Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Jonesthe Spy
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:05 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Jonesthe Spy » Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:45 pm UTC

For the folks who seem bent on denying what the video clearly shows, it's probably worth noting that Zimmerman's lawyer has repeatedly claimed that Zimerman's nose broken, and that the head wound, allegedly from Martin bashing his killer’s head into the sidewalk, “probably was serious enough for stitches, but he waited too long for treatment so the wound was already healing.”

On Monday, the Orlando Sentinel reported police officials said that Martin “decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered.”

Come on already. There's no sign of ANY injury on Zimmerman - not even a bandaid on the back of his head, he didn't need any help getting out of the car while still handcuffed, he's not moving like someone who's been battered at all, let alone someone who was being so beaten he had a reasonable fear his life was in danger (another claim).

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:57 pm UTC

Jonesthe Spy wrote:he's not moving like someone who's been battered at all, let alone someone who was being so beaten he had a reasonable fear his life was in danger (another claim).


If you are waiting to be beaten so horribly that you can't walk right and are at risk of death, you have waited too long. This wasn't immediately after Zimmerman's arrest, though I don't know if it is Sanford PD's policy to clean up bloody people or not. Not that Zimmerman was justified, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on that particular point.

Falling
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:30 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Falling » Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:09 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Jonesthe Spy wrote:he's not moving like someone who's been battered at all, let alone someone who was being so beaten he had a reasonable fear his life was in danger (another claim).


If you are waiting to be beaten so horribly that you can't walk right and are at risk of death, you have waited too long. This wasn't immediately after Zimmerman's arrest, though I don't know if it is Sanford PD's policy to clean up bloody people or not. Not that Zimmerman was justified, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on that particular point.


I'm not saying the video answers anything conclusively, but he has no blood on his clothes and no discernible injuries.

User avatar
Nath
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Nath » Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:17 pm UTC

Jonesthe Spy wrote:For the folks who seem bent on denying what the video clearly shows, it's probably worth noting that Zimmerman's lawyer has repeatedly claimed that Zimerman's nose broken, and that the head wound, allegedly from Martin bashing his killer’s head into the sidewalk, “probably was serious enough for stitches, but he waited too long for treatment so the wound was already healing.”

Are you watching a higher resolution video than the rest of us? It seems quite likely that the whole 'needing stitches' thing is hyperbole on his lawyer's part, but the video isn't nearly clear enough to confirm or deny that he has a cut on the back of his head.

He isn't moving like someone who has a leg injury or an obvious concussion, but beyond that, getting beaten up doesn't necessarily make you move visibly differently.

What is a 'reasonable fear' that your life is in danger? If you are knocked to the ground and a hostile stranger is above you, your life is already in danger. The size of the cut on his head and the nature of his bloody nose are red herrings. These are the possibilities:
  • There was a physical struggle. Zimmerman fell to his back and shot Martin.
  • There was no struggle; he just shot Martin out of the blue. He then lay on the grass and cut his nose and the back of his head, to make it look like there was a struggle. 'John' the witness lied.
  • There was no struggle; he just shot Martin out of the blue. Officer Timothy Smith lied on the report.
The first one seems most likely to me, both before and after watching the video. This doesn't necessarily vindicate Zimmerman; he might well have been the one who started the struggle, and he almost certainly didn't do enough to prevent it. But it makes the surveillance video irrelevant.

Jonesthe Spy
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:05 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Jonesthe Spy » Thu Mar 29, 2012 10:59 pm UTC

You are omitting one of the most glaring possibilities - there was struggle that Zimmerman may well have initiated, and then Zimmerman lied about his injuries and the danger he was in in order to justify the murder, aided by police who were trying to cover up their original blunder.

In which case the extent of his injuries - like the claimed BROKEN nose, not 'bloody' - are not red herrings at all.

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Griffin » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:07 pm UTC

A physical struggle doesn't mean Martin did anything, either. A physical struggle doesn't mean Zimmerman's life was ever in danger. Zimmerman could have grabbed the kid, the kid pushed him off and backed off (and Zimmerman got hurt in the process), and seeing he wouldn't be able to subdue him, Zimmerman shot him.

