His dad must have had a hella of a lot of pull to get him off of a felony assault on a police officer.You made sure to mention it was against a BLACK police officer so maybe the judge that closed the case is just as racist as you're portraying George to be? Or maybe he didn't do it? You wish to paint Trevyon as an innocent little child ignoring his past, but condemn a man trying to protect his neighborhood as a felon with an itchy trigger finger? It seams like Trevyon just picked the wrong time to be an aggressor. He could have just kept walking and gone home, but he chose to be a bad-ass and unfortunately paid his life for it.
I'm surprised the anti-gun activists hasn't showed up in this case yet.
Wow. just wow..just wow....wow...wow..just wow...wow..wow..wow..just wow...wow..wow....wow
Are there really people in this country THAT dumb?
His dad must have had a hella of a lot of pull to get him off of a felony assault on a police officer.You made sure to mention it was against a BLACK police officer so maybe the judge that closed the case is just as racist as you're portraying George to be? Or maybe he didn't do it? You wish to paint Trevyon as an innocent little child ignoring his past, but condemn a man trying to protect his neighborhood as a felon with an itchy trigger finger? It seams like Trevyon just picked the wrong time to be an aggressor. He could have just kept walking and gone home, but he chose to be a bad-ass and unfortunately paid his life for it.
I'm surprised the anti-gun activists hasn't showed up in this case yet.
Wow. just wow..just wow....wow...wow..just wow...wow..wow..wow..just wow...wow..wow....wow
Are there really people in this country THAT dumb?
Also for all you people indicating he had a right to defend himself with the use of deadly force he did not. The stand your ground laws and castle doctrine laws are pretty clear across all states, and no sane judge is going to indicate that an alleged attack where only firsts were used required the use of deadly force to stop the attack.
Especially given the disparity in size between the shooter and the victim.
The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:
It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally
presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a
residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including
deadly force, against the intruder.
In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person
has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force,
including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary
to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or
another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is
immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested
unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that
the force used was unlawful.
If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be
immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be
awarded all costs of defense.
Pretty clear, no felony was in progress, zimmermans life was never threatened. He shot an unarmed man in self defense, however is self defense was too an extreme and unwarranted for the situation and he should be charged with manslaughter. Whether they want to call it involuntary or not makes no difference to me as I doubt mr. zimmerman had intentions of killing the kid from the start. However i'm sure some bleeding hearts would contend that he killed him and knew what he was doing and it should not be considered involuntary or manslaughter and it should be murder.
Also for all you people indicating he had a right to defend himself with the use of deadly force he did not. The stand your ground laws and castle doctrine laws are pretty clear across all states, and no sane judge is going to indicate that an alleged attack where only firsts were used required the use of deadly force to stop the attack.
Especially given the disparity in size between the shooter and the victim.
The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:
It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally
presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a
residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including
deadly force, against the intruder.
In any other place where a person “has a right to be,” that person
has “no duty to retreat” if attacked and may “meet force with force,
including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary
to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or
another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is
immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested
unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that
the force used was unlawful.
If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be
immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be
awarded all costs of defense.
Pretty clear, no felony was in progress, zimmermans life was never threatened. He shot an unarmed man in self defense, however is self defense was too an extreme and unwarranted for the situation and he should be charged with manslaughter. Whether they want to call it involuntary or not makes no difference to me as I doubt mr. zimmerman had intentions of killing the kid from the start. However i'm sure some bleeding hearts would contend that he killed him and knew what he was doing and it should not be considered involuntary or manslaughter and it should be murder.
Not pointing at you, elim..............just interesting how so many people here that weren't there have already decided what happened & are ready to pass judgement on their selected subject.
Not pointing at you, elim..............just interesting how so many people here that weren't there have already decided what happened & are ready to pass judgement on their selected subject.
its amazing how many people in this thread are gun experts and experts on backgrounds.
Read these words people. BACKGROUND ON THIS CASE DOES NOT MATTER. A MAN WAS SHOT TO DEATH IN SELF DEFENSE. THE SHOOTER WAS NEVER DETAINED, DUE PROCESS WAS NOT PERFORMED. This should not and cannot happen as it only breeds more ignorance. If he was detained and after due process was performed by homicide investigators I would be completely happy with that. I have no desire to argue who was a thug or who wasnt. Appearances are BS, having tattoos and gold teeth does not make you a bad ass. The fact that zimmerman may have an arrest record has no bearing on this case. People are confusing prejudice agendas with how the law should work and works in most other cases heard about involving situations like this. This was not done, and any cop that responded to that scene that did not do their job should be fired for not doing their job. Civil action should be brought against Mr. Zimmerman on this case, and it should go to trial. At which time the court system can decide if this use of deadly force was par for the course.
its amazing how many people in this thread are gun experts and experts on backgrounds.
