The Curious Case Of Trayvon Martin’s Backpack With Stolen Jewelry and Burglary Tool…

This remarks seems oddly off topic and uncalled for.

I guess you are out of valid arguments and have nothing more to say than to attempt to belittle people?

Have you checked your room for zombies yet?

 

You call others delusional and now you complain about personal attacks? Too funny!

Argument? What argument? You ignore facts and present only your opinion.... there is no arguing with you....its just your bloviating for others entertainment.

Again, I am not attacking you or your unicorn.

 

I knew you would see the humor in your own projection.

Get back on topic or get off this thread.

 

Not sure why your need to continually refer to it as a perfect shot. I've heard none of the forensic experts in this case refer to it as such. You shoot someone in the chest it is going to go direct front to back. Now if it went back to front then you'd actually have a great argument.

 

Wow, its been a long time since I heard the "neener, neener, neener, what you say is what you are" deflection!

Which topic? your entertaining cognitive dissonance with the truth, or the OP?

 

Exactly. Much ado about nothing, but that's all they've got.

 

How old are you? Fourteen?

 

Wrong again. . . The trajectory could have been in any of a hundred angles. . . The DIRECT, FRONT to Back can only be achieved while carefully aiming in a trajectory perpendicular, both laterally and horizontally, to the chest of a still target.

You may need to review your geometry 101!

 

My geometry is fine. It is your interpretation of what "directly, front to back means." I think you're still hung on that word "perfect", which is nowhere found in the report. All we can tell from the report is that he was shot in the chest and the bullet headed toward his back with no exit. That is perfectly consistent with GZ's description of the event.

 

Nope! But I really do not care what your self-serving interpretation might be.

I am certain that the trajectory of the bullet will be discussed and its significance explained by gun forensic expert during trial.

So. . .I am perfectly happy to wait!

 

Well the bottom line is that it is perfectly possible and reasonable that a person laying on their back can shoot a person in the chest that is hovering over them and the normal trajectory of such a shot would be directly, front to back.

 

I do my best to try and communicate down the the level of the one to whom I am addressing, so you tell me, is Fourteen about right?

 

Funny how it is always others who are the ones who have a "self-serving interpretation", isn't it?

 

Sure it would! LOL

- - - Updated - - -

 

I'll take that as an affirmative.

 

Take it as you wish. . .your opinion is a moot point as it is as grounded in common sense as your lack of judgement!

 

I did. It's the only was to make ANY sense.

 

They refute nothing.

I think that when it gets down to your having to use such invective because you have nothing to back up your baseless conjecture you have totally lost the argument.

There is nothing of note and you speak of no authority or expertise in forensic's or ballistics. Your made up amazement refutes nothing. The shot was entirely possible of of not particular note.

- - - Updated - - -

How come you can't present a single one that backs your assertions about the shot?

 

There was never an argument. That would require the presence of facts from both sides...and sad annie is uable to hold up her side.

 

The trial will be loaded with forensic evidences. It is not my role to provide those. . . .and you have been unable to provide evidences to support the huge exagerated assertions made by thhe killer. . . But I understand it is not your role either.

So we are basically at the same bridge crossing. . .you are on one side, I am on the other.

All that will matters are the forensic evidences provided by both sides. . . .I am perfectly satisfied with this!

 

You are making a statement of fact about the trajectory of the shot so let's see the forensic expert upon whom you base this statement of fact. Which one has come to this conclusion?

It's your role to back up your claims.....................so post a forensic expert who states the bullet could not have traveled that path with Martin on top of Zimmerman as you claim.

I have provide ample examples of the evidence which supports his assertions and none that I have made are not backed up by the evidence. Now it's up to you to do the same.

Wrong I am crossing it and waiting for you to support your conjecture with the evidence supported by a forensic expert.

And in the meantime make things up and state them as fact.

 

Nope. . .I do not believe you have provided forensic evidences backing up Zimmerman's MANY different assertions.

And I have provided logical analysis and a picture showing that the trajectory of the bullet was not feasible in the position that Zimmerman says the two men were in at the time the shot was fired.

I don't believe you. . .and you don't believe me.

By the way. . .I have NEVER presented any of my comments as "facts," but as opinions, based on my own (and others' analysis and logic). If you take them as statements of facts, that is your problem. I am waiting for the forensic experts to confirm OR deny what my logical arguments are. . .I have NEVER set myself up as a forensic expert. . . . but then again. . .I don't believe you are either.

So. . .let's see what the true expert say during trial. Why is it so important for you to get EVERYTHING proven TODAY, when the START of the trial is still 3 weeks away? I can wait!

 

Dodging again, yes I have provided the forensic evidence for my statements of the facts.

I asked you for the report of a forensic expert's opinion of the evidence, not your made up shooting and your totally baseless conclusions.

I believe evidence. You have no evidence to back your assertions.

No you have presented them as fact as you just did in the above, baseless facts and unsupported facts. You don't even know what their exact positions were at the time the shot was fired.

What others? Give me an expert in forensic ballistics who supports your claim. Post from the prosecution any statements they have given that the shot would have been impossible if Martin was on top of Zimmerman.

No it is your problem because you make it as a statement of fact.

Oh you are waiting, so you have nothing to back up your claims. Just as with the rest of them.