Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[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.

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.

I have said it is my opinion. I'm ok with that for now.

The chief of police did say there was no probably cause, not that it couldn't be proven. I provided a link where he claims that.

Again, I believe this was a publicity stunt to satisfy civil rights leaders, media and protests. I think the jury was correct in their decision. I'll leave it at that.

 

[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?

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.

Your analogy is strained, as Christo already pointed out. The appropriate analogy would be that the game ended, then Goodell appointed someone other than the officials to review the game tape and determine if the outcome was correct.

More to the point, I can think of two potential pieces of "evidence" that indicate the indictment was for political reasons. Neither is "proof", of course. 1) The DA who didn't indict GZ was privy to the same information. 2) As Christo noted earlier, the fact that a special prosecutor was appointed at all is an indication that someone wasn't happy with the original decision not to indict. It is reasonable to assume that someone was a politician unhappy for political reasons.

Again, neither of those two things are proof, but both indicate that there's at least a fair possibility the indictment was for political reasons.

 

[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?

I certainly did.

Then your level of insanity on this topic is increasing greatly each second. But just for gits and shiggles, let me help you out.

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.

Right there is where you can stop, where you disproved your own theory, and where you really made yourself look bad. That you kept going with more numbers in the list is striking. You basically argued that the sky isn't blue because when you look at it, it's blue.

 

[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.

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.

Wait. I swear, I try not to go after you the way some posters do but I'm trying to unwrap this whole thing from your point of view and I've pulled 4 muscles, torn my ACL and I think a brain cell just up and walked away. So help me out.

No charges filed by DA. Political groups do their political thing. They get loud. Governor gets involved. Appoints special prosecutor. That special prosecutor brings charges that the original DA didn't. And you think that was based solely on the evidence that the special prosecutor looked at? Do you understand what a special prosecutor - or whatever she was - is to an executive?

 

[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.

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.

 

[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.

Wait. I swear, I try not to go after you the way some posters do but I'm trying to unwrap this whole thing from your point of view and I've pulled 4 muscles, torn my ACL and I think a brain cell just up and walked away. So help me out.

No charges filed by DA. Political groups do their political thing. They get loud. Governor gets involved. Appoints special prosecutor. That special prosecutor brings charges that the original DA didn't. And you think that was based solely on the evidence that the special prosecutor looked at? Do you understand what a special prosecutor - or whatever she was - is to an executive?

I forgot about that. Even the first cop who thought charges should be brought thought it was manslaughter. Not only did the SP charge, she went for the home run with Murder 2 instead of just manslaughter.

 

[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.

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.

Wait. I swear, I try not to go after you the way some posters do but I'm trying to unwrap this whole thing from your point of view and I've pulled 4 muscles, torn my ACL and I think a brain cell just up and walked away. So help me out.

No charges filed by DA. Political groups do their political thing. They get loud. Governor gets involved. Appoints special prosecutor. That special prosecutor brings charges that the original DA didn't. And you think that was based solely on the evidence that the special prosecutor looked at? Do you understand what a special prosecutor - or whatever she was - is to an executive?

I forgot about that. Even the first cop who thought charges should be brought thought it was manslaughter. Not only did the SP charge, she went for the home run with Murder 2 instead of just manslaughter.

And that cop admitted to being "pressured" by several people to recommend those charges. And was demoted.

ETA: At his request.....

 

[jon_mx]

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.

If I had two hours to waste, I could easily find 100 posts you made where you state wildass opinions as fact with absolutely nothing that backs it up.

 

[jon_mx]

This is getting too funny. It is OK to call someone a lying racist murderer without proof to back it up, but call this process political and you better have a rock solid non-circumstantial case with lots of smoking guns.

 

[timschochet]

All of you keep repeating the same nonsense- and that's exactly what it is.

Your collective logic is, apparently: because the original district attorney decided not to press charges, because there was a political uproar, because the governor appointed a special prosecutor to investigate, we can therefore assume that her investigation was bogus and that she decided to indict George Zimmerman for purely political reasons.

Sorry guys: two plus two does not equal five no matter how many times you add it up. Angela Corey examined the evidence and came to the same conclusion the original investigator did- she came to the conclusion that several highly respected prosecutors on television did as well- that there was more than enough evidence to indict George Zimmerman. There is nothing in her background to suggest that she lied about this or made up phony charges in order to quell a political firestorm. It's a completely bogus accusation, made out of thin air, and really deserves nothing other than scorn and ridicule.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Sorry guys: two plus two does not equal five no matter how many times you add it up. Angela Corey examined the evidence and came to the same conclusion the original investigator did- she came to the conclusion that several highly respected prosecutors on television did as well- that there was more than enough evidence to indict George Zimmerman. There is nothing in her background to suggest that she lied about this or made up phony charges in order to quell a political firestorm. It's a completely bogus accusation, made out of thin air, and really deserves nothing other than scorn and ridicule.

What charge did the original investigator recommend? What charge did Zimmerman actually face?

 

[RCon]

All of you keep repeating the same nonsense- and that's exactly what it is.

Your collective logic is, apparently: because the original district attorney decided not to press charges, because there was a political uproar, because the governor appointed a special prosecutor to investigate, we can therefore assume that her investigation was bogus and that she decided to indict George Zimmerman for purely political reasons.

Sorry guys: two plus two does not equal five no matter how many times you add it up. Angela Corey examined the evidence and came to the same conclusion the original investigator did- she came to the conclusion that several highly respected prosecutors on television did as well- that there was more than enough evidence to indict George Zimmerman. There is nothing in her background to suggest that she lied about this or made up phony charges in order to quell a political firestorm. It's a completely bogus accusation, made out of thin air, and really deserves nothing other than scorn and ridicule.

But that there was a special prosecutor at all was entirely political. You admit this, right? If so, then you admit that, absent political pressure, there would have been no charges filed.

 

[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.

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.

Wha?

(Reuters) - The jury in George Zimmerman's trial initially had three votes for not guilty, two votes for manslaughter and one vote for second-degree murder when deliberations began, juror B-37 told CNN on Monday.

 

[The Commish]

I'm trying to keep up but I have a question. When you guys say "political pressure" do you mean the citizens demanding another investigation/trial or something else.

 

[timschochet]

Sorry guys: two plus two does not equal five no matter how many times you add it up. Angela Corey examined the evidence and came to the same conclusion the original investigator did- she came to the conclusion that several highly respected prosecutors on television did as well- that there was more than enough evidence to indict George Zimmerman. There is nothing in her background to suggest that she lied about this or made up phony charges in order to quell a political firestorm. It's a completely bogus accusation, made out of thin air, and really deserves nothing other than scorn and ridicule.

What charge did the original investigator recommend? What charge did Zimmerman actually face?

Yes, I get this. My understanding is that overcharging is commonly done as a tactical move with the hope that the jury accepts the lesser charge. Obviously that plan failed here.

But it in no way impugns her credibility.

 

[timschochet]

All of you keep repeating the same nonsense- and that's exactly what it is.

Your collective logic is, apparently: because the original district attorney decided not to press charges, because there was a political uproar, because the governor appointed a special prosecutor to investigate, we can therefore assume that her investigation was bogus and that she decided to indict George Zimmerman for purely political reasons.

Sorry guys: two plus two does not equal five no matter how many times you add it up. Angela Corey examined the evidence and came to the same conclusion the original investigator did- she came to the conclusion that several highly respected prosecutors on television did as well- that there was more than enough evidence to indict George Zimmerman. There is nothing in her background to suggest that she lied about this or made up phony charges in order to quell a political firestorm. It's a completely bogus accusation, made out of thin air, and really deserves nothing other than scorn and ridicule.

But that there was a special prosecutor at all was entirely political. You admit this, right? If so, then you admit that, absent political pressure, there would have been no charges filed.

Sorry, but this is driving me crazy. The decision to appoint a special prosecutor was political, no question. The decision by the special prosecutor to indict George Zimmerman was NOT political UNLESS it can be clearly shown that she considered factors other than the evidence presented.

However Angela Corey got selected, for whatever reasons, and no matter what took place beforehand, once she was in place as special prosecutor she was asked to perform an objective investigation based on the evidence, and reach a conclusion based on the evidence. To assume that she did not do this is an attack against her judgment and integrity, and it's pretty shameful to do so unless you have good reason- which there is none.

 

[jon_mx]

All of you keep repeating the same nonsense- and that's exactly what it is.

Your collective logic is, apparently: because the original district attorney decided not to press charges, because there was a political uproar, because the governor appointed a special prosecutor to investigate, we can therefore assume that her investigation was bogus and that she decided to indict George Zimmerman for purely political reasons.