Read these words people. BACKGROUND ON THIS CASE DOES NOT MATTER. A MAN WAS SHOT TO DEATH IN SELF DEFENSE. THE SHOOTER WAS NEVER DETAINED, DUE PROCESS WAS NOT PERFORMED. This should not and cannot happen as it only breeds more ignorance. If he was detained and after due process was performed by homicide investigators I would be completely happy with that. I have no desire to argue who was a thug or who wasnt. Appearances are BS, having tattoos and gold teeth does not make you a bad ass. The fact that zimmerman may have an arrest record has no bearing on this case. People are confusing prejudice agendas with how the law should work and works in most other cases heard about involving situations like this. This was not done, and any cop that responded to that scene that did not do their job should be fired for not doing their job. Civil action should be brought against Mr. Zimmerman on this case, and it should go to trial. At which time the court system can decide if this use of deadly force was par for the course.
Also he says it was raining and dark out and he had a hood on. So how exactly did he know he was in his late teens and that he was black. In addition how long had Zimmerman targeted Martin and been stalking him for since Zimmerman says he must be on drugs, he is acting weird...
Zimmerman must have been stalking and watching Martin for a very long time and thats why Martin ran, he did not feel safe. Zimmerman then runs after him. Someone running for their life would not stop and attack someone chasing them. Eventually when the 2 had words a fight ensued and everyone knows how it ended.
Also he says it was raining and dark out and he had a hood on. So how exactly did he know he was in his late teens and that he was black. In addition how long had Zimmerman targeted Martin and been stalking him for since Zimmerman says he must be on drugs, he is acting weird...
Zimmerman must have been stalking and watching Martin for a very long time and thats why Martin ran, he did not feel safe. Zimmerman then runs after him. Someone running for their life would not stop and attack someone chasing them. Eventually when the 2 had words a fight ensued and everyone knows how it ended.
its amazing how many people in this thread are gun experts and experts on backgrounds.
Read these words people. BACKGROUND ON THIS CASE DOES NOT MATTER. A MAN WAS SHOT TO DEATH IN SELF DEFENSE. THE SHOOTER WAS NEVER DETAINED, DUE PROCESS WAS NOT PERFORMED. This should not and cannot happen as it only breeds more ignorance. If he was detained and after due process was performed by homicide investigators I would be completely happy with that. I have no desire to argue who was a thug or who wasnt. Appearances are BS, having tattoos and gold teeth does not make you a bad ass. The fact that zimmerman may have an arrest record has no bearing on this case. People are confusing prejudice agendas with how the law should work and works in most other cases heard about involving situations like this. This was not done, and any cop that responded to that scene that did not do their job should be fired for not doing their job. Civil action should be brought against Mr. Zimmerman on this case, and it should go to trial. At which time the court system can decide if this use of deadly force was par for the course.
There are stories going around that the pictures of "Martin" with tattoos and gold teeth are actually pictures of someone completely different and it is not Trayvon.
its amazing how many people in this thread are gun experts and experts on backgrounds.
Read these words people. BACKGROUND ON THIS CASE DOES NOT MATTER. A MAN WAS SHOT TO DEATH IN SELF DEFENSE. THE SHOOTER WAS NEVER DETAINED, DUE PROCESS WAS NOT PERFORMED. This should not and cannot happen as it only breeds more ignorance. If he was detained and after due process was performed by homicide investigators I would be completely happy with that. I have no desire to argue who was a thug or who wasnt. Appearances are BS, having tattoos and gold teeth does not make you a bad ass. The fact that zimmerman may have an arrest record has no bearing on this case. People are confusing prejudice agendas with how the law should work and works in most other cases heard about involving situations like this. This was not done, and any cop that responded to that scene that did not do their job should be fired for not doing their job. Civil action should be brought against Mr. Zimmerman on this case, and it should go to trial. At which time the court system can decide if this use of deadly force was par for the course.
There are stories going around that the pictures of "Martin" with tattoos and gold teeth are actually pictures of someone completely different and it is not Trayvon.
Oh so it's only okay to bring up the violent past of the one who is alive, but forget the past of the one who is dead?
Uhh yeah you fucking idiot.
If this kid had a criminal past, was allowed to carry a gun, stalked Zimmerman and then shot him dead. Then I'd say, why was this kid allowed to carry a gun?
If you didn't know, I'm criticizing the felon WHO SHOT AND KILLED SOMEONE. Not the person who smoked and sold weed who ended up dead.
Oh so it's only okay to bring up the violent past of the one who is alive, but forget the past of the one who is dead?
Uhh yeah you fucking idiot.
If this kid had a criminal past, was allowed to carry a gun, stalked Zimmerman and then shot him dead. Then I'd say, why was this kid allowed to carry a gun?
If you didn't know, I'm criticizing the felon WHO SHOT AND KILLED SOMEONE. Not the person who smoked and sold weed who ended up dead.
Not pointing at you, elim..............just interesting how so many people here that weren't there have already decided what happened & are ready to pass judgement on their selected subject.
Sorry man but you don't have to be there. Court rulings are often based off of testimony of individuals and witness accounts that is how it works. According to all of the information obtained trayvon was not committing a felony, there was no weapon found on the crime scene, witnesses indicate a man was on top of zimmerman beating him, a doctor said a cut could have deserved stitches but already started to heal. Does it sound to you based on these facts that zimmerman was being beat within an inch of his life and needed to shoot his attacked. Do these accounts indicate that mr. zimmerman at any time tried to defend himself. Oh lets not forget to mention that mr. zimmerman did not have Law Enforcement approval to commit the acts he committed as a dispatcher told him not to engage the suspect which is clearly heard on the 911 case.
There is no he said she said issue here. A man was informed not to engage another man by a police dispatcher. Therefor you can throw number 3 of the law out. The victim did not enter into private property so you can throw 1 out.
Number 2 is the only one left and it clearly indicates force with force. There have been no reports to indicate zimmermans life was in danger or that he was in danger of serious bodily harm. Hence he cannot use deadly force.
The law is very clear.
I don't give a shit what color the kid was and what color the shooter was. All that should made is someone was shot in self defense and the law enforcement in that area did not do anything even close to due process that should happen in such a case. Even in a very clear scenario where a woman was mugged and a man had a gun and shot an armed mugger the police detained the suspect. This happened in Minnesota, why did it not happen in Florida.
If he was at least detained and then an investigation took place and he was deemed innocent I would have no problem with this. Is he innocent that is questionable I could literally make a case for either side based on the information received. So even if the shooting was justified, proper due process was not done and that is the outrage here. Police officers cannot be half assing their job in situations like this. This is the BS that starts riots and leads to race on race violence, a lot less people would be upset had the police simply done their job. There would def. still be some screaming for the rope but there would be a lot less, and this prob. wouldn't have received national attention.
Not pointing at you, elim..............just interesting how so many people here that weren't there have already decided what happened & are ready to pass judgement on their selected subject.
Sorry man but you don't have to be there. Court rulings are often based off of testimony of individuals and witness accounts that is how it works. According to all of the information obtained trayvon was not committing a felony, there was no weapon found on the crime scene, witnesses indicate a man was on top of zimmerman beating him, a doctor said a cut could have deserved stitches but already started to heal. Does it sound to you based on these facts that zimmerman was being beat within an inch of his life and needed to shoot his attacked. Do these accounts indicate that mr. zimmerman at any time tried to defend himself. Oh lets not forget to mention that mr. zimmerman did not have Law Enforcement approval to commit the acts he committed as a dispatcher told him not to engage the suspect which is clearly heard on the 911 case.
There is no he said she said issue here. A man was informed not to engage another man by a police dispatcher. Therefor you can throw number 3 of the law out. The victim did not enter into private property so you can throw 1 out.
Number 2 is the only one left and it clearly indicates force with force. There have been no reports to indicate zimmermans life was in danger or that he was in danger of serious bodily harm. Hence he cannot use deadly force.
The law is very clear.
I don't give a shit what color the kid was and what color the shooter was. All that should made is someone was shot in self defense and the law enforcement in that area did not do anything even close to due process that should happen in such a case. Even in a very clear scenario where a woman was mugged and a man had a gun and shot an armed mugger the police detained the suspect. This happened in Minnesota, why did it not happen in Florida.
If he was at least detained and then an investigation took place and he was deemed innocent I would have no problem with this. Is he innocent that is questionable I could literally make a case for either side based on the information received. So even if the shooting was justified, proper due process was not done and that is the outrage here. Police officers cannot be half assing their job in situations like this. This is the BS that starts riots and leads to race on race violence, a lot less people would be upset had the police simply done their job. There would def. still be some screaming for the rope but there would be a lot less, and this prob. wouldn't have received national attention.
its amazing how many people in this thread are gun experts and experts on backgrounds.
Read these words people. BACKGROUND ON THIS CASE DOES NOT MATTER. A MAN WAS SHOT TO DEATH IN SELF DEFENSE. THE SHOOTER WAS NEVER DETAINED, DUE PROCESS WAS NOT PERFORMED. This should not and cannot happen as it only breeds more ignorance. If he was detained and after due process was performed by homicide investigators I would be completely happy with that. I have no desire to argue who was a thug or who wasnt. Appearances are BS, having tattoos and gold teeth does not make you a bad ass. The fact that zimmerman may have an arrest record has no bearing on this case. People are confusing prejudice agendas with how the law should work and works in most other cases heard about involving situations like this. This was not done, and any cop that responded to that scene that did not do their job should be fired for not doing their job. Civil action should be brought against Mr. Zimmerman on this case, and it should go to trial. At which time the court system can decide if this use of deadly force was par for the course.
