Zimmerman poll

[Rocko]

Seems to me like a classic case of self -defense. The FBI has been conducting an investigation, so far no arrest. I guessthe FBI is part of this racist conspiracy too.

How long did it take them before they arrested the cops that beat Rodney King?

Don't know. Do you have a point?

 

[Truthseeker420]

Seems to me like a classic case of self -defense. The FBI has been conducting an investigation, so far no arrest. I guessthe FBI is part of this racist conspiracy too.

How long did it take them before they arrested the cops that beat Rodney King?

Don't know. Do you have a point?

you can'y make any conclusion because the FBI have not arrested him after(what?) a week.

 

[Rocko]

How long did it take them before they arrested the cops that beat Rodney King?

Don't know. Do you have a point?

you can'y make any conclusion because the FBI have not arrested him after(what?) a week.

Yeah, but that's not the only thing I'm basing my conclusion on.

The fact is, the FBI and local police have been under considerable presure to make an arrest, and have not been able to do so.

The evidence that we've been privy to thus far supports Zimmerman's claim of self -defense.

 

[Sallow]

Of course he should be tried.
Then get the switch.
Lights out for cold blooded murderers.

That's a little harsh. Personally, I don't think Zimmerman intended to kill anyone, he just got in over his head. He was playing "cop" under a bunch of false assumptions and no training. Hopefully the "Stand your ground" law goes into the trash heap where it belongs.

 

[Sallow]

Don't know. Do you have a point?

you can'y make any conclusion because the FBI have not arrested him after(what?) a week.

Yeah, but that's not the only thing I'm basing my conclusion on.

The fact is, the FBI and local police have been under considerable presure to make an arrest, and have not been able to do so.

The evidence that we've been privy to thus far supports Zimmerman's claim of self -defense.

No..

What it does do is show the sticky legal wicket the police created. The FBI is loathe to supercede the authority of local law enforcement. They probably want to make really sure all the evidence they have is rock solid.

 

[California Girl]

you can'y make any conclusion because the FBI have not arrested him after(what?) a week.

Yeah, but that's not the only thing I'm basing my conclusion on.

The fact is, the FBI and local police have been under considerable presure to make an arrest, and have not been able to do so.

The evidence that we've been privy to thus far supports Zimmerman's claim of self -defense.

No..

What it does do is show the sticky legal wicket the police created. The FBI is loathe to supercede the authority of local law enforcement. They probably want to make really sure all the evidence they have is rock solid.

You're 'probably' not capable of weighing all the facts.... you are assuming he's guilty and the FBI will prove that. What if they don't? What if the evidence really does support Zimmerman?

 

[Sallow]

Yeah, but that's not the only thing I'm basing my conclusion on.

The fact is, the FBI and local police have been under considerable presure to make an arrest, and have not been able to do so.

The evidence that we've been privy to thus far supports Zimmerman's claim of self -defense.

No..

What it does do is show the sticky legal wicket the police created. The FBI is loathe to supercede the authority of local law enforcement. They probably want to make really sure all the evidence they have is rock solid.

You're 'probably' not capable of weighing all the facts.... you are assuming he's guilty and the FBI will prove that. What if they don't? What if the evidence really does support Zimmerman?

Whatever..

The Sandford police botched this..and badly. Really badly. I took the NYPD test some time ago..and that required that you take a class first. Did very well..I got a 94. In the end I couldn't see myself shooting anyone if I needed to and that wouldn't have been fair to the public. In any case..the training for the test gave you an idea of how police should follow procedure. While I recognize this varies from state to state, it's really amazing that they let a guy go when there was a dead kid on the ground. Generally the Judge and Jury decide guilt or innocence..not the police.

 

[California Girl]

No..

What it does do is show the sticky legal wicket the police created. The FBI is loathe to supercede the authority of local law enforcement. They probably want to make really sure all the evidence they have is rock solid.

You're 'probably' not capable of weighing all the facts.... you are assuming he's guilty and the FBI will prove that. What if they don't? What if the evidence really does support Zimmerman?

Whatever..

