Posted on 04/01/2012 5:18:58 PM PDT by marktwain
Yeah right. April Fool.
Well, if I thought someone was pursuing me, and then that person confronted me, and I saw that he was armed, I would run away... but I’m not 6’3” nor a teenaged boy.
If you’re planning to jump someone, why run away from him? Unless you’re planning to lure him into a trap... But then, why do that in front of homes with witnesses and so close to your father’s house? It. Makes. No. Sense.
That’s the question a lot of people have. Why did Trayvon run?
What we need are tougher laws when it comes to causing to incite a riot. As I understand it now, it’s a misdemeanor which is ludicrous considering the damage and death that can occur. The MSM without-a-doubt was the main culprit behind the LA Rodney King riots in the early ‘90s, only showing the video portion where King was beat but not the part where he pulled down his pants telling the cops to kiss his ass, then charging the cops again and again and again even after he was tased twice. And that is what the MSM is trying to do here once again. Editing Zimmermans 911 call to make him sound like a racist, claiming no marks are on his head when in fact there is. We have freedom of press but like the saying goes “You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater”. That is what the MSM is doing. They are lying, deceiving to cause destruction and put lives in danger.
Well, if he’d just burglarized a house, stolen items would’ve been found, or someone would’ve noticed their home had been broken into. If he’d just bought drugs, he would’ve had drugs on him... unless he dumped them somewhere. It seems more likely that he was just as suspicious of Zimmerman as Zimmerman was of him. But, we’ll never know what was going through this teen’s head.
A jury will have to decide that.
The LMM (lynch mob media) just isn’t going to give up on this until they’re beaten silly with the facts.
“A jury will have to decide that.”
*******************************************
You do understand that it might not get as far as an indictment with a subsequent jury trial, don’t you?
First off it wasn’t his father’s house. Second, if someone is following you and you are uncomfortable about it, use the cell phone to call the cops and then go home quickly. Its risky to swing around and attack the person from behind.
Who said Martin was planning to jump Zimmerman? Other than you.
I think you have me confused with someone else. I didn’t mention any of those things.
Yes, and I think that would be a mistake. The facts of this case are by no means as clear cut as some of the posters on the FR claim. My suspicion is that there will at least be an indictment. He might plead to something less, like a gun charge of some kind. You can’t carry a gun openly in Florida. The obvious question is how Martin knew to go for the gun, if it was concealed, which is apparently Zimmerman’s story. That’s just a misdemeanor, though. My suspicion is that they’ll want something more than that.
It was his father’s girlfriend’s home - but the father was staying there, too. As for being attacked from behind, that might be Zimmerman’s story, but there are no witnesses who saw it start.
We don’t know what he had on him. We don’t even know if he had skittles and iced tea or not.
One article says he went to the store during half time. Another says he went before the game started. A two mile round trip walk in the rain, just for some iced tea and skittles.
I see a commercial in there somewhere. “I’d walk two miles in the rain for some skittles.”
According to one witness they closed their windows because of the heavy downpour.
He wasn't carrying openly he was carrying concealed and he had a CCL.
The obvious question is how Martin knew to go for the gun, if it was concealed, which is apparently Zimmerman’s story.
According to George's brother Robert Martin didn't see it until he was on top of George on the ground bashing his head into the sidewalk. That is the only testimony published about how Martin saw the gun. It fits with eyewitness and recorded testimony in 911 calls that George was on bottom screaming for help before a gunshot was fired.
You took that sentence out of context.
“He wasn’t carrying openly he was carrying concealed and he had a CCL.”
You weren’t there, and I wasn’t there. That’s why we have juries. In order to charge him, all they need is probable cause. There is no question in my mind that this rises to that level. Apparently, the investigators agreed, but the Sheriff and local prosecutor (who are elected officials) blocked the prosecution. This is not a matter that can be decided by politicians.
I think that Zimmerman might beat it. He only needs to convince one juror that there is reasonable doubt. But I suspect that he will have to face a trial.
What bothers me most about all this is that it has reopened the gun control debate about the stand your ground law, and it seems to me that the stand your ground law does not apply. Zimmerman might have been acting in self defense, but I don’t think you can say that he was standing his ground. Since I have a Florida concealed weapons permit, the last thing I want to see is this incident serve as an excuse for repealing that law—particularly since the case has absolutely nothing to do with stand your ground. If Zimmerman violated the law, then he should be held accountable. I’m not going to excuse him just because the dead man had gold teeth. And I sure hope that a jury doesn’t.
Was George’s brother there?
Some witnesses say they saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman. Others saw Zimmerman straddling Trayvon, hands pressed against the teen’s back. Even these witness accounts don’t prove the case one way or another. A struggle took place before Trayvon’s death, but that certainly doesn’t mean that Trayvon initiated the struggle.
A grand jury is looking at the evidence, but if the initial police assessment is correct, Zimmerman will never be in front of a trial jury.
Hopefully, we still only bring people to trial when there is evidence to support a conviction and not simply because Al Sharpton is again selectively screaming racism.
State Attorney Wolfinger’s presence was unusual.
On a typical case, police contact the state attorney’s office and speak with an on-duty assistant state attorney; they either discuss the matter by phone or the on-duty assistant state attorney comes to the crime scene. Investigators spoke to the on-duty assistant state attorney who did not come to the scene — but State Attorney Wolfinger did.
Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee, along with Capt. Robert O’Connor, made the decision to release George Zimmerman after consulting with Wolfinger — in person. After a conversation between Lee, O’Connor and Wolfinger, the decision was made to “cut Zimmerman loose”.
Homicide investigator Chris Serino filed an affidavit stating that he did not believe Zimmerman’s account of the shooting. He recommended charging the 28-year-old with manslaughter, but was advised by Wolfinger’s office that there wasn’t enough evidence to secure a conviction. Zimmerman was subsequently released.
If true, the account may explain why Wolfinger recused himself from the case, on the same day Lee announced he was stepping aside.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.