In an election year? Never happen.johno wrote:But I don't discount funky stuff like a stacked jury or federal meddling.

Moderator: Dux
In an election year? Never happen.johno wrote:But I don't discount funky stuff like a stacked jury or federal meddling.
And the "broken nose" was diagnosed by the family physician. Z$ declined medical treatment after the incident.BucketHead wrote:Heard today that the "broken skin on knuckles" was actually a 1/4" abrasion on one knuckle. This should be interesting.
LOL. Yes, when you exclusively look at evidence that fits neatly into Z's story, he looks innocent.johno wrote:Zimmerman's & Martin's reported injuries support Zimmerman's story.
Zimmerman is not required to have a skull fracture and Martin doesn't have to have a busted hand.
His story already convinced the intial Prosecutor, who rejected the case. There's your first clue.johno wrote:Spells, stop your tiresome ignorant.
Zimmerman doesn't have to have the best version of events; he just has to have some reasonable (not magical) story. He needs an explanation that at least one juror will believe.
As in the Tawana Brawley case, the church arsons cases, the Duke Lacrosse Team case, the Henry Gates/Beer Summit case, I take glee when reality punctures the Media & Racial Injustice Complex Bubbles.Grandpa's Spells wrote: strange that anybody would want to champion this particular clown's cause.
johno wrote:As in the Tawana Brawley case, the church arsons cases, the Duke Lacrosse Team case, the Henry Gates/Beer Summit case, I take glee when reality punctures the Media & Racial Injustice Complex Bubbles.Grandpa's Spells wrote: strange that anybody would want to champion this particular clown's cause.
Remember the initial story: Zimmerman, the hulking white racist cop-wannabe, profiled and stalked innocent little Trayvon (see photo, four years out of date), confronted him and murdered him. And racist Southern hick cops covered up the crime.
Nearly every aspect of that story is challenged by the slowly-emerging facts.
Please remember that the accused does not have to prove or demonstrate anything.Gorbachev wrote:Support does not = prove or demonstrate to sufficient evidential standard.
On the 911 call he told the operator that he didn't know what the street address was. It's not impossible that at some point he got out of the car to look at some signs. The fact that he also pursued Martin, and admitted he was doing so on the 911 call, does not rule out looking at street signs.Grandpa's Spells wrote:Johno, George has made many statements that turned out later to be false. He said he got out of his car to read street signs, not persue Martin.
From The Huffington Post: None of the voice analysis is reliable.He said he was the one overheard screaming for help on the 911 call, that appears to have been false also.
Apparently, "point blank" isn't a term that they use in autopsies. I was curious about what "intermediate range" means because it does indeed sound like bad news for the defense. Via Google, I found this. Apparently, "intermediate range" for a handgun can be as close as 10mm. That's about 0.4". "Intermediate" and "point blank" ranges have considerable overlap.Finally, he claimed he shot Martin while Martin was banging his head on the ground. Presumably that means he was shot at point blank range. I wonder what the autopsy says?
I agree that Zimmerman is not the type of person that any reasonable person would want to champion. What should be championed are the rights of the accused, and the state having the burden of proof. The sickening things about this case are the loud, illiberal demands for Zimmerman to be lynched from people who are supposed to be liberal, people who supposedly care about civil liberties; and the use of this case as a political tool to change laws governing self defense.There have been sufficient shenanigans about how the story was initially reported that I am not confident he'll be found guilty, but Z's past wannabe behavior combined with a series of mis-statements make it seem very strange that anybody would want to champion this particular clown's cause.
One thing does not follow the other. There is a difference between not knowing an address and not knowing what street you are on. Zimmerman's neighborhood, where he's lived a long time, has a very limited number of streets. The odds of him not knowing what street he was on were low. Street signs are also designed to be visible while you are in your vehicle.Pinky wrote:On the 911 call he told the operator that he didn't know what the street address was. It's not impossible that at some point he got out of the car to look at some signs.
Maybe. I'm sure they'll make that argument.You didn't mention it here, but the 911 transcript is frequently edited to make it appear to suggest Zimmerman pursued Martin after being told he didn't need to. His response to that instruction was "OK." For all we know, he could have then gone straight back to his car.
FFS. That's your conclusion from that article? Look at what the guy does. He raises a series of questions in the Glenn Beck style of "I'm just asking questions."He said he was the one overheard screaming for help on the 911 call, that appears to have been false also.
From The Huffington Post: None of the voice analysis is reliable.
Interesting, I didn't know that.Apparently, "point blank" isn't a term that they use in autopsies. I was curious about what "intermediate range" means because it does indeed sound like bad news for the defense. Via Google, I found this. Apparently, "intermediate range" for a handgun can be as close as 10mm. That's about 0.4". "Intermediate" and "point blank" ranges have considerable overlap.
Getting spun up over what fringes do to advance their cause is silly. Wanting him lynched or wanting to donate to his legal fund are two sides of the same stupidity, and reasonable people should be able to dismiss both sides out of hand. E.g., Johno hoping Z$ is acquitted because of Al Sharpton, and PL54 because of Obama.I agree that Zimmerman is not the type of person that any reasonable person would want to champion. What should be championed are the rights of the accused, and the state having the burden of proof. The sickening things about this case are the loud, illiberal demands for Zimmerman to be lynched from people who are supposed to be liberal, people who supposedly care about civil liberties; and the use of this case as a political tool to change laws governing self defense.
Yes. This seems to really bother you when one specific side is doing it.The truly liberal stance meanwhile is being taken by the people who are saying we don't know enough to make a conclusion, the people you see as "champions" of the accused.
Because YOU might have to KILL a NIGGER who is trying to KILL YOU or YOUR'S one day. That's why he is championed. People are sick of Thugs beating up white folks and it being under reported. People with bvlinders are now seeing how violent America can be.Grandpa's Spells wrote:Johno, George has made many statements that turned out later to be false. He said he got out of his car to read street signs, not persue Martin. That didn't hold water. He said he was the one overheard screaming for help on the 911 call, that appears to have been false also. Finally, he claimed he shot Martin while Martin was banging his head on the ground. Presumably that means he was shot at point blank range. I wonder what the autopsy says? Innocent people generally don't have to lie.
There have been sufficient shenanigans about how the story was initially reported that I am not confident he'll be found guilty, but Z's past wannabe behavior combined with a series of mis-statements make it seem very strange that anybody would want to champion this particular clown's cause.
Gorbachev wrote: Respect for media authority, police authority, judicial authority and for the other side's capacity for fair play is gone. The idea of an objective reality is gone. Everything is open to challenge in our democracy of bullshit.
Congratulations, you just realized something that Madison used as the justification for American democracy over 200 years ago.Gorbachev wrote:The Zimmermann case is truly interesting not for what happened, but rather because it holds a mirror up to the utterly polarised, media-weary but media-savvy, fact-twisting cynical level of "discourse" in today's US. We're witnessing the bottom-up killing of impartial comment and thought. Everything we read is filtered, melted down and remoulded to fit a desired narrative. Everything we utter is parsed, stripped of any succour for the opposition and then spat out venomously as cold fact.
Respect for media authority, police authority, judicial authority and for the other side's capacity for fair play is gone. The idea of an objective reality is gone. Everything is open to challenge in our democracy of bullshit.
He specifically says that he doesn't know the address because it's "a cut through". That doesn't suggest that the only thing he doesn't know is the street number. And we seem to agree that Zimmerman is an idiot. I wouldn't assume that he knows street names in his neighborhood as well as you or I would.Grandpa's Spells wrote:One thing does not follow the other. There is a difference between not knowing an address and not knowing what street you are on. Zimmerman's neighborhood, where he's lived a long time, has a very limited number of streets. The odds of him not knowing what street he was on were low. Street signs are also designed to be visible while you are in your vehicle.Pinky wrote:On the 911 call he told the operator that he didn't know what the street address was. It's not impossible that at some point he got out of the car to look at some signs.
It directly refutes the lynch mob's claim that the tape proves he disobeyed directions to stop pursuing Martin. The tape doesn't prove anything of the sort.Maybe. I'm sure they'll make that argument.You didn't mention it here, but the 911 transcript is frequently edited to make it appear to suggest Zimmerman pursued Martin after being told he didn't need to. His response to that instruction was "OK." For all we know, he could have then gone straight back to his car.
But it still boils down to opinion, not to something as precise as a DNA match. My guess is that this is why you've only heard about this from various private "experts". The FBI was not able to determine who it was.FFS. That's your conclusion from that article? Look at what the guy does. He raises a series of questions in the Glenn Beck style of "I'm just asking questions."He said he was the one overheard screaming for help on the 911 call, that appears to have been false also.
From The Huffington Post: None of the voice analysis is reliable.
He acts as if these are open questions that have no answers, but they in fact do. Voice analysis is admissible in most states, including Florida.
Agreed, but the lynch-mob side of this is not being treated as fringe. It's perfectly acceptable for people pretending to be liberal or "progressive" to act like Zimmerman's guilt is already established, or to advocate laws that aren't clearly related be rewritten because of the case. And that side, from the very beginning, is the one that has worked the hardest to inflame passions. They are the reason this case is national news.Getting spun up over what fringes do to advance their cause is silly. Wanting him lynched or wanting to donate to his legal fund are two sides of the same stupidity, and reasonable people should be able to dismiss both sides out of hand. E.g., Johno hoping Z$ is acquitted because of Al Sharpton, and PL54 because of Obama.I agree that Zimmerman is not the type of person that any reasonable person would want to champion. What should be championed are the rights of the accused, and the state having the burden of proof. The sickening things about this case are the loud, illiberal demands for Zimmerman to be lynched from people who are supposed to be liberal, people who supposedly care about civil liberties; and the use of this case as a political tool to change laws governing self defense.
I don't really see two sides doing that. Calling for acquittal isn't analogous to calling for conviction. The correct analogue is certainty that Zimmerman did nothing wrong. You might hear that on occasion (some of those occasions being on IGX), but even those who are calling for acquittal most often admit uncertainty about what happened. And you don't hear this side trying to use this case to call for widespread changes to laws around the country.Yes. This seems to really bother you when one specific side is doing it.The truly liberal stance meanwhile is being taken by the people who are saying we don't know enough to make a conclusion, the people you see as "champions" of the accused.
It was dark and raining at the time, Steve.Grandpa's Spells wrote: He said he got out of his car to read street signs, not persue Martin.
Not quite comparable. Wanting Zimmerman lynched is a crime, murder, and short-circuits the legal system. Contributing to his legal defense fund is legal, and supportive of our judicial system.Grandpa's Spells wrote: Wanting him lynched or wanting to donate to his legal fund are two sides of the same stupidity, ...
IF Zimmerman is innocent, I hope the legal system acquits him. After the initial Media Frenzy, this is the way the facts are trending, IMO. Especially in light of this weird concept we have: Innocent until/unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.Grandpa's Spells wrote: E.g., Johno hoping Z$ is acquitted because of Al Sharpton, and PL54 because of Obama.
I love you too, Mak.Fat Cat wrote:Fuck you, G@ne.