• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unabogie,

Any predictions / speculations what might happen if Crump pleads the 5th?
 
Skeptic Tank said:
What do you think was going on with George during the call, do you believe he was misrepresenting his level of knowledge about street names and pretending to be unable to get a clear address when he actually could, in order to deceive the dispatcher and get an officer on the way... but ensure the officer didn't arrive too quickly? Giving him time enough to murderize Trayvon first?

I'm just honestly trying to grasp what it is you're getting at. A lot of you folks seem very resistant to believing George really didn't know the name of that street, etc... but it seems to be something where you enjoy making implications of something sinister going on, but never actually spelling it out (probably because you know it would sound absurd) so... if I'm wrong, maybe you can clear this up for me?
Click to expand...


Have you really listened to that call? The dispatcher never asks George for the street name. At one point, the dispatcher asks George:

198.508127 200.649981 D: O-K, wha, what address are you parked in front of?

To which George replies:

202.039361 202.764766 ummm
202.903484 203.613617 I don't know
203.702702 205.644751 it's a cut through so I don't know the address

Now look at the dispatchers reply:

206.230166 207.568983 D: O-K, do you live in the area?

Do you see that "O-K". The dispatcher is very distinct. Georges answer was acceptable and the dispatcher is moving on to acquire other information.

It's afterwards. After George has murdered an unarmed kid, George is trying desperately to come up with an excuse for why he was back there. George is claiming that he didn't know the name of the street. One of only three streets in his neighborhood. A street whose name is in big letters above the stop sign that he would see every day. George is trying to lie his way out of a murder conviction. And you are lapping it up.

BTW: That last post was primarily responding to phonebook's attempt to claim that George didn't stop at the clubhouse to make the phone call.
 
Last edited:
Unabogie said:
How dare they prosecute a guy just for shooting their kid?
Click to expand...

That's just it, it's not supposed to be up to them to prosecute him. It's also not supposed to come down to how emotionally Angela Corey feels about his beautiful parents and how much she enjoys praying with them...

it's not supposed to be about showing that someone who shoots a black person will "face justice" or about anybody getting re-elected or about avoiding riots...

It's supposed to be about what the law says, and what the evidence indicates. Period.

ladyjustice.jpg
 
Skeptic Tank said:
That's just it, it's not supposed to be up to them to prosecute him. It's also not supposed to come down to how emotionally Angela Corey feels about his beautiful parents and how much she enjoys praying with them...

it's not supposed to be about showing that someone who shoots a black person will "face justice" or about anybody getting re-elected or about avoiding riots...

It's supposed to be about what the law says, and what the evidence indicates. Period.

[qimg]http://kchapmangibbons.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/ladyjustice.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...


I would venture to guess that a courtroom would be an ideal location to determine what the evidence indicates and what the law says.
 
Amazer said:
I would venture to guess that a courtroom would be an ideal location to determine what the evidence indicates and what the law says.
Click to expand...

But there are provisions for not putting someone who quite clearly acted in self-defense through the financially crippling and extremely traumatic process of a trial when the evidence is deemed clear that it was self-defense by the police.

Unless you think every battered spouse should automatically face a murder trial no matter how convincing the evidence of long-standing abuse is, or every person who shot someone who broke into their house... even if that person was wielding a weapon themselves, etc?

Another good place to determine the merit of this case might have been the grand jury. Or Norm Wolfinger's office.

The fact that the police will largely be called as witnesses for the defense in this case, and that a prosecutor had to be brought in from another county to charge Zimmerman should tell you a LOT about what's going on here and how legitimate it is or is not.
 
If this is a case that you think it's so clear-cut that it should have been dismissed, then it just illustrates a dire need for mandatory trials for all cases of self-defense.
 
Originally Posted by Skeptic Tank
That's just it, it's not supposed to be up to them to prosecute him.
...
Click to expand...

Well that's a new one. It's not supposed to be a prosecutors job to prosecute.

Hmph.
 
Megalodon said:
If this is a case that you think it's so clear-cut that it should have been dismissed, then it just illustrates a dire need for mandatory trials for all cases of self-defense.
Click to expand...

Don't you mean all homicide investigations where the local police department concludes there's not enough evidence to charge the killer with a crime should be tossed aside when there is a large public outcry for an arrest/charge, by those totally unfamiliar with the details/findings of that investigation, just in case?
 
The only public outcry I see is the one to dismiss the charges in a case where the killer followed is unarmed victim, killed him, and made a series of contradictory statements regarding the case.
 
Megalodon said:
The only public outcry I see is the one to dismiss the charges in a case where the killer followed is unarmed victim, killed him, and made a series of contradictory statements regarding the case.
Click to expand...

Have you forgotten the situation in the initial month or two of this story?
 
phonebook, are you telling me that you think there is no evidence or discrepancies in this case, and that it should have been thrown out immediately?
 
WINTER PARK, Fla. - A Winter Park police officer stepped down after making a racist remark while discussing the Trayvon Martin case.


Lieutenant Ron Johnson quickly retired after an internal investigation revealed he said, "This is why they should be drowned at birth," in reference to black people.


Wow.
 
Yes, i think the conclusion from the Sanford PD's initial investigation, that there wasn't enough evidence to charge GZ with a crime, was the appropriate one.
 
phonebook said:
Yes, i think the conclusion from the Sanford PD's initial investigation, that there wasn't enough evidence to charge GZ with a crime, was the appropriate one.
Click to expand...

After 217 pages of discussion you think any of the sides of the story are 'obviously right'.

Okay...
 
The investigators that do this sorta stuff for a living, that actually conducted all the interviews with GZ, that conducted and/or had direct knowledge and understanding of the ballistics and other forensic evidence, came to a conclusion, based on that entire body of evidence, that there wasn't enough evidence to convict. Does that mean nothing to you?
 
KatieG said:
Unless you are a sock puppet for Skeptic Tank, your answer is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

My answer is that your posts indicate that you might be taking things people contemplate re: Trayvon and his family a little bit too personally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom