"The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect and that officers were in route. As I headed back to my vehicle the subject emerged from the darkness and said " you got a problem" I said " no " he said " well you do now ""
That's the meat and potatoes of Zimmerman's statement to police.
Now... DeeDee directly contradicts the meat & potatoes of Zimmerman's statement. She is on record saying that Trayvon had run and then started walking as he believed he was no longer being followed until Zimmerman caught up to him. At which point she says Trayvon asks why he's following him, and the guy responds by asking in an angry tone " what are you doing around here?".
This is really all way should even be talking about regarding this case. Zimmerman has a witness that directly contradicts his story and catches him in a lie. So, he's giving false statements to police with regards to a murder investigation in which he is already without a doubt the killer.
Innocent people don't give false statements and bullshit the police.
"The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect and that officers were in route. As I headed back to my vehicle the subject emerged from the darkness and said " you got a problem" I said " no " he said " well you do now ""
That's the meat and potatoes of Zimmerman's statement to police.
Now... DeeDee directly contradicts the meat & potatoes of Zimmerman's statement. She is on record saying that Trayvon had run and then started walking as he believed he was no longer being followed until Zimmerman caught up to him. At which point she says Trayvon asks why he's following him, and the guy responds by asking in an angry tone " what are you doing around here?".
This is really all way should even be talking about regarding this case. Zimmerman has a witness that directly contradicts his story and catches him in a lie. So, he's giving false statements to police with regards to a murder investigation in which he is already without a doubt the killer.
Innocent people don't give false statements and bullshit the police.
It is when you have no arrest record, and haven't done anything most 17 years haven't done. I smoked pot the first time when I was 12. Got drunk the first time around the same age. Shoplifted a couple of times. Drove alone without a license more than once. Stole money out of my parent's wallet and pocketbook a few times. Vandalized my high school lawn by doing donuts on it more than once. Why? Because I was a bad kid from a fucked up home, and I had a bad attitude.
Guess what? I grew out of it, like most people with similar backgrounds do. Only been arrested once, at a road block, for lapsed driver's license (forgot to get it renewed after 4 years.) That was down to stupidity on my part. No DUI's, no larceny, no drug possession, no assaults, no restraining orders, no weapons charges, no trespassing, nothing.
So this bullshit of Martin defacing a school locker and being caught with TRACES of marijuana making him some kind of killer thug is fucking ridiculous. Zimmerman has a clear and easily attained written history of violent and aggressive behavior.
1
: completely clean <squeakyclean hair>
2
: completely free from moral taint of any kind <a squeakyclean reputation>
"The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect and that officers were in route. As I headed back to my vehicle the subject emerged from the darkness and said " you got a problem" I said " no " he said " well you do now ""
That's the meat and potatoes of Zimmerman's statement to police.
Now... DeeDee directly contradicts the meat & potatoes of Zimmerman's statement. She is on record saying that Trayvon had run and then started walking as he believed he was no longer being followed until Zimmerman caught up to him. At which point she says Trayvon asks why he's following him, and the guy responds by asking in an angry tone " what are you doing around here?".
This is really all way should even be talking about regarding this case. Zimmerman has a witness that directly contradicts his story and catches him in a lie. So, he's giving false statements to police with regards to a murder investigation in which he is already without a doubt the killer.
Innocent people don't give false statements and bullshit the police.
The fact remains, it is intellectually dishonest (your favorite term, I know) to maintain that someone that was caught with even traces of a schedule 1 controlled substance is "squeaky clean".
Let's analyze what that term means, at least to sane people:
MW defines "squeaky clean" as
So, obviously, we are looking at definition 2. Now, how can someone be completely free from moral taint of any kind while in posession of a substance that is completely illegal under Florida law? Florida has no provision currently for medicinal marijuana, so even "traces" of it are still illegal. Of course, the fact that those traces were in seperate zip-loc baggies implies there was more at some point and he simply wasn't caught with the larger amount but that is another debate for another time.
You cannot be squeaky clean and guilty of a crime. For that matter, you can't be squeaky clean if there is even the implication of impropriety a la the bus driver incident and slap boxing.
There is no way to look at Martin objectively and say he was "squeaky clean". Not under any reasonable definition of the word. Now, if you want to debate about the definition of the word "is", well that is a classic liberal tactic. :biggrin:
The "squeaky clean" comment was directed at the statement that was made about Zimmerman's arrest record right after the shooting. We know that's bullshit now. And the hoops you are fucking jumping through with semantics to divert from the fact that Martin's past run ins with authority are nowhere near as serious, or relevant, to the case as Zimmerman's is fucking astounding. You'll literally try anything to divert from the fact that you're practically sucking the dick of a fucking murderer.
You're the one sitting there lying. You said Martin was squeaky clean. Your words. Do you need me to quote them for you?
I think overall my commentary has been fair and balanced. Some of the saner people from your side of the debate, like lotus, have agreed with that.
I could really give a shit what you think about me. As crazy as you are, it's validating in a way.
I have never downplayed Zimmermans law issues. They're not relevant to his guilt. Neither is Martins. There is only one question that matters: would a reasonable person have feared for their life at the moment Zimmermann pulled the trigger? I believe the answer is yes. You obviously think no. That doesn't matter either. There are only 13 people who's opinions matter, and potentially it only comes down to one person.
but the fact that Martin was a young man with an authentic "squeaky clean" record isn't afforded the same consideration.
You know exactly where the phrase "squeaky clean" comes from. My comment was a sarcastic jab at Zimmerman's arrest record
You already knew that. This is the kind of intellectual dishonesty and disingenuousness you're all too comfortable with
And there you are, completely diverting again, arguing semantics, when a blind, retarded idiot can see the context of the "squeaky clean" context. You really have nothing to say, do you, except to attempt to derail an comment that gets the heart of the matter: Zimmerman is a psychotic, narcissistic, sociopathic lunatic who thought he could bully a young black kid, and then killed the kid when the kid fought back. It's that fucking simple.
Go ahead and make some other semantic argument. It's all you have.
Wanna try to equate being caught with traces of marijuana and defacing a school locker with being arrested for assaulting a police officer, two TPO's for domestic abuse, and being reprimanded for bullying a coworker again? That's what you're desperately trying to avoid. What do you say, or are you going to puss out and argue over the context of my "squeaky clean" comment some more?
There is no legal proof that the events of that night transpired according to your theory.
All we know as fact, is that Martin was on top of Zimmermann, that Martin struck Zimmermann, and that Martin was on top of Zimmermann when shot.
If the prosecution can prove that this was murder by disproving self defense I'll throw the first handful of dirt on zimmermans grave but I don't think that evidence exists our we would have seen it by now.
That's the difference between you and me. I'm open to the possibility that Zimmermann is guilty. You're not open to the possibility that he's not.
I don't understand why they have to be equated? They're not even relevant to me, or the case. It only seems to matter to you that in your eyes Zimmermann was a bigger criminal then Martin. Neither history is relevant to the central issue of the case.
To make it perfectly clear to you: none of those things from Zimmermans past prove any of the elements of murder 2 under the laws of Florida
Everyone's past plays a role in court. Everyone. To say that his past problems bear no relevance to his mental state that night, don't establish a clear pattern of aggressive and violent behavior, is outright stupidity, intellectual dishonesty, and disingenuousness.
By the way, you're the one who's been trying to equate Martin's past to Zimmerman's, don't try to lie your way out of it. It's on this same fucking page. Does lying always come this easily to you?
You, sir, are the one who said Martins past was "squeaky clean". Who's lying now?
I'm not a fucking idiot, or a racist. That's how I know he's guilty. How do I know?
1) Proven history of anger management problems, violent behavior, and bullying. Testimony of openly racist family attitudes by family friend.
2) Comment on his 911 call, i.e. "These assholes always get away," "Fucking punks...." demonstrating aggressive intent.
3) Huge holes in his story, such as his version not coinciding with the girlfriend's account, Martin's body many feet away from the location of his version of the fight, constantly changing versions of the entire night in general.
4) Wounds not consistent with his version of the story, claiming a savage beating when looking like he was punched by a girl scout.
5) Total lack of believable remorse or regret over killing a teenage boy, claiming it was God's Will, taking even Sean Hannity aback at the craziness of the statement.
6) Total lack of forethought as to the consequences of getting out of that truck with a loaded weapon to apprehend a teenage boy, who he had no authority to apprehend or confront in the first place.
7) Total lack of remorse in lying to the court about his finances, hiding his finances in the first place, and attempting to keep an extra passport as backup to flee the country if necessary.
Do I believe Zimmerman intended to kill Martin when he exited his vehicle, and pursued him? No. I believe he intended to apprehend, and subdue Martin until the police arrived, so he could feel like a "real" cop. Do I believe he feels any remorse and guilt over Martin's death. No. Like any narcissist and sociopath, he feels remorse and regret at being caught, not for the actual act.
Zimmerman is guilty of manslaughter, at the very least. Martin defended himself, which he was entitled to do under "Stand Your Ground." I believe Zimmerman attempted to pull his gun when Martin fought back, at which point Martin grabbed it, and the two fought over it. Martin didn't know Zimmerman, and Zimmerman obviously wasn't a cop. I would have gone for the gun, too, to keep someone who had intentionally followed me, then confronted me for no reason from shooting me. If Zimmerman had left him alone, none of it would have happened. Zimmerman was the aggressor, the instigator, and he is responsible for Martin's death.
What I want to know is why the pro-Zimmerman crowd is so eager to see this case thrown out. Don't you want to know what happened? What am I thinking? Of course you don't. You know he's guilty as shit, and you will look like fools defending him this entire time.
You sir, are completely and intentionally ignoring the context of the statement, even after it being explained to you as if you were a fucking retard numerous times (when the reference would have been obvious to anyone who has followed the case from the beginning,) complete with a link demonstrating the origin of the term. You have absolutely nothing to fucking defend Zimmerman with except semantics and technicalities. So you derail into arguments over semantics., because you're intellectually dishonest and disingenuous, and have proven yourself to be over dozens of pages.
Do you have some sort of autism, Asperger's or something, that forces you to dwell on literal meanings, and not be capable of abstract thought, or recognize inference, sarcasm, irony, etc? Or are you just a dick who likes to troll?
I'm not a fucking idiot, .... I would have gone for the gun, too, to keep someone who had intentionally followed me, then confronted me for no reason from shooting me.
Pretty sure this is a parody account, like Incorruptible but retarded in a different way.....
That said, if you are serious, for your own benefit I hope you rethink your post.
A) none of your bullet points prove any of the elements of murder, or disprove his claim of self defense.
B) if Zimmermann didn't intend to kill Martin, then he's not guilty of murder. It's nice to know you agree with us that Zimmermann was overcharged.
C) Martin may have had a right to stand his ground. The law, in Florida, does not preclude both actors in a situation having that right, leading to a to the victor goes the spoils situation. Martins SYG rights are not relevant to zimmermans case as it doesn't prove or disprove any of the elements.
D) Zimmermann may have some moral responsibility. Many people did that night. At this point, based on what we know, I don't believe that Zimmermann has any legal culpability.
E) going for a legally possessed gun is a surefire way to ensure your killer gets away with murder. Try reaching for a cops gun. It won't end well.
F) I want it thrown out at the immunity hearing because Florida law has that provision. Why should he be put through a full trial if it's obviously lawful self defense?
G) he may be guilty, there may be a smoking gun we haven't seen yet. Ever single post I've made in this thread will still be true.
My conscience is clear. He deserves a fair trial and his full due process rights. Not one driven by emotional and racial outrage.
Yep, you're right. I've never contributed any rational analysis to this thread.
Classic liberal tactic. Demonize and marginalize people with opinions you don't agree with. I see it often in people who lack the faculties to argue their point rationally.
Which one of the two of us always has to resort to name calling?
And, in case you missed it, that was sarcasm at the top.
Pretty sure this is a parody account, like Incorruptible but retarded in a different way.....
That said, if you are serious, for your own benefit I hope you rethink your post.
There are many people in prison right now on manslaughter charges for getting drunk and kill other drivers in wrecks. I'm sure they never intended to kill anyone when they got into their vehicles.
Semantics and irrelevant. We have sworn testimony from the girlfriend who heard the beginning of the confrontation and it was Zimmerman. Funny how her testimony isn't credible, the recanted testimony of someone who couldn't even see clearly what was happening is.
What you believe is irrelevant. Attorneys and a judge, you know, the people who do this shit for living, believe there are reasonable grounds for 2nd degree murder charges
Zimmerman isn't a cop, and had no authority to pursue, confront, question, or attempt to apprehend anyone, and ignored advice from the 911 dispatcher to not do so. Going to the "legally possessed gun" of a narcissistic lunatic with a hero complex may just keep you alive.
You want it thrown out because you know Zimmerman will be found guilty, and more importantly, you don't think he did anything wrong in the first place. It's just a dead black kid, right? And you don't want your precious concealed carry "Shoot anyone who frightens me" law changed, or repealed.
Which boils down to "I have to be right, and I really don't give a fuck about a dead kid. I'm doing this for fun."
Which is it? You want the case dismissed, or you want him to have a fair trial? You can't have both.