Whats your opinion on the florida shooting?

[walt629]

I thought we were making progress in this thread getting people to wait until the facts are out to make a judgment but it appears that a very grainy video that we have no details of has all of a sudden turned everyone into medical experts and ready to hang Zimmerman again.

Only people that have already made up their minds.

I think some in here are seeing the video as vindication for their original convictions on the matter. The arguments in here may have been slowly convincing those that had GZ already convicted to see another side even though it went against their grain to do so. But now the 'magical mystic movie' has brought new vigor to their beleaguered argument. After all, if it's on tape (do they use tape any more?) it must be gospel true! :sarcastic:

 

[walt629]

I think everyone is missing the real question in this entire case. Is 9mm enough stopping power? I've read in these forums that it isn't.

Ok, call me a troll now.......

Have it your way.... you're a troll.

Did I do okay? :biggrin: :crazy_pilot:

 

[walt629]

Too much misinformation coming from too many sources. Police department screwed the pooch bigtime. Charge shooter and let courts do their job.

Charge him with what? So far there is no REAL evidence that he broke any laws. The only information flooding the media is a bunch of supposition, conjecture and emotionally charged accusations. But you want him charged? Hmm.....

 

[walt629]

What charge does GZ have that was playing cop?

Tm does have a history of violence involving punching a bus driver. Also has a history of theft.

»

Read here: Link Removed

He got into an altercation (Shoved) with a cop, in a bar. He was ordered to go to alcohol abuse treatment and did so. (per this article)

 

[JC123]

TM and GZ

The bottom line in ALL of this is going to be WHO was screaming for "help" before the shot was fired. TM's dad says it was his son, other believe it was GZ. If some forensic expert can say without a doubt that it was TM then GZ is in a world of trouble. If it was GZ then he will probably get off Scott free. It will be harder to convict him with that evidence. My problem is that even if TM was the aggressor, who says he wasn't scared for HIS life. He was being followed by some guy in a car and then that guy gets out of the car and starts following him on foot! If it were me I would think this guys is about to attack or kill ME and I would be thinking of protecting myself. If I thought someone was going to harm me any second I might duck behind a corner and wait for him to turn the corner and try to knock him out!!
I can't say I would fault TM for that!

This whole thing is a mess and whichever way it goes down people are going to be upset about it on both sides.
Just my 2 cents.

 

[Firefighterchen]

Read here: Link Removed

He got into an altercation (Shoved) with a cop, in a bar. He was ordered to go to alcohol abuse treatment and did so. (per this article)

Thanks walt, I have read multiple articles on GZ past, and you make a very good point about the circumstances of his "battery of a law enforcement officer." And I believe the judge also knew the circumstances, that is why he was charged with "resisting arrest WITHOUT violence," but apparently people don't want to recognize that, or recognize that that charge was dropped after he went to alcohol education courses. He has a restraining order for his exwife, and his exwife has one for him, so what? If he had an actual domestic violence charge on his record he wouldn't be able to own a firearm, that means he doesn't have a DV charge. So I don't understand why people are making a big deal about it?

My original question though, was asking about his "playing cop" history. People keep saying that like he was running around in a uniform and badge writing tickets on peoples cars in his neighborhood...apparently calling the police while volunteering for neighborhood watch is playing cops.

The bottom line in ALL of this is going to be WHO was screaming for "help" before the shot was fired. TM's dad says it was his son, other believe it was GZ. If some forensic expert can say without a doubt that it was TM then GZ is in a world of trouble. If it was GZ then he will probably get off Scott free. It will be harder to convict him with that evidence. My problem is that even if TM was the aggressor, who says he wasn't scared for HIS life. He was being followed by some guy in a car and then that guy gets out of the car and starts following him on foot! If it were me I would think this guys is about to attack or kill ME and I would be thinking of protecting myself. If I thought someone was going to harm me any second I might duck behind a corner and wait for him to turn the corner and try to knock him out!!
I can't say I would fault TM for that!

This whole thing is a mess and whichever way it goes down people are going to be upset about it on both sides.
Just my 2 cents.

I'm just curious, where did you get your timeline information?

TM is being followed by GZ. TM starts walking toward GZ (who is in his car). TM starts running away. Then GZ leaves his car. GZ allegedly stops pursuit after dispatcher asks him to stop, GZ says "He ran" and it's unclear whether or not he had TM in sight. Unknown events occur between then and the altercation.

I'm not really sure what incident you are talking about that the GZ got out of the car before TM ran....


Maybe I am coming at this case with too much logic and not enough hate...

>>

 

[ricardo900]

My original question though, was asking about his "playing cop" history. People keep saying that like he was running around in a uniform and badge writing tickets on peoples cars in his neighborhood...apparently calling the police while volunteering for neighborhood watch is playing cops.

I believe that "playing cop" is something that the media created, saying he was acting like some self-appointed local constable. What I've seen in the past, a guy "playing cop" usually will don tactical 5.11 gear, carry a gun, drive a buff car (crown vic) sometimes with a dash light, sometype of badge hooked on his belt and shades. He will walk around trying to give the impression to the public that he is "On The Job" and many of these wackos will attempt car stops. Once again, being an overzealous neighborhood watchie, doesn't necessarily means that you are trying to impersonate a police officer. IMHO

 

[Firefighterchen]

My original question though, was asking about his "playing cop" history. People keep saying that like he was running around in a uniform and badge writing tickets on peoples cars in his neighborhood...apparently calling the police while volunteering for neighborhood watch is playing cops.

I believe that "playing cop" is something that the media created, saying he was acting like some self-appointed local constable. What I've seen in the past, a guy "playing cop" usually will don tactical 5.11 gear, carry a gun, drive a buff car (crown vic) sometimes with a dash light, sometype of badge hooked on his belt and shades. He will walk around trying to give the impression to the public that he is "On The Job" and many of these wackos will attempt car stops. Once again, being an overzealous neighborhood watchie, doesn't necessarily means that you are trying to impersonate a police officer. IMHO

Gotta ask you then, why did you say he has a history of playing cop in the post I quoted you?

 

[BluesStringer]

The bottom line in ALL of this is going to be WHO was screaming for "help" before the shot was fired. TM's dad says it was his son,

First, welcome to the forum.

Second, not exactly the best first impression you could've offered, considering that there's a lot more evidence to the components of the story that you're commenting on than what you're taking into consideration here.

As to the above, yes, Martin's dad now says it was Trayvon yelling for help, but that assertion didn't surface from anyone in Martin's family until well after this whole thing blew up into a national, heavily racialized boondoggle. Martin's father was asked by the police to listen to the tape early in the investigation (I don't recall exactly when, but the time-frame is posted in this thread somewhere), and he said then that it wasn't Trayvon.

...other believe it was GZ.

An eye-witness standing at his condo door just feet away from the fight confirms it was Zimmerman crying to him for help. It's the local FOX affiliate interview with "John" less than 24 hours after the shooting. Listen to it. It's not a "belief" on "John's" part, it's what he saw and heard.

If some forensic expert can say without a doubt that it was TM then GZ is in a world of trouble.

Right, a forensic expert who wasn't there and who would necessarily have to contradict an eye and ear witness who was there in order to say that. Hopefully, any Prosecutor would make such an expert witness aware of the fact that there's an eye-witness to the audio he's scrutinizing before he gets on the stand and makes a fool of himself.

If it was GZ then he will probably get off Scott free.

Scott free? How about "justifiable homicide?" How about "acted within his rights of self defense?" If there's no prosecution, only a premise along those lines would suffice as a legitimate reason, and if that is the determination, he absolutely should "get off Scott free," wouldn't you agree?

It will be harder to convict him with that evidence.

