Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 61 to 73 of 73

Thread: More on Zimmerman/Martin

  1. #61
    Golden Bear freshfunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    SODA Hall Showers
    Posts
    5,210
    Quote Originally Posted by calumnus View Post
    Why anyone would want to smear the kid at this point is beyond me. Like his mom said, crying, "First they take my boy, now they are taking his reputation."
    Special interests, that's why. The conservatives/NRA care more about protecting their gun laws than about the kid's life.

    It's not like they are the only ones to blame. I recall stories in the past where someone murdered a pregnant woman and liberals were loathe to recognize that a life was terminated (the unborn child) because of their pro-choice stance.

    Like election politics, if you make everything look dirty or you make the guilt ambiguous then you turn lots of attention away.

  2. #62
    Golden Bear freshfunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    SODA Hall Showers
    Posts
    5,210
    Quote Originally Posted by WarTime Consigliere View Post
    There is only one EYEwitness and that persons story is that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him. The two women that all over the news are only saying what they believed they heard/saw without any certainty.
    In my opinion, the testimony of those two women are just as believable as the person who said they saw Martin on top. The women concede that it was dark by this time.. so not just dark for them but dark for the other witness too.

    The other thing of note is that the women actually spoke to Zimmerman. They posed a question at least 3 times until he responded when he told them to call the police. Considering this was AFTER the gun shot and they were speaking to the person, it's safe to say that Zimmerman was the one standing and Trayvon was the one on the ground.

  3. #63
    Golden Bear freshfunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    SODA Hall Showers
    Posts
    5,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Oakbear View Post
    He apparently did not say coon, but goons.. but you will believe what you want,
    How is this apparent? Have you listened to it yourself?

    I hear a distinct "k" sound. It sounds like "coons" to me. I can see why people want to say it's ambiguous or that he said "goons" but I definitely hear the word "coons." Not to mention he says, right before, "..they always get away" which is already hinting at a stereotyping bias.

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by freshfunk View Post
    How is this apparent? Have you listened to it yourself?

    I hear a distinct "k" sound. It sounds like "coons" to me. I can see why people want to say it's ambiguous or that he said "goons" but I definitely hear the word "coons." Not to mention he says, right before, "..they always get away" which is already hinting at a stereotyping bias.
    I can't tell what he's saying. Sounds sort of like 'punks' to me. Doesn't seem right to brand someone a racist based on such fuzzy evidence. I agree that he's stereotyping, but not necessarily black kids per se; he called the police some 40+ times in the past to report suspicious characters, so those are probably the "they" he's referring to (although he probably tended to call the cops about black kids.) I think it's a different type of person who would complain to a 911 operator about the "f*cking coons", and someone who calls the cops frequently because black kids in hoodies seem like they're up to no good. There are commonalities, but they're still different.
    Last edited by BearyWhite; 03-28-2012 at 10:38 AM.

  5. #65
    Golden Bear freshfunk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    SODA Hall Showers
    Posts
    5,210
    Quote Originally Posted by BearyWhite View Post
    Just saw an article that said that the initial investigation was by a narcotics officer and not a homicide detective, and that the first homicide detective to investigate the case filed an affidavit recommending manslaughter charges, a recommendation that was ignored by the state's attorney's office.

    http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=16011674
    Interesting bit from the article:

    But Sanford, Fla., Investigator Chris Serino was instructed to not press charges against Zimmerman because the state attorney's office headed by Norman Wolfinger determined there wasn't enough evidence to lead to a conviction, the sources told ABC News.

    Police brought Zimmerman into the station for questioning for a few hours on the night of the shooting, said Zimmerman's attorney, despite his request for medical attention first. Ultimately they had to accept Zimmerman's claim of self defense. He was never charged with a crime.

    Serino filed an affidavit on Feb. 26, the night that Martin was shot and killed by Zimmerman, that stated he was unconvinced Zimmerman's version of events.

  6. #66
    no bear
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Trapped in a glass case of emotion
    Posts
    2,721
    Quote Originally Posted by Rushinbear View Post
    In this country, the accused may choose not to testify, so, no Z. should not HAVE TO take an oath and be cross-examined. That's our rule of law and I'm for it.
    If Zimmerman was tried and refused to testify he would have little or no ability to assert a Stand Your Ground self defense argument.

  7. #67
    no bear
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Trapped in a glass case of emotion
    Posts
    2,721
    Quote Originally Posted by freshfunk View Post
    How is this apparent? Have you listened to it yourself?

    I hear a distinct "k" sound. It sounds like "coons" to me. I can see why people want to say it's ambiguous or that he said "goons" but I definitely hear the word "coons." Not to mention he says, right before, "..they always get away" which is already hinting at a stereotyping bias.
    Plus, assuming Zimmerman said "goons" what information other than Martin's skin color led him to believe Martin was a "goon?"

    The point being is that Zimmerman believed Martin was up to no good primarily because he was black.

    A federal civil rights action could easily be made based upon those facts alone.

  8. #68
    no bear
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Trapped in a glass case of emotion
    Posts
    2,721
    Quote Originally Posted by BearyWhite View Post
    I can't tell what he's saying. Sounds sort of like 'punks' to me. Doesn't seem right to brand someone a racist based on such fuzzy evidence. I agree that he's stereotyping, but not necessarily black kids per se; he called the police some 40+ times in the past to report suspicious characters, so those are probably the "they" he's referring to (although he probably tended to call the cops about black kids.) I think it's a different type of person who would complain to a 911 operator about the "f*cking coons", and someone who calls the cops frequently because black kids in hoodies seem like they're up to no good. There are commonalities, but they're still different.
    If Zimmerman was not targeting Martin because he was a black youth, then he should have been suspicious of all youths in his community regardless of race. Since I doubt that Zimmerman was suspicious of youths on an equal opportinity the only logical explaination was that Martin was targeted because he was black.

    After all, this was not an "adults only" community and a certain percentage of Zimmerman's community were blacks.

  9. #69

    Questions? Questions? Questions?

    The tape of Zimmerman at the police station does not fit with his attorney's report of injuries sustained as a result of being attacked by Martin. Most glaring is the lack of any blood on clothing that he is wearing when brought into the station. He reportedly had a broken nose and a laceration on the back of his head. As a rule, a broken nose and head lacerations bleed excessively. Also noted is the lack of gloves on the officers who brought him in. Per law enforcement, when there is any blood that officers could come into contact with, they would always wear gloves. Officers would not put themselves or their families in danger by coming into direct contact with the blood of an unknown suspect. They don't seem worried about blood at the station. Where are the injuries that Zimmerman reportedly sustained? Would the police allow him to change his clothes before being taken to the station for questioning? If they did for some unknown reason, wouldn't the police collect the clothes as evidence? Wouldn't his attorney have mentioned these facts as proof his client was attacked and injured?
    Last edited by BearNIt; 03-28-2012 at 08:07 PM. Reason: More info

  10. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by BearNIt View Post
    The tape of Zimmerman at the police station does not fit with his attorney's report of injuries sustained as a result of being attacked by Martin. Most glaring is the lack of any blood on clothing that he is wearing when brought into the station. He reportedly had a broken nose and a laceration on the back of his head. As a rule, a broken nose and head lacerations bleed excessively. Also noted is the lack of gloves on the officers who brought him in. Per law enforcement, when there is any blood that officers could come into contact with, they would always wear gloves. Officers would not put themselves or their families in danger by coming into direct contact with the blood of an unknown suspect. They don't seem worried about blood at the station. Where are the injuries that Zimmerman reportedly sustained? Would the police allow him to change his clothes before being taken to the station for questioning? If they did for some unknown reason, wouldn't the police collect the clothes as evidence? Wouldn't his attorney have mentioned these facts as proof his client was attacked and injured?
    Here is the police video of Zimmerman that night with no broken nose or gashes to his head or even dirt, mud or grass on his back (it was a rainy night): LINK

  11. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by freshfunk View Post
    Special interests, that's why. The conservatives/NRA care more about protecting their gun laws than about the kid's life.

    It's not like they are the only ones to blame. I recall stories in the past where someone murdered a pregnant woman and liberals were loathe to recognize that a life was terminated (the unborn child) because of their pro-choice stance.

    Like election politics, if you make everything look dirty or you make the guilt ambiguous then you turn lots of attention away.
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...eputation.html

    Because it is widely known all along that many conservatives are just that ignorant.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by SchadenBear View Post
    If Zimmerman was not targeting Martin because he was a black youth, then he should have been suspicious of all youths in his community regardless of race. Since I doubt that Zimmerman was suspicious of youths on an equal opportinity the only logical explaination was that Martin was targeted because he was black.

    After all, this was not an "adults only" community and a certain percentage of Zimmerman's community were blacks.
    right, I think I was unclear -- I think Zimmerman targeted black youth in his 'suspicious character' crusade, but that doesn't necessarily make him a guy who would be mouthing off about black people in general using racial slurs.

    edit to fix: I meant 'I think I was unclear' not 'I don't think I was unclear', which was unclear
    Last edited by BearyWhite; 03-30-2012 at 11:52 AM.

  13. #73
    no bear
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Trapped in a glass case of emotion
    Posts
    2,721
    Quote Originally Posted by BearyWhite View Post
    right, I don't think I was unclear -- I think Zimmerman targeted black youth in his 'suspicious character' crusade, but that doesn't necessarily make him a guy who would be mouthing off about black people in general using racial slurs.
    You don't need to be a hooded Klan member to violate federal civil rights hate crimes.

    Zimmerman was not a police officer or acting under color of law, so there is no federal jurisdiction there. And the shooting did not occur on federal land and the victim was not a federal officer, so nothing there. But, there is one statute that may apply: 18 U.S.C. 249, Hate Crime Acts, which was just enacted in 2009. That statute provides:

    (a) In General.— (1) Offenses involving actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin.— Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—

    (A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
    (B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if—
    (i) death results from the offense; or
    (ii) the offense includes kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.

    In other words, if Zimmerman 1) killed Martin 2) because of his race, then he can be prosecuted under this Section 249.

    Evidence supporting this charge includes: 1) the proportion of black "suspects" he reported in the 46 calls he made to the Sanford police during the past couple of months; 2) Zimmerman's statement that "they always get away"; 3) whether Zimmerman called Martin a coon or a goon and why would he percieved a black youth in such a manner.

    I'm sure more evidence and arguments can easily be found.
    Last edited by SchadenBear; 03-29-2012 at 09:40 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •