Trayvon

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't think Zimmerman is a monster, most likely he just really, really, really, really 'effed up.

What does surprise me though is how the State responded to the event. While Zimmerman has rights to be respected, it seems like they really rushed him out the door and back on the street.

Why?

-spence

Spence, here is WHY

look at the EVIDENCE immediatly after the incident. Witnesses account that they saw MARTIN holding down Zimmerman. Police officer at the scene noted that zimmerman had wounds to his nose and back of his head.
there you go, thats enough evidence that Zimmerman acted in self defence.
Its not a cut and dry case as some are making it out to be.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Then you have the black panther gangstas putting a bounty out and the real criminals come to light....

Originally Posted by zimmy

"the real criminals?" They are criminals, yes, but the real criminals implies that the guy who follows and shoots an unarmed kid is not a criminal. That isn't what you meant, is it?

Originally Posted by buckman

So you must know this as fact. Please tell us how.

Originally Posted by zimmy

Originally Posted by zimmy

I am not sure what you mean. "know this as fact?" What are you talking about? The black panthers? Yes, the bounty makes them criminals. As far as Zimmerman, there is no disputing that he followed the kid. The kid was unarmed. The kid got shot. No one disputes that.

Originally Posted by buckman

You don't know what "the act" was or how it happened. He has not been arrested or convicted. I'm pretty sure then he should not be called a criminal.
I never said anything about the black panthers.

The chain of responses is above. As I said, I didn't know what you were referring to when you said "so you know this as fact." It was an ambiguous statement. Someone else brought up who the "real criminals are" right before your post. I don't know if he is a criminal. I didn't bring that up. I do know that the lead investigator recommended arrest. It should go through the courts. That is the crux of the problem. Let the judicial system decide the case. Trayvon had him pinned to the ground? So what? What about his right to defend himself? He was followed at night by a guy twice his size. It should go to the courts. Who made the decision not to arrest him?? That isn't even clear. I support right to defend, but the burden falls on the defender to show force was necessary. Otherwise, we have a lawless society.

[Sea Dangles]

interpreter

The courts will sort it out,Florida has unique gun laws.

[likwid]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

interpreter

The courts will sort it out,Florida has unique gun laws.

They're 'stand your ground' not 'follow black kids around'.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by likwid

They're 'stand your ground' not 'follow black kids around'.

I know Ted.
He does have the right to defend himself with deadly force though.
Brockton could use a vigilante,keeps the animals in line.
Kids will think twice before packing skittles now.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

interpreter

The courts will sort it out,Florida has unique gun laws.

Of what is this an interpretation? The courts don't get to sort it out without an arrest.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Of what is this an interpretation? The courts don't get to sort it out without an arrest.

Then I will refer to it as the "legal system".
Give it a chance to work before assuming judge and jury responsibilities.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Then I will refer to it as the "legal system".
Give it a chance to work before assuming judge and jury responsibilities.

exactly

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Then I will refer to it as the "legal system".
Give it a chance to work before assuming judge and jury responsibilities.

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

exactly

At least we agree on that, just have a different interpretation of what that means. Police are not judge and jury.

[Redsoxticket]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Then I will refer to it as the "legal system".
Give it a chance to work before assuming judge and jury responsibilities.

Zimmerman's grandfather being a retired judge and mother a court clerk may of had an effect on how this case was handled.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Spence, here is WHY

look at the EVIDENCE immediatly after the incident. Witnesses account that they saw MARTIN holding down Zimmerman. Police officer at the scene noted that zimmerman had wounds to his nose and back of his head.
there you go, thats enough evidence that Zimmerman acted in self defence.
Its not a cut and dry case as some are making it out to be.

Interesting thing is that one witness says that he couldn't see the details because it was dark. Police grilled him, and according the the witnesses mother, pressured him into choosing a sweatshirt color by multiple choice. Other witnesses say they heard what sounded like a child cry out right before the shot. Add to that the video footage that shows no evidence of injury to Zimmerman and it is pretty clear the courts should decide.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Interesting thing is that one witness says that he couldn't see the details because it was dark. Police grilled him, and according the the witnesses mother, pressured him into choosing a sweatshirt color by multiple choice. Other witnesses say they heard what sounded like a child cry out right before the shot. Add to that the video footage that shows no evidence of injury to Zimmerman and it is pretty clear the courts should decide.

that was yesterdays news..

Enhanced surveillance images of George Zimmerman, the man who admitted shooting the teen but claimed self-defense, appear to show a bump, mark or injury on the back of his head.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Add to that the video footage that shows no evidence of injury to Zimmerman and it is pretty clear the courts should decide.

Zimmy, watch where you get your information...

Trayvon Martin case: George Zimmerman video shows gashes on back of shooter's head | Mail Online

This is some recent enhanced footage which shows bruising to the back of his head...I am not vouching for the authenticity.

The media gets an "F" for reporting this. Have you heard what "The Today Show" did?

‘He Looks Black’: NBC Launching Investigation into Selective Editing of Zimmerman Police Tape | Video | TheBlaze.com

According to NBC, in talking to the dispatcher, Zimmerman said this...

"This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

NBC clearly wanted its audience to think that Zimmerman equates black with "up to no good". However, in the unedited version of that call, after Zimmerman said the kid looked like he was up to no good, the dispatcher ASKED Zimmerman what color the kid was. All Zimmerman did was answer the question that was asked. Who broke this story? The liars at Foxnews...

It's incredible to me that NBC has any credibility. The folks who spliced that audio put Zimmerman's life in danger for the purposes of sensationalizing the footage, and - shockingly - they edited the footage to make it appear in the most racist possible light.

If NBC had any credibility whatsoever, it has none now. Zip. They put this guy's life in danger.

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Interesting thing is that one witness says that he couldn't see the details because it was dark. Police grilled him, and according the the witnesses mother, pressured him into choosing a sweatshirt color by multiple choice. Other witnesses say they heard what sounded like a child cry out right before the shot. Add to that the video footage that shows no evidence of injury to Zimmerman and it is pretty clear the courts should decide.

You need to look at the video when blownup by a tv station that is unbiased and it clearly shows two scraping type wounds to the back of Zimmerman's head. Which by the way had been attended to and cleaned up by paramedics at the scene. I would want you on any jury that I had anything to do with.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Swimmer

You need to look at the video when blownup by a tv station that is unbiased and it clearly shows two scraping type wounds to the back of Zimmerman's head. Which by the way had been attended to and cleaned up by paramedics at the scene. I would want you on any jury that I had anything to do with.

Yeah, I've seen it. He certainly doesn't look like he was in imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to justify shooting an unarmed person. Good point, both videos do seem to indicate the use of dealy force may not have been necessary. Why would the guy with the gun need to scream for help if he could shoot the kid anyway? Instead of help me, maybe get off me or I will shoot you?

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

Spence, here is WHY

look at the EVIDENCE immediatly after the incident. Witnesses account that they saw MARTIN holding down Zimmerman. Police officer at the scene noted that zimmerman had wounds to his nose and back of his head.
there you go, thats enough evidence that Zimmerman acted in self defence.
Its not a cut and dry case as some are making it out to be.

Nobody is saying it's cut and dry, the argument is that in fact it was obfuscated enough to merit more diligence.

Even if Martin had gained the upper hand in the struggle the police would have known that Zimmerman should have been in his car waiting for the police.

And even then, if I engage you in a fight and I'm losing (which isn't likely ) should I have the right to shoot you dead when you're unarmed?

The burden should have been on the investigation to show this clearly wasn't a manslaughter case...

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Nobody is saying it's cut and dry, the argument is that in fact it was obfuscated enough to merit more diligence.

Even if Martin had gained the upper hand in the struggle the police would have known that Zimmerman should have been in his car waiting for the police.

And even then, if I engage you in a fight and I'm losing (which isn't likely ) should I have the right to shoot you dead when you're unarmed?

The burden should have been on the investigation to show this clearly wasn't a manslaughter case...

-spence

Spence, the man is presumed innocent, and the burden of proof is always, always, on the state to prove otherwise. The accused never has to prove his innocence, the system was intentionally not set up as you would have it work...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

And even then, if I engage you in a fight and I'm losing (which isn't likely ) should I have the right to shoot you dead when you're unarmed?


-spence

That's a key question. However, we still don't know for sure that Zimmerman engaged this kid (although that's what I would assume). As I said earlier, it seems to me that liberal types and racial hucksters learned absolutely nothing from the Duke lacrosse case, and the nightmare you put those kids through. You're doing the same exact thing.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, the man is presumed innocent, and the burden of proof is always, always, on the state to prove otherwise. The accused never has to prove his innocence, the system was intentionally not set up as you would have it work...

Presumption of innocence has a bearing on the final outcome, not necessarily the charge...You could be charged with manslaughter, you're still presumed innocent until found guilty.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That's a key question. However, we still don't know for sure that Zimmerman engaged this kid (although that's what I would assume). As I said earlier, it seems to me that liberal types and racial hucksters learned absolutely nothing from the Duke lacrosse case, and the nightmare you put those kids through. You're doing the same exact thing.

I would think that had he told an accurate story to the police they would have known he was on the neighborhood watch and set out on foot to presume someone he had identified as suspicious. This was later confirmed by the 911 recording. This alone should have given the police pause and it would seem as though the lead investigator wasn't convinced his story was consistent.

This is the nut of the whole case, why the State would rush to release someone under such circumstances. Some clearly think it was racism...

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Presumption of innocence has a bearing on the final outcome, not necessarily the charge...You could be charged with manslaughter, you're still presumed innocent until found guilty.


I would think that had he told an accurate story to the police they would have known he was on the neighborhood watch and set out on foot to presume someone he had identified as suspicious. This was later confirmed by the 911 recording. This alone should have given the police pause and it would seem as though the lead investigator wasn't convinced his story was consistent.

This is the nut of the whole case, why the State would rush to release someone under such circumstances. Some clearly think it was racism...

-spence

Spence, you said the burden should have been to prove that he didn't commit a crime. That's not the way he works. The presumption of innocence does not begin at trial, it exists all along.

"why the State would rush to release someone under such circumstances."

Someone who knows a bit more than you thought it was premature to arrest. Let's see how it plays out.

"Some clearly think it was racism..."

Yes. Some of the same folks who cried racism in the first days of the Duke lacrosse case. How did that work out for the race-baiters?? Not so well, as I recall.

We need to stop crying "racism" every single time something like this happens, before we know what happened. It may have been racially motivated. Let's see before we pin that label on the guy. Is that unreasonable?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, you said the burden should have been to prove that he didn't commit a crime. That's not the way he works. The presumption of innocence does not begin at trial, it exists all along.

In RI had the same situation occurred the shooter would have probably been detained and charged with at least manslaughter. They would still be presumed innocent mind you.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

In RI had the same situation occurred the shooter would have probably been detained and charged with at least manslaughter. They would still be presumed innocent mind you.

-spence

Twio key words that make your point moot Spence. You said "if" and "probably".

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

In RI had the same situation occurred the shooter would have probably been detained and charged with at least manslaughter. They would still be presumed innocent mind you.

-spence

Don't know about RI, but in most states criminal charges are filed by prosecutors (not police) after thorough investigation reveals enough evidence to win the case at trial. Also, in most cases, there is a short time period that a defendant can be held or released if no charge is made. So it is prudent to not arrest a person too quickly if not enough evidence has been revealed. It's better, in serious crimes, to get your ducks in a row. If you charge someone with a crime, that begins the criminal process which can include a grand jury or prelliminary hearing and that quickly leads to a trial. If you postpone the arrest and charges, you have more time to gather enough evidence to be successful at trial.