My rhetorical briefcase is filled with shredded newpapers and ad hominems.
How do we keep insisting that? How do you know what we think your claims are? How are we using “any new fact”? What facts? What makes you think you know what our preconceived ideas are? What’s your evidence that we think you have preconceived ideas? Who are “we”? Why are you lumping us in with US? When did we say we agreed with ourselves? What is the sound of one hand fapping? Who are you and what have you done with Rand Rover?
Hey, that is pretty exhilarating. No wonder you do it!
We can"t all be as pure as Rand Rover, whose ideas are never sullied with facts.
Why can’t you guys see that Zimmerman wouldn’t have had any blood on himself because of the sheer physics of the situation. It would be PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for Zimmerman to have blood on him based upon the angles. Zimmerman was 5-9 and Trayvon was 6-3. Trayvon would have had to squat down in order to thrust in the manner described and that would have been enourmous pressure upon his calves and thighs. It’s not possible to have done that reliably.
Ender, are you serious? That’s fucking ridiculous.
It’s a reference to a comment made in the Paterno thread.
Parody of Starkers. A joke. It’s a human thing, you wouldn’t understand.
I’m a big fan of not letting the media coverage replace evidence but this video is pretty damning.
There’s a couple clear shots of the back of his head and there are no marks at all and his hair is short enough that they would show. His face, jacket and shirt also show no signs of any bleeding, bruising, cuts etc. I would expect if he was beaten to the point of fearing for his life there would at least be a small scratch or two.
It’s not ridiculous. Give it a try yourself with a little experiment. Line up 100 black men in a row. You can use various heights if you want. Now have each of them punch you in the face and record the amount of effort it takes them to do so. I think you’ll see that what’s being claimed of Trayvon is physically impossible.
What’s more likely is that Zimmerman was playing an innocent game of “hide the Skittles” and things got a little out of hand.
I mentioned something about this in the other thread.
What may have happened here is that the PD and the prosecutor’s office, under normal circumstance, will never contradict each other in public. The reason for this is obvious; if they publically complain about each other’s decisions it would become an awful, embarassing pissing match on a weekly basis, and careers would fall apart. They can’t stab each other in the back every time someone talks to the press; you couldn’t have a working relationship that way. So Lee’s default position when dealing with the press - the default position of every police chief in America - will be to tell the press “Yup, that’s the decision and we’re stickin’ to it” and not much else. Note that even then Lee went about as far as he could go without contradicting the prosecutor; remember the Sanford PD’s weird emphasis on “state law says we couldn’t arrest Zimmerman” or words to that effect.
But that’s under normal circumstances. There are NOT normal circumstances; this affair has exploded into a national controversy. Now the Sanford PD is under heavy artillery fire and their chief was thrown under the bus. (How would you like to be an ordinary, well-meaning Sanford PD cop today?) So someone in the department, or maybe all of them, are probably thinking at this point, “Fuck the prosecutor. Fuck him and fuck the horse he rode in on. If we’re going down in flames that bastard’s coming with us.” No point sticking to the party line now, is there?
Ok. I thought there was some chance ender. Was setting me up for a gotcha (ie, “see, someone said something ridiculous in Z’s support and rand said nothing!”).
Right. 'Cause it’d take someone else’s stupid argument to make you look bad.
Men in white sheets could set a black baby on fire, and Randy would attempt to find some way to justify it, masked as a complaint about hypocritical liberals. This is a fact.
Incompetence I can believe. But a conspiracy involving dozens of police and paramedics which sprung up in an instance to protect a random asshole which would risk the conspirators careers and possibly their freedom?
If the police want to hide that they acted negligently and incompetently, the only way they’re going pull that off is through a cover-up conspiracy. So the concepts aren’t mutually exclusive.
Agreed. Incompetence (and the oft resultant scramble to hide it) is far more common than institutionalized malignance.
I know a fair number of cops. They’re people, with a hard job that often places them in opposition to public ‘perception’. Not a one of them would be involved in a situation like this of their own accord. However, several of them have been put in similiar circumstances through bureaucratic, political or public idiocy.
BTW, thanks to Loach and pkbites et al here on the boards. You guys are underappreciated in general.
Or they’re just plain incompetent. Or one guy’s a liar. I mean, it only takes one person to exaggerate a report and another guy to say “meh, okay.”
Um, wow. I’ll give you an opportunity to take that back before completely changing my opinion of you. Nothing I have said justifies that.
Shit, I didn’t think it was possible to over-do it when it comes to RR. Now somebody will have to defend him! It’s Vinny’s turn. I’m pretty sure about that.
True. And it might be “honest” incompetence (yes, I know that sounds strange) as opposed to lazy incompetence. Sandford has a population of about 50 thousand people, I think. How many homicides would the police department of a town that size be dealing with every year?
You get good at doing things you practice often. I doubt the Sanford PD has a lot of practice in dealing with homicide cases in general, much less as tricky a case as this one. This doesn’t excuse their failings in this case, but may well explain them.