No, he pretty well summed it up. You can't run someone down, shoot them and claim self defense. Pretty simple, actually.
No he didn't. You summed it up much better. He included a bunch of disputed facts and called them universally accepted.
LOL! How did I get owned because I've said before that I agree with you, as hard as that is to say, that more facts need to come out so guess what if I got owned somehow then you did too. I've just called you out on your blatant flip-flops in the thread where you dismiss one thing as non-fact but post on the exact same thing on the other side as somehow it is fact.
Just to add at least one witness has stepped forward to state that police altered her testimony by "correcting" her statement. There is a video of her stating that to local Orlando news posted in this thread. EDIT Whoops I see that you posted that.
I have to rep this. I am so genuinely entertained when you talk about "facts." It is like listening to a hippopotamus discuss his taste in wines.
1. Trayvon Martin was armed with a bag of skittles and a can of iced tea. When you use this kind of language to point out the facts, are you really being objective?
Why is it only in situations like this that there is backlash? What about when a thug enters a home and kills innocent families just to take some jewelry and go to the pawn shop? Just saying.
...Because there's always an ensuing man hunt for the thug and any suspects will usually be detained if not thrown in jail as soon as possible?
I had to wait all that time to load that for George Zimmerman calls police to alert them that a black boy between the age of 7-9 was walking alone. Zimmerman was concerned about his well-being.
"Though my feelings may be hateful The things I say are non-committal Like black children are so cute When they are little."
Are you insinuating thugs are black and the innocent families are white and as a contrast to the Treyvon Martin situation? SMH
would you call this comment a backslap or a high five of some sort? you're projecting here (your own ignorance of the details provided). no need to call out individual posters. be the better man. bloop's post including facts, errors, and disputed information starting with naming Zimmerman as a Jew.
I thank you for making a fairly level headed post and providing evidence to support your points. My response to this is. Number 6 (Martin's body lay in the morgue for 3 days without being identified) isn't directly relevant to whether Zimmerman acted in self-defense or not but is very relevant to the whether the Sanford police are properly doing their job either because of coverup or incompetence.) A lot of evidence in a crime is time sensitive and failure to follow up immediately after a fatal shooting strikes me as odd. Further from a strictly crime fighting standpoint if the police were so quick to buy Zimmerman's belief that Martin was a suspicious character it seems like they would want to know who the person lying dead was to see if he was a suspect or person of interest in other crimes. #7 (Martin's body was tested for drugs) is relevant to a question of whether he was truly a threat but again it seems odd that if they considered that relevant why they didn't act on actually identifying Martin sooner. #8 (Zimmerman wasn't tested for drugs or alcohol) you are contradicting yourself here if you say that it is fine for the on scene officer to make that call then you have to consider why then test Martin? Alcohol doesn't just break down once you pass away and the on scene officer likely could've easily made a judgement about whether Martin was drunk at the time of the shooting. As for other drugs while yes behavior is a big clue, something you can't determine from a corpse, it's not accurate or else we wouldn't need blood and urine drug test. Given this was a fatal shooting it seems odd or just plain biased that the Sanford PD felt that it was necessary to test the one who was shot but just leave it as a judgement call of the on scene officer regarding the shooter. Again this points to either incompetence or corruption. As far as that police constantly make judgement calls about these things remember this is a fatal shooting and not a traffic stop at bar close. #1 (that Martin just had a bag of Skittles) and #2 (that he had a cell phone) are very relevant in determining what was the level of threat that Martin represented. It again strikes me odd that they would test Martin to see if he was under the influence (which might support that he was a threat) but completely discount what possessions Martin had on him. Further the cell phone is very critical as that can provide evidence of what Martin was doing and as we now know he was talking to his girlfriend. Just from basic police work if Zimmerman is actually correct that Martin was a criminal casing out the neighborhood phone records could show. he was doing that. So in either case of whether to support Zimmerman's case or undermine it the cell phone is very important. So far the evidence and shows that Martin felt under threat from Zimmerman, which further erodes Zimmerman's self-defense argument. Except there were witnesses that don't corroborate his account. I agree #3 (Martin was screaming on the 911 recording) isn't definitively shown but it seems like most of the people who have heard them say it is Martin. #10 (that an officer corrected a witness' testimony about who was screaming) isn't contested at all, unless you can prove the witness was lying. That the witness believed that she heard Martin screaming is a fact and the role of the investigating officer is to collect that fact and not to "correct" the witness' recollection. Even if the witness is wrong that is a matter for the prosecutor to decide in regard to whether to file charges and / or to argue in court. IMO this the most serious issue regarding the Sanford PD since this is evidence tampering which is a crime. Here you contradict yourself again if #4 (that the police failed to identify Martin or determine what he was doing or where he was going) why then do you say that point #6 is bull****? Also if you say that point #2 is completely irrelevant why do you say that #5 (the police failed to investigate the contents of the cell phone) is? That may be the case but consider that Martin also has a right to stand his ground and act in self-defense. According to the police report it said he was "bleeding from the nose" and not a "broken nose" Those of us who have dealt with broken noses can tell you there is a very big difference between a broken nose and just a bloody nose "Trauma" has a very specific definition pertaining to a serious wound. The report says Zimmerman "was bleeding from the back of his head" and not trauma. Its possible Zimmerman suffered head trauma such as a concussion but I have yet to see that mentioned anywhere else. It lends credence to the story that he felt that Martin was suspicious but undermines a self-defense claim by showing that he put himself into the situation. Whether Martin calls 911 or isn't very relevant since he had called someone else. The only relevance it has would be that 911 would have a recording if Martin had called him. As far as the eyewitness that saw the fight that witness has since changed his story. Whether the witness or lying under pressure is a possibility but at the min. that witnesses credibility overall is in question. Anyway as previously stated just witnessing the fight doesn't exonerate Zimmerman since Martin also has a right to self-defense. True. You have that backwards. As noted the witness who initially claimed to see Zimmerman yelling for help has changed his story. The witness who said she heard a "man" calling for help has asserted she meant Martin all along and that the on scene officer was the one who changed her testimony. Once again potential evidence / witness tampering. That isn't supported by 911 transcripts. Basing that Zimmerman had started the confrontation by citing race I agree is problematic and looking at the situation I have kept away from the issue of race. I think there is evidence that race might be a motive but even without considering race at all there are is plenty of other evidence to show that Zimmerman didn't act out of self-defense. Or at the minimum 1. Martin's possessions are important to show that he was unarmed. 2. Difficult to assess relevance depending on what Zimmerman might've thought about the type of threat Martin was. Generally though someone of larger weight is considered stronger than someone smaller. 3. Also difficult to assess. 4. Also difficult to assess unless Zimmerman knew Martin's age. 1,2 Again leaving race out of it there is plenty of evidence to show Zimmerman didn't act in self-defense. 3. This goes to an issue of motive if Zimmerman felt he was obligated to put himself in a potentially dangerous situation. 4. Difficult to assess relevance but could go to bias. 5. Bias by the police is very important if they deliberately hid and tampered with evidence. 6. Important in regard to whether Zimmerman can get a fair trial and what potential threat there might be to his and his family's safety. I notice you refer to blacks / African Americans a few times in this post as being biased, keep in mind that many who are not black also believe that there is much to doubt about Zimmerman's claim of self defense. All of that seems highly speculative particularly the part that Martin knew he was wrong, while you have state you aren't biased that along with the statements above seem to indicate some bias. While I think your scenario is in the realm of possibility the key point that you are ignoring is the fact that Zimmerman was following Martin and the other fact that Martin said he felt threatened. Under the FL law both Martin and ZImmerman have a right to stand their ground and confront each other publicly. That Zimmerman was following Martin gives more credence to the idea that it was Martin who acted out of self-defense and not Zimmerman. While Zimmerman might've actually been in fear when he shot Martin the use of lethal force is disqualified if you are the aggressor. Actually we don't know the extent of the wound on the back of Zimmerman's head or how he got it. I also am not aware of evidence that says that Martin was running away.
