| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 05/16/2012 : 09:14:15 AM
According to recent news reports, the latest evidence shows that (1) Zimmerman was treated for two black eyes, busted nose, cuts on back of head, and an injured back the morning after the Martin incident, and (2) Martin had cuts on his--get this--KNUCKLES!
My guess is that most of those who pre-concluded Zimmerman guilty will not change their minds.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| loophole |
Posted - 08/01/2012 : 10:09:31 PM
Nicole Brown Simpson's family did all right in the civil suit |
| hhi angler |
Posted - 08/01/2012 : 4:19:42 PM
Very difficult to win a civil case after a person is found not guilty in a criminal case. The heirs etc would have a difficult time proving it when the victim is deceased and they are the moving party with no witness testimony. |
| stonoman |
Posted - 08/01/2012 : 3:55:46 PM
The trial and all information will find Zimmerman not guilty.
Stonoman |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 07/31/2012 : 12:08:54 PM
I think he'll probably be sued either way.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| Fred67 |
Posted - 07/31/2012 : 07:26:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
?
I'm not sure what you mean about him being convicted and then proven innocent. If he's convicted, that means he's found guilty. Please clarify.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
My bad, I meant if he is charged and then trialed and proven inocent. He would could still face civil trials, but he would not have to serve any jail time?
Most of my time on this site is spent while on Hold, waiting on an up/download, or a call back. Sometimes I get distracked during replies.... that's my excuse.
|
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 07/30/2012 : 12:30:35 PM
?
I'm not sure what you mean about him being convicted and then proven innocent. If he's convicted, that means he's found guilty. Please clarify.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| Fred67 |
Posted - 07/30/2012 : 12:10:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by gotchacovered
"The lead Sanford Police investigator who sought manslaughter charges against George Zimmerman told the FBI that a sergeant and two other officers tried to pressure him into making an arrest in the controversial case even though he didnt think there was enough evidence."
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862
Zimmerman came up during a get together yesterday. If he is convicted of Man-Slaughter and then proven innocent, won't that be his best chance to end this mess?
< Evil is simply the absence of God > |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 07/30/2012 : 11:24:27 AM
Long Version
LOL. OFM keeps making my points for me thinking he is making his own. I rarely have such an easy time with an opponent.
By the way, I love how you attempt to distract from owning up to the point and the questions. You said the cops definitely would have arrested Trayvon if he was caught with stolen goods and asked "since when to cops not arrest minors?" I pointed out that cops often let minors go and that they didn't arrest Zimmerman for "domestic violence" or "molestation", either. As usual, you ignore the point and go for the distraction. LOL.
However, if you think I am like you--a guy who runs from questions because he has no substance to defend his position--you're mistaken. I am EAGER to answer your questions because they dismantle your position all the more. Read on.
1. "How many times did you claim Trayvons past as "criminal"?
Approximately as many times as you made his past material to the case by making Zimmerman's much more distant past material. You fail to see the need for an equal standard applied to both sides so we can honestly and objective find out who was the real criminal in the incident. Long ago, before any of this, you prejudged and pre-concluded that Zimmerman is guilty, guilty, guilty, and you've instantly defaulted to using everything you've seen since then to only further convince yourself of your foregone conclusion. I'm here to show you how you're failing to apply honest reason to the picture.
2. "Would you call yourseldf a troubled teen, as well as your friends."
Absolutely. We were all troubled teens. Kids who smoke pot and brake the law are asking for trouble. Just because a lot of kids do that stuff doesn't make it OK. Again, fighting went right along with it, and you seem to be stopping your ears and covering your eyes so you won't have to admit the truth that kids who are running around breaking the law are law-breakers, and if Martin stole jewelry, smoked dope, got suspended 3 times in a single year, was on suspension at the time of the fight, bragged about shooting people, went by "NO LIMIT N-GGA", and so on, he was just as likely to have started the fight as Zimmerman was, and Zimmerman's past of having pushed a cop and been accused of equally unproven crimes, is no more relevant than Martin's past.
3. "Would you call yourself a criminal?"
Every single bit of what I posted about my teen years was criminal behavior--absolutely. That was my point entirely. Thanks for helping me make it. Crime is breaking the law, period, whether you're busted or not. My friends and I were definitely criminals as teenagers, no matter how you slice it. (You probably were, too.) The fact that we weren't sent to jail for our criminal behavior didn't make them any less criminal--just less prosecuted. We also got into plenty of fights.
4. "Would you consider those actions as flaws that people should use in judgeing your own character the way you said they should be used against Trayvon character?"
If I had gotten into a fight that made global news around that time, and the other guy's past was made material to the case, then ABSOLUTELY, my past would have been material to the case also. See, you keep DISHONESTLY TWISTING the point, OFM. YOU--not I, but YOU--made made the "his past indicates his character" argument here. However, you want to ONLY apply that thinking to Zimmerman while you DISMISS Martin's past and character. So, I simply said IF--read it, IF--Zimmerman's past is material in establishing his present character, THEN--read it, THEN--Martin's is too. If you can't understand that, then something is wrong with either your capacity for objectivity, your honesty, your reading comprehension, or your mental capacity. I don't know which it is, but I'm assuming that you just can't allow yourself to be objective.
5. "I'm sure you wont answer those questions, you'll post more fluff or change the subject."
Well, I guess you just made yourself look bad again because, unlike you, I just answered all your questions as I typically do while all you have done here is dodge points and questions with fluffy rhetoric. I guess you thought you had me in some kind of corner? LOL. Not hardly. Honesty is so much easier than dishonesty, OFM.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 07/30/2012 : 11:19:27 AM
I'm posting a short version and a long version of my reply to that last one. Here's the short.
Thanks for stengthening my points. I'm eager to answer your questions as strengthen my point even more.
1. "How many times did you claim Trayvons past as "criminal"?
Approximately as many times as you made Zimmerman's more distant past is material, thus making Martin's equally material. That's my point--it works BOTH ways. No "cake and eat it too" for you. I make Martin's criminal past material because you make Zimmerman's. You still don't seem to get it.
2. "Would you call yourseldf a troubled teen, as well as your friends."
Absolutely. We were all troubled teens. We fought a lot, too. That's the point: cops let teens go a lot, but lack of prosecution does not make criminal behavior less criminal. Trayvon had a criminal past.
3. "Would you call yourself a criminal?"
Is breaking the law a crime? I was a criminal as a teen because I broke the law. Again, that's my point. Minors are often not prosecuted, but the lack of prosecution doesn't make criminal behavior any less criminal. Trayvon had a criminal past.
4. "Would you consider those actions as flaws that people should use in judgeing your own character the way you said they should be used against Trayvon character?"
If I, like Martin, had been party to a case where a man's life was hanging on the determination of whether it was him or me who started a fight, and that guy's distant past was being used to establish that he was a murderer by character, then my recent record at the time would most certainly have been just as valid as his. Justice demands an equal balance! Again, Martin's past is relevant because you're saying Zimmerman's is. You honestly can't see this?
5. "I'm sure you wont answer those questions, you'll post more fluff or change the subject."
Wrong again.
"I'm off to the keys to throw flies at tarpon"
Have a great trip!
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| on a fishin mission |
Posted - 07/30/2012 : 10:00:50 AM
quote:
Cops let minors go all the time. I was caught drag racing, with pot, and beer on numerous occasions as a minor, and I was let go by cops more times than I can probably remember or count. We were a wild bunch. The cops frequently gave us a talking to and let us go.
Oh my, oh my. I'm really not gonna read any further as this statement sums it all up. How many times did you claim Trayvons past as "criminal"? You called out that he was in trouble for pot and used that again and again as a character flaw. Even went as far as calling him a criminal because of it in trying to discredit the young man's character. I called it "typical" teenage mischief, you said no, called it "criminal" and stated he was a troubled teen. Well now you tell us that as a "minor" you were busted with pot, beer and drag racing. Would you call yourseldf a troubled teen, as well as your friends. Would you call yourself a criminal? Would you consider those actions as flaws that people should use in judgeing your own character the way you said they should be used against Trayvon character? I'm sure you wont answer those questions, you'll post more fluff or change the subject.
I'm off to the keys to throw flies at tarpon, keep that in the back of your mind while you're writing that inevitably long winded, fluffy post that is sure to happen.
"Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so." Thomas Jefferson |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 07/29/2012 : 2:44:43 PM
Here, since you like the Miami Herald, read this:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/12/v-print/2892510/more-evidence-released-in-zimmerman.html
First sentence:
"The lead Sanford Police investigator who sought manslaughter charges against George Zimmerman told the FBI that a sergeant and two other officers tried to pressure him into making an arrest in the controversial case even though he didnt think there was enough evidence."
I guess you overlooked that.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 07/29/2012 : 2:41:42 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Fact that Zimmerman's wife lied about bail money relevant to determination of guilt. Contradicts #18.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proves he is willing to lie, period. Do you forget about the talking in code. He mislead the court, are you trying to argue that as well?
The point is that you don't apply the SAME STANDRD to MARTIN. He got busted with various dishonest or criminal acts, and you refuse to consider the relevance to any of it.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Fact that Martin was caught w/bag of Women's jewels that he said wasn't his irrelevant. Contradicts #17.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REfer back to the NYTimes and the Miami Herald articles. It was never proven it was stolen. It has been proven that Zimmerman assaulted an officer, fondled a cousin and assaulted his wife. It is proven, but you want to keep speculating about jewelry that he stated wasn't his and that he wouldn't say whose it was. That doensn't make it stolen.
False and double standard. The only allegation proven against Zimmerman was the pushing of the cop. The rest was not proven, and if the cop's assessment of stolen doen't make it stolen, then the accusations of two women don't make it true either--and they certainly don't establish that Zimmerman would kill someone.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Believe first officer on scene, who "wanted to file charges" and listed crime as "homicide". FALSE. First officer did not write that description and said he simply turned it over to an investigator.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then why is it on the affidavit from that night? Did it miraculously appear there?
It's not. I posted the police report from that night. The first officer made no determination of guilt and wrote things that actually supported Zimmerman's claims--including the injuries, which you didn't support. The second officer actually filled out the section of the report where he described the POTENTIAL CHARGE--wich was NOT filed against Zimmerman until after POLITICS forced the hand--as homocide. Then, the lead investigator came out saying that thee officers, who happened to be black, pressured him to file charges when he said he didn't think they were meritted.
You rewrite history.
No, compare that with your take on Martin's jewelry incident. The first officer assessed THEFT, but you basically say he's full of crap.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. Revised "first-officer" claim to "police department", stating that they "wanted" to file charges. FALSE. NO charges were originally file for lack of evidence, and new evidence exposes that the LEAD INVESTIGATOR said he did NOT think charges should be filed but that three fellow policemen--who happen to be BLACK--PRESSURED him to do it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They did want manslaughter charges, that is well documented.
FALSE. The first officer did not. That was someone else in the department later. I can post where you admitted that yourself. Then, it later came out that the lead investigator said that he was pressured by two cops, who happen to be BLACK, to file charges that he said he thought were NOT MERITED against Zimmerman. I posted the article to this, too. You ignored it.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 07/29/2012 : 2:32:39 PM
quote:
What is unproven, did he not get arrest for attacking a police officer, did he not have a restraining order placed against him, did his attorney not say that he was 17 the last time he fondled his cousin?
He PUSHED a police officer. That is proven.
He was ACCUSED of domestic violence which was NOT proven. You don't have a trial to get a restraining order.
His attorney did NOT say he "fondled his cousin".
It appears that you have now risen to a new level of dishonesty, OFM.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Martin' past irrelevant because unproven. Self-contradictory to #10.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Refer back to nine, you keep repeating the same things?