Being as that evidence (Zimmerman's voice yelling for help on the tape) is already in the possession of the PD and DA, that's likely a major factor in why there's been no prosecution to this point, and likewise, why any prosecution that comes after all this hoopla should be viewed as suspect to say the least. If there's a prosecution at this point, which I do believe there will be, it will be wholly political. A political prosecution in a criminal court is, in and of itself, a crime. Kind of a bit of irony there, dontcha think?

My problem is that even if TM was the aggressor, who says he wasn't scared for HIS life. He was being followed by some guy in a car and then that guy gets out of the car and starts following him on foot! If it were me I would think this guys is about to attack or kill ME and I would be thinking of protecting myself. If I thought someone was going to harm me any second I might duck behind a corner and wait for him to turn the corner and try to knock him out!!
I can't say I would fault TM for that!

Yep, that indeed would be your problem if you survived such an aggressive response to being scrutinized as a stranger/visitor by a resident of a neighborhood that experienced a rash of burglaries and other crimes in recent months prior to this event. Because if you acted as you described here and survived, you would be arrested forthright, and the person doing the scrutinizing of you would unquestionably be a victim of you. It has been well-established that simply following Martin was not a crime in Florida. It has not been well-established that Zimmerman did indeed continue following Martin after he was told not to by the dispatcher. In fact, that premise is put into question by the rest of the conversation between the two, as Zimmerman spontaneously says he lost sight of the subject and was walking from the back of the building, where no addresses were posted, around to the street at the front of the building so he could give the dispatcher an accurate address, which he did.

The scenario you describe above, assuming that Zimmerman never showed any aggression other than watching Martin, is precisely the scenario that will "get him off Scott free" if it is thought to be what happened.

This whole thing is a mess and whichever way it goes down people are going to be upset about it on both sides.
Just my 2 cents.

It's too bad your 2 cents is so devoid of any knowledge of the few established facts of the case thus far. It would be worth more than 2 cents if it wasn't. And only agenda-driven hacks will continue to be upset if one of two things happens, both of which rely on officials or citizens following the law:

1) Agenda-driven hacks will continue to be upset if all the agencies now investigating the shooting cannot come up with a law that was broken by Zimmerman, and he never faces charges.

2) Agenda-driven hacks will continue to be upset if Zimmerman is charged, but the State doesn't meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that whatever laws he is charged with violating, were indeed violated, and he is found by a jury of his peers to be Not Guilty.

In either one of those scenarios, people who trust and believe in the law will not be upset, even if they tend to believe that Zimmerman wasn't justified in firing the shot. Unfortunately though, because of this unmitigated circus of a racially-charged boondoggle, many of us who do trust and believe in the law and who won't continue the endless din of divisive vitriol beyond the end of the case, will fall victim to the agenda-driven hacks who will riot in the streets because the law didn't go their way. I've seen it before. I lived one block off of Normandie Avenue and Imperial in LA when the Rodney King riots started about 80 blocks away in '92. By sunset, fires were burning well South of us, all the way down to 190th in Torrance. We were smack dab in the middle of it, and made it through unscathed, but this firestorm is going nationwide if the law works in Zimmerman's favor. Rioters won't give one good crap about the presumption of innocence, due process, or even if some witness or videotape surfaces that shows unequivocally that Zimmerman was 100% justified, it'll be get-even time baby, and that's all it will take to spark the flames.

This is not about what any one of us thinks about what Zimmerman did. It's about what the law says, who followed and/or continues to follow it, what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (if anything), and which unrelated crimes will be committed in the name of "justice" in the event of no charges being filed or an acquittal. The only question in there that I think I can answer fairly easily, is the last one. If there's no charges or an acquittal, the LA riots of '92 will look like a drop in the ocean compared to the nationwide sh!tstorm we're in for, and I'm here to tell ya, I'm damned pissed off about all the injustice I see coming because of agenda-driven hacks not being happy with one specific, wholly blown out of any semblance of proportion, outcome of the justice system. And that's my 2 cents.

Blues

 

[Firefighterchen]

..snip...

Blues

Good post blues. You know though, those hacks that have a great potential of violence, and are so blind to what justice is and don't care, and will insight anger and violence if GZ is found innocent, will most definitely find justice when they start attacking the wrong people. With gun ownership at an all time high...I'd say there is a good chance these potential rioters will find justice pretty quick.

>>

 

[JC123]

Thanks for the response Blues. You make great points.I definitely have not been following this as closely as some of you so I understand that my facts may have been wrong. My apologies for that. I have not seen and heard everything there is out there. I do agree that if he was being attacked and feared for his life his actions would/could be justifiable homicide. Has it been talked about if they were struggling for possession of the gun? If they were, then he did what he had to do.

And there will be a **** storm for sure regardless of how it all plays out. It's unfortunate but some folks will resort to violence to make their feelings heard which never makes any sense. I just look forward to hearing the truth in this case and getting past it. It's a tragedy.

 

[BluesStringer]

Has it been talked about if they were struggling for possession of the gun?

Yes, some, but that gets into components which we must speculate on. Doesn't contribute to finding any reliable truth.

That said, there is one fact out there that begs the question about a struggle for the gun. GZ's weapon is/was a Kel-Tec PF9. One round was fired. The magazine still had seven rounds in it when the PD took possession of it. In other words, the mag was still full. Now, that makes sense in one way, as it says that GZ carried, like the vast majority of us do, with a full mag and one in the pipe, but just that fact hanging out there without any further explanation doesn't explain why a round didn't feed from the mag to the chamber when the one round was fired. To my way of thinking, there are only two possible answers; 1) One (or possibly both?) of them had a death-grip around both the slide and frame, preventing proper cycling, or, 2) The mag-release was actuated either from a struggle or an errant grip by GZ, and dropped low enough for the slide to miss the take-up of the next round. None of the reports I've seen or heard of say whether or not the mag was properly seated in the well when it was retrieved. I wonder if Officer Smith, the one who retrieved it and made it safe, bothered to check on that. It would be an important piece of evidence I would think.

The reason I say that those are the only two possible explanations for the full mag is that if it was a failure to feed (FTF), the next round would still not have stayed in the mag if it was seated properly. I also don't think we know whether or not there was a failure to eject (FTE), but again, if such a failure happened, the next round would've still left the mag and stove-piped or jammed some other way. The chances of either a FTF or FTE allowing all seven rounds to remain in the mag are astronomical from my 40+ years of pistol-shooting experience, unless one of the two options mentioned above occurred. Then again, if that did happen, there would most certainly be marks on the next shell and/or bullet as evidence of the physical forces trying to chamber it unsuccessfully. Obviously, there are no reports of such evidence in the public domain as of this writing.

But see, those couple of paragraphs right there are as much speculation as I've allowed myself to engage in. I think my experience allows me to narrow it down to those couple of possibilities, but Hell, I know I could be missing something, and if I am, my experience ain't worth squat.

I just look forward to hearing the truth in this case....

I'm fairly well convinced that we're way past even the potential for knowing when we're hearing the truth. And so too, is the jury pool across the entire nation. If/when Zimmerman is charged, not only will it be on political grounds, and therefore, an illegitimate prosecution, but he cannot get a a fair trial as far as I'm concerned, anywhere in this country now. The race-baiting idiots like Sharpton and Jackson have only themselves to blame if a judge somewhere has the cajones to dismiss the case because of the unfairness they have injected into his trial before it ever hit the docket. Not very confident that such a judge exists anywhere, but although I would have supported, or at least been OK with, GZ being indicted in the normal course of jurisprudence, I have no interest in hearing about a kangaroo court proceeding because enough race-baiters raised enough loud voices to force some government agency's hand.

Blues

 

[Firefighterchen]

Has it been talked about if they were struggling for possession of the gun?

Yes, some, but that gets into components which we must speculate on. Doesn't contribute to finding any reliable truth.

That said, there is one fact out there that begs the question about a struggle for the gun. GZ's weapon is/was a Kel-Tec PF9. One round was fired. The magazine still had seven rounds in it when the PD took possession of it. In other words, the mag was still full. Now, that makes sense in one way, as it says that GZ carried, like the vast majority of us do, with a full mag and one in the pipe, but just that fact hanging out there without any further explanation doesn't explain why a round didn't feed from the mag to the chamber when the one round was fired. To my way of thinking, there are only two possible answers; 1) One (or possibly both?) of them had a death-grip around both the slide and frame, preventing proper cycling, or, 2) The mag-release was actuated either from a struggle or an errant grip by GZ, and dropped low enough for the slide to miss the take-up of the next round. None of the reports I've seen or heard of say whether or not the mag was properly seated in the well when it was retrieved. I wonder if Officer Smith, the one who retrieved it and made it safe, bothered to check on that. It would be an important piece of evidence I would think.

The reason I say that those are the only two possible explanations for the full mag is that if it was a failure to feed (FTF), the next round would still not have stayed in the mag if it was seated properly. I also don't think we know whether or not there was a failure to eject (FTE), but again, if such a failure happened, the next round would've still left the mag and stove-piped or jammed some other way. The chances of either a FTF or FTE allowing all seven rounds to remain in the mag are astronomical from my 40+ years of pistol-shooting experience, unless one of the two options mentioned above occurred. Then again, if that did happen, there would most certainly be marks on the next shell and/or bullet as evidence of the physical forces trying to chamber it unsuccessfully. Obviously, there are no reports of such evidence in the public domain as of this writing.

But see, those couple of paragraphs right there are as much speculation as I've allowed myself to engage in. I think my experience allows me to narrow it down to those couple of possibilities, but Hell, I know I could be missing something, and if I am, my experience ain't worth squat.

I just look forward to hearing the truth in this case....

I'm fairly well convinced that we're way past even the potential for knowing when we're hearing the truth. And so too, is the jury pool across the entire nation. If/when Zimmerman is charged, not only will it be on political grounds, and therefore, an illegitimate prosecution, but he cannot get a a fair trial as far as I'm concerned, anywhere in this country now. The race-baiting idiots like Sharpton and Jackson have only themselves to blame if a judge somewhere has the cajones to dismiss the case because of the unfairness they have injected into his trial before it ever hit the docket. Not very confident that such a judge exists anywhere, but although I would have supported, or at least been OK with, GZ being indicted in the normal course of jurisprudence, I have no interest in hearing about a kangaroo court proceeding because enough race-baiters raised enough loud voices to force some government agency's hand.

Blues

Knowing if an FTE occured and a spent casing was still in the chamber would be a good piece of evidence. There is a 3rd possibility that I believe is also very possible. That is, the back of the slide was against GZ body, not allowing the the slide to move backwards. A lot of people that start out point shooting front the hip/side, don't realize how far away the slide should be sitting to make sure the firearm properly functions (ie: I was taught to shove the butt of the grip/bottom of the mag into my ribs/side to keep the slide from catching on my body/cloths). If the firearm was pressed up against his body, there wouldn't need to be a death grip on the slide to stop the slide from actuating. Again, this is a speculation, but one that I feel is as possible as the 2 you have all ready mentioned.

>>

 

[SGB]

High definition version of that leaked inmate receiving video ................

 

[cmhbob]

High definition version of that leaked inmate receiving video

I'd like to see the full video, so we can get a look at the front of his shirt. It does seem that there's something on the back of his head, but I'm not seeing much blood on the back of his outer garment, especially near the collar area, where I'd expect to see at least some.

 

[longslide10]

How's this for a 2 faced pos pseudo-president. If Obozo had a son why shouldn't he look like this douche bag

Black Teenage Homicidal Maniac Gets Life For Killing British Tourists, The Families Ask Obama Why He Ignores Them | Flopping Aces

 

[S&W645]

First, welcome to the forum.

