Witnesses in Zimmerman/Martin case change testimonies.

Yeah well kinda hard to try a dead man or for him to speak in his defense.
so you're saying that zimmerman should have just dealt with a broken nose, skull lacerations, possible brain damage after repeated head slammings, and god knows what other life threatening injuries martin may have inflicted all so that there could be a trial for martin?
 
George Zimmerman's 'Cozy' Relationship With Sanford Police Questioned

Neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman had a relationship with members of the police department in Sanford, Fla., long before he shot unarmed teenager Trayvon Martin to death in February, newly released information suggests.

During a community forum on Jan. 8, 2011, more than a year before Martin was killed, Zimmerman, then a criminal justice student, told city officials he had ridden along with Sanford police officers on patrol. Zimmerman blasted Sanford police as lazy and criticized outgoing Police Chief Brian Tooley, who was forced from office in a scandal involving the son of an officer caught on tape beating a homeless black man.

“I would just like to state that the law is written in black and white, it can not be enforced by those who are in the thin blue line,” Zimmerman told an audience that included newly elected Mayor Jeff Triplett, according to an audio recording published by the Miami Herald. Zimmerman said he saw firsthand how bad Sanford police could be during his ride-alongs.

“What I saw was disgusting,” Zimmerman said, “The officer showed me his favorite hiding spots for taking naps, explained to me that he doesn’t carry a long gun in his vehicle because, in his words, ‘anything that requires a long gun requires a lot of paperwork, and you’re going to find me as far away from it.’” Zimmerman continued: “He took two lunch breaks and attended a going away party for one of his fellow officers.”

Zimmerman found himself at the center of another Sanford police scandal a year later. Relatives of Martin, the 17-year-old who was killed while visiting his father in a gated Sanford housing development, and a chorus of supporters across the country have accused Sanford police of biased and sloppy police work. Zimmerman initially was freed by police after saying he shot Martin in self defense. A prosecutor specially assigned to the case, working with state investigators, later charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder. He is free on bail awaiting trial.

A police station video taken three days after the shooting, released by the State Attorney’s Office with a trove of other evidence, shows Zimmerman walking unescorted through the police station. That suggests a “cozy” and “comfortable” relationship with the police, said Benjamin Crump, an attorney for Martin’s family.

The rest:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/23/george-zimmerman-sanford-police_n_1541250.html
 
The one factor that may sink Zimmerman is that he brought a gun to a fist fight. He should be fine if he can overcome that obstacle. Of course, if he does win the case, he'll probably have to go into hiding for the rest of his life.
 
The one factor that may sink Zimmerman is that he brought a gun to a fist fight. He should be fine if he can overcome that obstacle. Of course, if he does win the case, he'll probably have to go into hiding for the rest of his life.

This would hold water, if someone can prove that he knew there was going to be a "fist fight"; otherwise it's just more gas for the vengence fires.
 
they dont' care.

a lot of evidence already exists that trayvon was beating the shit out of zimmerman.

for many people here, the very mere act of following trayvon, (even if he actually did stop when the dispatcher told him to) gives license for trayvon to start curb stomping zimmerman. there is literally no scenario that the anti-zimmermans will accept for him to be able to use his weapon.


So you believe it's alright for Zimmerman to have defended himself from a suspicious person he saw, but you can't picture a scenario in which Martin felt threatened by the person he saw following him and turned to defend himself.

Just the latest example of the Tightie Rightie Two-Step.
 
Last edited:
So you believe it's alright for Zimmerman to have defended himself from a suspicious person he saw, but you can't picture a scenario in which Martin felt threatened by the person he saw following him and turned to defend himself.

Just the latest example of the Tightie Rightie Two-Step.

following someone in the manner zimmerman did is not against the law.

Fact.

criminally physically assaulting someone and causing bodily harm (especially multiple head injuries as one is on the ground) IS against the law.

Trayvon had no right to physical assault zimmerman, just because zimmerman was following him at one certain point.

Can I just beat the shit out of anyone that's following me on the street?

So you believe it's alright for Zimmerman to have defended himself from a suspicious person he saw,

This is a strawman. Your logical fallacy illustrates the insecurity you have regarding your argument. If you were confident in your position, you wouldn't have to do this.

No one has ever argued zimmerman had carte blanche to shoot someone on sight.

but you can't picture a scenario in which Martin felt threatened by the person he saw following him and turned to defend himself.

no evidence of this.

If you are going to make a positive claim, I expect you to provide some.

Trayvon was also a track star and would easily been able to flee zimmerman if he wished.
 
following someone in the manner zimmerman did is not against the law.

Fact.

criminally physically assaulting someone and causing bodily harm (especially multiple head injuries as one is on the ground) IS against the law.

Trayvon had no right to physical assault zimmerman, just because zimmerman was following him at one certain point.

Can I just beat the shit out of anyone that's following me on the street?


Did I say Zimmerman following Martin was "against the law"?

NO I did not...I expect that kind of bullshit from Yurt or bravo...that you imply as much shows the weakness behind your argument. Maybe you can bring down the rhetoric and hyperbole a couple notches and we can have a grown up discussion, eh?

It is also not against the law for someone to defend himself from a person deemed "a threat"...hence the SYG laws on the books in Fla.


This is a strawman. Your logical fallacy illustrates the insecurity you have regarding your argument. If you were confident in your position, you wouldn't have to do this.

No one has ever argued zimmerman had carte blanche to shoot someone on sight.


And yet you can't think of one single scenario in which Zimmerman might be at fault...which certainly highlights the flimsiness of your arguments.


no evidence of this.

If you are going to make a positive claim, I expect you to provide some.

Trayvon was also a track star and would easily been able to flee zimmerman if he wished.

There's no evidence AGAINST it either. It is nice to see however, that despite the fat you expect corroborating evidence from me, you're allowed to speculate about Trayvon's ability to escape from Zimmerman with no evidence to back it up.
 
Did I say Zimmerman following Martin was "against the law"?

NO I did not...I expect that kind of bullshit from Yurt or bravo...that you imply as much shows the weakness behind your argument. Maybe you can bring down the rhetoric and hyperbole a couple notches and we can have a grown up discussion, eh?

It is also not against the law for someone to defend himself from a person deemed "a threat"...hence the SYG laws on the books in Fla.





And yet you can't think of one single scenario in which Zimmerman might be at fault...which certainly highlights the flimsiness of your arguments.




There's no evidence AGAINST it either. It is nice to see however, that despite the fat you expect corroborating evidence from me, you're allowed to speculate about Trayvon's ability to escape from Zimmerman with no evidence to back it up.

The last line pretty much states that there is no evidence either way. That tells me that there is not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman.
 
The last line pretty much states that there is no evidence either way. That tells me that there is not enough evidence to convict Zimmerman.

so you decide this based on ZG's post?

Wow, just wow....
The day of armchair judges has come to pass.
 
Back
Top