The simple fact is that you JUST used the "there's no proof" claim to excuse Martin from the theft allegation, but you use an even less credible allegation to indict Zimmerman of molestation. At least it was a cop who accused Martin, and it was recent, not from 10-15 years agao.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Martin's past irrelevant because doesn't prove he'd attack someone. Contradictory to #13 and #13.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REfer back to my statistics on violent offenders. Statistically, when you take everyother thing we know about the case away, Zimmerman is more likely to have started the altercation. Try and disprove that if you want. I challenged you to do that previously and you seemed to have neglected to do so.
On the contrary, you are no statistician and you have NOT posted any statistics to prove that people with a record of two unproven allegations and an incident of shoving a cop go on to murder people. You simply haven't, and you apparently don't realize that the logical burden of proof is on you.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. "Theft" and "criminal" assessments of Martin irrelevant because not convicted in court. Contradicts #15.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REfer back to the previous article I posted from The Miami Herald. No evidence ever surfaced that the jewelry was stolen.
No evidence ever convicted Zimmerman of domestic abuse or molestation, either. We have a bunch of jewelry in Martin's bag with a flakey story of a "friend" GIVING him diamonds, rings, and watches--a friend whom he would not name--and a cop deeming is stolen. We have you claiming that you trust the assessments of first officers on the scene--but apparently only when it's a cop who sees fit not to charge an Obama appointee. Then, we have a girl making unsubstantiated allegations against Zimmerman from 10-15 years ago. You tell me who's reaching here.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Zimmerman "stalked" Martin and gunned him down "in cold blood". Unproven and unsuppoted by evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zimmerman most certainly stalked him, are you trying to agrue that. I will post the defintion for stalking if you need me to.
Did he shoot him in "cold blood". Look, it's clear as crystal that you used "profiled", "stalked", "hate crime", "racial slur", and "killed in cold bood", to paint the picture that Zimmerman meant to hunt Martin down like prey. You have been trying to backpedal out of that for pages, and I'm just asking you to be more honest when you need to do a retraction. Not ONE TIME have you admitted that you were wrong--not about the "3 witnesses who say Zimmerman on top", not about the wounds, not about the racial slur, nothing. You always seek to 'splain your way out. Look, you were just wrong, OK. He DID have whe wounds. There were NOT 3 who saw him on top of Martin in the fight. 2 Witnesses saw MARTIN on top. There's NO EVIDENCE that he was acting like a predator stalking prey.
He was simply keeping close enough to Martin so the COPS could QUESTION him.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 07/29/2012 : 2:07:01 PM
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Unproven sex allegations on Zimmerman as CHILD/MINOR suggest he killed Martin. Contradicts #9 and #11.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, it doesn not suggest he killed him, but is another incident that shows Zimmerman had character issues.
Likewise, Martin's much more RECENT past shows that he had character issues. You can't have your cake and eat it, too, OFM. You can't seem to allow yourself to apply your logic to BOTH characters in the play.
quote:
He was allegedly 18 the last time, which is not a minor but an adult.
NO, he was 17, and MAYBE 18, at the END of the allegedly period of time that started when he was SEVEN (7). By the way, I love that word, "allegedly"--just like Martin "allegedly" stole jewelry? You don't accept the allegations on Martin. You demand proof for Martin but none for Zimmerman. See? That's what I'm talking about.
Again, though, here you are again, having FIRST made the case that the past of Zimmerman was important to establish his CHARACTER, but you're dismissing Martin's recent record based on the assumption that he was ONE YEAR younger than Zimmerman was at the end of he girl's allegations. Why? Because she said he was 18--the first year of legal accountability? What on Earth does that have to do eith CHARACTER?
Also, remember what you said about kids getting in trouble? It's funny how you dismiss the alleged theft and known vandalism of one, but indict the alleged sex conduct of another.
quote:
She was 16 which would make the accusation a criminal offense. You seem to disregard that the frist thing his attorney stated was that he was 17 as to not admit to a criminal act. His attorneys statement proves it did happen or he would have said "this didn't happen" not " he was 17 at the time"
Wrong, OFM. His attorney said he was 17 because he was 17 when she said the incident occurred. She said herself that he was "almost two years older" than her. If anyone's trying to STRETCH it, it's more likely YOU and the prosecution wanting to stretch it to 18 so they can pretend it's more relevant. With that being said, the truth is that neither of us KNOW whether he was 17 or 18, and it DOESN'T MATTER because Trayvon was 17, and the whole POINT--per your OWN words--was supposed to be about CHARACTER--NOT whether or not the person could have been charged as an adult versus a minor.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Martin's past irrrelevant because he's a minor. Self-contradiction per #8.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not irrelevant, it shows that although he did get in trouble, it was not for VIOLENT behavior.
No, you specifically said that it was not relevant because he was a minor. Shall I quote you?
Maybe I will just for fun.
Here are my words to which you respond below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------Isn't it funny that OFM hasn't mentioned or acknowledged the evidence of MARTIN'S character? Let's see. He called himself "No Limit N-gga", boasted of assaulting a bus driver, got busted for drug material, stolen jewelry, and graffitti according to his school and others. None of that seems to matter for some reason. People have brought it up, but OFM dimisses it without even a comment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission
I have not dismissed anything. the allegations against Trayvon and alot of your allegations are false or at the very least exaggerated. Big difference I see between the two is that all of the allegations against Trayvon are when he was a minor, a child. All of the accusations about Zimmerman, except his cousin, happened in adult hood, when you should know better. Remember Trayvon doesn't have a voice in this case, it is up the the prosecution to give him that voice.
As I recall, there are also other places where you dismissed Martin's record based on his being a minor (translation: 17 years old), when the whole POINT of talking about the records was to establish CHARACTER, not the level at which the law could prosecute them. While excusing the 17-year-old Martin, you trumpet the unproven crimes of Zimmerman as far back as his life as a 7 year old.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 07/29/2012 : 1:36:38 PM
quote:
You forget about the police that told him not to follow suspects in November at the neighborhood watch meeting. Good try though.
It was not an order or command, and there was no authority in effect for them to pre-emptively command anyone not to do what Zimmerman says he did.
quote:
So he shot him from his truck? Getting out of his truck constitutes FOLLOWING ON FOOT. Are you really that ignorant?
What you can't seem tu understand is that everyone except Zimmerman is ignorant of what really happened, and that includes you and me. Zimmerman's walking about 70 feet down a sidewalk to see where Martin went and get an address, as he claims, does not constituted the chasing and following that has been assumed. You claimed that he chased or stalked the guy down, confronted him on purposed, and gunned him down "in cold blood" in a "hate crime". There's simply NO evidence of that.
quote:
Refer to the 2 witness' that said she saw Zimmerman on top. You jsut claimed it was after Trayvon was shot.
FALSE. THEY SAID it was after the shooting THEMSELVES. Try reading their accounts instead of trying to distory evidence.
quote:
Doesn't matter, witness' still saw Zimmerman on top of Trayvon.
Yes, it does matter. Seeing one of men on top BEATING the other one BEFORE the shooting goes to establish whether or not Zimmerman's story of self-defense is true. Seeing Zimmerman standing over the body AFTER the shooting does not. It only establishes that after Zimmerman shot Martin, he did exactly what he said. That's exactly what the witnesses saw. One saw Martin beating Zimmerman into the ground, and others say Zimmerman standing over the body AFTER he shot him. You said that three witnesses saw Zimmerman on top during the fight. They simply didn't. Are you ever capable of admitting error?
quote:
Funny how the "star witness" that said he saw the whole thing has now recanted his statement as well and stated it was to dark to determine what he really saw.
With the New Black Panthers and the back community calling for blood, no, I don't find that funny at all. The other 2 also changed their stories, too, in case you didn't notice.
quote:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Zimmerman didn't have head injuries. FALSE per police testimony, photo evidence, and medical records.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is what was reported. I still don't find the injuries sustained as being life threatening, I've done worse shaving.
Ah, your bias again. It's not just what was reported. We have PROOF of the injuries, and you gave support to the side that they didn't exist. Now, you make light of the injuries.
