Yes, and pigs could fly.
The whole fantasy thing isn't my schtick. I like to stick with the facts, and the facts don't support an arrest.
The facts support zimmerman's account.
The facts paint this kid as a volatile criminal who was on a fast track to trouble.
Those are the facts.
Fantasy is that he was a wonderful, law abiding child, strolling along picking daisies, minding his own business, when some nasty white hispanic targeted and *hunted* him down.
The fact is there is an affidavit from the lead homicide detective who had ALL the facts we don't and who felt Zimmerman's account wasn't consistent with the evidence. All along we had people posting here that the police had all the evidence, and therefore they had made the right decision. Now that we learn the lead detective wanted to charge manslaughter, y'all are doing a 180.
I guess we have to wait for the GJ and FDLE / FBI investigations, eh?
Emma, that was his conclusion the night of the shooting, correct? A couple of things come to mind here. The investigation continued; were there facts which later came to light that caused him to change that opinion? It's not clear. Second, It's entirely possible for two different police officers, equally experienced to look at the same case and the same set of facts and draw different conclusions, which is why the State's Attorney (or DA or solicitor, or whatever the office is called, makes the final decision on charging and seeking an indictment. The question that official has to ask, is a bit different from the ones an investigator asks in reaching a conclusion. The question now becomes" Do I believe I have enough evidence to get a True Bill (indictment)?. If so, do I have enough to reasonably believe I can get a conviction at trial?"
Now, would I love to know why the lead investigator drew the conclusion he did, that night? Of course; he may have picked up on something the rest of us haven't. He may also have drawn a conclusion that was invalidated by subsequent findings, or thrown in doubt by those findings. We don't know, either way. In this case, everything is being reviewed, and if there are facts we don't know, those should come to light when this is finished. Is it unreasonable, in light of that, to withhold our own judgment until ALL the relevant facts are revealed? I don't think so. Let the process finish, and conclude whatever it concludes. There's no point in continuing a battle of conjecture and wild speculations based on partial knowledge of the evidence in the case. I feel confident the FDLE and the FBI can do an adequate review, without our assistance. Let's just let them do their job.
Uptown said something last night to the effect that shouting accusations across the racial divide in this country is not going to do anything constructive toward solving our remaining issues with race. I was too tired to respond at the time, and can't find the post now, but for the record, I could not agree more; the constructive way to resolving those issues is through a calm and civil discussion WITH each other, instead of screaming accusations and counter accusations AT each other. Perhaps we could all try remembering that, and just calm down.