Page 31 of 36 FirstFirst ... 21272829303132333435 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 372 of 432
  1. #361
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,297

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial



    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    The barrage of folks in the media turning this into a race war is pretty gross.
    Claiming to honor Trayvon when all they are doing is using him for ratings. Ab-so-lute-ly fucking disgusting.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  2. #362
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,435
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    Saw the marches in DC...it wasn't as nearly as big as that article was making it out to be. The stuff in Oakland is bothersome though.
    This pic of demonstrators taking over Times Square should be big to you. A guy
    brought his bull horn to stir things up. This stuff is planned.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...tBJgLizufFuEXL


    I dunno man, fires, over-turned dumpsters, smashed up cop cars with the above hate signs posted above, crowds pulling
    down fences, cops standing in the streets is very reminiscent of Chicago riots of years ago
    and more recently the Rodney King riots in California.


    On FOX I even saw an old hippie with a bull horn inciting riots and wearing a t-shirt that said SDS which was Students for A Democratic Society, a commie front organization during the
    Vietnam riots of the 60s and 70s. They even burned the American flag. Some things never change.

    Here's another link with pic of vandals trying to burn down stores if you didn't like that one.

    http://dprogram.net/2013/07/14/oakla...erman-verdict/
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-16-2013 at 01:32 AM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  3. #363
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,435
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    It's just a temper tantrum by the left. They've been getting their way on everything for
    the last 5 years except gun control, so they don't get their way here and have their
    little temper tantrum.

    Did you hear what the Rev Jessie Jackson said?

    He said Trayvon Martin did not get a jury of his peers. What? WEll pal, it wasn't
    Trayvon Martin on trial for his life. It was Zimmerman so he gets a jury of his peers. One
    juror said the only thing he was guilty of was poor judgement.

    And did you guys who have been acting like he was a saint know that Martin was in
    Sanford to live with his father because his mother kicked him out after he was suspended
    from school-again.

    And you guys should check out his text messages released back and May and brought
    forth by defense council where Martin refers to himself as a "gangsta" and he talks about
    his fights.

    No wonder the dude just didn't go straight to his father's house but wanted a
    confrontation.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/us...rtin.html?_r=0
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-16-2013 at 01:26 AM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  4. #364
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,435
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    One other thing, did anyone notice that these riots didn't start on
    Saturday night when the verdict came down. That's because the it was late and
    media outlets weren't prepared for it that soon anyway. The main person you saw on TV
    was good ole Geraldo and he only a few people behind him watching. Where were the
    thousands of people?

    It took some time for the networks to get these demonstations going. I mean I posted a comment about an old hippie wearing an
    SDS t-shirt from the 60s inciting riots with a bull horn. He's a professional demonstrator.

    Some things never change.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 07-16-2013 at 01:36 AM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  5. #365

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by Haloti92 View Post
    Yes, and the profiling and stalking arguments are without support as well. People don't seem to realize that the amount of time between Zimmerman's call to the cops and the start of the fight was less than 5 minutes. And several minutes of that interval were when Zimmerman had lost sight of Martin (and Martin decided to wait around...or hide, or whatever). So 'stalking', no. And as for profiling, absolutely zero evidence whatsoever. None. Assuming you are talking about race here.

    And as I said, the reason people are making these unsupportable evidence-free assertions, while ignoring the arguments/evidence that Martin assaulted Zimmerman, is because without the assertions their conclusion cannot in any way be valid.

    "We don't know" means acquittal. So people who do not want to verbalize that there should have been an acquittal start asserting things as known (against Zimmerman) that are not known, like profiling, stalking, and "initiating."



    You were not being clear as to what testimony you were talking about. Now it appears you think I care or are relying on Jeantel's claim TM was at home. Where have I mentioned that? I am still trying to find the testimony from Jeantel that I am relying on in any of my arguments.

    As for bias. You missed the point. You claimed that if Jeantel is shown to be lying or distorting in her testimony that favors the prosecution, and then is deemed 'not credible' because of it, then we have to similarly deem her testimony that favors the defense similarly 'not credible.' But this is nonsense for the reason I stated. She is partisan. It does not follow that a partisan person will be as likely to lie and distort their testimony against their cause as for their cause.




    Again. You need to specify what 'initiate contact' means. Otherwise there is no point discussing it. Zimmerman claims only that a) Martin appeared out of nowhere in a spot that he was shown to be several minutes earlier, and that b) Martin asked him a question, to which Zimmerman responded, and c) Martin attacked him.

    Nothing in your narrative disputes that. My mentioning the several minutes of 'waiting/hiding' is to destroy the argument that Martin had no choice but to be confronted (i.e. Zimmerman ran him down), and to slightly counter the argument (along with failing to call the cops) that Martin was running for his life, and to simply state categorically that he had enough time to get home and enter his apartment (which plenty of people seem to be unaware of).