Sorry guys: two plus two does not equal five no matter how many times you add it up. Angela Corey examined the evidence and came to the same conclusion the original investigator did- she came to the conclusion that several highly respected prosecutors on television did as well- that there was more than enough evidence to indict George Zimmerman. There is nothing in her background to suggest that she lied about this or made up phony charges in order to quell a political firestorm. It's a completely bogus accusation, made out of thin air, and really deserves nothing other than scorn and ridicule.

This is some great oblivious-to-all-common-sense-logic-and-fact shtick.

 

[RCon]

Sorry guys: two plus two does not equal five no matter how many times you add it up. Angela Corey examined the evidence and came to the same conclusion the original investigator did- she came to the conclusion that several highly respected prosecutors on television did as well- that there was more than enough evidence to indict George Zimmerman. There is nothing in her background to suggest that she lied about this or made up phony charges in order to quell a political firestorm. It's a completely bogus accusation, made out of thin air, and really deserves nothing other than scorn and ridicule.

What charge did the original investigator recommend? What charge did Zimmerman actually face?

Yes, I get this. My understanding is that overcharging is commonly done as a tactical move with the hope that the jury accepts the lesser charge. Obviously that plan failed here.

But it in no way impugns her credibility.

One could certainly look at it that way, considering that no one else who viewed the evidence thought it warranted a murder two charge. It's not provable, of course, but it's certainly a legitimate question to raise.

 

[Rayderr]

All of you keep repeating the same nonsense- and that's exactly what it is.

Your collective logic is, apparently: because the original district attorney decided not to press charges, because there was a political uproar, because the governor appointed a special prosecutor to investigate, we can therefore assume that her investigation was bogus and that she decided to indict George Zimmerman for purely political reasons.

Sorry guys: two plus two does not equal five no matter how many times you add it up. Angela Corey examined the evidence and came to the same conclusion the original investigator did- she came to the conclusion that several highly respected prosecutors on television did as well- that there was more than enough evidence to indict George Zimmerman. There is nothing in her background to suggest that she lied about this or made up phony charges in order to quell a political firestorm. It's a completely bogus accusation, made out of thin air, and really deserves nothing other than scorn and ridicule.

But that there was a special prosecutor at all was entirely political. You admit this, right? If so, then you admit that, absent political pressure, there would have been no charges filed.

Sorry, but this is driving me crazy. The decision to appoint a special prosecutor was political, no question. The decision by the special prosecutor to indict George Zimmerman was NOT political UNLESS it can be clearly shown that she considered factors other than the evidence presented.

However Angela Corey got selected, for whatever reasons, and no matter what took place beforehand, once she was in place as special prosecutor she was asked to perform an objective investigation based on the evidence, and reach a conclusion based on the evidence. To assume that she did not do this is an attack against her judgment and integrity, and it's pretty shameful to do so unless you have good reason- which there is none.

Yet you attack ZImmerman's judgement and integrity. Irony.

 

[RCon]

All of you keep repeating the same nonsense- and that's exactly what it is.

Your collective logic is, apparently: because the original district attorney decided not to press charges, because there was a political uproar, because the governor appointed a special prosecutor to investigate, we can therefore assume that her investigation was bogus and that she decided to indict George Zimmerman for purely political reasons.

Sorry guys: two plus two does not equal five no matter how many times you add it up. Angela Corey examined the evidence and came to the same conclusion the original investigator did- she came to the conclusion that several highly respected prosecutors on television did as well- that there was more than enough evidence to indict George Zimmerman. There is nothing in her background to suggest that she lied about this or made up phony charges in order to quell a political firestorm. It's a completely bogus accusation, made out of thin air, and really deserves nothing other than scorn and ridicule.

But that there was a special prosecutor at all was entirely political. You admit this, right? If so, then you admit that, absent political pressure, there would have been no charges filed.

Sorry, but this is driving me crazy. The decision to appoint a special prosecutor was political, no question. The decision by the special prosecutor to indict George Zimmerman was NOT political UNLESS it can be clearly shown that she considered factors other than the evidence presented.

However Angela Corey got selected, for whatever reasons, and no matter what took place beforehand, once she was in place as special prosecutor she was asked to perform an objective investigation based on the evidence, and reach a conclusion based on the evidence. To assume that she did not do this is an attack against her judgment and integrity, and it's pretty shameful to do so unless you have good reason- which there is none.

Well, we've already come up with three good reasons. Significantly better reasons than any of the proof logical deductions #### you pulled out of your ### you were spouting about evidence showing GZ's story to be false a few dozen pages ago.

More to the point, the thing you are complaining about is people saying "if it weren't for political pressure, there never would have been a trial at all". Your own "facts" show that the statement is 100% true.

 

[timschochet]

All of you keep repeating the same nonsense- and that's exactly what it is.

Your collective logic is, apparently: because the original district attorney decided not to press charges, because there was a political uproar, because the governor appointed a special prosecutor to investigate, we can therefore assume that her investigation was bogus and that she decided to indict George Zimmerman for purely political reasons.

Sorry guys: two plus two does not equal five no matter how many times you add it up. Angela Corey examined the evidence and came to the same conclusion the original investigator did- she came to the conclusion that several highly respected prosecutors on television did as well- that there was more than enough evidence to indict George Zimmerman. There is nothing in her background to suggest that she lied about this or made up phony charges in order to quell a political firestorm. It's a completely bogus accusation, made out of thin air, and really deserves nothing other than scorn and ridicule.

But that there was a special prosecutor at all was entirely political. You admit this, right? If so, then you admit that, absent political pressure, there would have been no charges filed.

Sorry, but this is driving me crazy. The decision to appoint a special prosecutor was political, no question. The decision by the special prosecutor to indict George Zimmerman was NOT political UNLESS it can be clearly shown that she considered factors other than the evidence presented.

However Angela Corey got selected, for whatever reasons, and no matter what took place beforehand, once she was in place as special prosecutor she was asked to perform an objective investigation based on the evidence, and reach a conclusion based on the evidence. To assume that she did not do this is an attack against her judgment and integrity, and it's pretty shameful to do so unless you have good reason- which there is none.

Yet you attack ZImmerman's judgement and integrity. Irony.

I do, and it is not ironic at all. I attacked Zimmerman's integrity because several parts of his narrative made no sense to me except as out right lies. (I have listed these previously in this thread.) Not sure I've personally attacked GZ's judgment, though others have and I've generally agreed with their assessment.

 

[jon_mx]

Sorry, but this is driving me crazy. The decision to appoint a special prosecutor was political, no question. The decision by the special prosecutor to indict George Zimmerman was NOT political UNLESS it can be clearly shown that she considered factors other than the evidence presented.

However Angela Corey got selected, for whatever reasons, and no matter what took place beforehand, once she was in place as special prosecutor she was asked to perform an objective investigation based on the evidence, and reach a conclusion based on the evidence. To assume that she did not do this is an attack against her judgment and integrity, and it's pretty shameful to do so unless you have good reason- which there is none.

By this logic Zimmerman is clearly innocent. Your double-standard hypocritical logic is just fabulous. Absolutely marvelous.

 

[timschochet]

All of you keep repeating the same nonsense- and that's exactly what it is.

Your collective logic is, apparently: because the original district attorney decided not to press charges, because there was a political uproar, because the governor appointed a special prosecutor to investigate, we can therefore assume that her investigation was bogus and that she decided to indict George Zimmerman for purely political reasons.

Sorry guys: two plus two does not equal five no matter how many times you add it up. Angela Corey examined the evidence and came to the same conclusion the original investigator did- she came to the conclusion that several highly respected prosecutors on television did as well- that there was more than enough evidence to indict George Zimmerman. There is nothing in her background to suggest that she lied about this or made up phony charges in order to quell a political firestorm. It's a completely bogus accusation, made out of thin air, and really deserves nothing other than scorn and ridicule.

But that there was a special prosecutor at all was entirely political. You admit this, right? If so, then you admit that, absent political pressure, there would have been no charges filed.

Sorry, but this is driving me crazy. The decision to appoint a special prosecutor was political, no question. The decision by the special prosecutor to indict George Zimmerman was NOT political UNLESS it can be clearly shown that she considered factors other than the evidence presented.

However Angela Corey got selected, for whatever reasons, and no matter what took place beforehand, once she was in place as special prosecutor she was asked to perform an objective investigation based on the evidence, and reach a conclusion based on the evidence. To assume that she did not do this is an attack against her judgment and integrity, and it's pretty shameful to do so unless you have good reason- which there is none.

