Zimmerman was NOT beaten by Travon as claimed

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"][QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

ok I am going to try this one more time. Let me try to explain why we have courts.

the reason we have courts is to provide the evidence and then have the courts decide what happened. the cops and people on the side of the street DO NOT have the luxury of being the jury or the judge. This is misunderstood all the time.

again, courts are specifically in place explictly to make the point that the cops on the street do not get to say what the facts where.

does this at all make sense?

All the know, is someone is dead because of a gun fired from zimmermans hand. peroid, NOTHING more, that is usually reason to take someone off the street UNTIL courts have a trial.

why is this so hard to understand?

SEANMCAD

thats all fine and good the problem I am having is that there is an implict assumption here that if a witness said something then its true, or if the cops say something its true. Well its not, that is the whole point of having a trial.

They all might be correct, and you might be correct in the cops not having evidence enough to serve but my issue is so many here are implicting assuming that everything that is said toward his innocence is true and anything said to his guilt is not true. That is what troubles me, and that is what troubled the folks who came up with our wonderful system.

"it is better one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"

[QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"] There is a long held principle in our judicial system called prosecutorial discretion. No one, not the courts, not the legislature, no one can force a district attorney to bring someone to trial. District attorney's love convictions and hate acquittals. If they think they have good enough evidence to get a jury to convict, they will indict.Renevent42

thats all fine and good the problem I am having is that there is an implict assumption here that if a witness said something then its true, or if the cops say something its true. Well its not, that is the whole point of having a trial.

They all might be correct, and you might be correct in the cops not having evidence enough to serve but my issue is so many here are implicting assuming that everything that is said toward his innocence is true and anything said to his guilt is not true. That is what troubles me, and that is what troubled the folks who came up with our wonderful system.

"it is better one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]

"it is better one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"

SEANMCAD

I still dont think you understand and the system is designed because of that lack of understanding. let me try to expain again.

because your neighboor said something happened, dosent mean it did happen. Do you understand that? Do you understand why the court system is designed around that understanding?

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]

"it is better one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"

SEANMCAD

I still dont think you understand and the system is designed because of that lack of understanding. let me try to expain again.

because your neighboor said something happened, dosent mean it did happen. Do you understand that? Do you understand why the court system is designed around that understanding?

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]

"it is better one hundred guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"

SEANMCAD

I still dont think you understand and the system is designed because of that lack of understanding. let me try to expain again.

because your neighboor said something happened, dosent mean it did happen. Do you understand that? Do you understand why the court system is designed around that understanding?

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

I still dont think you understand and the system is designed because of that lack of understanding. let me try to expain again.

because your neighboor said something happened, dosent mean it did happen. Do you understand that? Do you understand why the court system is designed around that understanding?

SEANMCAD

you can be arrested and not convicted. Conviction is the only thing that is related to guilt or innocence. The reason people are arrested before proven guilty in a court of law is for immediate concern to the safety of the community which shooting someone dead easily qualifies for. When arrested you are 'charged' but not guilty of it.

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

you can be arrested and not convicted. Conviction is the only thing that is related to guilt or innocence. The reason people are arrested before proven guilty in a court of law is for immediate concern to the safety of the community which shooting someone dead easily qualifies for. When arrested you are 'charged' but not guilty of it.

SEANMCAD

Again, sorry but that is for the courts to decide not the police. At min. there should be a trial, regardless. At best he should be under house arrest.

I know circumstances of 'what about the rape victim story' but I am sorry its horrible circumstances but shotting someone for any reason no matter how justified is dangerious and if there is any reason to hold someone until trial because he might be a danger i cant think of a reason more important that shotting someone dead other than maybe trying to set off a bomb.
So unless the cops come back and suggest that Zimmerman didnt fire any weapon at all then at min there should be a trial

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

Again, sorry but that is for the courts to decide not the police. At min. there should be a trial, regardless. At best he should be under house arrest.

I know circumstances of 'what about the rape victim story' but I am sorry its horrible circumstances but shotting someone for any reason no matter how justified is dangerious and if there is any reason to hold someone until trial because he might be a danger i cant think of a reason more important that shotting someone dead other than maybe trying to set off a bomb.
So unless the cops come back and suggest that Zimmerman didnt fire any weapon at all then at min there should be a trial

SEANMCAD

still not hearing me. things like 'acting within the law' and 'grevious injury' is for the courts to decide not the cops.

why is this so hard for you to understand? are you trying to suggest that there shouldnt be any trial at all? never mind not arresting him righ tnow.

[QUOTE="Person0"][QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

I still dont think you understand and the system is designed because of that lack of understanding. let me try to expain again.

because your neighboor said something happened, dosent mean it did happen. Do you understand that? Do you understand why the court system is designed around that understanding?

SEANMCAD

you can be arrested and not convicted. Conviction is the only thing that is related to guilt or innocence. The reason people are arrested before proven guilty in a court of law is for immediate concern to the safety of the community which shooting someone dead easily qualifies for. When arrested you are 'charged' but not guilty of it.

Man...

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"][QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

you can be arrested and not convicted. Conviction is the only thing that is related to guilt or innocence. The reason people are arrested before proven guilty in a court of law is for immediate concern to the safety of the community which shooting someone dead easily qualifies for. When arrested you are 'charged' but not guilty of it.

SEANMCAD

yes it is getting old.

1. was he in jail at all even for an hour? are drunks put in jail before a trail for at least an hour?

2. people here are implictly suggesting that there should be no trial at all and on that I couldnt disagree more I dont care if its self defense, its important enough to proove it in a court of law.

3. words like 'obviously' are really starting to p*ss me off becuase it lacks a basic understanding of what I am saying

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

Probable cause is needed to arrest him.

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

yes it is getting old.

1. was he in jail at all even for an hour? are drunks put in jail before a trail for at least an hour?

2. people here are implictly suggesting that there should be no trial at all and on that I couldnt disagree more I dont care if its self defense, its important enough to proove it in a court of law.

3. words like 'obviously' are really starting to p*ss me off becuase it lacks a basic understanding of what I am saying

SEANMCAD

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

Probable cause is needed to arrest him.

yes I have been informed of that law and its a stupid law in my mind. but never the less, like I said using words like 'obviously' and presenting collected police evidence as facts to an argumentis of itself 'proove' that one doesnt have a f8cking clue what I am talking about despite many efforts to say it

Police don't/did not have probable cause of unlawful force>they cant arrest him//

Thats the law that they and the courts have to follow.

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"][QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

you can be arrested and not convicted. Conviction is the only thing that is related to guilt or innocence. The reason people are arrested before proven guilty in a court of law is for immediate concern to the safety of the community which shooting someone dead easily qualifies for. When arrested you are 'charged' but not guilty of it.

SEANMCAD

yes it is getting old.

1. was he in jail at all even for an hour? are drunks put in jail before a trail for at least an hour?

2. people here are implictly suggesting that there should be no trial at all and on that I couldnt disagree more I dont care if its self defense, its important enough to proove it in a court of law.

3. words like 'obviously' are really starting to p*ss me off becuase it lacks a basic understanding of what I am saying

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"][QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

1. He was in custody for a while, apparently. Not sure if that qualifies as "in jail" for you. "A drunk" would definitely be put in jail if the police had evidence the drunk had boken the law; i.e. a breathalyzer result. See, that is the point you seem to be missing. If the cops pull over someone on suspicion of drunk driving, and that person then passes the field sobriety test and the breathalyzer, the police are not going to arrest them. 2. I've never suggested the police should not continue to investigate. And, if they come up with evidence that warrants a trial, they should arrest and charge him. What you fail to comprehend is that the courts take a very very dim view of prosecutors wasting their time bringing cases they have no chance of winning. Further, its improper to impanel a jury of citizens, taking time away from their lives, just to verify that the district attorney has no case. 3. I'm sorry my use of the word obviously pisses you off, but I think I made valid use of the word. Zimmerman has shown absolutely no sign of being a flight risk.SEANMCAD

1. ... He was in custody for a while, apparently. Not sure if that qualifies as "in jail" for you....(Yes there can be a huge difference depending on context it does matter to me. You will never guess what 'in jail' means to me...take a wild guess

2. police should gather as much evidence as they can and there should be a trial REGARDLES of the evidence. why? because its a situation that is important enough. to have no trail whatsoever at all is to suggest its possible for one to kill someone with a gun and having nothing more than the police determine if it was self defense or not. So UNLESS, the police are wiling to suggest that the bullet didnt come from Zimmermans gun and or he didnt pull the trigger we should move ahead with a trail

3. There is enough 'evidence' floating around that contradicts itself to safely say NOTHING about this case is 'obvious'

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"][QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

1. ... He was in custody for a while, apparently. Not sure if that qualifies as "in jail" for you....(Yes there can be a huge difference depending on context it does matter to me. You will never guess what 'in jail' means to me...take a wild guess

2. police should gather as much evidence as they can and there should be a trial REGARDLES of the evidence. why? because its a situation that is important enough. to have no trail whatsoever at all is to suggest its possible for one to kill someone with a gun and having nothing more than the police determine if it was self defense or not. So UNLESS, the police are wiling to suggest that the bullet didnt come from Zimmermans gun and or he didnt pull the trigger we should move ahead with a trail

3. There is enough 'evidence' floating around that contradicts itself to safely say NOTHING about this case is 'obvious'

SEANMCAD

some evidence is required in my mind and that evidence exists and nobody is disputing it. what evidence am I speaking of?

zimmerman shot a gun and it killed someone.

Thats it, that alone makes the circumstances important enough to justify having a trial, without it it means the cops can decide if something is in self defense or not and that is giving the police far to much power that should remain in the hands of the court system.

The point is there's no evidence of wrong doing, you are assuming there is. The things you cited as evidence of wrong doing was your own injecting of someone else's motivation...that's just as bad as people saying Zimmerman gunned down Martin because he was acting like a thug. You clearly didn't look at everything that is available today, because frankly there's nothing that shows the prosecutor did anything wrong. You are simply assuming there must be foul play.

Is it possible there's been foul play? Sure, absolutely. Just as likely at this point it's entirely possible that he was totally inline with normal procedures and did nothing wrong, and only stepped down to ensure confidence in the investigation.

Renevent42

You mean other than the dead body?

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]

The point is there's no evidence of wrong doing, you are assuming there is. The things you cited as evidence of wrong doing was your own injecting of someone else's motivation...that's just as bad as people saying Zimmerman gunned down Martin because he was acting like a thug. You clearly didn't look at everything that is available today, because frankly there's nothing that shows the prosecutor did anything wrong. You are simply assuming there must be foul play.

Is it possible there's been foul play? Sure, absolutely. Just as likely at this point it's entirely possible that he was totally inline with normal procedures and did nothing wrong, and only stepped down to ensure confidence in the investigation.

nunovlopes

You mean other than the dead body?

Another one of these? Holy hell...

Anyways do you even understand what I was replying to in that particular quote? Pro-tip...it wasn't what you think it is.

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]

The point is there's no evidence of wrong doing, you are assuming there is. The things you cited as evidence of wrong doing was your own injecting of someone else's motivation...that's just as bad as people saying Zimmerman gunned down Martin because he was acting like a thug. You clearly didn't look at everything that is available today, because frankly there's nothing that shows the prosecutor did anything wrong. You are simply assuming there must be foul play.

Is it possible there's been foul play? Sure, absolutely. Just as likely at this point it's entirely possible that he was totally inline with normal procedures and did nothing wrong, and only stepped down to ensure confidence in the investigation.

