You can, it goes without saying, provide specific examples proving that I, Vinyl Turnip, “read news stories and create a narrative of what I think happened that night.” Right? Otherwise you wouldn’t say it, because unlike the liberal douches you hold in contempt, *you *don’t make generalizations you can’t back up with evidence, right? Otherwise you’d look like a real fucking asshole, wouldn’t you? Take all the time you need to hunt down the links and lay out the narrative I’ve created. If you need assistance, I’ll provide some billable hours.
Your vehement opinionlessness is truly an inspiration. I’ve nominated you for the Beige Star, but be warned that you face some limp competition from brazil84.
I agree with that–the shitstorm started because people thought the authorities were going to do nothing. Whether that is actually the case or not is not proven at this point.
Now you tell me - does that look like the authorities were conducting a thorough and professional investigation?
Of course NOW the investigation is taking place. But only after the public shit-storm. To me, it looks very much like a MONTH after the killing, the local police were content to just let this case disappear.
As an aside - common courtesy dictates that you indicate that you bolded certain comments when you quoted me. Thank you.
That bolded part appears to describe the case in the universe outside this thread, as well as within it. There’s something a little bit disturbing about that fact.
Disclaimer: The following is an attempt to overlay the characterizations made by a television news organization upon the spectrum of what might be “considered” by “any reasonable human,” and should not be construed as actually “reasonable.”
Well, one is in February, don’tcha see, and the other is in March, which is a month later than February.
I saw this earlier today. Not sure how it fits with the surveillance video:
A man who lives in the Retreat at Twin Lakes Sanford Community where George Zimmerman lives and where 17-year old Trayvon Martin was killed, talked exclusively to FOX35 Friday about what he saw on Zimmerman’s face less than 24-hours after the shooting.
“I saw George, he was banged up,” he said.
The man, who didn’t want his identity revealed, said he saw bandages on Zimmerman’s nose and on the back of his head and well as lumps on his face.
Many’s the time I’ve heard such an argument, or non-argument. That the facts are unclear, there is more evidence to be considered, one must not rush to make judgement. Every time I’ve heard it said, its said in a calmly reasoned voice. Uncertainty is not generally a vociferous state. One does not seize another by the lapels and scream into their face when advocating for open-minded consideration and examination.
But here we are witness to advocates for calm inspection tearing their hair and setting their balls on fire while they shriek invective. Their faces redden, the veins stand out in their necks as they call for cool deliberation.
Oh luc, you know you can’t trust those reaity based libbys at the Kos!
I listened to all the 911 calls the other day and one in particular was incredibly disturbing because you can hear Martin very well in the background and the only way to describe it heartbreaking: his tone is plaintive, desperate, and he sounds very young… He sounds very much like he sees a gun, understands clearly that he is facing death, and is pleading for all he’s worth for it not to be so, for someone to stop what he knows is about to happen. He does NOT sound like a grown man being beaten with fists.
Aw shucks [toe in the dirt] 'tweren’t nuthin…<blush>
I have more…stay tuned…(I love this research stuff, weirdly enough. Sit me down in front of a screen with full LexisNexis access and I’m happier than a pig in shit. And the cost of that would floor you. One of my lawyer-advisors let me use her account… I ran up over $600 in charges in one month just digging out cases! Ooops.)
Is it my imagination or is it that every time some anonymous “witness” surfaces against Martin, its carried on the local Fox news channel? And nowhere else?
What I love is how for some folks it then morphs into “evidence”. Oh wait, just because they call it “evidence” does not mean that they meant it was “evidence”. They meant it was a rumor.
Zimmerman claimed he was beaten to within an inch of his life, but the video clearly shows not a mark on him. He claimed he shot the boy in he chest while they were so close as to be wrestling with each other, but there isn’t a speck of blood on him or his clothes. He claimed he was being attacked, but the only one crying for help on the tape is Martin.
His self-defense claim is a lie. This is proven by multiple pieces of OBJECTIVE, PHYSICAL evidence that do not rely on your opinion of ANY person’s credibility. What else could possibly matter? The central issue is why he shot him and he’s been caught in multiple lies about it.
To claim to not have an opinion about this is, itself, immoral. Lock this animal up before he executes again.
Weasel.
We’ll talk about your case in just a minute, but I want to pause to reflect on how much you are weaseling.
