Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[TheL8Elvis]

In fairness, I don't think your implication that a friend of Martin's might not have been grief-stricken by his death is racist. Just weird, and maybe a little heartless.

However, the previous comment to which Unabogie referred:

... did strike me as slightly racist.

For starters, why are you lumping in "fake gold teeth" in a list of bad behaviors? You might as well have thrown in "rap music" and "sagging pants" while you were at it.

I might have, but I don't know those things about TM.

And I'm willing to bet your sons and their friends also don't make bigoted comments or brag about getting away with criminal activity on their social media sites. Nor do they have restraining orders against them. Nor do they get into bar fights.

That's true as well, and less relevant than the things I listed.

So I'm not sure why you make it a point to disparage Martin based on his past, but seem to give Zimmerman a pass on his.

Probably because I am annoyed by the PR campaign that painted TM as an angel who would never have done anything wrong.

 

[Dan O.]

.Probably because I am annoyed by the PR campaign that painted TM as an angel who would never have done anything wrong.

Thanks to George, Trayvon meets the first qualification for being an angle: he's dead.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Thanks to George, Trayvon meets the first qualification for being an angle: he's dead.

Quoted becuase typos are funny

 

[Dan O.]

Quoted becuase typos are funny

I don't find you funny. I find your arguments quite discussting. You take every opportunity to attack Trayvon who was simply walking home from the store, minding his own business when a wannabe cop named George Zimmerman took it upon himself to see that Trayvon never made it home.

 

[beren]

Thanks to George, Trayvon meets the first qualification for being an angle: he's dead acute.

Fixed that for you.

 

[WildCat]

That's great. I bet you'll find lots of embarrassing stuff there that speaks directly to whether or not George murdered a 17 year old, unarmed kid.

No, but it can reveal that she lied about things. Like if she claimed she was in the hospital but her facebook reveals she was hanging with friends at a concert or something.

This is about witness credibility, not finding "embarrassing stuff".

 

[Dan O.]

No, but it can reveal that she lied about things. Like if she claimed she was in the hospital but her facebook reveals she was hanging with friends at a concert or something.

This is about witness credibility, not finding "embarrassing stuff".

Is there some legal requirement that she hat to attend Trayvon's funeral? Where is the relevance in questioning where she was that day?

 

[WildCat]

Is there some legal requirement that she hat to attend Trayvon's funeral? Where is the relevance in questioning where she was that day?

Because she's a key witness, and her credibility is important. If she testifies to one thing, while saying something completely different in her social media accounts, then it calls her testimony into doubt.

And I'm not talking immaterial inconsistencies, like not remembering to the exact foot where a fight started and ended up.

 

[Unabogie]

I'd like to get off this subject because it's a derail, but you ignored his point.

I might have, but I don't know those things about TM.

You didn't answer why you lumped in fake gold teeth with things that are bad.

That's true as well, and less relevant than the things I listed.

Fake gold teeth are more relevant than a history of violent outbursts and restraining orders? Or MySpace posts with bigoted rants and boasts of getting away with criminal activity? Fascinating.

Probably because I am annoyed by the PR campaign that painted TM as an angel who would never have done anything wrong.

How dare his parents defend their child. We can't even be sure they were stricken with grief, so how could they have any reason to tell the world their dead child wouldn't have attempted murder for no reason?

 

[12AX7]

This is about witness credibility, not finding "embarrassing stuff".

Ah, OK. We'll apply this standard to Zimmerman's fanciful tales.

Deal?

 

[johnny karate]

Because she's a key witness, and her credibility is important. If she testifies to one thing, while saying something completely different in her social media accounts, then it calls her testimony into doubt.

And I'm not talking immaterial inconsistencies, like not remembering to the exact foot where a fight started and ended up.

Everyone got that?

WildCat isn't talking about unimportant stuff like details about the altercation that lead to someone's death.

He's talking about something important like whether or not one of Martin's friends attended his funeral.

The truth must come out.

The very fate of the Amercian justice system hangs in the balance.

 

[Unabogie]

Everyone got that?

WildCat isn't talking about unimportant stuff like details about the altercation that lead to someone's death.

He's talking about something important like whether or not one of Martin's friends attended his funeral.

The truth must come out.

The very fate of the Amercian justice system hangs in the balance.

If not for double standards, he'd have no standards at all.

 

[johnny karate]

You didn't answer why you lumped in fake gold teeth with things that are bad.

Fake gold teeth are more relevant than a history of violent outbursts and restraining orders? Or MySpace posts with bigoted rants and boasts of getting away with criminal activity? Fascinating.

I am also fascinated by the idea that a photo of Martin wearing fake gold teeth means anything, let alone something threatening and relevant to the night he was killed.

Almost as scary as that dreaded hoodie.

How dare his parents defend their child. We can't even be sure they were stricken with grief, so how could they have any reason to tell the world their dead child wouldn't have attempted murder for no reason?

And as any reasonably-minded person knows, the remedy for a perceived double-standard is to of course turn around and apply one yourself.

 

[Unabogie]

Great quote from O'Mara regarding whether or not he "waived" the immunity hearing.

"As you know I've been counting. We're only at 96 days [from trial] right now. So that only gives us time to really get ready for one hearing. And that's going to be a jury trial where he gets acquitted. George wants to have a jury of his peers decide the case."

Right. George wants the case to be decided by a jury and not by the judge, right now, without a trial. So if he wants a jury to decide the case and not a judge, then where, exactly, does this immunity hearing (which he did NOT waive) come into play?

If the judge attempts to drop all charges, will George refuse and insist on a jury to decide things?

Can anyone read the above quote and defend the idea that there will be no immunity hearing, period?

P.S. I was wrong about there being a 45 day rule about this. That was just the order from Judge Nelson.

 

[Dan O.]

Because she's a key witness, and her credibility is important. If she testifies to one thing, while saying something completely different in her social media accounts, then it calls her testimony into doubt.

And I'm not talking immaterial inconsistencies, like not remembering to the exact foot where a fight started and ended up.

She is not a key witness to what happened at Trayvon's funeral and nobody has shown that there is any connection between the hospital and the event George is being tried for. It makes no difference as to George's guilt whether she was at the Funeral, in the hospital or attending a concert. How can the question of where she was even be admitted into the trial of George Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin?


As for George presenting the claim that he didn't step one foot south of the tee, that is 100% relevant to what happened on the night Trayvon was killed.

 

[Unabogie]

I am also fascinated by the idea that a photo of Martin wearing fake gold teeth means anything, let alone something threatening and relevant to the night he was killed.

Almost as scary as that dreaded hoodie.

Which is why I called it subtle racism. It's the kind of racist assumption that goes unnoticed as even being racist. I wear a hooding almost every day on my way to the gym. But I'm a middle aged Jewish guy, so no one thinks I look "up to sumpin'".

Likewise, if I put on a gold grill and posted it to Facebook, my friends would think it was ridiculous. But for other people, it's proof of violent tendencies.

I'm way more fascinated by why George's history of violence and bigotry is deemed "not relevant" to a murder trial in which the state contends he violently murdered a kid who did nothing wrong, aside from being the wrong "type" to be walking at 7:00 pm on a Sunday evening.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I'd like to get off this subject because it's a derail, but you ignored his point.
You didn't answer why you lumped in fake gold teeth with things that are bad.

Because it wasn't a list of things that are "bad"

Fake gold teeth are more relevant than a history of violent outbursts and restraining orders? Or MySpace posts with bigoted rants and boasts of getting away with criminal activity? Fascinating.

Did I say that , or are you yet again beating on your strawman ?

Do you even realize how much you keep doing that ?

How dare his parents defend their child. We can't even be sure they were stricken with grief, so how could they have any reason to tell the world their dead child wouldn't have attempted murder for no reason?

Again with the strawman.

There is a difference between telling your story, and hiring a PR firm to tell a very carefully manufactured story.

 

[johnny karate]

Because it wasn't a list of things that are "bad"

Oh I see.

So do you consider getting suspended from school and smoking dope to be "good" things?

 

[Unabogie]

Did I say that , or are you yet again beating on your strawman ?

Do you even realize how much you keep doing that ?

Johnny wrote:

And I'm willing to bet your sons and their friends also don't make bigoted comments or brag about getting away with criminal activity on their social media sites. Nor do they have restraining orders against them. Nor do they get into bar fights.

And you replied:

That's true as well, and less relevant than the things I listed.

So how on earth am I arguing against a straw man when I'm arguing against the clear meaning of what you wrote? Did you not mean to say that gold teeth are more relevant than bar fights, restraining orders, and boasts of criminal activity?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So how on earth am I arguing against a straw man when I'm arguing against the clear meaning of what you wrote? Did you not mean to say that gold teeth are more relevant than bar fights, restraining orders, and boasts of criminal activity?

Those things are less relevant because they were not relevant at all to my answer t o your original question- do you remember your original question at this point ?

Originally Posted by Unabogie
Because no one says "homie" anymore. Do you know any 16 year olds?​

My son, his friends. And I agree, they don't say homie. They don't have fake gold teeth, they don't get suspended from school, they don't smoke dope ... they don't have much in common with an inner city youth from a dysfunctional home, so I am not sure whether they say homie or not is important.

But please, don't let the facts get in the way of your attempts to call me a racist.