Accusing someone of being in a lynch mob is uncalled for. Lynch mobs are a dark part of U.S. history and constantly insinuating that those that don’t agree with you are members of a lynch mob is offensive and out of line.
Lynch mobs murdered people for who they were. You get so outraged that anyone would think that George Zimmerman might be guilty of manslaughter for his reckless decisions, but you’ll casually and repeatedly call anyone that disagrees with you a racist murderer.
Nice double standard. Kinda shows your true colors I think.
Hahahaha. Lynch mobs don’t require proof. Questioning the unproven statements of a witness is just that, questioning unproven statements.
I haven’t called anyone a racist murderer. Lynch mobs exist and are actively trying to spin unproven statements into proof that Zimmerman is a cold-blooded murderer. The facts are the facts and both sides will present their side in court. It will be up to each member of the jury to decide who and what they believe and then they will have to convince the other jury members, if it comes to that.
The New Black Panther party offered an $10,000 reward for the kidnapping or murder (dead or alive) of Zimmerman. Spike Lee distributed the address of the wrong Zimmerman hoping a member of the lynch mob would settle this case BEFORE it ever sees the inside of a courtroom. NBC/MSNBC allowed their spokesmodel, Sharpton, to lead lynch mobs thru the streets demanding justice when neither NBC/MSNBC, Sharpton, or the lynch mobs had any facts.
OK cool, so anyone that disagrees with you is Al Sharpton and/or part of the black panthers? How does any of that have to do with anyone debating with you in this thread. Face it, you have looped everyone that disagrees with your viewpoint in together and are calling us all a lynch mob. That is not ok. People are allowed to disagree with you you know. Doesn’t make us racist murderers does it? Do you think this sort of broad brush horseshit is making anyone see your side of things? Who do you think you are convincing here?
Also, a group marching in protest of a seemingly corrupt police department is not a lynch mob. Saying that it is damages your credibility. (whatever you may have left anyway) Did this protest march murder anyone? Any ropes present at all?
and you did call him a lynch mob member:
“Do you care? Lynch mobs don’t requre proof, just a rope.”
Indirect, so probably not warning worthy, but you are certainly insinuating that he is in a lynch mob by asking him a direct question and then answering it for him by stating that he doesn’t care because he is part of a lynch mob.
So again, in your world, you can call those that disagree with you whatever inflammatory thing that you want, but we are not allowed to say that Zimmerman acted recklessly and may be guilty of manslaughter as a result. That is out of bounds, right? Completely inappropriate, huh?
I don’t think at 7 or 8 years someone is old enough to “molest” anyone, much less someone of roughly the same age.
At no time during her “revelations” did she mention violence or threats of violence from Zimmerman of any way, shape or kind. Absolutely none. In fact, all she says he did was tell her to tell adults they were just playing hide and seek. Which is what she does.
I don’t think someone, at the age of 16, would accept their scary “abuser’s” invitation to come over and visit, much less lie down for a “massage” from them.
A credible witness account of actions consistent with coercion, intimidation, threats, or force helps. Based on her testimony it appears that, at the very worst, she was a reluctant, but willing participant who later felt ashamed of her actions.
Do you know where the family “confrontation” took place at? A public restaurant.
I’m not too impressed with the prosecution’s tactics of character assassination. The prosecution has proven that Zimmerman is not a saint. Slow, deliberate, sarcastic applause My tax money well spent.
Still, I would love for the prosecution to present a “witness” that actually witnessed something germane to their murder charges against him.
I think you can handwave away 'playing doctor at 8yrs old. Maybe. I think you can no longer handwave it away by age 10 or so.
Yeah, because obviously any sexual abuse that’s not at gunpoint clearly isn’t abuse. Why, those Sandusky kids never mentioned threats of violence, those bastards - they probably actually *enjoyed *it!
At first, I thought the prosecutors knew they didn’t have a case, and were merely going through the motions due to political pressure.
Now, it’s starting to look like the prosecutors are trying to win by using character assassination to taint the jury pool. This could easily end up like the Duke Lacrosse case, with prosecutors being disbarred for misconduct.
I’m not preventing you from presenting your case or saying anything for that matter. Your claim appears to be a misdirection intended to avoid that fact that no one has backed up W9 “claims”. I question the witnesses who didn’t witness anything. I question those who accept the non-witness witnesses statement as fact.
Florida police are not going to investigate claims that didn’t occur in Florida. W9’s parents can still come forward to veryfy that W9 had previously “mentioned” her being molested. Is it considered normal to invite your childs molester to dinner? Were her parents only trying to get to “the truth” of the matter? Did a dinner even take place?
Lynch mobs don’t believe in the rule of law. Lynch mobs don’t require court rooms. Lynch mobs repeat “stories” they’ve heard in order to inflame the lynch mob. In lynch mobs, the first lie only begats other lies until the lynch mob reaches a frenzy.
I still think tainting the jury pool is a futile endeavor. I know too many people, even college graduates, who pay no attention to the news. If they find a jury to acquit Casey Anthony, then they can find a jury for George Zimmerman.
Sandusky was quite a bit older than the kids though wasn’t he? And he was in a position of authority over them, right? And the kids weren’t 16 years old driving over to Sandusky’s house for a massage, right? The situation is just a little bit different I think.
This witness contacted the prosecutor, so that is outside of their control. You don’t hang up on someone that calls and says that they have information on a case. Once its on record, it is part of the case files, whether its good or bad information about Zimmerman. Also, Florida’s sunshine laws are so strong that almost every possible piece of information about a case is released to the public and to the media. This is the law of the state, so if you don’t like it, then I suggest you lobby to get it changed. Again, out of the control of the prosecutor. In fact, the prosecution tried to prevent this from being released, whether you believe it was genuine or not, it is a matter of record.
So the prosecutor did not release this purposely to taint Zimmerman’s character and/or the potential jury pool. They had no say at all in its release.
So how about we hold off on the calls for prosecutorial misconduct charges for a bit, at least until we, you know, actually have a trial, and until there’s something done that is actually under the control of the prosecutor that is unethical?
It doesn’t matter how many times you use the phrase either.
Maybe you should get a thesaurus.
At this point I’d like to officially request that you stop repeatedly insinuating that I and any other posters in this thread are members of a lynch mob. It is inflammatory and counter to having a productive conversation. If you don’t understand why being called a member of a lynch mob is offensive I’d suggest you at least read the wikipedia article on lynching so you might gain some insight into this.
Moving forward, if you continue to imply that everyone that disagrees with you is part of a lynch mob, and throw the phrase around a dozen times a post, I will just assume that you are not taking this seriously and only posting here to inflame the discussion and get reactions out of people. This sort of thing is beneath the standards of this board in my opinion.
The prosecutor could have admitted that it was irrelevant and then it wouldn’t have been included as discovery that had to be released to the media. Instead, the prosecution argued that it was. They also decided to release the evidence even though the defense had filed a motion to stop it’s release pending Lester’s decision re: recusal.
Just a few selections from the guy accusing someone of saying things “inflammatory and counter to having a productive conversation” or “beneath the standards of this board”.
I have no idea if you are a member of a lynch mob. I consider NBC/MSNBC and ABC deliberately altering video and audio to prove that Zimmerman was a racist is the action of a lynch mob mentality. I consider Sharpton and Spike Lee’s claims and actions to be that of a lynch mob. I consider the people who raided stores to steal Skittles and “Ice Tea” (why didn’t they steal Watermellon drink? Martin wasn’t carrying “Ice Tea”.) to participate in their protests as the actions of a lynch mob. Lynch mobs exist.
Lynch mobs don’t believe that anyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
You are engaging in demonizing your opponents with this constant lynch mob refrain.
I’m expressing a strong difference of opinions. My tone was to imply just how far apart our opinions are. Not to call you a monster. Which is what people who lynch other people are.
Where did I demonize you or anyone else in any post?
Was he convicted of the crime of lynching? How many years did he get for that crime?
Are you saying that lynch mobs exist in our current culture? Are lynch mobs actually out to get George Zimmerman right now? How many, approximately, are currently hunting down Zimmerman to murder him in the night?
Do you think it helps or hurts the discussion when someone constantly demonizes everyone who disagrees with them? Does that advance the conversation? If so, in a good direction, or bad one?