Jungle Rat wrote:Sometimes homicides aren't really homicides after people take the time to breath a little bit.
Homicides are always homicides, unless you're talking about Tupac, who is obviously still alive. You're either dead, or you're not.
Moderators: eCat, hedge, Cletus
Jungle Rat wrote:Sometimes homicides aren't really homicides after people take the time to breath a little bit.
Who judged it was a homicide?Bklyn wrote:The judgement is that a homicide took place and a procedure should be codified where specific steps need to occur in order to have the clearest picture possible.So you are making a judgement that it was murder. Why?
fwiw, I don't think all of that police work you described happened in the Dooley case either, although he was arrested a few days later and charged with manslaughter, but that may have perhaps only been because of public outcry. he refused to cooperate with the investigation.Bklyn wrote:Heh. Cops should always make a snap judgement on a murder. What they should do is process the person, take his statement. Photo his clothes. Take those clothes into evidence. Photo the position of the body. Take witness statements. Test the shooter for drugs and alcohol (like they did the boy). Put him in bracelets and take him to the precinct and process him for prints, powder residue and other physical issues. If that means he stays overnight, then so be it. AFTER that, then the DA can decide if he wants to move forward with an indictment.
I don't think any of the above are unreasonable in a homicide. A lot of the above did not occur.
They do more in a suspected DUI than what they did in Sanford.
Al Sharpton did not need to know about this...and since he did, shame on Sanford PD for letting it get to the point where he hopped a plane to cause a fuss.
For a person who kept saying over and over to wait for the evidence, you sure aren't waiting Rat. What witness testimony are you talking about? To my understanding, no one has said that they saw one person pounding the head of another person into the ground. We've had some conflicting witness testimony in the media, some alleged released part of police report (none of which answer much of the critical questions), some conflicting statements from Zimmerman's brother and father, and a dead unarmed teen who was where he was supposed to be.The police had nothing else to go on besides Zimmerman's statements, his smashed in nose & back of his head, witness statements and knowing that it was not only he who called them out to his neighborhood on a daily basis because of constant break ins.
I hop some crazed vigilante strafes the whole area. Cocksuckers.Jungle Rat wrote:[youtube]0dENltReP1U[/youtube]
I think Brooklyn and I also agree that's pretty much how it went down.AlabamAlum wrote:What I guess happened is this. It's pure conjecture on my part.
(1) GZ sees a black ute with a hoodie and assumes he's up to no good so he follows him.
(2) TM knows he's being followed and doesn't like it; tries to elude GZ.
(3) GZ leaves car and follows; TM says "wtf you want?"
(4) GZ: "leave the area, negro." TM: "fuck off"
(5) There is no step 5.
(6) at this point I think that TM threw a punch. Not because he's black or wears hoodies but because he's 17. Some Mexican dude tries to follow me at that age, he's gonna get slugged for his troubles.
(7) I think GZ tried to fight back but was getting his ass kicked, and was able to pull his gun and shoot.
Complicating the issue (to me) for GZ is that 911 told him NOT to leave his vehicle. That dispatcher was the closest thing to an actual officer at that time and GZ apparently ignored him outright.
I do not know if GZ is guilty because I do not know Florida law well enough - even if the events transpired exactly like I think they did.
AlabamAlum wrote:eCat,
Because the police dispatch was the closest thing to an authority in that situation. When you call PO-PO and they tell you to not pursue, to stand down, you probably should, IMO, absent some overwhelming reason to ignore those instructions. If GZ had listened, he would not be facing an indictment and TM would still be alive. In the end, GZ killed someone who wasn't going to burgle any home and faces a possible prison term.
I want evidence. I'll make my decision about conviction when I see that. The difference between us is I don't accept his statement for self-defense as fact. If he stood over him and blew him away, he'd make the same statement to the police. Therefore, it means nothing to me. I'll wait for the facts.eCat wrote:you won't think this is a fair question, but do you want justice or a conviction?
Some of your arguments haven't been about what happened but what is admissible in court, it makes me wonder.