So, what your saying is that, where the witnesses say anything about Zimmerman’s story, they support it? That’s what I’ve been saying. You’ve decided Zimmerman is lying despite the fact there’s no evidence he’s even wrong. That’s just silly.
Here’s a good New Yorker article on Trayvon Martin’s dilemma that night.
The author has a quote from Juror B37–whose blabber mouth I simply adore because its stupidly allowing some ugly truths to come out–that highlights the insanity that historians will undoubtedly be writing about decades from now. In reference to Trayvon Martin, she said:
(bolding mine)
So let us get this straight. She believes that George confronted the kid, and yet she blames the kid for causing himself to be shot. And wait a minute. Didn’t GZ deny confronting the kid? So not only does this mean she excused the actions of someone whose key testimony she considers false, but she afforded credibility to this liar’s claims that the kid attacked him. Even though none of it was corroborated by anyone else.
Why in holy hell would this juror assume that Trayvon, when approached by an unidentified armed stranger determined to keep him from “getting away”, have the means to simply walk away from the situation? Why would it not occur to her that if George was willing to get out of his truck to follow the kid, he was also willing to detain him until the cops arrived? And if the kid was detained, he would have been unable to walk away and his only defense would be to fight? Why did all the benefit of the doubt go to GZ and none of it go to the victim?
As much as I think the prosecution botched their case at trial, I don’t think they could have gotten a conviction even if they’d been perfect. Not with jurors like this one.
I would have preferred that LonsomePolecat had not been banned. I believe what he said is what most of Zimmerman’s defenders on this board feel and the fact that he was stupid enough to explicitly say it was refreshing.
During the trial, I seem to remember your generally offering laudatory comments about how the prosecution was doing. Your analysis constantly highlighted defense problems and shortcomings. This was in contrast to my analysis and the vast weight of legal commentators in the media, all of whom thought the prosecution was getting its ass kicked.
It’s certainly a surprise to hear that you actually thought the prosecution botched their case.
Which of your posts below best highlights the prosecution’s botching you now describe? Or perhaps I’m cherry-picking – can you point me to other of your posts during the trial that capture that “botching” sense a bit better than these?
Who gives a fuck – it’s just another fucking retarded US citizen of A getting killed by another dimwit citizen of the US of A – good thing it’s legal now that they can legally kill themselves.
I guess it’s ok to kill them here as well now, since they are apparently ok with it at home – better none of you gun blazing bible thumping fuck heads walks towards me here on the street – I might have to put you down, since you might ask me a question like: “Do you have AOL here?” and I feel my life, as I know it, is threatened.
I’d say, give everyone in the USA a gun – this whole USA situation will sort itself out – shortly.
Team America – Fuck Yeah!
USA! USA! USA!
P.S.: Yes, we do have AOL.com here aswell … and the @ button … yes the internet aswell … cars and stuff like the microwave …
Generally speaking if one person viciously beats another person causing injuries to them and doesn’t have any injuries themselves the cops will arrest them. Coming up with a silly story to handwave everything away would not be taken seriously, especially if it had no evidence backing it up.
Hmmm, that’s funny. I see no laudatory comments in anything that posted. Just criticisms of the defense. Sorry that you think me giving the State and the jury the benefit of the doubt until I had reason to judge them is akin to praising them.
It’s sad that you’re so invested in proving yourself to me, Bricker. You get a D-.
Leaving aside that Zimmerman was in fact the victim, Zimmerman got all the benefit of the doubt because he was on trial. That’s how it works. A trial is, of necessity, a deeply unfair, biased system in favour of the defendant. Such a system is necessary to protect all of us.
Nobody viciously beat anyone. Zimmerman had a couple of scratches on the back of his head and refused medical attention at least until the following day. Considering how many “alternative” media outlets have been insisting that Martin was a 6’+ tower of muscle, is it really implausible that Zimmerman started a fight and then proceeded to lose? I’m not saying that’s what happened, just that it is every bit as plausible as any other scenario.
Now, Evil Economist, if you’ll direct your attention to 0:27, you’ll see the car driven by the shooting victim pulls up directly behind the car driven by the defendant, and the man who would be shot seconds later leaps out of the driver’s side and charges towards the shooter.
Do you believe that characterizing this action as merely “approaching” the defendant was the best, most truthful, most accurate summary you could have made about these events?
Maybe you aren’t aware of this, but if the witness testimony is bearing out the prosecution theory, it’s because the prosecution is doing a good job. Hence, this:
[QUOTE=ywtf]
While the defense attacks inconsequential bullshit, what is obvious is that all the prosecution witnesses are corroborating each other stories. And most importantly, there are certain things NOT showing up in their testimoney as well.
[/QUOTE]
… appears at first blush to be a pat on the back. This one sounds like praise too:
I suspect that he didn’t read carefully and didn’t realize it was a quote from MLK, because it’s pretty silly to imply that the civil rights icon is racist against black people. So, I call him out…
You somehow interpret this to mean that I “think MLK would think that Z was justified in killing this boy who was doing nothing before Z started stalking him?”
This is completely out of nowhere and has nothing at all to back it up whatsoever in my posts. I didn’t bring the MLK quote into the thread and didn’t comment on it one way or the other. I didn’t speak at all to what MLK might or might not think about the Zimmerman trial.
I was just responding in surprise to fumster’s rather unusual interpretation of it as being offensive.
The clear inference from aldiboronti’s use of the quote- not from the quote itself, because King obviously wasn’t talking about Martin- is that Martin was at fault, because “hey, blacks commit a lot of crimes; just look what MLK said!” That is offensive. It’s no different than the idiots whooping about Martin rotting “like he deserves”.
Ooooh, there was a moment in the trial in which I didn’t trash the prosecution and actually said they had some advantages over O’Mara and West. Burn me at the stake!
The prosecution can’t make an unsophisticated witness suddenly turn into a diamond. There was no getting around Rachel or the ME; both had to take the stand and both had their own personalities. Is this the prosecution’s fault? No. It’s like blaming the defense for having an ugly liar for a client.