Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mindless chatter. I not only didn't post such a thing, but I didn't send money. I've never given my hard earned money to any cause and likely never will. If I had, it would certainly be none of your business, nor would it make either of you any more likely to have a clue what you're talking about.
This is proof of how folks fall for crap they read on the internet. I swear some people have the mental capacity of pebbles.
Bam bam, pebbles you got it but it's ok their new catch phrase is they are evolving.
My very first post on this topic was that Zimmerman should be punished. The evidence simply does not support that anymore. He made a vital mistake in shooting Trayvon but I don't see a crime here as defined by Florida law.
I'm more disturbed by him being charged when the underlying evidence did not change from when the first prosecutor reviewed the case until the special prosecutor under intense political pressure charged him with 2nd degree murder, than Zimmerman's purported fraud upon the court
To me that what Angela Corey did is borderline unconstitutional and perverts what this country is supposed to be about, fair play.
You clearly have not kept up. Please post links or some proof to back up your claim that the "underlying evidence" has NOT CHANGED from when the first prosecutor reviewed the case until the special prosecutor filed charges.
Seems to me that you have closed your eyes tightly and dismissed any new information or witness which has been revealed if it did not agree with your opinion of what happened; and that opinion, expressed in your posts, seemed to be largely based on the information given by a witness named "John," who later changed his story significantly.
You cannot evaluate evidence fairly if you refuse to see it. You seem to have an opinion that the prosecutor has no ethics, no morals, and complete disregard for the law, so she filed charges based on political pressure alone. What political pressure I ask? She is a Republican. The Governor of the state of Florida is a Republican who won as a result of Tea Party support. Why would those people bend to "liberal" "Democrat" demands?? So you think Angela Corey and Gov. Rick Scott (also with big support from the Koch brothers) would bow to the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and have Corey file criminal charges when Corey did not have what she considered enough evidence to support a conviction?
Seems to me that's an opinion based on nothing but wishful thinking. Of course, your opinion will be tested when the case goes to trial and you can see what and how much evidence the state has. If it's basically nothing, then I'll gladly admit to you that I was wrong and apologize.
I would think it began yesterday afternoon very shortly after the judge made the ruling that bail was revoked and he had 48 hours to turn himself in. So I think that would be sometime Sunday afternoon he has to be in custody. However, law enforcement keeps track of the time pretty carefully.
So how will the prosecution prove 2nd degree murder without knowing this salient fact?
circumstantial evidence. It appears you may think that there has to be direct evidence for everything.
Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.
circumstantial evidence. It appears you may think that there has to be direct evidence for everything.
Circumstantial Evidence is also known as indirect evidence. It is distinguished from direct evidence, which, if believed, proves the existence of a particular fact without any inference or presumption required. Circumstantial evidence relates to a series of facts other than the particular fact sought to be proved. The party offering circumstantial evidence argues that this series of facts, by reason and experience, is so closely associated with the fact to be proved that the fact to be proved may be inferred simply from the existence of the circumstantial evidence.
As I had it explained to me, if you go to bed and there is no snow on the ground, and wake up to 6" of snow, you can infer that it snowed during the night, even if you didn't see it coming down. That is an example of circumstantial evidence.
As I had it explained to me, if you go to bed and there is no snow on the ground, and wake up to 6" of snow, you can infer that it snowed during the night, even if you didn't see it coming down. That is an example of circumstantial evidence.
Indeed.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Circumstantial Evidence
Indeed.