The Sandford police botched this..and badly. Really badly. I took the NYPD test some time ago..and that required that you take a class first. Did very well..I got a 94. In the end I couldn't see myself shooting anyone if I needed to and that wouldn't have been fair to the public. In any case..the training for the test gave you an idea of how police should follow procedure. While I recognize this varies from state to state, it's really amazing that they let a guy go when there was a dead kid on the ground. Generally the Judge and Jury decide guilt or innocence..not the police.

As fascinating as your life story is... it has absolutely no relevance.

Currently, we have heard a bunch of (understandable) hysteria and emotion.... and very little actually factually accurate information. How anyone who claims to be a rational person can decide guilt or innocence on that is beyond me.

There is no evidence that the police botched the investigation. None. I'm not saying they didn't... I'm saying there is no evidence that they did. Therefore, any opinion on that is based on emotion rather than fact. There is no real evidence against Zimmerman that cannot be explained by his side of the account - at least, as much of that as we have access to.

Trial by media is not a rational way to find anyone guilty.

 

[Sallow]

You're 'probably' not capable of weighing all the facts.... you are assuming he's guilty and the FBI will prove that. What if they don't? What if the evidence really does support Zimmerman?

Whatever..

The Sandford police botched this..and badly. Really badly. I took the NYPD test some time ago..and that required that you take a class first. Did very well..I got a 94. In the end I couldn't see myself shooting anyone if I needed to and that wouldn't have been fair to the public. In any case..the training for the test gave you an idea of how police should follow procedure. While I recognize this varies from state to state, it's really amazing that they let a guy go when there was a dead kid on the ground. Generally the Judge and Jury decide guilt or innocence..not the police.

As fascinating as your life story is... it has absolutely no relevance.

Currently, we have heard a bunch of (understandable) hysteria and emotion.... and very little actually factually accurate information. How anyone who claims to be a rational person can decide guilt or innocence on that is beyond me.

There is no evidence that the police botched the investigation. None. I'm not saying they didn't... I'm saying there is no evidence that they did. Therefore, any opinion on that is based on emotion rather than fact. There is no real evidence against Zimmerman that cannot be explained by his side of the account - at least, as much of that as we have access to.

Trial by media is not a rational way to find anyone guilty.

And again..you are missing the whole point. Part of the idea of Justice is that it's justice for everyone. There's a procedure to be followed. And a process that has to be followed.

-The police arrest and charge the perp.
-The perp makes bail and gets a lawyer.
-A trial is held to determine guilt or innocence.

When you break that..you get into trouble.

 

[California Girl]

Whatever..

The Sandford police botched this..and badly. Really badly. I took the NYPD test some time ago..and that required that you take a class first. Did very well..I got a 94. In the end I couldn't see myself shooting anyone if I needed to and that wouldn't have been fair to the public. In any case..the training for the test gave you an idea of how police should follow procedure. While I recognize this varies from state to state, it's really amazing that they let a guy go when there was a dead kid on the ground. Generally the Judge and Jury decide guilt or innocence..not the police.

As fascinating as your life story is... it has absolutely no relevance.

Currently, we have heard a bunch of (understandable) hysteria and emotion.... and very little actually factually accurate information. How anyone who claims to be a rational person can decide guilt or innocence on that is beyond me.

There is no evidence that the police botched the investigation. None. I'm not saying they didn't... I'm saying there is no evidence that they did. Therefore, any opinion on that is based on emotion rather than fact. There is no real evidence against Zimmerman that cannot be explained by his side of the account - at least, as much of that as we have access to.

Trial by media is not a rational way to find anyone guilty.

And again..you are missing the whole point. Part of the idea of Justice is that it's justice for everyone. There's a procedure to be followed. And a process that has to be followed.

-The police arrest and charge the perp.
-The perp makes bail and gets a lawyer.
-A trial is held to determine guilt or innocence.

When you break that..you get into trouble.

That is not the system. The incident is investigated - that is the first part of the process. Only if there is evidence of wrong doing is anyone arrested. Being arrested does not necessarily mean that one will be charged.

You're ignoring the absolutely key part.... the investigation. If Zimmerman's account matched the witness's and the forensics... then there is no reason to arrest him. None.

No wonder you failed to make the grade.

 

[Sallow]

As fascinating as your life story is... it has absolutely no relevance.

Currently, we have heard a bunch of (understandable) hysteria and emotion.... and very little actually factually accurate information. How anyone who claims to be a rational person can decide guilt or innocence on that is beyond me.

There is no evidence that the police botched the investigation. None. I'm not saying they didn't... I'm saying there is no evidence that they did. Therefore, any opinion on that is based on emotion rather than fact. There is no real evidence against Zimmerman that cannot be explained by his side of the account - at least, as much of that as we have access to.

Trial by media is not a rational way to find anyone guilty.

And again..you are missing the whole point. Part of the idea of Justice is that it's justice for everyone. There's a procedure to be followed. And a process that has to be followed.

-The police arrest and charge the perp.
-The perp makes bail and gets a lawyer.
-A trial is held to determine guilt or innocence.

When you break that..you get into trouble.

That is not the system. The incident is investigated - that is the first part of the process. Only if there is evidence of wrong doing is anyone arrested. Being arrested does not necessarily mean that one will be charged.

You're ignoring the absolutely key part.... the investigation. If Zimmerman's account matched the witness's and the forensics... then there is no reason to arrest him. None.

No wonder you failed to make the grade.

I got a 94..passing at the time was like 75. I didn't "make the grade" because I didn't choose to go into the force.

Again..IT'S NOT THE POLICE WHO DETERMINE GUILT OR INNOCENCE. There was a dead body..Zimmerman admitted killing him. Even if it was self defense..the first thing that needed to be done was to arrest the person that did the killing. It is against the law to kill another human being. These cops failed both Zimmerman and the public. They created a real mess. I guess the fact the Police Chief stepped down..temporarily..is meaningless to you.

 

[California Girl]

And again..you are missing the whole point. Part of the idea of Justice is that it's justice for everyone. There's a procedure to be followed. And a process that has to be followed.

-The police arrest and charge the perp.
-The perp makes bail and gets a lawyer.
-A trial is held to determine guilt or innocence.

When you break that..you get into trouble.

That is not the system. The incident is investigated - that is the first part of the process. Only if there is evidence of wrong doing is anyone arrested. Being arrested does not necessarily mean that one will be charged.

You're ignoring the absolutely key part.... the investigation. If Zimmerman's account matched the witness's and the forensics... then there is no reason to arrest him. None.

No wonder you failed to make the grade.

I got a 94..passing at the time was like 75. I didn't "make the grade" because I didn't choose to go into the force.

Again..IT'S NOT THE POLICE WHO DETERMINE GUILT OR INNOCENCE. There was a dead body..Zimmerman admitted killing him. Even if it was self defense..the first thing that needed to be done was to arrest the person that did the killing. It is against the law to kill another human being. These cops failed both Zimmerman and the public. They created a real mess. I guess the fact the Police Chief stepped down..temporarily..is meaningless to you.

One does not arrest someone if the evidence supports his story. It is not against the law to kill another human being.... much as you might want it to be, it isn't.

Seriously, I'm not interested in your life story.

 

[Sallow]

That is not the system. The incident is investigated - that is the first part of the process. Only if there is evidence of wrong doing is anyone arrested. Being arrested does not necessarily mean that one will be charged.

You're ignoring the absolutely key part.... the investigation. If Zimmerman's account matched the witness's and the forensics... then there is no reason to arrest him. None.

No wonder you failed to make the grade.

I got a 94..passing at the time was like 75. I didn't "make the grade" because I didn't choose to go into the force.

Again..IT'S NOT THE POLICE WHO DETERMINE GUILT OR INNOCENCE. There was a dead body..Zimmerman admitted killing him. Even if it was self defense..the first thing that needed to be done was to arrest the person that did the killing. It is against the law to kill another human being. These cops failed both Zimmerman and the public. They created a real mess. I guess the fact the Police Chief stepped down..temporarily..is meaningless to you.

