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.
What's mind boggling is how people like you throw out the race card. Racial tensions would completely disappear if people like you didn't call others a racist every time they have a differing opinion than yours.
The continual "That's Racist" spew is completely racist and shows racism in the people doing the spewing. The next time you want to babble about racism, look in the mirror.
As long as there are racist people on this earth, they are going to get called out on it. From what I see some people either don't want to admit when they are racist or they don't know what it means. Some people do like to pull out the race card for no reason, but most of the time it is because they experience some kind of racism. If you have never had racism directed at you then you will never know..
Of the 3 attorneys, I think Crump is the poorest when it comes to expressing himself well. However, he's the person who moved this case forward.
Are you sure he didn't say "coffin?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Cooper
It sounded like 'camel' to me, but even if it were 'coffin', well....equally ridiculous. And quite the faux pas.
Both Crump and Zimm's atty have trouble expressing themselves. Zimm's atty has some kind of mild speech impediment.
It's gonna be one hell of a ride watching this thing unfold. A laugh a minute, probably.
OK, I listened again on rerun, and watched his lips. Now I think he probably said 'hammer', not 'camel', but started to say a word with a 'k' and corrected the word just as he started to say it. At least 'hammer' makes sense, unlike 'camel'.
The *entire* case hinges on who started the physical confrontation. If the state cannot prove Zimmerman started it, it's game over for the state, since there's no question Zimmerman would have been justified in shooting Trayvon otherwise (yes - it is indisputable that a stranger on top of you hitting your head into concrete is justification for self-defense. Don't believe me? Look at justified police shootings - they would absolutely use deadly force in such a case, without question, and would not be in trouble for doing so. Not only can head injuries kill you or cause serious bodily damage, but someone willing to attack you like that may be armed for all you know - the burden is not on the victim to assume the assailant has less than evil intentions). Physical evidence shows Trayvon was shot at close range from the front, so there's no issue of shooting him as he runs away or anything.
Investigator Dale Gilbreath testified that he does not know whether Martin or Zimmerman threw the first punch and that there is no evidence to disprove Zimmerman's contention he was walking back to his vehicle when confronted by Martin. The affidavit says "Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued." So, the state lied in the charging document, which is grounds for the prosecutor to be brought up on ethics charges.
But Gilbreath also said Zimmerman's claim that Martin was slamming his head against the sidewalk just before he shot the teenager was "not consistent with the evidence we found." He gave no details.
This alone proves the state did not have probable cause under FL law to issue the indictment. The last part about not having evidence he had his head slammed is clearly bull****, since we now have not only eyewitness accounts and the police report, but photographic evidence showing big cuts and a pretty bad contusion. We also have photographic evidence and medical records supporting the punch to the nose.
An ethical judge would dismiss the case outright for lack of probable cause, which is necessary in cases of self defense.
Last edited by needTXinfo; 04-21-2012 at 10:30 PM..
Unless TM was pummeling his hands into the pavement there wouldn't be scratches. The act of holding another person's head and banging it (if indeed that was the case) would not show contusions or scratches. Not to be gross but being an RN and having seen morgue victims that were shot due to beating up on a spouse for example, often do not show contusions on their hands yet some do.
Exactly....which supports my point. Trayvon didn't have a scratch on him because Zimmerman did not attack him.
So how did he end up between two sets of townhomes? Did Martin hit him so hard that he flew directly over a house? Or did he just continue to pursue Martin?
It seems most likely that he just moved into the walkway, stopped there because he was unaware that Zimmerman was following him, and grew (rightly) alarmed when Zimmerman appeared on foot, in the same walkway.
We don't have evidence of any sort of "brutal attack". We do have evidence of a superficial head wound, which is expected in any sort of street fight.
Martin has no history of causing violence, claiming that he does is simply wrong. It's actually Zimmerman who has the violent history. And the "keep it real" thing is a racial stereotype.
Why would you expect someone being chased to calmly call 911, or to allow the person to follow him home? And for that matter, how realistic is it for Zimmerman to actually "lose" anybody in a neighborhood that he knows well, and that has a simple layout? And again, how does Zimmerman end up in the walkway where the shooting occurs, if he isn't trailing Martin?
The problem with your take is that Zimmerman told the non-emergency dispatch that Trayvon was running. So Trayvon was clearly aware that Zimmerman was watching him from his car. If he was merely scared, he would have gone home, run out of the neighborhood, or called 911. He had a hands-free headset, it would have been very simple to call 911 while running.
The timeline just doesn't add up. Look at wagist.come for a thorough breakdown based on the phone calls to police dispatch and the cell records. Trayvon had literally minutes between the time when Zimmerman told police dispatch he lost sight of Trayvon and when the fight actually started. It doesn't make sense that Trayvon would have hung around if he were scared. It makes much more sense that a kid with a recent history of aggressive violence (and yes, a statement on Twitter from his brother that he "swung on a bus driver" is darn good evidence of Trayvon's violent ways, as is the fact that Trayvon reffed illegal school fights, as evidenced from his youtube account) would try to jump some dude he thought was eyeing him.
At any rate, you cannot honestly tell me at this point you think it's beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started the fight. The most you could possibly say is "we do not know," in which case the state lacked the probable cause necessary under FL self defense law to issue an indictment.
That's what I don't understand about the reactions of the public. The people who automatically assumed the worst of Martin, and back Zimmerman are the same people who would have no qualms about shooting someone with their concealed weapon if that person was following them on the street late at night. Huge double standard.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zimbochick
That is not possible because the police screwed up the investigation mightily. Not insisting that Zimmerman be transported straight to the hospital where his injuries could be examined, documented, and photographed by someone other than a friend or family member of Zimmerman was mistake number one.
The police cannot force someone to get medical treatment, but why would he refuse it? Why didn't the blood get on his shirt? He stood up after the shooting, but the blood never trickled down his neck? However, if the EMT on the scene felt it was necessary, he would have noted it in his report. We'll have to wait to see if that's evidence. The entire ABC "new evidence" claim is very suspicious to me. I started to think about this, and I don't understand why anyone would take photos of someone's head and not his face. After all, Zimmerman said he had a badly broken nose. Still, it doesn't make sense to me. Imagine if you just killed someone. What would you do? Pose for pictures? Someone injured me 2 years ago and the last thing on my mind was "take some pictures so I have evidence!" (turned out there was a surveillance tape) The timing seems very strange too, as self-serving as Zimmerman's apology.
When your father's a magistrate judge, you don't have a record...until you do something incredibly stupid, like killing an unarmed teen.
Well the prosecution brought his record up at the bond hearing, so he has one. The charges were reduced and then dismissed, but not expunged. His father said "George always turns the other cheek" but apparently he didn't when his fiancee filed domestic abuse charges or the law enforcement officer arrested him for felony assault.
Don't forget that his mother was Deputy Clerk of Courts for 20 years. I realize that his parents worked in Virginia, but when people say they had no influence on his previous violent encounters, that's like saying your uncle works for the IRS and you've never been audited. It's possible his father didn't get him out of trouble, but he sure knew exactly what to do since his job description is (from the VA web site)
"Magistrate duties include issuing various types of processes such as arrest warrants, summonses, bonds, search warrants, subpoenas, and certain civil warrants. Magistrates also conduct bail hearings in instances in which an individual is arrested on a warrant charging him or her with a criminal offense."
^^^In this context yes, however, it depends on the case...
OJ to Nicole Brown Simpson, YES, GZ placing his former girl on a couch/bed to calm her down, NO.
...and you are getting this from what source? There were several complaints by his fiancee from 2003 to 2005. Once she said he smacked her in the mouth. Another time she said he shoved her. He claimed she hit him with a baseball bat. He had injuries on his face and she said her dog bit him because he became violent. He claimed she scratched him. IMO they both sound like a couple of nutcases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mig1
GZ pushed a person that did not identify himself as a state alcohol LEO to defend his friend. The 'push' is technically an assault but in GZs case the LEO was not injured and the charge was dropped to a misdemeanor, GZ had to attend an anger mgmt. class, thus not serious and/or an act of violence.
Wow, you must have read a different police report than I did. According to the officer, he pushed him and then the officer identified himself. Zimmerman continued his aggressive behavior and shouted "I don't care who the hell you are. F-you." I posted a link to the police report in earlier threads, but I'm not sure if it is still available. Zimmerman was charged with 2 third degree felony assaults.
CR-RESISTING OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE
BATTERY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
The charges were reduced to a misdemeanor on the condition that he receive counseling. I think he took an anger management class.
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.
