand that George noted and he needed to get rid of his drugs – possibly they are one and the same. Again, he did not have to go look for George. George presented himself in his line of vision.

      Ludicrous theories? I would say that is much more applicable to the theories the prosecutions and Martins have been espousing.

      Like

      • 2ntense says:

        GZ said TM had something in his hand. TM also had trouble fishing around in his pockets at 7-11. There was something he didn’t want to pull out. What if he had a small hand gun? Seriously. What if? It would make more sense that he would divest himself of that than Robitussin. Leaving it on Brandy’s porch to go take down the old guy. It’s not like he could shoot GZ and hide in Brandy’s apartment.

        ~just a random thought that snuck into my head when I should be working.

        Like

        • THEIFAM says:

          “There was something he didn’t want to pull out. What if he had a small hand gun?”

          What if it was his cellphone? What if?

          His willingness to go back out to confront the “old guy” necessarily means he was not concerned about the police. So why would he have to stash his gun or his drugs for an old guy? You can’t answer that question because you all are trying to fit a square piece in a circle hole. You are trying to make someone into a criminal who was not and someone who is into someone innocent. The glass slipper isn’t fitting.

          What was the gun to heavy for him to fight the old man with so he had to take it home to lighten his load? But then he brings the juice and the candy back with him. Come on you don’t really believe that do you ? And moreover, do you really have that low of an opinion for criminal defense attorneys in the state of Florida? Do you think a reputable criminal defense attorney would try to make that argument to a jury?

          The state is going to have its version of how the confrontation started. It won’t be enough to try to poke holes in their version contrary to popular belief. The jury is going to want to know from the man who was there how it happened.

          Like

          • Angel says:

            I think that is the whole point ,at least from my perspective, that there is doubt to what could have happened here and I thought when there is doubt,, that it is afforded to the accused. who is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The law holds the defendant does not have to prove his/her innocence as he is already presumed to be that but he has to be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.. And if there is anything I take from this case is that there is too much doubt here.

            Like

            • Angel says:

              Isn’t that what the legal system, the great U.S. Constitution is based on? That is better that a few guilty people go free than one innocent person convicted. I think that is what I learned in my government class. Yes, I am sure that is where I heard that. Are we now saying that there should be exceptions? If so, maybe its time to rewrite the U.S Constitution which include the bill of rights to say one is guilty until proven innocent.

              Like

              • Angel says:

                I wonder if the same people who have decided GZ is guilty, based on “evidence” presented so far, if they were in his shoes would revisit the US Constitution and demand better treatment than what has been afforded to GZ so far. I have said this before and I will say it again, I don’t know if GZ is guilty, he very well could be but I do know he is innocent until proven guilty by the facts, not conjecture or theories. I want that for him because it is what I would want for myself or my family members if I or them were in the same situation. “An injustice anywhere is a threat to Justice everywhere.” If he is found guilty based on untainted evidence, then so be it and let justice assert itself..As Scott Turow noted in his legal thriller, Presumed Innocence, “If we do not know truth, what hope is their for justice?.” ..

                Like

                • Angel says:

                  Maybe in this climate it is folly to believe in the ideals set forth in the U.S. Constitution.

                  That is all.

                  Like

      • THEIFAM says:

        For all we know the place where the confrontation actually took place could have been “right by his dad’s house”. I live right by the airport, but I am still a 15 drive from it. Planes don’t land in my back yard.

        What TM says to DD is that GZ was “getting close”. You need to review her statement. You are obviously unclear on what was said. If GZ is getting close to him, and then TM according to DD says, “why are you following me for?” So we can say GZ was following him. Why else did GZ not get back to his vehicle in the time that he stayed on the phone after he stopped running and the minute he had before the confrontation. Almost 2:30 seconds elapsed after he stopped running to the time of the physical confrontation. In 2:30 he would have easily been able to make it to the mailboxes or the vehicle.

        Why would he be concerned about minor weed or drug possession but not concerned about assaulting a white male? He is going to run home to hide misdemeanor weight weed, and some medicine concoction so he won’t get caught with it and get in trouble, but he is willing to get in trouble for possibly killing a white man in a strange city. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. I am sorry to break it to you so bluntly.

        He was possibly carrying something stolen? There were no reports of anything stolen in the entire neighborhood at or around that time to the police. Why would someone who stole property from someone get to the safety of their home, and then come back out to beat up someone else? I realize your obsession with criminalizing TM, but that is absurd. You have TM who has no arrest record and you have GZ who does and yet you have transformed TM into this career criminal at 17 despite no record of even one arrest.

        Your version is inconsistent with GZ’s father’s version who claimed that his son went to get an address at the top of the T to Retreat View Circle and then was walking to his vehicle. So how could have TM seen him from his back porch if GZ was down at the other end walking towards his vehicle? Once again you are making absolutely no sense.

        By the time TM could run all the way down to GZ, GZ would have been in his vehicle. And I thought the juice was an ingredient of his drugs. Or you are not a lean theorist? If he was trying to get medicine to mix with the juice and then he stashes the marijuana and the medicine, why would he not stash the juice also?

        When you couple these childlike theories that are easily shreddable by the slightest application of common sense with GZ and his wife’s penchant for lying even to the judge that is presiding over his case, you have with all due respect, a delusional outlook of the case.

        Like

  11. Bill says:

    Does anyone know where this extra footage of the three stooges came from?

    Like

  12. ArkansasMimi says:

    George Zimmerman Legal Case If you have a message for George, you can send it to us via Private Message on this page, and we’ll make sure he gets it.
    2 hours ago · Like · 8
    https://www.facebook.com/#!/GeorgeZimmermanLegalCase

    Like

    • THEIFAM says:

      Tell him to tell his attorney to work out a plea deal for him and his wife. a 2 for 1 special.

      Like

      • Jamie O'Connor says:

        THEIFAM says:
        June 13, 2012 at 1:38 am

        Tell him to tell his attorney to work out a plea deal for him and his wife. a 2 for 1 special.
        ——————–
        Is that kind of sarcasam really necessary Thiefam? Nobody has ALL the facts yet. GZ has not been fully heard yet either. I believe for the most part when people speak sarcastically or when they spew insults left and right, or even when they are too extreme in their views, they tend to loose credibility. Just sayin’.

        Like

      • ZurichMike says:

        Remember, Treepers, that when you are getting a lot of flak, it means you’re over the target. I had been responding to THEIFAM and his multiple drive-by posts, but decided now that he/she is just another fact-deprived, logic-challenged leftist lapdog that swallows whole any Saint Trayvon narrative the media whores put together.

        Like

  13. ArkansasMimi says:

    The Task Force on Citizen Safety and Protection will resume at 1 PM ET. about 43 minutes ago
    LIVE @ 9 AM on The Florida Channel & WEB1 at http://t.co/a2zcSlMa: Task Force on Citizen Safety and Protection about 5 hours ago
    http://thefloridachannel.org/

    Like

    • ArkansasMimi says:

      There is an option on this site where you can request a dvd of this or any of the sessions. Someone here should if you didnt get to watch. Also it states that this channel is on 24/7 so possible it may repeat.

      Like

  14. ArkansasMimi says:

    Large venue, not a very big turn out, from vantage pointe given of various cameras. IMHO

    Like

  15. I agree with 99% of this, but…

    SOMEONE had to know that TM stayed outside.
    All the other vids from the various 7-11 cameras end after TM leaves their view – but the one that shows him outside through the glass continues all the way through the “Stooges” little show.

    Why?

    For this to be included in discovery, SOMEONE knew TM had loitered outside and had interaction with the Stooges.

    They included this in discovery because they had no choice – but it appears they carefully avoided mentioning it – likely hoping the defense would not notice.

    No other explanation makes sense IMHO – if they’d just chosen a time-period (say 18:15-18:30) then all the vids would have been of that time frame.

    They knew – they had to!

    Like

    • Bill says:

      Thanks . you are the first person (that I see) that even mentioned that the police or investigators knew something. I was thinking maybe the prosecution probable doesn’t want Trayvons drug use advertised

      Like

  16. howie says:

    Clerk + Blonde

    Like

  17. Mimosa says:

    Sundancecracker,
    My reaction to the video was not based on the narrative, but the behavior. Natural parents who are “abusive”, as in having a short fuse, will generally get a hold of their emotions much more quickly. A natural parent who was to act like the man above would be way out on the bell curve. As a stepfather (stepmothers are usually worse), he’s worse than most, but not that out of the ordinary.
    The control, or lack thereof, is the tell. Trust your instincts.
    I worried you were viewing the episode through an “anti-liberal” lens rather than a Christian lens… and Christ never said for us to mind our business. Quite the opposite! Especially with the most vulnerable among us… which gets me to Zimmerman.

    I love the work you’re doing on the George Zimmerman case. You show that Christians have a special work ethic and passion that secularists on the alt-Right just don’t have; you’ve been miles ahead of their efforts (Nothing wrong w/ Chuck Ross and he’d reluctantly agree I’d bet).

    Like

  18. crossthread says:

    SD & the Treehouse, ya’ll are welcome on the lil E-mail thing… If ya’ll need ANYTHING, i’ll try to contribute, if i can.. Searching for the TRUTH, that is all! When I got that E-mail reply, i was lik,,, “WHAT”! ya’ll haven’t reviewed the “whole” tape??? WOLVERINES! ;P

    Like

  19. justice099 says:

    Odd. I never assumed the boy was getting smacked with a belt for not catching the ball. I thought it was pretty obvious the father was smacking the boy with the belt because the boy didn’t want to toss the ball. You can clearly see the step-father walk over after smacking the kid and stand ready to catch, then walk back over and smack him again (it is NOT looping the two times he smacked the kid are completely different.)

    So he was smacking the kid with the belt for not tossing the ball, instead of for not catching it. Hmm… not really much difference, but ok.

    Like

  20. ArkansasMimi says:

    By Jeff Weiner, Orlando Sentinel

    4:17 p.m. EDT, June 12, 2012
    The wife of George Zimmerman, the man charged with second-degree murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, was arrested on a perjury charge on Tuesday, deputies said.

    According to the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office, deputies were alerted by prosecutors that a warrant had been issued for Shellie Zimmerman, 25. She was arrested about 3:30 p.m. “at the location she was residing in Seminole County,” deputies said in a statement.

    She was booked on a perjury charge, with bond set at $1,000. She is currently “in the process of posting bond,” deputies said.

    The arrest comes after prosecutors in George Zimmerman’s case told Judge Kenneth Lester that Shellie Zimmerman lied at her husband’s finances, in order to conceal about $135,000 from the court.

    This is a developing story. Check back later for updates
    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/trayvon-martin/os-george-zimmerman-wife-arrested-20120612,0,6340697.story

    Like

    • sybilj says:

      https://twitter.com/#!/jeffweineros

      3m Jeff Weiner Jeff Weiner ‏@JeffWeinerOS

      Developing story: #GeorgeZimmerman’s wife arrested, charged with perjury

      6m Bianca Prieto Bianca Prieto ‏@BiancaMPrieto

      NOTEWORTHY: #ShellieZimmerman and her husband #GeorgeZimmerman are in the same jail. #trayvonmartin
      Retweeted by Jeff Weiner

      6m Jeff Weiner Jeff Weiner ‏@JeffWeinerOS

      For those wondering, both Zimmermans currently in the same jail. Sanford’s John E. Polk Correctional. #GeorgeZimmerman #TrayvonMartin

      7m Jeff Weiner Jeff Weiner ‏@JeffWeinerOS

      Affidavit: #GeorgeZimmerman’s wife transferred $74K out of husbands account 4 days before telling judge she didn’t know about any money.
      Expand

      Reply
      Retweet
      Favorite

      20m Jeff Weiner Jeff Weiner ‏@JeffWeinerOS

      Mugshot: Shellie Zimmerman, wife of #GeorgeZimmerman, arrested http://yfrog.com/nvo8gjoj #TrayvonMartin
      View photo

      22m Jeff Weiner Jeff Weiner ‏@JeffWeinerOS

      BREAKING: Shellie Zimmerman, wife of #GeorgeZimmerman, arrested on perjury charge. #TrayvonMartin

      Like

    • hdfb007 says:

      How does this fit with Update #28?
      Looks a little confusing unless this is leverage for GZ not to sue the state when this is all over. Even that seems like a stretch.
      I would like to hear what others think.

      Like

      • Omar says:

        I think that they are using Shellie as a means to try to force GZ to agree to a plea deal. And I think it’s ridiculous!! However, she will have her day in court and will hopefully be represented by a good attorney who is a pit bull.

        Like

  21. sybilj says:

    http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Wife-of-George-Zimmerman-arrested-on-perjury-charge/-/1637132/14790348/-/ygrmqmz/-/index.html

    Seminole County sheriff’s deputies arrested the wife of George Zimmerman on Tuesday on one count of perjury.

    Shellie Zimmerman, 25, was arrested at approximately 3:30 p.m. and brought to the Seminole County Jail on $1,000 bond, deputies said.

    SCSO was contacted by investigators with the Office of State Attorney Angela Corey, 4th Judicial Circuit, who advised a warrant had been issued for Shellie Zimmerman, according to a release.

    “On April 20, 2012, Shellie N. Zimmerman, did knowingly make a false statement, which she did not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding, to wit, The Bond Hearing of George Zimmerman,” according to court documents.

    She is in the process of posting bond, deputies said.

    Like

  22. DizzyMissL says:

    What a freaking nightmare.

    Like

  23. DiwataMan says:

    Next they’ll arrest the father, mother, brother, George’s dog, etc. The State really has it out for these people.

    Like

    • Claudia says:

      I just said the same thing. This is crazy.

      Like

    • Jello333 says:

      I think Corey made a HUGE mistake with this one. Up till now, George and Shelley had to have been worried about the possibility of a perjury charge coming down. If I was (an evil scum like) Angela Corey, I would have just sat on this. I would have just allowed George, Shelley, O’Mara, and everyone else just sweat it out… and I’d try to think of a way to use that uncertainty as some kind of leverage. But now, it’s all over. Now she’s been officially charged, she’s been given a really low bond ($1K), will be out in a matter of hours, she’ll plead not-guilty, and can then ask for one continuance after another, ad infinitum. Her perjury trial (if it ever comes to that) will likely take place AFTER George’s trial (or whatever his disposition). And so, in my opinion, this takes some pressure OFF of the Zimms, rather than leaving them in limbo. And Corey has just LOST any leverage she may have had with a possible perjury charge hanging over their heads.

      Like

      • THEIFAM says:

        Judge Lester almost implied that the state was remiss in not having charged her at the time that the bail was revoked. He was absolutely livid. Florida judges are some of the most laid back in the country in terms of demeanor. I lived there for 10 years and know several judges. For them to get upset at a defendant or a witness is not a good thing – particularly when it involves deception.

        Like

        • Jello333 says:

          I guess we’ll find out just how “fair” Lester is, then. Because if he’s angry at George and Shellie over their supposed deception, it should be VERY interesting to see how he reacts to the FAR more numerous, FAR more serious lies and deceptions of prosecution team members and witnesses. Turnabout’s fair play…. right?

          Like

      • John Galt says:

        Indeed. A threat is much stronger than it’s execution — Aaron Nimzowitsch

        Like

  24. Claudia says:

    They’re going after his entire family now. This is insane!

    Like

  25. crossthread says:

    leverage to get GZ to plea out…. Simple as that…

    Like

  26. James F says:

    Where is the warrant and perjury probable cause affidavit for George?
    Oh, that’s right, George did not actually commit perjury. And being a “potted palm”, otherwise known as exercising ones constitutional rights under the 5th amendment, is not a crime. Yet George is the one being punished by having his bail revoked.

    Malicious prosecution at its finest.

    Like

    • THEIFAM says:

      I believe the Judge was angry because Zimmerman made misrepresentations on a bail application which is an offense even though it the application was not made under oath.

      Like

  27. Angel says:

    this case is getting to me now. Its very disturbing what is being done to GZ and family. And this treatment has nothing to do with guilt or innocence.

    Like

    • Jello333 says:

      Good. Everyone please read my other comment about this. I think Corey messed up big time. Before today, she had the Zimms stressing over whether or not there’d be a perjury charge. But now it’s done. The case will be bumped down the road for many, many months. Any stress and UNCERTAINTY George and Shelley felt is now over. They don’t even have to THINK about this perjury case any more (not until WAY in the future). Corey is evil. Corey is insane. Corey is STUPID.

      Like

  28. sybilj says:

    http://www.clickorlando.com/news/Judge-scolds-George-Zimmerman-in-order-revoking-bond/-/1637132/14787908/-/m877ej/-/index.html

    Judge scolds George Zimmerman in order revoking bond
    Order released explains why Zimmerman was brought back to jail

    …In his order, Lester said recorded conversations between Zimmerman and his wife at the jail “support its assertions of deception.” Lester says prosecutors noted they “spoke in code to make it sound like they were talking about negligible sums of money.”

    Lester also says Zimmerman’s unreported passport was avoided during their testimony.

    “It is apparent that Shelly Zimmerman testified untruthfully at the bond hearing. The Defendant also testified but did not alert the Court to the misinformation,” Lester wrote. “Most importantly though, is the fact that he has now demonstrated that he doesn’t properly respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process.”

    A second bond hearing has been scheduled for June 29 at 9:30 a.m. by Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara.

