There was an earlier story where somebody's mom said the police that questioned her son seemed to be trying to get him to say it was Zimmerman on the bottom and crying for help. Maybe the initial questioning is the problem in some of this?
We already know he was on the bottom based on his injuries. Nice try though.
....minding his own business, walking on a sidewalk in what's considered a "free country" for most (i.e. Whites).
Uh...
Originally Posted By: Wonder Boy
And more directly tied to the Trayvon Martin case:
Clearly racially motivated black violence toward two whites. Liberal reporters no less, and still the media doesn't want to report it.
Add to that: U.S. justice department statistics show incidents of blacks attacking whites occur at a ratio 50-to-1 of the reverse. FACT.
Likewise, 90 percent of murders of black Americans are black-on-black crime.
Perfectly consistent with that demographically, there were 49 other murders of blacks in the weekend Trayvon Martin was shot. All were black-on-black. Including a 6 year old girl. Yet the media chose not to even mention these other murders.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
There was an earlier story where somebody's mom said the police that questioned her son seemed to be trying to get him to say it was Zimmerman on the bottom and crying for help. Maybe the initial questioning is the problem in some of this?
We already know he was on the bottom based on his injuries. Nice try though.
Now, let's keep an open mind. If there's one thing MEM's an expert on, it's having men on the bottom.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a white ( "HISPANIC! NO, WAIT! HE'S A JEW!!" - Rightwing Shills) adult that has a history of violence and psychotic medication.
FACT: Trayvon Martin was a black ( "NO! HE WAS A THUG! DIDN'T YOU SEE HIS TEETH?!" - Rightwing Shills) teenager, minding his own business, walking on a sidewalk in what's considered a "free country" for most (i.e. Whites).
FACT: Trayvon Martin made no contact with Martin Zimmerman.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman disobeyed the instructions of the police and stalked Trayvon Martin.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman carried a concealed pistol.
FACT: Trayvon Martin carried a bag of Skittles.
FACT: Martin shot Trayvon point-blank, murdering him on the spot.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a killer that deserves a life sentence for murdering an innocent child in cold blood.
None of that is in dispute. None of that is in error. Motherfucking FACT.
I love it. When the facts start to prove them wrong, the Rightwing Superfriends immediately go into conspiracy mode.
"What? The witnesses DON'T state that Zimmerman was innocent?? WITNESS TAMPERING!! BLACK PANTHERS (but we're not racist, swear)!! LIBERAL MEDIA!! "
You don't go from describing an assault as "MMA style" to "uh, well, I'm not sure."
Usually, recants occur over night, closer to the initial explanation. Four witnesses changing their stories so severely after two months is unusual, and this case is extremely high pressure.
Being able to see well enough to identify the particular style the assailant was flinging punches makes implausible that the witness couldn't discern at least by their clothes which was on top, and which on the bottom.
I love it. When the facts start to prove them wrong, the Rightwing Superfriends immediately go into conspiracy mode.
"What? The witnesses DON'T state that Zimmerman was innocent?? WITNESS TAMPERING!! BLACK PANTHERS (but we're not racist, swear)!! LIBERAL MEDIA!! "
You don't go from describing an assault as "MMA style" to "uh, well, I'm not sure."
Usually, recants occur over night, closer to the initial explanation. Four witnesses changing their stories so severely after two months is unusual, and this case is extremely high pressure.
Being able to see well enough to identify the particular style the assailant was flinging punches makes implausible that the witness couldn't discern at least by their clothes which was on top, and which on the bottom.
Since the witness is saying that the mixed martial arts thing could have been Martin just trying to keep Zimmerman pinned down and that it was too dark to see who was yelling for help, just how well did he see things?
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a white ( "HISPANIC! NO, WAIT! HE'S A JEW!!" - Rightwing Shills) adult that has a history of violence and psychotic medication.
FACT: Trayvon Martin was a black ( "NO! HE WAS A THUG! DIDN'T YOU SEE HIS TEETH?!" - Rightwing Shills) teenager, minding his own business, walking on a sidewalk in what's considered a "free country" for most (i.e. Whites).
