Trayvon

[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.

[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.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by zimmy

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

no, but the police gather the evidence and do the investigation. we have ZERO output from their investigation. All we know if they havent arrested Zimmerman. Thats it.

[Sea Dangles]

Zimmerman referred to Martin as a spook on the call.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

no, but the police gather the evidence and do the investigation. we have ZERO output from their investigation. All we know if they havent arrested Zimmerman. Thats it.

The partial report was released by the police. Doesn't provide much information. We know that Trayvon didn't have a gun or knife or any weapon. We know that the law as written in Florida says that the force must be necessary to "prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." The phone conversations show that Trayvon was followed. Zimmerman admits that he is following him. Combine those details with burden the law places on the person who kills and with the lead investigators concerns about the legitimacy of Zimmerman's story. I make no judgement about whether he should be convicted, but it is crystal clear that his parents are completely justified to call bs on the whole system that let the guy walk. If one of my kids or someone I love is walking around Florida unarmed, gets followed, and ends up shot, the shooter had better darn well have to prove it was necessary to "prevent imminent death or great bodily harm."

[Bill L]

Why is this case considered "political"?

[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

[RIJIMMY]

this little tidbit aint getting a lot of attention from the media...

“You will recall the incident of the beating of the black homeless man Sherman Ware on December 4, 2010 by the son of a Sanford police officer. The beating sparked outrage in the community but there were very few that stepped up to do anything about it. I would presume the inaction was because of the fact that he was homeless not because he was black. Do you know the individual who stepped up when no one else in the black community would? Do you know who spent tireless hours putting flyers on the cars of persons parked in the churches of the black community? Do you know who waited for the church-goers to get out of church so that he could hand them flyers in an attempt to organize the black community against this horrible miscarriage of justice? Do you know who helped organize the City Hall meeting on January 8, 2011 at Sanford City Hall?? That person was GEORGE ZIMMERMAN.” – from a letter to Turner Clayton of the Seminole County NAACP written by “a concerned Zimmerman family member”

[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.

[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?

[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?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

this little tidbit aint getting a lot of attention from the media...

The race part is irrelevant in my opinion and both sides are ignoring what is the bigger point. Unarmed kid followed by unprovoked armed adult and shot. No evidence of threat to life of shooter, beyond a few scrapes. Shooter never warned dead kid "get off or I will kill you." Screams on 911 call at time of shot shown not to be shooter. Give me a break. This shouldn't be about race or politics. It should be about the circumstances and whether it should go into the judiciary.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by zimmy

. No evidence of threat to life of shooter, beyond a few scrapes. you know this how? CNN? Shooter never warned dead kid "get off or I will kill you." You must have been there, wow, have you called the investigators and let them know?
Screams on 911 call at time of shot shown not to be shooter. Uh, by 2 experts hired by the media, another one said it was inconclusive, this was not part of the investigation, it was from the media
. This shouldn't be about race or politics. It should be about the circumstances and whether it should go into the judiciary. agreed

you keep posting one sided, un proven, evidence

[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".

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

you keep posting one sided, un proven, evidence

The 911 phone call lasted for a substantial amount of time.. Did you listen to it? Also, I have seen the high detail video. It seems, to use one of your buddies on here favorite terms , common sense, that imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm would have caused a bit more damage. You right it is unproven but he did shoot and kill someone, who was unarmed. If Martin had busted into Zimmerman's house or gone after Zimmerman with a weapon without the provocation of chasing after him in the dark, it isn't even a story. It is the details that make it a story. I post what is reported about the night, you post a mostly irrelevant letter from a family member; irrelevant from a legal standpoint since the question isn't whether he killed him because of his race, but if he killed him because his own life was imminently threatened.

[Sea Dangles]

The great part about gun laws in Florida is that you DO NOT have to say "get off or I will kill you". You simply squeeze the trigger and deal with the consequences.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

Never said if and no it's not moot, time to think critically Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[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.

[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.

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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.

Agree, and that is a good enough reason to delay an arrest. However, I think the problem with the whole story is that I believe the family wasn't explained that and enough kept informed of what was going on in the investigation. I haven't seen the police come out and say those things. Thus, the family and public seem to think the investigation was screwed up. The police should have taken blood/alchohol tests of Zimmerman but didn't.

Also, it is my understanding that the way the law is written, once Zimmerman claimed self defense, the police had to prove it wasn't. The burden of proof may be different???

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The 911 phone call lasted for a substantial amount of time.. Did you listen to it? Also, I have seen the high detail video. It seems, to use one of your buddies on here favorite terms , common sense, that imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm would have caused a bit more damage. You right it is unproven but he did shoot and kill someone, who was unarmed. If Martin had busted into Zimmerman's house or gone after Zimmerman with a weapon without the provocation of chasing after him in the dark, it isn't even a story. It is the details that make it a story. I post what is reported about the night, you post a mostly irrelevant letter from a family member; irrelevant from a legal standpoint since the question isn't whether he killed him because of his race, but if he killed him because his own life was imminently threatened.

"that imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm would have caused a bit more damage"

Are you a forensic doctor now? I've seen dead bodies of dead soldiers, and the only visible wound is a tiny dot somewhere where the bullet went in. The reasonableness of imminent threat of death is not based on the intensity of visible wounds. You don't necessarily need to leave a mark on someone in order for them to reasonably assume serious injury is imminent.

This is going to be a tough case investigate. Too many unknowns, and only one person is available to tell his side.

If it's true that Zimmerman was a crusader to hold cops accountable for racially-motivated beatings, it's interesting that his heroics there don't get as much media play as the doctored 911 call teryiong to paint him as a racist...

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The 911 phone call lasted for a substantial amount of time.. Did you listen to it? Also, I have seen the high detail video. It seems, to use one of your buddies on here favorite terms , common sense, that imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm would have caused a bit more damage. You right it is unproven but he did shoot and kill someone, who was unarmed. If Martin had busted into Zimmerman's house or gone after Zimmerman with a weapon without the provocation of chasing after him in the dark, it isn't even a story. It is the details that make it a story. I post what is reported about the night, you post a mostly irrelevant letter from a family member; irrelevant from a legal standpoint since the question isn't whether he killed him because of his race, but if he killed him because his own life was imminently threatened.

If someone was on top of you and slamming your head into the ground in the dark, and you couldn't see if they had a weapon, would you maybe think your life was being threatened? I guess Trayvon must have been telling Zimmerman not to worry because he was just giving him a beating and not really trying to hurt him. Unless you've been in the same situation, don't try to assume what either person was thinking at the time of the incident. You'd probably poop your pants if a punk kid in a hoodie came at you.

[RIJIMMY]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The 911 phone call lasted for a substantial amount of time.. Did you listen to it? Also, I have seen the high detail video. It seems, to use one of your buddies on here favorite terms , common sense, that imminent threat of death or severe bodily harm would have caused a bit more damage. You right it is unproven but he did shoot and kill someone, who was unarmed. If Martin had busted into Zimmerman's house or gone after Zimmerman with a weapon without the provocation of chasing after him in the dark, it isn't even a story. It is the details that make it a story. I post what is reported about the night, you post a mostly irrelevant letter from a family member; irrelevant from a legal standpoint since the question isn't whether he killed him because of his race, but if he killed him because his own life was imminently threatened.

My only point in posting the letter was to show a side (potentially, I have no idea if its true) the media is not showing of Z. I have stated all along that we need to know the evidence before passing judgement. I have no clue what happened. If it was purely up to me, Z would be behind bars. But thats my heart, not my head. We dont know the details but I have to believe that there should be forensic evidence eaither way
There is a contant theme among liberals to immediatly doubt the police. I immediately believe the police. I was disqualified from a jury 2 yrs ago for a murder trial. I was asked if I would tend to believe the testimony of a police officer over a normal citizen and I said yes. I think on average, most cops are good people trying to do good things. I think most citizens suck

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by fishbones

I guess Trayvon must have been telling Zimmerman not to worry because he was just giving him a beating and not really trying to hurt him.

Missing the point completely. But, if I am going after a "punk kid in a hoodie" (not sure where you come off calling him that) with my 9mm on me, I better not be the kind of person who poops themselves if the kid comes back at me. That points to one of the cardinal rules of gun ownership.

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY

My only point in posting the letter was to show a side (potentially, I have no idea if its true) the media is not showing of Z. I was asked if I would tend to believe the testimony of a police officer over a normal citizen and I said yes. I think on average, most cops are good people trying to do good things. I think most citizens suck

I think cops are citizens and like all realms of society, there are mostly good cops and a few bad. However, in this circumstance, I am suspicious that there may have been a tendency by some in the chain of command to hide behind the stand your ground law. Most citizens suck...interesting. That would make an interesting study, the correlation between opinions about citizens and political affiliations/tendencies.

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by zimmy

Missing the point completely. But, if I am going after a "punk kid in a hoodie" (not sure where you come off calling him that) with my 9mm on me, I better not be the kind of person who poops themselves if the kid comes back at me. That points to one of the cardinal rules of gun ownership.

There you go assuming again. There is nothing to show that Zimmerman went after Martin initially, just speculation (which you seem to take as fact). And based on the trouble the kid had been in in and out of school, he is a punk in my opinion. Just because he's a victim of a shooting doesn't make him a good kid.

[Piscator]

[QUOTE=zimmy;931519]But, if I am going after a "punk kid in a hoodie" (not sure where you come off calling him that) QUOTE]

Most kids that get suspended from school for 10 days are "punk kids"

Doesn't mean he should have been killed but lets face it, he was no model kid