So what do you think happened the cops just showed up looked around for a second and said okay George you look like an honest guy you're free to go? Or do you want this guy to sit in jail awaiting a long drawn out trial to prove he is innocent?I'm not understanding what you want in this case?
So after weeks of investigating and even having the god damn president of the U.S. talk about this case and he is still not arrested would that leave you to assume that the original cop was right all along? Or is it still a conspiracy to hold the black man down? Is it possible the DA doesn't have enough evidence to arrest him yet and is still trying to gather it to arrest him later?
its amazing how many people in this thread are gun experts and experts on backgrounds.
Read these words people. BACKGROUND ON THIS CASE DOES NOT MATTER. A MAN WAS SHOT TO DEATH IN SELF DEFENSE. THE SHOOTER WAS NEVER DETAINED, DUE PROCESS WAS NOT PERFORMED. This should not and cannot happen as it only breeds more ignorance. If he was detained and after due process was performed by homicide investigators I would be completely happy with that. I have no desire to argue who was a thug or who wasnt. Appearances are BS, having tattoos and gold teeth does not make you a bad ass. The fact that zimmerman may have an arrest record has no bearing on this case. People are confusing prejudice agendas with how the law should work and works in most other cases heard about involving situations like this. This was not done, and any cop that responded to that scene that did not do their job should be fired for not doing their job. Civil action should be brought against Mr. Zimmerman on this case, and it should go to trial. At which time the court system can decide if this use of deadly force was par for the course.
So what do you think happened the cops just showed up looked around for a second and said okay George you look like an honest guy you're free to go? Or do you want this guy to sit in jail awaiting a long drawn out trial to prove he is innocent?I'm not understanding what you want in this case?
So after weeks of investigating and even having the god damn president of the U.S. talk about this case and he is still not arrested would that leave you to assume that the original cop was right all along? Or is it still a conspiracy to hold the black man down? Is it possible the DA doesn't have enough evidence to arrest him yet and is still trying to gather it to arrest him later?
Also great post what is similar to that situation to this one, that a person was shot. Oh wait hes an armed mugger therefor you as a citizen witnessed a felony taking place, therefor by the law i posted you have the right to use deadly force.
____________
You are full of shit. Witnessing someone getting robbed does not allow you to shoot that person. If they point the gun at you? Yes. But if they rob someone and are running down a back alley, you can't shoot them in the back. And the point of that post is THERE WAS NO ONE TO TESTIFY THAT IT WENT DOWN ANY DIFFERENT THEN THE SHOOTER SAID IT DID?
Exactly how are you unable to defend yourself with your fists or other methods when your head is attempted to be bashed into the ground. Also this was on a public street or sidewalk in a gated community which is still public property so the kid walking down the street had every right to be there just as zimmerman did, had he caught him on someones property or in their backyard its a different story. Walking down the street as he indicated means he is on public property and he has the right to stand his ground when he is approached in a confrontational way. According to reports both people used their right to defend themselves on public property, one took it to an unnecessary extreme.
____________
Assumption on your part. And what reports stipulate that both people used their rights to defend themselves?
Do I think something fishy went on? Yeah, I do. But it doesn't matter what you think, it only matters what you can prove. This thing has reasonable doubt written all over it.
And the fact that the police botched things big time doesn't matter....if anything it makes their case even tougher to prove. A jury isn't going to be more likely to convict just because the cops did their job poorly.
Also great post what is similar to that situation to this one, that a person was shot. Oh wait hes an armed mugger therefor you as a citizen witnessed a felony taking place, therefor by the law i posted you have the right to use deadly force.
____________
You are full of shit. Witnessing someone getting robbed does not allow you to shoot that person. If they point the gun at you? Yes. But if they rob someone and are running down a back alley, you can't shoot them in the back. And the point of that post is THERE WAS NO ONE TO TESTIFY THAT IT WENT DOWN ANY DIFFERENT THEN THE SHOOTER SAID IT DID?
Exactly how are you unable to defend yourself with your fists or other methods when your head is attempted to be bashed into the ground. Also this was on a public street or sidewalk in a gated community which is still public property so the kid walking down the street had every right to be there just as zimmerman did, had he caught him on someones property or in their backyard its a different story. Walking down the street as he indicated means he is on public property and he has the right to stand his ground when he is approached in a confrontational way. According to reports both people used their right to defend themselves on public property, one took it to an unnecessary extreme.
____________
Assumption on your part. And what reports stipulate that both people used their rights to defend themselves?
Do I think something fishy went on? Yeah, I do. But it doesn't matter what you think, it only matters what you can prove. This thing has reasonable doubt written all over it.
And the fact that the police botched things big time doesn't matter....if anything it makes their case even tougher to prove. A jury isn't going to be more likely to convict just because the cops did their job poorly.
If this kid had a criminal past, was allowed to carry a gun, stalked Zimmerman and then shot him dead. Then I'd say, why was this kid allowed to carry a gun?
If you didn't know, I'm criticizing the felon WHO SHOT AND KILLED SOMEONE. Not the person who smoked and sold weed who ended up dead.
So you get charged with a crime you're automatically guilty now? It was how many god damn years ago? So what happens when your gf gets mad at you and calls the cops and says you raped her and you get charged with it. You beat the rape charge( because it was bullshit) so should we label you a rapist for the rest of your life?
If this kid had a criminal past, was allowed to carry a gun, stalked Zimmerman and then shot him dead. Then I'd say, why was this kid allowed to carry a gun?
If you didn't know, I'm criticizing the felon WHO SHOT AND KILLED SOMEONE. Not the person who smoked and sold weed who ended up dead.
So you get charged with a crime you're automatically guilty now? It was how many god damn years ago? So what happens when your gf gets mad at you and calls the cops and says you raped her and you get charged with it. You beat the rape charge( because it was bullshit) so should we label you a rapist for the rest of your life?
I'm done with this thread and topic in general. Its mind boggling how one sided some people can be. Some people on here are so dumb it makes me want to delete my account and jump off a bridge.
Before you jump down my throat and call me 'one sided,' I am not. I understand that I don't know all the facts, I understand that there is a chance that Zimmerman taking the life of an un-armed teen EVEN AFTER THE FACT that he called 911 and they told him not stop following him. ()
However, I find it mind boggling stupid that NOWHERE has it ever been stated that Trayvon was the AGGRESSOR (Zimmerman admits to following Trayvon) So even if Trayvon did attack Zimmerman it may have been warranted. Some people are so set in their ways and so unbelievably stupid that it makes me never want to have kids because of how fucked up some people in this world are.
I'm done with this thread and topic in general. Its mind boggling how one sided some people can be. Some people on here are so dumb it makes me want to delete my account and jump off a bridge.
Before you jump down my throat and call me 'one sided,' I am not. I understand that I don't know all the facts, I understand that there is a chance that Zimmerman taking the life of an un-armed teen EVEN AFTER THE FACT that he called 911 and they told him not stop following him. ()
However, I find it mind boggling stupid that NOWHERE has it ever been stated that Trayvon was the AGGRESSOR (Zimmerman admits to following Trayvon) So even if Trayvon did attack Zimmerman it may have been warranted. Some people are so set in their ways and so unbelievably stupid that it makes me never want to have kids because of how fucked up some people in this world are.
Read these words people. BACKGROUND ON THIS CASE DOES NOT MATTER. A MAN WAS SHOT TO DEATH IN SELF DEFENSE. THE SHOOTER WAS NEVER DETAINED, DUE PROCESS WAS NOT PERFORMED. This should not and cannot happen as it only breeds more ignorance.
_________
That's not Zimmerman's fault and it doesn't make him any more or less guilty.
Pretty clear, no felony was in progress, zimmermans life was never threatened
In YOUR. You have no way to know this. If someone was banging your head on the concrete, I think it might be reasonable to assume that he wanted to crack your head open and kill you.
Read these words people. BACKGROUND ON THIS CASE DOES NOT MATTER. A MAN WAS SHOT TO DEATH IN SELF DEFENSE. THE SHOOTER WAS NEVER DETAINED, DUE PROCESS WAS NOT PERFORMED. This should not and cannot happen as it only breeds more ignorance.
_________
That's not Zimmerman's fault and it doesn't make him any more or less guilty.
Pretty clear, no felony was in progress, zimmermans life was never threatened
In YOUR. You have no way to know this. If someone was banging your head on the concrete, I think it might be reasonable to assume that he wanted to crack your head open and kill you.
So what do you think happened the cops just showed up looked around for a second and said okay George you look like an honest guy you're free to go? Or do you want this guy to sit in jail awaiting a long drawn out trial to prove he is innocent?I'm not understanding what you want in this case?
So after weeks of investigating and even having the god damn president of the U.S. talk about this case and he is still not arrested would that leave you to assume that the original cop was right all along? Or is it still a conspiracy to hold the black man down? Is it possible the DA doesn't have enough evidence to arrest him yet and is still trying to gather it to arrest him later?
He was set free on the scene, before the full investigation did not take place. A police chief stepped down due to how the case was handled.
In case you werent aware they let him go on the scene, therefor they presumed him innocent before all the facts were properly gathered. Good luck convicting a man of something he was found innocent for, even if incompetence caused him to be set free. I have no conspiracy theories what so ever. A man was shot, the police half assed their job and a man was set free before due process.
Like i said shit happens a kid got shot, it sucks but you can't go back and change it whats done is done. Its just bad the way it was handled and everyone acting like it was handled fine is delusional.
So what do you think happened the cops just showed up looked around for a second and said okay George you look like an honest guy you're free to go? Or do you want this guy to sit in jail awaiting a long drawn out trial to prove he is innocent?I'm not understanding what you want in this case?
So after weeks of investigating and even having the god damn president of the U.S. talk about this case and he is still not arrested would that leave you to assume that the original cop was right all along? Or is it still a conspiracy to hold the black man down? Is it possible the DA doesn't have enough evidence to arrest him yet and is still trying to gather it to arrest him later?
He was set free on the scene, before the full investigation did not take place. A police chief stepped down due to how the case was handled.
In case you werent aware they let him go on the scene, therefor they presumed him innocent before all the facts were properly gathered. Good luck convicting a man of something he was found innocent for, even if incompetence caused him to be set free. I have no conspiracy theories what so ever. A man was shot, the police half assed their job and a man was set free before due process.
Like i said shit happens a kid got shot, it sucks but you can't go back and change it whats done is done. Its just bad the way it was handled and everyone acting like it was handled fine is delusional.
If I was smashing someones head against the concrete they would be out cold and have more than a gash that did not need stitches.
Common sense is seriously lacking on this topic. Someone running from a stalker would not stop, turn and attack that stalker unless cornered and forced to a physical altercation.
Did anyone notice during the police call Zimmerman says something like fucking person, they always get away?
If I was smashing someones head against the concrete they would be out cold and have more than a gash that did not need stitches.
Common sense is seriously lacking on this topic. Someone running from a stalker would not stop, turn and attack that stalker unless cornered and forced to a physical altercation.
Did anyone notice during the police call Zimmerman says something like fucking person, they always get away?
So what do you think happened the cops just showed up looked around for a second and said okay George you look like an honest guy you're free to go? Or do you want this guy to sit in jail awaiting a long drawn out trial to prove he is innocent?I'm not understanding what you want in this case?
So after weeks of investigating and even having the god damn president of the U.S. talk about this case and he is still not arrested would that leave you to assume that the original cop was right all along? Or is it still a conspiracy to hold the black man down? Is it possible the DA doesn't have enough evidence to arrest him yet and is still trying to gather it to arrest him later?
The first cop on the scene was a narcotics officer, not a homicide investigator. The cops on the scene at first were not trained for homicide investigations.
This case was botched from the beginning and its impossible to know what the truth is because the cops are going to be covering their asses and doing whatever it takes to pass of the blame from their incompetence.
So what do you think happened the cops just showed up looked around for a second and said okay George you look like an honest guy you're free to go? Or do you want this guy to sit in jail awaiting a long drawn out trial to prove he is innocent?I'm not understanding what you want in this case?
So after weeks of investigating and even having the god damn president of the U.S. talk about this case and he is still not arrested would that leave you to assume that the original cop was right all along? Or is it still a conspiracy to hold the black man down? Is it possible the DA doesn't have enough evidence to arrest him yet and is still trying to gather it to arrest him later?
The first cop on the scene was a narcotics officer, not a homicide investigator. The cops on the scene at first were not trained for homicide investigations.
This case was botched from the beginning and its impossible to know what the truth is because the cops are going to be covering their asses and doing whatever it takes to pass of the blame from their incompetence.
witnesses indicate a man was on top of zimmerman beating him
__________
I don't believe so. There were no witnesses. This is Zimmerman's account. You can't even get the facts straight. And if the wounds were superficial as you say, then old Zimmerman is gonna have to explain why he thought his life was in danger. Maybe that will be difficult, but maybe it won't. You don't have all the fact....quit trying to pretend you do.
witnesses indicate a man was on top of zimmerman beating him
__________
I don't believe so. There were no witnesses. This is Zimmerman's account. You can't even get the facts straight. And if the wounds were superficial as you say, then old Zimmerman is gonna have to explain why he thought his life was in danger. Maybe that will be difficult, but maybe it won't. You don't have all the fact....quit trying to pretend you do.
Number 2 is the only one left and it clearly indicates force with force. There have been no reports to indicate zimmermans life was in danger or that he was in danger of serious bodily harm. Hence he cannot use deadly force.
__________
More assumptions. So the lack of a report proves your point? There are still items that haven't even been reported.
Number 2 is the only one left and it clearly indicates force with force. There have been no reports to indicate zimmermans life was in danger or that he was in danger of serious bodily harm. Hence he cannot use deadly force.
__________
More assumptions. So the lack of a report proves your point? There are still items that haven't even been reported.
Before you jump down my throat and call me 'one sided,' I am not. I understand that I don't know all the facts, I understand that there is a chance that Zimmerman taking the life of an un-armed teen EVEN AFTER THE FACT that he called 911 and they told him not stop following him. ()
_______________
You don't even have the story straight. He did stop following him and went back to his SUV. That's where he says Martin confronted him.....NOT the other way around.
I don't know if his story is true, but that is his story. At least get the information correct before tossing barbs.
Before you jump down my throat and call me 'one sided,' I am not. I understand that I don't know all the facts, I understand that there is a chance that Zimmerman taking the life of an un-armed teen EVEN AFTER THE FACT that he called 911 and they told him not stop following him. ()
_______________
You don't even have the story straight. He did stop following him and went back to his SUV. That's where he says Martin confronted him.....NOT the other way around.
I don't know if his story is true, but that is his story. At least get the information correct before tossing barbs.
The only reason why this shooting has gotten the attention that it has is because the media painting an image of Trayvon Martin that made us all feel like it could have been our own kid brother or nephew, but now that the truth about the kid's past is out, he doesn't feel so much like someone that I would want to consider family.
Now does this new image mean that he deserved to be shot? No, but it certainly adds a few more variables to the whole story than just an innocent looking 12 year old boy walking down the street with Skittles and Iced-T.
Even though people are saying "So what, he smokes pot? or So what he was suspended?" "So what he was a thief?"
Well, this new information about this kid's background is showing a criminal side that gets you wondering if maybe he wasn't just innocently walking down the street thinking about feasting on his Skittles as everyone thinks that he was.
The only reason why this shooting has gotten the attention that it has is because the media painting an image of Trayvon Martin that made us all feel like it could have been our own kid brother or nephew, but now that the truth about the kid's past is out, he doesn't feel so much like someone that I would want to consider family.
Now does this new image mean that he deserved to be shot? No, but it certainly adds a few more variables to the whole story than just an innocent looking 12 year old boy walking down the street with Skittles and Iced-T.
Even though people are saying "So what, he smokes pot? or So what he was suspended?" "So what he was a thief?"
Well, this new information about this kid's background is showing a criminal side that gets you wondering if maybe he wasn't just innocently walking down the street thinking about feasting on his Skittles as everyone thinks that he was.
The first cop on the scene was a narcotics officer, not a homicide investigator. The cops on the scene at first were not trained for homicide investigations.
This case was botched from the beginning and its impossible to know what the truth is because the cops are going to be covering their asses and doing whatever it takes to pass of the blame from their incompetence.
I find it hard to believe no homicide detectives ever showed up on this case. You guys are acting like he shot the kid and walked the fuck home.
The first cop on the scene was a narcotics officer, not a homicide investigator. The cops on the scene at first were not trained for homicide investigations.
This case was botched from the beginning and its impossible to know what the truth is because the cops are going to be covering their asses and doing whatever it takes to pass of the blame from their incompetence.
I find it hard to believe no homicide detectives ever showed up on this case. You guys are acting like he shot the kid and walked the fuck home.
Also great post what is similar to that situation to this one, that a person was shot. Oh wait hes an armed mugger therefor you as a citizen witnessed a felony taking place, therefor by the law i posted you have the right to use deadly force.
____________
You are full of shit. Witnessing someone getting robbed does not allow you to shoot that person. If they point the gun at you? Yes. But if they rob someone and are running down a back alley, you can't shoot them in the back. And the point of that post is THERE WAS NO ONE TO TESTIFY THAT IT WENT DOWN ANY DIFFERENT THEN THE SHOOTER SAID IT DID?
Exactly how are you unable to defend yourself with your fists or other methods when your head is attempted to be bashed into the ground. Also this was on a public street or sidewalk in a gated community which is still public property so the kid walking down the street had every right to be there just as zimmerman did, had he caught him on someones property or in their backyard its a different story. Walking down the street as he indicated means he is on public property and he has the right to stand his ground when he is approached in a confrontational way. According to reports both people used their right to defend themselves on public property, one took it to an unnecessary extreme.
____________
Assumption on your part. And what reports stipulate that both people used their rights to defend themselves?
Do I think something fishy went on? Yeah, I do. But it doesn't matter what you think, it only matters what you can prove. This thing has reasonable doubt written all over it.
And the fact that the police botched things big time doesn't matter....if anything it makes their case even tougher to prove. A jury isn't going to be more likely to convict just because the cops did their job poorly.
In the first case an armed man witnessed a felony was in progress. There was no evidence that indicated he shot a man in the back. There was evidence that a legally armed citizen used deadly force to protect his or another citizens life and/or to stop a felony in progress. In my opinion the police handled that case just fine and obtained sufficient evidence to warrant the shooters release. The fact is though the same thing happened an armed citizen shot and killed someone, in minnesota the case was handled properly, however in florida it was not. Thats the issue.
You are correct sir. Everything i say is based off of evidence obtained on the case I was not there and no one was there. We do however agree that their is reasonable doubt and that the police did not do their job properly.
In the end whats done is done and it cannot be changed. No point in beating a dead horse on this one anymore. Law enforcement did not do their job and because of this america is in an uproar. Had the police just properly done their job, i doubt this would be a big issue.
People need to just move on, justice will not bring back trayvon, justice will not prevent it from happening again. Its just more stupid people killing each other. That is one thing I will say without a doubt, one stupid person killed another stupid person.
Also great post what is similar to that situation to this one, that a person was shot. Oh wait hes an armed mugger therefor you as a citizen witnessed a felony taking place, therefor by the law i posted you have the right to use deadly force.
____________
You are full of shit. Witnessing someone getting robbed does not allow you to shoot that person. If they point the gun at you? Yes. But if they rob someone and are running down a back alley, you can't shoot them in the back. And the point of that post is THERE WAS NO ONE TO TESTIFY THAT IT WENT DOWN ANY DIFFERENT THEN THE SHOOTER SAID IT DID?
Exactly how are you unable to defend yourself with your fists or other methods when your head is attempted to be bashed into the ground. Also this was on a public street or sidewalk in a gated community which is still public property so the kid walking down the street had every right to be there just as zimmerman did, had he caught him on someones property or in their backyard its a different story. Walking down the street as he indicated means he is on public property and he has the right to stand his ground when he is approached in a confrontational way. According to reports both people used their right to defend themselves on public property, one took it to an unnecessary extreme.
____________
Assumption on your part. And what reports stipulate that both people used their rights to defend themselves?
Do I think something fishy went on? Yeah, I do. But it doesn't matter what you think, it only matters what you can prove. This thing has reasonable doubt written all over it.
And the fact that the police botched things big time doesn't matter....if anything it makes their case even tougher to prove. A jury isn't going to be more likely to convict just because the cops did their job poorly.
In the first case an armed man witnessed a felony was in progress. There was no evidence that indicated he shot a man in the back. There was evidence that a legally armed citizen used deadly force to protect his or another citizens life and/or to stop a felony in progress. In my opinion the police handled that case just fine and obtained sufficient evidence to warrant the shooters release. The fact is though the same thing happened an armed citizen shot and killed someone, in minnesota the case was handled properly, however in florida it was not. Thats the issue.
You are correct sir. Everything i say is based off of evidence obtained on the case I was not there and no one was there. We do however agree that their is reasonable doubt and that the police did not do their job properly.
In the end whats done is done and it cannot be changed. No point in beating a dead horse on this one anymore. Law enforcement did not do their job and because of this america is in an uproar. Had the police just properly done their job, i doubt this would be a big issue.
People need to just move on, justice will not bring back trayvon, justice will not prevent it from happening again. Its just more stupid people killing each other. That is one thing I will say without a doubt, one stupid person killed another stupid person.
If I was smashing someones head against the concrete they would be out cold and have more than a gash that did not need stitches.
Common sense is seriously lacking on this topic. Someone running from a stalker would not stop, turn and attack that stalker unless cornered and forced to a physical altercation.
Did anyone notice during the police call Zimmerman says something like fucking person, they always get away?
You might be right about the nature of the wounds. But I don't think a report has been released.
Zimmerman said he was going back to his SUV when Martin approached him, said some things, and then punched him. You're going to use "common sense" as a way to say there is no way possible it happened the way Zimmerman said it did?
I don't want you ever serving on my jury.
Listen, he could very well be lying. And his injuries might make it impossible for people to believe he thought his life was in danger. But stop with the assumptions.
If I was smashing someones head against the concrete they would be out cold and have more than a gash that did not need stitches.
Common sense is seriously lacking on this topic. Someone running from a stalker would not stop, turn and attack that stalker unless cornered and forced to a physical altercation.
Did anyone notice during the police call Zimmerman says something like fucking person, they always get away?
You might be right about the nature of the wounds. But I don't think a report has been released.
Zimmerman said he was going back to his SUV when Martin approached him, said some things, and then punched him. You're going to use "common sense" as a way to say there is no way possible it happened the way Zimmerman said it did?
I don't want you ever serving on my jury.
Listen, he could very well be lying. And his injuries might make it impossible for people to believe he thought his life was in danger. But stop with the assumptions.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.