Michale32086
- 23 comments
- 18 likes given
- 135 likes received
Bio not provided
I knew I Crump was a douche when his first action upon being hired was to develop a "media strategy" His words...
Recently, the scumbag said "If George Zimmerman hadn't gotten out of his car, they say it was completely avoidable. That is the headline."
The asshole thinks in terms of media strategy and headlines. Justice, facts, they mean nothing to this lowlife..
He is a bottom-sucker of the worst kind, that feeds off the tragedies of others.. If anyone needs a DEAD OR ALIVE bounty on his head, it's Crump....
I know, I know.. I shouldn't keep it all bottled up inside.. I should say how I *REALLY* feel... :^/
On another note... While it wouldn't surprise me if TM did steal the stuff from the 7/11, simply not having a receipt is not necessarily indicative of that. Whenever I go into Quickie Marts, I rarely come out with a receipt. If i do, it's usually in the garbage soon after...
I swear to gods, if I hear one more ignorant soul say, "If Zimmerman had stayed in his truck, Martin would still be alive" I am going to go postal !!!!
Zimmerman getting out of his truck has as much causal responsibility for this incident as TM going to 7/11...
<<<<<<ABC News: Trayvon Martin, the 17-year-old who was shot and killed by a neighborhood watch volunteer, had the drug THC in his system the night of this death, according to new information obtained by ABC News.>>>>>>>
HA!!!!! Who'se yer daddy!!!
:D Granted, it wasn't a real hard call to make.. :D Practically everyone else here did..
<<<<<what does he mean by mutual combat.>>>>>
He means that Zimmerman repeatedly bashed Martin's knuckles with his face...
Yea, I don't think they're accepting new users..
Something about being completely unprepared to address facts brought in from OUTSIDE the echo chamber...
That's not too hard to explain.
Zimmerman had just taken a human life. He was as high on adrenaline as could possibly be. He literally wasn't feeling any pain...
The next day, he was hurting like a son of a bitch... That's why he went in the next day.
<<<The only way to make it undetectable in hair would be to remove all body hair>>>
Britney Spears!!!! :D
Thanx Like I said, it's pretty much a compilation of everything I have said in the last 2 months or so.
But it felt good to get it all down in one place.. :D
@AghastinFL Why thanx.. :D I have been lurking a lot, but there just wasn't anything new to say.. That long-assed post I did was simply pulling in everything I have said to date in one big narrative... Was afraid it would be redundant...
"In the dictionary under 'redundant' it says, 'see redundant'"
-Robin Williams, LIVE AT THE MET
:D
Does anyone have a link to the autopsy report that shows more than just Martin's bruised knuckles?? I am dying to know what the tox report says...
Yea, I have been reading thru the thread. Not a whole lot of objective people in there...
CONT.....
Now, let's apply this to the Zimmerman shooting.
Was Zimmerman's fear of imminent serious bodily harm or death reasonable? From Zimmerman's own testimony, substantiated by the eyewitnesses, the police and EMT reports and the physical evidence, it's clear that Zimmerman's fear of imminent serious bodily harm or death was, indeed, reasonable.
Did Zimmerman express a desire to disengage from combat. According to case law and precedent, yelling out for assistance or help is a accepted expression of desire to disengage. According to Zimmerman's testimony and substantiated by eyewitness testimony, Zimmerman did yell for help. Hence, Zimmerman expressed an accepted desire to disengage from combat.
The final element is easily satisfied, as there is absolutely NO evidence, or even claim, that Zimmerman was in the commission of a forcible felony..
So, what do we have? We have three elements required for the authorized deployment of deadly force and we have, in this particular case, all the elements satisfied.
This is as clear cut textbook case of deadly force as you are likely to come across...
As you can see, the idea that Zimmerman following Trayvon is somehow relevant is simply not the case. It doesn't matter who followed who. It doesn't matter if Trayvon was profiled. It doesn't even matter if Zimmerman thru the first punch.
While other evidence is contributory to indicate to us what went on that night, the ONLY evidence that is relevant is the evidence that shows the last 30-90 seconds of Trayvon Martin's life.
That's it.. That is the ONLY evidence relevant to determine if self defense was applicable..
Now, let's look at the State's evidence that has any bearing on those last 30-90 seconds of Trayvon Martin's life. Let's examine the State's evidence that contradicts or refutes Zimmerman's testimony of that last 30-90 seconds of Trayvon Martin's life.
We can't..
Because the State doesn't HAVE any evidence that contradicts or refutes Zimmerman's testimony of that last 30-90 seconds of Trayvon Martin's life. Do you know how we know this? Because the State stated so. UNDER OATH.
Let me repeat that. The State Attorneys Office stated, *UNDER OATH*, that they have NO EVIDENCE that refutes or contradicts Zimmerman's testimony of the relevant portion of this incident... All things being equal, that ALONE would be sufficient grounds that Zimmerman will walk at the immunity hearing... But, in addition to Zimmerman's testimony, there is also the testimony of the eyewitnesses, the police and EMT reports AND the physical evidence. They ALL say the same thing...
Now, let’s delve into this aspect deeper. Occam’s Razor is a logic principle that stipulates one must, when faced with competing hypotheses, select the hypothesis that makes the fewest assumptions and offers the simplest explanation of the incident in question.
The Zimmerman version of events is one such hypothesis.. Then there is the State version of events which says that, in a fit of racist rage, Zimmerman stalked Trayvon Martin and shot him dead in cold blood. Now, if this was what REALLY occurred, then we are to believe that Zimmerman, realizing he was going to have to concoct a reasonable story, gathered 2 or 3 neighbors and told them the story that they were to tell the police. Once that was accomplished, Zimmerman banged his head on the cement, several times. Zimmerman then proceeded to plant the physical evidence. As an added challenge, Zimmerman called the Sanford PD to make sure they were on the way… Zimmerman did ALL of this and got EVERYTHING right. The eyewitnesses’ stories lined up perfectly with Zimmerman’s story AND the physical evidence and Zimmerman was able to create the physical evidence so that it lined up perfectly with the eyewitnesses’ story and his own story. Zimmerman was able to do ALL of this, get ALL of it perfectly lined up in the span of 2 mins AND did it without ANYONE witnessing him creating this fairy tale crime scene..
Now, look at things logically rather than emotionally.. What’s more likely?? That Zimmerman is some evil psychotic crime scene savant and was able to create the perfect crime? Or that things occurred exactly as Zimmerman, the eyewitnesses, the physical evidence and the Police and EMT reports stated?
I realize that this is an emotional topic. But, in deciding guilt or innocence one must forgo emotion and look at the facts in a clear, cold, logical and objective manner. When one does so in this case, the conclusion is clear.
Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman without cause or provocation. Zimmerman, in reasonable fear for his life, killed Martin in self defense.
This is what the facts show. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But they are not entitled to their own facts. And the facts in this case are indisputable.
This post is going to be quite detailed, hence quite long.. Better stop reading now, unless you're in it for the long haul..
It always gives me a chuckle when I read news articles and commentaries on the Zimmerman/Martin shooting. They will always try to play the even-handed role where they claim that “it’s unlikely anyone will ever know what REALLY happened” and crap like that. For anyone who can look at things objectively and logically, it’s actually quite easy to determine what happened with a reasonable expectation of accuracy…. All the evidence is there to be examined. Unless there is some major game-changing evidence that has been heretofore kept hidden (a distinct, albeit unlikely possibility) then based on what is known for an absolutely fact, it’s rather easy to piece together what occurred on 26 Feb 2012.
First, let me establish my bona fides. Approx 2 decades in the security, military and LEO fields. My primary field of expertise is surveillance, but I also have extensive investigative experience..
When an investigator begins a case, the first thing they do is create a listing of evidence in the form of links, as in links of a chain. This piece of evidence is a link, that piece of evidence is a link and this other piece of evidence is a link. So on and so on until such time as all evidence is down as a link...
Then the investigator takes one "link" and locates other "links" that substantiate the current link. The investigator then places these links on either side of the current link. The investigator does this with ALL the evidence "links" until such time as he/she has created a solid "chain of evidence". Not to be confused with chain of custody FOR evidence. Totally different ballpark there..
Anyways, the investigator now has a long and strong chain. But there will invariably be evidence that doesn't fit in the chain. This is evidence that has no substantiation from any of the other evidence. This evidence is called "outlier" evidence and, while not discarded (NO investigator worth anything would discard any evidence) the evidence is set aside in case substantiation occurs later..
Now, how does all this fit into the Zimmerman/Martin shooting..
There are many key pieces of evidence and one outlier evidence. That is, that is known..
In our evidence "chain" we have Zimmerman's testimony, we have the eyewitness testimony, we have the police report, we have the EMT report and we have the physical evidence.. The point here is that ALL of this evidence supports and substantiates every other piece of evidence. The eyewitness testimony and the physical evidence and the EMT/Police reports substantiate Zimmerman's testimony.. The physical evidence supports and substantiates the eyewitness testimony and so on and so on. So, we have a pretty strong chain of evidence..
But there IS one outlier evidence. That is DeeDee's statements. These statements are not substantiated by ANY other evidence. Her testimony is extremely suspect because no one even HEARD of DeeDee until Crump and Sharpton got involved. Why didn't DeeDee try to contact Trayvon's parents?? Why didn't DeeDee dial 911 and report that her boyfriend was just attacked??? These unanswered questions plus DeeDees late arrival into the issue makes her statements extremely suspect.
Now, much has been played up about racism in this case. There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE whatsoever, that would indicate race had anything to do with this. Mark Fuhrman taught us that, if a person is going to use a racial slur once, it is likely that they will use it a LOT more than just once.. There is NO evidence that Zimmerman has a racist bone in his body. Further, if Zimmerman had even the SLIGHTEST inkling of racism about him, it is likely it would have come out when this black guy was kicking the crap outta him. Therefore, the ONLY logical conclusion is that racism played absolutely NO PART in this incident..
Another fairy tale about this case is the idea that Zimmerman followed Trayvon and that, somehow, has relevance. First and foremost, there is absolutely NO substantiated evidence to indicate that Zimmerman followed Trayvon. Even if Zimmerman did, following a person is not illegal. You can't claim self-defense if you beat the crap out of someone just because they followed you.
So, Zimmerman following Trayvon, even if true, has absolutely NO relevance.
Now, let's look at the law... Under Florida Statutes, there are three (and ONLY three) elements necessary to satisfy the use of deadly force in pursuit of self-defense.
1. A person must have a reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily harm or death.
2. A person must have expressed a desire to disengage from combat.
3. A person must not be in the commission of a forcible felony.
If these 3 elements are satisfied, deadly force is authorized.
CONT.....