The Trayvon Martin Clusterf*ck

[Winston Smith]

Unlike you and Chris, she had a bag of evidence...not the kind taken from Youtube.

I made my statement based on statements made by Special Prosecutor Corey following the filing of second degree murder charges in which she detailed the extent of the "full facts and circumstances" investigation her office conducted, built on two previous investigations by other law enforcement agencies, and introduced the team of experienced homicide investigators who conducted the special prosecutor office's investigation, concluding at one point "We have to have a reasonable certainty of conviction before filing charges."

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/04/11/ap ... e-custody/

OH, so you made up your mind just 2 days ago? Sure about that? hmmm?

I predicted based on the "smell test" in this forum last week that Zimmerman would be charged with manslaughter or second degree murder and convicted of same but now that the special prosecutor's office has completed its investigation and has a "reasonable certainty of conviction" on second degree murder charges I'm pretty certain myself this is how it's going down. I'd be virtually certain of conviction though based on all the holes in Zimmerman's version of events if the charge had been manslaughter.

We'll see.

Well, then, why wait for a trial?

Because imprisoning someone on the basis of what I or any other individual merely believe to be true rather than as a result of a fair, deliberate public trial would be a travesty -- which is why I view America's Gulagtanamo on Cuban soil as such a travesty even though I'm sure some of its inmates are guilty of terrorist crimes. What makes Gulagtanamo particularly galling though is Yanks never hesitate to speak out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to the right to due process.

[Tigerman]

I agree with Dershowitz... the Affidavit has nothing...

[Kea]

hmmmm

[Chris]

Two months later? Why the delay? Hmmmm

[Tigerman]

Two months later? Why the delay? Hmmmm

Dunno. But, the evidence is showing that the photo was taken 3 minutes after the shooting happened.

[Homey]

If you see someone and feel scared, and feel the need to defend yourself, why would you ever follow the person?

You follow someone, then call 911, then after they tell you to stop following, you follow him and kill him, that's just about the furthest thing from self defense possible. You want to defend yourself, turn around and walk the other way.

This case will just give the crazies a license to hunt and kill at will. Oh I was defending myself, I felt threatened. Never mind that I chose this person and decided to follow him and start shit. I felt threatened so it's ok that I killed him.

[Rockefeller]

Also guys at the end of the day, guns don't kill people. People kill people. And at times guns can defend people from people with smaller guns.

[Tigerman]

If you see someone and feel scared, and feel the need to defend yourself, why would you ever follow the person?

You follow someone, then call 911, then after they tell you to stop following, you follow him and kill him, that's just about the furthest thing from self defense possible. You want to defend yourself, turn around and walk the other way.

That's not at all what appears to have happened.

GZ is part of a neighborhood watch committee... there are thousands of these in the US. The watch their neighborhoods, and if they see anything/one suspicious, they watch and or call the police. GZ did both. Yes, the police advised GZ not to keep following TM, but, GZ is still entitled to watch from a distance or even to follow. We don't know yet how the actual fight started. Saying that GZ "followed and killed" TM is simply making shit up. How do you know that TM did not confront GZ for following him? And if it did go down as I suspect, that TM confronted GZ after being followed, then GZ acted in self-defense. Even if GZ confronted TM, the fact appears to be that TM was the aggressor and that GZ feared serious bodily harm and or death, and so, GZ used deadly force to protect himself.

How is any of this a problem?

This case will just give the crazies a license to hunt and kill at will. Oh I was defending myself, I felt threatened. Never mind that I chose this person and decided to follow him and start shit. I felt threatened so it's ok that I killed him.

Nonsense. Your facts are just made up. Sorta like the Prosecutor's case!

An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie... We do know that there were earlier photographs before the affidavit was done that strongly suggested blood on the back of the head, and we know the police had first access to him, so if there was blood they [the prosecution] would know about it… I've had cases in Florida against prosecutors, and this is not the first time they have willfully omitted exculpatory evidence. It's a continuing problem. Here, it’s not only immoral, but stupid. The whole country is watching. What do they benefit from having half-truths in an affidavit?

Its just as likely that the outcome of this case will be that thugs think twice before attacking others.

[cfimages]

Also guys at the end of the day, guns don't kill people. People kill people. And at times guns can defend people from people with smaller guns.

Guns sure kill a lot more people than say, a loaf of bread.

If GZ didn't have a gun, TM would be alive today.

[flike]

Guns sure kill a lot more people than say, a loaf of bread.

If GZ didn't have a gun, TM would be alive today.

Weren't they in close quarters? If Zimmerman had had, say, a knife, or a club, or even a bowling ball, couldn't it be true that Mr. Martin would likely be just as dead?

And I hope you've taken very stale, or even fossilized loafs of bread into your analysis. Because it's silly as hell otherwise.