The only thing Martin seems to have done wrong here was not have a gun of his own, to be honest.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Lucrece » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:14 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:
The only thing Martin seems to have done wrong here was not have a gun of his own, to be honest.


And the funny thing is that opportunists are pouncing on this to make sure that no more like him have such opportunity for a different outcome as well.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Nath
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Nath » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:18 pm UTC

Jonesthe Spy wrote:You are omitting one of the most glaring possibilities - there was struggle that Zimmerman may well have initiated, and then Zimmerman lied about his injuries and the danger he was in in order to justify the murder, aided by police who were trying to cover up their original blunder.

Could you clarify what you mean by 'original blunder'? From what I can find, it looks like they cuffed him, took him away, and sought an arrest warrant for manslaughter, and the state attorney's office shot it down. Do you think any of this is inaccurate? If not, what should they have done differently?

Jonesthe Spy
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:05 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Jonesthe Spy » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:26 pm UTC

Nath wrote:Could you clarify what you mean by 'original blunder'? From what I can find, it looks like they cuffed him, took him away, and sought an arrest warrant for manslaughter, and the state attorney's office shot it down. Do you think any of this is inaccurate? If not, what should they have done differently?


'Blunder' in this case referring to the decision not to press charges. Even if they did so at the behest of the Attorney General, they were still covering their ass after doing something ridiculously wrong. Although it wouldn't surprise me now that all this new data is coming out that they will claim "only folowing orders" and lay the blame all on the AG.

User avatar
Nath
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Nath » Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:49 pm UTC

I'm not very familiar with the US legal system. Would the police or the state attorney's office get final say in whether or not to press charges?

Jonesthe Spy
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:05 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Jonesthe Spy » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:14 am UTC

Not really the point. What is relevant is that once the decision not to press charges was made, at whatever level, the police closed ranks and acted to defend that decision, going so far as to lie about some aspects of the case and suppress other facts that did not support the narrative that Zimmerman committed no crime.

User avatar
Nath
Posts: 3148
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 8:14 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Nath » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:32 am UTC

Jonesthe Spy wrote:Not really the point. What is relevant is that once the decision not to press charges was made, at whatever level, the police closed ranks and acted to defend that decision, going so far as to lie about some aspects of the case and suppress other facts that did not support the narrative that Zimmerman committed no crime.

This is a strong claim. Police cover ups do occasionally happen, of course, but why would they bother to cover it up if it wasn't the blunder wasn't theirs? In other words, if the decision of whether or not to press charges fell to the state attorney (I don't know whether this is true), then why would the police stick their necks out for the state attorney's office?

That's why I think the question of who actually gets to press charges isn't beside the point. This question greatly changes the likelihood of it being a police conspiracy.

Chen
Posts: 5580
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Chen » Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:00 pm UTC

I love how people just jump in and don't read shit before.

They can not arrest until probable cause of wrongdoing (i.e., him not acting in self-defence) is found. They can investigate which appears to be what they're doing.

Now some articles menton people saying of police trying to get others to change their story, but I haven't seen any of that verified. If that is the case, sure that's the police clearly doing something wrong. Otherwise the police seem to be doing their job within the confines of Florida's stand your ground laws.

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Griffin » Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:03 pm UTC

The fact that the victim was unarmed is, I would think, probably cause. Definitely not enough to convict, but definitely enough for probable cause, which has must lower standards.

And that's a pretty fucked up situation anyway, of course, as that ISN'T how self-defence law is supposed to work. But since when has Florida ever done things reasonable, eh?
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

Chen
Posts: 5580
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Chen » Fri Mar 30, 2012 3:04 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:The fact that the victim was unarmed is, I would think, probably cause. Definitely not enough to convict, but definitely enough for probable cause, which has must lower standards.

And that's a pretty fucked up situation anyway, of course, as that ISN'T how self-defence law is supposed to work. But since when has Florida ever done things reasonable, eh?


Unarmed isn't necessarily probable cause. You can still subject someone to severe bodily harm while being unarmed.

The fact that Zimmerman most likely began the altercation by chasing the boy down to begin with is more likely to the sticking point I'd think. The Florida law has specifics on saying that if you instigate the fight you are less protected via the self-defence argument than otherwise.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Jave D » Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:22 pm UTC

Blaming the victim doesn't seem to be politically effective as making the killer look like a victim himself.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Mar 30, 2012 4:44 pm UTC

That's MiniTru for ya.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Sockmonkey
Posts: 1214
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 11:30 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Sockmonkey » Sat Mar 31, 2012 9:24 pm UTC

If there is any covering up it would be covering an atitude of "Idunwanna" on the part of the police rather than specific wrongdoing. Meaning they're hiding the fact that the investigation into a black guy's death is half-assed due to either racism or or that they don't think a conviction is likely because of other's racism. This is assuming that they are dragging their feet.

User avatar
waltwhitmanheadedbat
Posts: 98
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:45 am UTC
Location: Yes.

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby waltwhitmanheadedbat » Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:51 am UTC

Griffin wrote:And that's a pretty fucked up situation anyway, of course, as that ISN'T how self-defence law is supposed to work. But since when has Florida ever done things reasonable, eh?


It's not? More states have some form of "no duty to retreat" law than not.

Even here in New York, I have no duty to retreat if I'm attacked in a public place - unless all innocents can retreat in complete safety.

It also might not be strictly accurate that Zimmerman can't be arrested. From my reading of the law, police aren't supposed to arrest and jail a person where probably cause doesn't exist, but the only way this specific law provides a way for them to be penalized is through court fees, legal fees and restitution of income lost.

User avatar
lutzj
Posts: 898
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:20 am UTC
Location: Ontario

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby lutzj » Sun Apr 01, 2012 2:17 pm UTC

Apparently somebody at NBC heavily edited the 911 call as it was replayed on the Today show; NBC is conducting an internal investigation after Hannity and some right-wing websites called them on it.

NBC told this blog today that it would investigate its handling of a piece on the “Today” show that ham-handedly abridged the conversation between George Zimmerman and a dispatcher in the moments before the death of Trayvon Martin. A statement from NBC:

“We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story.”
Great news right there. As exposed by Fox News and media watchdog site NewsBusters, the “Today” segment took this approach to a key part of the dispatcher call:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

Here’s how the actual conversation went down:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.
addams wrote:I'm not a bot.
That is what a bot would type.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Apr 01, 2012 4:20 pm UTC

Given that M had a bag with marijuana residue with him, I wouldn't be surprised if he was high. Not that having the munchies should be a capital offence, but it would explain why Z thought M was on drugs.

User avatar
jakovasaur
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:43 am UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby jakovasaur » Sun Apr 01, 2012 7:53 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:
Great news right there. As exposed by Fox News and media watchdog site NewsBusters, the “Today” segment took this approach to a key part of the dispatcher call:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

Here’s how the actual conversation went down:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.

Wow, that is some pretty egregious editing. Somewhat related, is there any evidence one way or another as to whether Trayvon actually was on drugs when this went down?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:29 pm UTC

Other than the fact that he had drug residue with him, AFAIK nothing has been released.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10332
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby addams » Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:30 pm UTC

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/29/k ... _plains_ny

Does it look like a pattern?
Calling the Police for help may be the wrong thing to do.

Does that look like a problem to you?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby PeteP » Sun Apr 01, 2012 8:44 pm UTC

addams wrote:http://www.democracynow.org/2012/3/29/killed_at_home_white_plains_ny

Does it look like a pattern?
Calling the Police for help may be the wrong thing to do.

Does that look like a problem to you?

The question is, will the officers just get a slap on the wrist or will there be some finger waggling and stern words?

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Griffin » Sun Apr 01, 2012 9:00 pm UTC

It's not? More states have some form of "no duty to retreat" law than not.

Florida's specific wording works much differently than New York. In most states, murder is a crime, and self-defense (of whichever sort) is a defense that absolves you of it. This means the police only need to prove you killed someone, and then you need to convince a jury it was self defense.

In Florida, it works differently. Not only to they need to prove you killed someone, they need to prove it WASN'T self defense, beyond a reasonable doubt. If there's any conceivably way it could have been self defense... well, its not really worth their time to charge you, really.

Its not that people shouldn't be able to fight back if attacked in public, its that the people who write laws in Florida are dipshits who care more about political agendas than writing decent legislation. Of the many states with stand your ground laws, none have fucked them up as much as Florida.

Mind you, this is mostly from the mouths of the people I know involved in Criminal law.

tl;dr
Most States: Killing is against the law, but we will let you off under (x) conditions
Florida: Killing is ONLY against the law under (y) conditions.
= Serious legal and procedural differences.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

Jonesthe Spy
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:05 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Jonesthe Spy » Mon Apr 02, 2012 5:04 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Given that M had a bag with marijuana residue with him, I wouldn't be surprised if he was high. Not that having the munchies should be a capital offence, but it would explain why Z thought M was on drugs.


You are incorrect, Trayvon Martin was suspended from school for the empty baggie with residue, it was not on him when he was murdered.

For those interested, the Miami herald has a fairly good - though by no means great - article compiling what is factually known about the incident. There are some annoying gaps, such as

There had been a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood attributed to young black men, and Zimmerman was wary of someone he did not recognize walking along the path that goes through the back of the townhouses, his father later told a local TV station.


Which leaves one in question: Was there really a rash of burglaries in the neighborhood, and was there actually any evidence connecting them to young black men if there were, or is it just something daddy was saying to justify his son's actions? How 'bout some clear editing, folks?

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/31/v ... rylink=cpy

Darryl
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Darryl » Mon Apr 02, 2012 12:19 pm UTC

lutzj wrote:Apparently somebody at NBC heavily edited the 911 call as it was replayed on the Today show; NBC is conducting an internal investigation after Hannity and some right-wing websites called them on it.

NBC told this blog today that it would investigate its handling of a piece on the “Today” show that ham-handedly abridged the conversation between George Zimmerman and a dispatcher in the moments before the death of Trayvon Martin. A statement from NBC:

“We have launched an internal investigation into the editorial process surrounding this particular story.”
Great news right there. As exposed by Fox News and media watchdog site NewsBusters, the “Today” segment took this approach to a key part of the dispatcher call:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

Here’s how the actual conversation went down:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.
Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?
Zimmerman: He looks black.

Yes, but that doesn't erase the fact that Zimmerman muttered a racial slur on the 911 call, the other 911 call has been analyzed, and the scream for help was emphatically not Zimmerman's (which proves his claim that he was screaming for help a bald-faced lie), the video of him being taken in has absolutely no blood on him (which proves his claim that the back of his head was slammed into the ground and he was bleeding profusely a lie), or Zimmerman's history of racial profiling and calling the police for "suspicious persons" who were always Black.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:18 pm UTC

Darryl wrote:Yes, but that doesn't erase the fact that Zimmerman muttered a racial slur on the 911 call, the other 911 call has been analyzed, and the scream for help was emphatically not Zimmerman's (which proves his claim that he was screaming for help a bald-faced lie), the video of him being taken in has absolutely no blood on him (which proves his claim that the back of his head was slammed into the ground and he was bleeding profusely a lie), or Zimmerman's history of racial profiling and calling the police for "suspicious persons" who were always Black.


I heard that 'slur', I couldn't tell what Zimmerman said, and I don't think you can either.

The scream was probably not Z's, but that doesn't mean that Z never screamed for help either.

The video of him being taken in, while better quality than most I've seen, is not exactly high resolution. There's nothing to say Z wasn't able to wipe the blood off or that his wounds weren't exaggerated (as opposed to your claim of fabricated).

Z's "suspicious persons" were NOT exclusively black; just overwhelmingly.