You've broken your nose and cut up the back of your head shaving? Man, you need a new razor!
Regardless, the injuries support the account by Zimmerman AND an eye-witness that Martin was beating Zimmerman, just as Zimmerman said.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Zimmerman profiled Martin. Unproven--speculation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FALSE, Zimmerman deemed him suspicious, that is profiling. Need me to post the definition for you again?
So, you're telling us that the only thing you meant was that Zimmerman "deemed Martin suspicious"? If so, no problem there, but that certainly wasn't the context or the apparent meaning of your words at the time. You were talking about "hate crimes" and "racial slurs". At the time, the media was in arms over Zimmerman having RACIALLY profiled Zimmerman, and we all know that, OFM. So, I guess you're just saying that every time anyone is suspicious of anything, they are "profiling" someone, and that that's all you meant--Zimmerman simply "deemed Martin suspicious". LOL. If so, then why did you mention it as if there was something WRONG with it, since we're all suspicious here and there? Nevermind. I can predict the twisty, tangley reply, so no need for further conjecture.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 07/29/2012 : 1:16:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission
quote:
1. Zimmerman committed racist "hate crime". FALSE per FBI investigatation.
I agree and you will note I stated that he "allegedly" called him a ****ing koon. We now know that the tapes were altered.
False. You clearly said that you believed that he committed a HATE CRIME, and you based that on the allegation that issued a racial slur. Thus, you BELIEVED the allegation and concluded a racist hate crime.
See below.
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission
From what I have read this should be a hate crime as well as he reportedly said racial slurs and used racially suggestive language.
Looks like you're 0-3 there with your assumptions.
Busted in a self-contradiction again!
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 07/29/2012 : 1:07:57 PM
quote:
Martin was suspended, warned and dismissed for the graffiti, according to the report prepared by schools police.
He did get in trouble for pot and I acknowledged that, he did not get suspended for burglary.
The jewelry and "burglary" tool, as described by the "first officer" on the scene, were found on Martin at the same time he was busted and suspended for the vandalism, OFM. The vandalism ("grafitti") is what got Trayvon Martin's bag searched in the first place. He was caught on camera vandalizing and "looking suspicious", so the cop searched him and busted him with what the "first officer" deemed as stolen jewelry.
quote:
Refer back to my statistic of violent offenders. We know who started the confrontation, Zimmerman. Are you trying to deny that?
First, you've failed to post the requested statistics that who that people who've been accused of domestic violence and molestation, but never arrested for it, end up gunning innocent people down. Likewise with anyone who has a single incident of pushing a cop during an argument. So, don't refer to the statistics that you have not posted, or to the statistics that you've posted that do NOT establish your point.
Second, NO, we do NOT KNOW that Zimmerman started the fight. You just showed your prejudice again. See, you can't be objective. You're assuming things not established.
quote:
Again, if teens that smokes pot and writes graffitti are "troubled" tthen we are in trouble cause that is right at 50% of the teenage population.
As long as we're guessing at statistics, then "50%" of our teens get in fights, too, right? A lot of men probably get accused of some crime by someone somewhere in their lives, too--including President Clinton. Did you believe those allegations?
Tell me something. Do "50%" of our teens also get suspended three times per year, get busted for vandalism, get busted with what the cops deem stolen jewelry and burglary tools, call themselves "NO LIMIT N-GGA", boast about shooting people, and get seen by an eye-witness beating a hispanic man into the ground while he calls out for help?
quote:
Thanks for again pointing out my previous statment that Zimmermans past indicated he should not have been able to obtain a CWP.
Actually, I don't take any exception with that hypothesis. I don't necessarily believe that he "should" have been granted a CWP. It's quite possible that he shouldn't have. I don't really know. He had a legal CW permit, though, so that's another matter. If you want to take issue with the authorities who grant permits, that's another matter. We're talking about whether or not Zimmerman murdered someone here, not whether or not someone made a permitting error. They may have. They may not have. I don't really know what the law says on that.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 07/29/2012 : 12:46:35 PM
OFM, in this thread, you rebutted the assessment that the jewelry found in Trayvon Martin's book bag was stolen and that the screwdriver was a "burglary tool". You said that was a subjective and unproven judgment by the person who caught him, right?
quote:
No evidence ever surfaced that the jewelry was stolen
Well, in a prior thread about Obama's Secretary who was in a hit-and-run incident, you excused him from suspicion based on the premise that you trust the judgment of the "first officer" on the scene:
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission
I would say that Secrtetary Bryson is a credibal source, I would say that the first officer on the scene is a credibal source, who found him unconscious and sited, not charged him, with hit and run and sent him to the hospital.
So, my question is, why don't you apply the same standard here? It was a POLICE OFFICER who caught Trayvon with the jewelry and screwdriver and assessed that it was STOLEN.
Here, see:
"In October, a school police investigator said he saw Trayvon on the school surveillance camera in an unauthorized area hiding and being suspicious. Then he said he saw Trayvon mark up a door with W.T.F an acronym for what the f---. The officer said he found Trayvon the next day and went through his book bag in search of the graffiti marker.
Instead the officer reported he found womens jewelry and a screwdriver that he described as a burglary tool, according to a Miami-Dade Schools Police report obtained by The Miami Herald."
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html
He was the first officer on that scene. So, where's your trust for the "first officer"? Are calling him a liar? Why would his judgment be less credible than another "first officers"? Because the other suspect was an Obama appointee? Need I also remind you that Zimmerman wasn't originally charged or arrested by the first officer on the shooting scene either--OR on the scenes of the "domestic violence" or "molestation" accusations?
OOPS! ANOTHER SELF-CONTRADICTION AND DOUBLE STANDARD BY OFM!
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 07/29/2012 : 12:25:52 PM
quote:
I have a pair of womens earrings on my truck dashboard that aren't mine, what's your point? That doesn't prove anything.
So, are you saying that's the same as getting seached by a police officer at school--because you were "looking suspicious" on camera while vandalizing public property--and being caught with 12 pieces of jewelry, ranging from watches to rings to diamonds, about which you said, "They're not mine. A friend gave them to me" but refused to tell the cop who gave them to you? Really?
Seriously, OFM, are you going to sit here and expect us all to believe that if ZIMMERMAN had the same thing in his recent past, you wouldn't be hailing it as evidence againt him? Whom do you think you're kidding? You'd be trumpetting it with all your might typring ability. We all know it.
quote:
If he really stole that stuff, diamnond and gold as they were described, he would have been arrested for it.
So, by your logic, if Zimmerman really beat up his wife, he would have been arrested for it, and if he molested a girl, if would have been arrested for that, too. They arrest people for beating up women and molesting girls, so since he wasn't arrested, he must not have done it.  Double standards are so cut-both-waysie.
quote:
Since when do they not arrest minors? I think it happens all the time.
Cops let minors go all the time. I was caught drag racing, with pot, and beer on numerous occasions as a minor, and I was let go by cops more times than I can probably remember or count. We were a wild bunch. The cops frequently gave us a talking to and let us go. Just because they didn't arrest us doesn't mean we didn't break the law. So, to assume that he'd be arrested is a poor assumption. I remind you that Zimmerman wasn't arrested for domestic violence or molestation either, but you tout it as a criminal past--but you demand a totally different standard for Martin. Clear as crystal.
quote:
I believe a restraining order proves he got "rough with his wife" and what does it matter if she had one field also, I guess you believe its ok assault your wife as long as she gets a charge as well?
No! It does NOT prove that he did anything. You can get a restraining order without a trial, OFM. You said YOURSELF that Trayvon's criminal past is not established because he was not "CONVICTED". NOW, just like I said, you use a DIFFERENT standard for Zimmerman.
quote:
The cousin allegations were up until he was 18, convenient how you left that out.
First, the girl said he was "almost" two years older than her, which would actually make him 17--the same age as Trayvon Martin, whom you excuse based on his being a minor--but even if Zimmerman was 18, that's ONE YEAR (or less) older than Trayvon Martin, so how would the "he was a minor" argument make any difference? Your attempt to argue a technicality here is of no valid in determining who started the FIGHT.
