IGX

johno wrote:But I don't discount funky stuff like a stacked jury or federal meddling.

In an election year? Never happen.

Heard today that the "broken skin on knuckles" was actually a 1/4" abrasion on one knuckle. This should be interesting.

BucketHead wrote:Heard today that the "broken skin on knuckles" was actually a 1/4" abrasion on one knuckle. This should be interesting.

And the "broken nose" was diagnosed by the family physician. Z$ declined medical treatment after the incident.

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.

Support does not = prove or demonstrate to sufficient evidential standard.

If you shoot someone dead you best be having the good stories bout why. Otherwise you be growin locks liftin weights.

Gorby, 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.

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.

LOL. Yes, when you exclusively look at evidence that fits neatly into Z's story, he looks innocent.

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.

His story already convinced the intial Prosecutor, who rejected the case. There's your first clue.

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.

Grandpa's Spells wrote: strange that anybody would want to champion this particular clown's cause.

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.

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.

johno wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote: strange that anybody would want to champion this particular clown's cause.

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.

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.

And now the entire I-4 corridor is in play, and it is too late for Dems to slow down the case. Not a smart move for Feds/BHO minions to jump in here. Quite possibly a game changer.

Gorbachev wrote:Support does not = prove or demonstrate to sufficient evidential standard.

Please remember that the accused does not have to prove or demonstrate anything.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Maybe. I'm sure they'll make that argument.

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.

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."

Here's the concern. What is the basis for these conclusions? Are they based on scientific analysis? Or mumbo-jumbo? What is the scientific basis for biometric voice analysis? Would any court allow an expert to give his own subjective opinion as to the "tone" of a voice, and that the speaker is a young man? Or give an opinion about the gender or race of a speaker simply by hearing the voice? Are these examples of reliable scientific study and analysis, or junk science?

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.

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.

Interesting, I didn't know that.

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.

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.

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.

Yes. This seems to really bother you when one specific side is doing it.

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.

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.

Let's see? Black Panthers walking when they intimidate voters, Black Panthers publicly putting a price on Zimmermen's head and no one charging them yet a white POS here just got charged for trying to put a hit on his step son. People are suppossed to be equal under the law but with a half breed POTUS it would seem blacks are a few notches over equal. So excusse people for championing one of there own.


Because he said the same kind of shit most of us except you say here? It's called freedom of speech and you do not have to like anybody and can hold opinions about people all you fucking want. I can say " Troy is a self loathing Irish Douch bag and in my opinion I hope he's stompped retarded by some of Chicago's lowest while his girfriend is forcably impregnated and has a deformed Checker Baby." ( And know I don't think that.) and you can say "Darth is a redneck asshole who can't spell for shit and I hope he shoots himself while cleaning his gun."

If you have been to Manassas, you would see that Zimmerman is right about alot of what he said. I have a student of Mexican ancestory who had to knock out the very kind of trash Zimmerman was talking about and my little Brother has had all kinds of run in's there. I used to deliver pizza there and I was damn sure I would have gotten some practicle applitcation but no one saw fit to fuck with me. Maybe because I was always ready to beat, stab or shoot someone depending upon the level of force sent my way. If Zimmerman and Travon happend here, it be a non story. No one who matters would care.

Travon did the typical So Fla nigger act of contempt for any precieved authority, went violent and "Keeping it real" went wrong for him. End of fucking story.

The only reason he got charged is Obama came out from having his dick sucked by one of your Chi-Town Queers to interject himself into this case while Darth Holder's Racial Justice Squad forced the issue over the locals.

You can bet the locals dont like this and good chance that Jury are Floridians who like it when people acting like thugs get beat, tazed or shot.

Going to be great, I hope it all goes down before the election. Won't help Obama when the riot's begin.

The best part is for 1 Travon, the end result will be many like him and worse will be shot dead in the riots and no one will get in any trouble. Kind of like when LA went nuts and I saw CNN showing these Koreans with Daewoo's and Arma-lites firing into the hoard. No one gave a fuck, least of not the Cops.

Hey if he really was a nice, skittle eating black kid and it went down like the Press originaly slanted it I would want Zimmerman executed but the facts that have come out and my own exp. down in Fla. with Travon's type tell me Zimmerman was in the right. You should not hit people because they make you mad. If I can't, Travon can't.

BTW You have a right to check shit out if you want to and being asked a question is not an excusse to attack someone. Kid might have killed him, kid might have grown up to be a real Thug. He should be used as an example in the Black community "Act like a Civalized Man not a Nigger or you might end up dead."

The real trajidy besides Zimmerman being charged is that it would appear that Travon had every advantage a kid can have without being rich or someone important's kid. His Parents seem like decent people but Travon seems to have let peer pressure turn him into a nigglet. I feel for the family and what the kid could have been had he not gone down that road.

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.

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.

That's why is called an adversarial system and it extends from the court room to the rest of society. One element of American Culture we consistently get right, Trust No One.

TOTAL WAR!

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.

Congratulations, you just realized something that Madison used as the justification for American democracy over 200 years ago.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

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.

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.

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.

Furthermore, street signs are only designed to be seen from vehicles at certain angles. When you're parked on a street, if you can see the street signs at the corner, you can usually only see the sign of the street that's perpendicular to the one you're on.

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.

Maybe. I'm sure they'll make that argument.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

People wanting Zimmerman acquitted because of Obama, on the other hand, are (correctly) treated as fringe; and those who just think that there isn't enough evidence to make a conclusion are lumped in with that fringe.

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.

Yes. This seems to really bother you when one specific side is doing it.

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.

Grandpa's Spells wrote: He said he got out of his car to read street signs, not persue Martin.

It was dark and raining at the time, Steve.

Fuck you, G@ne.

Grandpa's Spells wrote: Wanting him lynched or wanting to donate to his legal fund are two sides of the same stupidity, ...

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: E.g., Johno hoping Z$ is acquitted because of Al Sharpton, and PL54 because of Obama.

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.

I just love seeing Sharpton being exposed as the race-baiting charlatan that he is. And the media as his bitches.

Fat Cat wrote:Fuck you, G@ne.

I love you too, Mak.