George Zimmerman’s Wife Arrested

On 6/16/2012 9:54 AM, DanS wrote:

Lydig Avenue Kibbitzer wrote in
:

In article
31, DanS
says...

Lydig Avenue Kibbitzer wrote in
:

In article
31,
DanS says...

Lydig Avenue Kibbitzer wrote
in :

In article
31,
DanS says...

John Manning wrote in
:

On 6/13/2012 6:55 PM, Peter Jason wrote:
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 10:11:03 -0300, John Manning
wrote:

On 6/12/2012 11:40 PM, Peter Jason wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 18:24:30 -0300, John Manning
wrote:



Authorities said George Zimmerman’s wife,
Shellie, was arrested Tuesday and charged with
perjury for allegedly lying on the witness stand
in her husband'’s case of second degree murder in
the killing of unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin.

Why was Martin wearing a hoodie in that weather?



Maybe he doesn't need to have your approval of his
clothing choices?

Especially if he's out on the prowl looking for
loot.



Trayvon wasn't "out on the prowl looking for loot."
But apparently sick stereotyping ****s like you think
that after having been *told by the authorities* NOT
to follow a person - it's OK to then stalk, confront
and kill that person anyway because of their clothing
style.

So, you can believe that sensationalized story that
Al Sharpton told you, but I'm waiting for the trial
and actual evidence before I convict someone.
For someone that claims to know all the details
of the case, you certainly don't show it.

You just keep repeating the sensationalized internet
rumors over and over again.

We're all waiting for the trial, of course.

However, it is worth noting that lead investigator
Serino is the one who ruled out that Trayvon was
"on the prowl for loot" so to speak, when he stated
that there was no evidence that Martin was involved
in any criminal activity that night.

One doesn't have to pay attention to anything Sharpton
said to know that,

After further review, I must correct my statement above,
it wasn't Sharpton, but instead it was Jesse Jackson.....

--------------------------------------------------------

..."But Jackson told the crowd at the church, "Zimmerman
told police he had killed him. Shot him in the back of
the head in self-defense."

His remark conflicts with previously published
information. According to sources close to the
investigation, the teen-ager was shot once in the
chest."......

With *previously published information*...so why say what
he did? There's no possible reason other to incite
others.

--------------------------------------------------------

It doesn't matter however, Sharpton = Jackson, they are
both

This is what I refer to when I say the "sensationalized
internet rumors."
Outright lie was that one though. They are all over the
place.

and you'd have to ignore what the
lead investigator definitively stated in order to imply
that such evidence might miraculously materialize at
trial.

Why would anyone who was familiar with this case do
that?

I don't know. I've never said anything about the case
that wasn't based on actual evidence that appeared to be
valid, and accurate.


You responded to Mr. Manning's statement by specifically
claiming that he was relying on a sensationalized version
of the story and rumors.

Mr. Manning had pointed out that:

1) Martin wasn't "out on the prowl looking for loot."

OK. I never said he was.


2) Zimmerman was told not to pursue.

OK. You are right.


3) Zimmerman pursued Martin.

Yes, then stopped when told to do so by 911. It's in the
tape. He "got away anyway,
they always do".


4) Zimmerman confronted Martin.

Not according to TMs gf. She claimed she heard TM confront
GZ first, on the cell phone.

So, if TM "got away", how could he confront GZ?

Easy, he went back to confront GZ, and the gf heard the
initial verbal confrontation, by
TM, over her cell phone.

So, now, why did he go back. Do you think if you know
someone had a gun that was following you, you'd go and
confront the person?

Still easy, he didn't know there was a gun. GZs claim, from
the start, was that as he
was laying on his back and couldn't stop TM from smashing
his head into the concrete,
he tried to turn or move, or wiggle, or whatever to move
his head out form above the
sidewalk, and when he did that, his jacket opened, TM saw
the gun, and went for it.


5) Zimmerman killed Martin.

So, which of Mr. Manning's points were you taking issue
with?

After rereading it, it was this statement......"after
having been *told by the authorities*
NOT to follow a person - it's OK to then stalk, confront
and kill that person"

As far as I can tell, and what *has* been reported, GZ
*did* stop following him. The 911
tape supports this, the entire thing happened nearer to his
truck than where he said he
"lost" them. His story had been he was heading back to his
vehicle when TM came back and confronted him.

I don't understand why that sounds so unbelievable to some.


Getting away for the moment from a pursuer is a possibly
temporary state that does not remove the danger one is in
when one is being pursued without apparent cause.
You might go on your way only to find that you are still
being pursued, caught by surprise further on.

But this is not what reportedly happened, so it's a moot point.

The initial confrontation act was GZ pursuing.

Following someone is not confronting. Nor an illegal act.

TM's gf said she heard TM ask GZ why he was following
him and what he wanted. GZ was remiss in his
responsibilities in not identifying himself as being some
form of law enforcement, someone who meant no harm.

Yes, he should have identified himself in some way.
By the same token however, TM could have identified himself as well as a guest of his
fathers GFs who lives at xxxxxx.

There
is *no* excuse for that and he had the opportunity to do
so. Instead, he chose to question TM's right to walk down a
street.

See, that is not an accurate statement either, not unlike Mr Mannings, or even Big
Stools rantings. As far as I can tell, and come court time, I'm sure if someone stated
that, it would be clarified. He didn't question his right to "walk down the street", if that's
your spin on it.

GZ questioned his presence *within the gated community* is how I interpreted his
question, where just anybody isn't supposed to be able to get into and roam around. He
was someone GZ hadn't seen before, and based on the recent robberies in the area, a
recent arrest for one, and that the suspects were young blacks, yadda, yadda,
yadda......


A mugger might have acted in precisely the same
manner as GZ did.

It is unreasonable to demand that a person who is not
engaged in any criminal behavior whatsoever, yet is
being pursued for no apparent reason by someone who
is not evidently law enforcement, in a deserted situation,
at night, be bound to non-proactive behavior in defense
of their well-being.

Yes. And since following someone is not a crime, and GZ was legally carrying a gun,
he was not doing anything illegal either.

The very first illegal act was the first punch thrown, by whomever.

Anybody who has been confronted in such a manner
has the right to initiate a hand-to-hand attack in the
hopes that it will improve their chances of survival.
I have done so.

*That* should be how the concept of "stand your ground
should be applied -- and that's all I have to say about
this controversy.

Fair enough.

What you said however, wasn't filled with raging emotions and wasn't lacking in
intelligent & adult thought. Thank you.

On 6/16/2012 4:50 PM, hot-totty wrote: