17 year old kid shot dead by Neighborhood Watch "Captain"

[beararms1776]

Originally Posted by hornadylnl
My suspicions of Zimmerman did not lead to his death. I didn't follow him and get out of my truck. If I felt he was a danger, I'd call the police and let them do their jobs and not try to do it for them. Zimmerman convicted Martin for what? Walking? What crime did he witness? I have Zimmerman's action to base my opinion on. Even if the incident happened exactly as Zimmerman said, he still screwed up.

I'm not denying anyone the right to an opinion. Mere opinion is not sufficient cause to act. Criminal acts are.

I don't understand what you think Zimmerman did that was wrong? I'm not saying he didn't do anything wrong, but I can't tell if he did or not. You seem pretty sure. What did Zimmerman do that you're sure was wrong?

I think what he's saying is z never should have left the vehicle in the first place. He did say, while in his truck, he seen martin with something in his waistband and then in his hand.

 

[Hookeye]

I guess the mainstream forgets

Just because one may err, that doesn't make them automatically criminal.

If they used such logic against themselves there'd be a lot of job openings.

 

[griffin]

No, meaning she cannot disprove Z's story beyond a reasonable doubt...

I understand that. What I don't understand is why you seem to think he is guilty. If I misunderstand your position, then I apologize.

Do you have any idea how high that standard is, especially when trying to prove a negative?

Yes.

I like how you gloss over that the cops originally were sending charges in.

I'm not sure what you mean, unless it was the one detective who wanted to arrest Zimmerman and let him fight it out in court. A Michigan LEO who I have discussed this with on another forum says that is his policy. He believes in arresting everyone, then let the prosecutor deal with it. He feels it is somehow safer for him that way.

I like how you gloss over that Z was the one who got out and was trying to find T.

I am not glossing over that. I just don't see where that is against the law, nor do I find his behavior threatening to the point of a preemptive attack by Tray, especially to the extent it went.

I like that you assume that no charges will be filed.

I assume that for two reasons: a) because the initial State's Attorney decided not to file charges, and b) because the new special prosecutor herself said it would be very hard to prosecute this case because there is no evidence proving Zimmerman was in the wrong. Now granted, this was before she got knee-deep into it herself, but I don't see any new evidence being manufactured, do you? I think it is an educated guess on my part. I could be wrong. I have been wrong before. I never thought Hillary would run.

If charges are filed, will you then make the same assumptions against Z that you are currently making for him? Will "all the evidence" then point to his guilt?

All the evidence? No, because we know "all the evidence" currently doesn't point to his guilt. What a bizarre question to ask of me. Unless, of course, every single thing we know so far is a lie.

Your degree of certainty based upon hopelessly incomplete information is a bit disconcerting.

It shouldn't be. I have given a complete and rational explanation, backed up with actual facts from the case, for everything I've said.

The best the "other" side has come up with is, "I believe Zimmerman threw the first punch" without any basis in evidence whatsoever. They can't even use the generic "he's a racist" accusation because there is ample proof that isn't true.

Now, I have repeatedly shown why I think Zimmerman is not guilty and will not be prosecuted. Care to reveal why you think otherwise?

 

[Fargo]

I understand that. What I don't understand is why you seem to think he is guilty. If I misunderstand your position, then I apologize.

I don't know if he is guilty; it is possible that he is and it is possible he is not. I don't claim to know.

Yes.I'm not sure what you mean, unless it was the one detective who wanted to arrest Zimmerman and let him fight it out in court. A Michigan LEO who I have discussed this with on another forum says that is his policy. He believes in arresting everyone, then let the prosecutor deal with it. He feels it is somehow safer for him that way.I am not glossing over that. I just don't see where that is against the law, nor do I find his behavior threatening to the point of a preemptive attack by Tray, especially to the extent it went.

For a case in which the "facts" have been ever-changing, you are once again really certain.