One does not arrest someone if the evidence supports his story. It is not against the law to kill another human being.... much as you might want it to be, it isn't.

Seriously, I'm not interested in your life story.

 

[Rocko]

No..

What it does do is show the sticky legal wicket the police created. The FBI is loathe to supercede the authority of local law enforcement. They probably want to make really sure all the evidence they have is rock solid.

You're 'probably' not capable of weighing all the facts.... you are assuming he's guilty and the FBI will prove that. What if they don't? What if the evidence really does support Zimmerman?

Whatever..

The Sandford police botched this..and badly. Really badly. I took the NYPD test some time ago..and that required that you take a class first. Did very well..I got a 94. In the end I couldn't see myself shooting anyone if I needed to and that wouldn't have been fair to the public. In any case..the training for the test gave you an idea of how police should follow procedure. While I recognize this varies from state to state, it's really amazing that they let a guy go when there was a dead kid on the ground. Generally the Judge and Jury decide guilt or innocence..not the police.

Any evidence they botched this case? Of course not, but why should that stop you from saying it. Carry on.

 

[California Girl]

I got a 94..passing at the time was like 75. I didn't "make the grade" because I didn't choose to go into the force.

Again..IT'S NOT THE POLICE WHO DETERMINE GUILT OR INNOCENCE. There was a dead body..Zimmerman admitted killing him. Even if it was self defense..the first thing that needed to be done was to arrest the person that did the killing. It is against the law to kill another human being. These cops failed both Zimmerman and the public. They created a real mess. I guess the fact the Police Chief stepped down..temporarily..is meaningless to you.

One does not arrest someone if the evidence supports his story. It is not against the law to kill another human being.... much as you might want it to be, it isn't.

Seriously, I'm not interested in your life story.

So, you can't disagree. Good to know.

 

[Amelia]

And again..you are missing the whole point. Part of the idea of Justice is that it's justice for everyone. There's a procedure to be followed. And a process that has to be followed.

-The police arrest and charge the perp.
-The perp makes bail and gets a lawyer.
-A trial is held to determine guilt or innocence.

When you break that..you get into trouble.

That is not the system. The incident is investigated - that is the first part of the process. Only if there is evidence of wrong doing is anyone arrested. Being arrested does not necessarily mean that one will be charged.

You're ignoring the absolutely key part.... the investigation. If Zimmerman's account matched the witness's and the forensics... then there is no reason to arrest him. None.

No wonder you failed to make the grade.

I got a 94..passing at the time was like 75. I didn't "make the grade" because I didn't choose to go into the force.

Again..IT'S NOT THE POLICE WHO DETERMINE GUILT OR INNOCENCE. There was a dead body..Zimmerman admitted killing him. Even if it was self defense..the first thing that needed to be done was to arrest the person that did the killing. It is against the law to kill another human being. These cops failed both Zimmerman and the public. They created a real mess. I guess the fact the Police Chief stepped down..temporarily..is meaningless to you.

Florida's law turns things upside down:

A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

 

[Old Rocks]

What's so funny?

people are so stupid when it comes to the law.


--

Page 2: Trayvon Martin Shooter Says Teenager Went for His Gun - ABC News

Page 2 of 2
SANFORD, Fla., March 26

The law affords people enormous leeway to use deadly force if they feel their life is seriously endangered. Sonner said Zimmerman felt "one of them was going to die that night," when he pulled the trigger.

Corey, a veteran prosecutor known for her zealous defense of victims rights was hand-picked by Florida Gov. Rick Scott for the job. But she faces other challenges in the case.

While in life Trayvon Martin was barely 17, when it comes to justifiable homicide his size -- about 6-foot-3 and 150 pounds -- makes him an adult in death.

Zimmerman, 28, is 5-foot-9 and weighs well over 200 pounds.

========

Was Trayvon Martin a Drug Dealer?

To learn more about Trayvon’s character, we have to look to his friends and family to offer clues.
Unfortunately, it seems as if most people who knew him are intent on cleaning up his image,
rather than discussing what Trayvon was really like.

Zimmerman was carrying a gun. He initiated the conflict, against the advice of the police. The kid was not doing anything at all wrong. As for Trayvon going for the gun, if Zimmerman pulled it, then it would have been wise to for Trayvon to try to get it away from him.

There is another question here. Suppose Trayvon had gotten the gun and shot Zimmerman dead? Would the police just questioned and released him with no charges? For it was Zimmerman that was the aggressor. His remarks, whatever the second word was, clearly show the frame of mind that Zimmerman was in. He may well have hit or grabbed Trayvon to start the fight. The only one that know for sure how that started is Zimmerman and his self interest will see to it that he does not tell the truth.

 

[Old Rocks]

That is not the system. The incident is investigated - that is the first part of the process. Only if there is evidence of wrong doing is anyone arrested. Being arrested does not necessarily mean that one will be charged.

You're ignoring the absolutely key part.... the investigation. If Zimmerman's account matched the witness's and the forensics... then there is no reason to arrest him. None.

No wonder you failed to make the grade.

I got a 94..passing at the time was like 75. I didn't "make the grade" because I didn't choose to go into the force.

Again..IT'S NOT THE POLICE WHO DETERMINE GUILT OR INNOCENCE. There was a dead body..Zimmerman admitted killing him. Even if it was self defense..the first thing that needed to be done was to arrest the person that did the killing. It is against the law to kill another human being. These cops failed both Zimmerman and the public. They created a real mess. I guess the fact the Police Chief stepped down..temporarily..is meaningless to you.

Florida's law turns things upside down:

A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

Yes, what the Florida law does is create a situation where someone that does not like someone else for whatever reason, can aggress that person, then shoot the person if that person defends themselves. An idea the the 'Conservatives' obviously love.

 

[California Girl]

What's so funny?

people are so stupid when it comes to the law.


--

Page 2: Trayvon Martin Shooter Says Teenager Went for His Gun - ABC News

Page 2 of 2
SANFORD, Fla., March 26

The law affords people enormous leeway to use deadly force if they feel their life is seriously endangered. Sonner said Zimmerman felt "one of them was going to die that night," when he pulled the trigger.

Corey, a veteran prosecutor known for her zealous defense of victims rights was hand-picked by Florida Gov. Rick Scott for the job. But she faces other challenges in the case.

While in life Trayvon Martin was barely 17, when it comes to justifiable homicide his size -- about 6-foot-3 and 150 pounds -- makes him an adult in death.

Zimmerman, 28, is 5-foot-9 and weighs well over 200 pounds.

========

Was Trayvon Martin a Drug Dealer?

To learn more about Trayvon’s character, we have to look to his friends and family to offer clues.
Unfortunately, it seems as if most people who knew him are intent on cleaning up his image,
rather than discussing what Trayvon was really like.

Zimmerman was carrying a gun. He initiated the conflict, against the advice of the police. The kid was not doing anything at all wrong. As for Trayvon going for the gun, if Zimmerman pulled it, then it would have been wise to for Trayvon to try to get it away from him.

There is another question here. Suppose Trayvon had gotten the gun and shot Zimmerman dead? Would the police just questioned and released him with no charges? For it was Zimmerman that was the aggressor. His remarks, whatever the second word was, clearly show the frame of mind that Zimmerman was in. He may well have hit or grabbed Trayvon to start the fight. The only one that know for sure how that started is Zimmerman and his self interest will see to it that he does not tell the truth.

He initiated the conflict? According to whom? Because his own account says not. And the police did not find evidence that countered that account - because if they had, he would have been arrested.

Seems to me, you are basing your 'facts' on facts that have not yet been established as actual facts.

 

[Dante]

I really don't care what Zimmerman has to say a month after the incident--he's had lots of time to reflect and come up with a statement that sounds good--in his defense.

I don't care what he says at all until he's under oath. The guy's story is shady.

who in their right would want a jury trial of their peers knowing morons like these two may sit on a jury.

give me a judge any time, unless like OJ, I am guilty