George Zimmerman

[Beefsteak1138]

Originally Posted by JimC

No, my point was in a perfect world there would be no doubt, we'd have whatever evidence we'd need. Personally I just think it's nonsensical to suggest Trayvon actually attacked this guy. What would his motive have been?

He sees a guy following him, tells him to fuck off, Zimmerman refuses, Trayvon confronts him. Just as likely as any other scenario, IMO.

[Lcsulla]

I think it is equally nonsensical to claim that Zimmerman simply attacked and shot him for no reason. What would his motive have been?

There is doubt and we have virtually no evidence at all. Like I said, tough sell on a conviction.

[zajDmB1]

Originally Posted by Doors Allan Coe

Well it's not JUST the media. Here is the real reason why it got political.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...rayvon-martin/

At this point in his remarks, Rush took off his jacket to reveal that he was wearing a hoodie underneath it. He covered his head with the hood, violating a rule in Congress that prohibits wearing hats on the House floor.

"Racial profiling has to stop, Mr. Speaker. Just because someone wears a hoodie does not make them a hoodlum," Rush added, swapping his spectacles for a pair of sunglasses.

---

Yesterday, Martin's parents attended a House judiciary forum in Washington, D.C., in which Democratic lawmakers called for Congress to pass stronger laws prohibiting racial profiling, and urged state legislatures to repeal the so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws which have come under intense scrutiny in light of Martin's death.

There is two parts to making it political, though. Repubs could have just ignored it or said something like, sure, end racial profiling, we just don't think that has anything to do with Trayvon. Instead, they flip shit and react just as poorly as the first people.

[whygohome?]

Originally Posted by Matt83

Which just means those "folks" will do what they usually do, and no rational thinking person will be surprised by the chimp-outs.

Are we really just gonna act like this is ok?

[ShotgunDMB]

No. The case against Zimmy is a joke. Not saying the guy is a saint, or even a good person. That's irrelevant. But no way they can get 2nd degree murder with the evidence they have, with a fair jury.

At this point it's a dumb racial witch hunt, nothing more.

[dre2142]

Originally Posted by Lcsulla

There is doubt and we have virtually no evidence at all. Like I said, tough sell on a conviction.

"We" meaning the public? Because anyone not working within the investigation is just making blatant assumptions by saying something like that.

[dre2142]

Originally Posted by ShotgunDMB

No. The case against Zimmy is a joke. Not saying the guy is a saint, or even a good person. That's irrelevant. But no way they can get 2nd degree murder with the evidence they have, with a fair jury.

Again...totally ridiculous assumptions. Since when is all of the evidence made public before a trial even begins

[Lcsulla]

Originally Posted by zajDmB1

There is two parts to making it political, though. Repubs could have just ignored it or said something like, sure, end racial profiling, we just don't think that has anything to do with Trayvon. Instead, they flip shit and react just as poorly as the first people.

Honestly, this would be just another random killing if it was not for the media and the morons like Jackson, Rush, Sharpton and the rest of those type people who enjoy the money and publicity they get from blowing a tragedy into some sort of repudiation of the 14th amendment.

[AJF_41]

Originally Posted by ShotgunDMB

No. The case against Zimmy is a joke. Not saying the guy is a saint, or even a good person. That's irrelevant. But no way they can get 2nd degree murder with the evidence they have, with a fair jury.

At this point it's a dumb racial witch hunt, nothing more.

[Lcsulla]

Originally Posted by dre2142

"We" meaning the public? Because anyone not working within the investigation is just making blatant assumptions by saying something like that.

Hence the caveat virtually.

[dre2142]

Originally Posted by Lcsulla

Hence the caveat virtually.

what you THINK they have or dont have is irrelevant though. Its 100% assumption

[Jimi Thing 10]

1. Tell people we don't have all the evidence to make an opinion.

2. Make your own assumption.

[Lcsulla]

With the media circus surrounding this I am guessing any tangible evidence would have been made known on the released crime report or leaked to the media. The prosecution HAS to disclose all evidence during discovery anyhow. Not to mention if they had solid evidence why wasn't there an arrest until nearly 2 months after the incident?

You are correct though, we may not know but I am guessing if there was some hard evidence we'd know and an arrest would have been made a lot sooner.

[Spell On Me]

I hope he isn't.

[jwehaeDMB]

Originally Posted by JimC

No, my point was in a perfect world there would be no doubt, we'd have whatever evidence we'd need. Personally I just think it's nonsensical to suggest Trayvon actually attacked this guy. What would his motive have been?

I agree here. Makes more sense than the opposite.

[dre2142]

Originally Posted by Lcsulla

With the media circus surrounding this I am guessing any tangible evidence would have been made known on the released crime report or leaked to the media. The prosecution HAS to disclose all evidence during discovery anyhow. Not to mention if they had solid evidence why wasn't there an arrest until nearly 2 months after the incident?

You are correct though, we may not know but I am guessing if there was some hard evidence we'd know and an arrest would have been made a lot sooner.

Did you not read this?
http://globalgrind.com/news/Angela-C...photos-details

And because of the media circus you knew that it took 2 months to finally arrest him. Otherwise, this isnt something that is crazy out of the ordinary. (investigating a crime, it taking some time to form a case, and then arresting a suspect weeks or months later)

[dmbfan324990]

get over it

[Jake]

the "stand your ground" law, as the media has portrayed it, actually doesn't apply to this case. It's highly likely it won't come up in a trial at all, if there is indeed a trial and Zimmerman isn't released prior to that.

[smudge1]

Originally Posted by Lcsulla

With the media circus surrounding this I am guessing any tangible evidence would have been made known on the released crime report or leaked to the media. The prosecution HAS to disclose all evidence during discovery anyhow. Not to mention if they had solid evidence why wasn't there an arrest until nearly 2 months after the incident?

You are correct though, we may not know but I am guessing if there was some hard evidence we'd know and an arrest would have been made a lot sooner.

Exactly. It was the state attorneys office that said there was not enough evidence for arrest at the time of the shooting. I'd venture to say that they know what they're talking about.

[dre2142]

Originally Posted by Jake

the "stand your ground" law, as the media has portrayed it, actually doesn't apply to this case. It's highly likely it won't come up in a trial at all, if there is indeed a trial and Zimmerman isn't released prior to that.

this gets lost a lot

[JimC]

With enough force to make Zimmerman draw a gun and shoot? Just for being followed? I just don't think so. Based on the news reports I've heard, my guess is Zimmermattn attempted a citizen's arrest, and Martin resisted. Zimmerman panicked and shot him. Speculation? I prefer intuition. And I'm not saying Zimmerman should go to jail based on that, but I don't see how anyone who's paid attention to the case can think Zimmerman didn't start it.

[abbikinz]

Originally Posted by luccic12

That bitch that killed her daughter got off, no?

That was Kasey Anthony lol. Don't keep on the current events, I see

[ShotgunDMB]

so the media just wants to attack "stand your ground" because they are generally hostile to 2nd amendment rights?

/shockedededed

[Jake]

Originally Posted by JimC

With enough force to make Zimmerman draw a gun and shoot? Just for being followed? I just don't think so. Based on the news reports I've heard, my guess is Zimmermattn attempted a citizen's arrest, and Martin resisted. Zimmerman panicked and shot him. Speculation? I prefer intuition. And I'm not saying Zimmerman should go to jail based on that, but I don't see how anyone who's paid attention to the case can think Zimmerman didn't start it.

bolded is where you made your mistake

[Beefsteak1138]

Originally Posted by JimC

With enough force to make Zimmerman draw a gun and shoot? Just for being followed? I just don't think so. Based on the news reports I've heard, my guess is Zimmermattn attempted a citizen's arrest, and Martin resisted. Zimmerman panicked and shot him. Speculation? I prefer intuition. And I'm not saying Zimmerman should go to jail based on that, but I don't see how anyone who's paid attention to the case can think Zimmerman didn't start it.

Call it what you want, but there are a lot of blanks that need to be filled in before you can say that with any certainty.

[dre2142]

Originally Posted by Beefsteak1138

Call it what you want, but there are a lot of blanks that need to be filled in before you can say that with any certainty.

blanks that the prosecution feels safe enough being able to fill....and blanks that the defense hopes the prosecution fails at filling. Its the prosecutions burden to prove

[Beefsteak1138]

Originally Posted by dre2142

blanks that the prosecution feels safe enough being able to fill....and blanks that the defense hopes the prosecution fails at filling. Its the prosecutions burden to prove

Stated..

[Lcsulla]

The great part is this has absolutely zero impact on my life one way or another. A guy may or may not go to jail, I still have to get up for work every morning regardless of outcome. I can just sit back with some popcorn and a beer watching the drama unfold on TV.

[JimC]

Originally Posted by Jake

bolded is where you made your mistake

Well, what am I supposed to base my opinion on? Or is this an anti-MSM thing?

[dre2142]

Originally Posted by JimC

Well, what am I supposed to base my opinion on? Or is this an anti-MSM thing?

well, you base it on what evidence comes out during the trial.