Well, we've already come up with three good reasons. Significantly better reasons than any of the proof logical deductions #### you pulled out of your ### you were spouting about evidence showing GZ's story to be false a few dozen pages ago.

More to the point, the thing you are complaining about people saying "if it weren't for political pressure, there never would have been a trial at all". Your own "facts" show that the statement is 100% true.

NO! I did not complain about that statement. I complained about the statement that GZ was indicted for political reasons. There is a distinct difference between the two arguments- one doesn't lead to the other.

 

[ATC1]

All of you keep repeating the same nonsense- and that's exactly what it is.

Your collective logic is, apparently: because the original district attorney decided not to press charges, because there was a political uproar, because the governor appointed a special prosecutor to investigate, we can therefore assume that her investigation was bogus and that she decided to indict George Zimmerman for purely political reasons.

Sorry guys: two plus two does not equal five no matter how many times you add it up. Angela Corey examined the evidence and came to the same conclusion the original investigator did- she came to the conclusion that several highly respected prosecutors on television did as well- that there was more than enough evidence to indict George Zimmerman. There is nothing in her background to suggest that she lied about this or made up phony charges in order to quell a political firestorm. It's a completely bogus accusation, made out of thin air, and really deserves nothing other than scorn and ridicule.

But that there was a special prosecutor at all was entirely political. You admit this, right? If so, then you admit that, absent political pressure, there would have been no charges filed.

Sorry, but this is driving me crazy. The decision to appoint a special prosecutor was political, no question. The decision by the special prosecutor to indict George Zimmerman was NOT political UNLESS it can be clearly shown that she considered factors other than the evidence presented.

However Angela Corey got selected, for whatever reasons, and no matter what took place beforehand, once she was in place as special prosecutor she was asked to perform an objective investigation based on the evidence, and reach a conclusion based on the evidence. To assume that she did not do this is an attack against her judgment and integrity, and it's pretty shameful to do so unless you have good reason- which there is none.

Yet you attack ZImmerman's judgement and integrity. Irony.

Let's say I gave you that she performed an objective investigation. If she were to find that there was not enough evidence to make an arrest, would you be satisfied? Or would you be with everyone else telling the State to hire someone else until they get someone who will "objectively" investigate in favor of the State's, mob's, civil right leaders' wishes?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

All of you keep repeating the same nonsense- and that's exactly what it is.

Your collective logic is, apparently: because the original district attorney decided not to press charges, because there was a political uproar, because the governor appointed a special prosecutor to investigate, we can therefore assume that her investigation was bogus and that she decided to indict George Zimmerman for purely political reasons.

Sorry guys: two plus two does not equal five no matter how many times you add it up. Angela Corey examined the evidence and came to the same conclusion the original investigator did- she came to the conclusion that several highly respected prosecutors on television did as well- that there was more than enough evidence to indict George Zimmerman. There is nothing in her background to suggest that she lied about this or made up phony charges in order to quell a political firestorm. It's a completely bogus accusation, made out of thin air, and really deserves nothing other than scorn and ridicule.

But that there was a special prosecutor at all was entirely political. You admit this, right? If so, then you admit that, absent political pressure, there would have been no charges filed.

Sorry, but this is driving me crazy. The decision to appoint a special prosecutor was political, no question. The decision by the special prosecutor to indict George Zimmerman was NOT political UNLESS it can be clearly shown that she considered factors other than the evidence presented.

However Angela Corey got selected, for whatever reasons, and no matter what took place beforehand, once she was in place as special prosecutor she was asked to perform an objective investigation based on the evidence, and reach a conclusion based on the evidence. To assume that she did not do this is an attack against her judgment and integrity, and it's pretty shameful to do so unless you have good reason- which there is none.

Well, we've already come up with three good reasons. Significantly better reasons than any of the proof logical deductions #### you pulled out of your ### you were spouting about evidence showing GZ's story to be false a few dozen pages ago.

More to the point, the thing you are complaining about people saying "if it weren't for political pressure, there never would have been a trial at all". Your own "facts" show that the statement is 100% true.

NO! I did not complain about that statement. I complained about the statement that GZ was indicted for political reasons. There is a distinct difference between the two arguments- one doesn't lead to the other.

1999 . . . .

Oops, this is only #1998. My fault.

 

[RCon]

All of you keep repeating the same nonsense- and that's exactly what it is.

Your collective logic is, apparently: because the original district attorney decided not to press charges, because there was a political uproar, because the governor appointed a special prosecutor to investigate, we can therefore assume that her investigation was bogus and that she decided to indict George Zimmerman for purely political reasons.

Sorry guys: two plus two does not equal five no matter how many times you add it up. Angela Corey examined the evidence and came to the same conclusion the original investigator did- she came to the conclusion that several highly respected prosecutors on television did as well- that there was more than enough evidence to indict George Zimmerman. There is nothing in her background to suggest that she lied about this or made up phony charges in order to quell a political firestorm. It's a completely bogus accusation, made out of thin air, and really deserves nothing other than scorn and ridicule.

But that there was a special prosecutor at all was entirely political. You admit this, right? If so, then you admit that, absent political pressure, there would have been no charges filed.

Sorry, but this is driving me crazy. The decision to appoint a special prosecutor was political, no question. The decision by the special prosecutor to indict George Zimmerman was NOT political UNLESS it can be clearly shown that she considered factors other than the evidence presented.

However Angela Corey got selected, for whatever reasons, and no matter what took place beforehand, once she was in place as special prosecutor she was asked to perform an objective investigation based on the evidence, and reach a conclusion based on the evidence. To assume that she did not do this is an attack against her judgment and integrity, and it's pretty shameful to do so unless you have good reason- which there is none.

Well, we've already come up with three good reasons. Significantly better reasons than any of the proof logical deductions #### you pulled out of your ### you were spouting about evidence showing GZ's story to be false a few dozen pages ago.

More to the point, the thing you are complaining about people saying "if it weren't for political pressure, there never would have been a trial at all". Your own "facts" show that the statement is 100% true.

NO! I did not complain about that statement. I complained about the statement that GZ was indicted for political reasons. There is a distinct difference between the two arguments- one doesn't lead to the other.

Without a special prosecutor, there's no indictment. You yourself admit that there was only a special prosecutor for political reasons.

 

[Christo]

Give me a P!

Give me an A!

Give me a T!

Give me an H!

Give me an E!

Give me a T!

Give me an I!

Give me a C!

What does that spell?!?!?!?

timscrotch!

 

[timschochet]

Thanks for bringing that up, Ivan.

OK, since this is post #1999 for me, I really am going to stop here and make it my last post in this thread. This time for good. It's time to move on new topics. This one has gotten stale. Enjoyed arguing with you guys, and I'm sure we will again in the future. Good night and good luck!

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Thanks for bringing that up, Ivan.

OK, since this is post #1999 for me, I really am going to stop here and make it my last post in this thread. This time for good. It's time to move on new topics. This one has gotten stale. Enjoyed arguing with you guys, and I'm sure we will again in the future. Good night and good luck!

O/U on post #2000: 3:30 CDT.

 

[Christo]

Thanks for bringing that up, Ivan.

OK, since this is post #1999 for me, I really am going to stop here and make it my last post in this thread. This time for good. It's time to move on new topics. This one has gotten stale. Enjoyed arguing with you guys, and I'm sure we will again in the future. Good night and good luck!

O/U on post #2000: 3:30 CDT.

A.M. or P.M.?

 

[timschochet]

Thanks for bringing that up, Ivan.

OK, since this is post #1999 for me, I really am going to stop here and make it my last post in this thread. This time for good. It's time to move on new topics. This one has gotten stale. Enjoyed arguing with you guys, and I'm sure we will again in the future. Good night and good luck!

O/U on post #2000: 3:30 CDT.

It won't happen. This time I'm done.

 

[RCon]

Thanks for bringing that up, Ivan.

OK, since this is post #1999 for me, I really am going to stop here and make it my last post in this thread. This time for good. It's time to move on new topics. This one has gotten stale. Enjoyed arguing with you guys, and I'm sure we will again in the future. Good night and good luck!

O/U on post #2000: 3:30 CDT.

It won't happen. This time I'm done.

I see what you did there.

 

[Rayderr]

Thanks for bringing that up, Ivan.

OK, since this is post #1999 for me, I really am going to stop here and make it my last post in this thread. This time for good. It's time to move on new topics. This one has gotten stale. Enjoyed arguing with you guys, and I'm sure we will again in the future. Good night and good luck!

O/U on post #2000: 3:30 CDT.

It won't happen. This time I'm done.

I see what you did there.

Of course, that renders this post of his incorrect, meaning that he went 1,999 posts in a thread without having any of them being factually correct.

Thanks for bringing that up, Ivan.

OK, since this is post #1999 for me, I really am going to stop here and make it my last post in this thread. This time for good. It's time to move on new topics. This one has gotten stale. Enjoyed arguing with you guys, and I'm sure we will again in the future. Good night and good luck!

 

[jon_mx]

When you allow public opinion to dictate how justice is served, we pretty much entered into Nazi Germany.

 

[ATC1]

Can we get another member appointed that will "objectively" post to appease the mob here? Please? TIA.

 

[Bonzai]

Just read that Holder is seeking federal charges and that Zimmerman will be tried as a 300 pound black man. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

 

[Rayderr]

Just read that Holder is seeking federal charges and that Zimmerman will be tried as a 300 pound black man. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Stealing from The Onion?

 

[jon_mx]

Damn. Tim left this thread before I got to ask him if he was OK if Zimmerman was water-boarded.

 

[ATC1]

• ATC1, timschochet, jon_mx, Witz, Rayderr

 

[Christo]

Thanks for bringing that up, Ivan.

OK, since this is post #1999 for me, I really am going to stop here and make it my last post in this thread. This time for good. It's time to move on new topics. This one has gotten stale. Enjoyed arguing with you guys, and I'm sure we will again in the future. Good night and good luck!

O/U on post #2000: 3:30 CDT.

It won't happen. This time I'm done.

Eleven whole minutes. Congrats

 

[identikit]

Thanks for bringing that up, Ivan.

OK, since this is post #1999 for me, I really am going to stop here and make it my last post in this thread. This time for good. It's time to move on new topics. This one has gotten stale. Enjoyed arguing with you guys, and I'm sure we will again in the future. Good night and good luck!

O/U on post #2000: 3:30 CDT.

It won't happen. This time I'm done.

Eleven whole minutes. Congrats

LOL

 

[jon_mx]

Feds take evidence related to Zimmerman trial, including gun
(CNN) -- Florida authorities have delivered all evidence related to the George Zimmerman investigation to federal officials, who are weighing whether to pursue a civil rights case.

The Sanford Police Department said it turned over all evidence, including a gun, to the Department of Justice on Monday.

Justice officials are investigating whether Zimmerman violated Trayvon Martin's civil rights when he shot the African-American teenager.

Attorney General Eric Holder has said the Justice Department will "act in a manner that is consistent with the facts and the law." Holder described Martin's shooting as " tragic, unnecessary," and said a thorough investigation will be conducted.Zimmerman helps family out of overturned SUVZimmerman, a former neighborhood watch volunteer, was acquitted of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges on July 13 after claiming he fired in self-defense. The shooting occurred in February last year.

"Independent of the legal determination that will be made, I believe that this tragedy provides yet another opportunity for our nation to speak honestly about the complicated and emotionally charged issues that this case has raised," Holder said last week. "We must not -- as we have too often in the past -- let this opportunity pass."

Justice officials opened an investigation into the Zimmerman case last year and will include testimony from the Florida trial.

Various civil rights groups have protested nationwide to demand the Justice Department bring federal charges against Zimmerman.

Holder is nuttier than Tim on this issue.

 

[Rayderr]

Feds take evidence related to Zimmerman trial, including gun
(CNN) -- Florida authorities have delivered all evidence related to the George Zimmerman investigation to federal officials, who are weighing whether to pursue a civil rights case.

The Sanford Police Department said it turned over all evidence, including a gun, to the Department of Justice on Monday.

Justice officials are investigating whether Zimmerman violated Trayvon Martin's civil rights when he shot the African-American teenager.

Attorney General Eric Holder has said the Justice Department will "act in a manner that is consistent with the facts and the law." Holder described Martin's shooting as " tragic, unnecessary," and said a thorough investigation will be conducted.Zimmerman helps family out of overturned SUVZimmerman, a former neighborhood watch volunteer, was acquitted of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges on July 13 after claiming he fired in self-defense. The shooting occurred in February last year.

"Independent of the legal determination that will be made, I believe that this tragedy provides yet another opportunity for our nation to speak honestly about the complicated and emotionally charged issues that this case has raised," Holder said last week. "We must not -- as we have too often in the past -- let this opportunity pass."

Justice officials opened an investigation into the Zimmerman case last year and will include testimony from the Florida trial.

Various civil rights groups have protested nationwide to demand the Justice Department bring federal charges against Zimmerman.

Holder is nuttier than Tim on this issue.

I'm trying to figure out why they need a gun for a profiling case? Do they thing GZ had engraved on the gun "N#####s must die!" and somehow the prosecution missed it?

 

[avoiding injuries]

How many lives does Zimmerman have to save before people will just leave him alone? Eric Holder, I'm talking to you!

 

[avoiding injuries]

George Zimmerman > Dorothy Mantooth

 

[jon_mx]

Bill Press show cries conspiracy: Zimmerman saving family never happened

Folks on the Bill Press radio show Tuesday morning agreed that reports Monday of George Zimmerman helping save a family a four from a car crash are not true.

“Well I would hope that if you come across a car accident that anybody, even a murderer, would get out and help them out, right?” host Bill Press pondered. “Not get out and kick them in the teeth or something.”

He then asked his producer, Peter Ogburn, and Think Progress Managing Editor Igor Volsky what it matters if Mr. Zimmerman rescued anyone and if they think the incident ever even occurred.

“It doesn’t erase the fact that he shot and killed Trayvon Martin,” he added. “Unjustifiably in my opinion and I think the facts show that. But secondly … all right I know I’m going to get in trouble for this … do you really think is happened?”

“Yeah, I don’t think so. It smells. It stinks to high heaven,” Mr. Ogburn replied.

“Where are the pictures or video?” Mr. Volsky asked in agreement.

“All right you’re the one in trouble,” the host quipped.

It was reported Monday that Mr. Zimmerman was one of two men who came to the aid of two parents and their two children trapped inside a blue Ford Explorer SUV that had rolled over after traveling off the highway in Sanford, Fla., Thursday evening, less than a mile from where the shooting of Martin occurred.

 

[Christo]

Feds take evidence related to Zimmerman trial, including gun
(CNN) -- Florida authorities have delivered all evidence related to the George Zimmerman investigation to federal officials, who are weighing whether to pursue a civil rights case.

The Sanford Police Department said it turned over all evidence, including a gun, to the Department of Justice on Monday.

Justice officials are investigating whether Zimmerman violated Trayvon Martin's civil rights when he shot the African-American teenager.

Attorney General Eric Holder has said the Justice Department will "act in a manner that is consistent with the facts and the law." Holder described Martin's shooting as " tragic, unnecessary," and said a thorough investigation will be conducted.Zimmerman helps family out of overturned SUVZimmerman, a former neighborhood watch volunteer, was acquitted of second-degree murder and manslaughter charges on July 13 after claiming he fired in self-defense. The shooting occurred in February last year.

"Independent of the legal determination that will be made, I believe that this tragedy provides yet another opportunity for our nation to speak honestly about the complicated and emotionally charged issues that this case has raised," Holder said last week. "We must not -- as we have too often in the past -- let this opportunity pass."

Justice officials opened an investigation into the Zimmerman case last year and will include testimony from the Florida trial.

Various civil rights groups have protested nationwide to demand the Justice Department bring federal charges against Zimmerman.

Holder is nuttier than Tim on this issue.

I'm trying to figure out why they need a gun for a profiling case? Do they thing GZ had engraved on the gun "N#####s must die!" and somehow the prosecution missed it?

Because "profiling" isn't a crime. Under Federal law, the Justice Department is going to have to prove Zimmerman shot Martin because he was black.

 

[Leonidas]

This was a winnable case.

No, it wasn't, and it should have never even gone to trial.

It would only be "won" with raw emotion, no facts, no logic, and no following of the law (which can certainly happen with a jury of 6 women in Florida)...but it would come at the expense of our legal system, and at the expense of the life of an innocent man.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

11 user(s) are reading this topic10 members, 0 guests, 1 anonymous users

• zDragon, jonessed, avoiding injuries, identikit, jon_mx, Rayderr, timschochet, Dr Oadi, carverlee, Hang 10

tim, I've had instances of sexual intercourse that have last longer than your self-proclaimed exits from this thread.

 

[Bonzai]

Just read that Holder is seeking federal charges and that Zimmerman will be tried as a 300 pound black man. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Stealing from The Onion?