When were the google map images taken? Was there recent landscaping after the google map photos were taken?
Don't know...why don't you call the prosecutor and ask him. While you're at it, ask him what Serino's qualifications are... was he certified as an expert to give the lie detector test? And ask why if the lie detector test given by Chris Serino was so damning, then why weren't manslaughter charges brought; why if Serino gave the test, did he not believe Zimmerman's account?
Quoted Text
The lead homicide detective probing the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin wanted the Florida neighborhood watch volunteer slapped with manslaughter charges from the get-go.
Investigator Chris Serino, of the Sanford Police Department, expressed doubt in George Zimmerman’s account of how the shooting went down, ABC News reported Tuesday.
Serino wanted Zimmerman, 28, tossed behind bars, but the state Attorney’s Office said there was not enough evidence to make an arrest, multiple sources told ABC News.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Don't know...why don't you call the prosecutor and ask him. While you're at it, ask him what Serino's qualifications are... was he certified as an expert to give the lie detector test? And ask why if the lie detector test given by Chris Serino was so damning, then why weren't manslaughter charges brought; why if Serino gave the test, did he not believe Zimmerman's account?
All valid questions...It's funny that when the state doesn't get a conviction and get to jail a man, people come out and question the legal system and actually offer alternative conspiracy theories that suggest corruption or incompetence. I doubt the same would happen if Zimmerman was convicted, then the system worked perfectly, because the state got their man. Justice is only served when the state gets a conviction and takes away a persons freedom.
All valid questions...It's funny that when the state doesn't get a conviction and get to jail a man, people come out and question the legal system and actually offer alternative conspiracy theories that suggest corruption or incompetence. I doubt the same would happen if Zimmerman was convicted, then the system worked perfectly, because the state got their man. Justice is only served when the state gets a conviction and takes away a persons freedom.
Nothing in my statement offered alternative conspiracy theory nor did I imply corruption....incompetence, YES!!! I find it very ironic you should say this, since you bash our legal system; bash the LSM unless their articles suit you..... The fact Zimmerman may or may not have committed a crime was what was presented to the jury, and the jury did their job. Agree or not, that's how it works. What's flawed is that the prosecution (like in the OJ trial) could not compile sufficent evidence to convict. Is it becuase there was no evidence or becuase they did a bad job...either way, the jury did their job with the knowledge they had. I agee with the jury verdict, period....even if I may not agree that he was not guilty of a crime.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Nothing in my statement offered alternative conspiracy theory nor did I imply corruption....incompetence, YES!!! I find it very ironic you should say this, since you bash our legal system; bash the LSM unless their articles suit you..... What's flawed is that the prosecution (like in the OJ trial) could not compile sufficent evidence to convict. Is it becuase there was no evidence or becuase they did a bad job...either way, the jury did their job with the knowledge they had. I agee with the jury verdict, period....even if I may not agree that he was not guilty of a crime.
I raise the same questions. My point is, if the state was able to get a conviction, would you have questioned the competence of the investigators, and the person's expertise administering the lie detector test? Or would they have been the professionals and authorities, and would you have accepted the results? Or would you have doubted the result of the investigation and blame the defense for not challenging the states evidence thoroughly enough?
I raise the same questions. My point is, if the state was able to get a conviction, would you have questioned the competence of the investigators, and the person's expertise administering the lie detector test? Or would they have been the professionals and authorities, and would you have accepted the results? Or would you have doubted the result of the investigation and blame the defense for not challenging the states evidence thoroughly enough?
I don't function on "what if" the roles were reversed...I function on evaluating facts. The questioning I raised was in rebuttal to your statements! Tell me, when will results be acceptable that you will accept them...ever? Doubtful, unless you are the one creating the results!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
I don't function on "what if" the roles were reversed...I function on evaluating facts. The questioning I raised was in rebuttal to your statements! Tell me, when will results be acceptable that you will accept them...ever? Doubtful, unless you are the one creating the results!
Don't know...why don't you call the prosecutor and ask him. While you're at it, ask him what Serino's qualifications are... was he certified as an expert to give the lie detector test? And ask why if the lie detector test given by Chris Serino was so damning, then why weren't manslaughter charges brought; why if Serino gave the test, did he not believe Zimmerman's account?
This whole post takes into question the investigation and prosecution. It's a giant question mark.
All that I am asking is whether you would question the prosecution's investigation results if they got their conviction? Would you question the lie detector test if the results showed he was lying? You are questioning the competency for not convicting, would you raise the same concerns if there was a conviction? Would you consider the defense incompetent?
Just trying to figure out if you are as open minded as you claim. Or do you think he was guilty, and if the jury didn't find him guilty of something, there must be something wrong with the evidence and prosecution?
This whole post takes into question the investigation and prosecution. It's a giant question mark.
All that I am asking is whether you would question the prosecution's investigation results if they got their conviction? Would you question the lie detector test if the results showed he was lying? You are questioning the competency for not convicting, would you raise the same concerns if there was a conviction? Would you consider the defense incompetent?
Just trying to figure out if you are as open minded as you claim. Or do you think he was guilty, and if the jury didn't find him guilty of something, there must be something wrong with the evidence and prosecution?
Quoted Text
I agree with the jury verdict, period....even if I may not agree that he was not guilty of a crime.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Quoted Text I agree with the jury verdict, period....even if I may not agree that he was not guilty of a crime.
You ACCEPT the jury verdict...You DISAGREE with the jury that didn't find him guilty of a crime.
You can't agree with the not guilty verdict while disagreeing with the not guilty verdict. That is logically impossible. Only you can pull off such illogical thinking.
You ACCEPT the jury verdict...You DISAGREE with the jury that didn't find him guilty of a crime.
You can't agree with the not guilty verdict while disagreeing with the not guilty verdict. That is logically impossible. Only you can pull off such illogical thinking.
Not my words idiot...try to comprehend for once. I "AGREE" WITH THE JURY VERDICT! Based on evidence presented and testimony presented I "AGREE" WITH THE JURY VERDICT! I DID NOT say I disagree with the jury that didn't find him guilty....I said "even if I may not agree that he was not guilty of a crime".
Now, you want to play your little game and twist the words your way to mean something different, that's your problem. If you still don't understand it, then I simply can't help you. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you!!!!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
I "AGREE" WITH THE JURY VERDICT! Based on evidence presented and testimony presented I "AGREE" WITH THE JURY VERDICT! I DID NOT say I disagree with the jury that didn't find him guilty....I said "even if I may not agree that he was not guilty of a crime".
Just trying to help you with logic. Stick by your guns. I realize now that I can't fix stupid.
"Word games" lol --- it's called composition. You said it again, you may find him guilty of a crime while agreeing with the the jury that did not find him guilty of a crime.
You must have some secret evidence the jury didn't see that would have given them the great insight as ye ole joebxr to convict him of something. What evidence was withheld that would make him guilty of a crime?
Just trying to help you with logic. Stick by your guns. I realize now that I can't fix stupid.
"Word games" lol --- it's called composition. You said it again, you may find him guilty of a crime while agreeing with the the jury that did not find him guilty of a crime.
You must have some secret evidence the jury didn't see that would have given them the great insight as ye ole joebxr to convict him of something. What evidence was withheld that would make him guilty of a crime?
You can't read...obvious. You are right...can't fix stupid...and you're the stupid that can't be fixed. You go right ahead and keep changing the words, because my words don't match your distortions.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
George Zimmerman, who has been in hiding since he was acquitted of murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, emerged to help rescue someone who was trapped in an overturned truck, police said today.
Sanford Police Department Capt. Jim McAuliffe told ABC News that Zimmerman "pulled an individual from a truck that had rolled over" at the intersection of a Florida highway last week.
The crash occurred at the intersection of I-4 and route 417, police said. The crash site is less than a mile from where he shot Martin.
It's the first known sighting of Zimmerman since he left the courtroom following his acquittal last week on murder charges for the death of Martin. Zimmerman, 29, shot and killed Martin, 17, in Sanford, Fla., on Feb. 26, 2012. The jury determined that Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense.
"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a Patriot."
George Zimmerman, who has been in hiding since he was acquitted of murder in the death of Trayvon Martin, emerged to help rescue someone who was trapped in an overturned truck, police said today.
There he goes again! Showing that bravado, being a wannabe cop.
I bet he only saved the guy because he was white. If it was a black person trapped in the truck, he would have shot him.
This guy is a menace to society. He needs to be charged with impersonating a first responder.
The guy he saved is probably receiving death threats for accepting this racist's help.
He has NO RIGHT getting involved and acting like a REAL FIRST RESPONDER! I HOPE THEY SUE HIM!
"While Foreign Terrorists were plotting to murder and maim using homemade bombs in Boston, Democrap officials in Washington DC, Albany and here were busy watching ME and other law abiding American Citizens who are gun owners and taxpayers, in an effort to blame the nation's lack of security on US so that they could have a political scapegoat."
Logged