First, Shodan makes a point about the issue of provocation. I reply with the statute and quote a professor of law. I outline the questions that need to be answered by a jury in order to determine if Z. Can assert self defense or if the provocation issue precludes it. I make no assertion about what will be found, but do offer my opinion about what I personally believe is likely and provide some information about why. You respond by pointing to the part of the chapter that describes what qualifies as justifiable use of force as though there is something meaningful that changes what I had said but without in any way identifying what that would be. You decline to flat out accuse me of being disingenuous for omitting it, electing instead to mock me as ignorant about how statutes work, case law, appeals, forcible detainer, and court staff, noting that you could go on.
I point out to you that the section you quoted makes no difference to the point I was making, then give you what you felt I had left out, and then some: the whole chapter, both pre and post SYG changes. I identified the parts of the chapter and how they progressed. Then I politely asked you a direct question:
Which you ignored, choosing instead to complain about your brain’s struggle to deal with colored fonts. Then you started in about how I understood Shodan, but you declined to be direct, and expressed yourself in such a way as to suggest that I was incapable of understanding what Shodan had written or that I was myself trying to weasel about what I meant:
In other words, rather than back up your mockery by answering my polite question (or god forbid, withdraw it) you switched to something else you thought you could use to justify your rudeness.
So I played along and treated your question as a sincere one, even though you had ignored mine. I answered you forthrightly and in great depth about exactly what I meant. I also presented you with a number of questions, all of which you have ignored:
,
I
And your response is to poop out this:
And bail, as though this answers everything.
Weasel. Shameless weasel.
You even weaseled with The Tao, who asked you the obvious in reply:
first by getting bitchy (no big surprise) and then by apologizing your way out of it with this weirdness:
Which basically makes no sense. Who cares who you wer directing it to? His questions were identical to mine. which makes this condescending towards him to boot, because he understood it perfectly, which is why his questions were identical to mine.
Now to Gibbs v. State, which you (appear to be) claiming (you actually say as little as possible, leaving yourself plenty of weasel room) is the last word in how the State of Florida interprets 776.041(2), and that “by force or the threat of force” is the answer.
Assuming for the moment that that is true, it doesn’t undermine anything, as The Tao understood, and as I believe you do too.
For the benefit of those who aren’t research freaks, a summary (read it here-it’s actually very short and easy to read for an appellate opinion):
[ul]
[li]Gibbs is a black woman who says hi to a white couple on a bench. [/li][li]They ignore her.[/li][li]She asked why.[/li][li]The woman, Osmun, said: “Get away you dirty nigger, you don’t belong here”[/li][li]Gibbs uses a racial slur and an obscene gesture in response.[/li][li]Osmun got up, approached Gibbs and started swinging at her.[/li][li]Gibbs stepped back, then pushed Osmun. [/li][li]Osmun staggered back, then fell in some shrubbery. She was helped up. [/li][li]A friend took her to “Manor Care”.[/li][li]Within a half hour, Osmun died of heart failure.[/li][li]The ME ruled it a homicide cause by cardiac arrythmia caused by stress after an altercation.[/li][li]After a jury trial, Gibbs was convicted of “culpable negligence with injury”[/li][/ul]
Now I will quote the opinion directly,all emphasis is mine:
First and foremost, pretty much everyone who considers Zimmerman the one who provoked Martin even if he didn’t touch him or shove his gun in his face agree that Martin felt threatened by Zimmerman’s (arguably illegal!) stalking of Martin. This is a widely held understanding that you are treating as invisible. Since the determination of the validity of this view is normally supposed to be made by a jury made up of normal people with normal reasoning skills, there’s a very good chance a jury will easily find that Martin felt he was facing a genuine “threat of force”, removing Zimmerman’s defense.
Secondly, if it really is your contention that this case puts a fence around what can be considered provocation and limits it to a simplistic and literal “force or threat of force” such as your “you meant Zimmerman hit or threatened to hit or threatened to shoot”, you’re simply wrong, which is pretty obvious from the case itself, but applying yourself to the Google will make it even clearer. Since you have access to Lexis or Westlaw, it should be even easier than that.
But I’m pretty sure you are perfectly aware of the fact that the whole idea of provocation is a very complex and interesting topic in the law and the things that the law has found to be legitimately provocative enough to justify the use of DEADLY force, forget the NON-deadly force being considered in this case, is pretty generous and definitely includes provocation that has nothing at all to do with the threat of force.
That’s what I said, Stoid. I mean I didn’t say all THAT but early in the IMHO thread asked why, in a situation where a woman would mace someone, couldn’t Trayvon fight. All I got was it’s not illegal to follow someone. Other posters pointed out that their wives might not agree that it’s ok since it’s not illegal.