Edit: It is at this point people like to cling to the detective statement. Well what if he couldnt catch Zimmerman in a lie? They would have been right back where they started and have wasted resources trying.
I think it's still worth a try, if the detective in charge is that convinced Zimmerman is lying. It's not a ton of resources that would be expended, and the stakes are pretty high. I mean, we are talking about a dead person here, not a stolen carton of smokes.
The argument of "if it doesn't work, we'll have wasted time and resources" could apply to many steps in the criminal justice system. Heck, it could apply to prosecuting a case entirely. Any time the prosecution loses at trial, the state has expended time and resources, without much to show for it. I'm not sure I find this argument compelling. The state's interest should be in justice, not in conserving resources.
This is valid. I will give you that. But apparently the Police Department didnt think devoting the resources was worth the time with the evidence they had in place. That is at least my opinion.
Whether it was actually the police's decision depends on the role that state attorney Norm Wolfinger played.
The Martin family claims that Wolfinger overrode the detective on the case, who had recommended Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. The family claims that Wolfinger ordered Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee to release Zimmerman. They have filed a formal request with the Justice Department to investigate Wolfinger's involvement in the case.
IF the Martin family's claims are true, then it wasn't really a police decision that Zimmerman wasn't worth further investigation.
Wolfinger, for his part, categorically denies the Martin family's claims.
Wait what? Who started the fight doesnt matter. If Zimmerman started the fight, then it depends on whether he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he had exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant. If Martin started the fight then it just depends on whether he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
If you start a fight, and then are getting your butt kicked it is going to be really hard to escape at least a manslaughter charge if you shoot them. This thing is going to hinge on the prosecution proving Zimmerman was the physical aggressor. Everything else is largely irrelevant.
I'll bold the parts that come directly (well, I removed some stuff, mainly "or her" and would have bracketed some shit if I put it in quotes since I changed the phrasing so it would be in the same tense) from Florida's stand your ground law.
Aggressors have a duty to retreat unless they are faced with imminent GBH or force likely to cause death, in which case shoot away.
Apparently, Florida's SYG law doesnt provide immunity for aggressors though, so thats nice.
Man, it's almost like you didn't bother to read. Please re-read the first sentence there. The point is not "Martin could not possibly have been a threat ever". The point, AGAIN, is that Martin was not a sekrit mugger or burglar, and Zimmerman can't point to the presence of a weapon as a reason for being in fear of harm.
There are women who are 4'10" and 90 pounds soaking wet who are Krav Maga instructors and could snap your neck while playing Angry Birds. Does that mean if a 6'6" guy with 200 pounds of muscle sees a tiny little thing walking around his neighborhood and shoots her, that's OK because dude, she MIGHT have been a threat, who knows?
Man its like you almost didn't bother to read the thread. It doesn't matter what is in Martins pockets, whether he had 10 years of Krav Maga, and orange belt from the local McDojo, or whatever else training. What matters is who started the physical fight. If Martin started then fight, then Zimmerman was in the right to defend himself. That is what the case hinges on.
Every thing else is emotional bullshit to obfuscate the issue because ultimately if Zimmerman was attacked, he was in the right.
Wait what? Who started the fight doesnt matter. If Zimmerman started the fight, then it depends on whether he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he had exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant. If Martin started the fight then it just depends on whether he reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm.
LOL yes it does. It is the core of the case with the state law in place. If Martin attacked Zimmerman then he will walk. It doesnt matter that he ignored the 911 operator (ask the guy from denver about this), it doesnt matter he followed him through public property, it doesnt matter that he was armed. If it is true that Trayvon truely followed Zimmerman back to his car and attacked him then he will walk. That is what the prosc has to prove.
You mean actually collecting facts about the background of the defendant and putting them into a piece that isn't a pure smear paper in an attempt to give some background isn't journalism? Gee willikers. If thats the case, people better shut it about skittles, tea, zimmerman's history of calling the cops, how old Trayvon was, and everything else that isn't directly related to the incident. Because apparently none of that matters, either.
