Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

[SpatiallyAware]

that isn't the reason. He wouldn't have won the point if that was the reason.

The defense throws everything at the wall to see what sticks. Like 90% of the crap that is relied on in this thread, eg. the jewelry gag, it will have zero bearing on Zimmerman's case.

I like how you act unbiased yet downplay this jewelry situation like it's nothing.

The best excuse your side can come up with is that he was selling drugs to high school kids for stolen property. I'm sure the homeowners of the real gold and diamond jewelry including weddings bands think it was just a 'gag'...

"It in't mine, I'm just holding it, I don't remember who owns it"


I'll be the first to say that over 7 years ago Zimmerman was a little thug. But, that's part of why he was so easily able to identify what trayvon was up to. Thankfully Zimmerman was able to get past that phase without viciously attacking an innocent armed man, and became an upstanding pillar of his community.

The guy just finished publicly defending a local black man's rights, yet you disgusting people try to make him out to be a racist. You should be ashamed.

 

[werepossum]

I'm glad you said this, as it was my understanding that the defense's issues with regards to needing more time were NOT because of the defense's slow pace in doing their work, but the prosecution's (possibly intentional) slow pace in providing their half of the discovery to the defense.

Mo' debinitely intentional. The prosecution doesn't have much with which to work and really needs to win this case; consequently they are going to be hampering the defense and poisoning the well of potential jurors as much as they are allowed.

None of it will be admissible for any of these purposes as a matter of law.

In looking at the last few pages of this thread I see nothing different from what was being posted, by the same people, six months ago (minus the prolific Geosurface, who is on vacation for being an unapologetic racist). What exactly are you guys getting out of this discussion?

Holy crap, I did not catch that quote when Geosurface made it.

I think as a matter of principle one's juvenile records should be unsealed after death, especially if the death is being adjudicated and involves something that might indicate habit and pattern. Likely though they will never be unsealed and we'll never know if this is factual (and to what extent) or just someone with an anti-Trayvon ax to grind either distorting the truth or inventing it from whole cloth.

 

[EagleKeeper]

None of it will be admissible for any of these purposes as a matter of law.

In looking at the last few pages of this thread I see nothing different from what was being posted, by the same people, six months ago (minus the prolific Geosurface, who is on vacation for being an unapologetic racist). What exactly are you guys getting out of this discussion?

Agreed, has nothing to do with the law. But it does have relevance as to the potential state of TM mind/character if the profiling issue is raised. Some here seem to feel that it is a flaw that should automatically convict GZ, ignoring that the profile could be correct.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Could you ask this contact for some winning lottery numbers please ?

LEO do not make enough to play the lottery.

 

[werepossum]

So basically EVERYTHING Trayon did should be held under a micro-scope, even though none of it points to violence, which this case is about. Where Georgie's history of violence can't even be mentioned, and means nothing because there's no evidence he started the altercation here. Based off their histories no question Zimmerman's the bigger thug of the 2. He just happened to get out thugged this time around.


Jesus christ I'm glad I'm not a dead black teenager.

Interesting. I'd have thought you'd say Martin got out thugged this time. Bullet to the heart outweighs ass-whoopin' in most people's books. And I think it's safe to say that virtually no one ever wanted to be a dead black teenager. I bet there aren't many who want to be a dead white teenager either.

For myself I don't think either was/is necessarily a thug. Certainly Zimmerman and quite possibly Martin have been defamed by the news media, but neither was perfect; both have/had significant flaws, but also a good side. Zimmerman wanted to be a cop; Martin wanted to be a pilot. Neither are thuggish careers. It's just very sad that in this particular case, their flaws led to a very avoidable confrontation that left one young man dead and another with his life in ruins. That avoidability and the factors that led to it should be the take-away for us all.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

$30k a month just to avoid putting Zimmerman on the stand to tell the truth.

Because, if he's innocent and he does that the trial is over.

Should GZ be broke he wouldn't have to take the stand due to his constitutional rights you hate so much.


The prosecution must disprove self defense beyond a reasonable doubt. As well as proving each element of 2nd degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[OCNewbie]

$30k a month just to avoid putting Zimmerman on the stand to tell the truth.

Because, if he's innocent and he does that the trial is over.

It really has nothing to do with his honesty; it has everything to do with HOW he does on the stand, and the impression he makes on the jury. If the prosecutor is very aggressive with him, and makes GZ nervous, and causes him to stumble over his words, or hesitate, even if he tells the truth, it's still going to look bad on him, and the jury might not find him credible/believable. Or, he could be a suave, smooth-talking, emotionless sociopath, and come across as convincing saying just about anything. Being truthful on the stand in no way guarantees a just outcome for a trial.

 

[QueBert]

What, plenty of trayvon's history leads to recent violence. From family congratulating him on assaulting a bus driver to being known as the school's street fight referee.

I'm sure it's part of why the defense asked the judge for his school records, and the judge allowed it.


Don't attack an innocent armed man and you won't end up dead. Color has nothing to do with it.

And yet again you're totally ignoring Zimmerman's penchant for violence. Trayvon at best you can say a cousin commented on a story he heard about. Not a single other person has came forward saying anything. And referring fights doesn't make you violent, I did it in school. It's called growing up. Now actually being in the fights is a different story.

So 1 point that's unproven with no basis outside of a tweet from a person who wasn't there, and 1 that shows he liked to watch people fight. Where as with Zimmerman you have a proven history of him actually being violent.

If I was on a jury and was able to get the background on both, I would say yeah maybe Martin was a violent person, but I'd know absolutely that Zimmerman was, no maybes about it.

 

[They Live]

I like how you act unbiased yet downplay this jewelry situation like it's nothing.

The best excuse your side can come up with is that he was selling drugs to high school kids for stolen property. I'm sure the homeowners of the real gold and diamond jewelry including weddings bands think it was just a 'gag'...

"It in't mine, I'm just holding it, I don't remember who owns it"


I'll be the first to say that over 7 years ago Zimmerman was a little thug. But, that's part of why he was so easily able to identify what trayvon was up to. Thankfully Zimmerman was able to get past that phase without viciously attacking an innocent armed man, and became an upstanding pillar of his community.

The guy just finished publicly defending a local black man's rights, yet you disgusting people try to make him out to be a racist. You should be ashamed.

There's actually no evidence that this is true, outside of what Tugboat and his family claims.

And Tugboat and his family are hardly credible.

 

[werepossum]

And yet again you're totally ignoring Zimmerman's penchant for violence. Trayvon at best you can say a cousin commented on a story he heard about. Not a single other person has came forward saying anything. And referring fights doesn't make you violent, I did it in school. It's called growing up. Now actually being in the fights is a different story.

So 1 point that's unproven with no basis outside of a tweet from a person who wasn't there, and 1 that shows he liked to watch people fight. Where as with Zimmerman you have a proven history of him actually being violent.

If I was on a jury and was able to get the background on both, I would say yeah maybe Martin was a violent person, but I'd know absolutely that Zimmerman was, no maybes about it.

Zimmerman's "penchant for violence" is pretty much the same as Martin's, all bark and no dog. We have an arrest for assaulting an officer and resisting arrest which was reduced to resisting without violence - that's cop for failure to respect my authority and virtually everyone knows it - we have restraining orders against and from Zimmerman alleging shoving, and we have an allegation that as a bouncer he picked up and threw a drunk woman. Hardly a checkered past.

Neither of these people can honestly be called violent people. There's just a bunch of unsubstantiated innuendo on both sides by people who are far too invested in one side or the other.

 

[OCNewbie]

Neither of these people can honestly be called violent people. There's just a bunch of unsubstantiated innuendo on both sides by people who are far too invested in one side or the other.

Agreed. I'm pretty sure that I'm aware of all the stories, and "evidence" used in support of labeling GZ or TM as being particularly violent people, and none of it seems overly convincing. Some of the stories in particular may demonstrate those claims, but the evidence supporting their authenticity is too scarce to be certain.

 

[lotus503]

Agreed. I'm pretty sure that I'm aware of all the stories, and "evidence" used in support of labeling GZ or TM as being particularly violent people, and none of it seems overly convincing. Some of the stories in particular may demonstrate those claims, but the evidence supporting their authenticity is too scarce to be certain.

Exactly, it's when people rely on rumor and scant evidence, post it as fact, we get to see true colors.

Moreover it's the same people doing it for thousands of pages.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Exactly, it's when people rely on rumor and scant evidence, post it as fact, we get to see true colors.

Moreover it's the same people doing it for thousands of pages.

Spot on lotus!!! This is true for both sides.

 

[emperus]

Agreed. I'm pretty sure that I'm aware of all the stories, and "evidence" used in support of labeling GZ or TM as being particularly violent people, and none of it seems overly convincing. Some of the stories in particular may demonstrate those claims, but the evidence supporting their authenticity is too scarce to be certain.

False equivalence alert. There is no one who claims they SAW TM do anything violent, in fact there are many who claim the contrary. There are many people who claim they saw GZ act violently(including the Police and a coworker who said " But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When the dude snapped, he snapped"). So, no, the evidence which supports both as violent are not equivalent.

 

[Druidx]

There's actually no evidence that this is true, outside of what Tugboat and his family claims.

And Tugboat and his family are hardly credible.

Are you serious?
CNN posted a video copy from the Jan 2011 community meeting where Zimmerman complained about the treatment of the homeless black man by the Sanford police. Where he called for the current police chiefs pension to be revoked due to the mis handling and possible cover up. This was also mentioned in Zimmerman's later letter to the new police chief which was released in one of the early evidence dumps.

Such an uninformed opinion isn't much of an opinion at all.

 

[TerryMathews]

False equivalence alert. There is no one who claims they SAW TM do anything violent, in fact there are many who claim the contrary. There are many people who claim they saw GZ act violently(including the Police and a coworker who said " But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When the dude snapped, he snapped"). So, no, the evidence which supports both as violent are not equivalent.

Several people claim to have seen Martin do something violent, Zimmerman and John, for two.

 

[OCNewbie]

There is no one who claims they SAW TM do anything violent, in fact there are many who claim the contrary.

What would the contrary be of claiming to see someone do something violent? Did they claim to see TM attempt to diffuse a situation that was about to turn violent? Perhaps they claim to have seen him cuddle with some puppies?

There are many people who claim they saw GZ act violently(including the Police and a coworker who said " But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When the dude snapped, he snapped"). So, no, the evidence which supports both as violent are not equivalent.

The evidence that supports both as violent is equivalent in it's lack of clarity and/or objective credibility.

False equivalence alert.

Would you argue that the current atmosphere, or the atmosphere at ANY time in the case, has been equally conducive with regards to information surfacing that would paint TM, as opposed to GZ, in a negative light? What sort of credibility would you give to someone that came forward with a story about TM being violent?

What sort of balance is there, between the repercussions and benefits, for someone that may have personally known TM to come forward with claims about TM being violent? Now compare that same balance to someone wanting to claim the same about GZ. If you want to talk about a "false equivalency", try to claim that those respective balances (ratios) are equal.

 

[OCNewbie]

Several people claim to have seen Martin do something violent, Zimmerman and John, for two.

Good point, at least in regards to GZ and John (not so sure that that equates to "several").

 

[emperus]

What would the contrary be of claiming to see someone do something violent? Did they claim to see TM attempt to diffuse a situation that was about to turn violent? Perhaps they claim to have seen him cuddle with some puppies?

The contrary is that people claimed that he wasn't violent. That he was not the type to fight.

The evidence that supports both as violent is equivalent in it's lack of clarity and/or objective credibility.

No, it isn't. You have chosen to disbelieve the direct evidence that says GZ was previously violent (esp. the co-worker, and police to name a couple). There is no direct previous evidence TM was violent. If you have some, please share it. Those are not equivalent things.


Would you argue that the current atmosphere, or the atmosphere at ANY time in the case, has been equally conducive with regards to information surfacing that would paint TM, as opposed to GZ, in a negative light? What sort of credibility would you give to someone that came forward with a story about TM being violent?

What sort of balance is there, between the repercussions and benefits, for someone that may have personally known TM to come forward with claims about TM being violent? Now compare that same balance to someone wanting to claim the same about GZ. If you want to talk about a "false equivalency", try to claim that those respective balances (ratios) are equal.

Again, the support of your augment lies on sociology. Again, like most in this thread you have come to a point and are trying to explain it with bullshit rationals. The simple question is, has there been any evidence of anyone previous to this incident witnessing TM be violent? Answer that.

Answers in red

 

[OCNewbie]

Answers in red

Ya know... fuck it... I was going to reply to your questions, but yet again, what has been your pattern since my first interactions with you, you fail to provide others with the same courtesy you expect.

I've already answered one of yours. Now answer one of mine: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=33370251&postcount=18099

Edit: I will answer your questions after you answer mine.

 

[Chuck_v]

Someone sooner or later was going to bust a cap in Trayvon's little hood rat ass. It just happened to be this guy rather than one of Trayvon's hood rat buddies or some police officer. Look up his facebook user id "no limit awesome dude" now that is just classy as all get out and speaks volumes of who and what he was. Well guess what? Apparently his limit was real close to 9mm.

 

[Chuck_v]

Answers in red

Yes Trayvon attacked a bus driver because the bus driver would not let the POS ride for free on the bus. Your little Trayvon has a history of violence and you can bet that will be presented in the trial by the defense attorney.

 

[emperus]

Yes Trayvon attacked a bus driver because the bus driver would not let the POS ride for free on the bus. Your little Trayvon has a history of violence and you can bet that will be presented in the trial by the defense attorney.

Again, where is the source of that information? Provide me just one person who claims they witnessed this happen.

 

[emperus]

Ya know... fuck it... I was going to reply to your questions, but yet again, what has been your pattern since my first interactions with you, you fail to provide others with the same courtesy you expect.

Don't worry. I already know the answer. There is no evidence..

 

[EagleKeeper]

Again, where is the source of that information? Provide me just one person who claims they witnessed this happen.

With TM being the "victim", do you think anyone who knew him is going to come out with anything derogatory.

You saw the scrubbing that sent on for the social medias as soon as one negative item was leaked.

If you pardon the obvious color aspect, there is a wall of black in the hood as strong as the wall of blue at the LAPD.