Black V Jew

[Fat Cat]

Yes, but the police who actually investigated the scene felt that Zimmerman had committed a serious crime and the only reason they didn't charge him was because he was instructed not to do so. The reason given was paucity of evidence, which amounts to a technicality, and not because there was any doubt about his wrongdoing.

Bear that in mind when you defend him.

[johno]

Yes, but the police who actually investigated the scene felt that Zimmerman had committed a serious crime and the only reason they didn't charge him was because he was instructed not to do so. The reason given was paucity of evidence, which amounts to a technicality, and not because there was any doubt about his wrongdoing.

Bear that in mind when you defend him.

I'm not defending Z, I'm challenging the media rush to judgement - the automatic assumption that Zimmerman attacked Martin, and that the attack was racially motivated. I'm in favor of further investigation. Hopefully, evidence was preserved so that the questions can be better answered.

Paucity of the evidence is not a technicality to me. Until/unless the evidence reveals what happened, all we have are hunches and speculation.

[Fat Cat]

There's no "assumption" that Zimmerman attacked Martin, it's a known fact that his dumb ass pursued and approached Martin with a loaded firearm for no reason and then when shit got real, he killed the kid. And bullshit about your "all we have are hunches" crap because you're not on here calling for equanimity, you are defending whitey because of you're own bias.

[Kraj 2.0]

Peruvians are not Beaners. Show me his Ancestry.com report? Zimmerman is a commom Geman name, not necessarily a Jewish surname. Ignoramus!

Peruvians are just high altitude Beaners with funnier hats. Stop being anal with semantics. And "Zimmerman" is not a common German name. No self-respecting German would spell it that way. The true German form is "Zimmermann"... two N's. The form with one N is almost exclusively Jewish. How many non-Jews do you know named "Zimmerman"? None. Exactly.

[Fat Cat]

Prosecutor's name is Norman Wolfinger so either it's Florida Jews covering for their own or ze Germanz have a foothold in the sunshine state.

[Testiclaw]

A is where Zimmerman made the 911 call, B is where he stopped and got out of his car (his reason for doing this was to check the street name to see where he was...) and C is where the body of Martin was found.

The Neighborhood Watch guy who doesn't know the block over...Hmmmmmm...

EDIT: I said C, but meant circle, the green circle is where the body of Martin was found.

[Fat Cat]

The guy is a fat useless fucking clown, regardless of culpability. I'm glad his name is ass in Florida.

[Pinky]

There's no "assumption" that Zimmerman attacked Martin, it's a known fact that his dumb ass pursued and approached Martin with a loaded firearm for no reason and then when shit got real, he killed the kid. And bullshit about your "all we have are hunches" crap because you're not on here calling for equanimity, you are defending whitey because of you're own bias.

It's actually not a known fact that Zimmerman approached Martin. There is no evidence, other than Zimmerman's word, that tells us which of them approached the other.

And LOL at your accusing anyone else of bias when you're jumping to conclusions after acknowledging a "paucity of evidence".

We know that Zimmerman was following Martin, which is stupid but not a crime. We know he was on his back and getting his ass kicked. We know he shot and killed the kid who was beating him. We don't know much else, but people are lining up to fill in the blanks with their own prejudice.

[Fat Cat]

Step off. If Zimmerman did not approach Martin, how did they come into contact? Martin chased down a truck on foot? Your own post acknowledges as much. Cheap sophistry doesn't work on me.

[Fat Cat]

BTW, which conclusion did I jump to?

[vern]

Trayvonnosaurus Rex

[johno]

There's no "assumption" that Zimmerman attacked Martin, it's a known fact that his dumb ass pursued and approached Martin with a loaded firearm for no reason and then when shit got real, he killed the kid. And bullshit about your "all we have are hunches" crap because you're not on here calling for equanimity, you are defending whitey because of you're own bias.

You gloss over the key issue with "shit got real." Zimmerman had as much right to be on the street as Martin. He had a right to watch Martin, and to call 9-1-1 on his cell phone, even if he was wrong about Martin's behavior & intentions.

If he didn't threaten Martin or get up in his face, try to "citizen's arrest" him or block his path, then he did nothing illegal to that point. The key is, what started the confrontation? Following at a non-threatening distance is not enough, IMO, if that's what Zimmerman did.

[Kraj 2.0]

If he didn't threaten Martin or get up in his face, try to "citizen's arrest" him or block his path, then he did nothing illegal to that point. The key is, what started the confrontation? Following at a non-threatening distance is not enough, IMO, if that's what Zimmerman did.

That's the point. We don't know what the beaner kike or the nig kid did. We don't know how the confrontation started and how it escalated. These are all questions that should be answered with a proper investigation. Calling for a bodybag and letting the kike take his gun and go home doesn't answer shit. It's piss-poor police work and it reeks of an agenda. The fact that the mainstream media is making this out to be a race issue should tell you it's a BS smokescreen. Zimmerman getting off scott free has less to do with the kid being black and more to do with Zimmerman being Jewish.

[Turdacious]

Yes, but the police who actually investigated the scene felt that Zimmerman had committed a serious crime and the only reason they didn't charge him was because he was instructed not to do so. The reason given was paucity of evidence, which amounts to a technicality, and not because there was any doubt about his wrongdoing.

Bear that in mind when you defend him.

Paucity of evidence is not a technicality in our legal system. Even you know that.

[Fat Cat]

There's no "assumption" that Zimmerman attacked Martin, it's a known fact that his dumb ass pursued and approached Martin with a loaded firearm for no reason and then when shit got real, he killed the kid. And bullshit about your "all we have are hunches" crap because you're not on here calling for equanimity, you are defending whitey because of you're own bias.

You gloss over the key issue with "shit got real." Zimmerman had as much right to be on the street as Martin. He had a right to watch Martin, and to call 9-1-1 on his cell phone, even if he was wrong about Martin's behavior & intentions.

If he didn't threaten Martin or get up in his face, try to "citizen's arrest" him or block his path, then he did nothing illegal to that point. The key is, what started the confrontation? Following at a non-threatening distance is not enough, IMO, if that's what Zimmerman did.

The funny thing is I'm not defending Martin, I don't know anything about what really happened, but it's clear that the whole situation is scandalous.

[Thatcher II]

I be with FC here. A man shoots another man on a street. He should be in custody answering questions. Not at home making sandwiches and watching TV. Hiding behind a "right to be on the street" and a "right to follow him" and (brace yourselves) a "right to bear arms" shows how fucked the US conceptual framework is. Someone was shot dead. Deprived of their right to life. In circumstances where they were in a public place, unarmed and where there is no suggestion that they were up to no good or threatening someone else with death or serious injury. I don't know why this isn't shocking to everyone.

[Yes, I'm drunk]

I ask this out of ignorance, but I thought the "probable cause" in this case would be the shooter's confession to the police that he had shot dead a young man. I don't see any more probable cause to arrest someone than the existence of a person's dead body and someone's admission that they caused the death of that person. Does it not then follow that the police would interview under caution and obtain the suspects version of events, and then investigate further in light of their statement and any other witness statements and/or evidence uncovered?

[baffled]

At least Spike Lee didn't do anything stupid...

[Pinky]

Step off. If Zimmerman did not approach Martin, how did they come into contact? Martin chased down a truck on foot? Your own post acknowledges as much. Cheap sophistry doesn't work on me.

Apparently reading doesn't work on you either. Everyone, including Zimmerman, acknowledges that he was out of his truck when (he claims) Martin approached and attacked him. It's entirely possible that he was simply following Martin (again, not a smart thing to do) and Martin turned around and initiated the confrontation; or that after he lost him, as he told the 911 operator, Martin circled around and confronted him. It's also possible that Zimmerman tracked the kid down and tried to illegally restrain him. There's nothing but conjecture and prejudice to fill in the blanks between the 911 call and Zimmerman getting his ass kicked.

Equanimity is exactly what's needed in this case. Prosecutors and investigators obviously still have some work to do, but they're moving more slowly than the hucksters who have lined up to inflame public sentiment in pursuit of their own agenda.

[The man in black]

I ask this out of ignorance, but I thought the "probable cause" in this case would be the shooter's confession to the police that he had shot dead a young man. I don't see any more probable cause to arrest someone than the existence of a person's dead body and someone's admission that they caused the death of that person. Does it not then follow that the police would interview under caution and obtain the suspects version of events, and then investigate further in light of their statement and any other witness statements and/or evidence uncovered?

My understanding is they need probable cause that it was not a self defense shooting, of which they apparently did not. He was interviewed at the police station after the shooting once the Sanford fire department cleared him in regards to his injuries, according to the police report.

[Yes, I'm drunk]

I ask this out of ignorance, but I thought the "probable cause" in this case would be the shooter's confession to the police that he had shot dead a young man. I don't see any more probable cause to arrest someone than the existence of a person's dead body and someone's admission that they caused the death of that person. Does it not then follow that the police would interview under caution and obtain the suspects version of events, and then investigate further in light of their statement and any other witness statements and/or evidence uncovered?

My understanding is they need probable cause that it was not a self defense shooting, of which they apparently did not. He was interviewed at the police station after the shooting once the Sanford fire department cleared him in regards to his injuries, according to the police report.

I don't mean to be a dick here, and like I say I don't fully understand this, but isn't the "probable cause" in these matters referring to the law officer's warrant to arrest someone for a suspected offence, and not whether the suspect has a defence to that offence or not. Essentially there's always a defence to an alleged charge, and that is what a trial is for. I only ask because I'd assume a dead body and a confession by a witness to having caused said death was a "probable cause" that a crime had been committed, regardless of whether at the trial stage the suspect was found innocent or guilty.

[The man in black]

Killing someone in self defense is not illegal though, so no crime. Apparently Florida is a little more liberal in this than other states. If I call the cops and say I just killed someone in self defence and they show up and see that I have bloody knuckles and no other marks on me while the dead guy has bruises all over his face and a bullethole in his chest anyone with common sense would say there is probable cause that this was not a self defense shooting and I would be arrested.
The truth could be someone else wooped his ass, I was punching the heavy bag without any gloves earlier and he then attacked me and I was truly in fear of my life but that is something that would come out afterwards.

[jgmack]

Peruvians are not Beaners. Show me his Ancestry.com report? Zimmerman is a commom Geman name, not necessarily a Jewish surname. Ignoramus!

Peruvians are just high altitude Beaners with funnier hats. Stop being anal with semantics. And "Zimmerman" is not a common German name. No self-respecting German would spell it that way. The true German form is "Zimmermann"... two N's. The form with one N is almost exclusively Jewish. How many non-Jews do you know named "Zimmerman"? None. Exactly.

Wrong, Zimmerman is the 441st most common surnmame in the US. Derived from Zimmermann a German name. There are even blacks named Zimmerman. Not a Beaner and not a Jew. Ignoramus

[jgmack]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/ ... ce-officer

[johno]

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Secti ... Report.pdf

Initial police report, per MSNBC.