George Zimmerman stopped by Texas police for speeding, had gun in car

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by superman2012

 

I've made plenty of posts about the Zimmerman v Martin case on this forum. Start with the first one and educate yourself.

Thought so. Thanks anyways.

I deal with facts though, so unless you are willing to cite any factual sources, don't bother. I didn't ask, nor do I need, your opinion on this matter.

George ZimmerGeorge Zimmerman for president....man for president....George Zimmerman for president....George Zimmerman for president....George Zimmerman for president....

Well, somebody had to say it....

copyright 2013 rjs4594

reply to post by ownbestenemy

Thank heavens for the fact that the Founding Fathers recognized that the State, while retaining enormous amounts of power, still needs to recognize someone as innocent until proven guilty.

The right to a quick and speedy trial was also important. Nowadays a lost cause, part of the importance of bringing a case to trial quickly and "speedily" is to avoid "show trials" for government agenda and building resentment and division among the people when carried on too long.

The media brings these trials for show for that very purpose. The Rodney King verdict, OJ, MJ, Casey Anthony... The killer porno queen, etc.

Ratings, money, sensationalism. Hopefully a full blown riot that they can cover too. Its sick. We're sick for lapping it up. America is sickly.

Panting for more...

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by Gazrok

 

"We don't need you to do that", is WAY different than "DO NOT DO THAT".

Thanks for clarifying that George was attacked "later". Still think dispatch was trying to prevent a confrontation.

Things are different from state to state too. Where I live I have direct experience with a thousand "security guards" that are subservient to the local pd. As a dumpster diver I was aware of the "rules" that apply. The guards job is to observe the "perpetrators" from a distance, maintain eye contact and stay on the line, as police are on the away. They aren't to approach or confront "suspects". If confronted they are to retreat.

George was "neighborhood watch", but I think the same general "rules" still apply. I don't live in Florida, though.

An important point being studiously ignored is that the evidence presented showing the layout of the area where Zimmerman lost sight of Martin NECESSITATED his getting out of his vehicle if he wanted to maintain eye contact. The area where Martin went into and apparently vanished from sight was between rows of houses where only a SIDEWALK existed, not a road. Unless Zimmerman wanted to drive his vehicle down the sidewalk in order to try to keep Martin in view, he had NO CHOICE but to leave his vehicle in order to attempt to see where Martin had gone. THAT was when Zimmerman lost sight of Martin, and undisputed testimony provided in count indicates that Zimmerman was on his way BACK to his vehicle. The "confrontation" then took place when Martin chose to not take advantage of his having lost Zimmerman by going back to his dad's girlfriend's house, but instead used that advantage to instead physically confront Zimmerman with a surprise and absolutely unjustifiable physical attack. At that point, and obviously a willful decision on Martin's part, Martin was engaging in a felonious assault on Zimmerman, and Zimmerman had EVERY RIGHT to his self defense.

Seriously people, the entire trial, witnesses and all, is readily available on YouTube. Before making a fool of yourself by displaying your ignorance, at least try to view as much of the testimony as you can beforehand. It is extremely obvious who is taking the pure crap emitted from the media and swallowing it hook, line, and sinker and then regurgitating it here pretending that nonsense is "fact". Fact of the matter is, it doesn't take a genius to put the pieces together. At the very least, watch the defense's closing arguments, as the facts are CLEARLY presented. If the prosecution COULD have disputed any of those facts, certainly it would have done so it it's own rebuttal. Only a COMPLETE IDIOT, in the jury and outside, would be unable to understand exactly what happened that night.

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
if you tell a cop you are going nowhere in particular 4-5 states away from where you live that is suspicious,

This isn't Nazi Germany where you need 'papers' to travel, sightsee, or find a place to relocate to.

so its ok for zimmerman to tell a cop he's going nowhere in particular but he calls the cops on trayvon for walking through the neighborhood?

Different situation. Zimmerman called in suspicious activity like a neighborhood watch was supposed to. Martin didn't have to explain what he was doing. Neither did Zimmerman in Texas.

its not just race baiters who are upset with the zimmerman verdict or initial lack of charges, get over it.

Not 'just' ... but the race baiters are. And those that didn't like the way the trial turned out.
And don't tell me to 'get over it' .. . ... tell that to those who didn't like the verdict.
They are the ones whining about it. Turns out Martin was a thug and Zimmerman shot in
self defense. Those are the facts. Get over it.

reply to post by roadgravel


Where have I ever said he was a gun-wielding crazy? I think you'd find if you checked my previous posts that I'd be far more inclined to call him a devious murderer, capable of hiding his guilt behind a facade of normality that isn't very normal at all when you scrape the surface..

reply to post by Rich Z


If someone wants to create the quiz questions, I'll challenge you to a knowledge test on this topic.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

If someone wants to create the quiz questions, I'll challenge you to a knowledge test on this topic

Question #1 - What role did Habeas Corpus play in the initial arrest of George Zimmerman?
And how did that define the events of the trial?

reply to post by IvanAstikov

If someone wants to create the quiz questions, I'll challenge you to a knowledge test on this topic.

Question #2 - Why was Voir Dire Important in this case?

And was it relevant that the husband of one juror has a CCW Permit?

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


It's not unlawful to detain someone while evidence is being sought, otherwise cops would never be able to hold anyone in custody until they'd done a full investigation. A full investigation hadn't been carriied out when Zimmerman was released, and I'd wager being released less than 7 hrs after admitting you've shot someone in less than clear circumstances, is a record in Florida police stations.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

If someone wants to create the quiz questions, I'll challenge you to a knowledge test on this topic.

Question #3 - Define the 5 Principles Of Law Of Self Defense and Explain how they were used in the determination of the Verdict?

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


I don't claim to have the knowledge of a lawyer, so I've focused my interest on the actual facts of the case, not the courtroom drama surrounding it.

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


You're trying to make the quiz all about what legal justification there was for not convicting Zimmerman, and I said I'd take part in a quiz about the events of the 26th Feb 2012 involving GZ and TM, and the associated investigation. If that wasn't entirely clear in my response to RichZ, now you know.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

If someone wants to create the quiz questions, I'll challenge you to a knowledge test on this topic.

So, You just challenge someone to a quiz of knowledge and you do not have the ability to answer the questions because you lack the knowledge?

What the hell is with that?

By the way, you miserably failed the first question.

You better go look up exactly what Habeas Corpus means.

The second questions weren’t about Any drama. It was about the Facts of the trial. The Exact same facts that you just challenged someone to, but have the inability to answer.

You never mentioned anything about dates in your challenge.
Incidentally, the 3rd question has a Great Deal to do with that Exact Date.

Unfortunately, your answers exhibit a Complete Lack of Knowledge of the Case. Furthermore, I suggest to the Forum Moderators that your Privilege to debate in such matters be Completely Revoked as it is more than obvious that you don't know your @$tronaut from a hole in the groud.

You need to Not write Checks with your Mouth that your @$$ can't cash..

reply to post by ShadellacZumbrum


In future I'll word my challenges more carefully, to account for the likes of you. Did I actually state I'd be up for a quiz on the legal technicalities of this case? Would any of the jurors who actually had to deal with this case know the exact answers you wanted to hear to your questions? My challenge to RichZ was related to his insistence that only people who had been suckered by the msm supported Trayvon, and I wanted to prove I knew as much as him about the official facts of this incident, and that I had indeed watched all the trial. NOT that I understood every legal ramification surrounding this case.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

NOT that I understood every legal ramification surrounding this case.

You are digging a really deep hole.

Ramification Defined:
A consequence of an action or event.

That statement really shows why you need to stop while you are ahead.
That statement also suggests that you do not understand the consequences of the case.

Which has proven WithOut Reasonable Doubt that you have Absolutely No Clue what you are talking about.

It's not unlawful to detain someone while evidence is being sought, otherwise cops would never be able to hold anyone in custody until they'd done a full investigation. A full investigation hadn't been carriied out when Zimmerman was released

That's not true. A person can post bail, if required, with the promise of appearing in court. Investigations can go on for months and a person isn't required to be held in jail during investigation.

You are just making up stuff...

reply to post by roadgravel


It was a Trick Question.

He Failed it.

P.S. .. . That was a Damn Good Eye on ya though .. . ...

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by conspiracy nut
if you tell a cop you are going nowhere in particular 4-5 states away from where you live that is suspicious,

This isn't Nazi Germany where you need 'papers' to travel, sightsee, or find a place to relocate to.

so its ok for zimmerman to tell a cop he's going nowhere in particular but he calls the cops on trayvon for walking through the neighborhood?

Different situation. Zimmerman called in suspicious activity like a neighborhood watch was supposed to. Martin didn't have to explain what he was doing. Neither did Zimmerman in Texas.

its not just race baiters who are upset with the zimmerman verdict or initial lack of charges, get over it.

Not 'just' ... but the race baiters are. And those that didn't like the way the trial turned out.
And don't tell me to 'get over it' .. .

... tell that to those who didn't like the verdict.
They are the ones whining about it. Turns out Martin was a thug and Zimmerman shot in
self defense. Those are the facts. Get over it.

martin didn't have to explain what he was doing? than why the hell did zimmerman call the cops on him and decide to follow him? you make no sense!!!!

cop asked a simple question "where are you headed" and zimmerman said nowhere in particular, i'm sorry but that is a suspicious answer. out of state license plates he said nothing about relocating or sightseeing, gun in glove, living all the way in florida, and texas being a state that a lot of drugs and illegals travel through, if i was a cop i would have pulled him out and searched his vehicle with that kind of answer.

reply to post by conspiracy nut

f i was a cop i would have pulled him out and searched his vehicle with that kind of answer.

Which would have been illegal. That's the problem, too many people think police can just do anything they want instead of asking for them to be held accountable for their actions.