I'll bold the parts that come directly (well, I removed some stuff, mainly "or her" and would have bracketed some shit if I put it in quotes since I changed the phrasing so it would be in the same tense) from Florida's stand your ground law.
Aggressors have a duty to retreat unless they are faced with imminent GBH or force likely to cause death, in which case shoot away.
Apparently, Florida's SYG law doesnt provide immunity for aggressors though, so thats nice.
I am still waiting to see the evidence that shows whether Zimmerman or Martin was the "aggressor". Really I don't think your "short term" series of events is really going to fly and that is if the prosecution could prove Zimmerman was responsible for reestablishing contact. Especially since at the time of his "stalking" he was actively on the phone with the police.
I'll bold the parts that come directly (well, I removed some stuff, mainly "or her" and would have bracketed some shit if I put it in quotes since I changed the phrasing so it would be in the same tense) from Florida's stand your ground law.
Aggressors have a duty to retreat unless they are faced with imminent GBH or force likely to cause death, in which case shoot away.
Apparently, Florida's SYG law doesnt provide immunity for aggressors though, so thats nice.
I am still waiting to see the evidence that shows whether Zimmerman or Martin was the "aggressor". Really I don't think your "short term" series of events is really going to fly and that is if the prosecution could prove Zimmerman was responsible for reestablishing contact. Especially since at the time of his "stalking" he was actively on the phone with the police.
Youre still missing the point where non-aggressors have no duty to retreat so it doesnt matter who started the fight. If Martin did, Zimmerman has no duty to retreat. If Zimmerman started the fight, he only has to retreat if he cant show that he was at imminent risk of GBH or death, which he is going to argue that he was because according to him he was getting his head smashed against the ground. Either way its up to the jury to determine whether Zimmerman's actions were reasonable.
Well if he didn't start the fight and was attacked his actions are reasonable. If he did start the fight, lost and was getting his head bashed against the ground then apparently his actions were reasonable. Sounds like the prosecution is going to have a problem proving its case.
This is valid. I will give you that. But apparently the Police Department didnt think devoting the resources was worth the time with the evidence they had in place. That is at least my opinion.
You realize this is circular, right? They didn't adequately investigate, therefore they didn't have any evidence.....so, this means they shouldn't investigate further to determine if there is any evidence?
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
This is valid. I will give you that. But apparently the Police Department didnt think devoting the resources was worth the time with the evidence they had in place. That is at least my opinion.
You realize this is circular, right? They didn't adequately investigate, therefore they didn't have any evidence.....so, this means they shouldn't investigate further to determine if there is any evidence?
You realize real life isn't TV, and if your higher ups tell you that they aren't pressing charges, you can't go out and Dirty Harry it yourself and try to collect evidence and question people and such, right?
I mean for all the harping on the Sanford PD, it's been stated time and again by multiple sources that in the end the State Attorney's Office didn't give them the go ahead.
Angela Corey, a special prosecutor assigned to case by Gov. Rick Scott, told CBS4 news partner The Miami Herald that early in the investigation police requested an arrest warrant from the Seminole County State Attorney’s Office.
An incident report on the shooting classified it as “homicide/negligent manslaughter.”
Corey said police did file a capias (a request that charges be filed) with the State Attorney’s Office.
Come on. It's a black person who didn't acquiesce to a white mans inherited authority.
Thug.
You realize this is circular, right? They didn't adequately investigate, therefore they didn't have any evidence.....so, this means they shouldn't investigate further to determine if there is any evidence?
You mean actually collecting facts about the background of the defendant and putting them into a piece that isn't a pure smear paper in an attempt to give some background isn't journalism? Gee willikers. If thats the case, people better shut it about skittles, tea, zimmerman's history of calling the cops, how old Trayvon was, and everything else that isn't directly related to the incident. Because apparently none of that matters, either.