FACT: Trayvon Martin made no contact with Martin Zimmerman.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman disobeyed the instructions of the police and stalked Trayvon Martin.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman carried a concealed pistol.
FACT: Trayvon Martin carried a bag of Skittles.
FACT: Martin shot Trayvon point-blank, murdering him on the spot.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a killer that deserves a life sentence for murdering an innocent child in cold blood.
None of that is in dispute. None of that is in error. Motherfucking FACT.
Originally Posted By: Rightwing Superfriends: Wondy, Pariah, G-Shill, & G-Burg
We got nothing!! But, the white guy is INNOCENT!!!
You're such a two-year-old, Pro. All your infantile mocking and gloating doesn't change this: the case against Zimmerman has no substance. It will ultimately not warrant prosecution.
Witnesses who say they saw one thing, and now say another, only destroy their own credibility. That still doesn't change the forensic evidence of self-defense, the powder burns less than 18 inches away when fired, the broken nose and other injuries to Zimmerman, the 911 calls that more accurately indicate what witnesses saw when it happened.
It's not "racist" or "paranoid" or whatever. When witnesses change their testimony, they lose credibility. They look like liars, or at best unsure of what they saw.
As I've repeatedly said, I favored conviction of Zimmerman when I started this topic. But with new evidence revealed since the story first broke, I now see Zimmerman's actions as self-defense. Despite the politicizing and racializing of a simple shooting, and attempts at intimidation by groups who want to convict Zimmerman, no matter what the evidence.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a white ( "HISPANIC! NO, WAIT! HE'S A JEW!!" - Rightwing Shills) adult that has a history of violence and psychotic medication.
FACT: Trayvon Martin was a black ( "NO! HE WAS A THUG! DIDN'T YOU SEE HIS TEETH?!" - Rightwing Shills) teenager, minding his own business, walking on a sidewalk in what's considered a "free country" for most (i.e. Whites).
FACT: Trayvon Martin made no contact with Martin Zimmerman.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman disobeyed the instructions of the police and stalked Trayvon Martin.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman carried a concealed pistol.
FACT: Trayvon Martin carried a bag of Skittles.
FACT: Martin shot Trayvon point-blank, murdering him on the spot.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a killer that deserves a life sentence for murdering an innocent child in cold blood.
None of that is in dispute. None of that is in error. Motherfucking FACT.
Originally Posted By: Rightwing Superfriends: Wondy, Pariah, G-Shill, & G-Burg
We got nothing!! But, the white guy is INNOCENT!!!
I don't know whether Pro truly --irrationally-- believes anyone who disagrees with him is a racist. Or whether he's just being a jerk (as usual) trying to solicit an angry reaction.
But he's so clearly got his facts wrong either way, and just flinging poo from his baby-chair, so there's no point in bothering to correct his idiocy.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a white ( "HISPANIC! NO, WAIT! HE'S A JEW!!" - Rightwing Shills) adult that has a history of violence and psychotic medication.
FACT: Trayvon Martin was a black ( "NO! HE WAS A THUG! DIDN'T YOU SEE HIS TEETH?!" - Rightwing Shills) teenager, minding his own business, walking on a sidewalk in what's considered a "free country" for most (i.e. Whites).
FACT: Trayvon Martin made no contact with Martin Zimmerman.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman disobeyed the instructions of the police and stalked Trayvon Martin.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman carried a concealed pistol.
FACT: Trayvon Martin carried a bag of Skittles.
FACT: Martin shot Trayvon point-blank, murdering him on the spot.
FACT: Martin Zimmerman is a killer that deserves a life sentence for murdering an innocent child in cold blood.
None of that is in dispute. None of that is in error. Motherfucking FACT.
Originally Posted By: Rightwing Superfriends: Wondy, Pariah, G-Shill, & G-Burg
We got nothing!! But, the white guy is INNOCENT!!!
You racists (David). Always making me laugh. With pity.
I have an opinion but I'm very well aware that the evidence isn't all in. Honestly though it's hard for me to understand the pro-zimmerman crowd that is so sure that he can't be guilty that the case needs to be thrown out....
