OT: Zimmerman Not Guilty

[TobyTyler]

The FBI determined that Zimmerman was not a racist who killed Martin because he was black. The perhaps more troubling aspect is that Zimmerman is biased - as pretty much everyone is - and may have assumed a black kid was up to no good when he possibly/likely would have believed a white kid was just walking home. I don't know that many people believe that George Zimmerman set out to kill a black kid that night. The racial component is that he might not have set out at all if it weren't a black kid. We'll never know, and it doesn't go toward the crime. But it's difficult if not impossible to ignore.

Why do ou think that might be? Seriously.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

This will inevitably go around in circles again, but the key factors that got him off of the charge is that 1. he was on the phone with a police dispatcher right before it happened 2. the physical evidence supported his story that he got attacked 3. he had an eye witness supporting his story. Without these pieces to the puzzle he gets charged.

This case was an anomaly that bordered political lines, and got blown up into something that it shouldn't have been.

The key fact that got him off is that no one saw or heard what happened between the time when Zimmerman hung up the phone and the time that he was apparently on the ground with Martin above him, except perhaps a friend of the victim's who came off as unreliable. This was a case about the lack of evidence. Zimmerman is "not guilty," not innocent.

I'm not making any judgments about his guilt or innocence one way or the other. I have said that I have problems with the law as it is written in cases like this, but the law is the law and it seems that the verdict was correct given the uncertainties in the case. Zimmerman was acquitted not because he showed he was innocent, but because no one knows if Martin attacked him or not, and without being able to say what happened you can't convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

LOL!

I'm talking about the night of the crime. Do you disagree?

Facts that show a crime - any crime - has been committed:
1) Dead body
2) Z's admission he killed the guy
3) Z's admission he used his own gun
4) Z's ownership of the gun used
5) Z's statement that he was following a person who closely fit the description of the person who was shot and killed
6) Eyewitnesses who said they believed a man matching Z's description standing over M immediately after the shot was fired

Facts showing it was a case of self-defense:
1) Superficial injuries to Z
2) His statement he was defending himself
3) An eyewitness who said he believed a man matching M's description was straddling Z and throwing punches shortly before the shot was fired

Do you honestly feel comfortable with the police letting someone walk away given those circumstances?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Why do ou think that might be? Seriously.

Because some people believe that young black men are suspicious. Hell, a lot of people believe that young black men are suspicious.

I'm sure you think you're laying some sort of a trap where you will now accuse me of being racist. So let's get it over with....

 

[NinerSickness]

I'm sure you think you're laying some sort of a trap where you will now accuse me of being racist.

Exactly. That's the kind of BS he's been pulling for a long time now because he's a troll. It's in his nature. I wouldn't pay it any mind.

 

[TobyTyler]

Because some people believe that young black men are suspicious. Hell, a lot of people believe that young black men are suspicious.

I'm sure you think you're laying some sort of a trap where you will now accuse me of being racist. So let's get it over with....

And why is that? Could it be that a hugely inordinant amount of crimes are committed by a very small minority who fit this description?

 

[EaseUrStorm]

The key fact that got him off is that no one saw or heard what happened between the time when Zimmerman hung up the phone and the time that he was apparently on the ground with Martin above him, except perhaps a friend of the victim's who came off as unreliable. This was a case about the lack of evidence. Zimmerman is "not guilty," not innocent.

I'm not making any judgments about his guilt or innocence one way or the other. I have said that I have problems with the law as it is written in cases like this, but the law is the law and it seems that the verdict was correct given the uncertainties in the case. Zimmerman was acquitted not because he showed he was innocent, but because no one knows if Martin attacked him or not, and without being able to say what happened you can't convict beyond a reasonable doubt.

Yes, the lack of evidence is assumed or else he would have been charged. He was interrogated for I believe five hours that night. When the cops get someone in that room that admits to killing someone, they are absolutely looking to charge. That is the business that they are in. They will try every trick in the book to get someone to slip up. They weren't looking for ways to let him walk. He had to run the gauntlet and convince them in that interrogation room that he acted in self defense which is not an easy task if you are telling lies. They tested him by saying the whole thing was caught on video to get him to backpedal. If he had flinched or changed his story at that time he would have been charged. If they doubted his body language or facial expressions or he gave them any reason at all to believe he was lying at that time he would have been charged. That is what these guys do, and the cop said he was either a pathological liar or he was telling the truth. He walked that tight rope and convinced them that he had acted in self defense, or else he would have been charged.

I think if he said nothing they probably would have charged him too. That is why this is an anomaly case because this type doesn't happen very often. This is why I don't really have an issue with that law, because the cops could still make the charge if something didn't sit right.

 

[MHSL82]

Sorry, I've just got to return to this. Who gives one shit what he said? I'm going to throw something out here: criminals lie. Is George Zimmerman a criminal? Perhaps not. But the police damn well better have entered the situation assuming that he was, and being distrustful of everything he said. It is the job of the police to investigate crimes, not to determine ultimate guilt or innocence. There was staggering evidence that a crime had been committed, and some evidence suggesting a defense might apply. Any police officer worth his salt would have arrested Zimmerman.

OT: My sister's ex-boyfriend's sister was murdered when she was taking auction money to the bank or wherever they deposit the money. The city said they did not investigate due to funds, lack of resources. That's obviously bull-shit, so we think someone in the system's kid did it (they know who they suspect, I don't). They are currently suing the department to investigate, as all they did was cursory. My sister's ex said he wasn't ready to carry on a relationship due to his state of mind, it just shocked him too much and he couldn't handle it, even when my sister was trying to be there for him. He's still single and a mutual friend of ours says that he hasn't dated again since. I can't imagine losing my sister.

Anyways, off-topic to this case, just reminded of it by your statement of the police's job and being worth their salt.

 

[tzill]

Exactly. That's the kind of BS he's been pulling for a long time now because he's a troll. It's in his nature. I wouldn't pay it any mind.

Good to know Foolsense is still up to his old tricks.


And by "old," I mean GET OFF MY LAWN!!

So glad the Giants board is Foolsense free...

 

[TobyTyler]

Good to know Foolsense is still up to his old tricks.


And by "old," I mean GET OFF MY LAWN!!

So glad the Giants board is Foolsense free...

Who dropped this turd in the bowl?