yes, let’s speak of the “facts.” you just admitted you do not know the facts or reality of the case, or if the responding officers even did a *decent *job on honest reporting.
yet, based on what you even admit is a lack of confirmed information, have formed the opinion zimmerman had the right to kill martin…so it would seem you’re saying your opinion isn’t based on facts.
after all, you can’t say the cops did a good job or attest to the facts..
so.
what is your opinion based on…? if the police and testimony isn’t beyond reproach, if you cannot speak to the veracity of the “facts,” what are you basing your conclusions on?
“Another caller, Mora’s roommate, Mary Cutcher, phoned police after the gunshot and said the black man was standing over another man, which would have been impossible, because Trayvon was already dead.”
Like all calls to police, this was recorded. She also gave a sworn statement that the police say contradicts what she told the media. Sworn as in “she signed that it was the truth”. Please explain why you regard her as a reliable witness?
No, my opinions are based on the information that is, actually, known. Like the eyewitness that says Martin was sitting on top of Zimmerman and beating him up (and no eyewitness that says otherwise), for example.
Because we are now just relying on the say so of the Police that they have that recording, so lets have it, as it is clear that not only she is the one complaining of the leading questioning.
BTW, your quick reply is evidence that you did not see the interview with Mary Cutcher.
“Let’s have it”? Witness statements to the police are not allowed to be released the investigation is inactive. But I have no idea why you think the policemen are lying about facts such as recorded or sworn witness statements (that are very easily checked later, under Florida’s very strong sunshine laws) and are willing to risk ending their careers at least or going to jail over Zimmerman. Do you think they are all his best friends or something?
And I saw her interview. I don’t regard her as a reliable witness in any way, based on the facts I gave you already.
The whole report presses on the overall picture that what the police is claiming is also in doubt, if your opinions are based on evidence so far it is clear that if it was an opinion based on information it should be one that agrees that even the police needs to be investigated, just what is taking place now BTW.
No like this one (Zimmerman was wearing red. Martin wasn’t):
“The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, ‘Help! Help!’ and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911,” said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.
John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.
“And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point.”
No witness is ever 100% credible. But this eyewitness has not given any contradictory evidence that I heard of. Have you? I am also not aware of anyone claiming that he saw that it was the other way around - that is, Zimmerman was sitting on top of Martin and beating him up. Are you?
It is not clear if there was such a report, this anonymous witness was more likely found by the FOX reporters, and unless he comes forward, it is even more unreliable than any other witness mentioned before.
“A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities.” - from the same article. And no, he is wise not to reveal his full identity. If he does, he runs the risk of NBPP sending “5000 black men” to “capture” him.
eh i think we all have *some *facts. i’m basing my opinions on the fact that the police chief was voted “no confidence” based on how he and his men handled the case.
that, to me, is a fact saying they are not entirely reliable in how they’ve handled things. this is further corroborated by many eyewitness accounts that the police were dismissive of the whole truth and only wanted to confirm facts that substantiated zimmerman’s claim.
it’s also corroborated by chief lee’s admittance that zimmerman was “taken at his word at the scene.”
what’s more, Lee said zimmerman wasn’t taken into custody or questioned–which is bogus–we now have tape showing he was taken in.
the investigating officers have shown, with little wiggle room for doubt, they botched this case from the start. the community voted and agreed they mishandled it, and now the case has been handed over to someone deemed more capable of doing a fair, even handed investigation.
those facts aside,
zimmerman, by his own claim, stalked a minor against police orders and ended up accosting then killing him, even tho the minor was never committing any crimes at all. according to the stand your ground law, it was Martin who had the plot of land to “stand” his ground on–Zimmerman was the interloper. this is the scenario by even zimmerman’s account, and based on that, it’s clear the police misjudged the scenario.
so i think i have enough facts to kind of forge a fair interpretation. i’m far, far from alone in this opinion.
He was not “taken into custody”. He voluntarily went to the station with the police officers. Can you link to Lee’s statement that Zimmerman was not “questioned”? Sorry to be a spoilsport but based on your veracity in previous exchanges I am disinclined to believe just your word.
You have no idea what they did and what they didn’t do. Just because political pressure got involved doesn’t mean they botched anything. But if you have any actual evidence that something that good police procedure requires to be done wasn’t done, please present it. So far I have seen claims that Trayvon’s autopsy wasn’t done (it was), Jesse Jackson lied that there was no police tape at the scene (there was), Zimmerman was not interrogated (he was interrogated for 5 hours) etc. etc. etc. Have any facts?
One sentence, so many inaccuracies. We already discussed Florida’s “stalking” law - Zimmerman’s behavior does not qualify - so no “stalking”. No “police orders”, since 911 dispatcher is not a police officer. Not even a 911 dispatcher “order” - there was no order. No evidence of “accosting”. Are you ever right in anything you say?
zimmerman chased down and started a confrontation with a scared minor, who–i at least sure hope–defended himself against the unidentified assailant.
it should have been trayvon on top of zimmerman, because trayvon had every right to defend himself against an armed assailant.
so to clarify, you are saying a person has a right to stalk an unarmed minor who has committed literally no crime whatsoever, create confrontation, then kill them if that ends up going poorly for them, physically?
you are saying that i can find you, get in your face and accost you, and if you fight back, legally i can kill you?
“A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities.” The report shows only that he claimed to contact the authorities, but one has to notice that the reporter is not telling us that the reporter confirmed that contact with the authorities, so it is hearsay so far.
And Zimmerman had the right to defend himself against the guy on top of him beating him. And if he had reasonable fear for his life, he had the right to use deadly force against him.
Facts not in evidence. Up to the physical confrontation, Zimmerman didn’t break any law whatsoever. It is legal to follow someone, and it is legal to ask them questions. It is not legal to initiate physical confrontation - do you have any evidence Zimmerman did?
so you are saying that had this gone the other way, and zimmerman was dead because he was unarmed and martin was armed, that martin would be totally in the right?
are you saying zimmerman was in the right?
also, if zimmerman is convicted, are you going to be around to admit you were wrong?