Martin/Zimmerman thread

Broken nose and gash on the back of his head? He receives first aid, BUT NO BANDAGES?????

 

First of all, you gotta stop the bleeding, secondly, a large gash from being struck on the curb would require sticking and antibiotics, which means hospital visit.

 

A nose has to be reset after it's broken, and should also be at least taped up. This man shows no sign of getting his ass beaten, grainy video or not.

 

 

Read some reports that indicated a detective on the case felt it warranted a manslaughter charge, but the D.A. said it would be too tough to win...interesting how that D.A. made that judgement before the investigation was complete, which should be a no no.

 

Although tough to see from the video they are showing, he does not appear to have been in a struggle. No blood on the shirt...no swollen schnoz, black eye, nothing. How did the kid slam his head into the ground without leaving any sign of grabbing his face to do it? (No hair to grab, so he had to grab something to create enough leverage to pull the head back up off the ground in order to slam it back down.) The story doesn't seem to be adding up, which is why they should have finished the investigation before the D.A. tossed the case away...

1. Are we SURE thats him? I mean it doesnt really look like him.... That guy looks... BUFF for lack of a better word... And that would further undermine any argument that he feared for his life in hand to hand combat with a single unarmed assailant.

 

"I was afraid he would take my gun and use it on me" doesnt fly either... YOU BROUGHT THE GUN to a situation that didnt need one!

 

2. That guy doesnt have any blood on him that I can see.... HEAD WOUNDS GUSH.... A SCRATCH on the head (especially a shaved one like that) SPRAY BLOOD EVERYWHERE. That guy, in that video, was NOT in a life and death struggle a few hours earlier.

Pardon my ignorance on this, but is it not normal police procedure to take photographs of the wounds or signs of physical struggle and injury on both the victim and the perpetrator? Perhaps this varies by city or some other boundary, I do not know.

 

My point being, if there is a mandatory procedure which states this, then there could be some photographs of specific injuries - or lack thereof - to Zimmerman that may come out. Although in retrospect maybe that was not required or even overlooked in the investigation as well.

 

I tried looking into police handbook procedures regarding this but couldn't find anything that clearly told me one way or the other.

Yet ironically in the month since this "crime" has taken place, dozens if not hundreds of blacks have been killed across the country by other blacks in gang related violence. Where's the outrage?

Excuse me when I say the amount of fucks I give is at an absolute zero on what the outcome of this is either way.

So... someone got shot and their is a story behind it? As if there isn't a controversial story to some degree behind any shooting? It's been a slow week in the news, so they'll play the race card to stir the pot.

 

I always say, "where there's smoke, there's fire."

Yet ironically in the month since this "crime" has taken place, dozens if not hundreds of blacks have been killed across the country by other blacks in gang related violence. Where's the outrage?

Excuse me when I say the amount of fucks I give is at an absolute zero on what the outcome of this is either way.

 

It doesn't sell newspapers.

 

 

 

I just don't understand how Zimmerman can admit to killing Martin to the police, and still not be held with/without bond.

 

Pardon my ignorance on this, but is it not normal police procedure to take photographs of the wounds or signs of physical struggle and injury on both the victim and the perpetrator?

yes

It doesn't sell newspapers.

 

 

 

I just don't understand how Zimmerman can admit to killing Martin to the police, and still not be held with/without bond.

Because he admitted to killing him in self defense. Not in premeditated murder or anything similar. He said he was attacked and shot him defending himself. That's why they are taking the time time to do a thorough investigation instead of giving into the will of the lynch mob.

Because he admitted to killing him in self defense. Not in premeditated murder or anything similar. He said he was attacked and shot him defending himself. That's why they are taking the time time to do a thorough investigation instead of giving into the will of the lynch mob.

 

Saying he killed him is the only thing they care about. Self defense is not something they're going to care about until trial.

Yeah,you're right. Ive got to slow down when I'm reading post. I read the post I responded to as "I don't understand how he can admit to shooting him and not be held as in under arrest right now.

Let's not forget that this is sunny Florida, the state that brought you the Casey Anthony acquittal.

Where oranges and screwed up justice flourish

Saying he killed him is the only thing they care about. Self defense is not something they're going to care about until trial.

 

I think it's pretty rare for self-defense shootings like this to go to trial. They're usually determined to be justifiable or not well before then. There are statutes in some states which protect the shooter under certain circumstances and those are the circumstances Zimmerman is claiming to have been presented with. Unless someone can prove he was operating outside of those circumstances, he will never be charged.

Yet ironically in the month since this "crime" has taken place, dozens if not hundreds of blacks have been killed across the country by other blacks in gang related violence. Where's the outrage?

Excuse me when I say the amount of fucks I give is at an absolute zero on what the outcome of this is either way.

 

All of those people who were killed had justice brought to them, the Martin family and others believe justice has not bee served and are seeking it. I understand people getting tired of it and that's why I think Zimmerman should be charged, and all the evidence should be presented to a jury of his peers and they can either find him guilty or not. Which is all these people are asking for as well.

 

Don't want to derail the thread, but where the hell is Al Sharpton on this one?

