Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tacoma by way of St Croix.
Rep Power: 59
Total Points: 254,527,119,152,799.38
Originally Posted by UglyPug
Di BUSH BABEEEE! Lol first off let me apologize for any kind of disrespect our debate earlier might have conveyed. . . With you and Russian Crushin', two posters I admire and respect on here, I had no intent to belittle ya'll's opinions. Yeah, I'm a little more than halfway finished with law school, but I don't know anymore than most of you guys know. I have just read hundreds of Supreme Court opinions, so I have got a feel for how they reason. . . But when it comes to knowing the law, I don't even study Florida statute law, and I have forgotten a lot of the common law definitions by now. You guys can look it up just as easy as I can. We are all equal on here - we're simply trying to give our opinions on the matter; none is "better" than the other.
Secondly, I think that this guy had no business whatsoever trying to "detain and question" some kid just walking down the street. People like this who have guns scare me. It seems that he does have some racial profiling tendencies as well, and perhaps some hate in his heart, and having that hate in your heart is never good.
Now, in regards to the witnesses, I wonder if he was detained on the scene until all the witnesses were initially questioned. Also, I wonder what the other 4 witnesses said. It does seem to be harder to argue what he wasn't arrested on the scene, especially if the witness told the cops what she said in the interview. Why didn't the cops further question her yet either, I don't know.
Some things that I wonder based on witness testimony, and other facts we just learned:
- Did the lady actually SEE the shooting? She said there was "no punching or kicking", but then she says she heard screams, and they stopped after the gunshot. She doesn't know FOR SURE who the screams for help were coming from, but she drew her own conclusion because they stopped after the gunshots. This implies that she DID NOT EVEN SEE the altercation. That could just as easily support that it was Zimmerman, beacuse after he shot Trayvon, he no longer needed help.
- The boy they interviewed said he did not know who was screaming, but also supported that the screaming stopped after the gunshot.
Now, things that I would like to find out:
- What other 4 witnesses said.
- What was the angle of the bullet entry?
- Was Zimmerman actually on the ground, and Trayvon over top of him kicking and hitting him when he shot him? OR, were they both on their feet, and the scuffle was already over with, and he was no longer in any kind of danger? They will have a good idea based on bullet entry, blood trails, etc.
- Did Zimmerman ACTUALLY have blood coming out the back of his head and nose, and the cops NOTED this? Or is it just what he said?
Still too much I don't know. . . But I agree that the guy looks like he was probably mad he got beat up, and THEN shot Trayvon after being in no danger. I'm still not ready to say the cops are being racist, and don't care about Trayvon's life. . . They very well could have reasonably believed (based on witness testimony, and evidence, or lack thereof on the scene), that there wasn't enough probable cause to warrant an arrest. Lets see what happens from here. . .
Was on my way to sleep, stopped back in for this. But lack of evidence to warrent an arrest?? There was a death involved in this affair. An unarmed minor in a place he had every right to be. A man that was told to stay put, however disregarded that part & proceeded to initiate the entire ordeal. What does it take exactly to "warrant an arrest"?
Forget skin color. I'd like to know how he got involved in the the tussle claiming self defense when he approached the kid, not vice versa. He left his car & came withing physical touching distance when the fistfight or whatever happened. If he didn't persue the child, the child wouldn't have died from a gunshot delivered by an armed adult who chose to confront the child. So again, what is probable cause for an arrest??