::beams with pride::
You knew I was quoting Batson, though. You’re one of us now.
Apparently ABC news may have engaged in some creative editing of B29’s interview, making parts of it come out with a different meaning.
She seems to be hesitating? She seems to be presented with a statement? She seems?
There is a reason why Blightbart is regarded with contempt by reasoning people. James O’Keefe. the Clueless Pimp is one, there are dozens. Literally, dozens.
This doesn’t make sense… The police arrest people they think have committed a crime. They don’t let a suspect go around free and untouched pending their investigation. Certainly not in cases of suspected murder.
They have to charge within a certain amount of time of arrest. If the suspect is not a flight risk, and is willing to be questioned without arrest, there is nothing to gain and quite a lot to lose by arresting before it’s necessary.
That’s ignoring the fact that an arrest could have been illegal.
Might not just be his opinion. It wouldn’t hurt to see the unedited interview. Remember the video showing a total lack of Zimmerman’s injuries which got everyone excited? As it turned out it was a low resolution video camera pointed at a monitor. The video camera moved, but the security monitor couldn’t move..
And the medical examiner’s opinion that Z’s injuries were “very insignificant”?
(Among others: google “Zimmerman injuries insignificant” and take your pick…)
Well if you consider that GZ is still alive and the ME’s job is to examine DEAD bodies by comparison the injuries were minor.
Well, son-of-a-gun! Just for funzies, I googled to see if Blightbart reported on that, and they did! its the one with zero comments.
I don’t agree with that logic at all. Someone does something wrong. We don’t know whether it was intentional evil or just a mistake, but in either case it reflects badly on them. Then they are caught and have a chance to make a really good apology (which presumably will draw more attention) or a crappy apology (in an attempt to just kind of let the issue slide away into page 8 news). They make a crappy apology. That doesn’t strike me as any new evidence as to whether it was a mistake or evil in the first place, because in either case, assuming these aren’t saints, they have an incentive to just pretend it never happened.
There’s certainly no definitive PROOF of anything. But there’s a middle possibility which I’m open to, which is a “let’s be more accepting of things that fit our narrative” type approach, in which certain types of reports would be more likely to be double checked than others, etc. The key difference here is that all of that can happen entirely unintentionally. I find it quite plausible that if we had some completely objective rating of the totality of NBC’s coverage of the Zimmerman/Martin case it would get a very low score for overall truth in reporting and a special red mark from the teacher for tending towards one interpretation of the facts. But that’s very very different from a conscious attempt to mislead or deceive.
That’s awfully vague. But I’m sure that if we got videotape (or the modern equivalent) of every second of coverage of the case on NBC (and possibly all of its affiliated organizations) there would be plenty of entire little segments in which nothing particularly slanted or objectionable was said. I mean, that has to be true purely by chance if nothing else.
That I think you’re racist? No.
Then explain how the first posts I made here (that I conveniently linked to for you) were in defence of a North African man falsely accused of killing white people.
Oh, you can’t, because you’re a fucking moron who doesn’t care about facts, just his own idiotic ideas. Have you met Stoid? You’d probably get along well.
I’m an atheist. I’m sure that an American jury would rule against me pretty much no matter what the evidence is. If some Californian version of Zimmerman killed me I’m sure the jury would find “evidence” that let the killer off the hook. Especially if he used a gun to kill me with.
Just not in Sanford., Fla Where a good negro in a dead negro.
Question was apparently to hard for you to parry. You are going on Z’s testimony alone. Again, explain the inconsistencies it in vs no possible rebuttal. Martin is dead after all --no can rebutt Z’s bullshit
How do you disprove Martin went looking for some Skittles, Ice tea & taking with his GF on his way back?
So, whose on trial here? Victim or murderer?
Us. We are on trial here.
The verdict is in, the brave young neighborhood watch captain…maybe not the brightest young neighborhood watch captain, seeing as he has to get out of his truck and go for a walk to find a street sign that will tell him where in the neighborhood he fucking is!..but still, protecting his neighborhood from a drugged up young thug in a hoodie. Protecting with extreme prejudice.
“Extreme prejudice” Ha! Kinda funny. Well, no, no it isn’t, a joke told with a smile through gritted teeth. A chagrin, if you will.
They called him a “white hispanic”. Does that count?
Your paranoia never ceases to amaze me, which is astonishing considering the extent to which I’ve learned to allow for it over the years. So you manage to make this all about your atheist martyrdom, rather than summon up the stones to say “You know, you’re right, juries should convict on evidence and not feelings” - or even admit that the quote didn’t say the juror thought Zee was guilty as you falsely claimed. Keep up the stellar work.
Neither. I’m sure if you try really hard you can spot your foolish mistake.
You positively delight in the death of this black teen. You remind me of one of those people you see in old photos of lynchings, standing under the body and grinning for the camera. Your a racist piece of shit and you are obsessed with this case.