I Don't Think Many Of You Know What "Confronted" Means

[Gadawg73]

WoW!! Even I thought that part was exagerrated, but it's crystal clear to the ear what he said, "These f--ckin' C@@NS!"

Folks, it's clear as day from 2:40.

.
WoW!!! That MFer is TOAST!!!

Yeah, he said it under his breath. What a POS.

Ya think there's any probable cause for this being a racially motivated murder now?

Strong possibility. Probably, maybe, could be, leaning that way, has to be.

None of that means a damn thing in criminal court. And I thank the Constitution for that.

Now we would not ever want a "rush to judgment" would we?

 

[Inthemiddle]

No, presumption of innocence means that The Judge charges the jury AFTER THE TRIAL before jury proceedings that the defendant is PRESUMED INNOCENT and the prosecution must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Shut the **** up! If you're not going to address anything I've said, don't quote me or even bother saying anything. I never said anything about what the judge is supposed to tell the jury, or when. I said that presumption of innocence means that the accused has to be granted a trial before he can be punished. The problem is that you seem to want it to mean that there must first be a trial before someone can be arrested and charged with a crime.

With all due respect to you also, you do not have a clue what you are talking about either.

That's rich coming from someone who is babbling on, using SAT words, and not knowing what the **** they actually mean. Listen, we're not talking about a trial over whether someone broke your window and interrupted you while watching "Kick My Balls." We're talking about real deal, grown up stuff, mkay?

The presumption of innocence is tied with the due process clause. The due process clause is a fundamental tenet of the criminal law and is contained in Florida statutes.

Who has said anything about denying due process? Stop tearing down the straw man, Dorothy, he didn't do anything to you. Nobody said that Zimmerman should be thrown in prison on a whim and that should be the end of it. The issue that people have is that the police are not interested in arresting and charging Zimmerman for his crime. He should be arrested, charged, tried, and convicted. But your entire position seems to be that charging him would be a violation of due process, which is an absurdity because it would be ADMINISTERING DUE PROCESS.

 

[earlycuyler]

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

This is why black countries are such sh!tholes, they have no concept of justice.

Justice was done with a gun. And, now we roaches (sharpton, jackson, etc.) who are trying to damage civilization to punish the just outcome.

The black attacked Zimmerman, not the other way around.

Zimmerman pushed the issue and was getting a well deserved ass whipping. He was looking for trouble. This was not a justified shooting.

 

[Gadawg73]

The girlfriend of the deceased has lawyered up.
Wonder why.

The girlfriend of the deceased has lawyered up.
Wonder why.

my guess...pure guess.....some ambulance chasing attorney told her it would be for her own good.

You guys seem to be painting a certain narrative.

And I don't think I like the tone of it.

What are you people suggesting here? Really.

This girl is being taken advantage of and used for publicity.
ONLY.
Don't you see that also?

 

[manifold]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

When and if they catch up with you after pursuing you, you aren't "confronting" them when you stand your ground.

What we have here is a case of standing your ground, and a criminal then gunning down the lawful citizen who was rightfully standing their ground.

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

I'd say your clairvoyance is impressive, if I didn't know you were simply filling in the gaps with assumptions that fit your confirmation bias.

There are a lot of anonymous internet dipshits in the cloud, but you're the worst kind.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

When and if they catch up with you after pursuing you, you aren't "confronting" them when you stand your ground.

What we have here is a case of standing your ground, and a criminal then gunning down the lawful citizen who was rightfully standing their ground.

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

With no evidence, you have Zimmerman convicted.

Might it be the color of his skin?

 

[MarcATL]

I think the guy is guilty of murder. It also sounded like the kid was whipping the shit out of a wannabe super cop. Zimmerman was told to stop by a 911 operator, he did not. He instigated this and he should be held accountable for his part. Then you have the cowards and scum who go straight to race. They dont make it any better. Wonder how much money they are making on this poor kids death.

Who's making money out of this and how?

Thanks.

All the civil rights activist who collect "donations" in the name of the victim. The ones who desperately need things like this to be about race so they dont have to go out and get a job. Ill give you credit for not going right to race in your thread here, ill even agree this dude committed murder, but there are others here and out there who want it to be about race. A whit guy shooting a black kid.

What is so wrong with saying it's about race and racism...when it's about race and racism?

Did you hear the tape of him calling him an effing coon, and of him saying "they always get away?"

Did you hear that?

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You would convict someone without seeing any of the evidence. I am sure of that.
When the alleged victim is black.
I prefer to see all of the evidence and any witnesses before I reach a conclusion that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Something about The United States Constitution that clearly states Zimmerman is PRESUMED innocent.
I know the presumption of innocence is a difficult standard to comprehend when one's judgment is clearly grounded with prejudices and bias be they black or white.
I saw this in the 60s with whites and now I see it with blacks.

I support Due Process here, and a full account of both their past histories. I bet the Kid comes out allot cleaner than the shooter. Lets see how many people come out as witnesses against Zimmerman from past altercations?

With all due respect to you that is not evidence and will not be included as evidence in the case.

Bullshit!!

If it's proven (if neighbors feel safe about testifying) that Zimmerman has a HABIT of confronting/intimidating people, it's gonna weigh heavily, against him!!

I'd say there's a damned-good-chance that (too many) neighbors have been (merely) tolerating his routine.....'cause they're convinced he's a little off-balance, anyhow. Ya' can't very-well banish someone from your neighborhood, if he hasn't done anything. Preemptive-striking is (more) a Bush-entitlement.

Time will tell.​

 

[earlycuyler]

The girlfriend of the deceased has lawyered up.
Wonder why.

my guess...pure guess.....some ambulance chasing attorney told her it would be for her own good.

You guys seem to be painting a certain narrative.

And I don't think I like the tone of it.

What are you people suggesting here? Really.

This girl is being taken advantage of and used for publicity.
ONLY.
Don't you see that also?

The whole family is.

 

[MarcATL]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

When and if they catch up with you after pursuing you, you aren't "confronting" them when you stand your ground.

What we have here is a case of standing your ground, and a criminal then gunning down the lawful citizen who was rightfully standing their ground.

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

With no evidence, you have Zimmerman convicted.

Might it be the color of his skin?

Post where I've stated that I've convicted him.

I think the opposite is true, you and others, including the corrupt cops have declared him innocent by not even arresting him.

Funny how you managed to twist things around so viciously.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You better have probable cause! There's this thing called the Constitution, here. It's pretty important.

Actually, I think Obama revoked that.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

You would convict someone without seeing any of the evidence. I am sure of that.
When the alleged victim is black.
I prefer to see all of the evidence and any witnesses before I reach a conclusion that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Something about The United States Constitution that clearly states Zimmerman is PRESUMED innocent.
I know the presumption of innocence is a difficult standard to comprehend when one's judgment is clearly grounded with prejudices and bias be they black or white.
I saw this in the 60s with whites and now I see it with blacks.

Right and that's what judges and juries are for. The Sanford Police Department is not judge/jury/executioner yet they are essentially wielding judicial authority by refusing to arrest Zimmerman. If Zimmerman wants to assert an affirmative defense via Florida's Stand Your Ground law, the burden of proof is on him to present his case at a legal hearing before a judge. But there is no judge right now and there is no case because the SPD has refused to arrest/charge him; they've essentially made their own judicial ruling and unilaterally dismissed all potential charges without having proper authority to do so. Sanford Florida isn't Nazi Germany so its police department shouldn't be operating like the Gestapo.

My guess is he has not been arrrested yet becuase a charge has not been determined. Will it be murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, etc.

Furthermore, they are also probably trying to determine if they have a case of a racially motivated crime....did race play a role in his decision to scout the poor kid out.

Once they charge him, they have to prove the charge....so to charge hiim too early may result in a botched prosecution.

....But, ya' GOTTA (also) agree he should have (at least) been taken-in for questioning.

If he had been, I haven't heard-about-it.​

 

[earlycuyler]

Who's making money out of this and how?

Thanks.

All the civil rights activist who collect "donations" in the name of the victim. The ones who desperately need things like this to be about race so they dont have to go out and get a job. Ill give you credit for not going right to race in your thread here, ill even agree this dude committed murder, but there are others here and out there who want it to be about race. A whit guy shooting a black kid.

What is so wrong with saying it's about race and racism...when it's about race and racism?

Did you hear the tape of him calling him an effing coon, and of him saying "they always get away?"

Did you hear that?

Yup. I sure did. And the man committed murder to. But there is an insinuation that this man got away with this because he shot a black kid and not a white one. Its about morons with guns, not race.

 

[Wiseacre]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

When and if they catch up with you after pursuing you, you aren't "confronting" them when you stand your ground.

What we have here is a case of standing your ground, and a criminal then gunning down the lawful citizen who was rightfully standing their ground.

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

With no evidence, you have Zimmerman convicted.

Might it be the color of his skin?

Post where I've stated that I've convicted him.

I think the opposite is true, you and others, including the corrupt cops have declared him innocent by not even arresting him.
Funny how you managed to twist things around so viciously.

That's BS Marc, what a ridiculous thing to say.

 

[Gadawg73]

No, presumption of innocence means that The Judge charges the jury AFTER THE TRIAL before jury proceedings that the defendant is PRESUMED INNOCENT and the prosecution must prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Shut the **** up! If you're not going to address anything I've said, don't quote me or even bother saying anything. I never said anything about what the judge is supposed to tell the jury, or when. I said that presumption of innocence means that the accused has to be granted a trial before he can be punished. The problem is that you seem to want it to mean that there must first be a trial before someone can be arrested and charged with a crime.

With all due respect to you also, you do not have a clue what you are talking about either.

That's rich coming from someone who is babbling on, using SAT words, and not knowing what the **** they actually mean. Listen, we're not talking about a trial over whether someone broke your window and interrupted you while watching "Kick My Balls." We're talking about real deal, grown up stuff, mkay?

The presumption of innocence is tied with the due process clause. The due process clause is a fundamental tenet of the criminal law and is contained in Florida statutes.

Who has said anything about denying due process? Stop tearing down the straw man, Dorothy, he didn't do anything to you. Nobody said that Zimmerman should be thrown in prison on a whim and that should be the end of it. The issue that people have is that the police are not interested in arresting and charging Zimmerman for his crime. He should be arrested, charged, tried, and convicted. But your entire position seems to be that charging him would be a violation of due process, which is an absurdity because it would be ADMINISTERING DUE PROCESS.

How many criminal cases have you investigated and gone to trial?
Where did you get your POST training and studied criminal procedure?
Where did you take criminal justice at the university?
Where did I state anywhere I had a problem charging this guy with anything?

If you would educate yourself on the law the police have no duty to arrest anyone if THE LAW AND STATUTES of their state do not warrant them to do so.

I stated clearly that I do not like Florida law and it stinks but that is THE LAW.

I have worked similar cases here where the law was bad and know the process. I have investigated over 200 murder cases and many were self defense under the law.\

I do not like it anymore than you do these gun toting cowboys out there. PROBABLY, the evidence is that this guy chased this kid down, a fight ensued and we do not know who started it.
WE DO KNOW FLORIDA LAW and Florida law is that it is LEGAL to shoot to kill if the otherguy started the fight.

So tell us Clarence, WHO STARTED THE FIGHT AND WHO HIT WHO FIRST?

 

[Ravi]

Well in order to see all the evidence, in the United States we first arrest and charge someone.

Except in this case, of course, we didn't arrest or charge someone. We did, however, drug test the dead body.

you do not know what the DA is doing.
Dont be so quick to judge.
Drug testing the victim was important. Not to make the kid the issue, but to clear the kid of being the issue....I am sure it was done to put the onus on the attacker.

EXACTLY, as this young man that was killed ALSO should receive fairness.
Even more so as he is dead.
Watch the system work and watch an arrest if this kid was unarmed and not doing anything such as attacking the shooter. There has to be physical attack on the shooter for a self defense defense to work on most juries. "In fear of my life" is the standard in Florida and most states but that does not hold any water here because the shooter was armed and the victim was apparently not.
Amazing that folks here go by media reports to base their judgment on guilt or innocence at this stage.
To date NO ONE knows the evidence. Just because someone is dead is no evidence of murder. This could be self defense or it could 1st degree murder.
Unbelievable.

It's true that we don't know. And that is why so many are upset. The police were willing to drop the matter without an investigation. The death of an unarmed person by an armed person should be investigated. More so if the unarmed person was a minor.

 

[kwc57]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

When and if they catch up with you after pursuing you, you aren't "confronting" them when you stand your ground.

What we have here is a case of standing your ground, and a criminal then gunning down the lawful citizen who was rightfully standing their ground.

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

Are we supposed to know what you are talking about without a link? Who is Zimmerman?

 

[California Girl]

You can't "confront" someone if you're actively trying to get away from them.

When and if they catch up with you after pursuing you, you aren't "confronting" them when you stand your ground.

What we have here is a case of standing your ground, and a criminal then gunning down the lawful citizen who was rightfully standing their ground.

Zimmerman is toast...TOAST I said!

With no evidence, you have Zimmerman convicted.

Might it be the color of his skin?

Post where I've stated that I've convicted him.

I think the opposite is true, you and others, including the corrupt cops have declared him innocent by not even arresting him.

Funny how you managed to twist things around so viciously.

In another thread, you did say something about punching him in the face, did you not?
And have made a few threats against him as an individual, have you not?
You have said 'he's toast', have you not?

Generally speaking, those statements could be seen as convicting him without due process.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Amazing that folks believe "witnesses from past altercations" would be allowed in this case as evidence.

You're saying.....if this had happened in YOUR neighborhood....and, you were convinced the dude had a few screws loose (due to past incidents)....and, you have children....YOU wouldn't want to have some input????

I don't buy that.​

 

[Uncensored2008]

Post where I've stated that I've convicted him.

This entire thread is a lynching.

You know it.

I think the opposite is true, you and others, including the corrupt cops have declared him innocent by not even arresting him.

Funny how you managed to twist things around so viciously.

I haven't declared him anything, fool.

I said let the courts and evidence decide,

You decided based on race.