For the record, Mr. Bright, can you state your occupation and which state you reside in?
HAHAHAHA. So you are unable to make an proper argument in a general forum and now you feel the need to “swear” at someone in another as if that strengthens your lame red herrings.
Florida. Law student/paralegal.
Bullshit. Why would I take your word over the investigators who were actually there? Why did they want to charge Zimmerman? Two vey simple concepts: 1) His “injuries” were inconsistent with the attack he described, and 2) They believed he was lying about specific statements he attributed to Martin, amongst other things.
So yeah, we’re supposed to believe a bunch of agenda-driven, internet yahoos over trained investigators who actually observed and questioned Zimmerman after the murder? I really don’t fucking think so.
Fuck that. you with the face in that thread alienates and attacks anyone on either side that isn’t in foaming lock step with her.
I am absolutely certain had Zimmerman not been out to “get” (detain, question, physically restrain) the suspicious (because he was black) kid, there would have been no confrontation or shooting. But I get lumped in with all the other “Z apologists” because I won’t go along with the wacky interpretations of the law.
I’m sorry. I think an injustice has taken place, but twisting and bending the law to get the “correct” moral outcome is not the answer. That is the same kind of manipulation that has resulted in many African Americans getting unfairly punished under the law. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Actually, the investigator who was actually there etc. and who wanted to charge Zimmerman says he was pressured to ask for an indictment by other cops (one African-American and one married to one) who were concerned about “community” reaction.
Does that change anything for you?
@OP: logical disjunction may be the term you’re after.
Which’d put you beyond “Asperger’s” in terms of empathy and firmly into autistic. Or psychopathic. Take your pick.
OP, Bricker should be pitting you for months of misinformed opinions, half-assed theories, and denial of facts about the Martin-Zimmerman case. You are without a doubt the most single-minded moron I have encountered on these boards.
This is coming from a guy who believes Zimmerman was completely unjustified in killing Martin.
You are misrepresenting the facts of the case.
“They” didn’t want to charge Zimmerman. The Sanford Chief of Police said there was not enough evidence to arrest Zimmerman. (Cite.)
Please provide a cite of one of the investigators saying that Zimmerman’s injuries are inconsistent with his description of the attack.
Serino alluded to pressure from both sides on whether to indict. He stands by his assessment of Zimmerman’s injuries and truthfulness.
So, no, it changes nothing.
My impression, for whatever it’s worth, is that you’re very loyal to her, and that loyalty is manifesting as defending her. That’s admirable in a sense–but it also means you’re acting as something of an enabler for her. She’d benefit more from having you, whom she trusts, let her know that she’s off-base in this case, from having your loyalty manifest as helping her get her facts and logic straight, instead of manifesting in a defense of her really lousy argument.
It’s worth asking why the only person who’s defending her here is you. Sure, it’s possible because you’re the only people here who can see the truth, but it seems to me there’s a much likelier explanation.
My bad - I posted entirely the wrong quote earlier.
It should be
Cite is here, same as above. My apologies for the error.
How can anyone who has followed this case not know this?
Do you have a source for these claims?
What I’m going by are reports such as http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/12/v-print/2892510/more-evidence-released-in-zimmerman.html Relevant quotes include:
And even if it’s true that Serino was pressured by “both sides”, it still makes his decision to ask for charges less than an unbiased and neutral assessment of the facts.
Don’t have to read any of 'em, hoss. Won’t bother me none.
Two-timer. I thought that was my insult, now you go sharing it with someone else!!
Two-timer? Two? Oh, well, yes, come to think on it, two is about right! Yeah, sure, two.
Can I ask you something?
Do you know what they are arguing about?
Can you distill what you’s argument is and then Bricker’s?
Have you made the effort to wade through the last couple of a pages of that horrible thread?
If the answer is no to any of this questions, please don’t condescend to me in this manner.
I doubt anyone knows exactly what is being argued, mainly because the OP is not well-constructed. But I advise anyone who halfway cares about this to actually find out the facts before jumping on the hate bandwagon.
A citizen’s arrest is not justified until all the surrounding facts are evaluated in a court of law and it is deemed as such.
If Bricker agrees with this very basic, non-controversial fact, then I will take you to task for being unhinged and ask that she go take a sedative.
If he quibbles on it at least a little, I will continue to think he’s a jackass with an unfortunate number of fans.