 

 

Teens set kid on fire for being 'white boy'

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-04...fire-tv-station

Don't want to derail the thread, but where the hell is Al Sharpton on this one?

 

 

Teens set kid on fire for being 'white boy'

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-04...fire-tv-station

 

 

EXACTLY

Wiggs, Milligan is correct. I would say atleast 60% of justifiable homicides (including normal self defense) are never presented to Grand Jury. Police and prosecutor must have enough evidence for the crime for the G.J. to indict. If they do not have enough generally the D.A. will make a preliminary decision to not pursue an indictment in lieu of waiting for more evidence.

 

Best

Don't want to derail the thread, but where the hell is Al Sharpton on this one?

 

 

Teens set kid on fire for being 'white boy'

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-04...fire-tv-station

 

I'm surprised that made the news honestly.

Is it seriously not a crime to go on national TV and offer a bounty on the capture of another American? How is that idiot not in jail by now?

I was just thinking how small the black population is in Utah and how glad I am im not in LA.

just checked. 0.05%

Holy crap.

Spike Lee, what a useless fcuk.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/s..._n_1385071.html

Wiggs, Milligan is correct. I would say atleast 60% of justifiable homicides (including normal self defense) are never presented to Grand Jury. Police and prosecutor must have enough evidence for the crime for the G.J. to indict. If they do not have enough generally the D.A. will make a preliminary decision to not pursue an indictment in lieu of waiting for more evidence.

 

Best

 

Your statistics are completely wrong.

 

First of all, "Justifiable homicide" is a legal conclusion. Its what comes at the END of a trial.

 

Second of all, ALMOST EVERYBODY- Every gang banger, every angry spouse, every bar fight that gets out of hand, every road rage, every non robbery homicide, every person who is caught red handed killing someone, will at one point or another claim self-defense. MAYBE in 1 out of 10 cases the police and D.A. believe them (I would venture a guess its closer to 1 in 1000). Why? Because in their line of business they know people who talk to them are USUALLY LYING. The people talking to them have a GREAT MOTIVATION TO LIE BECAUSE THE STAKES ARE SO HIGH. And the police work under the presumption that EVERYTHING THEY ARE BEING TOLD BY THE SUSPECT, IS A LIE. MOST do not get the "BEND OVER BACKWARDS, SUSPEND ALL RATIONAL DISBELIEF" Benefit of the doubt George Zimmerman has enjoyed in this case from the local authorities.

 

The ONLY times the police/D.A. will even entertain a "self defense" claim and buy into it, is when the evidence is SO FREAKING UNDENIABLE THAT THAT IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE SCENARIO (Dead stranger with a rap sheet 10 miles long, in the, never had a speeding ticket-homeowners home, with a gun lying next to his body that was reported stolen a few weeks earlier, and a broken window where he came in.) AND EVEN THEN ITS A 50/50 chance that the homeowner is getting charged with SOMETHING after the cops turn his life, and his home, upside down for the next two days.

fcuking moron

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/27/paper-sp...oman-in-danger/

 

 

Spike Lee, what a useless fcuk.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/28/s..._n_1385071.html

Page 4 dude!

Your statistics are completely wrong.

 

First of all, "Justifiable homicide" is a legal conclusion. Its what comes at the END of a trial.

 

Second of all, ALMOST EVERYBODY- Every gang banger, every angry spouse, every bar fight that gets out of hand, every road rage, every non robbery homicide, every person who is caught red handed killing someone, will at one point or another claim self-defense. MAYBE in 1 out of 10 cases the police and D.A. believe them (I would venture a guess its closer to 1 in 1000). Why? Because in their line of business they know people who talk to them are USUALLY LYING. The people talking to them have a GREAT MOTIVATION TO LIE BECAUSE THE STAKES ARE SO HIGH. And the police work under the presumption that EVERYTHING THEY ARE BEING TOLD BY THE SUSPECT, IS A LIE. MOST do not get the "BEND OVER BACKWARDS, SUSPEND ALL RATIONAL DISBELIEF" Benefit of the doubt George Zimmerman has enjoyed in this case from the local authorities.

 

The ONLY times the police/D.A. will even entertain a "self defense" claim and buy into it, is when the evidence is SO FREAKING UNDENIABLE THAT THAT IS THE ONLY POSSIBLE SCENARIO (Dead stranger with a rap sheet 10 miles long, in the, never had a speeding ticket-homeowners home, with a gun lying next to his body that was reported stolen a few weeks earlier, and a broken window where he came in.) AND EVEN THEN ITS A 50/50 chance that the homeowner is getting charged with SOMETHING after the cops turn his life, and his home, upside down for the next two days.

 

Eric, Did I say anything about gang bangers or angry spouses? I was speaking to the specific cases where it is obvious there was an altercation and where the person that was killed was not in a place in which he should have been. Maybe it was me that wasn't being clear enough. 60% of those people, in those circumstances do not go to trial. No one is dumb enough to state EVERYONE who claims self defense is granted the same luxury and I assumed that would be understood.

 

Best