I assume that for two reasons: a) because the initial State's Attorney decided not to file charges, and b) because the new special prosecutor herself said it would be very hard to prosecute this case because there is no evidence proving Zimmerman was in the wrong. Now granted, this was before she got knee-deep into it herself, but I don't see any new evidence being manufactured, do you?

What do you mean manufactured? I personally think the odds are in favor of him being charged with a federal crime out of it. I don't know that he is guilty, but I bet there is an indictment.

All the evidence? No, because we know "all the evidence" currently doesn't point to his guilt. What a bizarre question to ask of me. Unless, of course, every single thing we know so far is a lie.It shouldn't be. I have given a complete and rational explanation, backed up with actual facts from the case, for everything I've said.

We KNOW next to NOTHING about what the ACTUAL facts are. We have a bunch of gibberish filtered through an agenda laden media, coupled with unauthorized and incomplete leaks. The is nothing to be certain of here.

The best the "other" side has come up with is, "I believe Zimmerman threw the first punch" without any basis in evidence whatsoever. They can't even use the generic "he's a racist" accusation because there is ample proof that isn't true.

Oh, there is a basis. It has to do with jumping out of your car an following people around...

Now, I have repeatedly shown why I think Zimmerman is not guilty and will not be prosecuted. Care to reveal why you think otherwise?

I'm not saying he is or isn't actually guilty, I'm saying there is no way of being at all certain either way at this point. I think he absolutely will be prosecuted for the exact same reason that the fed's went after the Rodney King cops after they were acquitted of state charges.

I don't think he will be convicted and unless there is additional undiscovered evidence, I don't think he should be convicted. I don't see how the state or the U.S., as the feddies call themselves, can make their burden.

However, that does not mean it is not possible that he is guilty. I really don't know.

Joe

 

[griffin]

For a case in which the "facts" have been ever-changing, you are once again really certain.

This statement makes no sense to me. You wrote this in reply to Yes. I'm not sure what you mean, unless it was the one detective who wanted to arrest Zimmerman and let him fight it out in court. A Michigan LEO who I have discussed this with on another forum says that is his policy. He believes in arresting everyone, then let the prosecutor deal with it. He feels it is somehow safer for him that way.I am not glossing over that. I just don't see where that is against the law, nor do I find his behavior threatening to the point of a preemptive attack by Tray, especially to the extent it went.

I don't follow your assertion. And you know what? The facts in this case haven't really changed all that much from the beginning. Barely at all, as a matter of fact. The only thing changing are the supposed "facts" by the "Zimmerman is guilty" people as one by one they are proven false.

What do you mean manufactured?

Okay, let's use the term "develops."

I personally think the odds are in favor of him being charged with a federal crime out of it.

So no manslaughter charge whatsoever. Just some fabricated hate-crime by Eric Holder's Justice Department?

I bet there is an indictment.

For what? What's the charge?

 

[j706]

Tyler Perry has added to the mess.

He got pulled over recently, in response to supposedly being profiled, he ended comments to reporters by flat out calling the Zimmerman shooting "MURDER".

I bet the cops did profile him.........as just another stupid celebrity.

Who in the heck is Tyler Perry? Never heard of him.

 

[griffin]

Who in the heck is Tyler Perry? Never heard of him.

Me either. This being an IN board I figured he was some IU basketball player or something.

 

[j706]

Me either. This being an IN board I figured he was some IU basketball player or something.

I have no clue. If he is some sort of celebrity his opinion don't matter one bit to me. Celebrity's think that what they think on something really matters. Kind of like listening to John Couger Melencamp on presidential matters.

 

[Bond 281]

Who in the heck is Tyler Perry? Never heard of him.

Tyler Perry is the guy that makes all those black movies.

 

[griffin]

Tyler Perry is the guy that makes all those black movies.

The last movie I attended was the original Jurassic Park. According to the interweb that was 1993, almost twenty years ago, so I am not up on movie people, unless it is Cary Grant or John Wayne. Yeah, I'm old -- 55.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

There's the guy that was in Shawshank Redemption

You leave Mr. Freeman out of this.