Renevent42

You mean other than the dead body?

Well the problem is people don't need to see any evidence to know Zimmerman is guilty. He is just guilty to them.

[QUOTE="Renevent42"][QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

You mean other than the dead body?

Chaos_HL21

Well the problem is people don't need to see any evidence to know Zimmerman is guilty. He is just guilty to them.

Kony.D3nnyCrane

[QUOTE="D3nnyCrane"]Kony.SteverXIII

[QUOTE="nunovlopes"]

[QUOTE="Renevent42"]

The point is there's no evidence of wrong doing, you are assuming there is. The things you cited as evidence of wrong doing was your own injecting of someone else's motivation...that's just as bad as people saying Zimmerman gunned down Martin because he was acting like a thug. You clearly didn't look at everything that is available today, because frankly there's nothing that shows the prosecutor did anything wrong. You are simply assuming there must be foul play.

Is it possible there's been foul play? Sure, absolutely. Just as likely at this point it's entirely possible that he was totally inline with normal procedures and did nothing wrong, and only stepped down to ensure confidence in the investigation.

Renevent42

You mean other than the dead body?

Another one of these? Holy hell...

Anyways do you even understand what I was replying to in that particular quote? Pro-tip...it wasn't what you think it is.

Actually that was a reference to a scene from A Few Good Men :)

[QUOTE="SEANMCAD"]

[QUOTE="collegeboy64"] To suggest that there should EVER be a trial regardless of the evidence tells me either you are absolutely clueless how the american jurisprudence system works, or you are a troll. Either way, Vaya Con Dios my friend.collegeboy64

some evidence is required in my mind and that evidence exists and nobody is disputing it. what evidence am I speaking of?

zimmerman shot a gun and it killed someone.

Thats it, that alone makes the circumstances important enough to justify having a trial, without it it means the cops can decide if something is in self defense or not and that is giving the police far to much power that should remain in the hands of the court system.

I don't understand this reasoning. How do you know that the woman didn't kill the guy she was having sex with just for the hell of it? If you don't conduct a proper investigation, check her for signs of violence, etc.?

I'm not from the US so I don't really know how you system works.

A 12 year old was shot, doused with gasoline, then set on fire in Detroit last night.

Oh I forgot, it wasn't a supposed "hate crime". My bad. I guess this kid doesn't matter. They don't even know if it's a male or female because the body was burned so badly. No "Million Hoodie March" for him/her I guess. Oh well.

A 12 year old was shot, doused with gasoline, then set on fire in Detroit last night.

Oh I forgot, it wasn't a supposed "hate crime". My bad. I guess this kid doesn't matter. They don't even know if it's a male or female because the body was burned so badly. No "Million Hoodie March" for him/her I guess. Oh well.

SpartanMSU

Who is sayin this is a hate crime? At best, it may have some racial tension in it, but not hate. Zimmerman doesn't hate black people.

Also, this video only reinforces my original point that he didn't have to kill that kid. He doesn't appear to me like he was in a "fight for his life" based on that video...not even close. It seemed he was VERY LONG WAYS from getting pummeled to death.

[QUOTE="SpartanMSU"]

A 12 year old was shot, doused with gasoline, then set on fire in Detroit last night.

Oh I forgot, it wasn't a supposed "hate crime". My bad. I guess this kid doesn't matter. They don't even know if it's a male or female because the body was burned so badly. No "Million Hoodie March" for him/her I guess. Oh well.

sayyy-gaa

Who is sayin this is a hate crime? At best, it may have some racial tension in it, but not hate. Zimmerman doesn't hate black people.

Also, this video only reinforces my original point that he didn't have to kill that kid. He doesn't appear to me like he was in a "fight for his life" based on that video...not even close. It seemed he was VERY LONG WAYS from getting pummeled to death.

You missed the point.:|

None the less, it has the attention it does because of race. No doubting that.