you have to collect all the facts. I've been maintaining that all along. Some here are only open to hearing "their kind of facts".... THINK critically, people. Gather all the facts, then make a judgment. Very immature logic to do otherwise, which is what many here have done.
1. Police state that the "Stand Your Ground" Statute prohibits them from arresting Zimmerman. 2. Jeb Bush (governor at the time the statute was passed), one of the drafters of the statue AND Zimmerman's attorney all agree that the "Stand Your Ground" Statute DOES NOT HOLD in this case. Why are you arguing that it still does hold? Due to the uncertainty in the case and mishandling of the investigation by police (including the temporary resignation by the police chief), there is reason to believe that charges will be brought and an arrest will be made so this case can be brought to a criminal court. Zimmerman can then make his case and if he really did act in self defense, then he is innocent until he is proven guilty.
What about supporting justice regardless of race for starters? An unarmed kid was shot to death because he was walking in his family's neighborhood and the police were in the process of letting it go when others got involved. And now you're against those people for getting involved. You complain that he's being convicted in the media yet you've had no problem with the fact that were it not for others getting involved he'd have been exonerated before the fact. And had, basically, been exonerated, as there were no plans for an arrest, a charge, an investigation or a trial. He said it was self-defense and the police said, "Okay, that's that then." After the killing of an unarmed kid. Saying you have black friends seems like kind of a small-hearted as well as a small-headed response. Especially when you know, whether you will admit it or not, that if a black person had gunned down an unarmed white person he would not go home that night, he would be tested for drugs/alcohol, his clothes would be tested for evidence; there would have been an investigation. What other conclusion can we draw than that race is a factor in all of this? Especially when only the reliable 'conservatives' register a problem with Zimmerman's treatment. Why do you think we always split on party lines when it comes to race?
Some people only need "facts" when the person they are supporting is in deep water. Even if all the facts came out the same people would say, they need more facts. Lol
So you're mad at the guy that's encouraging violence but not at the guy that shot someone dead. That makes sense.
After b****ing about HuffPo and after b****ing about the girlfriend not coming out in public so he and others could scrutinize her character to determine her veracity.
Fair enough. Both are anonymous at this point and can't be vetted. Even if "John"'s testimony is correct, it does not necessarily clear Zimmerman. But it does provide additional info, and what's wrong with waiting for additional information to emerge?
Absolutely nothing and nobody has said that was wrong. That is a straw man. What's wrong is that the police failed to collect evidence ("additional information" lost now forever) or begin an investigation, during which what information hasn't been lost forever by the police decision not to collect it before it vanished, should obviously be collected. You guys think we are arguing for a conviction. We are not. We are arguing for an investigation and, unless a grand jury concludes there are not grounds to pursue it, a trial. And we are arguing that the police seriously ****ed up, in about ten different and critical ways -- all of which include a failure to collect "additional information." Not a single person in this thread has argued against having more information.
Just because Zimmerman was losing the fight, up to that point, doesn't make the black the "agressor". I have not heard one peice of evidence to contradict that Zimmerman was the agressor. You don't have to have Proof to arrest somebody ...you only need probable cause. At a minimum, Zimmerman should have been detained on the spot.
Funny how as "more facts" are presented, as some posters supposedly are clamoring for, they are simply dismissed as being uncertainties and/or irrelevant. Is it really more facts we're waiting for, or just the "right" ones?
A p.s. followup to gwayneco from my last post. To be clear, I meant nobody had suggested more information shouldn't be collected before conviction; not that there was not sufficient information for charges to be filed and then to let the justice system do its job. There is obviously more than enough information for that.
I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm not black. I'm not liberal. I'm not Jewish like Zimmerman. I dont live in that community. etc etc. but you have a logical issue with being able to discern what are relevant facts in the incident itself. for example #6 sounds like bull****, that sucks for the family, but it doesn't have anything to do with coverup. stuff like #7, #8 is simpleminded. obviously the police officer on the scene could tell if Zimmerman was inebriated. police make those sort of judgments 1000000000x a day and you live in a society where you trust the judgment of law enforcement officials implicitly in things like that... except when it doesn't benefit "your side" and you want to make an issue of something in lieu of making an issue for something else. # 1, #2, are completely irrelevant. what difference does it make that he had skittles? having skittles means he's not guilty? that kind of crap has no bearing on police investigations, it's just stuff for the media to sensationalize about #9 is plain wrong. Zimmerman wasn't released based purely on his statement, there were witnesses who corroborated his account the 2 most relevant points: #10 and #3 are contested. it's not clear who was screaming really the only salient points you bring up are #4 and #5. because it seems like they should have done that and it's fishy or incompetent that they didn't do that thoroughly the relevant facts are: 1) there is a witness that saw the kid beating the man. corroborates his story 2) the man suffered a broken nose and head trauma that required stitches. the kid had no injuries other than the gunshot. corroborates his story 3) the man had called 911 which lends credence to his story. the kid had not called the authorities but someone else 4) the 1 eyewitness to the fight saw Zimmerman yelling for help 911. this corroborates his story, since he was already in contact with 911 while the boy had avoided calling the authorities for help 5) 3 witnesses saw the man ON TOP OF the boy in the aftermath of the shooting (casts doubt on his story) disputed facts are: 1) what happened at the moment of the shooting. there are 3 witnesses. none of the actually saw the moment of shooting. 1 witness saw the boy beating the man. 2 witnesses saw NONE of the fight. all 3 saw the man on top of the boy in the minutes after the killing 2) who was yelling for help. 1 eyewitness SAW Zimmerman yelling for help. 1 witness heard yelling for help which she characterized immediately as "a man" in her 911 call but then changed her memory after social and political pressure to a "boy yelling." 3) who initiated the fight. there are no witnesses to how the fight started. Zimmerman says the boy jumped him (supported by 911 transcripts) after he lost him and started back to his truck. There has been unsubstantiated (but plausible) statements by biased (but not necessarily incorrect) African American sources that Zimmerman started the confrontation himself (because he wanted to kill a black boy? not sure about the motivation here since he had called 911 to handle it) and lied about it. irrelevant facts are: 1) Trayvon had skittles 2) the killer outweighed the boy by 100 lbs 3) the boy was 6'3" and had half a foot on the killer 4) he was 17 possibly related but uncertain factors are: 1) the victim was black in South Florida 2) the killer was Jewish in South Florida 3) the killer was a neighborhood watch member 4) the killer's father is a retired judge 5) bias by the police 6) bias by the media despite what you write the facts are not black and white. because there is no eyewitness to the actual shooting. and because (despite what blacks and the media want to believe) there is plausibility and verifiability to Zimmerman's account. personally I think Zimmerman should be arrested, because although it's clear that the black kid assaulted him first and broke his nose and hurt him. even being sent to the hospital doesn't justify killing. what seems to have happened is that the boy saw Zimmerman trailing him, became scared and angry and attacked him. the eyewitness who yelled he was going to call 911 scared Trayvon Martin because he knew in his heart he was in the wrong at that point and he started to run off. Zimmerman then shot him. more facts will come out but from an unbiased reading of the accounts that's what seems to have happened... gwayneco, John's account was in the local media the day after the event. because of hate and threats he's refused to be interviewed, unlike the 2 white girls who are basking in the social e-peen of being morally courageous and changing their testimony. it's actually funny that not being in the media casts doubt on him, since in America this is supposed to be tried in the courts and not in the media. the police have his statement. however his account doesn't exonerate Zimmerman AT ALL. no where in there is that Martin was KILLING Zimmerman. just that he saw him beating him up. I guess Zimmerman might have thought this big black kid was going to kill his fat ass... and who knows? maybe he would have if had the chance. he'd broken his nose and evidently slammed his head on concrete enough to bust open a wound on the back of his head. but since Martin evidently started to run off before popo arrived to arrest him, he was never actually threatening Zimmerman's life so his use of the gun was unjustified. BY THE FACTS WE HAVE NOW. more stuff could come out
I'm pretty sure by facts they mean "video evidence and a notarized affidavit by Martin from the afterlife."
