Martin/Zimmerman-----Poll

[retro]

You see how ignorant people are..We have idiots that already have him convicted

and you already have him as wrongfully accused and innocent. What's the difference?

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

Why is it that whenever your crass behaviour challenged, you try to divert attention by making the other party out to be a bad guy and pretending that "there's no evidence"?

We have morons who have already found him innocent simply because others want him convicted.

All I've asked for is that judgement be restricted to evidence that is of a legally admissible standard. Sorry, but that excludes most of the emotional drivel that you have dredged up.

 

[The Man]

Where is the evidence of murder?

 

[The Man]

You guys keep posting this shit...post some evidence

 

[retro]

Ok tro.
What evidence? I have posted the link twice for the affidavit.
As I said there is no evidence.
Read it and post the evidence contained within.

You obviously don't understand what an affidavit is and what its purpose is in a situation like this. It was an affidavit of probable cause, which is simply a brief summary of the case and provides facts that provide probable cause that a crime was committed. The state isn't required to prove their case in the affidavit, nor are they expected to... they merely need to have a sworn statement providing probable cause for an arrest warrant to be issued and charges to be filed. Pay very close attention to what I'm posting below...

The facts mentioned in this Affidavit are not a complete-recitation of all thepertinent facts and evidence in this case but only are presented for a determination of
Probable Cause for Second Degree Murder.

That's all that the affidavit is... it isn't a recitation of all of the facts, it's merely a summary of some of the facts involved, which they believe to be enough to determine probable cause. All of the evidence and facts about the case will come out during the pretrial and trial. The defense can make a motion to dismiss the case due to lack of evidence... if the judge deems that the state does not have enough evidence to proceed, then he can dismiss it with or without prejudice, depending on the circumstances. The defense will also be able to challenge the assertions in the affidavit, and attack the witnesses brought by the prosecution to testify on their behalf as they present their case against Mr. Zimmerman in a court of law. This is how our legal system works, and it seems to be working just fine. Mr. Zimmerman gets the opportunity to defend his case before a jury of his peers, as is laid down in our Constitution.... there are lots of problems with our legal system, but I'm certain that what has transpired thus far is a much better outcome than vigilante justice or something similar.

But, I suggest that you do some reading about our legal system before you continue any further in this thread. It's pretty sad that I just had to explain part of our legal process to you because you seem to have a giant lack of understanding in that realm. Research before you post, you'll save yourself a lot of difficulties and ridicule in the future. As for me, I'm tired of trying to have a discussion and then having to spend damn near 500 words trying to educate you on very basic principles and facts. If you'd like, I'll simply blast your half-truths and misunderstandings completely out of the water without you ever really even understanding why you were wrong to begin with. Then again, it's somewhat amusing pointing out just how completely clueless you actually are, and opening you up to the aforementioned ridicule of everyone around here.

TL;DR

You don't understand what an affidavit is; do some research about our legal system and perhaps you'll stop looking like a complete fucking idiot.

 

[retro]

Where is the evidence of murder?

Read my above post... things like that come out during the trial. Research our legal system, it'll help you out a lot.

You guys keep posting this shit...post some evidence

Answer my question...

and you already have him as wrongfully accused and innocent. What's the difference?

 

[The Man]

Sounds good...but there is no probable cause of murder in the affidavit

 

[The Man]

Read my above post... things like that come out during the trial. Research our legal system, it'll help you out a lot.



Answer my question...

I know how the legal system works...there is no evidence for murder
...nor probable cause listed in the affidavit

 

[The Man]

Plus you do understand the affidavit was falsified and was already busted by the defense correct

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

You guys keep posting this shit...post some evidence

One dead guy, bullet holes match the gun carried by Zimmerman. Zimmerman confirms that he pulled the trigger.


As far as I'm concerned, in any civilised country that's enough of a situation to warrant a trial. I'm not advocating for innocence or guilt...I'm just requesting that the justice system be allowed to take its due and proper course in the hands of skilled legal counsel.

Amateur lawyers, especially biased ones, give me the shits.

 

[The Man]

and you already have him as wrongfully accused and innocent. What's the difference?

Innocent until proven guilty...you do understand how our system works correct?

 

[The Man]

One dead guy, bullet holes match the gun carried by Zimmerman. Zimmerman confirms that he pulled the trigger.


As far as I'm concerned, in any civilised country that's enough of a situation to warrant a trial. I

He was getting his head bashed in
There are witnesses that saw him getting beat.
But by your logic if you had to shoot a man in self defense you should go to trial.

So if someone broke in your house and tried to kill you..you should have the rest of your life fucked up by this?

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

Innocent until proven guilty...you do understand how our system works correct?

Tried according to the evidence [not the wishful thinking of amateur internet lawyers], is that too complicated for you?

 

[retro]

Sounds good...but there is no probable cause of murder in the affidavit

I know how the legal system works...there is no evidence for murder
...nor probable cause listed in the affidavit

Sure seems like there is to me... Trayvon Martin died from a gunshot wound he sustained as a direct result of the discharge of Mr. Zimmerman's handgun. Directly prior to the discharge of the handgun, there was a struggle between Mr. Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, during which a voice (said by some experts to have belonged to Trayvon Martin) screaming for help, and injuries were sustained by both parties. This altercation took place after Mr. Zimmerman was instructed not to follow Trayvon Martin by the police dispatcher, and there is a witness that states that Trayvon Martin felt threatened by Mr. Zimmerman following him.

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that proves that a crime may have been committed... as I previously stated, there does not have to be 100% proof of a crime in order for there to be charges brought against someone, and this affidavit merely provides a summary of some of the facts involved that were deemed enough to arrest Mr. Zimmerman and charge him with murder in the second degree. Whether or not you happen to agree with the testimony given by Trayvon Martin's girlfriend or with how the state interpreted the events that took place is completely irrelevant. They will bring evidence and testimony to prove their allegations true, and Mr. Zimmerman's attorneys will defend against that and build their own case in order to prove his innocence. It's pretty basic stuff.... and you don't need to have slam dunk evidence in order to bring charges against someone... the fact that there was a dead body and the fact that Mr. Zimmerman apparently continued to follow Trayvon Martin after being told not to by the police dispatcher provides a whole lot of probable cause. Go look up some other cases... there are a ton of other cases out there that have been brought to trial on a whole lot less than what the State of Florida has in this case.

This is our legal system working the way it was intended to... Mr. Zimmerman gets his day in court to defend himself against these allegations, the State of Florida will provide their evidence to the contrary, and a jury of Mr. Zimmerman's peers will determine his guilt or innocence. I honestly don't see why you can't understand such basic legal and logical concepts.

 

[Kakapo Dundee]

.
But by your logic if you had to shoot a man in self defense you should go to trial.

So if someone broke in your house and tried to kill you..you should have the rest of your life fucked up by this?

Absolutely. Life is far too precious to allow the decisions of life and death to be left in the hands of vigilantes like Zimmerman.

Nobody broke into Zimmerman's house.He went looking for trouble.

 

[The Man]

Tried according to the evidence [not the wishful thinking of amateur internet lawyers], is that too complicated for you?

What evidence?
He was merely arrested to appease the public to prevent riots

 

[The Man]

Absolutely. Life is far too precious to allow the decisions of life and death to be left in the hands of vigilantes like Zimmerman.

Nobody broke into Zimmerman's house.He went looking for trouble.

It was reported he was attacked and nothing to show different...how does that equate to looking for trouble

 

[retro]

He was getting his head bashed in
There are witnesses that saw him getting beat.
But by your logic if you had to shoot a man in self defense you should go to trial.

So if someone broke in your house and tried to kill you..you should have the rest of your life fucked up by this?

If the fight and subsequent gunshot and death was all there was to the case, I would completely agree with you. But there were events that transpired prior to the altercation that cast a shadow on what exactly happened. Let's say that Trayvon Martin just walked up to George Zimmerman and picked a fight with him... Mr. Zimmerman used appropriate force in order to defend himself from the attack. But if Mr. Zimmerman walked up to Trayvon Martin and attacked him, or even provoked an altercation, then Mr. Zimmerman's subsequent actions have to be judged by the actions he made that led up to the altercation. It's not even close to as cut and dry as you're trying to make it. This isn't just about a fight, it's about what happened that led up to the fight, as well as the fight itself and the end result.

 

[retro]

Plus you do understand the affidavit was falsified and was already busted by the defense correct

Falsified? :24: Proof?

That's rich coming from you... the man accusing everyone else of having conspiracy theories about this case.

 

[The Man]

Sure seems like there is to me... Trayvon Martin died from a gunshot wound he sustained as a direct result of the discharge of Mr. Zimmerman's handgun. Directly prior to the discharge of the handgun, there was a struggle between Mr. Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin, during which a voice (said by some experts to have belonged to Trayvon Martin) screaming for help, and injuries were sustained by both parties. This altercation took place after Mr. Zimmerman was instructed not to follow Trayvon Martin by the police dispatcher, and there is a witness that states that Trayvon Martin felt threatened by Mr. Zimmerman following him.

There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that proves that a crime may have been committed... as I previously stated, there does not have to be 100% proof of a crime in order for there to be charges brought against someone, and this affidavit merely provides a summary of some of the facts involved that were deemed enough to arrest Mr. Zimmerman and charge him with murder in the second degree. Whether or not you happen to agree with the testimony given by Trayvon Martin's girlfriend or with how the state interpreted the events that took place is completely irrelevant. They will bring evidence and testimony to prove their allegations true, and Mr. Zimmerman's attorneys will defend against that and build their own case in order to prove his innocence. It's pretty basic stuff.... and you don't need to have slam dunk evidence in order to bring charges against someone... the fact that there was a dead body and the fact that Mr. Zimmerman apparently continued to follow Trayvon Martin after being told not to by the police dispatcher provides a whole lot of probable cause. Go look up some other cases... there are a ton of other cases out there that have been brought to trial on a whole lot less than what the State of Florida has in this case.

This is our legal system working the way it was intended to... Mr. Zimmerman gets his day in court to defend himself against these allegations, the State of Florida will provide their evidence to the contrary, and a jury of Mr. Zimmerman's peers will determine his guilt or innocence. I honestly don't see why you can't understand such basic legal and logical concepts.

I already busted your legal experts on the audio..it was all smoke and mirrors...you remember because you vacated the thread as soon as it was announced.

What witness says that martin felt threatened by Zimmerman?...Oh the girlfriend 3 weeks later after the martins family attorneys talk to her.....Why didnt she mention it to the police?
It wouldnt matter anyway
Martin was smashing his head in...what are you supposed to do just lay there and let him kill you?
You really dont get it do you?

The affidavit is bogus and was busted...why do you keep mentioning it.
It was busted....by the own investigators words...they have nothing.
There is no evidence that Zimmerman followed martin...Why do you say this?
The investigator didnt have evidence so how could you?