KhaoNiaw Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Indeed, but Zimmerman was chosen as the neighborhood watch coordinator by his neighbors in the homeowner association and there is evidence that Zimmerman was attacked - the cuts on his head, the broken nose and the grass stains on the back of his shirt. Reportedly, two eye witnesses have said that they saw Treyvan on top of Zimmerman pummeling him. The hanging party may have a long wait. Wouldn't his nose have been bleeding or left blood on his shirt if it had been broken? It's perhaps inconclusive but from the cctv pictures it hardly looks like he took a real battering or had cuts to his head.I'm familiar with the right of innocent until proven guilty. It's just strange to me that you can kill someone and simply say it was self-defence, without any police investigation until there's an outcry. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 It has been reported the he had time to clean himself up before going to the police station and the cut on the back of the back of his head was was a lot more than a scratch. The police at the scene of the crime determined that Zimmerman did not need to be arrested immediately, not that there would be no investigation at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Yai Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Indeed, but Zimmerman was chosen as the neighborhood watch coordinator by his neighbors in the homeowner association and there is evidence that Zimmerman was attacked - the cuts on his head, the broken nose and the grass stains on the back of his shirt. Reportedly, two eye witnesses have said that they saw Treyvan on top of Zimmerman pummeling him. The hanging party may have a long wait. Wouldn't his nose have been bleeding or left blood on his shirt if it had been broken? It's perhaps inconclusive but from the cctv pictures it hardly looks like he took a real battering or had cuts to his head.I'm familiar with the right of innocent until proven guilty. It's just strange to me that you can kill someone and simply say it was self-defence, without any police investigation until there's an outcry. Yeah But why did the public "outcry" take so long?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koratpat Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) Indeed, but Zimmerman was chosen as the neighborhood watch coordinator by his neighbors in the homeowner association and there is evidence that Zimmerman was attacked - the cuts on his head, the broken nose and the grass stains on the back of his shirt. Reportedly, two eye witnesses have said that they saw Treyvan on top of Zimmerman pummeling him. The hanging party may have a long wait. Wouldn't his nose have been bleeding or left blood on his shirt if it had been broken? It's perhaps inconclusive but from the cctv pictures it hardly looks like he took a real battering or had cuts to his head.I'm familiar with the right of innocent until proven guilty. It's just strange to me that you can kill someone and simply say it was self-defence, without any police investigation until there's an outcry. He was treated at the scene. Normally when EMS responds to a call and the person injured is not transported to the hospital, they still receive on scene treatment. This would consist of cleaning the wounds, irrigating any cuts or abrasions with saline and maybe an ice pack would be applied. Jingting, you can go on and on all you want, but the truth is, Zimmerman was arrested to appease the protesters, not because there was any real case against him. If he is convicted, and I doubt he will be because a unbiased jury can't be found. The real issue here is that is not one single credible news source left on the planet any more. News has to sell themselves today. Just like a great story about a farang that finds true love in Thailand does not sell, but one that is cheated, robbed and beaten by his Thai bride and Thai boyfriend does. Edited April 16, 2012 by Koratpat 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Yai Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Hey Korat Pat Just been reading that quite a few black celebrities have been voicing there Indignation about "lack of justice" their cheerleader surprise surprise was none other than Oprah Winfrey , this tragic incident is looking more like a 3 ring circus by the Day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post chuckd Posted April 16, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted April 16, 2012 Have any of you Zimmerman jurors considered the possibility that the young, innocent, 17 year old 6 Foot 2 Inch "man" pounding on Zimmerman was trying to get his weapon? Yeah...I thought not. My guess (which is as good as any other guess) is the police did not arrest Zimmerman immediately because the scene, and any potential witnesses interviewed, seemed to verify and uphold Zimmerman's version of what happened. I also imagine a member of the DA's office was consulted and, since Zimmerman was not considered a flight risk, he was released. After all, Florida along with 25 other states, does have the Stand Your Ground law in effect. I would further imagine that local authorities viewed this as many other shootings that occur, as in Chicago, and were not thinking along the lines that a "WHITE" Hispanic was involved. That came after Obama's tear jerking statement and Sharpton/Jessie Jackson got involved and Zimmerman's genealogy was investigated. It's all political, folks. Those people don't care one whit about Zimmerman and have not shed one real tear for Trayvon. The liberals on this forum care more for Trayvon than they do. Get real out there in TV land. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koratpat Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 The properly trained law enforcement academy graduates - the Sandford Florida police that investigated the case - felt that there was not enough probable cause to charge Zimmerman. The current "media dependent" (notice I did not say independent!) also did not have any probably cause to present this to a grand jury for an indictment. She knows that she does not have enough probable cause but brought charges to satisfy the media hype that the case has been prejudiced by. Zimmerman has been pictured as a burly, murderous thug that killed a baby faced angle. He has been portrayed as a cop wanaa be that disobeyed the direct orders of the all powerful police dispatcher. He has been labeled a honky red necked racist that shot an unarmed 120 pound black teenager. After that failed, he was called a white Hispanic. The man has been tied, convicted and if it was up to some nutters (including some posters here) a lynch mob would be formed and he would strung up by his neck in the nearest tree. A political lynch mob - from Al Sharpton, to Jesse Jackson, to the congressman that wore the hoodie in the House right up the chain of command to Obama, there has been also been a conviction without due process. The wimpy prosecutor seeking election caved to pressure and brought charges- nothing more, nothing less. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 So now Zimmerman is the victim? Last time I checked, he ain't the DEAD one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koratpat Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 So now Zimmerman is the victim? Last time I checked, he ain't the DEAD one. Let's look at it this way. If you, Jingthing, were falsely charged with a crime without probable cause and contrary to the statute definition of said law and then you were locked up and faced prison time all to appease a minuscule amount of protesters calling for lynching, would you feel victimized? Would you happily say that justice has been served? That is what has happened to Zimmerman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 So now Zimmerman is the victim? Last time I checked, he ain't the DEAD one. Let's look at it this way. If you, Jingthing, were falsely charged with a crime without probable cause and contrary to the statute definition of said law and then you were locked up and faced prison time all to appease a minuscule amount of protesters calling for lynching, would you feel victimized? Would you happily say that justice has been served? That is what has happened to Zimmerman. Nobody is being lynched. He has been charged lawfully under the laws of the state of Florida. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metisdead Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 A post in which the quoted content had been altered completely has been removed as per forum rule: 30) Do not modify someone else's post in your quoted reply, either with font or color changes, added emoticons, or altered wording. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 So now Zimmerman is the victim? Last time I checked, he ain't the DEAD one. If he was attacked and defended himself, he is the victim - not the attacker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 So now Zimmerman is the victim? Last time I checked, he ain't the DEAD one. If he was attacked and defended himself, he is the victim - not the attacker. Good luck with that in court. I predict a manslaughter conviction. The police reaction indicated the low value they placed on the life a young black man. Justice will prevail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 So now Zimmerman is the victim? If he was attacked and defended himself, he is the victim - not the attacker. Good luck with that in court. If Zimmerman was attacked and defended himself and the preponderance of evidence proves it, he will be found not guilty if there is any justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Naam Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Zimmerman is the victim? he would have been during the time i lived opposite Sanford across Lake Monroe. then it would have been immediately clear and without any reasonable doubt that Zimmerman needed long term counselling because he witnessed that poor boy committing suicide and at the same time talking on his cellphone. but times have changed. perhaps not yet in Birmingham, Alabama and Little Rock, Arkansas but definitely in Sanford, Florida. on sunday i talked to a law enforcement officer of a neighbouring county. his comments: "ah reckon y'all won't guess how many Hail Maries we said because it didn't happen here! what a mess." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Yai Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) Zimmerman is the victim? he would have been during the time i lived opposite Sanford across Lake Monroe. then it would have been immediately clear and without any reasonable doubt that Zimmerman needed long term counselling because he witnessed that poor boy committing suicide and at the same time talking on his cellphone. but times have changed. perhaps not yet in Birmingham, Alabama and Little Rock, Arkansas but definitely in Sanford, Florida. on sunday i talked to a law enforcement officer of a neighbouring county. his comments: "ah reckon y'all won't guess how many Hail Maries we said because it didn't happen here! what a mess." Naam is there any chance you can produce the latest Photograph of this "young boy" according to some reports that he was 6 foot 2 ,hardly kindergarten material !. . Edited April 16, 2012 by Colin Yai Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 So he deserved to be murdered because he was tall for his age? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurath Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 So now Zimmerman is the victim? If he was attacked and defended himself, he is the victim - not the attacker. Good luck with that in court. If Zimmerman was attacked and defended himself and the preponderance of evidence proves it, he will be found not guilty if there is any justice. The preponderance of evidence does not prove it. That is it the point. The evidence and the statements from Mr. Zimmerman's attorney and witnesses will be deliberated in court along with that of other witnesses to determine their veracity. Justice will be served after these deliberations and not before. That is the point of going to trial over this issue. The initial fuss over this issue, a fuss that many here seem to abhor, was that it seems that there was a premature decision taken that the issue should not go to judicial review. Now that it has so gone, let the judicial process decide the matter. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 You have not seen the preponderance of evidence and either has anyone else on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurath Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 You have not seen the preponderance of evidence and either has anyone else on this thread. No I have not, that's why the case should go to judicial review where all evidence can be evaluated and why your statement: "If Zimmerman was attacked and defended himself and the preponderance of evidence proves it, he will be found not guilty if there is any justice." is ill-judged premature nonsense. This is because it would be just as easy to say (foolishly and meaninglessly) the following: "If Zimmerman was not attacked and wasn't defending himself and the preponderance of evidence proves it, he will be found guilty if there is any justice." Why not see what the evidence does actually say? Something not truly possible without judicial review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steely Dan Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 You have not seen the preponderance of evidence and either has anyone else on this thread. No I have not, that's why the case should go to judicial review where all evidence can be evaluated and why your statement: "If Zimmerman was attacked and defended himself and the preponderance of evidence proves it, he will be found not guilty if there is any justice." is ill-judged premature nonsense. This is because it would be just as easy to say (foolishly and meaninglessly) the following: "If Zimmerman was not attacked and wasn't defending himself and the preponderance of evidence proves it, he will be found guilty if there is any justice." Why not see what the evidence does actually say? Something not truly possible without judicial review. That's Lilliputian style semantics - UG was playing devil's advocate, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurath Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) You have not seen the preponderance of evidence and either has anyone else on this thread. No I have not, that's why the case should go to judicial review where all evidence can be evaluated and why your statement: "If Zimmerman was attacked and defended himself and the preponderance of evidence proves it, he will be found not guilty if there is any justice." is ill-judged premature nonsense. This is because it would be just as easy to say (foolishly and meaninglessly) the following: "If Zimmerman was not attacked and wasn't defending himself and the preponderance of evidence proves it, he will be found guilty if there is any justice." Why not see what the evidence does actually say? Something not truly possible without judicial review. That's Lilliputian style semantics - UG was playing devil's advocate, that's all. Lilliptutian style semantics? Note that 'death comes in sentences'. Ask a judge. Edited April 16, 2012 by Neurath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) You have not seen the preponderance of evidence and either has anyone else on this thread. No I have not No you have not and neither has Jingthing who is quite happy to cast him as guilty without it and you do not seem overly bothered about that. Edited April 16, 2012 by Ulysses G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 You have not seen the preponderance of evidence and either has anyone else on this thread. No I have not No you have not and neither has Jingthing who is quite happy to cast him as guilty without it. We know he is the shooter. He IS guilty of that. I am predicting a manslaughter conviction, that's all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 If it was self-defence, he is not "guilty" of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 (edited) If it was self-defence, he is not "guilty" of anything. We'll see. Keep in mind the nice boy was just out for an evening stroll and then he started getting harassed by this crazed vigilante dude, and ended up dead. I am sorry. The killer must pay. You aren't naive. You know as well as I do that if the murdered boy had been upper class and white, there is no way the killer would not been charged right on the scene. Let him go to trial. Great. He should have been booked the night of the killing. I'll accept a not guilty verdict on trial. Will some of you guys accept a GUILTY verdict? Edited April 16, 2012 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Keep in mind the nice boy was just out for an evening stroll and then he started getting harassed by this crazed vigilante dude, and ended up dead. Pure speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurath Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 You have not seen the preponderance of evidence and either has anyone else on this thread. No I have not No you have not and neither has Jingthing who is quite happy to cast him as guilty without it. The man, Mr. Zimmerman, has been charged with 2nd degree murder. He's not guilty of anything at this point. That's for the court(s) to decide based on the available and discoverable evidence and the extant laws. He did kill Mr. Martin, and his defense for having done so can now be clearly reviewed. You do or should need a defense/legal justification for having killed someone. What more could anyone reasonably want? I've no interest in or sympathy for the issue being pre judged and only disgust for rhetorical strategies/reflexes seeking to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurath Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 If it was self-defence, he is not "guilty" of anything. You can be 'guilty' of a lot of things that aren't legally defined criminal acts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses G. Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 Well, self-defence is not one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts