Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

To you....for me, killing anyone for any reason is morally wrong, but it's becoming clear to me that my morality is slightly different than some folks here. I'm ok with that.

This can't be an absolute on your part. Just can't be. You wouldn't kill to prevent somone from bludgeoning your children, for example?

Not equating that to Zimmerman-Martin ... just trying to see if your "killing's never moral" stance is absolute.

There's an exception to every rule if you take the situation far enough. I sometimes forget I am in the FFA and don't watch my words as I should. With that said, I can't phatom putting myself in a position where killing someone is my only recourse.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Did anyone see or hear about Bill O'Reilly's comments about Obama and the Travon Martin case from last night? I just saw it and he made sense to me until he started foaming at the mouth. He touched on a lot of the points we have been discussing/arguing in here.

You can watch or read it here:

http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/07/22/must-watch-talking-points-president-obama-and-race-problem

 

[jon_mx]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

Wrongfully killed? It was a legally justified killing. It is not a serious crime. In fact, t was not a crime at all. You want to imprision him based on your morality (and based on many outrageous assumptions you continually make), not on the laws of Florida or most other states for that matter.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Under the laws of Florida he committed manslaughter. He was acquitted, rightfully, because the prosecution was inept.

Silly me, just repeating what the courts determined after a thorough police investigation, eye-witness accounts, forensic specialists, and a jury determined after examining all the facts. But Tim knows Zimmerman is a lying racist murder, so we will go with that.

Not guilty means that there wasn't enough evidence to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what a court determines. They don't determine that X happened or didn't happen.

I don't understand why people get this confused so often. I wish jon_mx was an outlier, but he's not. People on both sides of this and every other argument after a jury trial confuse a verdict with a conclusion. Why do they do this? Is the principle confusing? It doesn't seem confusing.

Where did I say anything otherwise?

He went to court, and Zimmerman prevailed. The killing was legally justified by the system of justice in Florida. Now Tim's statement that Zimmerman is guilter is based upon what? The person whose statement is just utterly ridiculous and is contrary to fact is Tim's, but yet you insist on giving me #### for being correct.

You didn't just say "the courts found otherwise." You didn't just say you disagreed with Tim's conclusion. You said definitively that "it was a legally justified killing." That's what I took issue with- equating a jury verdict to a definitive conclusion about what happened.

I take issue with Tim's conclusion for completely different reasons. IMO you're both in the wrong here. I just highlighted my issue with what you said because I've seen the same error made many times by many different people- equating a verdict with a conclusion. Maybe you didn't actually mean to equate the two, which is fine. But you did in your post. I haven't seen other people just declaring "manslaughter!" out of the blue, which is why I didn't bother taking issue with Tim's conclusion. It was a timschotchet special, not something I see all the time that annoys me.

But self-defense is an Affirmative Defense, so it has to be proven to some extent to be considered.

 

[TobiasFunke]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

Wrongfully killed? It was a legally justified killing. It is not a serious crime. In fact, t was not a crime at all. You want to imprision him based on your morality (and based on many outrageous assumptions you continually make), not on the laws of Florida or most other states for that matter.

Why do you keep repeating this nonsense? Under the laws of Florida he committed manslaughter. He was acquitted, rightfully, because the prosecution was inept.

Silly me, just repeating what the courts determined after a thorough police investigation, eye-witness accounts, forensic specialists, and a jury determined after examining all the facts. But Tim knows Zimmerman is a lying racist murder, so we will go with that.

Not guilty means that there wasn't enough evidence to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what a court determines. They don't determine that X happened or didn't happen.

I don't understand why people get this confused so often. I wish jon_mx was an outlier, but he's not. People on both sides of this and every other argument after a jury trial confuse a verdict with a conclusion. Why do they do this? Is the principle confusing? It doesn't seem confusing.

My problem is that the DA was forced to press charges by the mob after the police did not feel the need to press charges. Same can be said as to why GZ won't be charged federally. There is nothing that can prove GZ racially profiled TM.

I don't understand your problem with the decision to press charges in the initial case. Any time someone kills an unarmed person there needs to be a more thorough investigation than originally took place, and if the thorough investigation doesn't definitively resolve the question of self-defense, I'm fine with the DA having discretion to prosecute or not as they see fit.

Agree on the federal charges; that was dumb from the get-go, and I have a problem with all the people clamoring for it. and I think Justice will ultimately decide not to move forward. If they do move forward I'll lose a modicum of respect for this administration, unless they know something I don't.

My point is if there is no outcry for "Justice for Travon." DA would have never pressed charges. It's not the standard I would like to see for our judicial system that the mob gets what they want without properly investigation the facts of the case themselves.

I don't know that this is true. I thought the public outcry caused the police to go back and do more work; I didn't think the DA made any decision one way or another until a later date.

In any event I have no problem with a DA accounting for public sentiment in their prosecutorial decision. They represent the people, they should listen to the people. And I don't know why you say a decision was made "without a proper investigation of the facts of the case" here. There was a proper investigation.

 

[Joe McGee]

I don't think he's been especially demonized. He was called a racist, by me and others, which was probably wrong, but everything else remains IMO an accurate description. The guy wrongfully killed a young kid. That's a very serious crime, and George Zimmerman deserves to be serving jail time right now. I'm happy that he chose to help out in an accident, but that does nothing to exonerate him.

Probably?

Yeah probably. I don't know what's in this guys heart. I do know that he's a liar, so nothing would surprise me.

No, you think he's a liar. You don't know it.

I don't recall you once applying this strict correction to the many people in this thread who have slavishly repeated George Zimmerman's narrative as if it were the Gospel truth.

But you're quite correct. I don't know that GZ is a liar. I have strong reason to believe that he is.

It's not worth my time to try to correct posters like Jojo. I feel like there's hope for you.

Good luck with that.

 

[The Commish]

I don't know that this is true. I thought the public outcry caused the police to go back and do more work; I didn't think the DA made any decision one way or another until a later date.

In any event I have no problem with a DA accounting for public sentiment in their prosecutorial decision. They represent the people, they should listen to the people. And I don't know why you say a decision was made "without a proper investigation of the facts of the case" here. There was a proper investigation.

I don't think ATC1 falls into this category, but there's a general feeling that "only a moron would prosecute this case given the evidence presented" which directly ignores the point you make.

 

[timschochet]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

 

[jon_mx]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

The police investigator is not a lawyer and is not qualified to make the call. Just because you agree with his opinion, does not mean it should be given more weight than the DA, who is the authoritive expert on the law for the county. The DA made the proper call that 99% of other DA's would have made regardless of the race of any of the parties involved. It was not a winnable case.

 

[ATC1]

I don't know that this is true. I thought the public outcry caused the police to go back and do more work; I didn't think the DA made any decision one way or another until a later date.

In any event I have no problem with a DA accounting for public sentiment in their prosecutorial decision. They represent the people, they should listen to the people. And I don't know why you say a decision was made "without a proper investigation of the facts of the case" here. There was a proper investigation.

1st. The public doesn't do the investigation. The police do. My point was the "Justice for Travon" people just knew an armed "white" man killed a "black" child and that was the main focus, not what the investigation finds, to why an arrest should be made.

The back story to the initial (non)arrest is real Bizarre. I could post several links, but Wiki sums it up good.

Sanford Police DepartmentBill Lee had been chief of the Sanford Police Department for ten months when the shooting occurred.[47] Prior to Lee becoming chief, the department had been accused of protecting relatives of police officers involved in violent incidents with blacks, and the Martin case increased distrust between the police and Sanford's black community.[48]

On March 22, Chief Lee temporarily stepped down from his position because of public criticism over his handling of the Trayvon Martin shooting.[47] In April, the Sanford City Commission refused to accept Lee's resignation and stated that "Lee's spotless record showed there needed to be further review to determine if he failed in his duties." Lee was fired on June 20, 2012 by Sanford City Manager Norton Bonaparte.[49] Lee responded by saying "I continue to stand by the work performed by the Sanford Police Department in this tragic shooting, which has been plagued by misrepresentations and false statements for interests other than justice."[50]

On June 26, 2012, the lead investigator of the case, Christopher Serino, was transferred out of the Sanford Police Department's investigative unit and reassigned to the patrol division at his own request.[51] Serino said he felt pressured by several of his fellow police officers to press charges on Zimmerman when he believed there was not enough evidence to do so, and that one of the officers pressuring him was a friend of Martin's father.[52]

In September 2012, Orlando TV station WFTV released a memo from the interim police chief Richard Myers blaming the police department spokesman, Sgt. David Morgenstern, for mishandling the Travyon Martin case and removed him from his spokesperson position.[53]

For those that hate people getting anything from Wiki.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/ex-sanford-police-chief-tells-cnn-he-was-fired-for-not-arresting-zimmerman/

Former Sanford, Florida police chief Bill Lee claimed on CNN today that he was fired last year because he didn’t want to arrest George Zimmerman. He says there was a lot of pressure because city officials just wanted him arrested for killing Trayvon Martin as means of placating the public. Lee says he refused, and as a result, he was let go from his position, which was publicly explained as a lack of trust elected officials and the public had in Lee.

CNN’s George Howell got Lee to open up about how he was being pushed on all sides to arrest Zimmerman.

Howell asked why Zimmerman was walking around as a free man for 40 days after the night of Martin’s death. Lee insisted there was no probable cause to warrant an arrest, and expressed disappointment that he wasn’t given a fair shake. He concluded, “I’m happy that at the end of the day I can walk away with my integrity.”

“I had one of the city commissioners come to me on two different occasions and say, ‘All we want is an arrest.’ And I explained to them, ‘Well, you just can’t do that, you have to have probable cause to arrest somebody.’ And it was related to me that they just wanted an arrest, they didn’t care if it got dismissed later. You don’t do that.”

Howell asked why Zimmerman was walking around as a free man for 40 days after the night of Martin’s death. Lee insisted there was no probable cause to warrant an arrest, and expressed disappointment that he wasn’t given a fair shake. He concluded, “I’m happy that at the end of the day I can walk away with my integrity.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57460736-504083/christopher-serino-cop-who-said-george-zimmerman-should-be-charged-is-transferred-from-investigative-unit/

(CBS) SANFORD, Fla. - The Sanford Police Department investigator who informed his superiors that he believed there was enough evidence to charge George Zimmerman with manslaughter for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin is being transferred from the investigative unit to the patrol division.

According to the report, Serino recommended that Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter on March 13, one day after former Sanford police chief Bill Lee held a news conference announcing there was not enough evidence to charge Zimmerman.

The state's attorney declined to press charges and it was not until a month later, after a national outcry about the case, that Zimmerman was arrested and charged with second-degree murder.

 

[ATC1]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

1. The police chief says there was not enough to convict GZ. He is fired and then the investigator gives his recommendation followed by a request to transfer because he felt pressure to convict. I have the opinion that his hand was forced to recommend a conviction. Why? Because on the stand besides Jon's eye witness testimony, Serino was the biggest help to the defense.

They knew they could not prove without reasonable doubt, but an arrest was made anyway to silence the mob.

 

[cstu]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

1. The police chief says there was not enough to convict GZ. He is fired and then the investigator gives his recommendation followed by a request to transfer because he felt pressure to convict. I have the opinion that his hand was forced to recommend a conviction. Why? Because on the stand besides Jon's eye witness testimony, Serino was the biggest help to the defense.

They knew they could not prove without reasonable doubt, but an arrest was made anyway to silence the mob.

It's the DA's job to decide whether the case is worth taking to court and it's been proven that he made the right call.

 

[Rayderr]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

3. The story became publicized while the investigation was still ongoing.

 

[ATC1]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

1. The police chief says there was not enough to convict GZ. He is fired and then the investigator gives his recommendation followed by a request to transfer because he felt pressure to convict. I have the opinion that his hand was forced to recommend a conviction. Why? Because on the stand besides Jon's eye witness testimony, Serino was the biggest help to the defense.

They knew they could not prove without reasonable doubt, but an arrest was made anyway to silence the mob.

It's the DA's job to decide whether the case is worth taking to court and it's been proven that he made the right call.

Correct, What makes you believe she made the right decision?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

Weird. The series of events you described sounds highly politicized to me. The DA originally opted not to press charges. The only reason why that changed is because of a bunch of rabble-rousing. "Political" might not be the right word in the sense that this wasn't a partisan R-vs-D decision, but it's close enough.

 

[Bogeys]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

1. The police chief says there was not enough to convict GZ. He is fired and then the investigator gives his recommendation followed by a request to transfer because he felt pressure to convict. I have the opinion that his hand was forced to recommend a conviction. Why? Because on the stand besides Jon's eye witness testimony, Serino was the biggest help to the defense.

They knew they could not prove without reasonable doubt, but an arrest was made anyway to silence the mob.

It's the DA's job to decide whether the case is worth taking to court and it's been proven that he made the right call.

Correct, What makes you believe she made the right decision?

I believe he is talking about the original DA who decided not to charge Zimmerman, not the state appointed one who did charge after the public outcry.

 

[TobiasFunke]

1st. The public doesn't do the investigation. The police do. My point was the "Justice for Travon" people just knew an armed "white" man killed a "black" child and that was the main focus, not what the investigation finds, to why an arrest should be made.

I'm not sure how you missed this, but they public was right. An armed white man did kill a black child.

The only question was whether the killing was defensible. Personally I'd rather have that decided by a district attorney and, if the DA decides to proceed, a jury that hears all the evidence and applies the appropriate legal standard. It's very rare and unusual for a killer to be able to evade arrest simply by arguing self-defense and then having law enforcement conclude that there isn't even PC for a murder/manslaughter arrest. I'd be surprised if there's a single example in a case with as many factual question marks as this one. My guess is that every time it's happened it's a no-brainer, like a husband with a history of abuse killed by a wife with lots of injuries, or a person with a gun/knife in their hand clearly planning on committing violent crime killed by the potential victim.

 

[tdoss]

I can't believe that creepy @zz cracka saved a family from a burning car. Sometimes fact really is stranger than fiction.

Almost like the world/fate/God/karma/whatever you want to call it...saying, "The right call was made".

 

[Hang 10]

I can't believe that creepy @zz cracka saved a family from a burning car. Sometimes fact really is stranger than fiction.

Almost like the world/fate/God/karma/whatever you want to call it...saying, "The right call was made".

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

Did you read what you wrote?

 

[Joe McGee]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

Did you read what you wrote?

Tim can't read. He only knows how to write... and write... and write...

 

[Rayderr]

1st. The public doesn't do the investigation. The police do. My point was the "Justice for Travon" people just knew an armed "white" man killed a "black" child and that was the main focus, not what the investigation finds, to why an arrest should be made.

I'm not sure how you missed this, but they public was right. An armed white man did kill a black child.

The only question was whether the killing was defensible. Personally I'd rather have that decided by a district attorney and, if the DA decides to proceed, a jury that hears all the evidence and applies the appropriate legal standard. It's very rare and unusual for a killer to be able to evade arrest simply by arguing self-defense and then having law enforcement conclude that there isn't even PC for a murder/manslaughter arrest. I'd be surprised if there's a single example in a case with as many factual question marks as this one. My guess is that every time it's happened it's a no-brainer, like a husband with a history of abuse killed by a wife with lots of injuries, or a person with a gun/knife in their hand clearly planning on committing violent crime killed by the potential victim.

By "white", do you mean "hispanic"?

 

[TobiasFunke]

1st. The public doesn't do the investigation. The police do. My point was the "Justice for Travon" people just knew an armed "white" man killed a "black" child and that was the main focus, not what the investigation finds, to why an arrest should be made.

I'm not sure how you missed this, but they public was right. An armed white man did kill a black child.

The only question was whether the killing was defensible. Personally I'd rather have that decided by a district attorney and, if the DA decides to proceed, a jury that hears all the evidence and applies the appropriate legal standard. It's very rare and unusual for a killer to be able to evade arrest simply by arguing self-defense and then having law enforcement conclude that there isn't even PC for a murder/manslaughter arrest. I'd be surprised if there's a single example in a case with as many factual question marks as this one. My guess is that every time it's happened it's a no-brainer, like a husband with a history of abuse killed by a wife with lots of injuries, or a person with a gun/knife in their hand clearly planning on committing violent crime killed by the potential victim.

By "white", do you mean "hispanic"?

Has nothing to do with the point being made in my post, but sure. If that makes you feel better, I meant "hispanic," or however you want to describe Zimmerman. Point is, he killed a kid. Not many cases of killings of unarmed strangers where the police decide there's not enough PC for an arrest. Would have been VERY unusual if it had stood.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

Did you read what you wrote?

Tim can't read. He only knows how to write... and write... and write...

He's only 17 posts away from 2000 in this thread. He should get there tonight maybe. Definitely by tomorrow.

 

[Slapdash]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

Did you read what you wrote?

Tim can't read. He only knows how to write... and write... and write...

He's only 17 posts away from 2000 in this thread. He should get there tonight maybe. Definitely by tomorrow.

Still a long way to go to catch up to Carolina Hustler

 

[timschochet]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

Did you read what you wrote?

I certainly did.

 

[timschochet]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

Weird. The series of events you described sounds highly politicized to me. The DA originally opted not to press charges. The only reason why that changed is because of a bunch of rabble-rousing. "Political" might not be the right word in the sense that this wasn't a partisan R-vs-D decision, but it's close enough.

If you mean that politics had something to do with having the governor appoint a special prosecutor, then that's correct.

But the implication, which I am arguing against, is something else: that the special prosecutor decided to indict George Zimmerman for political reasons, and not because of the evidence. There are no facts to support that.

 

[Christo]

Are we really to the point where we are arguing that killing someone isn't a bad thing? No wonder our society is struggling. Legally, based on FL law he did nothing wrong. He doesn't go to jail, fine. Morally, he killed someone and that has consequences in our society. Why is this even a debate? Do people really expect us to overlook the reality that a kid is dead?

It is not morally wrong to kill someone in self-defense.

To you....for me, killing anyone for any reason is morally wrong, but it's becoming clear to me that my morality is slightly different than some folks here. I'm ok with that.

You think it's morally wrong to kill to protect your children? Wow

I don't think it's necessary to kill to protect my children. This is a strawman, but we can do this if you want. Even if I was put in a position that I had to kill to protect my children I'd understand that there was probably going to be some societal fallout and I'd expect it.

How do you know whether it would be necessary unless you were faced with it?

I don't...but to me "necessity" isn't part of whether it's moral or not.

Those are separate issues.

 

[ATC1]

1st. The public doesn't do the investigation. The police do. My point was the "Justice for Travon" people just knew an armed "white" man killed a "black" child and that was the main focus, not what the investigation finds, to why an arrest should be made.

I'm not sure how you missed this, but they public was right. An armed white man did kill a black child.

The only question was whether the killing was defensible. Personally I'd rather have that decided by a district attorney and, if the DA decides to proceed, a jury that hears all the evidence and applies the appropriate legal standard. It's very rare and unusual for a killer to be able to evade arrest simply by arguing self-defense and then having law enforcement conclude that there isn't even PC for a murder/manslaughter arrest. I'd be surprised if there's a single example in a case with as many factual question marks as this one. My guess is that every time it's happened it's a no-brainer, like a husband with a history of abuse killed by a wife with lots of injuries, or a person with a gun/knife in their hand clearly planning on committing violent crime killed by the potential victim.

The police chief did not think there was enough to make an arrest because there was no way it could be proven in court. State gets pressure to investigate, so they fire the police chief and appoint a DA to the case that will be their puppet. The state gets pressure from the media, community....etc. so puppet presses charges in hopes that the mob will calm down. They know he won't be convicted, so they hit him with murder 2, prosecution goes for the sympathy win for a lesser charge, it doesn't work and the mob, while has bits a pieces of vandalism and isolated acts of violence, will die down. However, they did everything they could to convict him even though they know they had no shot.

 

[timschochet]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

1. The police chief says there was not enough to convict GZ. He is fired and then the investigator gives his recommendation followed by a request to transfer because he felt pressure to convict. I have the opinion that his hand was forced to recommend a conviction. Why? Because on the stand besides Jon's eye witness testimony, Serino was the biggest help to the defense.

They knew they could not prove without reasonable doubt, but an arrest was made anyway to silence the mob.

Everything I wrote are the facts. You are free to interpret them any way you choose. Everything YOU wrote is supposition- there is no proof whatsoever.

And again, it's ridiculous to assert that "they knew they could not prove (the case)". Heck, even after a terrible performance, 3 jurors were willing to convict on murder 2 initially.

This was a winnable case. The prosecution overcharged, chose the jury ineptly, and used bad strategy all along. Zimmerman SHOULD have been convicted of manslaughter on the evidence. He should be in jail right now.

 

[Christo]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

Even with those facts I do not see how you can say the decision to charge wasn't political. Every day the police investigate crimes and the district attorney decides whether or not to charge based upon that investigation. Once the decision was taken out of that loop it became political.

 

[Da Guru]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

1. The police chief says there was not enough to convict GZ. He is fired and then the investigator gives his recommendation followed by a request to transfer because he felt pressure to convict. I have the opinion that his hand was forced to recommend a conviction. Why? Because on the stand besides Jon's eye witness testimony, Serino was the biggest help to the defense.

They knew they could not prove without reasonable doubt, but an arrest was made anyway to silence the mob.

Everything I wrote are the facts. You are free to interpret them any way you choose. Everything YOU wrote is supposition- there is no proof whatsoever.

And again, it's ridiculous to assert that "they knew they could not prove (the case)". Heck, even after a terrible performance, 3 jurors were willing to convict on murder 2 initially.

This was a winnable case. The prosecution overcharged, chose the jury ineptly, and used bad strategy all along. Zimmerman SHOULD have been convicted of manslaughter on the evidence. He should be in jail right now.

Tim..you said you were over and out on this thread a week ago...

 

[timschochet]

1st. The public doesn't do the investigation. The police do. My point was the "Justice for Travon" people just knew an armed "white" man killed a "black" child and that was the main focus, not what the investigation finds, to why an arrest should be made.

I'm not sure how you missed this, but they public was right. An armed white man did kill a black child.

The only question was whether the killing was defensible. Personally I'd rather have that decided by a district attorney and, if the DA decides to proceed, a jury that hears all the evidence and applies the appropriate legal standard. It's very rare and unusual for a killer to be able to evade arrest simply by arguing self-defense and then having law enforcement conclude that there isn't even PC for a murder/manslaughter arrest. I'd be surprised if there's a single example in a case with as many factual question marks as this one. My guess is that every time it's happened it's a no-brainer, like a husband with a history of abuse killed by a wife with lots of injuries, or a person with a gun/knife in their hand clearly planning on committing violent crime killed by the potential victim.

The police chief did not think there was enough to make an arrest because there was no way it could be proven in court. State gets pressure to investigate, so they fire the police chief and appoint a DA to the case that will be their puppet. The state gets pressure from the media, community....etc. so puppet presses charges in hopes that the mob will calm down. They know he won't be convicted, so they hit him with murder 2, prosecution goes for the sympathy win for a lesser charge, it doesn't work and the mob, while has bits a pieces of vandalism and isolated acts of violence, will die down. However, they did everything they could to convict him even though they know they had no shot.

All of the bolded is complete and sheer fantasy on your part. You have no proof of any of it. You can't even claim it's a logical assumption based on the facts. There aren't any facts that support you.

 

[TobiasFunke]

1st. The public doesn't do the investigation. The police do. My point was the "Justice for Travon" people just knew an armed "white" man killed a "black" child and that was the main focus, not what the investigation finds, to why an arrest should be made.

I'm not sure how you missed this, but they public was right. An armed white man did kill a black child.

The only question was whether the killing was defensible. Personally I'd rather have that decided by a district attorney and, if the DA decides to proceed, a jury that hears all the evidence and applies the appropriate legal standard. It's very rare and unusual for a killer to be able to evade arrest simply by arguing self-defense and then having law enforcement conclude that there isn't even PC for a murder/manslaughter arrest. I'd be surprised if there's a single example in a case with as many factual question marks as this one. My guess is that every time it's happened it's a no-brainer, like a husband with a history of abuse killed by a wife with lots of injuries, or a person with a gun/knife in their hand clearly planning on committing violent crime killed by the potential victim.

The police chief did not think there was enough to make an arrest because there was no way it could be proven in court. State gets pressure to investigate, so they fire the police chief and appoint a DA to the case that will be their puppet. The state gets pressure from the media, community....etc. so puppet presses charges in hopes that the mob will calm down. They know he won't be convicted, so they hit him with murder 2, prosecution goes for the sympathy win for a lesser charge, it doesn't work and the mob, while has bits a pieces of vandalism and isolated acts of violence, will die down. However, they did everything they could to convict him even though they know they had no shot.

If that's why he didn't make the arrest, he's an even worse cop than we'd previously been led to believe. His only decision should have been whether there was sufficient probable cause that a crime had been committed to arrest the suspect. He's a cop, not a cop/DA/judge/jury.

As to the rest of your rant- you have absolutely no basis for any of that. Don't assert what your unsupported narrative as the truth. That's what Tim is doing in this thread, and you see how well that is going.

 

[timschochet]

1st. The public doesn't do the investigation. The police do. My point was the "Justice for Travon" people just knew an armed "white" man killed a "black" child and that was the main focus, not what the investigation finds, to why an arrest should be made.

I'm not sure how you missed this, but they public was right. An armed white man did kill a black child.

The only question was whether the killing was defensible. Personally I'd rather have that decided by a district attorney and, if the DA decides to proceed, a jury that hears all the evidence and applies the appropriate legal standard. It's very rare and unusual for a killer to be able to evade arrest simply by arguing self-defense and then having law enforcement conclude that there isn't even PC for a murder/manslaughter arrest. I'd be surprised if there's a single example in a case with as many factual question marks as this one. My guess is that every time it's happened it's a no-brainer, like a husband with a history of abuse killed by a wife with lots of injuries, or a person with a gun/knife in their hand clearly planning on committing violent crime killed by the potential victim.

The police chief did not think there was enough to make an arrest because there was no way it could be proven in court. State gets pressure to investigate, so they fire the police chief and appoint a DA to the case that will be their puppet. The state gets pressure from the media, community....etc. so puppet presses charges in hopes that the mob will calm down. They know he won't be convicted, so they hit him with murder 2, prosecution goes for the sympathy win for a lesser charge, it doesn't work and the mob, while has bits a pieces of vandalism and isolated acts of violence, will die down. However, they did everything they could to convict him even though they know they had no shot.

If that's why he didn't make the arrest, he's an even worse cop than we'd previously been led to believe. His only decision should have been whether there was sufficient probable cause that a crime had been committed to arrest the suspect. He's a cop, not a cop/DA/judge/jury.

As to the rest of your rant- you have absolutely no basis for any of that. Don't assert what your unsupported narrative as the truth. That's what Tim is doing in this thread, and you see how well that is going.

Beg to differ. I have VERY careful to point out when I am stating my opinion rather than fact, and my signature does the same. I am not guilty of stating opinion as fact. Others have done so in this thread and continue to do so.

 

[Christo]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

1. The police chief says there was not enough to convict GZ. He is fired and then the investigator gives his recommendation followed by a request to transfer because he felt pressure to convict. I have the opinion that his hand was forced to recommend a conviction. Why? Because on the stand besides Jon's eye witness testimony, Serino was the biggest help to the defense.

They knew they could not prove without reasonable doubt, but an arrest was made anyway to silence the mob.

Everything I wrote are the facts. You are free to interpret them any way you choose. Everything YOU wrote is supposition- there is no proof whatsoever.

And again, it's ridiculous to assert that "they knew they could not prove (the case)". Heck, even after a terrible performance, 3 jurors were willing to convict on murder 2 initially.

This was a winnable case. The prosecution overcharged, chose the jury ineptly, and used bad strategy all along. Zimmerman SHOULD have been convicted of manslaughter on the evidence. He should be in jail right now.

Tim..you said you were over and out on this thread a week ago...

Just when he thinks he's out, we pull him back in!

 

[TobiasFunke]

If that's why he didn't make the arrest, he's an even worse cop than we'd previously been led to believe. His only decision should have been whether there was sufficient probable cause that a crime had been committed to arrest the suspect. He's a cop, not a cop/DA/judge/jury.

As to the rest of your rant- you have absolutely no basis for any of that. Don't assert what your unsupported narrative as the truth. That's what Tim is doing in this thread, and you see how well that is going.

Beg to differ. I have VERY careful to point out when I am stating my opinion rather than fact, and my signature does the same. I am not guilty of stating opinion as fact. Others have done so in this thread and continue to do so.

Perhaps. I haven't been reading carefully. I've just seen you state plainly that the guy was guilty of manslaughter, not "I think the guy probably committed manslaughter." if I missed some disclaimer, I apologize.

 

[timschochet]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

Even with those facts I do not see how you can say the decision to charge wasn't political. Every day the police investigate crimes and the district attorney decides whether or not to charge based upon that investigation. Once the decision was taken out of that loop it became political.

In a sense this is true. But again, the implication here is that the special prosecutor did not perform the job with objectivity, but instead chose to indict George Zimmerman because "that's what the mob wanted." If you're going to make such a charge and attack someone's integrity, you had better have some concrete evidence.

 

[timschochet]

If that's why he didn't make the arrest, he's an even worse cop than we'd previously been led to believe. His only decision should have been whether there was sufficient probable cause that a crime had been committed to arrest the suspect. He's a cop, not a cop/DA/judge/jury.

As to the rest of your rant- you have absolutely no basis for any of that. Don't assert what your unsupported narrative as the truth. That's what Tim is doing in this thread, and you see how well that is going.

Beg to differ. I have VERY careful to point out when I am stating my opinion rather than fact, and my signature does the same. I am not guilty of stating opinion as fact. Others have done so in this thread and continue to do so.

Perhaps. I haven't been reading carefully. I've just seen you state plainly that the guy was guilty of manslaughter, not "I think the guy probably committed manslaughter." if I missed some disclaimer, I apologize.

That's OK. I've stated several times that it was just my opinion. I also state it in every post with my signature.

 

[RCon]

If that's why he didn't make the arrest, he's an even worse cop than we'd previously been led to believe. His only decision should have been whether there was sufficient probable cause that a crime had been committed to arrest the suspect. He's a cop, not a cop/DA/judge/jury.

As to the rest of your rant- you have absolutely no basis for any of that. Don't assert what your unsupported narrative as the truth. That's what Tim is doing in this thread, and you see how well that is going.

Beg to differ. I have VERY careful to point out when I am stating my opinion rather than fact, and my signature does the same. I am not guilty of stating opinion as fact. Others have done so in this thread and continue to do so.

Perhaps. I haven't been reading carefully. I've just seen you state plainly that the guy was guilty of manslaughter, not "I think the guy probably committed manslaughter." if I missed some disclaimer, I apologize.

That's OK. I've stated several times that it was just my opinion. I also state it in every post with my signature.

A lot of us have signatures turned off.

 

[Da Guru]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

1. The police chief says there was not enough to convict GZ. He is fired and then the investigator gives his recommendation followed by a request to transfer because he felt pressure to convict. I have the opinion that his hand was forced to recommend a conviction. Why? Because on the stand besides Jon's eye witness testimony, Serino was the biggest help to the defense.

They knew they could not prove without reasonable doubt, but an arrest was made anyway to silence the mob.

Everything I wrote are the facts. You are free to interpret them any way you choose. Everything YOU wrote is supposition- there is no proof whatsoever.

And again, it's ridiculous to assert that "they knew they could not prove (the case)". Heck, even after a terrible performance, 3 jurors were willing to convict on murder 2 initially.

This was a winnable case. The prosecution overcharged, chose the jury ineptly, and used bad strategy all along. Zimmerman SHOULD have been convicted of manslaughter on the evidence. He should be in jail right now.

Tim..you said you were over and out on this thread a week ago...

I changed my mind. Put me on ignore if you want; otherwise deal with it.

No problem..just try to come up with something new...it is like rinse..wash..repeat around here.

 

[cstu]

1st. The public doesn't do the investigation. The police do. My point was the "Justice for Travon" people just knew an armed "white" man killed a "black" child and that was the main focus, not what the investigation finds, to why an arrest should be made.

I'm not sure how you missed this, but they public was right. An armed white man did kill a black child.

The only question was whether the killing was defensible. Personally I'd rather have that decided by a district attorney and, if the DA decides to proceed, a jury that hears all the evidence and applies the appropriate legal standard. It's very rare and unusual for a killer to be able to evade arrest simply by arguing self-defense and then having law enforcement conclude that there isn't even PC for a murder/manslaughter arrest. I'd be surprised if there's a single example in a case with as many factual question marks as this one. My guess is that every time it's happened it's a no-brainer, like a husband with a history of abuse killed by a wife with lots of injuries, or a person with a gun/knife in their hand clearly planning on committing violent crime killed by the potential victim.

The police chief did not think there was enough to make an arrest because there was no way it could be proven in court. State gets pressure to investigate, so they fire the police chief and appoint a DA to the case that will be their puppet. The state gets pressure from the media, community....etc. so puppet presses charges in hopes that the mob will calm down. They know he won't be convicted, so they hit him with murder 2, prosecution goes for the sympathy win for a lesser charge, it doesn't work and the mob, while has bits a pieces of vandalism and isolated acts of violence, will die down. However, they did everything they could to convict him even though they know they had no shot.

If that's why he didn't make the arrest, he's an even worse cop than we'd previously been led to believe. His only decision should have been whether there was sufficient probable cause that a crime had been committed to arrest the suspect. He's a cop, not a cop/DA/judge/jury.

As to the rest of your rant- you have absolutely no basis for any of that. Don't assert what your unsupported narrative as the truth. That's what Tim is doing in this thread, and you see how well that is going.

1st. The public doesn't do the investigation. The police do. My point was the "Justice for Travon" people just knew an armed "white" man killed a "black" child and that was the main focus, not what the investigation finds, to why an arrest should be made.

I'm not sure how you missed this, but they public was right. An armed white man did kill a black child.

The only question was whether the killing was defensible. Personally I'd rather have that decided by a district attorney and, if the DA decides to proceed, a jury that hears all the evidence and applies the appropriate legal standard. It's very rare and unusual for a killer to be able to evade arrest simply by arguing self-defense and then having law enforcement conclude that there isn't even PC for a murder/manslaughter arrest. I'd be surprised if there's a single example in a case with as many factual question marks as this one. My guess is that every time it's happened it's a no-brainer, like a husband with a history of abuse killed by a wife with lots of injuries, or a person with a gun/knife in their hand clearly planning on committing violent crime killed by the potential victim.

The police chief did not think there was enough to make an arrest because there was no way it could be proven in court. State gets pressure to investigate, so they fire the police chief and appoint a DA to the case that will be their puppet. The state gets pressure from the media, community....etc. so puppet presses charges in hopes that the mob will calm down. They know he won't be convicted, so they hit him with murder 2, prosecution goes for the sympathy win for a lesser charge, it doesn't work and the mob, while has bits a pieces of vandalism and isolated acts of violence, will die down. However, they did everything they could to convict him even though they know they had no shot.

If that's why he didn't make the arrest, he's an even worse cop than we'd previously been led to believe. His only decision should have been whether there was sufficient probable cause that a crime had been committed to arrest the suspect. He's a cop, not a cop/DA/judge/jury.

As to the rest of your rant- you have absolutely no basis for any of that. Don't assert what your unsupported narrative as the truth. That's what Tim is doing in this thread, and you see how well that is going.

Cops have a lot of leeway in who they arrest. If the cop thought there was enough reasonable doubt and that the DA wouldn't want to press charges then what's the point? Just to make black people feel good for a day?

 

[timschochet]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

1. The police chief says there was not enough to convict GZ. He is fired and then the investigator gives his recommendation followed by a request to transfer because he felt pressure to convict. I have the opinion that his hand was forced to recommend a conviction. Why? Because on the stand besides Jon's eye witness testimony, Serino was the biggest help to the defense.

They knew they could not prove without reasonable doubt, but an arrest was made anyway to silence the mob.

Everything I wrote are the facts. You are free to interpret them any way you choose. Everything YOU wrote is supposition- there is no proof whatsoever.

And again, it's ridiculous to assert that "they knew they could not prove (the case)". Heck, even after a terrible performance, 3 jurors were willing to convict on murder 2 initially.

This was a winnable case. The prosecution overcharged, chose the jury ineptly, and used bad strategy all along. Zimmerman SHOULD have been convicted of manslaughter on the evidence. He should be in jail right now.

Tim..you said you were over and out on this thread a week ago...

I changed my mind. Put me on ignore if you want; otherwise deal with it.

No problem..just try to come up with something new...it is like rinse..wash..repeat around here.

That's really the only reason I'm posting. I'm not repeating old arguments. If someone wants to discuss the details of the case and whether or not GZ is actually guilty of anything, count me out.

 

[Christo]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

Even with those facts I do not see how you can say the decision to charge wasn't political. Every day the police investigate crimes and the district attorney decides whether or not to charge based upon that investigation. Once the decision was taken out of that loop it became political.

In a sense this is true. But again, the implication here is that the special prosecutor did not perform the job with objectivity, but instead chose to indict George Zimmerman because "that's what the mob wanted." If you're going to make such a charge and attack someone's integrity, you had better have some concrete evidence.

Sorry, but any time a special prosecutor is appointed in a case that doesn't normally require a special prosecutor (like a conflict of interest for the district attorney), a message has been sent from above that the original DA's decision was not the "politically correct" one.

 

[RCon]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

Weird. The series of events you described sounds highly politicized to me. The DA originally opted not to press charges. The only reason why that changed is because of a bunch of rabble-rousing. "Political" might not be the right word in the sense that this wasn't a partisan R-vs-D decision, but it's close enough.

If you mean that politics had something to do with having the governor appoint a special prosecutor, then that's correct.

But the implication, which I am arguing against, is something else: that the special prosecutor decided to indict George Zimmerman for political reasons, and not because of the evidence. There are no facts to support that.

I don't know if there are any facts to support that claim or not. Of course, the special prosecutor and the DA were privy to the same evidence, and one could argue that the fact the DA chose not to charge is evidence that there wasn't enough of a case to charge, and that therefore, the prosecutor must have decided based on other factors. Personally, I think that's fairly flimsy "evidence", but certainly no worse than the evidence you've used to argue that GZ's basis for being suspicious of TM was racial.

More to the point, are there any facts that refute the claim that the prosecutor indicted Zimmerman for political reasons? If not, then the claim that he did seems at least as valid as a claim that he didn't, no?

 

[timschochet]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

Weird. The series of events you described sounds highly politicized to me. The DA originally opted not to press charges. The only reason why that changed is because of a bunch of rabble-rousing. "Political" might not be the right word in the sense that this wasn't a partisan R-vs-D decision, but it's close enough.

If you mean that politics had something to do with having the governor appoint a special prosecutor, then that's correct.

But the implication, which I am arguing against, is something else: that the special prosecutor decided to indict George Zimmerman for political reasons, and not because of the evidence. There are no facts to support that.

I don't know if there are any facts to support that claim or not. Of course, the special prosecutor and the DA were privy to the same evidence, and one could argue that the fact the DA chose not to charge is evidence that there wasn't enough of a case to charge, and that therefore, the prosecutor must have decided based on other factors. Personally, I think that's fairly flimsy "evidence", but certainly no worse than the evidence you've used to argue that GZ's basis for being suspicious of TM was racial.

More to the point, are there any facts that refute the claim that the prosecutor indicted Zimmerman for political reasons? If not, then the claim that he did seems at least as valid as a claim that he didn't, no?

No. You're asking me to prove a negative. It's like stating that the result of a football game was fixed by the referees, and then when I challenge you, you say, "prove it wasn't." This is exactly the same thing. Those who claim Zimmerman was indicted for reasons other than the evidence are attacking the credibility and integrity of the special prosecutor. Unless you have good reason to do that, I don't think its a legitimate charge.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Cops have a lot of leeway in who they arrest. If the cop thought there was enough reasonable doubt and that the DA wouldn't want to press charges then what's the point? Just to make black people feel good for a day?

