How would it hit a nerve if I didn’t comprehend it? Are you claiming you hit a nerve by mistake when I misunderstood your post? You are still making no sense.
Who gives a shit about anything Zimmerman says? He LIED under oath. ANYTHING this guy says lacks any credibility whatsoever.
http://gawker.com/5915713/george-zimmermans-lawyer-admits-his-client-lied-about-his-finances
And you were saying he never lied as you"re aware? Pathetic.
Was he under oath?
Seems to me you are saying things that aren’t true, also. First we had to misleading testimony summary in which you concealed the fact that the witness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman, and now we have this claim that Zimmerman lied “under oath,” when he wasn’t under oath.
So what about it? Should we also conclude that now, anything you say lacks credibility? Or should we give you a break because you weren’t under oath?
What’s good for the goose…
Jesus Christ, talk about narcissism of small differences. Bricker, unlike most of the other monsters here, I sincerely believe you possess the intelligence and the intuition to realize what the poster meant. For most people, if you’re caught in a bare-faced lie, it degrades your credibility in the future, regardless if you’re telling the truth. This is a distinctly human phenomena, although if you lack the neural software for empathy and intuition (an epidemic on this message board), you may be hopelessly lost on that point, and if that’s the case, you have my deepest sympathies.
- Honesty
Certainly true.
No, I agree with you. My problem is that this rule – being caught in a bare-faced lie decreasing one’s credibility – is not being applied uniformly.
The same poster that rails against Zimmerman’s lack of candor has also posted things that were deceptive. Does the same rule apply?
I have not been deceptive, YOU just want to read what YOU want to read, regardless of the problems with the testimony and the fact that we don’t have a 16 years and 28 days old boy to tell his side of the story.
Are you arguing they would have the same probative value?
Really? Last I heard they already have that. Wanna try again? What we need is to stop giving preferential treatment based on race.
Sure you were. Again, here is how you summarized the eyewitness testimony:
But here’s what the eyewitness actually said:
That’s deceptive. Your summary of the eyewitness testimony would have the reader believe there was no clear identification of Martin or Zimmerman, or any sense of who was on top. But the actual testimony both identifies Martin and Zimmerman by their clothes and skin, and shows Martin on top.
You deliberately shaded that aspect of the testimony. That’s deceptive.
Isn’t it?
\Fuck that. It’s not deceptive when there’s testimony out there that says Trayvon said “get off” You’re simply trying to justify crappy evidence from the defense.
Not even a nice try. The testimony that Martin said “get off” didn’t come from an eyewitness, did it?
And so we know that’s not what you meant. Because you said:
See how we know you weren’t talking about “Get off?” Because you are talking about an eyewitness and what was seen. You say “he” rather than “she,” and the witness who heard “Get off,” was a woman, not a man.
See how tough it is to sustain an untruth? There’s always a detail to trip you up.
Why not just admit it? Everyone reading this already knows.
I will admit it at the outset. I paid relatively little attention to this case and didn’t watch a single minute of the trial. I have gleaned what little I know from friends’ Facebook posts and a few articles I perused online. My ignorance of the matter thereby trumpeted beforehand, I do have one or two things to say.
The facts of this case cannot be well-established. Only one of the participants in the fight can testify as to what happened (which he chose not to do in court), and most of the witness testimony is murky at best. In the absence of concrete facts and verifiable evidence, we are left to fill in the blanks as best as we can.
In short, each individual person’s opinion of the case (particularly regarding Zimmerman’s motives, the fairness of the legal process, and the grounds upon which the verdict was made) is, I think, more a barometer of his/her own experiences and expectations than an a dispassionate examination of what actually happened.
If you expect the continued oppression of minorities at the hands of The Man, you will see Trayvon as an innocent victim and Zimmerman as a racist murderer.
If you place faith in the court system and the rule of law, you will be more likely to give Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt and accept that he acted in self-defense.
And ne’er the twain shall meet, methinks.
No, thank you, I dont want to " try again"..you have your head somewhere in the clouds the fact you dont think there is a huge inequality going on. Dream on…
You suffer from, what I call, the black comedian syndrome. One could also call it the Chris Rock paradox. Or, in other context, the civil rights smoke screen.
Listen to that dumb ass Chris Rock (and almost EVERY other black comedian) perform his stand up act. That bastard whines about “racism”. Yet nearly every damn joke he spews is… wait for it… Racist! Every dam thing he says is about “white people this” and “black people that”. Is there ANY black comedian - besides Bill Cosby - whose act isn’t entire propped up with racism?
And these so-called “civil rights” leaders. What a fuckin’ joke. These pricks are the ones perpetuation racism at every damn opportunity they get. And what about all these special programs, TV stations and so on that cater to blacks.
It is you, Sir or ma’am, who needs to extract their head from their colon. As long as people play the race card, there will always be this fake, self-perpetuated racism for people like you to laud as valid.
Now quit crying wolf. You’re only fueling the “problem”.
You live in a parallel reality if you dont understand that black people do not receive the same or even similar treatment by the justice system. You are free to believe anything you want, but there isnt any point to me trying to prove racism is a serious problem.
I agree and realize that the phenomena exists. But the alluding to and actual occurrences aren’t always attributed to the correct person or entity. And it doesn’t belong at all in this case. The people denouncing the racism going on are likely the very same ones it’s originating from.
Cry racism and you suddenly have an advantage, however slight or great that advantage may be. Invoking and using race as an excuse or validation is racism. And that’s all this has become. If we could stop bickering about the “black boy” and look only at the case…
Anyway, my point is simply that this has nothing to do with race. So people need to holster the hammed up racism talk. It’s nothing more than a self-perpetuating diversion.
Fyi-- Tm has no advantage. Nobody in this case has an advantage except the defendant who was given a pass because hes white, or close enough…thats the whole point why we need to fight for civil rights.
I disagree with your premise that there’s a line drawn in the sand. There are plenty of court cases worthy of derision that would garner mutual consent. This one was polarizing for no particularly good reason beyond the need for a couple of people to get some camera time. I think it’s just difficult for some people to get beyond the original narrative and examine the evidence.
I would truly love some evidence that nails Zimmerman to the wall. It would save us a lot of unnecessary grief. But as it stands now, there isn’t any.