It's a fluff piece when you collect facts and the only negative things you write about are the ones that everyone already knows about. This shitty article also is trying to justify racial profiling. This case is exactly the reason racial profiling is a bad idea.
I like how they leave out things like his penchant for hitting his ex girlfriend, assaulting police, or neighbors calling the cops on Zimmerman because he creeped them out and they didn't want him coming to their house.
But hey. The same police department that pressured some one into submitting a false report says that they just don't have enough information to investigate, what with interference from the State on high and the destruction of the crime scene and all.
I like how they leave out things like his penchant for hitting his ex girlfriend, assaulting police, or neighbors calling the cops on Zimmerman because he creeped them out and they didn't want him coming to their house.
But hey. The same police department that pressured some one into submitting a false report says that they just don't have enough information to investigate, what with interference from the State on high and the destruction of the crime scene and all.
Care to source any of this? Sounds like baseless rumor mongering.
In fact, everyone who makes these kinds of accusations never once links any articles. It's almost like no actual proof exists. It's kind of shocking. You'd think if this is such known facts there'd be tons of stuff to just link with ease. So, come on, chum. Toss those ubiquitous links out there. Put up, as it were.
So mutual domestic violence, which was covered in chocos story. Also the assault on an officer, also covered. We have anonymous reports of a complaint from a homeowner, which the hoa denies. Sounds like everything that can be substantiated was in chocos story, but with *gasp* context.
Basically it sounds like you're just upset at a nuanced attempt to report the controversial fact that Zimmerman is, in fact, a human being.
I like how they leave out things like his penchant for hitting his ex girlfriend, assaulting police, or neighbors calling the cops on Zimmerman because he creeped them out and they didn't want him coming to their house.
But hey. The same police department that pressured some one into submitting a false report says that they just don't have enough information to investigate, what with interference from the State on high and the destruction of the crime scene and all.
The restraining order and the police assault are in there.
That July, Zimmerman was charged with resisting arrest, violence, and battery of an officer after shoving an undercover alcohol-control agent who was arresting an under-age friend of Zimmerman's at a bar. He avoided conviction by agreeing to participate in a pre-trial diversion program that included anger-management classes.
In August, Zimmerman's fiancee at the time, Veronica Zuazo, filed a civil motion for a restraining order alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman reciprocated with his own order on the same grounds, and both orders were granted. The relationship ended.
Not as sensationalized as most of the anti Zimmerman articles. It is mentioned, and in more detail than most other articles. It is of course a pro Zimmerman article so keep that in mind.
I don't see how everyone is coming up with the "no investigation was done" bit. As far as I can tell the police did an investigation. The State attorney looked at the case, after the investigation was conducted, and determined that there wasn't enough evidence to charge Zimmerman. The media then reported that no investigation was conducted, because Zimmerman wasn't arrested.
Other agencies are reviewing/have reviewed the case to check that the police where not involved in a coverup or that they mishandled the investigation. That they have proceeded with arresting Zimmerman seems to imply that they haven't found anything.
I know that this case has become very political, so it is possible that things are being done the wrong way just because it looks better. It just doesn't make sense to arrest Zimmerman if the police are going to later be charged with conducting a cover up during the investigation. Wouldn't the case be thrown out if this happens?
Basically it sounds like you're just upset at a nuanced attempt to report the controversial fact that Zimmerman is, in fact, a human being.
I'm well aware that he's human.
I think his failings as a person and his willingness to be in the situation that brought it all together is why most of us want to see him face some kind of consequence.
Is there a reason you're doing this? I mean, seriously. The article apparently does mention the things you're complaining it doesn't. I mean I get it, a person was shot and killed. But rather than let a court figure out it was actually justified or not you're literally trying to use things that have no basis such as Trayvon having a bag of Skittles to make a claim of guilt.
Do you just fucking hate due process or something?
Both have happened/begun. But you have apparently already made up your mind on the basis of candy and apparently anyone who disagrees is whitewashing.
It only happened because people took notice and made a stink about it.
And, yes, I have made up my mind. I tend to not like folks who racially profile, put themselves in a position of ungranted authority and end up killing a teenager.
Both have happened/begun. But you have apparently already made up your mind on the basis of candy and apparently anyone who disagrees is whitewashing.
It only happened because people took notice and made a stink about it.
And none of that has any bearing on whether or not he's guilty. Being a douche doesn't make someone a murderer. That you're upset and insulting people who aren't jumping on to your bandwagon isn't conducive to any discussion.
Thankfully my responses have been to people who have tried to portray Zimmerman as a mere victim of circumstance and not whether or not he's guilty. The guy has history and the guy has issues.
If that's insulting to someone, then I can't help that.
Thankfully my responses have been to people who have tried to portray Zimmerman as a mere victim of circumstance and not whether or not he's guilty. The guy has history and the guy has issues.
If that's insulting to someone, then I can't help that.
You claim people are whitewashing Zimmerman and I've yet to see it. You try to make Zimmerman to be at fault by making up reasons and then get upset at people for pointing out your reasoning is flawed. You're not here to discuss anything, you're here to make exaggerations and ignore people when they point out that Trayvon having a bag of Skittles means jack shit.
You try to make Zimmerman to be at fault by making up reasons
See, this is the whitewashing I was talking about.
Stop acting like Zimmerman was an innocent bystander and I might have something to actually discuss with you.
See? Someone points out where you go wrong and now they're white washing. Or are you honestly claiming having a bag of candy is a valid reason to doubt Zimmerman's story?
Cause either you were purposely being a goose or you believe candy Is somehow relevant to whether or not a person would attack another person.
And I've never, at any point, claimed Zimmerman was innocent. Just because people aren't jumping on your bandwagon of hate doesn't mean they don't want the truth to be found out.
So as soon as we accept that Zimmerman is obviously guilty due to things that have no bearing on the case and that he is obviously Hitler reborn you feel at that point you will have something meaningful to add to the conversation.
Someone points out where you go wrong and now they're white washing.
No, it's white washing when you say something like Zimmerman's previous encounters with the police, violence towards his girlfriend, his neighbors and co workers apprehension and fear of his mood swings, are fictional.
Zimmerman was innocent. Just because people aren't jumping on your bandwagon of hate doesn't mean they don't want the truth to be found out.
If you want the truth to be found out then you'll stop stonewalling any notion that gives Zimmerman some culpability.
But you can't do that.
If neither of you think that what Martin had on his person and his reason for actually walking through his neighborhood has no bearing on this case then you should really reconsider your participation. If you don't think character and circumstance will play a role in the hearing, I have some seriously bad news for you.
Zimmerman is obviously guilty due to things that have no bearing on the case and that he is obviously Hitler reborn you feel at that point you will have something meaningful to add to the conversation.
No. What you can admit to is that Zimmerman has a nasty history of character, wrongly profiled someone based on their race, and willingly put himself in a situation where he ended up killing the person he singled out.
Zimmerman is, obviously, guilty of shooting Martin. That's not in question. His motives are. Things like his refusal to stand down, his issues with aggression, his neighbors being scared of him, etc are going to come into play.
Regardless, this crypto racist "Martin was a thug" stuff can go.
No. What you can admit to is that Zimmerman has a nasty history of character
Except that is not the case, what we have is one case of getting in an altercation, and one mutual domestic assault cases where both sides admit they ended up shoving each other around. That is hardly a nasty history of character, I would expect quite a bit more of a criminal record.
wrongly profiled someone based on their race
Except we have no evidence that his profiling was based on race at all. In fact I would say from the 911 tape Martins age was of more concern than his race.
and willingly put himself in a situation where he ended up killing the person he singled out.
Except we have no evidence that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation that ended in Martins death. He could have been leaving to meet police either by his truck or the mailboxes. We do not know.
Zimmerman is, obviously, guilty of shooting Martin. That's not in question. His motives are. Things like his refusal to stand down, his issues with aggression, his neighbors being scared of him, etc are going to come into play.
Regardless, this crypto racist "Martin was a thug" stuff can go.
Except none of that has any bearing on the case. First that fact that he shot Martin and killed Martin is not automatically a crime. He could have been completely justified in doing so both legally and "morally". From the 911 tape after he is told that he does not need to follow Martin it does sound like he does in fact comply making arrangements to meet the officers and has no idea where Martin is at the end of the call minutes before the altercation. Moreover id hardly call his criminal record one that shows issues with aggression. His neighbors being scared of him also has no bearing on the case. At best you can get a neighborhood busy body, which is not illegal.
In order to convict Zimmerman he has to be guilty of a crime. So far the problem seems actually finding a crime Zimmerman committed that could reasonably stick.
Come on. It's a black person who didn't acquiesce to a white mans inherited authority.
Thug.
Joke aside, that gives him the go ahead to beat the shit out of him?
I have a nagging suspicion that, having no knowledge of your race, that you are severely emotionally attached to this topic because you are black. So much so that no matter what proof or logical reason is thrown your way it's too bad, he's black, he got treated in a racist fashion (allegedly not the case).
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I wasn't disparaging him because of it, but his "white man's inherited authority" immediately assumes that the proper retaliation is to beat the fuck out of someone.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I wasn't disparaging him because of it, but his "white man's inherited authority" immediately assumes that the proper retaliation is to beat the fuck out of someone.
it's generally not good politic to breach anonymity over the internet, also it really doesn't help discourse with him when you underline the race issue, self fulfilling prophecy and all that. It's basically an accusation of subjectivity which is hard to respond to and makes unpleasant connotations no matter the intention
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
Options
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
First that fact that he shot Martin and killed Martin is not automatically a crime. He could have been completely justified in doing so both legally and "morally".
I gotta say, the fact that this statement can exist and actually apply to current reality is beyond fucking repugnant and speaks incredibly poorly of the human race as a whole.
Seriously, shooting and killing an unarmed anyone, let alone a teenager, is fucking horrible and should never be justifiable in ANY context of law in a civilized society.
Fuck that statement and fuck us as a society for making it valid.
I would think 40 pages of someone going "well golly gee the black dude only had skittles, sure deserved to get shot by the white hispanic (whitewash!!!!!!!!!11) didn't he?" back and forth between sheep and mcdermott is nearly as bad because both hardline on both sides of a gun debate. My only guffaw about this is that race is kept brought up over the shooting. Hell I tore through 67 some odd pages of 911 calls and race was mentioned twice. It's irritating.
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
It's not the case because you don't think it happened enough? He has a record. Just because you don't think it's significant enough is moot. He has a record of violence publicly and in the neighborhood.
Except we have no evidence that his profiling was based on race at all. In fact I would say from the 911 tape Martins age was of more concern than his race.
The other day Zimmerman stated that he thought Martin was close to Zimmerman's own age.
Except we have no evidence that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation that ended in Martins death.
Zimmerman initiated the confrontation the moment he profiled Martin and stepped out of his vehicle to follow Martin.
that gives him the go ahead to beat the shit out of him?
If Martin knew that Zimmerman was following him, and felt threatened by Zimmerman, Martin had the right to defend himself physically.
First that fact that he shot Martin and killed Martin is not automatically a crime. He could have been completely justified in doing so both legally and "morally".
I gotta say, the fact that this statement can exist and actually apply to current reality is beyond fucking repugnant and speaks incredibly poorly of the human race as a whole.
Seriously, shooting and killing an unarmed anyone, let alone a teenager, is fucking horrible and should never be justifiable in ANY context of law in a civilized society.
Fuck that statement and fuck us as a society for making it valid.
Someone has a knife to your throat and is threatening to kill you. Or someone is bashing your head against the ground and you're starting to feel light headed.
You really think they're going to stop because you would? If it were you you wouldn't even be doing that. Evil people aren't going anywhere, we have no idea how to solve this issue other than letting citizens arm and defend themselves and their property.
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
I'm not the one feeling insulted because someone has disagreed with me.
I think Zimmerman should go through the system and I pointed out what I think will be used against him.
I also think he'll be found not guilty.
I, personally, think he is guilty because Martin would still be alive if Zimmerman had simply gone home and called the cops.
Also setting a precedent that allows civilians to use deadly force when seeking out dangerous situations is beyond stupid.
I also think that when he's found not guilty, there will be a rash of violence. I don't necessarily condone it, but I won't take the elitist asshole position and wag my finger at the minorities lashing out at a biased system.
Posts
This is what we call journalism. I salute you, mr. MSNBC man.
Whether it was actually the police's decision depends on the role that state attorney Norm Wolfinger played.
The Martin family claims that Wolfinger overrode the detective on the case, who had recommended Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. The family claims that Wolfinger ordered Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee to release Zimmerman. They have filed a formal request with the Justice Department to investigate Wolfinger's involvement in the case.
IF the Martin family's claims are true, then it wasn't really a police decision that Zimmerman wasn't worth further investigation.
Wolfinger, for his part, categorically denies the Martin family's claims.
http://i.imgur.com/ERDix.gif
I'll bold the parts that come directly (well, I removed some stuff, mainly "or her" and would have bracketed some shit if I put it in quotes since I changed the phrasing so it would be in the same tense) from Florida's stand your ground law.
Aggressors have a duty to retreat unless they are faced with imminent GBH or force likely to cause death, in which case shoot away.
Apparently, Florida's SYG law doesnt provide immunity for aggressors though, so thats nice.
I dont think my post says what you think it says.
You mean actually collecting facts about the background of the defendant and putting them into a piece that isn't a pure smear paper in an attempt to give some background isn't journalism? Gee willikers. If thats the case, people better shut it about skittles, tea, zimmerman's history of calling the cops, how old Trayvon was, and everything else that isn't directly related to the incident. Because apparently none of that matters, either.
I am still waiting to see the evidence that shows whether Zimmerman or Martin was the "aggressor". Really I don't think your "short term" series of events is really going to fly and that is if the prosecution could prove Zimmerman was responsible for reestablishing contact. Especially since at the time of his "stalking" he was actively on the phone with the police.
Youre still missing the point where non-aggressors have no duty to retreat so it doesnt matter who started the fight. If Martin did, Zimmerman has no duty to retreat. If Zimmerman started the fight, he only has to retreat if he cant show that he was at imminent risk of GBH or death, which he is going to argue that he was because according to him he was getting his head smashed against the ground. Either way its up to the jury to determine whether Zimmerman's actions were reasonable.
You realize this is circular, right? They didn't adequately investigate, therefore they didn't have any evidence.....so, this means they shouldn't investigate further to determine if there is any evidence?
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
You realize real life isn't TV, and if your higher ups tell you that they aren't pressing charges, you can't go out and Dirty Harry it yourself and try to collect evidence and question people and such, right?
I mean for all the harping on the Sanford PD, it's been stated time and again by multiple sources that in the end the State Attorney's Office didn't give them the go ahead.
Here, reading, because reading is FUN:
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/03/28/sanford-police-originally-wanted-to-charge-zimmerman/
Come on. It's a black person who didn't acquiesce to a white mans inherited authority.
Thug.
That's usually how a cover up works.
It's a fluff piece when you collect facts and the only negative things you write about are the ones that everyone already knows about. This shitty article also is trying to justify racial profiling. This case is exactly the reason racial profiling is a bad idea.
But hey. The same police department that pressured some one into submitting a false report says that they just don't have enough information to investigate, what with interference from the State on high and the destruction of the crime scene and all.
