To be scrupulously fair, he didn’t. It was the other one.
And Bricker, let me remind you that Serino filed an affidavit for Zimmerman’s arrest on the night of the shooting.
All signs point to them having probable cause shortly after the shooting. You need to explain what makes you more qualified than the lead investigator in this case to say otherwise, when a day ago you didn’t even know witnesses purported to hearing a boy scream.
Imagine Trayvon is stood sheltering by the mail box and he sees Z’s car go by. Moments later, it drives by again more slowly with some guy eyeballing him. Now Trayvon is paying attention. Z comes back once more and parks up at the first bend on TTL as you go past the clubhouse, and then begins his phone call.
At this point, he is parked between Trayvon and his destination.
Trayvon tells DD there’s a strange dude watching him. She tells him to go home. He starts heading towards Z’s car(*“He’s heading towards me now. I don’t know what is problem is. Blah,blah, blah.” *), passes it and glances in at Z, thinking “WTF is your problem, you nosey twat?” and continues walking towards the T.
Z starts slowly crawling behind him, trailing him all the way to where, we don’t really know, but he’s right up Trayvon’s arse and Trayvon finally bolts.
Z gets all excited, like a jack russell seeing a rat fly out of a hole, and goes off in pursuit. Trayvon hides. Z finds him. Trayvon asks “WTF?” and Z finally closes in on his prey.
Makes way more sense than your “pot-smoking psycho gets butthurt then turns into the Hulk” scenario.
I wondered about this. I thought the general idea of going to the PIT was to vent your frustrations there and not drag it back here. I’ve seen other infractions that are getting by and it gets old. It’s not that hard to hit delete a few times before hitting send.
Imagine the phone logs are compared next to each other and not next to an internet cite of your imagination which won’t be admissible in court. But just to entertain your latest imaginary scenario, Martin never mentioned Zimmerman passing him.
Were the phone logs also sat-nav linked?
You mean Trayvon never said anything to DD about which direction Z had come from or where exactly he’d parked up(like it would mean anything to her if he was specific), don’t you?
If I broke decorum, that is my apology–but NOT to you.
I gave you my FULL response in the pit, if you want to look.
No, is your imagination?
We know the direction that Trayvon took was from the store, to the mailbox and then to the back of the houses where running was heard and the fight broke out. All of this evidence coincides with Zimmerman’s account including Dee Dee’s testimony of what Martin told her.
Everything you’ve said is pure imagination on your part without evidence to the contrary complete with psychic commentary of what Zimmerman thought.
The only bit of Z’s story that has any corroboration is his story from when the altercation started, and if it started exactly as Z described, they wouldn’t have even heard that.
According to George’s own testimony, people should have had no idea he was involved in a life or death battle until after he’d already hit the floor, some 40ft away from the place he says it started.
All his tale before the point he was supposedly getting his head slammed against the pavement and began screaming remarkably like a teenager, is questionable and there is no way his location can be confirmed just based on his nen call.
that’s an outright lie. We have his phone record, we have Dee Dee’s account of what Martin said, we have ear witnesses of people running as well as loud voices. We have physical evidence of a dropped flashlight, eye witnesses of the actual fight, eye witnesses of the minutes immediately following the fight including photographs, EMT, police, and Coroner evidence.
It’s only questionable when you consider imaginary evidence which is what you keep doing. All your posts are “what if’s” based on the absence of evidence you wish you had but don’t. What it takes to disprove something is contrary evidence, not the absence of evidence.
How does Z’s phone call pin down where he was, without referring to his own vague descriptions? DD merely says Trayvon’s problems began somewhere around the mail boxes. Trayvon had mentioned nothing about being eyeballed by Z outside Frank Taafe’s, so that throws the earliest part of Z’s tale into doubt.
Nobody can seem to confirm that Z got out of his vehicle where he said he did, so why are you so certain of anything from that point on? Because you need to believe Z, that’s why.
If the prosecution pointed to clubhouse cctv evidence that proved Z was never there during his nen call, would that be contrary enough for you?
Can I remind you that Serino says he was pressured into it by black police officers?
It’s to his eternal shame then that he should have needed to be pressurised, and that he gave in, if he was.
Serino says he did not believe he had probable cause, and that he prepared that affidavit under pressure from others.
So I agree with the lead investigator. You now need to explain why you are more qualified.
Whatever your feelings about it, Serino says, explicitly, that he did not have enough evidence at the time to file charges.
We’re discussing the proper standard for probable cause and whether or not you understand it. In explaining that you do, you make an absolutely incorrect statement.
That’s not a side track. That is the main track.
Bricker, are you willing to claim SPD did everything by the book and could not be faulted in their investigative performance on that evening of the 26th of Feb?
Can you not see anything AT ALL that they could have done differently that would have enabled them to bring ANY charges against Z?
Well, perhaps if he’d been informed his services were needed right away and he’d made sure all the right evidence had been collected and documented, and then interviewed Z for longer than 5 minutes and hadn’t treated him like a victim, instead of a possible killer, do you think maybe then he might have had enough evidence?
Doing everything correctly, and bringing ANY charges against Z. are not the same thing.
If you don’t do the former, how can you expect to be able to do the latter?
The police have a duty not to believe someone just because on the face of it, they seem like an ok person.