Why isn't this murder?

[The Mad Monk]

He decided to embrace the zeitgeist.

[KrazyHorse]

About whom many neighbors were complaining.

I can't tell if you're being serious or ironic now.

Completely relevant when you've shot someone.

No, it's not. What sort of ****ed up world view do you have that a non legally binding request has any impact on somebody's right to self defense?

Not in the initial police report. That came later.

Ah, so the cops are lying about that? I understand; any inconvenient bit of evidence was fabricated.

The witnesses have been pretty clear they heard a kid begging for help.

Given that you've already displayed extraordinary dishonesty in the 20 minutes you've been back, I'm going to ask for some believable cites showing both what the witnesses say and that those witnesses were available the night of the incident.

[chequita guevara]

can't delete posts anymore?

[chequita guevara]

He decided to embrace the zeitgeist.

Lost a bet again?

[chequita guevara]

I can't tell if you're being serious or ironic now.

Been working for the vampire squid so long you've lost that intelligence you had?

No, it's not. What sort of ****ed up world view do you have that a non legally binding request has any impact on somebody's right to self defense?

It's a world in which, if you shoot and kill someone, the police need to ****ing investigate. It's one in which, if the police say, don't so something, and you go do it and kill someone, the police don't simply accept your word and send you home.

Not in the initial police report. That came later.

Ah, so the cops are lying about that? I understand; any inconvenient bit of evidence was fabricated.

Yes, dumb ass, or have you been paying no attention.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706876_p2/sanford-commission-votes-no-confidence.html#storylink=cpy

I'll quote the first sentence in large tyoe so you can read it more easily.

• Initial police reports never mentioned that Zimmerman had a bloody nose or a wet shirt that showed evidence of a struggle.

The witnesses have been pretty clear they heard a kid begging for help.

Given that you've already displayed extraordinary dishonesty in the 20 minutes you've been back, I'm going to ask for some believable cites showing both what the witnesses say and that those witnesses were available the night of the incident.

Since you are, apparently, too stupid to do your own Googling on this, here are the facts presented in an easy to understand bullet format which even you can understand.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/03/18/446768/what-everyone-should-know-about-about-trayvon-martin-1995-2012/

Oh, right, who's the one who's been full of ****? The one with the facts or the one talking out his ass and defending police obstruction?

[The Mad Monk]

Lost a bet again?

I'll leave the detailed explanation to him.

[KrazyHorse]

It's a world in which, if you shoot and kill someone, the police need to ****ing investigate. It's one in which, if the police say, don't so something, and you go do it and kill someone, the police don't simply accept your word and send you home.

Sorry, but you're going to have to explain why not charging him that night has anything to do with not investigating. Are you retarded?

Yes, dumb ass, or have you been paying no attention.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/21/2706876_p2/sanford-commission-votes-no-confidence.html#storylink=cpy

I'll quote the first sentence in large tyoe so you can read it more easily.
[obnoxious formatting removed]
Initial police reports never mentioned that Zimmerman had a bloody nose or a wet shirt that showed evidence of a struggle

If you'd read the thread, you would have seen that the released 911 calls actually have people calling in and reporting close contact confrontation (the two of them rolling around on the ground). So your claim that the signs of a struggle were fabricated later by the cops is moronic.

Since you are, apparently, too stupid to do your own Googling on this, here are the facts presented in an easy to understand bullet format which even you can understand.

Wow, a story that appeared ON WEDNESDAY should sure have had a load of impact on my opinion from a week ago. I'm going to be interested to see what the witness(es) signed their name to on the night of the incident. IF the cops pressured anybody to change their story (from hearing the kid calling for help to hearing the vigilante calling for help) then it is of course enormously improper on their part.

Oh, right, who's the one who's been full of ****? The one with the facts or the one talking out his ass and defending police obstruction?

Sorry, still you, you laughable lying sack of ****.

"There were no signs of a struggle"

"Yes there were"

"No, everything was fabricated by police later, including the 911 calls. Believe me because I speak the truth"



****ing pathetic.

[Aeson]

I'd say at the very least Zimmerman should have his gun rights taken away and given a curfew so he doesn't kill any more innocent people while on his vigilante chases.

[KrazyHorse]

I'd say at the very least Zimmerman should have his gun rights taken away and given a curfew so he doesn't kill any more innocent people while on his vigilante chases.

I'm assuming he'll be arrested at some point in the next week or so. Public pressure and (since my guess is that he's guilty) further evidence should make it likely.

[Wezil]

...when you are told by the police to leave the situation alone...

**** I wish people would quit repeating this falsehood.

I know it makes your position stronger but it JUST ISN'T TRUE.

Stop it already.

[KrazyHorse]

You mean because it was a non-police 911 operator?

I let it slide because either way it is irrelevant.

[Wezil]

Correct. A 911 operator is not a police officer and has no legally binding authority to order you to do anything.

Ignoring their request is akin to ignoring the mailman.

[Aeson]

I'm assuming he'll be arrested at some point in the next week or so. Public pressure and (since my guess is that he's guilty) further evidence should make it likely.

I think the evidence already public is enough that he should be arrested. (Whether or not the law would support it. If not, the law is wrong.) For what exactly is the question. Just the act of chasing someone down in the dark for the reasons he expressed is enough. The kid was chatting to his girlfriend on the phone. He got chased down and ended up dead. Perhaps the kid did do something wrong in the altercation (I would whole-heartedly support his right to have popped Zimmerman for chasing him down in the dark), but in any case that can't excuse Zimmerman's reckless endangerment of innocent people's lives.

[KrazyHorse]

I think the evidence already public is enough that he should be arrested. (Whether or not the law would support it. If not, the law is wrong.) For what exactly is the question. Just the act of chasing someone down in the dark for the reasons he expressed is enough. The kid was chatting to his girlfriend on the phone. He got chased down and ended up dead. Perhaps the kid did do something wrong in the altercation (I would whole-heartedly support his right to have popped Zimmerman for chasing him down in the dark), but that can't excuse Zimmerman's reckless endangerment of innocent people's lives.

I would only agree with you if he chased after the kid AFTER the physical confrontation started. If he's just running after somebody who ran, then I don't see how that has any relevance.

For example, a man was mugged in my neighborhood in Baltimore in 2005 or so. Two people who witnessed the crime followed the perpetrator to his house while on the phone with the cops. If the perpetrator had turned around and attacked them would they have ceded their right to self-defense by having followed him? The only piece which is different here is that the kid in this case did not commit any crime (prior to the physical confrontation, where the facts are in dispute). However, as far as I can see it that has no bearing on this case (the vigilante is not a law enforcement officer, so he has no right to enforce the law through physical confrontation).

If the law allows the vigilante to chase the kid into a situation where he knows that a physical confrontation is likely (because, e.g. there has already been one) then I'd say the law is wrong (if the no duty to retreat law is specifically what allows this then it should be changed).

[KrazyHorse]

Correct. A 911 operator is not a police officer and has no legally binding authority to order you to do anything.

Ignoring their request is akin to ignoring the mailman.

The police have no legally binding authority to order me to do anything other than a very small number of things. Telling me not to follow somebody (without e.g. a restraining order) is not one of those things.