Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[sgtbaker]

And so it begins.

And so what begins? See my edit

 

[Unabogie]

And so what begins? See my edit

He was clearly making a CTish comment. You responded that yes, it was CTish, but then you, as you said, attacked the media. He responded that "it never happened" which is the signal that he's about to spend three pages denying what he just said.

But perhaps not. You're on Team Z, which means maybe he'll just ignore your heresy.

 

[Rare Truth]

He was clearly making a CTish comment. You responded that yes, it was CTish, but then you, as you said, attacked the media. He responded that "it never happened" which is the signal that he's about to spend three pages denying what he just said.

But perhaps not. You're on Team Z, which means maybe he'll just ignore your heresy.

Have I told you lately how I love reading your posts?

 

[Dan O.]

I'm glad it wasn't me who ended the young mans life.

You do realize that before you interviewed, that kid had never before been killed in a failed attempt to rob a bank.

Have you ever stopped to think about the consequences of your actions?

 

[Rare Truth]

Here's a little no-nothing much commentary, but I just saw this:

http://friendsofgz.com/

Gracie aka "Susie" -- that would be GZ's sister who was conspiring with Shel.Lie, GZ's wife, to hide the money, is now pumping a website to beg for mo money for GZ,

Site was created a few days ago, was active Thursday, and she says:

"To those who have shared their support, I have this to say: Thank you for your courage, strength and hope as we face a crucial day tomorrow in which not only will George's foreseeable future be determined but ours as well."

Give till it Hertz, Zimmermanians!

 

[Rare Truth]

And just so you may put a face on "Gracie" here she is with George, a few years back.

Is that guy stoned or what?

 

[sgtbaker]

He was clearly making a CTish comment. You responded that yes, it was CTish, but then you, as you said, attacked the media. He responded that "it never happened" which is the signal that he's about to spend three pages denying what he just said.

But perhaps not. You're on Team Z, which means maybe he'll just ignore your heresy.

I think you do a fair amount of ignoring your "teams" bad behavior.

I've explained my position, multiple times. If you need to strawman it to convince yourself you are right, that's your issue. I will say this, though, at the end of all this, even if a video came out of GZ stalking Trayvon, jumping out, trying to grab him, and then shooting him as he runs away, your position will still have been wrong for deciding he was a killer two months before any of the evidence was even released. I, for the life of me can see how wanting evidence before I decide someone is guity of murder 2 or even manslaughter is something you choose to present in a negative light.

For the record, I felt the article was CT, chosing the preferecial treatment because he's white, rather than because he is an officer's son. I didn't fully get the point crimresearch was making.

 

[Rare Truth]

I think you do a fair amount of ignoring your "teams" bad behavior.

I've explained my position, multiple times. If you need to strawman it to convince yourself you are right, that's your issue. I will say this, though, at the end of all this, even if a video came out of GZ stalking Trayvon, jumping out, trying to grab him, and then shooting him as he runs away, your position will still have been wrong for deciding he was a killer two months before any of the evidence was even released. I, for the life of me can see how wanting evidence before I decide someone is guity of murder 2 or even manslaughter is something you choose to present in a negative light.

For the record, I felt the article was CT, chosing the preferecial treatment because he's white, rather than because he is an officer's son. I didn't fully get the point crimresearch was making.

Question: Did you give OJ the benefit of the doubt right up until the time he was found not guilty?

 

[sgtbaker]

Question: Did you give OJ the benefit of the doubt right up until the time he was found not guilty?

To be perfectly honest, I was a fan of OJ when that happened (from the Naked Gun movies), and I didn't want it to be true. I was 17 years old and hanging out with friends to much to put any time into following a case. I didn't really have an opinion till I was living on my own and actually watching the trial... when evidence was being presented.

I will say this though. At the start of the Casey Anthony trial, I said she was going to get not guilty and said that I don't think I would have voted guilty, either. You can quote me in the Casey Anthony thread as saying, not in exact words but: The funny thing is Casey Anthony's lawyer is going to get credited for getting her off. I think that with the case they have against her, her lawyer could have been sitting in his seat playing Angry Birds, that whole time and they still would have found her not guilty.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

He was clearly making a CTish comment. You responded that yes, it was CTish, but then you, as you said, attacked the media. He responded that "it never happened" which is the signal that he's about to spend three pages denying what he just said.

Here is what he actually said:

CTish, as in 'that never happened'?

That's called a question, and he was posing it to Sgt. Baker. Is your false claim that he said "it never happened" another case of seeing the world through the lens of Unaboogie?

Also, why don't you ask him what he meant with his original statement, since it could clearly be interpreted in different ways? Then again, if you did that, you can't keep misquoting, making things up, and saying he's about to spend three pages denying something.

 

[Rare Truth]

To be perfectly honest, I was a fan of OJ when that happened (from the Naked Gun movies), and I didn't want it to be true. I was 17 years old and hanging out with friends to much to put any time into following a case. I didn't really have an opinion till I was living on my own and actually watching the trial... when evidence was being presented.

I will say this though. At the start of the Casey Anthony trial, I said she was going to get not guilty and said that I don't think I would have voted guilty, either. You can quote me in the Casey Anthony thread as saying, not in exact words but: The funny thing is Casey Anthony's lawyer is going to get credited for getting her off. I think that with the case they have against her, her lawyer could have been sitting in his seat playing Angry Birds, that whole time and they still would have found her not guilty.

Thanks. I appreciate your thoughtful reply.

For the record, I didn't follow the Casey Anthony case not one drop. For some reason, it held zero interest to me.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Question: Did you give OJ the benefit of the doubt right up until the time he was found not guilty?

First off, Sgt. Baker talked about waiting to see the evidence, NOT waiting until a jury renders a verdict.

Secondly the two cases are not the same. In the OJ case there was overwhelming evidence including DNA evidence that OJ was guilty. In this case so far it's the absence of evidence that contradicts GZ that makes it so hard to determine if he is telling he truth or not.

 

[Unabogie]

I think you do a fair amount of ignoring your "teams" bad behavior.

Well in this case, you didn't ignore it, you came to his defense. I don't think I've done that, but if I have, that was wrong.

I've explained my position, multiple times. If you need to strawman it to convince yourself you are right, that's your issue.

I am not talking about your position. I respect your position and I am on record here predicting acquittal. I want George to get a fair trial in front of an unbiased jury.

I will say this, though, at the end of all this, even if a video came out of GZ stalking Trayvon, jumping out, trying to grab him, and then shooting him as he runs away, your position will still have been wrong for deciding he was a killer two months before any of the evidence was even released.

He is a killer no matter what, isn't he? Is there any scenario in which he would not be???

I don't think you meant to write that.

I, for the life of me can see how wanting evidence before I decide someone is guity of murder 2 or even manslaughter is something you choose to present in a negative light.

I don't, in any way. I respect that completely. I have had issues with people acting rude and posting racist speculation. I have no problem with anyone who sees the case differently from me, as long as they are civil.

For the record, I felt the article was CT, chosing the preferecial treatment because he's white, rather than because he is an officer's son. I didn't fully get the point crimresearch was making.

Fair enough. We'll see how that goes.

 

[Unabogie]

Have I told you lately how I love reading your posts?

Thank you. I like the cut of your jib, too.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I have no problem with anyone who sees the case differently from me, as long as they are civil.

Fair enough statement. I'll gladly acknowledge my posting manner as of later could use some work on civility. Where do you think blatant or purposeful misrepresentation of what others say falls under the category of civility? As an example no more then a couple of posts above you misrepresented what crimresearch said and said he said something he didn't. Then said he's spend the next 3 days denying it. Is that civil? If it was accidental it's not been pointed out yet you've offered no acknowledgement nor correction. Is that civil?

 

[johnny karate]

Wow. Out of the loop for a few days, and the nascent thread triples in size. And not a whole lot has changed. It's nice to see we're all still playing our roles.

First things first. I need to acknowledge a mistake:

You're using fingernail scrapings - not swabs from Martin's hands.

There's no record at this point that any swabs were taken of Martin's hands.

I misread the forensics report and thought it said samples were taken from Martin's hands. I see now that I was wrong. I apologize to anyone who ended up on the wrong end of my misplaced arrogance because of that error.

So I'm getting caught up on the recent bond hearing.

Does anyone know the precedence of a judge taking a recess to decide a bond?

My limited knowledge derived from Law & Order reruns indicates it's usually a relatively quick procedure.

 

[Unabogie]

Wow. Out of the loop for a few days, and the nascent thread triples in size. And not a whole lot has changed. It's nice to see we're all still playing our roles.

First things first. I need to acknowledge a mistake:


I misread the forensics report and thought it said samples were taken from Martin's hands. I see now that I was wrong. I apologize to anyone who ended up on the wrong end of my misplaced arrogance because of that error.

So I'm getting caught up on the recent bond hearing.

Does anyone know the precedence of a judge taking a recess to decide a bond?

My limited knowledge derived from Law & Order reruns indicates it's usually a relatively quick procedure.

In my non-expert experience, lots of things happen in high profile trials that don't happen normally. My guess is he wants to make sure he isn't second guessed on whatever he decides. So he's probably looking up precedent to see what the normal ranges look like when a defendant hides his money like this.

Of course, I hope he just keeps him in jail until trial. We'd all be a lot safer that way.

 

[Rare Truth]

Wow. Out of the loop for a few days, and the nascent thread triples in size. And not a whole lot has changed. It's nice to see we're all still playing our roles.

First things first. I need to acknowledge a mistake:


I misread the forensics report and thought it said samples were taken from Martin's hands. I see now that I was wrong. I apologize to anyone who ended up on the wrong end of my misplaced arrogance because of that error.

So I'm getting caught up on the recent bond hearing.

....

Point of order: NO DNA was found on Trayvon's sleeves or cuff foreign to TM.

Hard to imagine the hands segregating themselves from the cuff.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&...0-n4-S&sig=AHIEtbSFpR0MEFdNBrQxlQS1qYFb79SwFg

 

[sgtbaker]

Well in this case, you didn't ignore it, you came to his defense. I don't think I've done that, but if I have, that was wrong.

I didn't come to anyone's defense. I didn't even understand what crimresearch was saying, that's why I asked. After a few moments pause, I think he/she was actually asking me if I was saying it never happened. I won't know for sure, his/her intent or motive behind the statement until he/she comes back to explain it. I didn't know what "so it begins" meant. I thought it was directed at me because it was me being quoted.

I am not talking about your position. I respect your position and I am on record here predicting acquittal. I want George to get a fair trial in front of an unbiased jury.

I am not team Zimmerman and I find the term intentionally demeaning.

He is a killer no matter what, isn't he? Is there any scenario in which he would not be???

I don't think you meant to write that.

I meant guilty of murder 2/manslaughter. My bad.

I don't, in any way. I respect that completely. I have had issues with people acting rude and posting racist speculation. I have no problem with anyone who sees the case differently from me, as long as they are civil.

I admit that I don't recall every single post but who's made racist speculations?
I have seen all sides go on the offense (myself included). It comes down to people getting hung up on being right, over being objective. I have, however, made many objections to the "team Zimmerman" statement. It seems to me, that your concern with civility is only in regards to how people talk to you. You tend to give a free pass to yourself and those who's opinons line up with yours.

Fair enough. We'll see how that goes

I have nothing to add, I just hate being accused of snipping posts.

 

[johnny karate]

In my non-expert experience, lots of things happen in high profile trials that don't happen normally. My guess is he wants to make sure he isn't second guessed on whatever he decides. So he's probably looking up precedent to see what the normal ranges look like when a defendant hides his money like this.

I was always under the impression that judges had discretion when determining bond as opposed to being held to a legal standard or precedent.

However, I think there was a Florida law cited in the old thread that indicated the judge was required to grant bond, but I was unclear if it applied.

But if Zimmerman gets remanded until the trial - especially after the Supreme Court upheld ACA - it's going to be a rough summer for conservatives.