Reply With Quote
I'm sure you would want justice if your child was gunned down.
Damn right!
I'm sure you would want justice if your child was gunned down.
You're usually fairly balanced, but in this case I think you need to come off it.
The cops closed the case and overruled the lead investigator who wanted to charge Zimmerman for this killing.
I might not like most of the news networks or Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson but if my child had been shot dead under these cir stances I guarantee you that I would be all over CNN/MSNBC/FOX and I'd be on the phone with Jesse Jackson while travelling to the studio for my next interview if I thought that's what had to be done.
Most parents would. I highly doubt you wouldn't have done the same thing if you found yourself without any other options.
Yes the media has handled the situation badly but there's no need to start shifting the guilt onto a mother who was seeking justice for her son. Have some empathy for other people. My goodness.
So... we all assume he is guilty? I mean, is there any evidence/witnesses to this?
(sorry, only now just catching up with this case)
why was trevor dooley charged? he was being attacked by a 41 year old while he himself was 71 years old. That alone is a good reason to believe that his life was threatened. Was that a political decision too? Just curious since it seems, at first glance, that trevor has a better case than Zim.
That's not factual. But, by the way, that's the first time anyone has ever said I was "fairly balanced." Thanks, I think.
The investigation was ongoing and would have been presented to a Grand Jury within weeks. I know of no criminal jurisdiction in the United States that would allow the police to make the final determination on whether or not a person will be prosecuted for a homicide. The lead investigator wasn't overruled by other cops; the prosecutor declined to seek an arrest warrant because he did not believe there was enough evidence to arrest...that doesn't mean he did not intend to present the evidence to a Grand Jury and allow them to make the final determination on whether to indict or no bill Zimmerman.
I was merely suggesting she does not appear to believe Zimmerman had any malice in killing her son and that it would be a shame for her to be further burdened by any racial violence that is brought about in her son's name.
I'm not sure what her options were. I don't know if she bothered to ask Sanford officials if, in fact, they were going to proceed to a Grand Jury. You know, some parents wait years for the criminals to be brought to justice because prosecutors don't have the evidence -- even when they know who committed the crime -- to successfully prosecute.
But, the case was far from closed when the racialist circus began. After that, I don't think anyone much cared about the facts so long as Zimmerman was arrested.
So, they got their wish. But, at what price? Will the New Black Panther Party now "stand down" because he is arrested? Doesn't look that way, judging from Malik Shabazz's appearance on Sharpton's radio show.
And, what of the innocent people that will be attacked by those incited by Sharpton, et. al.?
I wasn't blaming Trayvon's mother, I was merely wondering if she's concerned at what has come about. I pray she doesn't suffer any guilt but, as I mentioned, she seems to be a good and decent woman -- and I would be similarly affected if I accidentally unleashed a pack of rabid dogs -- even if it was to seek justice for one of my children.
Badly? They've lied, misrepresented, steered, and all but changed Zimmerman's DNA to make him a white man. Badly? That doesn't begin to describe how the media behaved.
I can see where my other post may be read to indicate I thought Trayvon's mother should feel guilty. That wasn't my intent.
Given that she seems to be a good and decent woman of faith, I wondered if she is horrified by what is happening as a result of her son's death being "racialized." I pray she doesn't feel guilty.
The blame lays directly at the feet of Al Sharpton, Malik Shabazz, and the media -- principally ABC and NBC. But, there's not a chance in of any of them feeling any guilt. , if Freddie's Fashion Mart didn't shame Al Sharpton into non-existence -- nothing will. Malik Shabazz and the NBPP are just a bunch of racists on par with the Ku Klux Klan.
Yeah, well threatening to burn down Florida and "kill whitey" isn't exactly justice for Trayvon Martin, now, is it?
So, what happened to you on Easter Sunday? You were going to be in Sanford.
she said the "accident" was that they ever crossed paths.
try to keep up.
http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf
Thats a link to the affidavit. This cannot be good for Zimmerrman:
Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 04-12-2012 at 08:05 PM.
If there's an ankle to bite...
I think that is possibly the most poorly written affidavit I've seen in quite a long time.
They should be ashamed.
None of the statements -- all based on a reason to believe since neither of them were there -- are not supported with the facts that caused them to reasonably believe what they were writing.
Profiled? Assumed Martin was a criminal?
Zimmerman saw a su ious person and called 911 -- he reported Martin as being su ious because he was walking around in the rain and, in his opinion, he appeared intoxicated.
Later, they totally muck up the gist of the 911 call.
The police dispatcher asked if Zimmerman was following the person and said he "didn't need to do that." It wasn't an instruction. And, he wasn't in pursuit.
Yep, they needed an affidavit like this to get a 2nd Degree Murder charge because the truth based on the known facts wouldn't have...but, a good lawyer will absolutely shred this.
If this is the quality of work to come from the Special Prosecutor, I don't think Zimmerman has much to worry about.
By the way, Fuzzy. Who's Davis?
I just browsed the 911 call transcript again and nowhere in there does it indicate the 911 operator told Zimmerman to "wait for the officer." In fact, there are a couple of places where the 911 operator asked Zimmerman to let them know if the person did anything...indicating to me, anyway, they expected him to keep an eye on the person.
The officer just made that up out of whole cloth and put it in a sworn affidavit.
Shoddy -- and perjury (not that it will ever be prosecuted).
Brain fart.
and lol perhaps you should read the last paragraph. and your interpretation is pretty ing stupid.
The important part is that Zimmerman confronted Martin. You have read none of the police reports and none of us have all of the facts of the case. They knew the affidavit would be made public and limited disclosure. But by all means continue as if you kow everything that transpired.
If you know wtf you are talking about you consider discovery and how that works.
And, if you read the transcript, there's a point where it's obvious Zimmerman no longer has Martin in sight. When the dispatcher asks for his address, he starts to give it to him and realizes he's giving it out loud says, "Oh crap, I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is."
Yeah, that affidavit leaves out quite a bit of pertinent information.
You're right, and that's why they wrote it that way -- leaving out facts that might indicate otherwise.
They have no clue whether or not Zimmerman confronted Martin. But, the affidavit has to indicate that for a 2nd Degree Murder charge.
And, I do know a bit about what I'm saying.
From the 911 call
Zimmerman:
We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real su ious guy. It’s Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle.
This guy looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around looking about. [00:25]911 dispatcher:
Are you following him? [2:24]
Zimmerman:
Yeah. [2:25]
911 dispatcher:
OK.
We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]
Zimmerman:
OK. [2:28]
Limited disclosure doesn't mean you leave out facts that would contradict your affidavit and just make other up; does it?
You have no clue. Quit speaking for what they know because you have no basis for it. Its funny watching you make up though.
Lol limited disclosure precisely means that you don't give out everything.
What do limited mean?
And how do you know they don't have more evidence that supports what you claim they made up?
Your point?
I've read the 911 transcript.
Zimmerman never claimed or verbally assumed Martin was committing a crime. He never said he was profiling. He only said he was su ious because it was raining and he looked intoxicated. That there had been burglaries made his conduct more su ious. Zimmerman never claimed he was committing a crime except, perhaps, being drunk in public.
The police dispatcher never said -- anywhere in the call -- for Zimmerman to wait for officers as is written and underlined in the first page of the affidavit. The police dispatcher didn't instruct Zimmerman to stop following Martin either.
Words have meaning.
But intentionally withholding information -- similar to what is being released -- that would contradict your affidavit is deceitful.
Because I've listened to the phone call and read the transcript twice and nowhere does the dispatcher tell Zimmerman to wait.
The two officers swore in an affidavit that the dispatcher told Zimmerman an officer was on the way and to wait for the officer.
That's factually incorrect.
One lie could mean the affidavit is full of lies. It's certainly full of pertinent omissions -- such as the dispatcher asking Zimmerman to let him know if the subject does anything.
A good defense attorney will have this chewed up and laying in a wet pile on the Judges Bench in no time.
Words have meaning?
What do limited mean?
I do find it interesting that you have an emotional interest that Zimmerman is innocent. I just take the affidavit for what it is.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
