Arrest is due process: where an alleged homicide has been reported, it surely is standard procedure to arrest the alleged perpertrator as part of the investigation, if nothing else to rule him out of the enquiry if indeed he is innocent, or to have him charged and brought before a court if it is suspected he is not. Only then can he be judged by his peers and the full facts and all the evidence ventilated in open court. But the point is that that can't even begin to happen unless he is arrested. Surely therefore that is the first step, no?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Beware of Blacks with Skittles?
- Thread starter Gina B
- Start date
- Status
Demanding his arrest is due process?
Putting a bounty on his head driving him to seclusion is due process?
Innocent UNTIL proven guilty...not arrested and assumed guilty UNTIL proven innocent.
If you chill and read what I said, some of which appears unread, you'd see that I disagree with putting a bounty on him.
The arrest is because that's how this country works their justice system. I don't always agree with that. A person gets arrested and sits in jail, often with bond, but only the ones who can afford bail may go free until the hearing. Many times, the free lawyer provided for those who cannot afford one is getting paid by the same system paying the prosecution, to my knowledge. That seems very wrong, when those with money have much higher chances.
However, that's how this works. I and many others believe that an arrest must be made in order for him to be seen by a judge and jury. The simple fact that Zimmerman followed someone at night (after being advised not to do so) makes him the initial aggressor, so self defense doesn't count. You just don't go following someone at night and there is no reasonable expectation that when someone follows you, you're not going to run. Zimmerman claims the kid ran, but he followed him. I'd have been flipping out if someone started following me in the dark!
Due process needs to happen for Martin too. He was chased and ended up being shot, while unarmed, no matter what happened after the guy started chasing him. His life was taken...something he had a fundamental right to in this country. No due process for him.
So now people are asking for the justice system to do right by both parties.
I strongly agree with that.
Why don't you?
He was advised not to confront him. There is a difference.
Here's the simple fact: You swallowed hook, line and sinker a piece of propaganda designed to incite outrage of an undiscerning public against one who was protecting innocent residents from the violations of a violent member of a politically protected race.
On this side of the pond, there must be cause for arrest, and cause cannot be assumed. Those who were on the scene determined that there was no cause for arrest.
Er...there must be cause this side of the Pond too. A corpse with a gunshot wound plus a guy standing near it with a smoking gun is usually a good starter for ten.
Actually, if I recall correctly, the 9-11 operator asked him if he were following the person and he said yes and they told him to not do that. There was nothing said about confrontation in that part of the conversation.
By all means I can cite the law, which is based on the same sort of common law as we have over here. I believe the term US law uses is 'probable cause' which is congruent in meaning with our 'reasonable suspicion'; thus the circumstances of this case, which in UK law would amount to 'reasonable suspicion' would similarly make out grounds for arrest in the US.
So, no 'spouting off', just the law and the facts. Whether or not a homicide is ultimately made out will be for a judge and jury to decide in the usual manner, but they should at least be given that chance.
So, no 'spouting off', just the law and the facts. Whether or not a homicide is ultimately made out will be for a judge and jury to decide in the usual manner, but they should at least be given that chance.
...until they come for you.
He was not a thief nor was he trespassing.
convicted1
Guest
Whether Zimmerman is guilty or not, none of us know for sure. However, there is One who does know, and His judgement is always right.
To those of you who are hell-bent on condemning this guy BEFORE all the facts are in, just remember the Duke Lacrosse fiasco!!!
I would have expected much better from the average poster on this board, but apparently there are more lemmings than is first obvious.
I have had one experience with "reporters" and after the butcher job they did on my comments I have shied away from them like I would the plague. Thankfully there was no controversial topic, but the hatchet job on my comments was enough for me to ever avoid "reporters"!
Investigation may prove him totally guilty of pure murder - or an honest self-defense - but there is absolutely no way this character will ever be able to get an unbiased jury unless they move the venue to the out-back of Australia.
But should he be proven, PROVEN, totally justified in his actions, is there any way he can ever live free of the fear of reprisals of jack-asses like the Black Panthers, that have been stirred up by the media , and the professional race-baiters?????????
And all y'all who give credence to these "factual(?) reports" are doing your little part to keep TRUE justice from ever being achieved.
Even Bill O'Reilly (as much as he irritates me) advocates waiting for the facts to be determined before casting judgement.
One last point; remember that the media "telling you all the facts" about this incident, is the same media that praises the "ZERO'S" accomplishments. Why would you trust them on ANYTHING????
The following joke tells you the credibility that should be given to all these "journalistic(?)" reports.
I would have expected much better from the average poster on this board, but apparently there are more lemmings than is first obvious.
I have had one experience with "reporters" and after the butcher job they did on my comments I have shied away from them like I would the plague. Thankfully there was no controversial topic, but the hatchet job on my comments was enough for me to ever avoid "reporters"!
Investigation may prove him totally guilty of pure murder - or an honest self-defense - but there is absolutely no way this character will ever be able to get an unbiased jury unless they move the venue to the out-back of Australia.
But should he be proven, PROVEN, totally justified in his actions, is there any way he can ever live free of the fear of reprisals of jack-asses like the Black Panthers, that have been stirred up by the media , and the professional race-baiters?????????
And all y'all who give credence to these "factual(?) reports" are doing your little part to keep TRUE justice from ever being achieved.
Even Bill O'Reilly (as much as he irritates me) advocates waiting for the facts to be determined before casting judgement.
One last point; remember that the media "telling you all the facts" about this incident, is the same media that praises the "ZERO'S" accomplishments. Why would you trust them on ANYTHING????
The following joke tells you the credibility that should be given to all these "journalistic(?)" reports.
Actually he was told he didn't NEED to do that. There was no direct command to not do it.
"We don't need you to do that" was the response from the 9-11 operator and Zimmerman said "OK". So why didn't he stop?
There are still too much assuming of facts not in evidence going on here.
Do we know that Zimmerman did not stop following when told to do so?
Is it possible that immediately after hanging up with the 911 dispatch that the incident occurred?
Bobby Hamilton
New Member
Where is this petition for every other wrong that occurs?
I don't know if Zimmerman is guilty or not. I tend to agree with you that he is.
With that said, this particular petition for this particular instance is nothing more than a race filled petition. It has nothing to do with justice, or we'd see this kind of thing for every murder ever committed.
From his testimony he was walking back to the car when Trayvon approached him asking him if he had a problem. Zimmerman allegedly said no, and Trayvon allegedly said "you do now" and decked him in the face breaking his nose. He then allegedly began to mount and beat him.
At any rate, "we don't need you to do that" is hardly "stop doing that". I would have taken it as a polite way to say I didn't have to put myself in harms way.
I would have taken it as "Stop following him. Let us do our job."
Zimmerman alleged. Why didn't he just get in his car and call the police again?
Based on his account, how could he?
- Status