Warrior102
Gold Member
- May 22, 2011
- 16,554
- 4,124
- 183
NEVER ever show a gun without being ready to pull the trigger.
You got that right.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
NEVER ever show a gun without being ready to pull the trigger.
What evidence? Every witness in the case has only testified to what they saw while the "tussle" (I guess you could call it) was in progress. I haven't seen any witness say they saw who hit who first.
Absent eyewitness accounts of who struck first what evidence is there we know of.
Injuries to the back of Zimmerman.
That may be, but discharging a firearm is not a standard indication of intoxication, thus is not PROBABLE CAUSE to investigate for intoxication.Since when is discharging a firearm or even killing someone a standard indication of intoxication?There was a dead kid on the lawn. Of course there was "probable cause" for it. Zimmerman could have refused..as well.
Probable cause is specific to the investigation to be done. If they want to test for intoxication, then there must be a REASON to do so - probable cause.
(It stuns me how little folks know about our Constitution...you should have learned this in 8th grade civics.)
Maybe it's my New York sensibilities, but discharging a firearm in a public place is frowned upon in these parts..and is illegal. Discharging a firearm and causing the death of a child is even more frowned upon and illegal. It's far outside the scope of normal human discourse.
Again..he could refuse. The police work here was strikingly bad.
Where did they take him for questioning? When did they do drug and alcohol tests on Zimmerman?
The police report lists where he was taken, and the person he was turned over to for questioning.
http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martinpolicreport.pdf
And the drug and alcohol testing?
If Zimmerman was attacked, it does change the dynamics a bit. It wouldn't exonerate him completely, but it would help to better understand what happened. His apparent 'Fucking Coons' racial slur will be a big problem for him in court. The Jury will not treat him kindly. Without the apparent racial slur, he would have likely gotten off on Self-Defense. So he'll probably still do some time.
I doubt it. I don't think he'll be charged in the first place.
Nope, just using facts, logic, and reason instead of emotion and racism like the Martin lynch mob is doing.
Did Martin's girlfriend have facts? Show the "facts" of how Zimmerman got the bump on his head.
He didn't have a simple bump on his head you moron, he had a bloodied contusion. It was in the police report.
Then you did not read the report because the report indicates the exact opposite of what you just said.The police report lists where he was taken, and the person he was turned over to for questioning.
http://cnninsession.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/martinpolicreport.pdf
And that shows some glaringly bad police work. Zimmerman was not questioned and it seems that no evidence was taken from him.
Zimmerman, after being disarmed then treated at the scene by EMTs for head wounds, was cuffed, taken in a cruiser to the cop station, placed in an interrogation room, and interrogated. The report also shows that his gun was entered into evidence and labeled "TS-1".
Read.
Accoring to Zimmerman, he had lost track of Martin and was walking back to his car when Martin attacked him from behind. That would explain the bloody contusion to the back of Zimmerman's head. Still self-defense. Just as you cannot shoot someone in the back, you cannot claim self-defense if you hit someone on the back of the head.
Didn't he have blood on his face as well? That couldn't be from a fall? Like falling on his back, which was the position I'm assuming he was in when the witness saw him? If he fell on his back wouldn't that suggest he was hit from the front?
Struck from behind and knocked to the ground and then Martin hitting him in the face while he was down. Again, it's only speculation as I wasn't there.
Trayvon's girlfriend's testimony outright contradicts Zimmerman's claim.
Of course not; there was no probable cause for it.They took him for questioning to the cop station and he was interrogated in their interrogation room. That is in the cop report - linked to so many times on this board in the last several days that it is probably tens of times.
Lazy fucks who won't help themselves to information, just believe what others tell them.
Secondly, unless Zimmerman was showing signs of being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the cops would be breaking the law - not just any law, Constitutional law - if they tested his breath or his blood. No probable cause for intoxication, no investigation for intoxication.
No drug or alcohol testing.
That may be, but discharging a firearm is not a standard indication of intoxication, thus is not PROBABLE CAUSE to investigate for intoxication.Since when is discharging a firearm or even killing someone a standard indication of intoxication?
Probable cause is specific to the investigation to be done. If they want to test for intoxication, then there must be a REASON to do so - probable cause.
(It stuns me how little folks know about our Constitution...you should have learned this in 8th grade civics.)
Maybe it's my New York sensibilities, but discharging a firearm in a public place is frowned upon in these parts..and is illegal. Discharging a firearm and causing the death of a child is even more frowned upon and illegal. It's far outside the scope of normal human discourse.
Again..he could refuse. The police work here was strikingly bad.
Thus, no BAC or bloodwork - no probable cause for it.
Did Martin's girlfriend have facts? Show the "facts" of how Zimmerman got the bump on his head.
He didn't have a simple bump on his head you moron, he had a bloodied contusion. It was in the police report.
No it wasn't. Officer Smith (first on scene) wrote, "Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and the back of his head." He also wrote that at no point did he "question Zimmerman about the incident that took place".
"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,"
Stop getting beat up?
Hey look! We agree on something! Probably not for the same reasons though.
Trayvon's Martin's "right of self defense" appears to be forgotten. Also, when Zimmerman first saw the victim, HE was in his vehicle; he got out and followed the victim rather than wait for law enforcement as ADVISED. I have seen no reports that the teenager approached the killer.
Thus, Zimmerman thought the teenager was suspicious; it appears HE initiated contact. I have also read the victim put on his "hood" when he saw Zimmerman following him. Trayvon Martin also got on his cell phone to tell a friend Zimmerman was following him.............the victim then suddenly attacked Zimmerman? It doesn't add up.
I can't speak for anyone else but I haven't forgotten Martin's right to self-defense.
Zimmerman did follow the victim when he probably shouldn't have. Not a crime though.
Zimmerman's own story is that he was attacked from behind by Martin. A story that is corroborated by evidence.
It doesn't have to add up to you. The only question is whether the evidence corroborates or disputes Zimmerman's claim of self-defense. So far I've seen nor heard nothing that disputes his story and a couple of pieces of evidence and eyewitness accounts that corroborates it.
What evidence? Every witness in the case has only testified to what they saw while the "tussle" (I guess you could call it) was in progress. I haven't seen any witness say they saw who hit who first. Trayvon's girlfriend's testimony outright contradicts Zimmerman's claim.
Of course not; there was no probable cause for it.No drug or alcohol testing.
It appears there was no request from law enforcement; Zimmerman had been driving, in Florida, that is consent to drug & alcohol testing, if one has physical control of a vehicle. Perhaps since Zimmerman was away from his vehicle, the police believed there was no probable cause. The fact that there was no attempt to get physical evidence from Zimmerman is one of many questions concerning the investigation.
He didn't have a simple bump on his head you moron, he had a bloodied contusion. It was in the police report.
No it wasn't. Officer Smith (first on scene) wrote, "Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and the back of his head." He also wrote that at no point did he "question Zimmerman about the incident that took place".
"I asked the subject in the red jacket, later identified as George Zimmerman (who was original caller for the suspicious person complaint), if he had seen the subject. Zimmerman stated that he had shot the subject and was still armed. Zimmerman complied with all of my verbal commands and was secured in handcuffs. Located on the inside of Zimmerman's waist band, I removed a black Kel Tek 9mm PF9 semi auto handgun and holster. While I was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground. Zimmerman was also bleeding from the nose and back of his head."
"Zimmerman was placed in the rear of my police vehicle and was given first aid by the SFD. While the SFD was attending to Zimmerman, I over heard[sic] him state "I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me." At no point did I question Zimmerman about the incident that had taken place. Once Zimmerman was cleared by the SFD, he was transported to the Sanford Police Department."
"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,"
Stop getting beat up?
I thought the same thing. Maybe he was telling Trayvon to stop. Or maybe Zimmerman was asking the witness guy to help him keep Trayvon from escaping since Zimmy said himself "these guys always get away"... and the witnesses was saying something along the lines of "stop fighting him he's whooping your behind"... who knows?