Care to source any of this? Sounds like baseless rumor mongering.
In fact, everyone who makes these kinds of accusations never once links any articles. It's almost like no actual proof exists. It's kind of shocking. You'd think if this is such known facts there'd be tons of stuff to just link with ease. So, come on, chum. Toss those ubiquitous links out there. Put up, as it were.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002478618
http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706141/trayvon-martins-shooter-had-a.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin_n_1340358.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/30/trayvon-martin-case-george-zimmerman_n_1392591.html
Cue Zimmerman whitewash in 3... 2...
Basically it sounds like you're just upset at a nuanced attempt to report the controversial fact that Zimmerman is, in fact, a human being.
The restraining order and the police assault are in there.
Not as sensationalized as most of the anti Zimmerman articles. It is mentioned, and in more detail than most other articles. It is of course a pro Zimmerman article so keep that in mind.
I don't see how everyone is coming up with the "no investigation was done" bit. As far as I can tell the police did an investigation. The State attorney looked at the case, after the investigation was conducted, and determined that there wasn't enough evidence to charge Zimmerman. The media then reported that no investigation was conducted, because Zimmerman wasn't arrested.
Other agencies are reviewing/have reviewed the case to check that the police where not involved in a coverup or that they mishandled the investigation. That they have proceeded with arresting Zimmerman seems to imply that they haven't found anything.
I know that this case has become very political, so it is possible that things are being done the wrong way just because it looks better. It just doesn't make sense to arrest Zimmerman if the police are going to later be charged with conducting a cover up during the investigation. Wouldn't the case be thrown out if this happens?
I'm well aware that he's human.
I think his failings as a person and his willingness to be in the situation that brought it all together is why most of us want to see him face some kind of consequence.
Is there a reason you're doing this? I mean, seriously. The article apparently does mention the things you're complaining it doesn't. I mean I get it, a person was shot and killed. But rather than let a court figure out it was actually justified or not you're literally trying to use things that have no basis such as Trayvon having a bag of Skittles to make a claim of guilt.
Do you just fucking hate due process or something?
Are you kidding me?
How is me wanting him arrested and taken through the court system hating "due process"?
Both have happened/begun. But you have apparently already made up your mind on the basis of candy and apparently anyone who disagrees is whitewashing.
It only happened because people took notice and made a stink about it.
And, yes, I have made up my mind. I tend to not like folks who racially profile, put themselves in a position of ungranted authority and end up killing a teenager.
And none of that has any bearing on whether or not he's guilty. Being a douche doesn't make someone a murderer. That you're upset and insulting people who aren't jumping on to your bandwagon isn't conducive to any discussion.
If that's insulting to someone, then I can't help that.
You claim people are whitewashing Zimmerman and I've yet to see it. You try to make Zimmerman to be at fault by making up reasons and then get upset at people for pointing out your reasoning is flawed. You're not here to discuss anything, you're here to make exaggerations and ignore people when they point out that Trayvon having a bag of Skittles means jack shit.
See, this is the whitewashing I was talking about.
Stop acting like Zimmerman was an innocent bystander and I might have something to actually discuss with you.
See? Someone points out where you go wrong and now they're white washing. Or are you honestly claiming having a bag of candy is a valid reason to doubt Zimmerman's story?
Cause either you were purposely being a goose or you believe candy Is somehow relevant to whether or not a person would attack another person.
And I've never, at any point, claimed Zimmerman was innocent. Just because people aren't jumping on your bandwagon of hate doesn't mean they don't want the truth to be found out.
No, it's white washing when you say something like Zimmerman's previous encounters with the police, violence towards his girlfriend, his neighbors and co workers apprehension and fear of his mood swings, are fictional.
If you want the truth to be found out then you'll stop stonewalling any notion that gives Zimmerman some culpability.
But you can't do that.
If neither of you think that what Martin had on his person and his reason for actually walking through his neighborhood has no bearing on this case then you should really reconsider your participation. If you don't think character and circumstance will play a role in the hearing, I have some seriously bad news for you.
No. What you can admit to is that Zimmerman has a nasty history of character, wrongly profiled someone based on their race, and willingly put himself in a situation where he ended up killing the person he singled out.
Zimmerman is, obviously, guilty of shooting Martin. That's not in question. His motives are. Things like his refusal to stand down, his issues with aggression, his neighbors being scared of him, etc are going to come into play.
Regardless, this crypto racist "Martin was a thug" stuff can go.
Except that is not the case, what we have is one case of getting in an altercation, and one mutual domestic assault cases where both sides admit they ended up shoving each other around. That is hardly a nasty history of character, I would expect quite a bit more of a criminal record.
Except we have no evidence that his profiling was based on race at all. In fact I would say from the 911 tape Martins age was of more concern than his race.
Except we have no evidence that Zimmerman initiated the confrontation that ended in Martins death. He could have been leaving to meet police either by his truck or the mailboxes. We do not know.
Except none of that has any bearing on the case. First that fact that he shot Martin and killed Martin is not automatically a crime. He could have been completely justified in doing so both legally and "morally". From the 911 tape after he is told that he does not need to follow Martin it does sound like he does in fact comply making arrangements to meet the officers and has no idea where Martin is at the end of the call minutes before the altercation. Moreover id hardly call his criminal record one that shows issues with aggression. His neighbors being scared of him also has no bearing on the case. At best you can get a neighborhood busy body, which is not illegal.
In order to convict Zimmerman he has to be guilty of a crime. So far the problem seems actually finding a crime Zimmerman committed that could reasonably stick.
Joke aside, that gives him the go ahead to beat the shit out of him?
I have a nagging suspicion that, having no knowledge of your race, that you are severely emotionally attached to this topic because you are black. So much so that no matter what proof or logical reason is thrown your way it's too bad, he's black, he got treated in a racist fashion (allegedly not the case).
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
it's generally not good politic to breach anonymity over the internet, also it really doesn't help discourse with him when you underline the race issue, self fulfilling prophecy and all that. It's basically an accusation of subjectivity which is hard to respond to and makes unpleasant connotations no matter the intention
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I gotta say, the fact that this statement can exist and actually apply to current reality is beyond fucking repugnant and speaks incredibly poorly of the human race as a whole.
Seriously, shooting and killing an unarmed anyone, let alone a teenager, is fucking horrible and should never be justifiable in ANY context of law in a civilized society.
Fuck that statement and fuck us as a society for making it valid.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
It's not the case because you don't think it happened enough? He has a record. Just because you don't think it's significant enough is moot. He has a record of violence publicly and in the neighborhood.
The other day Zimmerman stated that he thought Martin was close to Zimmerman's own age.
Zimmerman initiated the confrontation the moment he profiled Martin and stepped out of his vehicle to follow Martin.
If Martin knew that Zimmerman was following him, and felt threatened by Zimmerman, Martin had the right to defend himself physically.
Someone has a knife to your throat and is threatening to kill you. Or someone is bashing your head against the ground and you're starting to feel light headed.
You really think they're going to stop because you would? If it were you you wouldn't even be doing that. Evil people aren't going anywhere, we have no idea how to solve this issue other than letting citizens arm and defend themselves and their property.
I'm not the one feeling insulted because someone has disagreed with me.
I think Zimmerman should go through the system and I pointed out what I think will be used against him.
I also think he'll be found not guilty.
I, personally, think he is guilty because Martin would still be alive if Zimmerman had simply gone home and called the cops.
Also setting a precedent that allows civilians to use deadly force when seeking out dangerous situations is beyond stupid.
I also think that when he's found not guilty, there will be a rash of violence. I don't necessarily condone it, but I won't take the elitist asshole position and wag my finger at the minorities lashing out at a biased system.