Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

[lotus503]

And IMO that's a grave problem. They shouldn't be charging someone until they've reviewed all their evidence. It's indefensible to put innocent people in jail (assuming he's innocent or they lack sufficient evidence to determine otherwise), cause them to lose their jobs and go to the expense of bail etc.

Since the police/prosecutors had all the evidence, it's only been released slowly to the defense team, I think they knew exactly what they did, or in this case didn't, have when they charged him. I criticize Angela Corey.

Fern

Yeah if all the evidence they have is what was released then I agree someone needs to look at Corey

 

[spidey07]

I have said since the beginning I have not seen evidence of murder 2, this isn't a new realization, its been my position the entire time.

Where I will concede is that I thought given the charges the state must have had evidence we hadn't seen that warranted the charges filed. Only over a period of time could that was shown to not be the case.

So I pretty much haven't changed my view at all outside of my personal feelings of whether he killed him or not. I have flipped a few times on that piece as new info has come out.

My contention is that anyone who was convinced of legal guilt or innocence before it was all released was wrong. Now that we have most of the states case an actual evaluation of the evidence can be done, prior to that all you had were opinions based on what was released.

So you can say oh yeah some of us knew all along there wasn't evidence of guilt and the state charged him in error, but then you would be no different than those convinced of his innocence prior to all the evidence.


There have been a select few on here that have held to and stuck to the wait and see what comes out for legal judgement.

Ill always feel he was morally wrong in his actions, because as a gun owner I know what he did was outside common sense, was stupid and his actions did contribute to Martins death. But I don't force my moral thoughts on his legal guilt or innocence.

Problem is you don't understand self defense laws even though it's been pounded into your head. This is call willful ignorance.

Eye witness places Martin on top and his victim on bottom after a brutal assault and batter.

That right there I'd all that's needed to show self defense and we knew this from day one. Yet you ignore the rule of law.

Even after its been explained to you well over a hundred times. But by all means keep what if. Your what ifs are smashed by law and evidence.

 

[lotus503]

Problem is you don't understand self defense laws even though it's been pounded into your head. This is call willful ignorance.

Eye witness places Martin on top and his victim on bottom after a brutal assault and batter.

That right there I'd all that's needed to show self defense and we knew this from day one. Yet you ignore the rule of law.

Even after its been explained to you well over a hundred times. But by all means keep what if. Your what ifs are smashed by law and evidence.

I don't agree with your interpretation of the law, there is no such thing as automatic self defense like you have claimed so many times, every killing requires examination of all of the evidence.

Well he was on top before the shots were fired (Automatic self defense).
Thats bullshit, all of the facts evidence needs to be considered before final legal judgement is determined.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I don't agree with your interpretation of the law, there is no such thing as automatic self defense like you have claimed so many times, every killing requires examination of all of the evidence.

Well he was on top before the shots were fired (Automatic self defense).
Thats bullshit, all of the facts evidence needs to be considered before final legal judgement is determined.

I was taught in both of my concealed weapons courses should someone gain a position of power over you such as GZ found himself that night the use of force would be justified as it would meet the reasonable fear requirement in the state/s self defense laws or statutes.

 

[lotus503]

I was taught in both of my concealed weapons courses should someone gain a position of power over you such as GZ found himself that night the use of force would be justified as it would meet the reasonable fear requirement in the state/s self defense laws or statutes.

I was taught in my CC class that willful disregard could carry a penalty.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/willful+disregard

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I was taught in my CC class that willful disregard could carry a penalty.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/willful+disregard

Yet there's no evidence that GZ showed willful disregard for human life that night. The evidence available shows that he shot a person that had gained positional power over him and caused him to fear for his safety.

 

[spidey07]

I was taught in my CC class that willful disregard could carry a penalty.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/willful+disregard

That's the problem right there.

You don't understand self defense laws in Florida or the other 26 states.

My guess is you live in a fucked up state and therefore you can't comprehend free states.

Will full disregard is wanton behavior. Why was he not charged with wanton endangerment?

You're willfully ignorant. I've explained this to you personally over a hundred times. Your opinion is worthless from here on out. You are totally ignorant.