Again, this is not the cop's call to make. His applicable standard is the always low bar of probable cause, not how he thinks a trial will come out.

It is very very unusual for a cop not to make an arrest when you've got 100% confirmation that an armed person shot and killed an unarmed stranger. That alone is generally PC for an arrest. Cops absolutely should not be making calls where the evidence to support a possible defense is clouded. I would be very surprised if you can find a single example of a similar fact pattern to this case where no arrest was made.

 

[Christo]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

Weird. The series of events you described sounds highly politicized to me. The DA originally opted not to press charges. The only reason why that changed is because of a bunch of rabble-rousing. "Political" might not be the right word in the sense that this wasn't a partisan R-vs-D decision, but it's close enough.

If you mean that politics had something to do with having the governor appoint a special prosecutor, then that's correct.

But the implication, which I am arguing against, is something else: that the special prosecutor decided to indict George Zimmerman for political reasons, and not because of the evidence. There are no facts to support that.

I don't know if there are any facts to support that claim or not. Of course, the special prosecutor and the DA were privy to the same evidence, and one could argue that the fact the DA chose not to charge is evidence that there wasn't enough of a case to charge, and that therefore, the prosecutor must have decided based on other factors. Personally, I think that's fairly flimsy "evidence", but certainly no worse than the evidence you've used to argue that GZ's basis for being suspicious of TM was racial.

More to the point, are there any facts that refute the claim that the prosecutor indicted Zimmerman for political reasons? If not, then the claim that he did seems at least as valid as a claim that he didn't, no?

No. You're asking me to prove a negative. It's like stating that the result of a football game was fixed by the referees, and then when I challenge you, you say, "prove it wasn't." This is exactly the same thing. Those who claim Zimmerman was indicted for reasons other than the evidence are attacking the credibility and integrity of the special prosecutor. Unless you have good reason to do that, I don't think its a legitimate charge.

District attorneys are politicians. That's enough for me not to feel bad about questioning whether her decision was based solely upon the evidence.

 

[Christo]

And just so we're clear, if Team A was leading a football game and the clock was winding down with them in possession of the ball and then Goodell decided to change the crew of officials at the 2 minute warning then Team B ended up winning, I'd consider there to be a question about the outcome of the game.

 

[RUSF18]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

1. The police chief says there was not enough to convict GZ. He is fired and then the investigator gives his recommendation followed by a request to transfer because he felt pressure to convict. I have the opinion that his hand was forced to recommend a conviction. Why? Because on the stand besides Jon's eye witness testimony, Serino was the biggest help to the defense.

They knew they could not prove without reasonable doubt, but an arrest was made anyway to silence the mob.

Everything I wrote are the facts. You are free to interpret them any way you choose. Everything YOU wrote is supposition- there is no proof whatsoever.

And again, it's ridiculous to assert that "they knew they could not prove (the case)". Heck, even after a terrible performance, 3 jurors were willing to convict on murder 2 initially.

This was a winnable case. The prosecution overcharged, chose the jury ineptly, and used bad strategy all along. Zimmerman SHOULD have been convicted of manslaughter on the evidence. He should be in jail right now.

Whoa whoa whoa...didn't I read for pages and pages, you continually saying "If I was on this jury I would have had to acquit based on the evidence presented, but it is my opinion that he commited manslaughter"?

 

[tdoss]

I take strong issue with the assertion, stated many times by jon_mx and others in this thread as irrefutable fact, that George Zimmerman was indicted for political reasons. Let's take a look at the REAL facts (If I am wrong about any of this, I have no doubt that I will be corrected):

1. Following the death of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford Police Department conducted an investigation. The police investigator in charge of the investigation recommended that George Zimmerman be charged with manslaughter. However, this recommendation was not approved by his superiors, and ultimately the police department's recommendation to the District Attorney's office was not to file charges. The D.A. did not file charges.

2. At this point, black civil rights leaders became involved. Their concern, beyond the death of Trayvon Martin, was that the Sanford Police department had recommended against pressing charges for racial reasons. Their reasoning, beyond the specifics of this case, was a long history of racism by the Sanford police, for which they presented plenty of evidence.

3. The media took notice and the story became highly publicized. Calls were made for an investigation.

4. The Republican governor of Florida appointed a Republican special prosecutor to investigate the matter. This special prosecutor, viewing the same evidence as the Sanford police department, decided that the original investigator's recommendation was the correct one, and that Zimmerman should be indicted.

Those are the facts as I understand them. If you guys have proof of some political fix going on here, then please provide it. Otherwise stop repeating it because it's not true.

1. The police chief says there was not enough to convict GZ. He is fired and then the investigator gives his recommendation followed by a request to transfer because he felt pressure to convict. I have the opinion that his hand was forced to recommend a conviction. Why? Because on the stand besides Jon's eye witness testimony, Serino was the biggest help to the defense.They knew they could not prove without reasonable doubt, but an arrest was made anyway to silence the mob.

Everything I wrote are the facts. You are free to interpret them any way you choose. Everything YOU wrote is supposition- there is no proof whatsoever.And again, it's ridiculous to assert that "they knew they could not prove (the case)". Heck, even after a terrible performance, 3 jurors were willing to convict on murder 2 initially.

This was a winnable case. The prosecution overcharged, chose the jury ineptly, and used bad strategy all along. Zimmerman SHOULD have been convicted of manslaughter on the evidence. He should be in jail right now.

Tim..you said you were over and out on this thread a week ago...

I changed my mind. Put me on ignore if you want; otherwise deal with it.

Breaking News: Tim flip flops on something he said earlier. No one is surprised or cares.

Prattle on Tim, Prattle on

Sidenote - I wonder if there's a way for the mods to see what members have been put on ignore the most.