Second, most of the events she described happened while Zimmerman was as young as 7 years old, but you tout them as character evidence.
Also, while being the age of maturity in most cases, depending on which law and state, 18 is a minor in certain cases, OFM, and even in others, it's the first year of legal matutiry. So, your excusing Martin based on his being a MINOR (while it makes no sense on other grounds) has to be equally applied to Zimmerman (if you want to pretend objectivity)--and not just based on technicalities of law, but on the COMMON SENSE that reasonable people use when they look at past events that suggest CHARACTER.
You're really going to sit here and tell us that it's reasonable to trumpet one record while dismissing the other based on a one-year difference in age? You think that's reasonable? Really?
Remember, you originally made this about CHARACTER, not an irrelevant one-year difference in age.
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| Ithaca37 |
Posted - 07/27/2012 : 9:15:07 PM
I hope the supports for his bunker are stronger than the ones for his theories.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mixed Nutz
It's in pretty good shape for the shape it's in!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 07/27/2012 : 9:08:38 PM
Funny you should say that. I've been feeling feverish this afternoon and have had a cold for over a week. My headache was pretty bad when you wrote that. It's dusking upon Shabbat right now, though, so I'll have to chat with you later. I look forward to it. OFM posted some stuff that are like hot grilled cheese sammiches to me. YUM!
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| 7cs |
Posted - 07/27/2012 : 3:42:08 PM
Somebody needs to check on Lee. |
| gotchacovered |
Posted - 07/27/2012 : 2:20:34 PM
LOL. I'm going to have a field day with this when I get back! More spike shot setups than I know what to do with!
Gotcha Covered,
Lee Strickland
Strickland Marine Insurance Agency, Inc.
https://stricklandmarine.net
843-795-1000 / 800-446-1862 |
| UT_VOLS13 |
Posted - 07/27/2012 : 1:25:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission
quote:
Originally posted by UT_VOLS13
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission
quote:
Originally posted by jstrange
Ummmm, Trayvon was a criminal...with a record I might add.
Umm, you gonna eat that?
Thousands have died to save my freedom. Only one has died to save my soul!
Jstrange, TRayvon did not have a criminal record and was an A/B student.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/us/911-tapes-released-in-killing-of-florida-teenager.html?_r=1
"Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so." Thomas Jefferson
From your article "Trayvon had no criminal record. He was suspended from his Miami high school for 10 days in February, which is the reason he was visiting his father. The family said the suspension was not for violent or criminal behavior but for a violation of school policy.
IF, he had not been suspended from school(for whatever reason) this event may have never occurred. Is it the schools fault for suspending Martin?
If Zimmerman hadn't followed Trayvon it most definitely would not have occurred.
"Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so." Thomas Jefferson
So, are you saying that if Martin had not got suspended he may still be alive? If he had not gotten suspended he would not have been at his dad's place.
|
| on a fishin mission |
Posted - 07/27/2012 : 1:20:39 PM
quote:
Originally posted by UT_VOLS13
quote:
Originally posted by on a fishin mission
quote:
Originally posted by jstrange
Ummmm, Trayvon was a criminal...with a record I might add.
Umm, you gonna eat that?
Thousands have died to save my freedom. Only one has died to save my soul!
Jstrange, TRayvon did not have a criminal record and was an A/B student.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/us/911-tapes-released-in-killing-of-florida-teenager.html?_r=1
"Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so." Thomas Jefferson
From your article "Trayvon had no criminal record. He was suspended from his Miami high school for 10 days in February, which is the reason he was visiting his father. The family said the suspension was not for violent or criminal behavior but for a violation of school policy.
IF, he had not been suspended from school(for whatever reason) this event may have never occurred. Is it the schools fault for suspending Martin?
If Zimmerman hadn't followed Trayvon it most definitely would not have occurred.
"Those who have the ability to make a difference have the responsibility to do so." Thomas Jefferson |
|
|
