Based on your comments, there's no evidence you think it's a shame. I said nothing in my post that is relevant to your response.
Since you taint everything you post with your bias though, I think I'll point out to you there is no evidence there was a fight. There's no evidence there was any escalation either.
I'm sick and tired of all the racist acusations against a Hispanic man who was just trying to do the right thing. Until someone can show who started the fight and why there is nothing more to discuss.
With the evidence we have I think Z will be cleared. All these people yelling racism are just a bunch of tools. Remember the little boy who cried wolf.
Based on your comments, there's no evidence you think it's a shame. I said nothing in my post that is relevant to your response.
Since you taint everything you post with your bias though, I think I'll point out to you there is no evidence there was a fight. There's no evidence there was any escalation either.
So, still not a single shred of evidence that a crime was committed here other than felony assault by Martin? Just want to make sure everybody is clear on the facts.
Many think the phone call with the girl hurts Z, I think it actually helps him.
From the call we know that Z wasn't brandishing his firearm nor was he trying to intimidate T.
We know T wasn't running at or just prior to the time they exchanged words so that blows a hole in this Z was chasing him theory. We actually don't know if it was T that approached Z. Z could have gotten out of his truck to go see what the townhouse number was so he could provide the police with the exact street he was at when T ran.
Interestingly (not that you care, but it could later be legally significant), even the assault and battery alleged to have been committed by Mr. Martin would not have been a felony under Florida law - it would be simple battery and a first-degree misdemeanor. Felony battery requires that the batterer (here, allegedly, Martin) "Causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement." None of those things is true.
Battery: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.03.html
Felony battery: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes...ng=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.041.html
Moreover, as you know full well, it is as yet unclear whether Mr. Martin was in fact reasonably defending himself under the same "stand your ground" law from a battery by Mr. Zimmerman. That said, I have no doubt you will post at least ten more times in this thread that Mr. Martin was "viciously assaulting" Mr. Zimmerman. I bet we will even get at least one more "ghetto stomp" accusation.
So, still not a single shred of evidence that a crime was committed here other than felony assault by Martin? Just want to make sure everybody is clear on the facts.
You should go back to your "ghetto stomp". It was much more entertaining.
Oh, and if you were only allowed to post facts in this thread, you wouldn't have had any posts in it. Or many other threads for that matter. Perry '12, amiright?
It's a free cpountry, anybody can follow or approach a suspicious person and ask what they're doing.
Since you taint everything you post with your bias though, I think I'll point out to you there is no evidence there was a fight. There's no evidence there was any escalation either.
"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John. John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.
"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."
So you DO have evidence of a crime committed other than by Martin?
What is it? What is the crime and what evidence is there of it?
Well, the first "shred of evidence" is the dead teenager. The second is the bullet that killed him. The third is the admission by the shooter that he shot him. The fourth is the fact that the shooter has offered up a version of events which is not only facially improbable but demonstrably false. It appears that if you were a homicide investigator and a suspect used the words "self-defense," you'd tell the evidence techs "Let's pack it up and go home, boys - there was no crime here!"
I actually agree this probably was not a hate crime and that Zimmerman was, from his perspective, trying to do the right thing.
That being said, Mr. Zimmerman's use of "fucking coons" makes it entirely appropriate, in my opinion, to believe that he harbors racist views. You can't reasonably expect people to just give him the benefit of the doubt on that point when he took off in pursuit of an innocent young black man, saying "fucking coons," and his pursuit ended in the young man's death.
I'm not sure why his defenders keep waving the Hispanic flag as though that has any relevance whatsoever to his feelings about black people.
So what did T do that was suspicious? Last I checked it is neither illegal or discouraged to walk down a street at or after sundown.
So what did T do that was suspicious? Last I checked it is neither illegal or discouraged to walk down a street at or after sundown.
Morally, Zimmerman is a monster.
Legally, we can't really prove anything given the laws.
Although IMO the GF's testimony is enough for an arrest and trial since it CONTRADICT'S ZIMMERMAN'S STORY.
I hate to repost myself, but here goes:
The crime is homicide. It is, as yet, unclear what degree applies, but based on what we presently know I would call voluntary manslaughter the most appropriate charge. The jury will have to decide whether Mr. Zimmerman is entitled to the protections of "stand your ground."
The evidence as we know it today shows clear cut case of self defense. That's why there is no arrest as there was no crime committed, nor evidence nor probably cause there was.
I also await a GJ coming back and saying "yep, no evidence of a crime committed - no trial"
Your cognitive dissonance is getting old.
Your cognitive dissonance is getting old.
You ever woke a judge up? LOL
I agree actually, but having been there (once) I can understand the reluctance to do so.
Hopefully, but those second thoughts wouldn't be as strong or as cogent. Look at Zimmerman, sober (as far as we know) and yet he shot an unarmed 17 year old in what was at worst a fistfight. We don't need anything that impairs judgement when lives are at stake.
Morally, Zimmerman is a monster.
Legally, we can't really prove anything given the laws.
Although IMO the GF's testimony is enough for an arrest and trial since it CONTRADICT'S ZIMMERMAN'S STORY.
Normally (at least here in Minnesota) judges take turns being on call for this purpose. My mom became a judge when I was 13 and throughout high school we'd periodically get undercover narcs showing up in the early hours, especially but not always on weekends, to get warrants signed.