Making charges against someone,,does not necessarily promote a conviction, if in fact Zimmerman is found to be guilty on any of these charges,, then he is GUILTY, and needs to be sentenced to the fullest extent of the law,,until that day comes,,here in the United States of America,,you are innocent until PROVEN guilty.


AND,,,Zimmerman is NOT my hero,,,I'm not jumping on the bandwagon and I'm not a armchair lawyer,,

 

"Do not attempt to apprehend a person committing a crime or to
investigate suspicious activity."

When he left his car to investigate, that is where he broke a rule. Especially after being told he shouldn't. It is repeated OVER and over in every single PDF that members should not follow, try to involve themselves, investigate, question, or engage with some one they suspect of being up to no good.

"Participants will not need to carry weapons, and are prohibited from doing so"

Source:
*not_secure_link*www.stpete.org/police/pdf/crime-prev/crime watch book-01-11.pdf

 

Correct!

Even the police do not follow suspects without backup. What Zimmerman did was no better than vigilantism. Despite the fact that many applauded his actions and called him a hero, Bernard Goetz went to prison for doing the same thing. Laying in wait until approached, coldly saying "I have $5 for each of you" and then gunning down a group of 4 armed subway muggers is a premeditated act - simultaneously heroic and illegal. Especially cold that he aproached one of his wounded victims, said "you seem OK, here's another." and shot him again certainly left nothing to question. His surviving victims went on to commit repeat offenses, including rape and robbery. Goetz denied nothing and faced his charges without hiding or blaming his victims. They were doing their thing and he did his and let the law sort it out.

Zimmerman took a shortcut. He made sure he was armed, not outnumbered, and used the element of surprise to ensure he was facing an unarmed unsuspecting opponent. I keep comparing his act to hunting but it was more like sniping.

 

First thing off the bat,,you WILL need to learn how to fix ''MY'' quotes,,just like everyone else does.....

Now to the 'facts',,the police report indicated that Zimmerman was assaulted;

*not_secure_link*www.firstcoastnews.com/topstories/article/249428/483/Report-Police-Say-Evidence-Indicates-Trayvon-Martin-Attacked-Zimm

 

I've seen the police report, and it doesn't say anything of the kind.

 

Let's see that report.

 

There has only been a partial report released to the public.

 

''PARTIAL'',,well that's enough to convict Zimmerman,,aint it???

 

Kimi-baby,,,I'm waiting for that police report>>>>>>>>>>>>...........................

 

This is the police report; please indicate where it says what you claim it does. *not_secure_link*www.propublica.org/documents/item/327370-trayvon-martin-police-report

 

All I see is ''PARTIAL REPORT'',,,I seen nothing of Zimmerman's statement, nor anything of the police making a statement of Zimmermans account of the activities...........

Yepper's Zimmerman must be a guilty mother fucker...........

It's probably a good thing for you, that you have big tits.

 

I never said it said anything like that. The gentleman above made a claim that the police report that has been released did in fact contain that information. But rather then look at the report that's been released he's taken the word of a media outlet, and assumed it must be so. I'm simply posting the report that has been released, and asking him to show me where it says what he's claimed it says.

 

Well, according to your link, that information is for the St. Petersburg NCWP.

And the reference in regards to weapons apply to the COP program, which is an additional component of the Neighborhood Crime Watch program.

 

Sure it is! Well, in the liberal MSM anyway....

 

I looked at the report,, I read the report,, it is a ''PARTIAL REPORT'',, I know that for only one reason,, it is stamped on the report.....''PARTIAL REPORT''...........:wall::wall::wall::wall::wall::wall:



It's not the full report.........

 

My question to you is, if you've read the report that has been released (partial or not it's the ONLY report that has been publicly released) and it makes NO mention of the attack you've described above, why on earth would you make the implication that the statement you made sure to write in BIG red letters was part of the police report, when in fact it's not as far as we've seen. The statement you proudly displayed describing the alleged assault of Zimmerman is not in any report that has been released to the public, so at this point, it is a SECOND HAND account that was relayed by Zimmerman to family members and friends and then told to reporters.

I've shown you the report that I've read, if you would be so kind as to state your source and link the actual police report that supports what you've said (because apparently you have an inside contact and you've seen a report the rest of us haven't) then I would be very appreciative.

 

With the evidence that we have at our disposal, I can not prove it in a police report, because it is a partial report, as you can not prove that it is not in the police report, because it is a ''PARTIAL REPORT''.... I do have something on my side, as the police did report,,there are witnesses that do collaborate the implication that Zimmerman was attacked, and had injuries,, sure looks like blood on the back of Zimmermans head to me, in the video,,even PMSNBC corrected their initial lie, about Zimmerman not having injuries.

The police stated that comment,,not PMSNBC.

 

Again, if you would please state your source, that would be great. Because all of the witness accounts I've read confirm that there was a fight between the two, NOT that Zimmerman was attacked. That my dear is a horse of an entirely different color. I have not at any point disputed there was an altercation. What is in question for me is who was the aggressor and who initiated the fight. Unfortunately the only two witnesses to the start of the fight are Zimmerman and Martin. And thanks to Zimmerman, Martin won't be telling his side of the story. No one else saw it actually start, they only saw it once it was in progress.

And for future reference, if you would please refrain from making implications about statements being in a police report that you've never seen it would make you look like less of an ass when you have to back track. You started out saying that this statement of the attack on Zimmerman was in the police report (or at the very least implying it) and now you are confirming exactly what I said; that you have seen no such police report and cannot conclusively make that statement.

Do you see the difference there? I am saying that with my own eyes, the police report I have seen does not make any claim that describes the alleged assault on Zimmerman.
What you are saying is,'Well no, I haven't seen it, but it could have happened'. Ridiculous.