 

[lotus503]

Yet there's no evidence that GZ showed willful disregard for human life that night. The evidence available shows that he shot a person that had gained positional power over him and caused him to fear for his safety.

I agree there is insufficient evidence of crime, but only because we have seen most of the evidence.

 

[lotus503]

That's the problem right there.

You don't understand self defense laws in Florida or the other 26 states.

My guess is you live in a fucked up state and therefore you can't comprehend free states.

Will full disregard is wanton behavior. Why was he not charged with wanton endangerment?

You're willfully ignorant. I've explained this to you personally over a hundred times. Your opinion is worthless from here on out. You are totally ignorant.

No the problem is your insistence that Prior to seeing all the evidence Zimmerman gets automatic defense.

Your opinion literally carries no weight at all. Maybe if some other non racist poster was chanting the same things you chant, it would have more weight.

I dismiss you %90 of the time, just the other night you were telling me how your sitting there waiting like some tin foil nut, yet I'm supposed to give any shred of weight to your spew.

 

[spidey07]

No the problem is your insistence that Prior to seeing all the evidence Zimmerman gets automatic defense.

Your opinion literally carries no weight at all. Maybe if some other non racist poster was chanting the same things you chant, it would have more weight.

I dismiss you %90 of the time, just the other night you were telling me how your sitting there waiting like some tin foil nut, yet I'm supposed to give any shred of weight to your spew.

What fucked up state were you taught what you posted?

I'd be happy to explain why it doesn't apply here. I've already done so to you specifically well over a hundred times.

You continue to be ignorant. And you are doing in purpose. That's willfully ignorance.

 

[Screech]

I agree there is insufficient evidence of crime, but only because we have seen most of the evidence.

This might be the funniest freudian slip in this whole thread.

edit: I assume you meant to say we haven't seen most of the evidence. If you meant what you typed, then you basically agree he shouldn't have been charged as there is not evidence of a crime as it currently stands.

 

[lotus503]

What fucked up state were you taught what you posted?

I'd be happy to explain why it doesn't apply here. I've already done so to you specifically well over a hundred times.

You continue to be ignorant. And you are doing in purpose. That's willfully ignorance.

You don't know how to read, I have told you outright I dismiss what you say. As in place no value in what you type, beyond entertainment at your expense.

You still waiting? Still wanting someone to bring it?

Lol

 

[lotus503]

This might be the funniest freudian slip in this whole thread.

edit: I assume you meant to say we haven't seen most of the evidence. If you meant what you typed, then you basically agree he shouldn't have been charged as there is not evidence of a crime as it currently stands.

No slip that's exactly what I meant, I see no evidence of a crime after the months of it trickling in, after the state released most of it, I agree he should have never been charged?

I did want to see it prior to coming to that conclusion though and was unwilling to accept defense without seeing it.

 

[TerryMathews]

Lol thats total rubbish, I never discounted John's statements, I was just interested in what got them to the point they were at when he saw them.

Keep in mind the meme was he was beating him for over a minute, Johns recant help silence that meme a bit. but never took away from the fact Martin was on top when he saw him moments before the shot was fired.

I was mocking soundforbjt, hence the /sound.

 

[Screech]

No slip that's exactly what I meant, I see no evidence of a crime after the months of it trickling in, after the state released most of it, I agree he should have never been charged?

I did want to see it prior to coming to that conclusion though and was unwilling to accept defense without seeing it.

Ah my bad then. That sounds reasonable

 

[TerryMathews]

No the problem is your insistence that Prior to seeing all the evidence Zimmerman gets automatic defense.

Your opinion literally carries no weight at all. Maybe if some other non racist poster was chanting the same things you chant, it would have more weight.

I dismiss you %90 of the time, just the other night you were telling me how your sitting there waiting like some tin foil nut, yet I'm supposed to give any shred of weight to your spew.

Lotus: you and I have discussed this a fair bit, I think respectfully. Do you think im a racist?

Spidey is a nutjob but he is right. Being underneath someone is a classic example of being on the defensive. It's not even a good defensive posture. Someone on their back underneath has clearly lost the fight.

If they have an expert witness that can tie the ballistics together like I think they can, this will get tossed at the immunity hearing.

 

[lotus503]

Lotus: you and I have discussed this a fair bit, I think respectfully. Do you think im a racist?

Spidey is a nutjob but he is right. Being underneath someone is a classic example of being on the defensive. It's not even a good defensive posture. Someone on their back underneath has clearly lost the fight.

If they have an expert witness that can tie the ballistics together like I think they can, this will get tossed at the immunity hearing.

No I don't think your racist, and I agree that being under someone is a defensive position. I don't think that fact alone is auto defense.

In this case the lack of evidence of a crime in addition to evidence supporting defense is why he should walk AFTER everything is investigated. I think several things could have turned this case to murder despite Zimmerman being in a defensive position, however there is no known evidence anything else occurred.

 

[spidey07]

No I don't think your racist, and I agree that being under someone is a defensive position. I don't think that fact alone is auto defense.

In this case the lack of evidence of a crime in addition to evidence supporting defense is why he should walk AFTER everything is investigated. I think several things could have turned this case to murder despite Zimmerman being in a defensive position, however there is no known evidence anything else occurred.

Sounds like you agree he should have never been charged then since there is no evidence he commuted a crime and all evidence actually proves self defense.

 

[lotus503]

Sounds like you agree he should have never been charged then since there is no evidence he commuted a crime and all evidence actually proves self defense.

If I know every bit of evidence the state has then yes I agree with that.

The only thing different in my thinking now then say 3 months ago, is that I feel I know most of the evidence the state has and can draw a conclusion vs. you who's mind was made up absent all the evidence.

 

[airdata]

Let's break this into more simple terms.

17 year old kid murdered.
Murderer is immediately found but claims self defense.
Murderer has bond revoked for deceiving the court.
Eye witness directly contradicts murderer's official statement of events.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Let's break this into more simple terms.

17 year old kid murderedkilled.
Murderer is immediately found Killer voluntarily surrenders but claims self defense.
MurdererKiller has bond revoked for deceiving the court (unrelated to charges). and reinstated
Unreliable/coached Eye witness directly contradicts murderer's official statement of events.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

It is when one implements the bias in the telling :thumbsdown:

 

[Druidx]

Let's break this into more simple terms.

17 year old kid murdered.
Murderer is immediately found but claims self defense.
Murderer has bond revoked for deceiving the court.
Eye witness directly contradicts murderer's official statement of events.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

So called logic from the guy who claimed:
* A doctors prescription for Adderall made GZ a meth head because they are the same thing.
* Taking the 5th is the same as a admission of guilt
* GZ didn't have a right to self defense because he wasn't beaten up bad enough.

Keep trying.

 

[Geosurface]

Who is this eye witness who "directly contradicts" what GZ says?

The only witness I can think of who truly deserves the title of "eye" is John, most other "witnesses" are ear witnesses, some of them extremely tainted by the media narrative, Mary Cutcher being a prime example of how bad this can get. She reminds me of the girls in The Crucible crying out "she's a witch!" in the courtroom.

So, to which witness did you refer? The person who was closet and saw most, backs up what GZ says. That's John.

 

[TerryMathews]

Let's break this into more simple terms.

17 year old kid murdered.
Murderer is immediately found but claims self defense.
Murderer has bond revoked for deceiving the court.
Eye witness directly contradicts murderer's official statement of events.

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Please link to the indictment on Zimmerman for deceiving the court. Im sure it was an oversight that they didn't indict him when they did his wife, right?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Who is this eye witness who "directly contradicts" what GZ says?

The only witness I can think of who truly deserves the title of "eye" is John, most other "witnesses" are ear witnesses, some of them extremely tainted by the media narrative, Mary Cutcher being a prime example of how bad this can get. She reminds me of the girls in The Crucible crying out "she's a witch!" in the courtroom.

So, to which witness did you refer? The person who was closet and saw most, backs up what GZ says. That's John.

In his mind; DeeDee contradicts Zimmerman's account