It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by buddhasystem
agreed ... however, that question has bothered me since the beginning.
unknown territory + pathways frequently traveled by criminals, never quite added up for me.
Originally posted by JuniorDisco
There will be a civil case I'd have thought. But the Martin family cannot launch a criminal case.
I am not presuming anything; we have tidbits of what the State has and what the defense team has. Until the court case, it is just leaked information presented by what ever a biased media will present (biased in both directions). The State should always be questioned but it still stands that the State needs to provide the burden of proof of guilt; not Zimmerman prove his innocence.
You think they haven't? Or are you saying that the state should not be questioned in this instance because they 'probably have their reasons'?
Oh right, that's fine then. If I shoot someone later I'll be quite annoyed if I'm not just freed after a bit of a grilling.
Are you really saying that due process was followed here? That the way the police dealt with the matter was satisfactory?
No. As you say they had a bit of a chat with him. And then let him go home.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
I should have clarified; if for instance, Zimmerman is found guilty, the Martin family could seek the DA to pursue a case against the police department for their perceived failed actions; though it would be more along the lines of a civil one.
I am not presuming anything; we have tidbits of what the State has and what the defense team has. Until the court case, it is just leaked information presented by what ever a biased media will present (biased in both directions). The State should always be questioned but it still stands that the State needs to provide the burden of proof of guilt; not Zimmerman prove his innocence.
Settle the emotional argument down. I have always stood for proper due process and in this case, the due process is to Zimmerman; he is on trial against the State. If and when the civil case comes, that will be a different story, but that is between two private parties.
And if it is shown by the State (they will have to throw their own under the bus on this one) to have failed in their initial investigation then they too need to be held liable. The thing is, that will be a pitfall for the State. The defense team has ample of ammunition to give doubt that the State's version of events lead to a cold-blooded murder.
Originally posted by JuniorDisco
To which I expressed disbelief, because of course they - and millions of other people - have done just that, and are dumbfounded by why the police acted as they did.
But you haven't clarified. Do you in fact mean that because the police acted in that manner they must have had some good reason? I reiterate - it takes an enormous leap of faith to extend the assumption of good intentions on behalf of the authorities given the known facts of the case.
Do you really think due process was satisfactorily followed here? Or are you hanging on for some as yet unknown fact that will somehow explain the police behaviour? Because if the latter that also looks very generous, to the point of bias.
Let me get this straight. When the police or Zimmerman's behaviour is criticised we don't have all the facts ("just leaked information presented by what ever a biased media will present") and should withhold our judgement? But when his defence is raised we suddenly have enough of the story to exonerate him?
Extraordinary.
Originally posted by Christian Voice
reply to post by IvanAstikov
What is that supposed to mean? More butthurt?
Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by Christian Voice
For a christian, you're not very empathic.
Originally posted by buddhasystem
Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by Christian Voice
For a christian, you're not very empathic.
This is a remarkable statement. You just recently proclaimed that if you were in TM's shoes, you would have used your special "ground and pound" technique (that's a quote), to convert Z into pulp. I find it a little too rich of you to accuse others of not being very christian and/or empathic.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
It is neither here nor now in this regard to the current topic; that being the HOA issue. Now if the Martin family seek a civil suit, it will probably name Zimmerman and the police department. That is what I am talking about. The actions of the police on that fateful night work against the criminal case and the DA will have to throw them under the bus to help their case.
And you are providing no bias towards this? My only stance is that Zimmerman, in the case of the State v. Zimmerman, is innocent until the State can prove guilt. That is due process. The happening from the first contact between Zimmerman and Martin up until the court will all be vetted for a jury of his peers to decide if his actions were justified or not.
Interesting you are saying I am biased when it is obvious that you have made up your mind; Zimmerman is guilty. That is fine, you and I are not in a court of law and personal opinion is fair game. I only hold Zimmerman innocent against State actions until they can prove otherwise; that is paramount.
Read above; I never claimed he is innocent of the crime levied against him nor have I said he was guilty.
Indeed
Originally posted by TinkerHaus
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
There is no right to a jury in civil trials in state court.
...