Look, the evidence points very much against Zimmerman. Beyond reasonable doubt IMHO, at least for reckless endangerment or manslaughter. But if you really want to help in some small way, then don't use hyperbole or incorrect statements. When you start to smudge the truth, people start to notice and then start to wonder how much else has been smudged. So please don't try to alter the evidence.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Lucrece » Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:49 am UTC

Not to mention cable news channels will NEVER go out of their way to antagonize popular movements, given how they profit from viewership. Remotely being perceived as coming to the bad guy's defense is a threat to their ratings, and these networks work on a bandwagon basis.

Not that Zimmerman isn't going to be charged with at least involuntary manslaughter or some form of criminal negligence, as I linked the actual Florida statutes and how they work earlier. The moment he escalated the situation and turned into a pursuit that precipitated possible yet avoidable violence on himself, Zimmerman lost any solid claim to a self-defense defense.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:31 am UTC

Though the question of "would Zimmerman have been charged with anything if there wasn't media attention" should also be considered, though I don't know how.

The free press, the ultimate check on tyranny that also happens to be tyranny.

Darryl
Posts: 327
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:32 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Darryl » Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:51 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Darryl wrote:Yes, but that doesn't erase the fact that Zimmerman muttered a racial slur on the 911 call, the other 911 call has been analyzed, and the scream for help was emphatically not Zimmerman's (which proves his claim that he was screaming for help a bald-faced lie), the video of him being taken in has absolutely no blood on him (which proves his claim that the back of his head was slammed into the ground and he was bleeding profusely a lie), or Zimmerman's history of racial profiling and calling the police for "suspicious persons" who were always Black.


I heard that 'slur', I couldn't tell what Zimmerman said, and I don't think you can either.

The scream was probably not Z's, but that doesn't mean that Z never screamed for help either.

The video of him being taken in, while better quality than most I've seen, is not exactly high resolution. There's nothing to say Z wasn't able to wipe the blood off or that his wounds weren't exaggerated (as opposed to your claim of fabricated).

Z's "suspicious persons" were NOT exclusively black; just overwhelmingly.



Look, the evidence points very much against Zimmerman. Beyond reasonable doubt IMHO, at least for reckless endangerment or manslaughter. But if you really want to help in some small way, then don't use hyperbole or incorrect statements. When you start to smudge the truth, people start to notice and then start to wonder how much else has been smudged. So please don't try to alter the evidence.

He claimed that his head was smashed into the ground repeatedly. This is on the record from multiple places. If that had actually happened, he would have been bleeding extremely profusely, because he'd have had, at minimum, a major head wound.

Oh, and the undertaker who was preparing Trayvon's body for the funeral found absolutely zero evidence of a struggle. And undertakers, part of their job is looking for these things so they can notify the police of potential foul play involved. Zimmerman murdered Trayvon, and that's what there is to it.

As for the racial slur? Here's what I heard him muttering. A hard c, and then a long oo. And in that context, there's only one word it could have been, and it wasn't fucking Coors.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:22 pm UTC

Darryl wrote:He claimed that his head was smashed into the ground repeatedly. This is on the record from multiple places. If that had actually happened, he would have been bleeding extremely profusely, because he'd have had, at minimum, a major head wound.


Like I said, he could have been exaggerating, not lying. There's a difference between having your head smashed into the pavement and being knocked down into the mud twice, though both are "smashed into the ground repeatedly".

Darryl wrote:Oh, and the undertaker who was preparing Trayvon's body for the funeral found absolutely zero evidence of a struggle. And undertakers, part of their job is looking for these things so they can notify the police of potential foul play involved. Zimmerman murdered Trayvon, and that's what there is to it.


Link please. And how much evidence of a struggle would there actually be on Treyvon's body? That kind of evidence might be there if Z was grappling M and left nail gashes or managed to hit him hard with a few punches.

Darryl wrote:As for the racial slur? Here's what I heard him muttering. A hard c, and then a long oo. And in that context, there's only one word it could have been, and it wasn't fucking Coors.


Go to any gym and you hear "ERR!", "OOO!", "FFF!" and "ARR!", doesn't mean that they were trying to say "ERRnestly lift yonder weights soest thou mayest FFFeel the wondrous rejOOOvenation of exARRtion." Please stop grasping at straws.



Somehow, I don't think Zimmerman's plan was "oh here's some black kid, I'm going to murder him but first I'm going to call the police!". No, the most likely scenario from what I can tell was as I said before, Z was a pig who looked in the mirror and saw a cop, desperately wanted to be that 'hero', and convinced himself that M was a thug. Z starts chasing M, M gets away, Z gets his truck to search for M, finds M, M (justifiably) defends himself, then Z shoots M.

The scenario you seem to insist on involves Treyvon screaming for help for quite some time, long enough for several 911 calls, constantly running away, and Z managed to shoot M in the front without any struggle.

Nordic Einar
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Nordic Einar » Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:25 pm UTC

Zimmerman has been arrested, charged with 2nd Degree Murder.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

Neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman has been taken into custody and charged with second-degree murder in the shooting of Trayvon Martin, Florida special prosecutor Angela Corey announced late Wednesday.


So that's (tentatively) exciting.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Iulus Cofield » Wed Apr 11, 2012 10:54 pm UTC

Where will they find unbiased jurors? Tajikistan?

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Ghostbear » Wed Apr 11, 2012 11:09 pm UTC

Good to see the system isn't completely broken. Now he can make his case in front of a judge and jury.

Iulus Cofield wrote:Where will they find unbiased jurors? Tajikistan?

I remember reading that they had a huge issue with this with the OJ Simpson trial way back, but they were able to get a sufficient jury together then. They should be able to do so here -- this seems to be far less publicized overall. I'd expect there being will likely be large fight over the racial composition of the jury though.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Thesh » Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:10 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:I remember reading that they had a huge issue with this with the OJ Simpson trial way back, but they were able to get a sufficient jury together then.

That's a REALLY bad example.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:40 am UTC

Thesh wrote:That's a REALLY bad example.

I meant sufficient as in "unlikely to be pre-disposed to a certain verdict due to media coverage" and not "likely to decide guilt or innocence properly". They were able to find the former, even if popular opinion believes, by a wide margin, that they failed to get the latter at the same time. I doubt they'll have anywhere near as much trouble in accomplishing the former in this case, which would lead me to hope that they'll also have a far better chance of accomplishing the latter as well.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10550
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Apr 12, 2012 2:49 am UTC

Ghostbear wrote:
Thesh wrote:That's a REALLY bad example.

I meant sufficient as in "unlikely to be pre-disposed to a certain verdict due to media coverage" and not "likely to decide guilt or innocence properly". They were able to find the former, even if popular opinion believes, by a wide margin, that they failed to get the latter at the same time. I doubt they'll have anywhere near as much trouble in accomplishing the former in this case, which would lead me to hope that they'll also have a far better chance of accomplishing the latter as well.


And if the 'proper' verdict is truly not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, would you be happy with that verdict?

As for predisposed due to media, personally I'm of the belief that said rule should be waived in cases that get national attention; the people who have never heard of the Zimmerman/Trayvon incident by this point are exactly the people who should never be allowed on a jury.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: Your clothes were asking for it: Now in mens!

Postby Ghostbear » Thu Apr 12, 2012 3:13 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:And if the 'proper' verdict is truly not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, would you be happy with that verdict?

That would depend on what evidence may or may not appear during the trial. Notice that I said "Now he can make his case in front of a judge and jury." and not "Now he can be found guilty and shoved in prison forever and ever."

I'm glad to see a trial because it seems there's enough reason to believe he's guilty to warrant holding a trial to determine whether or not he is, not because I want a mock trial that is guaranteed to send him to prison. Let him make his case, and people can determine their outrage, or lack thereof, for the outcome of the trial once that and the supporting evidence are known.

EDIT:
CorruptUser wrote:As for predisposed due to media, personally I'm of the belief that said rule should be waived in cases that get national attention; the people who have never heard of the Zimmerman/Trayvon incident by this point are exactly the people who should never be allowed on a jury.

Why? Whether or not you follow the news doesn't seem like a particularly significant predictor of someone's ability to reason through a trial fairly and in a logical fashion.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: cphite and 27 guests