Because your description of what happened is not, in fact, what happened. Zimmerman did not physically block Martin.
George Zimmerman found Not Guilty.
- Thread starter Saturnine Pariah
- Start date
As the juror said in the AC360 interview: guilty of poor judgement. But poor judgement is not murder.
He KILLED someone, that sounds like murder to me!
He didn't do it intentionally, or because he wanted too. He did it in self-defense. How hard is that for people to understand?
When you initiate a fight, its not really self-defense.
I just watched the Anderson 360 interview. It was Mrs. Book Deal in the flesh being interviewed by Anderson Cooper. A couple of things stood out. First, she undeniably had and has a very strong pro defense bias. She believed everything Zimmerman said, no matter how demonstrably wrong it was. She had strong sympathies for him. She fell all over herself feeling sorry for Zimmerman. She thought he was a good guy who just went a little too far. But she still felt he was innocent. Two, she seemed to be very confused about the facts of the case. She seems to have merged two of the defense witnesses and upgraded a physician’s assistant to a full-fledged medical doctor. In other words, she appeared to be a complete airhead…a typical trophy wife.
And according to Mrs. Book Deal, who wants to write a book with her lawyer husband, 3 jurors were initially for acquittal. Two jurors were for manslaughter and one was for 2nd degree murder. It appears that the Stand Your Ground Law was the factor that brought the jurors who wanted to convict Zimmerman over to the not guilty crowd and allowed them to render the not guilty verdict.
Last edited:
As I said, racist country
Arresting someone at the scene (as Zimmerman was) and holding them are different things. Zimmerman was arrested that night, that is what the police were supposed to do. Any time a serious incident occurs an average cop is in no way making the decision to release a suspect. As a matter of fact you can be a prime suspect in a murder and go home that same night. The "brass" and DA, perhaps FBI are making decisions on weather there is enough evidence to prevent someone from going home AFTER they grill you. Just because you go home does not mean it is over, it just means they dont have enough evidence to hold you. That falls into "presumption of innocence" and it is very possible a person held on a much lesser crime will end up going right to jail just based on the evidence at the time. They dont just forget about you just because you went home, far from it. They may tell you "dont go anywhere" because if you do and they get more evidence then you are a fugitive.
No Zimmerman was detained for a few hours the evening of the shooting. There is a difference between an arrest and detention. The local police were going to let him go. That is why a state prosecutor was brought in. Zimmerman was arrested 6 weeks after the shooting.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...rman-arrested-on-murder-charge-in-martin-case
This is not what I'm talking about at all. There should be certain events like a death by self-defense the warrant automatic trials, not that it simply up to the DA, FBI, police, anyone to decide if or if not there should be a trial.
Evidence indicates that Martin initiated the fight. That's why it is self defense.
I could see an automatic hearing or grand jury, but a trial requires charges and if the evidence points the investigators toward self defense, then there isn't anything to charge him with. That was the problem here: the prosecution pulled murder two out of the air and threw it at the jury, but it completely disintegrated on cross examination. Namely, the prosecution claimed that Zimmerman was on top, while their own witnesses said he was on the bottom.
Say What?
I beg your pardon, but where the hell are you getting this?
Could you please explain why you insist on this erroneous assertion?
I mean, the whole public uproar started because Zimmerman wasn't arrested. And last week we heard the guy who was in charge at the time explaining why Zimmerman wasn't arrested. And, yet, twice today you have asserted to the other.
So, yeah. Where are you getting this?
____________________
Notes:
WKMG. "Ex-Sanford police chief tells Local 6 why he didn't arrest George Zimmerman". Click Orlando. July 10, 2013. ClickOrlando.com. July 15, 2013. http://www.clickorlando.com/news/ex...man/-/1637132/20923726/-/f0eymsz/-/index.html
Stanley said:
I beg your pardon, but where the hell are you getting this?
The police chief at the center of a firestorm over the decision not to arrest George Zimmerman tells Local 6 in an exclusive interview that he may have saved his job had he given into pressure, but he believes that would have violated his oath to uphold the Constitution.
Without specific evidence to refute Zimmerman's self-defense claims, Lee said, an arrest would have subjected the city to possible litigation for unlawful arrest
Lee was fired months later amid national outrage over his claim he did not have probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. And he stands by that decision.
"Why didn't you arrest him?" Local 6 investigative reporter Tony Pipitone asked.
"Because I took an oath. The laws of the Constitution and the state of Florida say if you don't have probable cause to arrest someone you can't arrest them," Lee replied.
When asked why Lee couldn't arrest Zimmerman, he said there wasn't enough evidence to refute Zimmerman's self-defense claim.
"Well, when George Zimmerman makes the claim of self-defense we have to have some information that invalidates that or refutes that and, up to that point and continuing over the next several days, we did not have that," Lee said.
"If you did arrest him, would you still have your job?" Pipitone asked.
"That's a good question. Probably," Lee said.
(WKMG)
Without specific evidence to refute Zimmerman's self-defense claims, Lee said, an arrest would have subjected the city to possible litigation for unlawful arrest
Lee was fired months later amid national outrage over his claim he did not have probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. And he stands by that decision.
"Why didn't you arrest him?" Local 6 investigative reporter Tony Pipitone asked.
"Because I took an oath. The laws of the Constitution and the state of Florida say if you don't have probable cause to arrest someone you can't arrest them," Lee replied.
When asked why Lee couldn't arrest Zimmerman, he said there wasn't enough evidence to refute Zimmerman's self-defense claim.
"Well, when George Zimmerman makes the claim of self-defense we have to have some information that invalidates that or refutes that and, up to that point and continuing over the next several days, we did not have that," Lee said.
"If you did arrest him, would you still have your job?" Pipitone asked.
"That's a good question. Probably," Lee said.
(WKMG)
Could you please explain why you insist on this erroneous assertion?
I mean, the whole public uproar started because Zimmerman wasn't arrested. And last week we heard the guy who was in charge at the time explaining why Zimmerman wasn't arrested. And, yet, twice today you have asserted to the other.
So, yeah. Where are you getting this?
____________________
Notes:
WKMG. "Ex-Sanford police chief tells Local 6 why he didn't arrest George Zimmerman". Click Orlando. July 10, 2013. ClickOrlando.com. July 15, 2013. http://www.clickorlando.com/news/ex...man/-/1637132/20923726/-/f0eymsz/-/index.html
From what i saw from video at the police station Zimmerman was taken to the police station in handcuffs. That alone means he was placed under arrest. Once they put those handcuffs on you are being arrested. That is basically universal regardless of the state weather he was fingerprinted may depend on the state, but i would say if he was taken to the station in handcuffs then most likely he was photographed and fingerprinted. I am not involved with law enforcement or the law in any way so i dont want to give out bad information. The handcuffs are the key because once they slap those on you you have a lot of explaining to do and you are being placed under arrest. Also, I am not, nor do i have any reason to, sticking up for Zimmerman and that was not my intention for posting in this thread that is for the legal system. Trayvons parents did give me the impression that they are good people and that is something i took away from the trial.
That is hearsay. Have anything to back to that up?
Racist how?
The problem here is that we all know if you follow blacks or walk around their neighborhood awhile they will come after you. Especially if you follow one he and his buddies are gonna kick your ass, so I am wondering whether he planned this knowing that he would be attacked for it?
According to autopsy Martin only had wounds on his knuckles and the single bullet hole. Any half competent ME would spot the bruises forming from other blows. Remember even after you die you do continue to bruise.
He was following a person who matched the description of suspects from four local break ins in the past month.
We know from Jentel's testimony that Martin had successfully lost Zimmerman and decided to circle back and get the "creepy ass cracker". And if Martin feared for his life, why did he not dial 911?
Well, Martin was straddling Zimmerman's body and pounding his head on the pavement after breaking his nose. This went on for a minute even after a neighbor had called for him you to stop and they were calling the police. If you do not believe that a rational person would use a firearm you can come meet me and we will test the theory with you playing the role of Zimmerman as I play Martin.