Second, not exactly the best first impression you could've offered, considering that there's a lot more evidence to the components of the story that you're commenting on than what you're taking into consideration here.

As to the above, yes, Martin's dad now says it was Trayvon yelling for help, but that assertion didn't surface from anyone in Martin's family until well after this whole thing blew up into a national, heavily racialized boondoggle. Martin's father was asked by the police to listen to the tape early in the investigation (I don't recall exactly when, but the time-frame is posted in this thread somewhere), and he said then that it wasn't Trayvon.



An eye-witness standing at his condo door just feet away from the fight confirms it was Zimmerman crying to him for help. It's the local FOX affiliate interview with "John" less than 24 hours after the shooting. Listen to it. It's not a "belief" on "John's" part, it's what he saw and heard.



Right, a forensic expert who wasn't there and who would necessarily have to contradict an eye and ear witness who was there in order to say that. Hopefully, any Prosecutor would make such an expert witness aware of the fact that there's an eye-witness to the audio he's scrutinizing before he gets on the stand and makes a fool of himself.



Scott free? How about "justifiable homicide?" How about "acted within his rights of self defense?" If there's no prosecution, only a premise along those lines would suffice as a legitimate reason, and if that is the determination, he absolutely should "get off Scott free," wouldn't you agree?



Being as that evidence (Zimmerman's voice yelling for help on the tape) is already in the possession of the PD and DA, that's likely a major factor in why there's been no prosecution to this point, and likewise, why any prosecution that comes after all this hoopla should be viewed as suspect to say the least. If there's a prosecution at this point, which I do believe there will be, it will be wholly political. A political prosecution in a criminal court is, in and of itself, a crime. Kind of a bit of irony there, dontcha think?



Yep, that indeed would be your problem if you survived such an aggressive response to being scrutinized as a stranger/visitor by a resident of a neighborhood that experienced a rash of burglaries and other crimes in recent months prior to this event. Because if you acted as you described here and survived, you would be arrested forthright, and the person doing the scrutinizing of you would unquestionably be a victim of you. It has been well-established that simply following Martin was not a crime in Florida. It has not been well-established that Zimmerman did indeed continue following Martin after he was told not to by the dispatcher. In fact, that premise is put into question by the rest of the conversation between the two, as Zimmerman spontaneously says he lost sight of the subject and was walking from the back of the building, where no addresses were posted, around to the street at the front of the building so he could give the dispatcher an accurate address, which he did.

The scenario you describe above, assuming that Zimmerman never showed any aggression other than watching Martin, is precisely the scenario that will "get him off Scott free" if it is thought to be what happened.



It's too bad your 2 cents is so devoid of any knowledge of the few established facts of the case thus far. It would be worth more than 2 cents if it wasn't. And only agenda-driven hacks will continue to be upset if one of two things happens, both of which rely on officials or citizens following the law:

1) Agenda-driven hacks will continue to be upset if all the agencies now investigating the shooting cannot come up with a law that was broken by Zimmerman, and he never faces charges.

2) Agenda-driven hacks will continue to be upset if Zimmerman is charged, but the State doesn't meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt that whatever laws he is charged with violating, were indeed violated, and he is found by a jury of his peers to be Not Guilty.

In either one of those scenarios, people who trust and believe in the law will not be upset, even if they tend to believe that Zimmerman wasn't justified in firing the shot. Unfortunately though, because of this unmitigated circus of a racially-charged boondoggle, many of us who do trust and believe in the law and who won't continue the endless din of divisive vitriol beyond the end of the case, will fall victim to the agenda-driven hacks who will riot in the streets because the law didn't go their way. I've seen it before. I lived one block off of Normandie Avenue and Imperial in LA when the Rodney King riots started about 80 blocks away in '92. By sunset, fires were burning well South of us, all the way down to 190th in Torrance. We were smack dab in the middle of it, and made it through unscathed, but this firestorm is going nationwide if the law works in Zimmerman's favor. Rioters won't give one good crap about the presumption of innocence, due process, or even if some witness or videotape surfaces that shows unequivocally that Zimmerman was 100% justified, it'll be get-even time baby, and that's all it will take to spark the flames.

This is not about what any one of us thinks about what Zimmerman did. It's about what the law says, who followed and/or continues to follow it, what can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (if anything), and which unrelated crimes will be committed in the name of "justice" in the event of no charges being filed or an acquittal. The only question in there that I think I can answer fairly easily, is the last one. If there's no charges or an acquittal, the LA riots of '92 will look like a drop in the ocean compared to the nationwide sh!tstorm we're in for, and I'm here to tell ya, I'm damned pissed off about all the injustice I see coming because of agenda-driven hacks not being happy with one specific, wholly blown out of any semblance of proportion, outcome of the justice system. And that's my 2 cents.

Blues

First off, if there is any rioting if he is not charged, the J. Jackson, A. Sharpton, and the NBP leaders should be charged with inciting to riot. If he is charged, then if riots broke out, those leading that should also be charged.

As for a forensic expert not being able to tell if it is GZ or TM on the tape, it isn't going to be hard either way. The expert would testify as to what a computer comparison would show. Not what the expert would hear. The machine would remove the human element in it. The expert could go in TM or GZ's favor depending on what the analysis showed. Just like the prosecutor could discredit the eyewitness if he did not see directly who was yelling as on the tape. The tape has no agenda and the expert would only testify what was found. And I'm sure that a copy has been forwarded to those investigating the case by now.

Now as to presumption of innocence, it works both ways. You make the presumption that GZ is innocent while TM was guilty of something. Eyewitness has big gaps in what he saw/heard. I don't recall reading anywhere where he saw the whole thing. GZ presumed TM guilty of something as shown by the tape. A prosecutor can use that tape to show that GZ was wrong in the very beginning. Prosecutor could decide not enough evidence is there either way. Failure to prosecute is not the same as saying justified. It might not get to a criminal case but it might still end up as a civil case. Different rules apply there.

 

[BluesStringer]

First off, if there is any rioting if he is not charged, the J. Jackson, A. Sharpton, and the NBP leaders should be charged with inciting to riot. If he is charged, then if riots broke out, those leading that should also be charged.

I agree about the "should be charged" part, but don't forget, I lived through the LA riots, and even the "LA 4" basically got away with the attack on Reginald Denny, every second of it on live, nationally-broadcast video. I didn't read the whole page, but it looks like the only one to get any time for that attack was the one who threw the brick, Damian Williams. Drag a truck driver out of his cab, beat him mercilessly within an inch of his life, then top it off with a brick to the head, leaving your victim with permanent speech and walking disabilities, and the worst that happens to you is a 10-year sentence, you serve four and go home to your "normal" life. But only one of you. If you apologize on the Phil Donahue Show to that truck driver, you're reputation is rehabilitated and you start your own limo service in LA and get away with attempted murder because you "just got caught up in the moment." Hopefully you're not so naive as to think Jackson or Sharpton or any of their ilk will ever be prosecuted for the hate they foment.

Anyway, as to the last sentence of the above quote, I'm not sure what you mean. I didn't suggest that there would be rioting if he was charged, only if he wasn't, or if he was, only if he was acquitted.

As for a forensic expert not being able to tell if it is GZ or TM on the tape, it isn't going to be hard either way. The expert would testify as to what a computer comparison would show. Not what the expert would hear. The machine would remove the human element in it. The expert could go in TM or GZ's favor depending on what the analysis showed. Just like the prosecutor could discredit the eyewitness if he did not see directly who was yelling as on the tape. The tape has no agenda and the expert would only testify what was found. And I'm sure that a copy has been forwarded to those investigating the case by now.

All that's well and good, but my point still stands; the expert and/or his machine would have to contradict an eye and ear witness who said that GZ was yelling for help to him. Nothing you say above negates that point.

Now as to presumption of innocence, it works both ways. You make the presumption that GZ is innocent while TM was guilty of something.

WTF??? Show me where I say anything of the sort! I say only that it's possible that the powers that be may determine that they don't have a law to charge him with violating. Are you disputing that possibility while you make up things in your mind that I "presume?" It's not me presuming anything. "Presumption of innocence" is an axiom of the law that *guarantees* that he maintains the status of "innocent" until such time as the State meets its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Try referencing it before presuming you know squat about what I think, because obviously, you haven't and you don't.

Eyewitness has big gaps in what he saw/heard. I don't recall reading anywhere where he saw the whole thing.

Good grief. The witness doesn't have to have seen the whole thing to say truthfully that Zimmerman looked right at him and yelled to him for help. At this point, that is the only direct evidence in the public domain of who was yelling for help. Are you umm....presuming that "John" is mistaken about what he saw and heard?

GZ presumed TM guilty of something as shown by the tape. A prosecutor can use that tape to show that GZ was wrong in the very beginning.

I have no reason to defend, or even comment on, what GZ said about "...they always get away." I agree that implies that GZ was under wrong impressions about TM, and was jumping to conclusions that were hardly established at that point in the event, or ever for that matter. What I don't agree with though, is that it has any bearing on his right to a presumption of innocence all the way up to the point that the Court Clerk or the Jury Foreman says, "We find the Defendant GUILTY Your Honor." If following Trayvon was not a crime, then what he was thinking while doing it is not a legal issue at all. If he had stopped following and was on his way back to his vehicle when Trayvon approached him and initiated the fight, then what he was thinking while following him and breaking off that surveillance is even less of a legal issue.

It sounds to me like you're all hyped up about the prospect of a prosecutor using that tape to foment more racial division by highlighting that one utterance about "...they always get away." I'd be totally with you if you were all hyped up about applying the law, no matter who's side it serves to benefit. If anyone is presuming too much around here, it's you.

Prosecutor could decide not enough evidence is there either way. Failure to prosecute is not the same as saying justified. It might not get to a criminal case but it might still end up as a civil case. Different rules apply there.

For some reason you seem to be salivating for a pound of flesh out of Zimmerman's hide, even if it's determined that he acted within the law. You're making an argument with me here about civil court, when I've never said a single word about it. Of course he'll find himself in civil court at some point. And of course the plaintiffs and their lawyers will use whatever benefit they can glean from the tape, and almost assuredly, Zimmerman will owe millions of dollars to Trayvon's family for the rest of his life, which I'm OK with if that's how it goes down. What does any of that have to do with anything I've said about the legal axiom of presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of criminal law though? Not a damned thing. I'm starting to think you just like to argue, and that just like GZ presumed too much about TM, you presume whatever you like about those of us standing up for, not George Zimmerman, but the law. My position is easy to defend. Yours, not so much, because you're just making up or presuming what I think, and then arguing from there. Buy a clue.

Blues

 

[MilShooter]

Curious...is this photo as [in]appropriate as their photo?

Or just a good representation of what the liberal media is?

I'm sorry, I must be overly thick tonight. I don't understand your point. Just because you (or someone else) used Photoshop to modify the satirical cartoon (which, by the way, was NOT a photo as you state) doesn't say much to me. My purpose in posting the link was to point-out that, in general, the media is biased against Zimmerman. That's it. No other reason.

Did you understand the cartoon I posted? Do I need to explain it to you? The modified cartoon makes no sense at all, at least to me.

Here's the explanation: The original cartoon suggested that when white folks (even though Zimmerman is not white) wear a "hoodie", they are from the KKK, a racist organization. Your modified cartoon suggests that the people who support "Hoodies for Trayvon" are also in the KKK, but wear black garments instead of white. Which makes no sense to me.

 

[walt629]

High definition version of that leaked inmate receiving video ................

Wow. YOu CAN see the wound on the back of his head.