USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
That's my guess, too. IIRC, the investigating detective wanted to bring manslaughter charges but got overruled by his chief.
That's my guess, too. IIRC, the investigating detective wanted to bring manslaughter charges but got overruled by his chief.
Slap Shot
I got nothing
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
As an outsider I get your point and even agree, but not sure I'd be thinking clearly if I thought someone murdered my son.
As an outsider I get your point and even agree, but not sure I'd be thinking clearly if I thought someone murdered my son.
Twitch Boy
Defacing this tagline is a MAX foul
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Affidavit of probable cause (PDF warning, couple NSFW words)
tl;dr: Not much we haven't already heard. Looks like they're riding on Zimmerman exiting the truck and following after being instructed not to by the dispatcher, and the screaming on the 911 tape being Trayvon.
Affidavit of probable cause (PDF warning, couple NSFW words)
tl;dr: Not much we haven't already heard. Looks like they're riding on Zimmerman exiting the truck and following after being instructed not to by the dispatcher, and the screaming on the 911 tape being Trayvon.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
I wonder how they got "instructed" Zimmerman not to follow Martin from: "We don't need you to do that."
I wonder how they got "instructed" Zimmerman not to follow Martin from: "We don't need you to do that."
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
You charge him with Murder2 to get the community off your back. Then you muck up the prosecution just enough that he walks. You did your job, the jury just did not believe the facts. Whatever you do, never give the jury the option to convict on a lesser charge.
The cynic in me is out again.
You charge him with Murder2 to get the community off your back. Then you muck up the prosecution just enough that he walks. You did your job, the jury just did not believe the facts. Whatever you do, never give the jury the option to convict on a lesser charge.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Again assuming there's no evidentiary bombshell we're not aware of, how cynical is it to charge a guy with an offense you know you can't prove? As things now stand it won't be necessary to "muck" up the prosecution, since there's no evidence to show Zimmerman did anything legally wrong. The unsubstantiated guesses of what transpired by so-called witnesses who didn't actually SEE what went down strikes me as pretty thin gruel.
Again assuming there's no evidentiary bombshell we're not aware of, how cynical is it to charge a guy with an offense you know you can't prove? As things now stand it won't be necessary to "muck" up the prosecution, since there's no evidence to show Zimmerman did anything legally wrong. The unsubstantiated guesses of what transpired by so-called witnesses who didn't actually SEE what went down strikes me as pretty thin gruel.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Once he started following TM, he was no longer acting in any capacity as a community watcher. He was just a redneck cracker with a gun. So he confronts TM anyway. Then TM jumps Zim and starts pounding him into oblivion - ramming his head repeatedly into the pavement (which, more and more, seems like a reasonable reaction . . . if it had happened).
From seeing the police video, though, it's kind of hard to believe that happened. The police say they took him directly to the station. Nowhere in their report does it mention about taking Zim home to put on some clean clothes, then taking him to a clinic to have his head trauma examined, or his facial lacerations cared for. There was no time for him to get stitches, never mind get stitches removed. Yet the guy shows up at the station without a scratch on him and without a thread on any of his clothes out place?
All of it points to a couple possibilities. Either Zim has a screw loose, and has no business walking the street packing heat.
Or he's the Terminator. Circa Terminator 2.
Once he started following TM, he was no longer acting in any capacity as a community watcher. He was just a redneck cracker with a gun. So he confronts TM anyway. Then TM jumps Zim and starts pounding him into oblivion - ramming his head repeatedly into the pavement (which, more and more, seems like a reasonable reaction . . . if it had happened).
From seeing the police video, though, it's kind of hard to believe that happened. The police say they took him directly to the station. Nowhere in their report does it mention about taking Zim home to put on some clean clothes, then taking him to a clinic to have his head trauma examined, or his facial lacerations cared for. There was no time for him to get stitches, never mind get stitches removed. Yet the guy shows up at the station without a scratch on him and without a thread on any of his clothes out place?
All of it points to a couple possibilities. Either Zim has a screw loose, and has no business walking the street packing heat.
Or he's the Terminator. Circa Terminator 2.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Well, there's a balanced piece of reasoning. But in all of that blather you didn't answer the question I asked: how does "we don't need you to do that," become an "instruction" not to follow Martin? Why don't you wait until the nature and extent of Zimmerman's possible injuries are described by the people who actually saw them. Or will you persist in relying on your intuition and extensive medical training?
In your world violently assaulting someone else because he's a "redneck cracker" may be appropriate, but not in civilized society. After all, this young man had only a bag of "skillets" in his possession. He was as pure as the driven snow. And such a violent reaction to someone who may have been following him, but nevertheless presented no obvious threat, would seem to be a bit of an overreaction.
Well, there's a balanced piece of reasoning. But in all of that blather you didn't answer the question I asked: how does "we don't need you to do that," become an "instruction" not to follow Martin? Why don't you wait until the nature and extent of Zimmerman's possible injuries are described by the people who actually saw them. Or will you persist in relying on your intuition and extensive medical training?
In your world violently assaulting someone else because he's a "redneck cracker" may be appropriate, but not in civilized society. After all, this young man had only a bag of "skillets" in his possession. He was as pure as the driven snow. And such a violent reaction to someone who may have been following him, but nevertheless presented no obvious threat, would seem to be a bit of an overreaction.
Last edited:
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
I'm not relying on anything. It's not up to me to decide his guilt or innocence. And I never said the 911 operator's comment was a definitive injunction against following him. But it takes a certain level of willful obtuseness to deny that it changes the legal context.
Mainly I'm just having fun with folks whose convictions are so unshakable that they find it easier to construct some sort of conspiracy - with no discernible evidence - than to accept that things may, in fact, appear to be what they seem.
$.02
I'm not relying on anything. It's not up to me to decide his guilt or innocence. And I never said the 911 operator's comment was a definitive injunction against following him. But it takes a certain level of willful obtuseness to deny that it changes the legal context.
Mainly I'm just having fun with folks whose convictions are so unshakable that they find it easier to construct some sort of conspiracy - with no discernible evidence - than to accept that things may, in fact, appear to be what they seem.
$.02
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
And then the DA does not get re-elected because he takes the fall. No way they let this one get screwed up when everyone is watching over them. If they dont dot every I and cross every T the world will know about it and they will be canned faster than you can say mistrial.
And then the DA does not get re-elected because he takes the fall. No way they let this one get screwed up when everyone is watching over them. If they dont dot every I and cross every T the world will know about it and they will be canned faster than you can say mistrial.
Last edited:
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
The only conspiracies advanced here are in the minds of the race pimps and their media allies who find it appropriate to fraudulently edit audio in order to make Zimmerman look worse. I have qualified every statement I've made on this subject based on "what we know now," or "in the absence of bombshell evidence." From where I sit, you're doing pretty good on your own when it comes to obtuseness. Based on nothing but prejudice and bigotry you've decided Zimmerman is a "redneck cracker." I can also understand walking back from your diagnosis of his possible injuries, it puts you in the same category as "Dr." Chris Mathews (and other media lefties) who similarly concluded Martin hadn't assaulted Zimmerman, because "he doesn't look injured to me." But, as you've indicated, it really doesn't matter. Your "reasoning" is that Martin didn't violently assault Zimmerman and even if he had, it doesn't make any difference.
The only conspiracies advanced here are in the minds of the race pimps and their media allies who find it appropriate to fraudulently edit audio in order to make Zimmerman look worse. I have qualified every statement I've made on this subject based on "what we know now," or "in the absence of bombshell evidence." From where I sit, you're doing pretty good on your own when it comes to obtuseness. Based on nothing but prejudice and bigotry you've decided Zimmerman is a "redneck cracker." I can also understand walking back from your diagnosis of his possible injuries, it puts you in the same category as "Dr." Chris Mathews (and other media lefties) who similarly concluded Martin hadn't assaulted Zimmerman, because "he doesn't look injured to me." But, as you've indicated, it really doesn't matter. Your "reasoning" is that Martin didn't violently assault Zimmerman and even if he had, it doesn't make any difference.
Last edited:
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Two words: Casey Anthony. Against whom there was far more d*mning evidence than Zimmerman.
Two words: Casey Anthony. Against whom there was far more d*mning evidence than Zimmerman.
Last edited:
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
One question I've had about this whole episode... Zimmerman is claiming "stand your ground" priveledge, yes?
Why can't TM claim the same thing, had he been alive? Think about it- you are walking around some where, arguably in a place you should not be, and some guy is following you around, and we don't know if he's being threatened. One could easily claim that TM was standing his ground, too. Just in this case, the guy with the better weapon wins.
That's what I'm confused about this while "stand your ground" argument- if it takes place in an open space, and has nothing to do with your own property (either side), and a fight breaks out, the law will defend the person who wins via death. Something seems odd by that easy to point out scenario, which is pretty close to what happened here.
One question I've had about this whole episode... Zimmerman is claiming "stand your ground" priveledge, yes?
Why can't TM claim the same thing, had he been alive? Think about it- you are walking around some where, arguably in a place you should not be, and some guy is following you around, and we don't know if he's being threatened. One could easily claim that TM was standing his ground, too. Just in this case, the guy with the better weapon wins.
That's what I'm confused about this while "stand your ground" argument- if it takes place in an open space, and has nothing to do with your own property (either side), and a fight breaks out, the law will defend the person who wins via death. Something seems odd by that easy to point out scenario, which is pretty close to what happened here.
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
The references to "stand your ground" have come mainly from media types, who clearly disapprove of the law. I doubt it will be a major line of Zimmerman's defense. However, you are permitted to defend yourself against a violent assault, which is what he says happened.
The references to "stand your ground" have come mainly from media types, who clearly disapprove of the law. I doubt it will be a major line of Zimmerman's defense. However, you are permitted to defend yourself against a violent assault, which is what he says happened.
Last edited:
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
No. It's not at all clear that that is the case.
Me neither... But it's not the parents who are saying things like that. It's the outside idiots like the Black Panthers, Spike Lee, etc.
No. It's not at all clear that that is the case.
Me neither... But it's not the parents who are saying things like that. It's the outside idiots like the Black Panthers, Spike Lee, etc.
Last edited:
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Let's not forget Mike Tyson. Jesse Jackson. Al Sharpton. MSNBC, et al
"Let me tell you, the things that's about to happen, to these honkeys, these crackers, these pigs, these pink people, these ---- people. It has been long overdue. My prize right now this evening ... is gonna be the bounty, the arrest, dead or alive, for George Zimmerman. You feel me?"--Michelle Williams, "Chief of Staff" for the New Black Panther Party. She's got a rap sheet as long as your arm.
Let's not forget Mike Tyson. Jesse Jackson. Al Sharpton. MSNBC, et al
"Let me tell you, the things that's about to happen, to these honkeys, these crackers, these pigs, these pink people, these ---- people. It has been long overdue. My prize right now this evening ... is gonna be the bounty, the arrest, dead or alive, for George Zimmerman. You feel me?"--Michelle Williams, "Chief of Staff" for the New Black Panther Party. She's got a rap sheet as long as your arm.
Last edited:
WeWantMore
New member
Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????
Also, I think a little reality ought to be brought to the discourse about Stand Your Ground laws.
In Florida, the bill passed the Senate 39-0 and the House 94-20. Jennifer Granholm, who now sees fit to rail against such laws on her show on Current TV, evidently had no such qualms when she allowed such a bill to become law in Michigan in 2005.
Lord knows, strong bipartisan support for a bill does not make it good policy, any more than narrow support makes it bad, but let's just address the facts here.
Also, I think a little reality ought to be brought to the discourse about Stand Your Ground laws.
In Florida, the bill passed the Senate 39-0 and the House 94-20. Jennifer Granholm, who now sees fit to rail against such laws on her show on Current TV, evidently had no such qualms when she allowed such a bill to become law in Michigan in 2005.
Lord knows, strong bipartisan support for a bill does not make it good policy, any more than narrow support makes it bad, but let's just address the facts here.