4u2spoil
Posts: 211
Joined: 5/1/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DarqueMirror
quote:
ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil
No, it wouldn't mean that at all. If some guy grabbed me on the street and I punch him and knock him out, me winning or getting ahead in the fight is not conclusive proof that I was the aggressor.
Nope. Sure ain't. But it lends tons of reasonable doubt that t would be hard to disprove any statement you made bout it.
No, it just means that the guy wasn't prepared for the defense coming his way. I remember a woman who was a martial arts expert being attacked by a guy in New York. Her attacker obviously didn't know she was a black belt. She laid the guy out on his ass until the police got there and could arrest the ATTACKER. Even though he lost. You seem to be missing the "reasonable" portion of the "reasonable doubt." Sometimes people start fights, and sometimes they lose the fights they start. The outcome of the fight doesn't "prove" anything about who started it.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil
Since no one knows anything, you don't know that Zimmerman didn't follow this guy, and push him down before he fought back to defend himself or try to get away.
Sure don't. But again, absent proof of that, it's hard to say otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt (there's that phrase again...see a trend here?).
Sigh. Beyond a reasonable doubt is for a judge and jury to weigh, not the police force. If every crime had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before an arrest could be made, arrests wouldn't ever happen unless the police were there to witness every event in the crime themselves.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil
Considering that there's plenty of evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin,
What's that? Other than Zimmerman himself saying he did. You realize it's finally come out that Zimmerman stated he tried to return to his vehicle, right?
So now Zimmerman's own claims aren't evidence enough for you? 10.0 in the mental gymnastics competition, my friend. 10.0. You're going through some serious hoops to try to create "reasonable" doubt for this guy where it doesn't actually exist. I hope you've contacted the defense team about offering your services.
Can you provide a link to this claim that Zimmerman was trying to return to his vehicle? It seems to contradict all of the neighbor 911 calls that reported two people fighting, then a gunshot, then Zimmerman standing over Trayvon Martin's body. Not a single person besides George Zimmerman saw George Zimmerman running back to his vehicle, Martin chasing Zimmerman, or anything that would support those claims.
quote:
I'd be arguing the same thing I am now. If a lawfully-licensed weapon carrier said he feared for his safety and there was no evidence to say he wasn't, then no. No arrest should be made. Are you, here and now advocating police arrest whomever they like, willy-nilly with no evidence of a crime? That's a bit dangerous, don't you think?
What I think is dangerous is going purely on the word of whoever's left standing after a shootout without any further investigation. There's plenty of evidence of a crime here, and "well, he said..." thing is a steaming pile of shit and you know it. If I shot Zimmerman because I feared that he might shoot me and I just had a feeling he was "up to no good," it would take a lot more evidence than my "feeling" to justify that. And I'd fully expect the police to arrest me while they investigated to see if there was physical evidence or anything else to back up my version of events beyond my feelings.
quote:
Who's to say he won't? Again, the (say it with me now) investigation is still on-going.
Who's to say they aren't? Again..."the investigation is on-going."
And finally....."the investigation is on-going."
Yeah, by the State and the federal government, not the Sanford PD, who didn't do an investigation at the crime scene. From everything out there, if they'd collected bullet fragments preserved the crime scene to investigate it, don't you think that would have come out by now?
No one in the Sanford PD actually investigated this killing, because George Zimmerman gave his word.  You know who also gave his "word" on something? A millionaire in Florida who drove drunk and killed a college student. He gave the police his word that he got drunk after the accident because he was so distraught. They arrested him anyway, and collected evidence to test his claims, which were later proven as ridiculous as they sound. But the police didn't go "well, we can't be sure he wasn't drunk after the accident, so we won't test him for alcohol or arrest him." They did what police are supposed to do. They collected evidence, they ran tests that would support or disprove his claims, and eventually that was used to convict him.
It blows my mind that you can actually argue that there's nothing wrong with the police - Sanford PD, not the feds, not the State - in this case not even bothering to collect evidence or investigate Zimmerman's claims because what he said could be true. Anything anyone says could be true, but the job of the police is to investigate and collect evidence for or against what someone says. There's plenty of forensic evidence that's probably been lost due to them being lazy assholes too incompetent to bother conducting an actual investigation.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: 4u2spoil
Their job is to prevent violence and crimes from occurring,
This part of your statement couldn't be more wrong. The cops can't prevent violent crimes. Sometimes they get lucky, but usually they arrive after the fct. It's why CHL and "no-retreat" laws exist -- cops can't be everywhere.
If someone walks into a bank with a gun or a threatening note, the police will try to prevent the situation from getting violent. I'm not saying cops can be everywhere, but the reason the dispatcher told Zimmerman they didn't need him to follow Martin is probably to prevent the situation from devolving.
quote:
So you want man hours wasted on petty theft that boils down to a he said/she said? There ain't enough cops in the world for all of those claims.
So someone entering my house while I'm at work, and stealing my things, with neighbors who witness the theft and are willing to talk to the police and confirm that the theft occurred isn't a worthy enough crime? The reason this guy was allegedly followed by Zimmerman in the first place is because break ins and thefts had been occurring in the community. I'm in no way defending Zimmerman, but let's say one of these "petty" thieves looked like Trayvon Martin, and he honestly believed he was one of the "petty" criminals. If Zimmerman felt that the police were doing something to address the petty things, maybe he wouldn't have been so trigger happy or felt as "threatened" that he's following and killing unarmed teenagers.
I honestly don't believe that Zimmerman felt threatened enough that he had to kill anyone, but if the police had spent a few more man hours on the petty crimes, maybe they'd have some time to dedicate to a more deserved investigation for a major crime. Before you try to twist anything, I'm much more upset that man hours haven't been spent investigating Trayvon Martin's killing, but I think it's a false equivalency to suggest that police can't possibly investigate petty crimes and major crimes at the same time. Major criminals have to start somewhere. I'm sure there are serial killers out there who started off killing their neighbors' pets. Maybe if the police picked them up as kids for animal cruelty, they would have figured out the major crimes earlier, and maybe prevented a few from occurring.
|
RE: He was armed with skittles and ice tea... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread