New information of Zimmerman's claims in Trayvon shooting. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35331131]Where does it say he was being chocked?[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that is definitely what happened, just discussing a hypothetical self defense situation. [QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35331131]Seeing as the police are a step away from covering up this whole thing, Zimmerman giving the idea of being proud of what he did, the fact the evidence to his claim keeps changing in such rapid ways and considering YOU have a habit of making shit up and not sourcing it, yeah, I'm kinda leaning towards Martin in this case.[/QUOTE] Claiming the police are covering up a crime is a pretty serious claim that needs serious evidence to back it up. Also I don't think Zimmerman is proud at all, he has most of America hating his guts right now based their own speculation of what happened.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35331131]Then source it. Just saying "it's true, I read it somewhere" even though this has never been said anywhere else besides your post, I'm not exactly convinced. [editline]28th March 2012[/editline] And what the fuck are you talking about "cool down and come back with a clear head". Yeah, because I REALLY gave the aura of being fuming with anger. If you think that, you really need to work on how you evaluated how people work. As for being too invested in what happened? Seeing as the police are a step away from covering up this whole thing, Zimmerman giving the idea of being proud of what he did, the fact the evidence to his claim keeps changing in such rapid ways and considering YOU have a habit of making shit up and not sourcing it, yeah, I'm kinda leaning towards Martin in this case. [/QUOTE] Yes, you do appear to be upset. Didn't say you were angry either, just said you need to calm down.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;35324926]Which was what they did.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]One complicating factor in the investigation was that [I]the first detective to interview Zimmerman [B]about the shooting[/B] was a narcotics officer[/I] rather than a homicide detective.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Swebonny;35324926]Obviously it didn't lead to anything as the article states.[/QUOTE] Bringing in a homicide detective didn't lead to anything because [I]they've been considering this anything but a homicide despite the view of their homicide detective.[/I] [QUOTE=Swebonny;35324926]And how do you determine what kind if thing is of "substance"? Anything that's against Zimmerman?[/QUOTE] Considering I could go give Chris Serino a phone call because he's speaking from a sworn statement, I'd say it's substantiated. Now you're starting to let your bias show. [QUOTE=Swebonny;35324926]Don't deny the fact that media and idiots has created a fucking mess out of this case.[/QUOTE] Oh, sure, but there's a difference between "this is a crime because Al Sharpton says so" and "a detective has a affidavit". [QUOTE=Swebonny;35324926]Dragging in racial arguments for some reason,[/QUOTE] Well, if you've got a dead kid for no visible reason, race presents a possible motive. But, yes, it's been spun from "this might be a hate crime" to "this is definitely a hate crime because the talking heads declare it to be". [QUOTE=Swebonny;35324926]trying to portray Trayvon into some kind of innocent kid and so on.[/QUOTE] The fact that he once wrote WTF on a locker with a marker and smoked don't really make him a threat. If you're trying to talk about media bias, don't cite, as evidence, media bias created by Fox and co. [QUOTE=Swebonny;35324926]Funny because I thought you said they sided with him, while you now keep talking about the police making mistakes.[/QUOTE] Siding with a guy wrongly can't be a mistake? [QUOTE=Swebonny;35324926]Still, read your own link, be honest, following a kid because you think he's up to no good doesn't seem to fit in here:[/QUOTE] [QUOTE](2) Any person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking[/QUOTE] So you've got a dead kid on the ground, Zimmerman doing something 911 told him not to, [URL="http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/NWProgramHandbook.pdf"]something the area's actual neighborhood watch program explicitly states not to do,[/URL] and a detective who believes he's lying. Oh, yeah, definitely not enough to claim he willfully, maliciously, repeatedly followed someone.:rolleyes: I mean, it's not like ignoring statements not to do something proves you were willfully doing it, your stated intent being a blatant lie and a kid being dead implies enough malice to make an arrest, and your having lost the kid means you reengaged "over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose". You can keep pretending you're unbiased and yadda yadda don't know enough yet, but let me throw a couple more statutes at you. [QUOTE=http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0782/0782ContentsIndex.html&StatuteYear=2011&Title=-%3E2011-%3EChapter%20782][B]782.02 Justifiable use of deadly force.[/B] —The use of deadly force is justifiable when a person is resisting any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person shall be. [B]782.03 Excusable homicide.[/B] —Homicide is excusable when committed by accident and misfortune in doing any lawful act by lawful means with usual ordinary caution, and without any unlawful intent, or by accident and misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden and sufficient provocation, or upon a sudden combat, without any dangerous weapon being used and not done in a cruel or unusual manner. [B]782.11 Unnecessary killing to prevent unlawful act.[/B] —Whoever shall unnecessarily kill another, either while resisting an attempt by such other person to commit any felony, or to do any other unlawful act, or after such attempt shall have failed, shall be deemed guilty of manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.[/QUOTE] An assumption by the police that Zimmerman acted in self defense is also an assumption that: -Trayvon was committing a felony (this requires more than his hitting Zimmerman, as battery is a misdemeanor unless [URL="http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.03.html"]you have performed it before[/URL] or are causing "[URL="http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.041.html"]great bodily harm[/URL]" sufficient to kill or cause permanent damage), and Zimmerman could have done nothing to prevent an engagement, or -Zimmerman was not actually acting in self-defense, but rather shot Trayvon by accident and is lying about it (it cannot be an excusable homicide otherwise, as a weapon was used) I probably should have led off with this, because it makes it rather apparent that you do have to "side with someone" in making a decision to either arrest or not arrest Zimmerman. They had to make an initial assumption about [I]somebody.[/I] Zimmerman is either at a minimum a manslaughter suspect, or Trayvon is a felon. There is no "I dunno, lol" option.

[QUOTE=Vasili;35333322]Yes, you do appear to be upset. Didn't say you were angry either, just said you need to calm down.[/QUOTE] Yeah, lets stop focusing on your horrendous inability of evaluating emotion and start getting some sources for your claims.

Just saying, at night when im walking i dont follow black people thinking they are criminals...

Excuse me, but how can we say that these claims or witnesses are reliable? You realize that the longer you wait to interview a witness, the less accurate the testimony gets? [editline]28th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=k0dex;35334508]Just saying, at night when im walking i dont follow black people thinking they are criminals...[/QUOTE] This. Seriously, if he didn't start following Trayvon around for no good reason and listened to police instruction, none of this would have happened.

[QUOTE=faze;35328463]Following somebody doesn't give you the right to kill them when they confront you.[/QUOTE] Why are you implying I said, or even remotely meant that? I'm trying to assess the situation without a generic and half understood "sure seemz fishy round these here partssss"

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35333644] You can keep pretending you're unbiased and yadda yadda don't know enough yet, but let me throw a couple more statutes at you.[/QUOTE] Florida has a "stand your ground" law which is at the center of this issue [quote](3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.[/quote] [url]http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html[/url] There seems to be a lot of grey area in this case and I don't think it's true that you "need to side with someone" here. The police said they don't have solid evidence to dispute his self-defense story (because apparently, he was injured at the scene, bleeding and had grass stains on his back which were consistent with his story), so they can't arrest him without evidence.

[QUOTE=Governor Goblin;35334407]Yeah, lets stop focusing on your horrendous inability of evaluating emotion and start getting some sources for your claims.[/QUOTE] when we do you shrug them off as biased and made up, hence you're invested in your idea of what happened.

[QUOTE=joes33431;35334760]Seriously, if he didn't start following Trayvon around for no good reason and listened to police instruction, none of this would have happened.[/QUOTE] So Zimmerman, the volunteer neighborhood watchman, gets over-zealous. So what? Why did Martin feel obligated to take Zimmerman on? Why did a fight even start? There's no evidence to suggest (at the moment) that Zimmerman had every intention to use his gun that night so what difference would it have made if he felt obligated to question why this guy was acting funny in the rain? You can't pin the blame on one person in a case like this, considering one guy's dead and one guy was wounded at the scene. I think that means there was a scuffle between them for sure. It takes two to tango, chief. I think this case is purely being blown out of proportion because of the black community's cherry picking. This is starting to seem like an unfortunate situation that was compounded by two stubborn SOB's that ended up butting heads. One paid the ultimate price. Yet it's being blown out as if it's a racially motivated, prejudice killing. There's no evidence to support that assumption.

don't know how late but [url]http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/crime/2012/03/28/ac-zimmerman-handcuffs.abcnews-com#/video/crime/2012/03/28/ac-zimmerman-handcuffs.abcnews-com[/url] I see no injuries or anything like Zimmerman claimed he had

[QUOTE=J!NX;35337753]don't know how late but [url]http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/crime/2012/03/28/ac-zimmerman-handcuffs.abcnews-com#/video/crime/2012/03/28/ac-zimmerman-handcuffs.abcnews-com[/url] I see no injuries or anything like Zimmerman claimed he had[/QUOTE] I dunno man... tons of variables here.

[QUOTE=faze;35338249]I dunno man... tons of variables here.[/QUOTE] this entire thing is so damn vague in everything that I don't even know what to say anymore [editline]28th March 2012[/editline] I think I should just ignore these at this point why even bother following?

[QUOTE=Jim_Riley;35337548]So Zimmerman, the volunteer neighborhood watchman, gets over-zealous. So what? Why did Martin feel obligated to take Zimmerman on? Why did a fight even start? There's no evidence to suggest (at the moment) that Zimmerman had every intention to use his gun that night so what difference would it have made if he felt obligated to question why this guy was acting funny in the rain? You can't pin the blame on one person in a case like this, considering one guy's dead and one guy was wounded at the scene. I think that means there was a scuffle between them for sure. It takes two to tango, chief. I think this case is purely being blown out of proportion because of the black community's cherry picking. This is starting to seem like an unfortunate situation that was compounded by two stubborn SOB's that ended up butting heads. One paid the ultimate price. Yet it's being blown out as if it's a racially motivated, prejudice killing. There's no evidence to support that assumption.[/QUOTE] I'm saying that if Zimmerman hadn't been over-zealous than this wouldn't have happened. That's literally all I said.

[QUOTE=Jim_Riley;35337548]So Zimmerman, the volunteer neighborhood watchman, gets over-zealous. So what? Why did Martin feel obligated to take Zimmerman on? Why did a fight even start? There's no evidence to suggest (at the moment) that Zimmerman had every intention to use his gun that night so what difference would it have made if he felt obligated to question why this guy was acting funny in the rain? You can't pin the blame on one person in a case like this, considering one guy's dead and one guy was wounded at the scene. I think that means there was a scuffle between them for sure. It takes two to tango, chief. I think this case is purely being blown out of proportion because of the black community's cherry picking. This is starting to seem like an unfortunate situation that was compounded by two stubborn SOB's that ended up butting heads. One paid the ultimate price. Yet it's being blown out as if it's a racially motivated, prejudice killing. There's no evidence to support that assumption.[/QUOTE] I like how you try to take a neutral stance on this, but do so horribly by being as terribly bias as humanly possible. "although we don't know the facts, WHY DID MARTIN ATTACK HIM FIRST?" I also like your subtle racism that the black community tries to make themselves the victims.

[QUOTE=Noble;35337322]Florida has a "stand your ground" law which is at the center of this issue [url]http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html[/url] There seems to be a lot of grey area in this case and I don't think it's true that you "need to side with someone" here. The police said they don't have solid evidence to dispute his self-defense story (because apparently, he was injured at the scene, bleeding and had grass stains on his back which were consistent with his story), so they can't arrest him without evidence.[/QUOTE] The stand your ground law has nothing to do with this. It literally says what 782.02 says, prevention of death or great bodily harm is "any attempt to murder such person or to commit any felony upon him or her", except states you have no duty to retreat. That provides no protection from instigation or overuse of force, and the people who wrote the friggin' law have stated it does not apply here. The story is being taken advantage of to raise an opposition to it, sort of like it's being taken advantage of to raise an opposition to handgun carry, sort of like it's being taken advantage of to create racial drama. [QUOTE=J!NX;35337753]don't know how late but [url]http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/crime/2012/03/28/ac-zimmerman-handcuffs.abcnews-com#/video/crime/2012/03/28/ac-zimmerman-handcuffs.abcnews-com[/url] I see no injuries or anything like Zimmerman claimed he had[/QUOTE] Probably because that's a fucking awful video and you're not going to see anything on it.