Trayvon Martin

[Jupiter551]

So it's OK when you dispel the choir boy angelic press bias, but when I do it, it's disrespecting the family. LMFAO

It's also a hilarious now I'm being told to stick with facts. :lol:

I posted facts about Trayvon. You posted Dahmer pictures. Those are more facts!

Whatever you think happened, demonising the 17 year old victim is hardly a valid response. As far as sticking with the facts your argument makes no sense. I wasn't saying Dahmer had anything to do with it, in fact I was pointing out that he, like pictures of Zimmerman as a child had fucking NOTHING to do with it.

Yeah stick to the facts, the facts of the incident, not what Zimmerman did 10 years ago at his work christmas party or what the fuck ever. He shot someone, a minor, who was unarmed. It doesn't matter one goddamn how black his neighbour is or what he looks like in a fucking apron.

Oh and if the press is so unfairly biased, where exactly did you dig up his twitter name @no_limit_n*gga and the gold teeth photos? (You know, cos clearly that proves he was a violent young man who deserved to die, right?) Oh from the PRESS?

 

[Bocefish]

If you think the facts I posted about Trayvon were demonising him... I wonder what the jury will think when the facts about both their histories come out.

 

[Jupiter551]

Well I dunno what specific "facts" you're currently referring to, I do remember you pointing out things like him being questioned at school over a "break-in tool" (screwdriver), and critiques of his twitter name and appearance - what are these if not attempts to sully the character of a dead kid?

Zimmerman supporters are quick to object to any gravity being attached to the assault charge and domestic violence order against him, which they're quite right to point out as irrelevant, but it looks to the rest of us as if they're trying to smear Trayvon's image as if it could somehow justify murder.

Edit: Wait a minute, why would the jury hear Trayvon Martin's history? Unless you're suggesting the lead investigator perjured himself at the bond hearing, police already have conflicting statements about what Zimmerman said happened, and evidence (according to them) that shows his story doesn't fit.

 

[Bocefish]

You're the one that accused me of demonising him, then ask me to clarify what you are talking about in regards to his being demonised? :lol:

If you don't think the recent past behavior of both parties isn't going to be looked into with a fine toothed comb during a case of murder2 and where critical info is missing, you're not very familiar with how court cases go. As I've stated several times before, I looked into the past of Trayvon and posted what came up because the MSM didn't.

 

[Nordling]

You're the one that accused me of demonising him, then ask me to clarify what you are talking about in regards to his being demonised? :lol:

If you don't think the recent past behavior of both parties isn't going to be looked into with a fine toothed comb during a case of murder2 and where critical info is missing, you're not very familiar with how court cases go. As I've stated several times before, I looked into the past of Trayvon and posted what came up because the MSM didn't.

Translation: "I demonized him because the MSM refused to."

 

[Bocefish]

You're the one that accused me of demonising him, then ask me to clarify what you are talking about in regards to his being demonised? :lol:

If you don't think the recent past behavior of both parties isn't going to be looked into with a fine toothed comb during a case of murder2 and where critical info is missing, you're not very familiar with how court cases go. As I've stated several times before, I looked into the past of Trayvon and posted what came up because the MSM didn't.

Translation: "I demonized him because the MSM refused to."

If you also think the facts are demonising to Trayvon, that doesn't look good as far the jury goes.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

I'm tired of all this race baiting, so I found this one nameless black woman who took Zimmerman's side. don't we all look foolish.

 

[Jupiter551]

If you also think the facts are demonising to Trayvon, that doesn't look good as far the jury goes.

You're missing the point. It's not that he had that twitter name, liked rap music or was suspected of teenage petty theft; it's that you assume that makes him likely to be violent. Luckily, most jurors aren't going to have such a weird mindset.

Racists might look at all that stuff and see a young criminal, but the rest of us just see a teenage boy doing teenage boy stuff.

 

[Nordling]

You're the one that accused me of demonising him, then ask me to clarify what you are talking about in regards to his being demonised? :lol:

If you don't think the recent past behavior of both parties isn't going to be looked into with a fine toothed comb during a case of murder2 and where critical info is missing, you're not very familiar with how court cases go. As I've stated several times before, I looked into the past of Trayvon and posted what came up because the MSM didn't.

Translation: "I demonized him because the MSM refused to."

If you also think the facts are demonising to Trayvon, that doesn't look good as far the jury goes.

It's becoming a cliché, but although you have a right to your own opinions, you do NOT have a right to your own facts. We've already discussed your opinions pages ago.

 

[Bocefish]

If you also think the facts are demonising to Trayvon, that doesn't look good as far the jury goes.

You're missing the point. It's not that he had that twitter name, liked rap music or was suspected of teenage petty theft; it's that you assume that makes him likely to be violent. Luckily, most jurors aren't going to have such a weird mindset.

Racists might look at all that stuff and see a young criminal, but the rest of us just see a teenage boy doing teenage boy stuff.

So, according to you... the point is that I'm racist and assumed he was violent because of petty theft? :lol: This is getting more absurd by the day.

The only inkling of violence is when Tray's brother asked about him about swinging at a bus driver. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. I'm not assuming anything. You all assume Zim is guilty, that's pretty obvious. IF he fired in self-defense is for the courts to determine not the peanut gallery of public opinion.

I'm tired of all this race baiting, so I found this one nameless black woman who took Zimmerman's side. don't we all look foolish.

I didn't find anybody, the press did and she also happened to be Zim's neighbor who knows him a heck of a lot better than you do.

Facts are facts, they don't belong to anyone.

 

[Nordling]

If you also think the facts are demonising to Trayvon, that doesn't look good as far the jury goes.

You're missing the point. It's not that he had that twitter name, liked rap music or was suspected of teenage petty theft; it's that you assume that makes him likely to be violent. Luckily, most jurors aren't going to have such a weird mindset.

Racists might look at all that stuff and see a young criminal, but the rest of us just see a teenage boy doing teenage boy stuff.

So, according to you... the point is that I'm racist and assumed he was violent because of petty theft? :lol: This is getting more absurd by the day.

The only inkling of violence is when Tray's brother asked about him about swinging at a bus driver. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. I'm not assuming anything. You all assume Zim is guilty, that's pretty obvious. IF he fired in self-defense is for the courts to determine not the peanut gallery of public opinion.

I'm tired of all this race baiting, so I found this one nameless black woman who took Zimmerman's side. don't we all look foolish.

I didn't find anybody, the press did and she also happened to be Zim's neighbor who knows him a heck of a lot better than you do.

Facts are facts, they don't belong to anyone.

Yes, facts are facts. Zimmerman has a history of violence; his victim has none. The victim is dead. Fact.

 

[Bocefish]

And that will be factored in along with all the other facts from both sides. Nothing new there.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

I was paraphrasing but finding the black neighbor saying "I'm black, and i agree with racial profiling" (again paraphrasing) works for me as much as other news organizations bringing on black co-workers or friends or associated or whatever they finally referred to themselves as to talk about what kind of person Zimmerman was that was posted on the early pages of this thread- remember then>

 

[Harvrath]

What was I supposed to get out of that exactly? The character portrayal of who he is doesn't change the fact of what he did.

Oh I don't know, maybe question all the BS that you have been spoon-fed?

The Ant-Zimmerman Team has been consistently wrong.

 

[SweepTheLeg]

The argument I've made consistently has been Zimmerman followed Trayvon without ever identifying himself to who he was or what he wanted and was the one creating the situation and caused all the tension that ultimately lead to him shooting an unarmed teen. So again, what was I supposed to get out of this?

 

[Jupiter551]

So, according to you... the point is that I'm racist and assumed he was violent because of petty theft? :lol: This is getting more absurd by the day.

The only inkling of violence is when Tray's brother asked about him about swinging at a bus driver. Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. I'm not assuming anything. You all assume Zim is guilty, that's pretty obvious. IF he fired in self-defense is for the courts to determine not the peanut gallery of public opinion.

Well unless there's some proof I don't believe that tweet or what it's discussing is even genuine. Have you even SEEN Tray's brother? The guy has braces and looks like Erkel, he's also very soft-spoken and well-spoke, clearly educated (even if he wasn't currently attending college).

It's not up to me to judge whether you're racist or not, I'm simply saying that if you're dissecting a dead teenager's social media to try and show he was a normal kid rather than a choir boy...it's low that's all.

I've stolen years ago, used drugs, haven't swung at a bus driver as far as I can remember but I've gotten into fights. I have a criminal record. I have tattoos, I even have a gold tooth though it's not up front...yet if you were to suggest I just up and attacked someone in the middle of the night and tried to kill them my family and friends would call you a damn liar. None of those things Trayvon did have any bearing on whether he'd attack someone he'd just been trying to escape from.

Oh and just to be clear, henceforth if you believe Zimmerman is telling the truth, then you're asserting that the prosecution's lead investigator committed perjury by stating that Zimmerman told multiple different stories, none of which added up, and none of which were supported by physical evidence. The penalty for perjury is up to five years imprisonment so I frankly doubt he would have knowingly lied in court.

I just think you should probably ask yourself - at what point do you admit that Zimmerman probably wasn't in danger of being beaten to death in the space of 5 minutes by a teenager, and in fact it is just what it looks like: murder that he tried to cover up by self defense? Do you ever admit that? Or are you arguing this for the sake of handgun legislation?

 

[Jupiter551]

What was I supposed to get out of that exactly? The character portrayal of who he is doesn't change the fact of what he did.

Oh I don't know, maybe question all the BS that you have been spoon-fed?

The Ant-Zimmerman Team has been consistently wrong.

Did you watch the bond hearing where the lead investigator said Zimmerman has told several different versions in different statements to the police? Pretty hard to believe a guy who's been caught lying dude. Unless he was referring to alternate universes where things happened differently, some or all of those statements are false.

Which BS was that? I never thought Zimmerman was some secret neo-nazi monster, one would have to be terribly naive to believe someone has to be "evil" to commit murder. He was gung-ho, there's no doubt of that - hell he even became a busybody about a dog. He also chased someone down stealing a dvd player. He studied criminal justice. He had a longtime habit of vigilantism and this time it went too far.

 

[Bocefish]

Oh and just to be clear, henceforth if you believe Zimmerman is telling the truth, then you're asserting that the prosecution's lead investigator committed perjury by stating that Zimmerman told multiple different stories, none of which added up, and none of which were supported by physical evidence. The penalty for perjury is up to five years imprisonment so I frankly doubt he would have knowingly lied in court.

I just think you should probably ask yourself - at what point do you admit that Zimmerman probably wasn't in danger of being beaten to death in the space of 5 minutes by a teenager, and in fact it is just what it looks like: murder that he tried to cover up by self defense? Do you ever admit that? Or are you arguing this for the sake of handgun legislation?

I haven't seen or read the part of of the hearing you're talking about, so can't comment on that yet. If there was any proof about Zim lying or inconsistencies... the MSM hasn't reported on it either AFAIK. For the umpteenth time, none of us knows what happened in those missing minutes aside from the shooting itself and the head injuries and broken nose supporting Zim's story. My position in the case has absolutely nothing to do with gun control either, that's a 2nd Amendment issue that has all ready been ruled on by the SCOTUS.

 

[Jupiter551]

I haven't seen or read the part of of the hearing you're talking about, so can't comment on that yet. If there was any proof about Zim lying or inconsistencies... the MSM hasn't reported on it either AFAIK. For the umpteenth time, none of us knows what happened in those missing minutes aside from the shooting itself and the head injuries and broken nose supporting Zim's story. My position in the case has absolutely nothing to do with gun control either, that's a 2nd Amendment issue that has all ready been ruled on by the SCOTUS.

They haven't released proof, why would they? But the prosecution's lead investigator was asked on the witness stand:

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Gilbreath, I didn't know we were going to be trying the case, I'm going to add up -- I apologize. I want to add some questions to -- you had reviewed or other members of the team had reviewed his interviews, is that not true.

GILBREATH: That is --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And he gave -- he the defendant gave numerous interviews to the police did he not.

GILBREATH: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that a lot of statements that he made do not make sense in terms of the injuries that he described. Did he not describe to the police that Mr. Martin had him on the ground and kept bashing his head on the concrete over and over and just physically beating him with his hands?

GILBREATH: He has said that, yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn't it true that there is evidence that indicates that's not true?

GILBREATH: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did he also not state that at some point, he the defendant -- did he not state or claim that the victim in this case, Mr. Martin, put both hands one over his mouth and one over his nose so that he couldn't breathe?

GILBREATH: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And all of sudden that's when he was able to get free and grab the gun. Or I'm sorry, Martin was grabbing for the gun, did he not claim that too at some point. climb that?

GILBREATH: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But -- and I'm going to get into every little contradiction but wouldn't you agree that a lot of his statements can be contradicted by the evidence either witnesses or just based on what he says himself?

GILBREATH: Yes.

 

[Bocefish]

That's the prosecution's job to poke holes in the defendant's story. There may be some conflicting recollections they can key in on but there's also recorded testimony , not to mention the defense has their own way of mitigating those accusations.

 

[Jupiter551]

Sure but they're not allowed to lie on the witness stand. It's a pretty big deal that Zimmerman changed his story (at least 3 times, one that we heard and two that the investigator briefly said were in the police statements) and then when he was asked to explain inconsistencies he claimed he couldn't remember what happened...I mean cmon, it's suspicious to say the least. Esp when he's asking us to believe that a 17 year old with no history of violence, and unarmed, ambushed him? How much taller does the story need to get?

 

[Nordling]

Sure but they're not allowed to lie on the witness stand. It's a pretty big deal that Zimmerman changed his story (at least 3 times, one that we heard and two that the investigator briefly said were in the police statements) and then when he was asked to explain inconsistencies he claimed he couldn't remember what happened...I mean cmon, it's suspicious to say the least. Esp when he's asking us to believe that a 17 year old with no history of violence, and unarmed, ambushed him? How much taller does the story need to get?

:lol: It was done by creatures in a UFO. Why haven't they dusted for crop circles yet? lol

 

[Jupiter551]

:lol: It was done by creatures in a UFO. Why haven't they dusted for crop circles yet? lol

:naughty: in the spirit of innocent-until-proven guilty Team Zimmerman would argue we must assume for now that the aliens really did do it (nevermind that it requires us to assume the aliens are guilty until we can prove Zimmerman guilty...)

 

[Harvrath]

What was I supposed to get out of that exactly? The character portrayal of who he is doesn't change the fact of what he did.

Oh I don't know, maybe question all the BS that you have been spoon-fed?

The Ant-Zimmerman Team has been consistently wrong.

Did you watch the bond hearing where the lead investigator said Zimmerman has told several different versions in different statements to the police? Pretty hard to believe a guy who's been caught lying dude. Unless he was referring to alternate universes where things happened differently, some or all of those statements are false.

Which BS was that? I never thought Zimmerman was some secret neo-nazi monster, one would have to be terribly naive to believe someone has to be "evil" to commit murder. He was gung-ho, there's no doubt of that - hell he even became a busybody about a dog. He also chased someone down stealing a dvd player. He studied criminal justice. He had a longtime habit of vigilantism and this time it went too far.

BS.

Your side called him a self-appointed watchman. He was asked to fill that slot. You point to him having a handgun and carry permit to impeach his character, he was advised by law-enforcement to get it over a menacing dog and initially he tried the non-lethal route.

Paulie Walnuts said GZ finally got the 'hero kill' he was wanting. He had the perfect opportunity to get one just a week or so before the confrontation with Zimmerman, but is on the record as saying he didn't want to approach this person. Apparently, not many people knew he had the permit. And his wife also has a handgun and permit.

Now you argue that he carried on his watch patrol, but he was not on patrol tonight. And even then, merely being Neighborhood Watch makes him a target of criminals. Apparently, the only way he could be a Watchman according to everyone is not sit in his house all day and not go outside.

Nordling said GZ wasn't injured. It has since been proven that he sustained injuries and has since moved the goal-posts.

People point to him profiling despite the fact that apparently TM comes from a mixed heritage. And even then, his neighborhood was getting wrecked by a crime spree committed apparently by predominantly young African-American men, in other words a bit of profiling is warranted. Unless you contend that he should be profiling Asians. Heck, Zimmerman probably profiled fellow Hispanics.

People said TM was an Angel. It has since been proven that he had disciplinary issues. People argue this should have no bearing on TM but then argue that a he said/she said civil dispute and assaulting an undercover officer checking for underage drinking (and we don't know all the facts of the case) make Zimmerman a ticking time-bomb.

Yes, I did watch the Bond Hearing, it depends on what the contradictions in his statements are, if he infact contradicted himself. The Investigator answered yes to a rather broad question. Did you catch the part where the Investigator tried to argue his head wasn't banged against an object harder than his head? Said Investigator said his injuries were consistent with that.

 

[Jupiter551]

Yeah the investigator agreed that his head was hit with an object harder than his head - but if you want to talk about answering a broad question right there. Saying that and ALSO saying that the evidence and Zimmerman's injuries don't support his story, doesn't contradict that he may have hit his head. It may just contradict that it went down like he said, it may contradict that Tray was the aggressor or that Zimmerman was badly injured.

The fact that his head was hit by an object harder than his head (and shit, that could be anything), hardly means his entire story - which is the only thing that establishes his defense - must be true.

For the record, I don't think GZ is an evil man, who set out to murder someone. I think he walked into a situation with a loaded gun, misjudged, overreacted, killed a kid then panicked. I don't, however, think he should walk away without punishment.

 

[Anonymous]

People said TM was an Angel.

Maybe I missed something. Did someone actually say that in those words? Someone saying "He was a good person who didn't deserve to die" doesn't equate to "He was a perfect angel."

 

[Nordling]

I said that Zimmerman received no injuries? Show where I said that or take it back. What I said was that the early police pictures ENHANCED were not valid to show the extent of injuries. As far as I know, no one has seen any high quality photos or a doctor's report attesting to a "broken nose."

 

[Bocefish]

Here's the pertinent part of the Bond Hearing for anyone that hasn't seen it. The Prosecution's detective states Zim has inconsistencies in his story but doesn't state what they are. He did admit Zim's head injuries could be consistent with Zim's story, so we basically don't know anymore than before, except that Zim's medical records apparently prove he did in fact have a broken nose and head lacerations from the confrontation. O'Mara provided the state with a copy of the medical records so that should no longer be a mystery.

 

[Nordling]

Here's the pertinent part of the Bond Hearing for anyone that hasn't seen it. The Prosecution's detective states Zim has inconsistencies in his story but doesn't state what they are. He did admit Zim's head injuries could be consistent with Zim's story, so we basically don't know anymore than before, except that Zim's medical records apparently prove he did in fact have a broken nose and head lacerations from the confrontation. O'Mara provided the state with a copy of the medical records so that should no longer be a mystery.

Nothing is apparent. We know that defense handed the court a document and implied it was a "medical document" that "shows something." Until someone neutral tells us what's actually in it and what it represents or until the document is posted online, we know nothing about anything being "apparent."

What we do know is that there's a claim that during a fight, Zimmerman suffered a broken nose, but that when asked, he turned down medical help other than the first aid he'd received from emergency medical personnel.

 

[Bocefish]

What we also know is that O'Mara APPARENTLY has medical records stating Zimmerman's nose was broken the night of the confrontation and provided the state with a copy. If you think that's not true, care to make a bet whether his nose was broken? :mrgreen: