Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Rare Truth]

That would make sense if the content had been changed completely. Did you read the article? It only appears that a bit of inflection, a stronger tone, was added, the content is still as claimed.

You act as if someone changed "black" to "white" or something. An actual change in the polarity of the content. If someone did that, that would indeed be quite dishonest. When in reality "very black" was changed to "super very turbo black". That seems more like a bad joke.

I don't condone it either, but it appears to be an obvious change, only of inflection, and the original link is right there with it.

Actually, it wasn't done on purpose.

I had done some digging around of those FBI reports many, many months ago, like back last July, hadn't visited them since...and when L8Elvis & Newton'sBit kept insisting it was the same dude who was killed later - that Jenkins fellow - with L8 pulling out that December post and repeating the arresting officer "had a history" ---:

And yet neither of those posts address the fact that the LEO GZ is charged with "assaulting" has a history of not identifying himself.

It's almost as if you intentionally missed the point of the post. Totally believable.

I knew that was wrong. I knew the officers name wasn't Jenkins, knew he wasn't dead, and I knew he wasn't a UCF Police Officer.

I recalled then that July FBI reading about the other cops at the sting backing up the arresting officer....

I had to do some heavy digging around to find it again, and aha! Finally! I found it. And as you can see, it was an image file. The adobe image to text formatted horribly, and included random numbers and characters, making for a jagged presentation -

so I found where it had been transcribed elsewhere, placed the originating FBI doc link in the post & in the interest of time - copy and pasted the formatted version from another source.

I quickly scanned it for comparison, but in my haste, did not correct the last editorial bit there, which I noticed only after I was unable to edit it...so rather than bring it to the attention, I waited to see if anyone would bother to use the link to the original I posted.

To his credit, L8 did actually click the link. That's why I was funning him with this:

;0

I did plan on noting it later, if no one noticed it. (I mean, c'mon, that was pretty super turbo chargedish) I also took the time to upload the actual document image to my pb account and place it here directly, so all could see the original typed text for themselves.
That's dedication.

So, yes, all in all, the general gist and point was not changed.

Those officers did go on FBI record and back up the version of the arresting officer, it was not an officer who "had a history of not identifying himself" - he wasn't dead - he was alive and well with no record of disciplinary measures, did not even belong to the same unit GZ - and his repeaters said he did,

and I proved, reality and the evidence, once more, did not jive with Zimmerman's stories.

 

[WildCat]

So when someone pushes another person that's a non-violent assault?

And how come your feelings don't get this hurt when Zimmerman defenders are dishonest?

Says the guy who can't even admit the red stuff on Zimmerman's face is blood.

Must be Shellie's lipstick.

 

[Rare Truth]

Says the guy who can't even admit the red stuff on Zimmerman's face is blood.

Must be Shellie's lipstick.

Right outta the George PeterPan Pinocchioman Total Misrepresentation School of Design

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Smudge =/= "smeared blood". Nice try, though.

Tu quoque ? Nice attempt at deflecting.

If you would like to make the case that you actually thought it was a jelly sandwich and not blood, well, good luck.

 

[WildCat]

Right outta the George PeterPan Pinocchioman Total Misrepresentation School of Design

So "Smudge =/= "smeared blood". Nice try, though." doesn't actually say that the smudge isn't smeared blood?

That's a direct quote btw, I didn't embellish or add to it in any way.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That would make sense if the content had been changed completely. Did you read the article? It only appears that a bit of inflection, a stronger tone, was added, the content is still as claimed.

You act as if someone changed "black" to "white" or something. An actual change in the polarity of the content. If someone did that, that would indeed be quite dishonest. When in reality "very black" was changed to "super very turbo black". That seems more like a bad joke.

I don't condone it either, but it appears to be an obvious change, only of inflection, and the original link is right there with it.

Then stop defending it.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You're telling a fib. All TheL8Elvis said was that he couldn't find he paragraph quoted. He never called anyone out on anything.

When I post that the text in the post doesn't match what it is written in the actual document, that is calling it out.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I quickly scanned it for comparison, but in my haste, did not correct the last editorial bit there, which I noticed only after I was unable to edit it...so rather than bring it to the attention, I waited to see if anyone would bother to use the link to the original I posted.

And then stated you did it just to see if people read the link.
And now you have a different story.
Which one should we believe ?

To his credit, L8 did actually click the link. That's why I was funning him with this:

;0

I did plan on noting it later, if no one noticed it. (I mean, c'mon, that was pretty super turbo chargedish) I also took the time to upload the actual document image to my pb account and place it here directly, so all could see the original typed text for themselves.
That's dedication.

So, yes, all in all, the general gist and point was not changed.

Those officers did go on FBI record and back up the version of the arresting officer,

I hilited the part that shows you must understand why it is just the word of GZ vs the word of the arresting officer - not that 3 officers all saw one officer tell GZ he was a cop before he was shoved.

it was not an officer who "had a history of not identifying himself" - he wasn't dead - he was alive and well

Yes, that part was completely wrong. GZ didn't claim it though, I did because I read something into a post that wasn't there.

with no record of disciplinary measures, did not even belong to the same unit GZ - and his repeaters said he did,

You keep repeating the no discipline detail - are you waiting for someone to bring up this:
http://cops.heraldtribune.com/Officer/Details/162887
so you can can point out even though he has a complaint of domestic violence, it says "no discipline imposed" ?

and I proved, reality and the evidence, once more, did not jive with Zimmerman's stories.

No, you proved the LEO stuck to his story, and GZ stuck to his.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Do you really need to have it "clearly" shown to you? The embellishment are - I am sure by design - quite obvious.

Or not.

Actually, it wasn't done on purpose.

 

[boooeee]

You're telling a fib. All TheL8Elvis said was that he couldn't find he paragraph quoted. He never called anyone out on anything.

Fair enough. It was after TheL8Elvis started trying to trace back Rare Truth's post to the source material.

Would you be fine if somebody inserted the word "violently" into Trayvon's school records and then quoted it here? As long as they made some vague, non-specific admission in a later post that they had altered the original text? And would you heap scorn and sarcasm on anybody that posted what the actual discrepancies were?

 

[Rare Truth]

lol.

George's arresting officer for his FELONY with VIOLENCE charge:

Special Agent Paul Fleischman
Department of Business & Professional Regulation
Division of Alcoholic Beverages & Tobacco

Nominee for OFFICER OF THE YEAR!

http://www.statechiefs.com/documents/officeroftheyear.html



Whaddabadass.

 

[boooeee]

That would make sense if the content had been changed completely. Did you read the article? It only appears that a bit of inflection, a stronger tone, was added, the content is still as claimed.

You act as if someone changed "black" to "white" or something. An actual change in the polarity of the content. If someone did that, that would indeed be quite dishonest. When in reality "very black" was changed to "super very turbo black". That seems more like a bad joke.

I don't condone it either, but it appears to be an obvious change, only of inflection, and the original link is right there with it.

Would you agree that there is no difference between "shoved" and "violently shoved"?

This should be really simple. Altering quotes without saying so is bad, whether it is fixing grammar, exaggerating for effect, or inserting what you thought were "obvious" embellishments. I'm not disputing the relevance of the actual evidence that Rare Truth posted. That is a separate issue. But I would have thought we could have come to general agreement that altering quotes is a bad thing, instead of asking what's the harm, spinning that it's not so bad, or heaping abuse on the poster who set the record straight.

 

[boooeee]

so I found where it had been transcribed elsewhere, placed the originating FBI doc link in the post & in the interest of time - copy and pasted the formatted version from another source.

So were the discrepancies in the text added by somebody else on the internet? The person you copied and pasted from?

 

[Rare Truth]

Fair enough. It was after TheL8Elvis started trying to trace back Rare Truth's post to the source material.

Would you be fine if somebody inserted the word "violently" into Trayvon's school records and then quoted it here? As long as they made some vague, non-specific admission in a later post that they had altered the original text? And would you heap scorn and sarcasm on anybody that posted what the actual discrepancies were?

Was Trayvon arrested for FELONY with VIOLENCE?

That would be a...no.

Was George? Why yes, that would be a YES.

 

[johnny karate]

Says the guy who can't even admit the red stuff on Zimmerman's face is blood.

Must be Shellie's lipstick.

WildCat, you didn't answer the question.

How come your feelings don't get hurt when a Zimmerman defender blatantly misrepresents what Zimmerman said in serve of an obvious agenda?

How come you are only the defender of Truth and Justice when it's someone defending Martin who you perceive to be dishonest?

I'll tell you what, address that glaring double standard, and then show me the forensic report that states the red mark on the side of Zimmerman's mouth is blood, and then we'll talk about what I can or can't admit.

 

[johnny karate]

Tu quoque ? Nice attempt at deflecting.

If you would like to make the case that you actually thought it was a jelly sandwich and not blood, well, good luck.

For someone who fails to acknowledge an obvious lie for a lie, you have an amazingly low standard for what can forensically be determined by looking at a photo.

 

[johnny karate]

That would make sense if the content had been changed completely. Did you read the article? It only appears that a bit of inflection, a stronger tone, was added, the content is still as claimed.

You act as if someone changed "black" to "white" or something. An actual change in the polarity of the content. If someone did that, that would indeed be quite dishonest. When in reality "very black" was changed to "super very turbo black". That seems more like a bad joke.

I don't condone it either, but it appears to be an obvious change, only of inflection, and the original link is right there with it.

Thank you.

While everyone is running to their fainting couches, the real issues is, of course, being conveniently overlooked.

George Zimmerman assaulted a law enforcement officer and then lied about it.

No embellishment Rare Truth added changes that simple fact.

 

[boooeee]

Was Trayvon arrested for FELONY with VIOLENCE?

That would be a...no.

Was George? Why yes, that would be a YES.

So, it's okay to alter quotes as long as those added words were used elsewhere in reference to George's actions?

Fine, how about if somebody inserted "burglary" in various portions of Trayvon's school records, since the school police investigator claimed that Trayvon was in possession of a "burglary" tool (note - I am not making any claims as to whether that screwdriver was actually a burglary tool or not - I don't know and you don't either).

Just trying to understand the tortured logic of when it is okay to alter quotes.

 

[johnny karate]

When I post that the text in the post doesn't match what it is written in the actual document, that is calling it out.

I don't see where you posted "the text in the post doesn't match what is written in the actual document":

Did you read page 11 ? I can't find where they talked to "Five of 'em. All cops there at the sting."

Nor do I find that paragraph above. Why don't I see the same paragraph on page 11 that you have posted here ?

Can you point it out to me?

 

[Rare Truth]

So were the discrepancies in the text added by somebody else on the internet? The person you copied and pasted from?

Yes, I think I made that clear.

Would you agree that there is no difference between "shoved" and "violently shoved"?
...

We can go round all day long on this unproductive chitter if you like, it does not change the fact Zimmerman was charged with
------> FELONY with VIOLENCE.

That IS part of the record.

I would like to add, GZ was arrested on with TWO charges.

And seeing I have to cart each and every PDF image over here now, because clinking on links is tragically difficult for some:

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/Press_Releases/exhibit_list_redacted.pdf

RESISTING OFFICER WITH VIOLENCE § 843.01, Fla. Stat.
BATTERY UPON LEO § 784.07, Fla. Stat.

"I don't care who you are." -- "**** you." <-- GZ, after being shown the Officer's badge.