    Like

    • davsel says:

      “Most importantly though, is the fact that he has now demonstrated that he doesn’t properly respect the law or the integrity of the judicial process.”

      No kidding? “…integrity of the judicial process” How could anyone, Zimmerman especially, “properly” respect our judicial process?

      Jack Asses, all of ’em.

      Like

  29. James F says:

    Now the New Black Panty Party has a new photo for their next ‘wanted dead or alive’ poster. I wonder if they have more money for the bounty or if they will take it out of the $10,000 they already promised for George?

    Like

  30. ctdar says:

    Question is why arrest now? Distraction from Corey vs Dershowitz?
    Malicious prosecutorial misconduct again?

    Like

  31. HEP-T says:

    What is going on here? Blacks are killing blacks at parties, pools, wedding’s, funerals, robbery, and rapes. Blacks are beating down Homosexuals in broad daylight and taking pictures of the crimes. yet the federal law is going after the Cops, neighborhood watches and informers of crimes committed. The ones being raised up to Godhood are the crooks and the ones who hold fast to the laws are being demonized. Is this true Black culture? is this what Obama has in store for the nation after he gets reelected? Rule by riots and threats of riots, rule by the law of the gun, rules enforced with a bayonet for some but not for all.

    Like

  32. davsel says:

    Forget about Zimmerman plea-bargaining with the prosecution. The prosecution needs to ask Zimmerman if they can cop a plea before he sues them. Zimmerman should make them provide witness protection for him and his family for the rest of their lives in return for not sending them to jail.

    Like

    • THEIFAM says:

      I am sure that’s what the other 50 murder defendants who went up in flame and blew trial against Angela Corey thought.

      Like

      • Angel says:

        I will say this: AC does not appear to be incompetent in her profession. I don’t think she is to be underestimated. What this means for GZ, I don’t know as his case has not gone to trial yet. But time will tell. .

        Like

  33. DiwataMan says:

    Ugh. I just say NeJame on CNN talking about the case and I only caught the last couple of minutes and all he was talking about was gun control and SYG. Bummer.

    Like

  34. Jello333 says:

    Oh my god, dude, are you for real?

    “Or let me guess…he was scared of the NBPP and Holder and Obama and that’s why he changed/clarified his story…right?”

    You actually brush aside the MURDEROUS THREATS of the NBPP? Really? Those slimebags are no better than the KKK. The ones who made the actual threats should be sitting in jail right now. And the fact that they are NOT is precisely why so many people are afraid right now. Because it looks like racist scum are allowed to get away with pretty much anything, as long as the “Zimmerman is a ruthless killer” narrative is furthered.

    So yes, I very much DO believe that “John” has been threatened and has therefore changed his story. And I don’t think he’s the only witness that we’ll see do that. You can belittle their FEAR all you want, but it won’t make the threats go away. Oh, and one more thing…. I am a far-left liberal. And it makes me sick to see most other libs so afraid to stand up and seek the truth in this case. Political correctness run amok!

    Like

    • Aussie says:

      Jello you are a very sweet far left liberal!! Also, you have a lot in common with most of us…. especially with regard to this garbage called political correctness.

      Maybe you are not as far left as you think?

      Like

      • Jello333 says:

        Thanks, Aussie. But about your last line… I’m sure you’ll learn more about me as we go along (probably on subjects unrelated to the GZ/TM case). And when you do, hopefully you’ll not hate me TOO much for my “Libtard” views. 😉

        Like

    • THEIFAM says:

      They should be held accountable if they made threats to anyone who has not threatened them.

      Like

  35. Jello333 says:

    This really, really is not difficult. The Florida self-defense statute says for your claim to succeed, all you have to show is that you were in fear of death or great bodily harm, and that fear was reasonable. And that’s true even if you “started it”, even if you were the “aggressor”. The only difference is that if that’s the case, then you now have an obligation to try to retreat/escape. So, lemme ask you this:

    Was George in fear of death or great bodily harm? (Listen to those screams, and tell me that person was not in fear for his life.)

    Was that fear reasonable? (If YOU think it’s no big deal to have someone pinning you to the ground and beating on you, then I don’t know what to tell ya.)

    Could he have escaped? (Some witnesses say he was pinned to the ground. And just the fact that he DIDN’T get up seems to prove that he COULDN’T get up.)

    That’s it. Pretty simple case of self-defense….. and that is true no matter WHO “started it”.

    Like

    • THEIFAM says:

      It’s not that simple because according to GZ he had been threatened by TM prior to the fatal conflict. Florida allows a jury to reject a claim of justifiable deadly force where an individual who had been threatened by the victim prior, arms himself with a weapon and pursues the victim thereby renewing the threat. Under such circumstances, if the person uses deadly force (with that weapon) a jury can reject their self defense claim.

      The rationale is that you don’t armed with a deadly weapon pursue someone who threatened you after the threat has abated and then inflame the controversy by putting yourself back into the environment or around the person who had just threatened you.

      Even GZ said he didn’t know if TM had a gun. So you see TM run and you are safe, but rather than remain safe, and against NW policies and guidelines (and a direct warning from Wendy Dorival and the dispatcher) GZ put himself into an environment that he should have known would have been explosive. If he is going to take such a risk which the guidelines say he shouldn’t take, he cannot use deadly force.

      http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/entireversion/onlinejurryinstructions.pdf

      pages 64 and 65 PRIOR THREAT

      Not all things that are unlawful are criminal. Making a uturn where there is a no uturn sign is unlawful but it is not criminal. Violating a police directive and NW guidelines is unlawful.
      GZ knew this as will be established from previous calls to the dispatcher. In one instance he is heard saying, “I didn’t want to attract attention.” as a reason why he was not willing to get more identifying information concerning the suspects.

      He knew what his legal limits were and he exceeded them. You don’t pursue the bully with a baseball bat after the bully has left you alone.

      Like

      • Sandusky says:

        “…according to GZ he had been threatened by TM prior to the fatal conflict.” Reference, please? (I assume you’re not referring to the words spoken immediately prior to the altercation.)

        Like

        • John Galt says:

          This is Crump’s night crew. None of this nonsense matters. The FBI will be talking to Dee Dee. Truth will out.

          Like

        • THEIFAM says:

          A threat does not have to be verbal During the dispatcher call GZ clearly indicates to the dispatcher that TM was looking at him, checking him out, coming at him, put his hand in his waistband, and had something in his hand. After that last observation he then repeats his request for the dispatcher to get the police out there. In another unreleased statement it has been reported that he stated that TM circled the vehicle several times. At his bail hearing he stated clearly that he didn’t know if TM had a gun or not.

          All that adds up to a threat by TM of GZ who thought that it was highly possible that TM was armed at the time of the threat.

          Like

          • James Crawford says:

            Well thank you for clarifying what you meant by threat.

            Okay, I’ll stipulate that TM was threatening GZ by repeatedly reaching for his waist band as if to draw a gun. This behavior is so threatening that it has become standard police practice to shoot suspects who display such aggressive behavior. Unless GZ had drawn his gun, he was not in any position to shoot TM but he could have and should have responded by running him down with his car to neutralize the threat. GZ didn’t do that.

            GZ allowed TM to leave, then after he had disappeared he honored the dispatcher’s request to keep on eye on TM by following at what he assumed was a safe distance. This was piss poor tactics, but not threatening behavior on GZ’s part. All of the physical evidence combined with the timing info in the 911 calls confirm GZs account of TM doubling back to confront and assault GZ. Even Double-Dee-Dee’s statement seems to confirm GZ’s account until BDLR contradicts and coaches her to provide “the right answer.”

            Your theory is that if a thug threatens you, you don’t have a right to keep track of where they went to facilitate the police finding them?

            Interestingly, one of my wife’s coworkers was shot at a near by grocery store by an armed robber whom she had followed at a distance to get a license plate number for the police. Obviously, she was the aggressor and had no right to defend herself.

            I can’t begin to express my disgust for you without resorting to profanity.

            Perhaps you would care to volunteer your skull to be my test subject in an experiment to determine if pounding someone’s head against a concrete sidewalk constitutes deadly force?

            Like

            • DizzyMissL says:

              LOL, James, I do hope you find someone who will agree to your experiment:)

              Like

              • James Crawford says:

                At this point, i am pissed off enough that I can think of several people, Cump, Jabba the Hut and BDLR, who would not have to agree to be a test subject to become one. I am particularly incensed by how the rather gratuitous prosecution for the questionable perjury charges seem to have been intended to provide the New Black Panthers with a photo of SZ and info on where she had been hiding. These vicious vermin better get down on their knees and pray that the New Black Panthers don’t make good on their threats against SZ because I will go primeval on their asses.

                I did some research on one of “The Burning Spear” and “Uhuru” groups that organized the protest in St Petersberg. Their are a rabidly racist, vicious Communist organization that Crump seems to be a founding member of.

