Current Events > Minnesota police officer charged with second-degree manslaughter.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Solid Sonic posted...

George Zimmerman? That was much more obvious, IMO. He followed Trayvon Martin before accosting him.

I agree, but it's a pretty good example of a case where a murder charge is harder to prove than a lot of people think it is. Honestly, I thought he should have been convicted for murder 2, but as a charge it was an awful hard one to prove. This one would be much, much harder.

I'm really getting tired of all these police officers getting away with this. The last thing we need is for an overzealous prosecutor to try to make a name for himself and blow the whole thing. Justice needs to happen. We can't keep having people die because we've overmilitarized the police.

---

Dark_Despair posted...

Jurors have proven time and again even with the right charge they don't come through. This doesn't prove much.

Absolutely agree with that one, there are definitely plenty of examples of people walking even with the right charge. That's kind of irrelevant when we are talking about meeting the criteria for certain charges, though. To prove murder 2, the individual has to be shown to have a documented history of reckless disregard for human life, and evidence that the disregard ultimately motivated the killing. With an already biased jury, that would be even more unlikely than normal.

If you want this person to go to jail, which they absolutely should, the last thing you want to do is choose an avenue you can't reasonably achieve. It's just as much a lack of
justice to aim too high and let them walk.

---

We also need to do away with this concept of victim blaming. Unless the guy was literally assaulting the officer or was clearly becoming dangerous, there's no excuse to escalate to firing a deadly weapon. Period.

He didn't deserve to be killed simply because he had a record. Floyd didn't deserve to die because he had drugs in his system. That shit makes me furious.

---

They just like to kill. And they feel they have a free pass if they make up whatever excuse. They know the system is racist so they'll accept whatever excuse they make with face value

TheOtherMike posted...

No, your graphic is wrong. Zimmerman was most of the way back to his truck when the call ended, and he later returned to the place he had last seen Martin. His. Own. Words.

....

That area was the last place he saw Martin. It was on the way to his truck. And the factual graph is not wrong.

You're talking like a flat Earther.

Literally none of the witnesses testified to what you claimed there. Only Martin and possibly Zimmerman would know what Martin saw.

Except they all did? Including the girl Martin spoke too who testified that Martin told her he got home and then went after Zimmerman. Others testified that they saw Zimmerman being attacked and then trying to restrain Martin.

The timelines on the call, the physical locations of events (although you've already chosen to deny reality on this which is fucking pathetic.), the lack of any wounds on Martin beyond bruised knuckles from punching and and a gunshot wound, the back of Zimmerman's head hitting concrete and bloody nose pouring into his eyes and mouth so he can't breathe or see.

You can't just ignore facts because you're embarrased that CNN and Facebook duped you

And it's even more embarrasing to just look at undeniable facts that came out in a public trial you can go look at yourself (although you never ever will) and just go "No that's wrong cuz I don't like it." like a flat Earther or anti-vaxxer or Trump supporter.

Lol you don't even know what he was driving.

Wut?

This doesn't answer the question I asked.

Yes it does?

According to Zimmerman he stopped going after Martin, looked at a sign, then turned around. When he went back towards his car Martin was hiding behind a bush.

Martin said on the phone he got home and went back after Zimmerman.

The timelines on both phone calls match up to this and the location of the where the altercation took place. If Zimmerman continued the search as you claim and you ALSO deny Martin got home and turned around (Calling him a liar for the record) the it means Martin lied for absolutely no reason, then had some kind of AOL lag spike and just stood behind a bush for no reason instead of going to his house just down the street..

Zimmerman meanwhile lied to the cops for no reason, then somehow didn't see Martin standing still.

Not only does all evidence not support it, even ignoring that, this account doesn't make any sense whatsoever

AND even ignoring that it makes no sense... It STILL leads to innocent until proven guilty. Going "IF we ignore literally all evidence, call Martin a liar and then make up hypotheticals that could have potentially occured instead of reality, then Zimmerman may have commited a crime." doesn't hold up even in Kindergarten court. Let alone a murder trial.

Because he believed he was defending himself against a burglar.

Let me say this one final time in the hope that it sinks in. Literally everything I've said is 100% direct from Zimmerman's account of events. If you disagree with what I'm saying you're calling Zimmerman a liar.

No I'm calling you a liar. Because you keep lying and ignoring basic undeniable facts.

You can't claim Barack OBama said he wants to punch all people called Billy in the balls, then go "Well everything I said is 100% direct from Obama so you're calling him a liar if you point out that I just made that shit up."

It's idiotic.

The trial is public record, you could literally go look this up.... And your response is "No. I don't like that so It's not reality."

DarkRoast posted...

George Zimmerman? That was much more obvious, IMO. He followed Trayvon Martin before accosting him.

I agree, but it's a pretty good example of a case where a murder charge is harder to prove than a lot of people think it is. Honestly, I thought he should have been convicted for murder 2, but as a charge it was an awful hard one to prove. This one would be much, much harder.

I'm really getting tired of all these police officers getting away with this. The last thing we need is for an overzealous prosecutor to try to make a name for himself and blow the whole thing. Justice needs to happen. We can't keep having people die because we've overmilitarized the police.

Zimmerman wasn't a cop and didn't "follow Trayvon then shoot him."

You agree with incorrect facts.

---

Zimmerman is a liar and a murderer and UnfairRepresent is a disgrace

ShotOJameson posted...

Can we talk about the case at hand. It's dangerous rhetoric to say that you shouldn't comply with the police because they'll kill you anyway if you're black.

I'm not saying you shouldn't comply with police. I'm saying compliance doesn't guarantee survival as people in this topic like to pretend. And it's fucking disingenuous bad faith bullshit every time they say it.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Keep being wrong.

2Pacavelli posted...

Zimmerman is a liar and a murderer and UnfairRepresent is a disgrace

Zimmerman, imo, met the criteria for Murder 2. But it would've been close either way in court. It was risky to aim so high in a highly political case. It's insane he got off.

---

ScazarMeltex posted...

I'm not saying you shouldn't comply with police. I'm saying compliance doesn't guarantee survival as people in this topic like to pretend. And it's fucking disingenuous bad faith bullshit every time they say it.

Yeah I agree with this.

"If he just obeyed he wouldn't have been murdered" is such a fucked up thing to say.

1. Even non compliance shouldn't result in being shot unless the perp is literally being violent (and even then context matters)
2. There are so many cases of people complying or being yelled contradictory instructions just being shot at....

It's really just saying "I don't care if cops kill people, those guys probably were dirtbags anyway if the cops were involved with them."

Which is just morally wrong.

I live in the UK and the amout of apathy and direct resentiment displayed towards George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery is disturbing

And yes I know Ahmaud Arbery wasn't shot by a cop but the same "If he didn't run at the dudes driving after him, screaming while waving shot guns, he wouldn't have died. I'd have shot him too if he ran at me!" is everywhere

---

TheOtherMike posted...

Keep being wrong.

Lol it always comes down to this.

The guys who refuse to listen to the police reports, ignore all the evidence in the trial, refuse to look at the trial itself, claim everything that came out of the trial isn't true and have no actual points all just fall down on petty insults and going "naw ur rong" but not actually having a single point to say

Literally nothing I said was wrong and you never ever ever ever actually followed the trial. And you never will look it up either. You don't actually care. You'd rather insult the memory of Trayvon Martin than actually admit you were wrong about something due to being lazy or being duped by the media.

And that's a bad thing.

Notice I can actually point out specifically what you said that was wrong, why it was wrong, what actually happened and the facts/evidence/logic that back it up. You can't do that.

DarkRoast posted...

Zimmerman, imo, met the criteria for Murder 2. But it would've been close either way in court. It was risky to aim so high in a highly political case. It's insane he got off.

Did you know the Jury instructions allowed the Jury to find Zimmerman guilty for manslaughter or assault?

They found him not guilty for that too. AS well as murder. I bet your facebook didn't tell you that

No it's not insane that he "got off." There was no evidence against him.

The original police investigation closed the case almost immediately due to there being no evidence against Zimmerman. The case only was reopened due to pressure after national media outlets picked up the case and doctored Zimmerman's phone call to make him sound racist while putting up photos of Martin as a small child.

There's a reason why the Travyon Martin mural was Zimmerman shooting him in the back (while standing)


---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Literally nothing I said was wrong

Either you're lying or repeating lies. Either way you're wrong.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Yeah I agree with this.

"If he just obeyed he wouldn't have been murdered" is such a fucked up thing to say.

1. Even non compliance shouldn't result in being shot unless the perp is literally being violent (and even then context matters)
2. There are so many cases of people complying or being yelled contradictory instructions just being shot at....

It's really just saying "I don't care if cops kill people, those guys probably were dirtbags anyway if the cops were involved with them."

Which is just morally wrong.

I live in the UK and the amout of apathy and direct resentiment displayed towards George Floyd and Ahmaud Arbery is disturbing

And yes I know Ahmaud Arbery wasn't shot by a cop but the same "If he didn't run at the dudes driving after him, screaming while waving shot guns, he wouldn't have died. I'd have shot him too if he ran at me!" is everywhere

One of the most fucked up things about Arbery was that if he had been armed, shot and killed the two dudes confronting him, he would have been protected under the state's self defense laws. Technically anyway, some states have a habit of denying such defense to black people.

---

TheOtherMike posted...

Either you're lying or repeating lies. Either way you're wrong.

"You're lying... I can't point out what you're lying about but.... You are!"

Ok

You never followed the trial. You don't actually care about the facts.

ScazarMeltex posted...

One of the most fucked up things about Arbery was that if he had been armed, shot and killed the two dudes confronting him, he would have been protected under the state's self defense laws.

This is true.

Guys driving after you with guns, screaming is pretty cut and dry clear and present danger.

Similarly if Trayvon Martin had survived Zimmerman's gunshot, Martin would have faced assault charges and gone to juvy.

We live in a society.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

You never followed the trial. You don't actually care about the facts.

So you lived with me during the trial and saw me not watching or following the story? Just like you were there to personally see what Martin did or didn't do? The guy who doesn't even know what vehicle Zimmerman was driving or what witnesses actually testified to is telling everyone else that they don't care about the facts of the case. You really should get a new gimmick.

TheOtherMike posted...

So you lived with me during the trial and saw me not watching or following the story?

No you just keep not knowing blatant facts and lying.

Like when you denied that Martin got home - a lie
Denied Martin turned aroudn and went after Zimmerman - a lie
Denied the overhead map of the events, which the court, prosecution, police, witnesses and defense all accepted as reality wasn't right - a lie
Claimed Zimmerman wasn't heading back towards his car - a lie

And while not knowing basic facts, you fall for basic misinformations populated by people who didn't follow the trial but did use Facebook or CNN.

"Zimmerman followed a child down a dark alley and shot him for having SKITTLES!"

Just like you were there to personally see what Martin did or didn't do?

I didn't. Other people did, there is evidence of what Martin, and we go off that.

And once again I repeat and you ignore (as always) if your entire argument is "Once we ignore all the evidence then who knows what happened since we didn't see it!?" then Zimmerman is innocent by default. That's how our court systems work...

Your own arguments are self-defeating. That's how awful they are.

The guy who doesn't even know what vehicle Zimmerman was driving or what witnesses actually testified to is telling everyone else that they don't care about the facts of the case. You really should get a new gimmick.

"I care about the case, that's why I'm callig a gimmick adn lying about it constantly"

No you don't care. You either have an agenda to push or are embarrased you got duped and are too ashamed to admit fault. So you keep digging a hole.

But everything here is public record from a public trial. You can go look it up right now.

Actually learn the facts and stop lying.

But you won't.

---

You can post all the walls of text you want but you'll still be a liar.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Like when you denied that Martin got home

I never said anything about this one way or the other, for the record. Liar.

UnfairRepresent posted...

Like when you denied that Martin got home
I never said anything about this one way or the other, for the record. Liar.

No. Zimmerman was nowhere near his truck when they met. Zimmerman literally stalked Martin into a dark alley between houses, refused to identify or explain himself when Martin asked what his problem was, and immediately reached for a concealed object. This is all directly from Zimmerman's own police report and reenactment.

TheOtherMike posted...

No, your graphic is wrong.

Yes you did.

now you're lying about your lying.

Lieception.

Also keynotes I'll repeat:

1. Can't explain anything I said that was actually wrong
2. Your own "ignore all evidence so we can pretend we don't know what happened" logic still defends Zimmerman under innocent until proven guilty.
3. This is public information from a public trial you can look up any time you like, but won't

I also like that you think like 9 short seperated sentences pointing out undisputable facts is a wall of text.

---

UnfairRepresent posted...

Yes you did.

Learn to read.

ShotgunSilencer posted...

Omfg

---

damn @TheOtherMike getting pwned lmao

---