Makes one great post, immediately goes full r****d These cases are not even remotely similar and if you don't see that then it is a problem with your understanding of the situation, not the public's.
I won't go looking for a link for you, but I can verify that what Major stated was reported by multiple news outlet, and was according to a Florida homicide investigator.
This is for Major and the other lefties on this board, I'm on your side now: As a compassionate liberal I believe this is a sad event, but not worth getting angry about. If the shooter and victim are both black, then there's nothing for me here to gain any personal advantage from. I mean, don't get me wrong--I'm sorry for the kid, but there are much bigger issues to be exploited, like race and injustice and global warming. The shooting of one little minority kid by someone from the same minority race is just unfortunate, but not nearly as bad as if the shooter had been white. As a compassionate liberal, I label everyone because identity determines personal worth, one's value to the rest of society, and significance to our causes of destroying everything evil this country has been built on. We compassionate liberals have to weigh every person and their experiences in the balance of global justice, gay rights, women's rights, and animal rights. No single person matters; only the cause matters. Sorry, kid, but next time get shot by a white guy, and then we'll talk. --sponsored by compassionate liberals worldwide
http://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-ma...gation-killing/story?id=15949879#.T3m97tX4DA0 ABC News has learned police seemed to accept Zimmerman's account at face value that night and that he was not tested for drugs or alcohol on the night of the shooting, even though it is standard procedure in most homicide investigations. disclaimer: this 2nd part is the opinion of one person: But law enforcement expert Rod Wheeler who listened to the tapes tells ABC News that Zimmerman, not Martin, sounded intoxicated in the police recordings of the 911 calls. "When I listened to the 911 tape the first thing that came to my mind is this guy sounds intoxicated. Notice how he's slurring his words. We as trained law enforcement officers, we know how to listen for that right away and I think that's going to be an important element of this entire investigation," Wheeler said. But Zimmerman was not tested.
Really? You thought he slurred his words? I've listened to it several times and nothing even remotely makes me think he was even the slightest bit intoxicated. He sounded calm to me. And how do you know he was not tested anyway? Can we really trust that report with all of the misinformation kind of like when everyone was so pissed that Zimmerman was not taken to the police station for questioning. Now we know he was infact handcuffed and taken in for questioning.
This is strange. So you ignore an expert, but use what you heard as conclusive evidence. You then say there's tons of misinformation - which there was - but then argue based on some of that same reporting as conclusively supporting your own position. You're picking and choosing what you want to believe, and for anything you don't, you say "well, there's misinformation out there". Has there been any reporting anywhere to suggest that the initial story of no alcohol testing was incorrect? If not, I'm going to use that as my default assumption until there is. Besides which, it's all irrelevant to this thread - which is about what sparked the outrage. The reporting at the time suggested that there was a shoddy investigation and numerous flaws in the process. Even if it comes out later that isn't true, it still is what sparked the outrage because those were the presumed facts at the time. In the case in this thread, there is no real dispute of facts, and thus no significant outrage. People like the original poster and esteban simplify it down to race because their critical thinking skills to look beyond race are fairly limited.
Actually I'm not picking and chosing. The only facts to me are this. 1. GZ called 911 2. GZ chased Treyvon 3. GZ shot Treyvon 4. GZ has called 911 many many times and on black, white and latino young men 5. GZ has black, white and latino friends and family 6. GZ was careless while in possesion of a gun that caused the death of a young man 7. GZ was handcuffed and taken to jail I heard the 911 calls myself, i read the 911 records the rest has been confirmed by multiple sources including interviews with family or friends of GZ and I saw the video of GZ being escorted from a police car into the police station. What am I missing. I heard the 911 call and he does not sound remotely intocicated. His words do not sound slurred at all to me, not even remotely and I have listened to the tape several times. I'm not deaf and don't need someone that even you catogorized as oppinion trying to convince me that I heard something that I did not.
Sure you are. In the other thread, you posted this: You are very clearly wrong. There is not one hint of evidence that Zimmerman has any history of racism. There is irrefutable evidence that he was not racially profiling. The fact that he might have using a racial slur in the 911 call is "a hint of evidence". You dismiss it outright because it's not proven. Yet, on the flipside, you assume that because he calls 911 a lot on white people too, there's "irrefutable" evidence that he's not racially profiling. What if his threshold is lower for black people than white ones? What if he calls 911 when he sees a white person breaking into a house, but calls 911 on a black person if he sees him walking around in a hoodie? In that case, he certainly does raciallly profile. But you've already conclusively determined he doesn't, by one piece of relatively limited data. The reality is we don't know if he is racist and we don't know if he was racially profiling. There is some evidence for both, but it is inconclusive in both cases. But you interpreted the two very differently. You're accepting and dismissing evidence to fit the vision you want to believe.
That's not quite true. Despite conflicting witness accounts and the stand-your-ground law, police charged Dooley with manslaughter 2 days after the shooting. He was later released on bail for a few weeks before taken into custody again to stand trial.
You are 100% correct that I don't know for certain that he is not racist. However there is much evidence to support he is not racist and there is no evidence in his past (at least none we know of) that suggests he is. The fact that he calls 911 regardless of ethnicity proves to me that he is calls regardless of race. I guess I don't know any other way to quantify it. If you want me to say i don't know for sure if he is or isn't racist then ok, I don't know for sure. But I'm not willing to prosecute someone as a racist because of one discernible word, especially when there is evidence to the contrary.
People involved in critical incidents don't have to submit to any sort of test as to whether or not they're on alcohol, a controlled substance, drug, dangerous drug or other substance. I'm not sure where you're getting that. Do you know exactly what the cops did wrong in this case? Everyone is so quick to point fingers at the police (when the DA is making the calls). The investigation will never be “good enough”, no matter the findings. You can bet the full resources of the Florida Criminal Justice System are being put into this investigation. Whatever has been done, as far as the investigation, is being redone, and re checked. This issue is now one of intimidation. Intimidation at a political and governmental level, and intimidation at a personal level. When free people begin to say, “I have had enough. I will not be a victim. I am taking responsibility for myself” people who profit by preying on them lose all standing.
are people too stupid to realize that the reason martin's case gets so much attention is because the shooter wasn't arrested?
Pggabrial just beat me to it. He was taken to the station but he was never arrested. The police had a body, a motive, a weapon, a suspect but the police had a shaky case (at best) to claim self defense. This other case is not nearly as clear (investigation still needs to be concluded), the suspect has not yet been located and therefore the police have not had a chance to release the suspect. If the police bring the shooter in and release him, then there would be backlash ...ESP if the shooter's Dad is an ex judge.