 

[cobber]

ETA: okay, I just did a google image search of Tyler Perry. I've never seen him before in my life. Tell me again why people care what he says?

Because if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon Martin. Whoops, that's the other guy...

 

[Fargo]

I don't follow your assertion. And you know what? The facts in this case haven't really changed all that much from the beginning. Barely at all, as a matter of fact.

Really? I've been following this pretty closely and the reported facts at the outset and the reported facts today have relatively little in common.

The only thing changing are the supposed "facts" by the "Zimmerman is guilty" people as one by one they are proven false.

Just what has been "proven" false and how? I am really curious about your use of the word "proven".

Step back for a second and consider this:

Leave every "fact" we know the same save this one. Instead of Z. shooting T., Z is found dead with a round from his own gun in his chest. T. is interviewed on the scene and at the station and says:

Hey, I was walking home from the store and this guy started staring me down then stalking me. I had no idea who he was so I tried to lose him by ducking between houses but I couldn't shake him. He caught up to me and grabbed me so I tried to get away but we ended up on the ground scuffling. I was on top of him, hitting him and still fighting to get away when I saw his hand grabbing a gun out of his waistband. We struggled for the gun and he got shot in the process. I have no idea what this guy wanted or why he was trying to shoot me.

Should T. be charged? Is he "proven" innocent in you mind because of his self-serving statement?

Joe

 

[blamecharles]

Really? I've been following this pretty closely and the reported facts at the outset and the reported facts today have relatively little in common.


Just what has been "proven" false and how? I am really curious about your use of the word "proven".

Step back for a second and consider this:

Leave every "fact" we know the same save this one. Instead of Z. shooting T., Z is found dead with a round from his own gun in his chest. T. is interviewed on the scene and at the station and says:



Should T. be charged? Is he "proven" innocent in you mind because of his self-serving statement?

Joe

We never would have heard the story, it wouldn't have gotten the AirPlay that it is today, it wouldn't have been edited in such a way as to make Trayvon a racist, out killing *****, that is the point. This has been manufactured into something it's not.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Should T. be charged?

No!

Is he "proven" innocent in you mind because of his self-serving statement?

Objection, burden shifting. My client does not have to prove anything.

 

[Fargo]

Objection, burden shifting. My client does not have to prove anything.

My point exactly. I don't understand why some here think that a Nolle Pros. equates to being proven innocent. It means that the prosecutor recognizes there is a reasonable possibility of innocence and nothing more.

Best,

Joe

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I don't understand why some here think that a Nolle Pros. equates to being proven innocent.

Pfffft, everyone knows it "clears your name".

 

[Expat]

Pfffft, everyone knows it "clears your name".

Does anyone think that is likely to happen in this case. The "community" is going to hound Mr. Zimmerman to his grave. He will forever be the face of white Hispanic racism against a poor innocent cherub. As we have seen on this board, they will even be cheered on by Hoosier gun owners and even sworn LEOs.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

If Zimmerman is no billed, I would anticipate a name change and cosmetic surgery like one of the Rodney King cops that left L.A. and went to Indianapolis for school after the trials were over.

 

[griffin]

Really? I've been following this pretty closely and the reported facts at the outset and the reported facts today have relatively little in common.

Actually, I don't believe Mr. Zimmerman's claim has changed one bit. It's been consistent since the story came out. As details of the investigation have been released on the Sanford website, they have backed up his claim. As details of the investigation have been leaked, they have backed up his claim. The SPD have stated the evidence backs up his claim. So no, the story hasn't changed.

The only things that have changed are allegations against Mr. Zimmerman. People make them, then when they are shown not to be true, they come up with new ones. That's the so-called "facts" you see changing.

You say Zimmerman's statements are self-serving, but if they are the truth, what's he to do?

If he's lying, he's both very good and very lucky that nothing the police have found after weeks of investigation into this has run contrary to his statements. Not eyewitnesses, not physical evidence.