    I am not claiming he had a duty to go home. Like many aspects of this case and all cases the jurors/judges/debaters are matching the behavior of the parties in the incident with what their own behavior would be in such a situation and/or assessing probabilities. You wait around the corner for minutes instead of running if a) you are hiding scared, as you say, OR b) if you want to confront someone. It is up to people to judge which is more likely, and again, in terms of the law, your version has to be proven.



    Fair enough



    It has much more to do with no evidence at all than who has the burden of proof. For example, people arguing that Aaron Hernandez should get a guilty verdict do not need to tell lies, ignore inconvenient evidence, and make stuff out of whole cloth like people who want a guilty verdict for Zimmerman. And the burden of proof is the same.

    Of course Zimmerman might be lying, but you have no evidence of it. The evidence you have, including your hiding theory, supports his story. He also passed a lie detector after the shooting where he was asked if he confronted Martin and answered, "no," and where he was asked if he was "in fear for his life" when he pulled the trigger and answered, "yes." Simply put, you are going way farther away from all the available evidence and common sense to construct a scenario where Zimmerman is a guilty, than are people who are arguing that he is not.



    It isn't a lawful order. You realize the dispatcher testified in the case and said he did not order Zimmerman to stop? And you realize that Zimmerman answers, "ok," and says he stopped and headed back to his truck and there is literally zero evidence to suggest he did not. And you realize that even if he didn't stop, he is breaking no laws and not affecting the legality of the case at all? In short, this is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Bereft of any real evidence of Zimmerman's guilt, those who just "feel like" he should be guilty (due to racial reasons, or gun control reasons, or standard political line drawing) start claiming things occurred that are unsupported by the evidence and claiming it is relevant if it did occur despite the fact it is not.

    Like I said, I am commenting on the appearance that people are not starting at unbiased and neutral and then piecing together evidence to tip the scales on their opinion, but rather they are starting with a preconceived assumption/hope and twisting, ignoring, fabricating stuff to justify it. And this isn't being done in the Aaron Hernandez case (despite the burden of proof hurdle) because it isn't required to be done like it is in this case when arguing for guilt.
    pretty much in reply to your entire post i can just say, youre taking his word for it and and ignoring/twisting things in the same way youre accusing me of. youre also arguing that i wanted a guilty verdict, which i never said i did. My opinion is based on how I see the facts of the case not unlike how you arose to yours. Im not ignoring anything, im interpreting it differently. statements like "i have no proof he lied" and "saying the dispatcher told him to stop so he returned to his car" are telling of how you feel and guilty of doing basically the same youre accusing me of. you choose to ignore the instances in which he did lie or twist things that he did do (he has been caught in lies and when told to stop, he continued walking away from his truck by his own admittance). I have no preconceived assumptions. NOBODY KNOWS HOW THE INTERACTION HAPPEN. I dont get how anybody can claim one way or another with certainty no matter how many times you tell me youre right and im wrong, that will not change.
    -JAB




  6. #366

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    I was impressed with the juror that has spoken out. It definitely seems like they were troubled by the whole incident, and it seems as if they took seriously the charges and the evidence (or lack thereof) in coming to their verdict.
    Last edited by JohnBKistler; 07-16-2013 at 09:03 AM.




  7. #367
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    22,262

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnBKistler View Post
    I was impressed with the juror that has spoken out. It definitely seems like they were troubled by the whole incident, and it seems as if they took seriously the charges and the evidence (or lack thereof) in coming to their verdict.
    Just caught a blurb of the interview as well.

    I got that same impression. I was a little disappointed that she's not going to write a book though.

    I'm usually skeptical of an opportunist move that's usually associated with book deals of this nature. But there's so much disinformation out there I'd love to have a first hand account of everything.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  8. #368

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Just caught a blurb of the interview as well.

    I got that same impression. I was a little disappointed that she's not going to write a book though.

    I'm usually skeptical of an opportunist move that's usually associated with book deals of this nature. But there's so much disinformation out there I'd love to have a first hand account of everything.
    I am sure one of them will sign a book deal, because I am sure there are millions like you that crave more details on this matter.

    One point: As soon as a juror agrees to a book deal, I assume their identity will be known, and then everybody that has a stake in this matter will pour over that person's public and personal life in an attempt to find something (outside of the evidence presented at trial) that swayed their decision. I suspect this woman may have thought twice about that scrutiny. Can't say I blame her if that is the case. Not sure if the jurors' identities will remain secret regardless.




  9. #369

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    pretty much in reply to your entire post i can just say, youre taking his word for it and and ignoring/twisting things in the same way youre accusing me of. youre also arguing that i wanted a guilty verdict, which i never said i did. My opinion is based on how I see the facts of the case not unlike how you arose to yours. Im not ignoring anything, im interpreting it differently. statements like "i have no proof he lied" and "saying the dispatcher told him to stop so he returned to his car" are telling of how you feel and guilty of doing basically the same youre accusing me of. you choose to ignore the instances in which he did lie or twist things that he did do (he has been caught in lies and when told to stop, he continued walking away from his truck by his own admittance). I have no preconceived assumptions. NOBODY KNOWS HOW THE INTERACTION HAPPEN. I dont get how anybody can claim one way or another with certainty no matter how many times you tell me youre right and im wrong, that will not change.
    No, I actually show where the evidence corroborates. You seem to think there was no relevant evidence in the case. While there was not that much of it, and some of it was fairly questionable, none of it contradicts Zimmerman's main self-defense narrative, and most/all of it corroborates it.

    And as for you not wanting a guilty verdict, then I guess I am confused as to what you want or what we are arguing about. Are all the people that are "disappointed" in the verdict simply saying they are "disappointed" that there wasn't any evidence disproving Zimmerman's defense? And if so, why, if what really happened was Zimmerman acted in self-defense? Are you arguing that Zimmerman was guilty of the crime he was accused of but that there was not enough evidence to support a guilty verdict? If so, what "evidence" are you using to justify your feelings? Do you see what I am saying here?

    No, I am not "doing the same thing as you." I am constraining myself to the limited evidence. It is not a matter of opinion that the dispatcher did not order Zimmerman to stay in his car. It is a fact. A fact verbalized by the dispatcher himself in official testimony; yet here you are saying that whether an order was given is debatable and a matter of opinion.

    No one knows exactly how the incident played out. But we do know some things about how the incident played out, and the few relevant things we know corroborate Zimmerman's story. Like I said, people have to go way, way farther out of their way trying to claim Zimmerman was guilty of the crime he was accused of than the reverse. The question, to me, is why are people doing that? But I guess I don't care enough to keep this up.

    We can agree to be confused by each others' stances.


    EDIT: I guess a better way for me to express my opinion is:

    If there were no witnesses to a fight where one person was on top of the other swinging, and

    If the forensic evidence showed no (2-4 inch) gap between Martin's shirt and his chest when the bullet was fired, and

    If there was no evidence that many minutes went by after Zimmerman lost sight of Martin before the confrontation occurred, and

    If Martin had a single bruise anywhere on his face or body.....

    Then I would be saying that I thought (not knew) Zimmerman was guilty of the crime he was accused of, and still unsure if the jury would agree with me.

    And I might only really need the first two conditions to be true (they are the two most important, to me) to feel that way.
    Last edited by Haloti92; 07-16-2013 at 11:24 AM.




  10. #370
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,297

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    More to the story...

    http://drudgereport.com/flashrj.htm

    JEANTEL WARNED ZIMMERMAN COULD BE GAY RAPIST
    TRAYVON: NOT THAT KIND OF WAY
    Tue Jul 16 2013 11:55:00 ET

    Last night Trayvon Martin's friend Rachel Jeantel gave CNN her first interview since testifying in the George Zimmerman murder trial.

    Jeantel opened up and let loose on the murder case that gripped that nation.

    She explained to CNN's Piers Morgan how she warned her childhood friend that Zimmerman -- could be a gay rapist!

    MORGAN: You felt that there was no doubt in your mind from what Trayvon was telling you on the phone about the creepy ass cracka and so on, that he absolutely believed that George Zimmerman, this man, you didn't know who he was at the time, but this man, was pursuing him?

    JEANTEL: Yes.

    MORGAN: And he was freaked out by it?

    JEANTEL: Yes. Definitely after I say may be a rapist, for every boy, for every man, every -- who's not that kind of way, seeing a grown man following them, would they be creep out?

    She continued:

    "And people need to understand, he didn't want that creepy ass cracker going to his father or girlfriend's house to go get -- mind you, his little brother was there. You know -- now, mind you, I told you -- I told Trayvon it might have been a rapist."
    Piecing this together a little more. I think if you combined her statements and Zimmerman's I could see the confrontation going something like this.

    Martin: Why you following me for
    Zimmerman: What are you doing here
    Martin: You got a problem?
    Zimmerman: No, I don't have a problem
    Martin: You do now.

    Seem possible?
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  11. #371
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    22,262

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    I cannot watch the news anymore.

    They are clearly going with the "Tell the Biggest Lie, the more People Will Believe It" approach to all of this. They are flat out lying about what was in evidence and what was not. They are willfully stocking the fans of race to get ratings at this point. Ad it doesn't matter the network -- Fox, CNN, MSNBC -- all of them are doing in some shape and form.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  12. #372
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,297

    Re: George Zimmerman Trial

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    I cannot watch the news anymore.

    They are clearly going with the "Tell the Biggest Lie, the more People Will Believe It" approach to all of this. They are flat out lying about what was in evidence and what was not. They are willfully stocking the fans of race to get ratings at this point. Ad it doesn't matter the network -- Fox, CNN, MSNBC -- all of them are doing in some shape and form.


    I saw a yahoo article about the Juror on Anderson Cooper. The juror said that she "thought Zimmerman went too far" in confronting Martin.

    See what they did there? It's no wonder some many people are misinformed about this case.
    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland