A hypothetical Martin/Zimmerman scenario

[Ariux]

Zimmerman on the 911 tape "He's coming towards me... "

 

[PredFan]

Fast-forward a week:

The special prosecuter assigned to the case, along with FBI investigators, conclude that the evidense supports George Zimmerman's story and that there is insufficient evidence that the incident didn't happen the way Zimmerman said it did. In light of this fact, the authorities cannot bring this case to trial.

Will Al Sharpton and his lynch mob accept that?

Thoughts?

No, why should they? If some asshole was following YOU down the street when you are walking home and you tried to employ some evasive tactics and they came up on YOUR ASS, what would you do?

I guess you don't understand how this works.

In order to answer the question you must assume the scenario in the OP. If you want to argue about wether he is innocent or guilty there are threads in that over there=====>

 

[Papageorgio]

No, why should they? If some asshole was following YOU down the street when you are walking home and you tried to employ some evasive tactics and they came up on YOUR ASS, what would you do?

Well, first off, you don't know how it went down.

Secondly, even if your suspicions are true, all that means is that YOU think the wise course was to engage in combat with the armed neighborhood-watch guy.

It might make a little bit more sense to continue to walk away or evade the guy rather than to become an aggressor. At he very least, we now know how that worked out. Not well. Very sad. Tragic.

So, that COULD be a clue that YOUR way isn't the right way.

Was the kid walking and did the asshole follow him?

Did the kid notice that some asshole in a truck was following and state such to his friend on the phone?

Did the kid try to evade the asshole who was following him?

Did the asshole call the police and state that he was following the kid?

Did the dispatcher tell the asshole that he doesn't need to engage the kid?

Did the asshole NOT HEED THAT ADVICE?

Did the ASSHOLE get out of his truck and confront the kid who was simply walking down the street?

Maybe the kid felt he was cornered and did the best thing he thought he could do to defend himself. I don't care if Zimmerman was Black, Asian, White, Mixed race, etc., he could have kept observing the kid from afar, instead he chose to confront him. Because that asshole chose to do that, there is an unarmed kid who is DEAD.

ETA: I don't even think that a police officer would have the PC to stop this kid even for a "Terry Stop", so what gives this civilian a "right" to do so?

What about the part where Martin was allegedly on top of Zimmerman and beating on him? I'm hearing many versions, I'm not sure what really happened but it seems like you have rushed to judgement. I do weigh heavily the fact the 9/11 operator told Zimmerman to not follow but again, we don't know the real sequence of events. I have some opinions and I feel for the loss of life that seems to be very senseless, very sad that a young man has died.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Our justice system is based upon the fact that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
I hope you never sit on a jury.

So let the system presume innocence inasmuch as it places the burden of proof on the prosecution. That doesn't mean that we here, in discussion, have any kind of requirement to not say Zimmerman is guilty.

 

[Inthemiddle]

There are plenty of threads on that issue. What about the hypothetical situation in the OP?

The hypothetical situation you've proposed involves a completely incorrect application of the law, as I explained. You may as well be asking, "hypothetically, what if the first amendment didn't protect you saying 'Obama sucks,' what then?"

 

[Zoom-boing]

Why bother? It's close enough to what we know she DID say:

Notice how the CON$ervoFascist expression "kill whitey" was first attributed to Sharpton, then Farrakhan, and now "some black activists" as yet unnamed, thus rationalizing that the original fake quote is now not a fake quote.
CON$ can rationalize anything!!!

Why do YOU want to "Kill *******?"

I never quoted Sharpton with those words, idiot. TM and boedecca put that lie out there.

If I were directly quoting Sharpton I'd say I was quoting him and post the link. That's how I roll.

Cry "kill whitey" is an expression (hence the cry part and the "kill whitey" part in quotes) . . . as in "bring whitey to justice", which is what Al and his ilk want/imply when they open their mouths before knowing all the facts. <---- True story.

Are you saying that Sharpton and his ilk never open their mouths calling for "whitey justice" prior to having all the facts? How 'bout Barry?

How does a CON$ervoFascist handle being called on making up a phony quote? They deny it and then make up another phony quote, of course!

Typical leftist argument style. Lie about something that wasn't said then respond with more lies when that person calls you on it.

Poor e.d. -- dysfunctional in so many ways.

 

[PredFan]

There are plenty of threads on that issue. What about the hypothetical situation in the OP?

The hypothetical situation you've proposed involves a completely incorrect application of the law, as I explained. You may as well be asking, "hypothetically, what if the first amendment didn't protect you saying 'Obama sucks,' what then?"

You haven't explained anything.

The hypothetical scenarion in my OP is not only possible, it has a good chance of being right. the question that you continue to skirt is; "Will Al Sharpton and his lynch mob accept that? If you don't want to play, you can always join the 99 other threads arguing his guilt or innocence, or what the outcome will be.