                Check this out then explore their website.

                http://uhurunews.com/search?cx=017833355652721471453%3Areu1dtjt7l4&cof=FORID%3A11&q=Zimmerman&sa=Search&siteurl=http%3A%2F%2Fuhurunews.com%2F

                Like

      • DiwataMan says:

        Greyston Garcia, with knife in hand, chased down Pedro Roteta for more than a block and stabbed him to death. Judge let him go.

        Like

        • Jamie O'Connor says:

          DiwataMan says:
          June 13, 2012 at 3:39 am

          Greyston Garcia, with knife in hand, chased down Pedro Roteta for more than a block and stabbed him to death. Judge let him go.

          But there is a difference in this case because the guy who stole his radio parts had them in a bag and apparently used that bag as a “deadly weapon” against Greystone Garcia when he used it to to take a swing at him. Plus, Greystone Garcia was defending his person and his stolen property. Both men were armed in according to the law.

          GZ was not defending his person or his stolen property according to the prosecution and used a gun against an “unarmed” boy..

          Like

          • Aussie says:

            in this case the fists were the means by which the youth, near adult individual was using deadly force upon the head of GZ.

            He was not unarmed, he was armed with his hands and his fists and he was using MMA style to carry out the felony of assault.

            Like

          • THEIFAM says:

            Good points. In addition Garcia had not been threatened prior to his pursuing Roteta with a deadly weapon. GZ was according to his comments to the the dispatcher.

            Like

      • Sandusky says:

        You don’t seem in any hurry to reply to my previous query, but let’s give you a couple more.

        “Florida allows a jury to reject a claim of justifiable deadly force where an individual who had been threatened by the victim prior, arms himself with a weapon and pursues the victim thereby renewing the threat.” GZ didn’t “arm himself” – he was already carrying. There’s a difference.

        “…rather than remain safe, and against NW policies and guidelines (and a direct warning from Wendy Dorival and the dispatcher) GZ put himself into an environment that he should have known would have been explosive.” You’re new around here, aren’t ya? Otherwise you’d have seen the answer to this before, b/c it comes up fairly regularly in regard to what the dispatcher said and how GZ responded. Heck, even if you’d read this whole thread, you’d have noticed the answer. In response to a query (above) by chevymisty, Jello333 says: “Not those exact words, but I’m sure to George it DID seem that the dispatcher was asking him to keep an eye on him, even if that meant getting out of the truck. ‘Let me know if this guy does anything else,’ and then a minute later, ‘He’s running? Which way’s he running?’ It was only then that George left the truck. So whether he meant to do it or not, I think the dispatcher in effect ASKED George to follow.”

        As for the “direct warning from Wendy Dorival,” I checked out the newspaper article that this quote appeared in (well, I checked out one such newspaper article but there were probably others that said the same thing b/c “reporting” in the MSM is just one big incestuous circle these days). It read:

        “Police volunteer program coordinator Wendy Dorival said she met Zimmerman in September at a community neighborhood watch presentation.

        “I said, ‘If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out,’ ” Dorival said. “‘Observe from a safe location.’ There’s even a slide about not being vigilante police. I don’t know how many more times I can repeat it.”

        So what it says is that she met GZ at this presentation, but what it does NOT say is that they had a personal conversation in which she told GZ, “If it’s someone you don’t recognize” blah blah. That’s implied by the writer, but it ain’t necessarily true. We’ve already seen some strikingly dishonest editing in this case. Dorival may just be describing what she says in her usual presentation, accompanied by slides, not what she said one-on-one to GZ.

        But let’s assume that she did say directly to GZ, “If it’s someone you don’t recognize, call us. We’ll figure it out. Observe from a safe location.” Is this not, in fact, what he did on the night in question? He saw someone he didn’t recognize (and who was, moreover, acting in a manner that raised questions in GZ’s mind); he contacted the police; he observed from a safe location (his truck) UNTIL he thought he was being asked to step out of that safe location. When the dispatcher THEN asked if he was following, GZ responded in the affirmative, and when the dispatcher said “We don’t need you to do that” (which is the closest he comes to a “direct warning”), GZ says “OK” and – guess what? – he stops. He is NOT pursuing TM – in fact, he has lost sight of him.

        “Violating a police directive and NW guidelines is unlawful.” Advice from a police dispatcher is not a police directive. NW guidelines are guidelines, not laws, and therefore failure to adhere to them cannot be unlawful in and of itself.

        Well, well, well, I just glanced up the page to check on something else and I see that you’ve been quite busy today, haven’t you? Well, I’ve spent time writing this reply now, so I’ll go ahead and post it anyway. Someone who’s interested in the truth might read it.

        Like

        • Jamie O'Connor says:

          Sandusky says:
          June 13, 2012 at 4:01 am
          “Violating a police directive and NW guidelines is unlawful.” Advice from a police dispatcher is not a police directive. NW guidelines are guidelines, not laws, and therefore failure to adhere to them cannot be unlawful in and of itself.

          I don’t get this either Sandusky. Everybody keeps saying GZ unlawfully disobeyed a police directive. Since when is a dispatcher a policeman? Fact. GZ did not disobey a police directive. I wish people would get this fact straight once and for all.

          Like

          • Sandusky says:

            Right, Jamie. And even if the dispatcher WAS a policeman, he did NOT give GZ a directive to stay in the vehicle or not to get out of the vehicle. As mentioned above, there is every reason to believe that in getting out of the vehicle, GZ thought he was doing what the dispatcher wanted, i.e., trying to keep TM in sight from a safe distance. But the general public tend to believe the first story they were told and they don’t want to be confused by facts later, especially when those facts conflict with a story that allows them to feel righteous anger at a racist. (Theifam doesn’t appear to be just a member of the general public, but that’s another issue.)

            Like

        • howie says:

          Trying not to bag up. Banger wuz BG. Ya geekin mon.

          Like

        • Patriot Dreamer says:

          What evidence is there that GZ ignored the dispatcher’s suggestion? The dispatcher said that GZ didn’t need to do that, and GZ said OK. The dispatcher is not a LEO. A suggestion is not a police directive. And there is no evidence that GZ disregarded it anyways.

          Like

        • THEIFAM says:

          Whether he was already armed or arms himself is not relevant. It’s whether at the time he started to pursue TM he was armed. That’s what matters. The instruction assumes that the person having been threatened initially was not armed at the time as GZ was, but it does not matter whether he was armed during the initial threat or not. What matters is that he pursued TM armed with a deadly weapon after the threat.

          Like

        • THEIFAM says:

          “Florida allows a jury to reject a claim of justifiable deadly force where an individual who had been threatened by the victim prior, arms himself with a weapon and pursues the victim thereby renewing the threat.” GZ didn’t “arm himself” – he was already carrying. There’s a difference.
          Why is there a difference? Why should a person already armed be allowed to confront the person who threatened them, but a person not already armed shouldn’t? The instruction covers anyone armed after the threat has been issued. Whether they were armed already is irrelevant. If that were the intent of the instruction- to make a distinction between those armed and those not armed- everyone would say they were armed at the time of the initial threat and then pursued, and the instruction would serve no purpose.

          ‘Let me know if this guy does anything else,’ and then a minute later, ‘He’s running? Which way’s he running?’ It was only then that George left the truck. So whether he meant to do it or not, I think the dispatcher in effect ASKED George to follow.”
          George did let the dispatcher know. He said TM was running. Before George even starts running he has communicated to the dispatcher what direction he is running. There was no need as the dispatcher pointed out for him to follow him. The police were a couple of minutes away. The ultimate events that transpired are proof positive that he could not in that environment observe from a safe distance because he did not know where TM was going to go or what TM was going to do. In essence there was no safe observation of TM other than in his vehicle- and GZ even felt threatened in there but TM left him alone. He didn’t even want to give the dispatcher his home address because he wasn’t even sure if TM was in hearing distance. So that is an open acknowledgment that he wasn’t even sure if he was at a safe distance seconds after he got out of the car.
          When the dispatcher THEN asked if he was following, GZ responded in the affirmative, and when the dispatcher said “We don’t need you to do that” (which is the closest he comes to a “direct warning”), GZ says “OK” and – guess what? – he stops.
          No he doesn’t. You can hear him clearly running for several (approx. 14) seconds after the “suggestion” to stop (since that is what you want to call it), and even then what evidence do you have from the recording, that he stopped? When one becomes a fugitive, does that mean people stop looking for you? NO!!! Yet they don’t know where you are. To say that because he didn’t know where TM was means he wasn’t looking for him is a non sequitur.
          Why would anyone rely on a statement of a man that’s looking at 25 years if he said he did continue to look for TM – a man who transfers funds out of an account by code days before his bail hearing so it would look like he has no money, and a few days later has the money put back in the account? That’s whom we are supposed take the word of about whether he stopped? The man who exclaimed, “these a**holes, they always get away” (moments before) was going to let another one get away? A man who was so concerned the guy he thought was an armed criminal was going to bum rush his home that he thought twice about giving his address out? He was going to stop on a dime, and start looking for an address that no one asked him to get, and that he never gave to anyone after he allegedly got it? I don’t think so. You guys talk about Dee Dee’s credibility but even Zimmerman’s own lawyer is concerned about his client’s. The fact that none of you are demonstrates the rose colored glasses with which you view the facts. Even the Latino community has largely distanced themselves from him. They know a liar when they hear one – black, Latino, white whatever.
          http://amren.com/news/2012/03/latino-organizations-dismiss-george-zimmerman-question-his-ethnicity/

          http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/por-que/details/no-worries-pueblo-george-zimmermans-latino-credentials-have-been-officially/15150/

          Any self respecting red blooded American would, faced with the possibility of his family being harmed by an armed thug, pay no attention to a “suggestion” that he not do so.
          “Violating a police directive and NW guidelines is unlawful.” Advice from a police dispatcher is not a police directive. NW guidelines are guidelines, not laws, and therefore failure to adhere to them cannot be unlawful in and of itself.
          It’s not just Wendy Dorival who incidentally is also not a police officer. There were Officer Buchanan and Sergeant Herx who also came to the HOA NW meeting to emphasize the limitations of a NW patrol person
          The limitations are written into the Handbook promulgated not by a civilian dispatcher, but by the Sanford Police Department. I am sure you can read page 3 and page 15 paragraph 10. I am sure GZ read it also.

          In America the police are the law. I don’t know what country you are from, but here if the police lay down the rules and they are broken the person who has broken them has acted unlawfully- perhaps not criminally – but unlawfully nevertheless. If a police officer tells a group of people to disperse because he perceives a potential conflict (not even because they were acting disorderly) and they refuse to do so, they are acting unlawfully even though most states don’t have a “failure to disperse law”.

          Like

      • Aussie says:

        where is your evidence? There is none. You are making things up again Angie

        Like

      • James Crawford says:

        When did this threat by TM against GZ occur? Are you referring to the Internet post previously to the encounter where TM expresses hostility towards the head of the neighborhood watch at his dad’s place? For this to have bearing on the case, you would have to have proof that GZ was aware of the threat and had recognized TM. You would also have to prove that GZ was carrying in anticipation of meeting TM during his trip to the store.

        This is an insane legal theory, perhaps advanced by a Crump surrogate to portray TM’s previous threats to GZ as implicating GZ.

        Perhaps you would volunteer to be my test subject in an experiment to prove that TM wasn’t committing a deadly force assault?

        Like

        • THEIFAM says:

          No he was threatened by TM on the same evening. It was one of the reasons why he repeated his request for the police to get there. “He’s coming to check me out— He’s got something in his hands– I don’t know what his deal is — you need to get an officer over here” That is clearly an expression of apprehension and fear — GZ was a victim of a threat.

          Like

  36. MikadoCat says:

    Watch where he goes after running is nothing like approach and confront. Its a pivotal issue, best decided in open court with all the details. I can’t imagine any reason for Zimmerman to approach Trayvon, but people can do dumb things.

    Trayvon did NOT have a key to the condo, so he may walked all the way to it and had no way to get in and decided to wait for “somebody” back up at the front gate.

    Like

    • John Galt says:

      “Trayvon did NOT have a key to the condo, so he may walked all the way to it and had no way to get in and decided to wait for “somebody” back up at the front gate.”

      That doesn’t fit the script. Chad was home, waiting anxiously for his Skittles.

      Like

      • Jamie O'Connor says:

        Exactly John Gault. If Trayvon knew he did not have a key to the condo he would not have walked all the way to the condo and then walk all the way to the front gate again. How ridiculous – an assumption.

        Like

      • ejarra says:

        I don’t believe Chad was home and it was HE that made up the story about the Skiitles. Why Do I believe that? He claim that he never heard anything. A gunshot can EASILY be heard 70 yds away, plus all the sirens where some had to pass by the condo, the gate by which the condo was near was secured. TOO many for him to say he knew nothing was going on UNLESS he was NOT HOME. Probably someplace he was not supposed to be and won’t say.

        This goes to TM’s state of mind. Presumeably he was afraid and ran back to the condo only to find he was locked out; no key, Chad gone, and some “crazy, white guy” watching him. I don’t believe he knew at this time that GZ left his SUV. Even according to DeeDee, he made it to the condo. He looks back up the T of the sidewalk and sees GZ standing at the dog poop station probably moving his flashlight around. Pissed off and “maybe” stoned and paranoid. He goes back up the sidewalk to confront GZ to find out “what his problem was”. He removed his pin and places it in his pocket just in case of a fight. When he confronts GZ he just snaps; punches him in the nose and procedes to try and kill him by smashing his head on the concrete walk. The fight starts at the T where the keys were found and drifts down the walk.

        No drugs or Black and Milds were found because TM ditched the remains BEFORE GZ saw him. GZ did not see him smoking, therefore it was gone before he saw TM. Which is why he did not NEED to ditch them on the way to or it at Brandy’s. Residue from weed or tobacco can be still on TM’s fingers, I don’t know if they were checked.

        Also, TM ran down the street “towards the back gate” and not to the T. GZ ran to the T which means that he was NOT following him. This is what Corey does NOT want out to the public.

        Like

        • howie says:

          Excellent. I have thought about the same thing. No evidence to say TM ran around the corner and down the sidewalk. He could have run down the street then come back up the sidewalk. We assume TM ran to the top of the T. The way this case is developing Mr. Z is being treated like John Wilkes Booth.

          Like

          • ejarra says:

            “No evidence to say TM ran around the corner and down the sidewalk.”

            Actually, there is evidence that Mr. Martin ran down the street. Georgie said, “He ran!” When the dispatcher asked which way, Georgie replied that Mr. Martin ran, “Towards the back gate.”
            If Mr. Martin ran toward the T, Georgie would NOT have said “back gate” as running to the the T is NOT towards the “back gate” and he would have NOT known if that it would eventually be Mr. Martin’s final destination.

            Since Georgie did not run down the street “towards the back gate” and instead went to the T at the top of the dog walk, HE NEITHERED CHASED NOR FOLLOWED Mr.Martin. This shoots down the prosecution arguement completely as to Georgie “hunting him down”.

            Like

        • Bill says:

          Yep I like this too. Deedee has to go under oath because she’s the one who said Trayvon was scared

          Like

          • mooserator says:

            Dee Dee has already been under oath. She has already committed Perjury, in all liklihood. Her story does not make sense and she contradicts herself.

            You may mean cross examination. Dee Dee is the Center of their case, and she’s a mess.

            Like

            • Bill says:

              Yep your right. what got me mad was watching Crump talking to Erin Burnett about GZ wife. He said something like its always best to tell the truth in court. Thats why I want deedee on the stand.

              Like

              • Aussie says:

                having DeeDee on the stand is totally laughable. If anything having DeeDee on the stand will be the beginning of the end for Crump and his fellow ambulance chasers because DeeDee is using the Crump script and she will panic.

                Like

            • Angel says:

              I find it amusing that everyone wants to discredit GZ’s account but its hands off for W8 whose account is troubling to put it mildly. Its fortunate for GZ that he has the constitutional right to be confronted with the witnesses against him according to the Constitution. W8 can be questioned in the court of law, if not in the court of public opinion. And Bill of Right #6 does not make provisions that exclude a witness because they may be a minor or experiencing trauma because of the incident.

              Like

        • howie says:

          Gang training. Act like you are not going to do anything the strike suddenly out of the Blue. This catches your victim off guard and gives the Gangstah the edge.

          Like

        • THEIFAM says:

          How do you know GZ ran to the T? Because that’s what he said he did. He also claimed to be indigent. Do you still believe that also? He also claimed that TM was in his late teens. This guy has no problem lying at all.

          Like

          • ejarra says:

            Did I say Georgie SAID he ran to the T? No, I did NOT! Why? Because Georgie NEVER said that.
            You need to listen and more think more logically and less with your emotions. I SAID Georgie ran to the T not him because it fits the timeline as when the sound of the wind started and abated. He did place himself behind the condos which is why he couldn’t find an address. Also there was the clinking sound which could have been the flashlight against the poop station.

            At a running speed of 3 secs. per 10 yds. the young former wide receiver Mr. Martin could have easily made the 70 yds to Brandy’s in about 20 to 25 secs. George didn’t even open the door until 11 secs. after he said the athletic Mr. Martin ran “towards the back gate”; give another 3 to 4 seconds for Georgie to emerge from the SUV, it would put Mr. Martin just about 20 yrds. from Brandy’s and the safety of the condo, which being that it was now nighttime and rainy, GZ lost sight and the best way to even attempt to try and locate him, he would need to go to the T in the walk to see between the buildings.

            Educate your self and listen to the non-emergancy tape. Not just to what was said, but also to background noises. Again, Georgie Z. NEVER CHASED NOR FOLLOWED Mr Martin. He did however, attempt to watch for him, but he lost sight if him until TM came back and attacked him. Evidence you say? The keys are the key.

            Like

            • howie says:

              How are the Keys the Key?

              Like

              • howie says:

                Oh…Mr. Z could not go for his gun if he had his keys in one hand and his flashlight in the other?

                Like

              • ejarra says:

                Georgie’s keys were found in the grass at the T.

                Shows 2 things: He was about to go back to his SUV and that he was blindsided by Mr Martin. If Georgie was to instigate the fight he would have put his keys in his pocket (along with the flashlight). But if he was attacked first with a first to the face, specifically the nose, he would have dropped the keys and put his hands up to protect his face. The fight drifted down the walk a few yards where Mr. Martin athletism placed him on top of Georgie in his attempt to kill him. Georgie Z. was then put in a kill or be killed situtation.

                Like

            • THEIFAM says:

              Get off the narcotics. You don’t even know what you said or what I said. When your head clears, notify me.

              Like

        • THEIFAM says:

          Was he awake? Did he have on headphones? Please enlighten us since you obviously know?

          Like

    • Aussie says:

      that is extremely silly reasoning.

      Where was Chad? He was supposed to have been in the Condo… that kind of spoils your scenario.

      Like

  37. stobberdobber says:

    It is best to ban TheIfam-he is a malicious troll. Just saying, but your call. A lot of trolls are invading certain places now coming to light and taking over. Be careful.

    Like

    • John Galt says:

      “he is a malicious troll”
      not a garden variety troll, paid rep, floating trial balloons, testing theories

      Like

      • stobberdobber says:

        Nope he is malicious trust me he has been at wagist just wait the insults will follow soon.

        Like

        • Aussie says:

          Milton Wah in disguise? Or the one who lied about my identity?

          Like

          • stobberdobber says:

            No Not Milton Wah. Wah is a crass ignoramus. THEIFAM gets crass also but very verbose and intelligently misleading. His crassness comes in as a personal eloquent attack.

            Like

        • THEIFAM says:

          Troll = anyone who doesn’t share your viewpoint and makes points that you can’t counter.

          Like

          • howie says:

            To be countered a point needs to be made first. So far you have not made one.. Say what about Tradevons cousin? Was it his Cousin or a Cuzz?

            Like

            • THEIFAM says:

              Troll= anyone who doesn’t share your viewpoint, makes points that you can’t counter or makes points that you can’t comprehend.

              Like

          • stobberdobber says:

            Troll=Someone who go from site to site making ridiculous points opposite of any known facts and who when faced with the facts counters with a statement to draw out a persons emotions. This you do and have now done again for all here to see. You have proved my point.

            Like

    • THEIFAM says:

      You can ban THEIFAM, but you can’t ban the truth.

      Like

  38. JE_Reading says:

    This seems like the right place to post this story:

    http://www.care2.com/causes/arizonas-trayvon-martin-another-stand-your-ground-killing.html

    Arizona’s Trayvon Martin? Another ‘Stand Your Ground’ Killing

    Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/arizonas-trayvon-martin-another-stand-your-ground-killing.html#ixzz1xg1XSpep

    You’ll have to read through the majority of the article to get confirmation of the shooter’s race. At least it is mentioned.

    Like

    • James Crawford says:

      After reading the story, I have to say that there are a lot of differences between the ,two shootings.

      The shooter in Arizona was Black, not “White Hispanic”

      The shooter in Arizona might have felt threatened because the shootey was holding a dog leash and was angry about the shooter nearly running him over accidentally, but niether the shooter or his girlfriend were assaulted.

      I would expect Sheriff Joe to throw the shooter’s ass in jail.

      Like

  39. Ignatius J Donnelly says:

    The stooges bought a black and mild and he smoked it. He was screwin around talkin to some girl, dawdling when zimmie spotted him. TM ran, hid Zimmie looke for him and whoops! he found him. Zimmie gets punched for his trouble, ends up screaming like a little girl. He shoots the kid, It is a valid self defense claim in my opinion but Zimmie has not been exactly truthful about that night.

    Like

  40. Ignatius J Donnelly says:

    Trayvon had been staying with his cousin. Who knows if anyone at the Green’s was even expecting him that night. Gang training? LOL Stashing his dope? Why didn’t he stash everything else for convenience sake if nothing else. His phone is breakable. He would not wade into a fight with his phone on him if he could avoid it. He did not go into that confrontation with the intention of fighting but it turned out that way. Only two people know what happened that night. One is dead and the other appears to be a compulsive liar.

    Like

    • Aussie says:

      ooops alert: another change in the narrative

      Everybody check the above to see what is false in this particular narrative.. There is a really big whopper!!

      Like

    • THEIFAM says:

      Ignatius this bunch is logic challenged.

      Like

      • ZurichMike says:

        Both THEIFAM and I.J.D. are very late to the party and apparently have failed to read the other longer, fact-based (i.e., with verified references) that link lots of what is *not* part of the leftist media whores’ narrative of Saint Trayvon.

        Nice try. Maybe HuffPo has is getting too boring for you?

        Like

        • THEIFAM says:

          Maybe you need to realize that there is big world out there, and the facts of the world are not limited to the narrow interpretation of you and the Conservative Treehouse. This is not the only party in town I assure you.

          Like

          • ZurichMike says:

            Maybe you need to realize that there is a big world out there, and the fact of the world are not limited to the narrow interpretation of you and the leftist media whores, the race-baiters like Crump, Jackson and Sharpton (remember his lies about the Duke lacrosse players? Tawana Brawley?). Your myopic view of the world is thankfully not the only party in town.

            Like

        • Jello333 says:

          When I first came to this site, you guys were up to something like #8 in the updates. I glanced around for a few minutes, and then you know what I did? Yeah… I went back to the first post, and read right through all the updates in order to get myself up to speed. I think it’s important that anyone coming here for the first time, especially anyone who still assumes the original Crump/MSM-driven narrative was accurate, read through ALL the posts. It’ll probably take a day or two, but it’s WELL worth it.

          Like

  41. Angel says:

    I sorta hate to mention this here but wasn’t Casey Anthony proven to be a liar but she was still found not guilty of murder. as the jurors believe the prosecutors did not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt If being a liar was all it took to convict someone of murder, then Casey would probably be in prison today. I’m just saying.

    Like

    • Patriot Dreamer says:

      Good question. Wouldn’t those conversations be considered privileged?

      Like

      • 2ntense says:

        I understood it to be George’s statements to police. I also thought the judge was to busy and out of town?

        Like

      • THEIFAM says:

        You mean confidential and the answer is no. The husband-wife privilege can be only invoked by one of the spouses to prevent the other spouse from revealing or having to reveal communications between the two.

        Like

  42. robert says:

    Look at these double standards out of Corey’s mouth.

    Q: What kind of gun do you carry?

    COREY: I carry a 38-caliber, only for life-threatening conditions. But remember, now, prosecutors are law enforcement officers. And so we have a lot of danger in this job. We are very big advocates of the Second Amendment….As lawyers sworn to uphold the Constitution, we believe in the Second Amendment. We want people to be able to carry whatever they deem appropriate as long as they are trained, as long as they don’t endanger citizens or police officers, and as long as they carry their weapons within the bounds of the law. That’s all we’ve ever asked of anybody. And it’s only when they go over the line that we have to prosecute.

    here is the link to the complete article
    http://www.wctv.tv/home/headlines/Five_Questions_for_State_Attorney_Angela_Corey_159036595.html

    Like

    • THEIFAM says:

      Why is that a double standard? You can’t be threatened and then after the threat is over follow armed with a loaded firearm and look for the person who threatened you- cause the threat to be renewed, and then when your life is put in danger again use your firearm to end it. Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instructions 3.6(f)

      Like

      • ZurichMike says:

        It’s a double standard because GZ had a registered gun, was trained, and had a permit, and was using it within the bounds of the law. You are way behind the learning curve on this situation — have you not read any of the posts that put the pieces together?

        Like

        • THEIFAM says:

          Memo to Zurich:
          This cite is not the authority on the Zimmerman murder case. “within the bounds of the law. Says who? The Conservative Treehouse? You? You don’t make that decision a judge or a jury does. Stop acting like taking another human’s life is excusable just because you choose to believe the statements of a person who has demonstrated a propensity to lie. You probably think Zimmerman was in the bounds of law when he claimed he was indigent in his bail application also don’t you? I guess he was in the bounds of law when he assaulted a law enforcement officer also? When a restraining order was taken out against him? When he harassed a co-worker based upon his national origin? When he threw a bar patron across the bar?

          Can he do anything wrong at all?

          Like

          • ZurichMike says:

            Memo to THEIFAM:
            Your posts are not the authority on the Zimmerman self-defense/stand your ground case. Not within the bounds of law? Says who? HuffPo? You? You don’t make that decision; a judge or a jury does. Stop acting like filing a bogus charge devoid of factual basis and ruining a person’s life is excusable because you choose to believe the statements of a prosecutor and celebrity race-baiters who have demonstrated a propensity to lie. Unfortunately you, like the addle-brained leftist media whores, conflate a string of rumors and innuendos without context as proof of guilt of a racist narrative where blacks can do no wrong, and whites (or partial whites) can do no right.

            Can Trayvon be any more innocent?

            Like

  43. Don’t forget he never bought Arizona Ice Tea. He bought Arizona Watermelon Fruit Cocktail with the skittles. A common concoction for making “Lean” a/k/a Purple Drank. His social media accounts talk about this. The facts are really going to get in the way of everyone’s theory. Hey, Obama, how do you like your son now?

    Photobucket

    Like

    • THEIFAM says:

      You are talking about it now. Do you use it? Talking about something does not mean the person uses it or has anything to do with it. But all you are doing is letting pro prosecution proponents how desperate you are when you have to resort to such speculation.

      A few plastic cups and popsicle sticks and the juice can be made into a nice icy once frozen. That potential use of the juice is just as plausible as is the possibility that it might have been for some sinister purpose.

      These six things (6:18)

      Like

      • ZurichMike says:

        Nice try. TM was involved online with fellow thugs who were into this scene. How desperate are the pro-TM fans that they ignore any facts that don’t fit the narrative of Saint Trayvon.

        Like

        • THEIFAM says:

          We are talking about a murder case here online. Does that mean we are murderers. How ridiculous can you get? Grow up. You sound like a two year old.

          Like

          • ZurichMike says:

            So are the media and Crump & Co. Where is your self-righteous wrath against them? Grow up. You sound like a school marm.

            Like

  44. Joe Benton says:

    when did Trayvon Martin leave the 7 eleven?

    Like

  45. Joe Benton says:

    I believe the answer is in what GZ did not say. GZ got out of his truck and ran for 13 seconds before the officer ask was he following Trayvon. GZ did not say “Trayvon is running behind the houses”. GZ said the kid is running toward the back gate, which would indicate toward the main road where the exit was. Not down the side walk. This makes sence because it was dark between the houses and Trayvon was afraid, Trayvon’s girlfriend said “So he said he was about to run from the back. So, next thing I hear. he just run”. We know when Trayvon said “run from the back” he meant, go throught the path, because GZ followed him on foot with a flash light, for at least 13 seconds, it is only 40 yards to the tee. GZ would have seen him turn. Trayvon losses GZ on the main road and begins to walk home. Before he gets in, he sees GZ again (according to his GF, right at his house). Not wanting GZ to know where he lived, he felt boxed in, and had to go into the dark and up the side walk. The route I’ve laid out is 310 yards long. You can get this distance if you ran 100 yards and walked the rest. I’m sure GZ had his gun out and probably shielded by the flash light. Trayvon, being afraid, struck GZ knocking him to the ground. Trayvon then saw the gun, he got on top of GZ and started yelling for help, while trying to stop GZ from shooting him.
    GZ was not yelling for help, he was trying to shoot a kid he felt like was attacking him

    Like

    • Kyozokuninja says:

      LMTAOWAT!

      Like

    • ejarra says:

      “The route I’ve laid out is 310 yards long”

      You do know that almost a fifth of a mile right?

      There is a full moon tonight.

      Like

      • Joe Benton says:

        if a person is tired, he should walk a mile every 30 minutes. One fifth should take 6 minutes. However if one runs a hundred yards of it, it adds up nicely.

        If Trayvon was hiding, why was he on the phone?
        If GZ had followed Trayvon down the sidewalk, Trayvon would have had to pass GZ or go to the road.
        GZ did not need help, he could stop it anytime he wanted.
        GZ said he walked to the main road and back to the tee, that is 120 yards. An old lady would walk that in 2 minutes.
        GZ said Trayvon attacked him and immediatly knocked him down, Yet the fight took place 40 feet from any where GZ says he was.

        Like

        • Jello333 says:

          Jesus, Dee Dee! It’s like you know NOTHING about the layout of the neighborhood, or the timing involved, not to mention past and present apparent motivations of GZ. I know it’s confusing, but sheesh…. it’s not even a little bit dripping water or anything!

          Like

    • Jello333 says:

      Yeah, but where did George hide his Klan robe after murdering little Trayvon? There’s no report from any witness that he still had it on when they saw him. And the axe? Where’d he put that? I know he never got a chance to use it on Trayvon, but you know he wanted to. I’m sure to this day one thing George most regrets is not having time to chop Trayvon into little teeny bits before the cops arrived. So I think someone needs to confront the Sanford Police and ask them: Why didn’t you do a thorough search for Grand Dragon Zimmerman’s robe and axe?!!!

      Like

      • Joe Benton says:

        I don’t think GZ is a racist. I think he has every right to ask Trayvon what he was doing. I do not believe Trayvon should have run or hit GZ. Running made Trayvon look suspicious, someone should have ask him what he was doing. When Trayvon hit GZ, I believe he was in fear for his life.

        Like

        • Jay says:

          What makes you think TM was in fear. Everything he did that night shows he had no fear. Remember Dee Dee telling him to run and he said he wasn’t gonna run. He wasn’t scared.

          Like

  46. Joe Benton says:

    This is a manslaughter case, because when GZ shot Trayvon he was in fear of his life. I think we can agree on that. GZ’s problem is simply, he has law enforcement training. When my wife stops at a car wreck, she has to be careful because she is held to a higher standard than I am. From what I know about this case, GZ did nothing wrong, except not identifying himself. However one could argue that Trayvon is dead because he did not. Because of GZ’s training this could be manslaughter.

    Like

    • Kyozokuninja says:

      I believe the words you want are ‘Trayvon was in fear that the ol boi was going to find out his was doing something he shouldn’t’.

      Like

      • Joe Benton says:

        There seems to be evidence to support an argument, saying Trayvon had just been involded in illegal activity. However because GZ had no knowledge of this, It has nothing to do with case. Nothing was found on him so he was in no fear of being caught stealing or drugs or anything for that matter. Trayvon was in fear of GZ.

        Like

        • Kyozokuninja says:

          GZ = Neighborhood Watch.
          TrayDad = Trouble if GZ lets the HO Assoc know what happened.
          Trayvon = In trouble already with the ol boi.

          I’m glad Trayvon texted you before this all went down. Have you spoken with Angela or Crump yet?

          You deal with speculation, not evidence. Stick with evidence; it’s easier to prove.

          Like

        • Jay says:

          How do you know TM didn’t stash something somewhere when Zimm lost sight of him. You have no idea what TM did that night when he was waiting to ambush Zimm. So Mr detective can ya tell me why the button and earbuds were in his pocket.

          Like

          • Joe Benton says:

            If GZ did not know Trayvon stashed something or for that matter had drugs on him, it has nothing to do with why GZ shot Trayvon. and the evidence showes Trayvon did not ambush GZ on the side walk he said he was on. GZ got hit at least 30 feet from the tee.
            GZ said he did not go down there.

            Like

            • Jay says:

              It doesn’t matter if he knew or not point is nobody has any idea what TM did that night. He had enough time to stash what ever he had on him. He was trying to conceal who he was just face it thugs do it everyday in the hood. You probably wouldn’t know that because you don’t deal with kids like him everyday. He was a thug granted he was terrible at it but none the less he was a thug.

              Like

    • James Crawford says:

      What a bunch of crap.

      Unless GZ commits an overtly hostile act or indicates an unambiguous intention to assault TM, then TM has no right to attack him. GZ was on his way to the store, not “on duty” as neighborhood watch. The Neighborhood Watch handbook specifically recommends that volunteers not “identify themselves” to potential suspects as if they were some type of pseudo law enforcement.

      As for location, TM’s body was located only a short distance from the Tee. Other physical evidence (dropped keys and flashlight) indicates that the fight began a much shorter distance from the Tee. The fight was dynamic, not static. It is also probable that TM remained ambulatory for a few seconds after he was shot and could have moved at least a few yards. Given the well founded presumption that GZ’s gun had a failure to feed due to a failure to fully eject the spent cartridge, the location of the spent cartridge merely indicates where GZ cleared his gun to holster it, not where it was fired. (even if GZ’s gun functioned properly, spent cases can be ejected considerable distance)

      Like

      • Joe Benton says:

        What GZ was doing when he spotted Trayvon has nothing to do with this case. The fact that he stopped doing what ever he was doing and began stalking Trayvon for the last 6 minutes of his life does. Trayvon was clearly trying to get away from GZ.
        This is the definition of unambiguous intention to assault,
        No one should ever identify themselves as a law enforcement agent, unless they are. I don’t know what that has to do with this case.
        In the police report, GZ states: he was ambushed and knocked straight to the ground and never moved until after he shoot Trayvon. He said Trayvon fell straight back, Their were I witness as to where Trayvon was shoot. As for the flashlight and keys, GZ could have caught Trayvon at the tee or beyond. But the facts show that Trayvon was coming from his house and GZ was behind him when the struggle began..After the two meet, the phone goes dead. No one sees or hears from them until they are on the ground, what happened during this time no one knows but GZ. You can Believe his story or not, it don’t matter because the fact is; they meet in a dark ally, TM was beating the hell out of GZ, so he shot him. The two men did not know each other so what started the fight is on the phone calls.

        Like

        • ejarra says:

          Let’s examine your lies.

          “and began ‘stalking’ Trayvon” Stalking has a specific legal definition. There in NO evidence of stalking. 1st lie.

          “Trayvon was clearly trying to get away from GZ ” There is NO evidence that Mr. Martin did that at all. However, there IS evidence of TM lying-in-wait and ambushing Georgie approx 80 yds. from where he was supposed to be. 2nd lie.

          “Their were I witness as to where Trayvon was shoot.” I think U R Crump. U write like he speaks. No lie, but I couldn’t let that statement go unnoticed.

          “But the facts show that Trayvon was coming from his house and GZ was behind him when the struggle began.” Seriously! The FACTS show this? Maybe in some fantasy world you live in, but not in a court of law. 3rd lie.

          “No one sees or hears from them until they are on the ground, what happened during this time no one knows but GZ. You can Believe his story or not, it don’t matter because the fact is; they meet in a dark ally, TM was beating the hell out of GZ, so he shot him.” If you believe what you wrote is the truth, then this can’t go to trial as there are NO refutting witnesses. The procecution would then have no case. What was discussed in the NEN tape would then have no meaning as it DOES NOT refute what transpired AFTER Georgie hung up. You told the truth there, so I’ll give you that one.

          ‘The two men did not know each other so what started the fight is on the phone calls.” No, it’s not. Not even close, in fact I have NO idea where you can come to that conclusion. 4th lie.

          Score: 4 lies, vs. 1 truth.

          Like

          • Joe Benton says:

            I used the word stalking in the form of common usage. Much like “the boy was stalking a deer”. GZ was not charged with stalking, so the legal def. of stalking is of no use here.
            lie 2. The girlfriend said Trayvon was running from GZ. GZ even said “shit he’s running” on the phone. This is real evidence.
            There is no evidence of an ambush. The evidence will prove or disprove what GZ says. What GZ says is not evidence.
            lie 3 The girlfriend says Trayvon was almost to his house seconds before the shooting and said GZ was behind him. Again evidence
            The procecuter has a case because he does not believe Trayvon was beating the hell out of GZ for the hell of it. He believes Trayvon had a reason.
            lie 4 The girlfiend said “Trayvon was to tired to run and GZ caught him”, again evidence

            Like

            • Jello333 says:

              Alright, look at pretty much everything Dee Dee says. Now look at the evidence that was available to only a handful of people during the first few days after the shooting. That evidence includes, among other things, all of George’s statements and the NEN call. Now compare those two… compare what Dee Dee says to the very early evidence. There are some matches there, but also some strange contradictions that have SOME basis in facts. For instance George and the dispatcher talking about Trayvon being near “mailboxes”, and Dee Dee saying Travyon told her he was by the “mail thing”. So, I’m sure YOU will say that that confirms that Dee Dee WAS getting that info from Travyon. But tell me this: Why on earth would Trayvon say, “Hey Dee Dee, know where I’m at? I’m standing by some mailboxes. Cool, huh?!” But if, instead, the only reason Dee Dee said a thing about the “mail thing” is because George, ON THE CALL TO DISPATCH, said it…. THEN we’ve got a problem. It implies that Dee Dee was COACHED to say certain things, by using evidence that wasn’t yet public. But how can that be?…. Hmm…. does the name Chris Serino ring a bell?

              So yeah, in case there’s any doubt, I very much AM saying that a lot of what Dee Dee has said is based on what she was TOLD to say (by Crump et al) after they received ILLEGALLY LEAKED info from Serino.

              Like

              • Joe Benton says:

                If Dee Dee was coached the case should be dismissed, end of story. The police should be held accountable. Here is the problem with Dee Dee. GZ said he got out his truck and started walking looking for an address, never ran or followed TM. He also says it took him 4 minutes to walk 120 yards in the rain. Now lets look at the evidence The police call sounds like GZ was running. GZ later says he was following TM (who was running) leading one to believe GZ was running after TM. Later GZ says, call me I will tell you where I am. Leading on to believe he intended to continue looking for TM. The time frame does not add up. GZ could probably explain what what he meant. However Dee Dee tells the exact same story as GZ, except she puts the distance at 310 yards going by TM’s fathers house. This is important because it you ran 100 yards and walked 210 yards it would take you 4 minutes. GZ and Dee Dee put GZ behind and chasing TM in the beginning. GZ hangs up never saying what he is going to do. But Dee Dee takes both men all the way to TM fathers house, then to the point TM was shoot. There are no contradiction between the phone calls. Was Dee Dee coached?????? If Dee Dee’s story stands with no contradiction to any evidence, they will put GZ behind TM. I hope you are wrong however it would not surprise me if your right.

                Like

                • Jello333 says:

                  I won’t get into what Dee Dee said about Trayvon and all his movements and locations right now…. it’s getting late, and I’d have to go back and listen to some of her interviews, and I admit that trying to decipher her words/thoughts makes me crazy. 😉 So I’ll just stick with George’s movements. I think it’s much simpler than you suggest.

                  I think when he said “He’s running”, that Trayvon was just about to pass out of George’s line of sight (between the rows of buildings). And even though George opened the truck door almost immediately, it took him several seconds to close the door and start moving. I believe at that time he started walking quickly, NOT running. If he HAD been in so much of a hurry that he was gonna just jump out and start sprinting, I don’t see why he’d take so long to take those extras several seconds. Anyway, he had only been moving for 3 or 4 seconds when the dispatcher asked if he was following, George said yeah, and was told “We don’t need you to do that.” And then within 10 seconds or so, we can tell by the sounds that George had come to a virtual stop. About that time is when he said, “He ran”… in other words, “He’s gone, I don’t see him anymore.” And for much of the time he continues to talk to the dispatcher, and CLEARLY has no idea where Trayvon is, we can hear the tapping noise. I’m almost certain that is George tapping his (non-working) flashlight on the dog-waste station… which is right at the “T”. I think he stands pretty much right there during most of the rest of his call. And once he hangs up, THEN he continues east on the sidewalk to Retreat View Circle to get an address (which I DO believe he was doing, and I’ll explain why if you want). After that, he turns around and starts retracing his steps, walking back west.

                  Depending on how long it was between the time the confrontation began and the first 911 call was made, the time between George’s call ending and the start of the confrontation could have been as little as a minute or so. Which is NOT a huge amount of time for George to have walked from the “T”, to the east end of the sidewalk, and back to the “T”… which is where I believe the confrontation began. And I believe that from just a second or two after George said, “He’s running”, to the beginning of that confrontation…. at no time between those two events did George have ANY idea where Travyon was. On the other hand, during at least a part of that time, Trayvon knew exactly where George was.

                  Like

                • Joe Benton says:

                  This would explain the evidence in the GZ phone call, and may very well have been what happened. However there is no evidence that GZ was looking for an address or going to return to his truck. Just because he did not say it on the phone does not mean it ain’t so. It just means there is no direct evidence of it. He does say, he was following TM and he does not know where he (GZ) is going to be when the police get there. It is True, this could fit your story. But it also fits Dee Dee’s story “if true” to the TEE and her story (may) be considered evidence.

                  Like

    • ytz4mee says:

      Joe Benton has shown up to share with us the latest narrative desperately being spun by the Scheme Team. Every single assertion in his first paragraph is false, and crafted with a single intent.

      I am sure that the long time Treepers here can figure it out pretty quickly.
      Have at it.

      Like

      • Kyozokuninja says:

        Second wave approaching from the left flank. Droppings sighted.

        Like

        • ytz4mee says:

          Yes, more discovery turned over to MOM is due to be released to the public sometime this week or early next, so stand by for more chaff. The intensity of their attempts to reinvent the evidence leads me to believe that the new document dump will include even more exculpatory evidence. The desperation coming from the Scheme Team and their minions is palatable.

          Like

        • splat! says:

          (looking around for scooper)

          Like

  47. Joe Benton says:

    can we discuss something?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s