Exclusive! First hand Witness: Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman Zimmerman Innocent Smoking Gun

reply to post by fbluth

BTW,

You said they weren't sworn to tell the truth,

This statement is NOT true.
If you dispute this, please show me where I said that these witnesses were not under oath.

reply to post by butcherguy


And the same can be said about you. I at least look at the evidence and make my decisions on that. Based on your post you don't do the same. Your like most GZ fans, you don't care if he killed in self defense or not. You don't care what is reasons for killing you were. GZ fans are just glad he killed and think he should have no consequences for his actions. GZ fans believe that TM deserved to die NO MATTER WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE!'

I mean really, what the big deal right? he just killed some 17 year old thug minding his own business,,,,,who could possibly care about any one killing someone like that. Thats pretty correct, isn't it?

Since you don't care about evidence or facts thats the only other explanation, your just glad GZ killed.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by Resurected
reply to post by butcherguy

 

Every witness who has talked to the police is a testamony (just not in the court of law, but will be used for such and why they are being released to the public). No reason to dance around the subject really, facts are facts.

Who administered the oath (or affirmation) when these witnesses testified?

If they were not under oath, they made statements. If found to be false, the statements would constitute making false statements to police.
If they testify falsely, they can be found guilty of perjury, which is a serious crime.
If they make a statement to police, then do not testify, it will hold very little in court. There is a big difference.

Right here. you are questioning who administered the oath. A representative from the state of FL who is authorized to swear their statements. You then go on to say 'If they were under oath'.....

They were under oath, there is no 'if'.....i proved to you they were under oath.

That is where you said it. So yes those statements are correct.

reply to post by fbluth

You seem to be a bit obstinate. The 'if' denotes that I did not know. But then you would know all of this if you read my earlier post.
I specifically asked who had testified....and that I was not aware that any had.
My use of the word 'if' was directed towards whether or not anyone had been administered an oath. I did not know if anyone had, and never said that no one had. I defy you to show me where I said no one had been administered an oath.

reply to post by fbluth

Right here. you are questioning who administered the oath.

Furthermore, the fact that I asked the question in no way proves that I said that no one testified. It is asking for proof, before I decided whether it had happened.

Some of us like to see facts before we decide.

reply to post by fbluth

Since you don't care about evidence or facts thats the only other explanation, your just glad GZ killed.

You couldn't be more wrong.
2nd line.

Originally posted by fbluth
If they were not under oath, they made statements. If found to be false, the statements would constitute making false statements to police.
If they testify falsely, they can be found guilty of perjury, which is a serious crime.
If they make a statement to police, then do not testify, it will hold very little in court. There is a big difference.

Why would zimmerman start a fist fight knowing if he throws a fist the other guy
might shoot him? He wouldn't. Treyvon not thinking, let his emotions get the best
of him and he started a fist fight. Had treyvon REALLY felt
threatened by zimmerman, he would of ran when his G/F told him too, he sized zimmerman
up, and thought he could take him in a fist fight. Zimmerman would of never caught up with
treyvon had treyvon not wanted him too...
Zimmerman knew what street he was down,
but he did not know what street TREYVON went down.
Well, why would a man who has a gun
that was on the phone with 911
waiting for police to get there
start a fist fight with a guy he did not know
was armed or not? He wouldn't, most law abiding people smart
enough to conceal and carry is smart enough
to know you do not pick a fist fight with a armed person..
Treyvon was the only one that knew trayvon had no gun,
so if zimmerman knew he himself had a gun, but did not know if treyvon did or not

reply to post by popsmayhem


The most telling evidence of what happened are the injuries. Zimmerman had bruising on his face, a broken nose and lacerations on the back of his head consistent with his story that Trayvon was ramming his head into the sidewalk.

Trayvon had scraped knuckles and a gun shot wound to the chest that the medical examiner concluded was fired from 0-8 inches away!

Case closed!! 

reply to post by seabag

These are good points not to forget.
Also, the fact that the pistol did not chamber the next round indicates that there may have been a struggle for the weapon.

Originally posted by Resurected
But Sanford Police homicide investigator Chris Serino, in filing a “capias” request recommending a manslaughter charge against Zimmerman, stated in his report that Zimmerman could have avoided the confrontation with Martin by remaining in his vehicle, or by identifying himself to Martin to “allay his concerns.”reply to post by dragonridr

 

From a very fast google search.

For the rest, the only witnesses that did almost link up with Zimmermans story the same ones who in the last few days say they dont really know what happened.. It been the subject of its own threads, and gone over here so i dont think i really need to bring that up again. Also we know the girlfriend on the phone etc.. That is why i asked just what witnesses went along with Zimmermans side of things? I cant think of any so far other then Zimmerman himself.

edit on 23-5-2012 by Resurected because: (no reason given)

That is how the justice system works.
No evidence of a crime no charges.
It is not mob rule black mailing people
by *rioting* if you do not get your way.
If the system does what it is suppose
to do and public opinion despite all evidence
tries to force the system to act unjust.
I see no proof or evidence that zimmerman
did not act in self defense. Treyvon attacking
zimmerman story has held up through all the lies
and bs the media has spun. Since that happen
treyvon decided his fate no one else.

reply to post by popsmayhem


You’re absolutely correct.

I think this is completely manufactured outrage for profit and political gain. If not for the black panthers and people like Al “Showtime” Sharpton, Zimmerman would have never been unlawfully arrested and charged with murder. This has been a witch hunt from DAY 1 and this case is being used to stoke racial flames, enrage the black community (at least those in the black community who don’t pay attention) and get them fired up to vote for Obama. The evidence CLEARLY shows that Zimmerman was getting his butt kicked by a stoned Trayvon and Zimmerman acted in defense of his own life.

Class warfare, racial divides and pitting American’s against American’s by any available means is the order of the day. This is straight from the playbook of the radical LEFT.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

by a stoned Trayvon

Man, you are buying into lies the MSM keeps spewing too. For the gazillionth time, Trayvon was NOT stoned. Traces of THC in the bloodstream suggest he smoked maybe a week before, it could remain in there from months ago. AND even if he were stoned, do you know what the effects of marijuana are? How about we talk about the drugs Zimmerman was on and THEIR side effects?

The media is inflaming BOTH sides of this. But it's only biased when it's anti-Zimmerman, right?

Originally posted by solarjetman

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by popsmayhem

 

by a stoned Trayvon

Man, you are buying into lies the MSM keeps spewing too. For the gazillionth time, Trayvon was NOT stoned. Traces of THC in the bloodstream suggest he smoked maybe a week before, it could remain in there from months ago. AND even if he were stoned, do you know what the effects of marijuana are? How about we talk about the drugs Zimmerman was on and THEIR side effects?

The media is inflaming BOTH sides of this. But it's only biased when it's anti-Zimmerman, right?

The only thing that the THC finding indicated to me was that Trayvon did not have a problem with violating the law.
People smoking dope generally tend towards sloth, not violence.

reply to post by solarjetman

Man, you are buying into lies the MSM keeps spewing too. For the gazillionth time, Trayvon was NOT stoned. Traces of THC in the bloodstream suggest he smoked maybe a week before, it could remain in there from months ago. AND even if he were stoned, do you know what the effects of marijuana are? How about we talk about the drugs Zimmerman was on and THEIR side effects?

The media is inflaming BOTH sides of this. But it's only biased when it's anti-Zimmerman, right?

So the only point you could attack from my post was that I said he was stoned, even though you admit he had THC in his body??

I rest my case!

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by solarjetman

 

Man, you are buying into lies the MSM keeps spewing too. For the gazillionth time, Trayvon was NOT stoned. Traces of THC in the bloodstream suggest he smoked maybe a week before, it could remain in there from months ago. AND even if he were stoned, do you know what the effects of marijuana are? How about we talk about the drugs Zimmerman was on and THEIR side effects?

The media is inflaming BOTH sides of this. But it's only biased when it's anti-Zimmerman, right?

So the only point you could attack from my post was that I said he was stoned, even though you admit he had THC in his body??

I rest my case!

I have THC in my body right now and have not been stoned in 3 weeks. It helps if you know what the hell you are talking about.

I love that you guys think smoking pot is a win for you. If he was stoned, fighting would have been the last thing in the world he would have wanted to do. If he was stoned that night, there would be no doubt in my mind he was just murdered in cold blood.

reply to post by Autumnal

I have THC in my body right now and have not been stoned in 3 weeks. It helps if you know what the hell you are talking about.

I bet you do!

I know what I’m talking about.

I love that you guys think smoking pot is a win for you. If he was stoned, fighting would have been the last thing in the world he would have wanted to do. If he was stoned that night, there would be no doubt in my mind he was just murdered in cold blood.

Trayvon having THC in his body speaks to his character. Why do you think employers drug test and check credit reports; it’s a reflection of your character, how you live your life and what type of person you are.

I’m sorry if you don’t get it but it is what it is. Most people ‘get it’ when they grow up.

I love how the treyvon folks
are scrambling making things up
to fit their story when there is no evidence
off a crime trying to trump up some false
BS or hearsay.

reply to post by seabag

Quit being so defensive. My point had nothing to do with supporting Trayvon or incriminating Zimmerman. My point was simply that the media is spewing crap on BOTH sides of the case. They say THC over and over and make people like you think he was stoned out of his mind. That's on par with showing an old picture of fat Zimmerman wearing orange. I am reserving judgement until ALL of the facts come out, but I have no problem calling BS where i see it. For others like you, you're totally content with accepting BS when it fits your narrative. Deny ignorance!

reply to post by solarjetman

For others like you, you're totally content with accepting BS when it fits your narrative. Deny ignorance!

Please….

The media hasn’t spewed any ‘crap’ in defense of Zimmerman; they convicted him from the start.

And you glossed over the reason the THC is important; it speaks to his character. The media didn’t MAKE UP the fact that THC was in Trayvon's blood they simply reported the medical examiners findings. Trayvon was a stoner! It is what it is.

reply to post by butcherguy


I don't know about that...there are different levels. A ton of people smoke weed, including many brilliant thinkers, poets, artists, engineers. I'm not calling Trayvon a brilliant thinker, but I simply don't think smoking weed is a big deal, and I certainly don't think that it is a "gateway" that makes someone prone to breaking the law in other more serious ways either. My point was simply that the media can be biased in more than one way-- hence you don't hear about Zimmerman's Temazepam and Adderall prescriptions, whose side effects can include aggression and mood instability.

I feel kind of ridiculous having to explain why smoking weed isn't a big deal, but I'll be honest-- if this weren't Trayvon who were in question, I have a strong feeling none of us would even be thinking twice about this incredibly insignificant issue.