Granted I may have missed a point or two while trying to wade through pages of "You are ignoring this user" when Promod is (presumably) spamming us with drivel about how we're all "republinazi Faux news indoctrinated corporate shills" (or whatever he vomited up from this week's Occutard twitter feed). However, from what I've seen, the posters here haven't said Zimmerman "can't be guilty." They've simply expressed doubt in the narrative that Zimmerman was some sort of white (he isn't) racist (he probably isn't, given he's part black) who shot an unarmed kid without provocation.
Furthermore, many of those doubts, as the facts roll in, seem to be grounded in at least some of the evidence.
I will concede that a few posters have expressed the opinion that a murder charge should--or will be--thrown out. And maybe (see above) I missed someone saying more. However, it also appears to me that those posters are doing so based upon the idea that lesser charges such as manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide were more appropriate. If I recall correctly, that was your opinion as well early on.
Quote:
Stand Your Ground despite what you said at the beginning has played a role in this and it looks like it's still in play.
As near as I can tell the aspects of the SYGL that are possibly applicable in this case are typical self-defense questions:
Who was the initial aggressor; If Zimmerman was the initial aggressor, had he exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force; Did Zimmerman reasonably believe it is necessary to use deadly force to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself;
The only one that is potentially different than a typical self defense case is whether, if he was the initial aggressor, Zimmerman had no duty to retreat. But even there under SYGL he has to have exhausted every other avenue, which is a similar concept.
And, if Zimmerman wasn't the initial aggressor (and I think a court may be hard pressed to find that following Martin filled that role) then SYGL wouldn't be applicable anyway. It would be "regular" self defense.
Ultimately, based on what I've seen, I think this case will more likely hinge on "regular" self defense and on who attacked who first.
They'd most likely have to try the alleged perjury separately from the homicide charges. So it may be to the prosecution's advantage not to charge Zimmerman until they know if he's doing time on the original charges.
If, for example, he gets life, there's no real reason to add a perjury charge. Also, once they charge him with anything new, speedy trial kicks in.
Witness claims Zimmerman molested her for at least a decade By David Edwards Monday, July 16, 2012 13:32
The Florida State Attorney’s Office on Monday released audio of shocking testimony from a woman who said that George Zimmerman molested when her she was about 6 years old until she was 16.
A motion filed by Zimmerman’s attorney, Mark O’Mara, attempted to seal the testimony of “witness 9″ on the grounds that it was incendiary and irrelevant to the shooting of Trayvon Martin, the 17-year-old who Zimmerman is accused of murdering. But that motion did not make it to the court in time and the testimony was released at 11 a.m. on Monday.
According to The Miami Herald, the woman had contacted prosecutors early in the investigation to say she knew that Zimmerman’s family did not like blacks.
She also testified that that the former neighborhood watch captain had sexually molested her at his parents house when he was 8 and she was 6.
“We would watch movies in front of the TV and we would all lay in front of the TV,” witness 9 explained. “And he would reach under the blanket and try to do things and I would try to push him off, but he was bigger and stronger and older. It was in front of everybody!”
“He would put his hands under my pants, under my underwear and basically just finger me,” the woman said, adding that at one point Zimmerman forced her “rub” his penis after he had an operation due to problems urinating.
Witness 9 said the “groping” continued for years, until she was 16 years old and Zimmerman allegedly put his erection on her and she ran from the house.
She also testified that that the former neighborhood watch captain had sexually molested her at his parents house when he was 8 and she was 6.
Weird story. It could be something. Or could be the 'victim' is crazy.
Typically, an eight year old and a six year old messing around was considered 'playing doctor,' not 'molestation.'
Either way, bringing it up (when it has basically zero probative value in a murder case [unless the DA is now arguing that Zimmerman killed Martin while trying to rape him]) seems a little like the DA is trying to poison the jury pool. That could backfire.
If it was going on for 10 years that goes beyond playing doctor. It does appear to have little to do with Zimmerman killing Martin though.
It seems we're in agreement on relevance.
As for your other point, generally 'molestation' implies an adult sexually abusing a child, not what allegedly happened here. they're both about the same age. The fact she would call that 'molestation,' implies a bias on her part and/or perhaps coaching by the prosecutors to make it sound like Zimmerman is a grown man who preys on little kids.
Originally Posted By: Ultimate Jaburg53
The prosecution is probably trying to prove that Zimmerman has had a long history of deviant, anti-social behavior.
...which is typically a prejudicial tactic that can backfire, on appeal or otherwise.
While prior bad behavior can , in some situations, be used to impeach a witness, including the defendant, there still has to be a showing that relevance outweighs prejudice. Furthermore, such evidence typically doesn't come into play until trial and af the time a defendant testifies. For the DA to release it now smacks of an intent to unfairly taint the jury pool.
Doesn't Florida law require the prosecution to release pretty much everything? I don't agree with you about what constitutes molestation. If this went on for 10 years and she was afraid of him that goes way beyond what you call playing doctor and into molestation.
The people trying to politicize and capitalize on this are having a problem deciding on which narrative to push.
Originally, it was that self defense laws should be repealed because they can allow kids wearing hoodies to get shot.
When it was pointed out that the law wasn't necessarily applicable in this case and that Martin may have been an agressor they fell back on the "white racism kills innocent black kids" claim, figuring they could use that to guilt everyone into voting for Obama.
When it was discovered that Zimmerman is part black and part Hispanic, that became a problem, and many of them started trying to push the "no self defense" cause again.
And so on...
Conspicuously absent from either narrative is the idea of actually waiting until all the facts are in or trying to preserve the rights of the accused.
Hell, there are some people out there (for example, "9/11 was a government conspiracy" types) who were more willing to give Osama the benefit of the doubt than want to give Zimmerman.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Not to mention the media who want ratings to attract advertisers therefor will rush to a story without waiting for any actual information.
Originally Posted By: Ultimate Jaburg53
For a long time now a lot of media outlets are using terms like "people are saying", "such and such are reporting", and "sources say".
They do it to indemnify themselves against actual facts coming to light.
Also quoted for stating the core truth.
The media is definitely interested in lynching Zimmerman prematurely over the airwaves, irregardless of the facts, if it brings them higher ratings. I'd only add that many of these reporters, far beyond simple careless reporting that gets the facts wrong for ratings, are politically comitted to Zimmerman being found guilty. The news desks covering the Zimmerman story are branch wings of the Obama campaign. Playing that race card to the hilt. And (according to Sanford police, FL state police and --a week ago-- FBI investigators) a race card falsely played, based on absolutely no evidence.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
I give O'Reilly and Limbaugh credit for more integrity that. They both were number one in ratings when W.Bush and the Republicans were in charge, over much of the last 10 years. And Limbaugh has been the king of talk radio for over 20 years.
But it's certainly true that Fox News' ratings rose after Obama was elected. But I think that is more due to the complete loss of objectivity in the mainstream media, that makes people crave a source that doesn't just run pro-Obama Newspeak. I have primarily watched PBS News Hour since 1981, and almost never watched Fox, until August 2008, when the selective omission of the mainstream media drove me to Fox, to see what was not being reported.
If the other networks were still doing their job instead of running cover for Obama, then O'Reilly and Limbaugh, and Fox, would not see the rise in ratings that they have.
FOX gets better ratings because conservatives who like biased coverage that favors the GOP all watch it while everyone else is divided amongst the rest of the news channels.
Sorry for derailing again, so what do people who don't have any party leanings and just want to be updated with the news do? Which network do they turn to?
Or is the proper way just to watch both sides, as well as use the Innarnet and just choose the one that he feels to be true after seeing every single interpretation? Seems like an awful lot of work just for the truth.
"HISPANIC! NO, WAIT! HE'S A JEW!!" - Rightwing Shills) adult that has a history of violence and psychotic medication.
WITNESS TAMPERING!! BLACK PANTHERS (but we're not racist, swear)!! LIBERAL MEDIA!! 
![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/blogban3.jpg)
[/center]![[Linked Image from i13.photobucket.com]](http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/captainsammitch/boards/banners/jlamiska.jpg)
[/center]