"I don't think you really want me to come to Los Angeles, despite the fact that due to health reasons I couldn't, and educate you on gangs.as a former gang member from the streets of New York, namely the Bronx, I understand gangs intimately much better than you. I know I did not mention it earlier because I was enjoying you going on acting like you were one. I was a member, not a prospect, at the age of eight years old and was in for nine years.us And now in your last post it appears your backing off that you were not a member.do you truly understand the names of these gangs? Trece is a Hispanic gang that is in many of the larger cities in the US. "
If you'd like to write a hub about this you can, though you would not (again) be accurately reporting reality.
I can care lees, at this point, about what you think on this. Your opinions matter not. I know what is going on out here.
Remember, all this started with you making the claim that I don't understand what "laying low" means....
I showed that I do, and then you went off on this pissing contest nonsense.
Keep generalizing and assuming.
"Just so you know, prosecutors can not amend an indictment downwards, or a lesser charge, they can only amend up to a stronger charge."
Not true. The D.A. can amend charges at any time, as long as they have probable cause.
"That is why it is important at the time of an indictment in a case like this to offer multiple levels of offense. That way when it goes to the jury they could choose between manslaughter or murder two."
If you can find a source to back your claim, share it.
I found several backing mine:
http://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/how-l … 27117.html
http://www.lawqa.com/qa/can-district-at … new-charge
Three states are being reflected here. I haven't found anything Florida specific yet, but I wager that I am correct on this.
Where do you get your "facts"?
"You portray Martin as this total angel who was just out for a wonderful stroll. Yet you refuse why he was there."
No, I never portrayed Martin as an angel....I just countered your ongoing portrayal of him as a demon. The second part of this statement I can't comprehend....you need rewording. However, if I am to assume that you are saying that "I refuse to say/admit to/write about why Martin was where he was, I will then counter with a question of my own.... Was Martin in an unauthorized area? In terms of why he was there, I have looked at the geography. I have seen where the 7-11 was, where the community he was staying was, his path home, and the apartment in which he was staying... It clearly looks like he was headed home from the 7-11.
Sine he had no "burglary tools" as you put it, he wasn't getting ready to break into anyone's home. He didn't have any tagging tools, so he wasn't about to hit something up. And he had no drugs on him, so he wasn't getting wasted.
According to the report, the amounts of marijuana found in Martin's system were so faint that there is no way he was "high" at the time of his shooting.
Again, why you attack Martin's being where he was is beyond me.
You use innuendo to build a motive, but the evidence at the scene refutes your claims. You denied, denied, denied Martin being on the phone, even when official evidence proves that he was on the phone.
"But Zimmerman didn't see him on the phone."
So what?
It matters not.
"Martin's parents live in Miami, so does Martin, he goes to school in Miami, So why was he in Sanford? Oh I know you will say it does not matter because you refuse to acknowledge they why even happened. But it is important, because it shows why he was there and sets his frame of mind that night."
Wow....that is a whopper if I ever heard one, or read one.
That is nonsense. You can make zero conjecture concerning what was going through Martin's head at the time. You accuse me of the same nonsense that you enact.
Thanks for your failed attempt at psychological analysis....
We can better attest to Zimmerman's state of mind, because we have lots of information on what he was going through at the time. Martin's call has been put into an affidavit, and the testimony of the girlfriend points to a state of mind having nothing to do with the claims you are making.
"You copied my statement "first the obvious" without the rest of the statement, you took it out of context.You then went on to speak about generalizations of people's voices. So then I responded to what you wrote, no twisting,no misrepresenting."
Whatever you say. Our words are here quite plainly.
"You say I am focusing on defending Zimmerman, nothing is further from the truth."
Let me amend my statement then. You have focused much of your time and energy on attempting to justify Zimmerman's behavior (though you don't agree with what he did) through making Martin out to be as bad and up to no good as possible, to the extent of smearing Martin, reaching far beyond the scope of that evening and that moment of contact. Your latest statement concerning Martin's state of mind that night is just one example of your doing this.
"The difference between you and me is you believe Martin was in the right, I do not believe he was. If it was not Zimmerman that walked around the corner before Martin jumped him, and it was a cop, Martin would have done the same thing. Of course we will never know that for sure and it could be a subject of a debate. But I believe they are both wrong and both of their actions is what contributed to this tragedy."
No. The difference between you and me is that I see a situation where Martin was justified to defend himself. You don't. You quickly run to the "Martin jumped him", assuming an unprovoked surprise attack by Martin, which is refuted by witness testimony, mentioned in the official report I already posted twice. The investigators pointed to Zimmerman as the catalyst for what happened here, and they have not pointed to Martin's blame at all.
But they are wrong, right?
If Zimmerman had been a cop, Martin would not have worried about stranger danger. Police officers identify themselves, and they have to. If a plain-clothed or undercover officer was coming after Martin and they didn't identify themselves, it would be on them. Again, to Martin, to me (if I had been there), to you (had you been there), and to anyone else not familiar with Zimmerman, he was a stranger.
Stranger Danger!
Unless your Martin, according to everything you have composed.... It doesn't matter if Martin felt threatened....everything you say points to the "he deserved it/he had it coming" mentality.
Nonsense is what that is.
You know what Martin would have done if Zimmerman had been a cop?
Ms. Cleo (perhaps my new name for you, American Voice), how do you discern such things? More assumption, innuendo, projection, and prejudging on your part.
Reckless, disdainful, and ignorant. Good job.
However, we do have a track record concerning what Zimmerman might do when confronted with police.....you continue to point to Martin's criminality, while ignoring Zimmerman's actual past criminality....
Your biases are plain.....what motivates them, I know not, but your bias is clear for all to see (except maybe yourself....but that is how denial typically works)
One was wrong in his actions....one was walking home, and would be alive today if someone had followed directions and not decided to take matters into their own hands. Unless there is some evidence pointing to Martin doing something wrong or being somewhere he shouldn't have been that evening, you have nothing to point to making Martin "in the wrong". Absolutely zero.
