I've been switching between CNN and MSNBC all day depending on who goes to commercial. In summary both stations are putting up a pro defense and a pro prosecution attorney to discuss the case. The SSN was accidental in the heading of Zimmerman's police statement, they took it down right away. If you think that was some purposeful get Zimmerman action, that's quite a bit more conspiratorial thinking than the facts support.
So when Martin said the [insert anagram of Ginger that starts with n ] was still following him, what did that say about racism?
It says Zimmerman was a racist. Although racists and murderers are both despicable, he is only on trial for murder. I don't like anything I've seen of Zimmerman, but I haven't seen enough to conclude he is guilty of murder. Not that ity matters, because I'm not on the jury, and I haven;t seen the evidence as presented to the jury. He could be lower than pond scum, and I believe he is. I just don't know if he murdered Trayvon Martin/
Gingerism Tim Minchin is one of my favorites. Now make an anagram of Ginger and put it in the blank in my sentence. Martin said the [insert anagram of Ginger that starts with n ] was still following him.
By itself, it should scare anyone if that's the basis for a conviction. I have a friend who was a public defender in St. Louis for many years. Her clientele were all poor, almost all black. People in those neighborhoods don't like or trust the police and lie to them all the time, about trivial matters as well as serious ones. If a cop asked someone there what color the sky was, he couldn't be sure of getting the truth out of a person. That's just how the relationship with the police is. If being caught in a lie was enough to convict someone of a criminal offense (outside of perjury, I suppose), I think there would be a lot more injustice than justice. We shouldn't be quick to change the rules just because a case is high profile. People who want Zimmerman convicted because they made up their minds about it long ago are asking for just that. I want Zimmerman convicted if the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he meets all of the elements of the crime he is charged with, and short of that he should not be convicted.
Huh? Martin's use of the term "cracker" doesn't make him a racist any more than Zimmerman's resentment of "punks" necessarily makes him a murderous racial profiler. There is no evidence that Zimmerman was racist at all. There is evidence that Martin wanted to be a 'gansta' and an 'mma fighter' and smoked a lot of weed and got kicked out of school. By the way, those are facts, not rumors.
He was suspended from school three times. He was on suspension when he was shot in February, after officials caught him with a 'marijuana pipe' and a baggie with drug residue. He was kicked out of school in October for graffiti after he was allegedly caught with a 'burglary tool' and a bag full of women's jewelry. Officials also suspended him once for skipping school and tardiness. Not to mention all his texts are laced with gang-related, gun and drug related language. ...but he's an innocent little kid and Zimmerman is a monster!
As far as Zimmerman: And yet, Cogito calls Zimmerman 'lower than pond scum', while remaining silent on the wannabe-gansta druggie. Sad...
I'm not sure where we are talking past each other here but it seems we are. It's not lying that's the evidence. It's specifically what the lie is evidence of.
A lie is rarely evidence of anything. The few that Zimmerman have allegedly committed either haven't been lies (such as your assertion that Martin could not have said anything after being shot - he could have and you have no evidence to the contrary) or they are the kinds of mistakes that you expect in such a situation. This means that you have decided guilt based on the media portrayal, lies and quite possibly racist bias rather than on any actual facts.
No, I get what you're saying. I just don't think it is enough evidence of it to be anywhere close to 'beyond reasonable doubt'
JJ, I'm referring to that anagram of Ginger that Zimmerman used, a word I refuse to use, and which he used in an inherently racist manner.
[MENTION=1349]Cogito[/MENTION] - Then you must be confused. Zimmerman has never used that word so perhaps that's where the misunderstanding came in.
Correction, the autopsy showed the bullet went through the right ventricle not the right atrium. Doesn't change the nearly instant loss of consciousness.
There is no record of Zimmerman using any racial slur or insult. Period. I don't know what Ginger is talking about but it's not Zimmerman.
Exactly right. I certainly hope not! This is a murder trial after all. I hope that my opinion of what happened, determined through analyzing the facts, has no basis on my political affiliation or any other affiliation. I hope that the conclusion I come to is exactly what happened because this is a murder trail where lives have already been lost and another one hangs in the balance. If I was on the jury I would take my duty to be an effective juror as seriously as possible. Please cite. If you'll forgive me I'm in Afghanistan. I don't have access to the trial on TV and video doesn't work too well on this crappy internet. I largely rely on written internet news. I don't see how this is accurate. Grass stains on his back, his back wetter than the front, and the perfectly obvious photos which show a bloodied Zimmerman. I've also read a report that the EMT who responded to the scene was asked if he should have gone to the hospital (z refused to go), replied he probably should have. So I fail to see what you're saying here, please explain further. Correct me if I'm wrong but this occured at night, did it not? Rods and cones in the eyes cannot distinguish color in the dark. Reading testimony it stated that there were only 3 reliable seconds of video. Did the gunshot occur during these 3 seconds? I do not know what you're referencing, if you have a source to cite for this, please do! This would be key. Does it? I'm no doctor, so I wouldn't have the first clue. I had a cousin who commited suicide by shooting himself twice in the chest. He died within a minute but was conscious long enough to have a short conversation with his brother, who ran into the room. Not saying this is proof, just saying this is why I'm doubting it. This does pose a very good question and one in which the prosecution must press on. The defense only has to defend. Again, burden of proof. I think, however, this is the largest flaw in the defense. However in bold I have highlighted where I think you have bias. You've clearly already made up your mind on the character of zimmerman. It seems to me you probably have a very strong stance on gun control...but I'm extrapolating a bit. Exactly correct. You're probably correct. What bigoted view do you think is presented of trayvon martin? Is it to the same effect of "wannabe cop", but for the "thug" side? I'm willing to consider alot but not this. She has already commited purgery. I have no idea why she's still testifying. Anything she says is unreliable at this point. I agree. This probably occured. It also proves nothing about who was the aggressor, which the entire case rests upon. Who do we blame? The "wanna be cop" who should'nt have followed the "thug"? Or the "thug" that shouldn't have confronted the "wanna be cop"? Wait...didn't he say to the dispatchers that he was circling his car? Or are you saying he never said this until later? I also agree that him walking home, talking to a friend is not consistent with what Z described...but I also agree that a guy simply walking home on a phone does not arouse enough suspicion for Z to phone the police. What was M doing that merited the suspicion from Z? If he was just a black kid walking back home, which is what I think you're saying, then the fault is on Z and leads to more questions. However, if M was doing these strange things then Z was in full right to phone the police. I do not see any evidence of this. Body was found behind the houses. She reported (though anything she says cannot be trusted) that she heard them challenging each other as to why they were following/ being followed. I...simply do see what you're saying here. I...don't see what you're saying here either? Are you saying Z fabricated the wounds/ hurt himself? I believe a witness (which ever one was first on scene) could completely debunk this theory. He didn't have enough time. Nor is that consistent with what the witnesses saw...one man on top of the other beating the crap out of him. I do, however, see physical evidence of Z's side of the story occuring (a possible broken nose and lacerations to the back of his head). Please cite. I touched on this earlier, but thank you for the citation. You have certainly proved that the round entered his heart. However, another user has also proved many people survive bullet wounds to the heart. Do you have a counter citation which proves your medical theory? Again I am no doctor so I'll rely on the expert opinion of those qualified. I don't see that. As I have stated I know of a person who spoke after being shot in the chest. The part in bold is conjecture. In bold I have what I think shows you have something against Zimmerman. Again: extrapolating, but I think you have a strong opinion against gun control laws and don't think he should have been carrying a (legal) concealed weapon and you would like everyone to know this so there is tighter gun laws in the U.S. Again I am extrapolating but let's all face the facts that this trial is very much about gun control and race in this country and is highly politicized. Manslaughter is what I see if he loses. I see no evidence of beyond reasonable doubt, but like ginger said, the trail's not over. This is largely what puts so much doubt into my mind. However, it is possible he profiled M simply because he was black, followed him, and even started the confrontation. I find this incredibly unlikely though. Yes indeed you have touched on something here. I think we can conclude that the words "okay man" (or whatever Z said he told him afterwards) is possible. Any long conversation though, I think we can rule out. Thank you for the citation! I think you took my comment the wrong way. Although I am invoking race into this discussion because I think it's fallacy not to. Did Zimmerman profile M because he was black? This is an important question (but not THE question). Furthermore, the "honky" comment was something I pulled from a reading about the phone call between M and his girlfriend. Apparently he said "some honkey is following me." If this is not true please cite how it isn't. My comment was not meant to debase or offend or "bring up the race card". I am simply highlighting the fact that the only proven evidence of racism was by M not by Z, and that it MAY show an aggressive mindset on M's part during the incident. I see absolutely no proof of this. Going around calling anyone racist on this site is extremely distasteful.
The friend said it was Martin's words. I think the racism is being played up to support people's beliefs. My issue isn't that Zimmerman profiled Martin. He did but it may have been any number of things he was keyed in on and I don't doubt that Zimmerman has black friends and isn't a racist when it comes to all blacks. I don't care that a teenager called someone a cracker or an anagram of Ginger. The racism I'm referring to here relates to the assumptions people not directly involved are using to decide Martin attacked Zimmerman. That's racism. There is no evidence except Zimmerman's word that Martin hid in the mysterious bushes and jumped out to sucker punch Zimmerman. Zimmerman's account of events is contradicted by the evidence. And being a rowdy or even a-hole teen doesn't make one a murderer. Every black teen that calls white people crackers and [anagram of Ginger] isn't going to pull out a gun and say, "you're going to die tonight". That's where the racism is here. Martin smoked pot, ditched school, maybe even got in a fight or two. Every black kid that does those things is not gang banging murderer. It's unfortunate people don't recognize how racist that assumption is. The discussion on Chris Hayes (MSNBC) right now echoes my observation, Zimmerman's account of events mirrors a bad movie and not what one would expect in reality.
Because, as far as anyone knows, the 'wannabe-gansta druggie' has never killed anyone. Zimmerman had no business being out there doing what he was with a loaded gun. He brought the situation on himself as sure as if he had walked into Humble Park at night thinking he was gonna bust a drug deal. Stupid is as stupid does, and a grown man walking around thinking he's a police officer without having any training is stupid. The intelligent thing to do would have been to sit in his car and wait for the cops. If there was a way to prosecute people for being idiots, he should receive that distinction. Travon Martin may really have been a 'gansta druggie' (as you so eloquently put it) but that doesn't mean that he should have ended up dead because some jackass was wandering the neighborhood after watching to many copshows on netflix.
Did you even read the reason he was out there? I'll post it again: The SPD condoned and was aware of the neighborhood watch program. He had a legal permit to carry a firearm. He was protecting his neighborhood against real and current threats. If this makes him an idiot, than I would gladly be an idiot and would be a proud father of an idiot if it were my son. This is the same as saying women were 'asking to be raped' by wearing revealing clothes. You're contending that its Zimmerman's fault for volunteering his time to protect the neighborhood and legally owned a firearm. He deserved to get assaulted?
