Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

Zimmerman's Head


Recommended Posts

Vapor (I think) was right about that security camera video - it wasn't sharp enough to pick up the cuts on Zimmerman's head that had been cleaned up by paramedics.

 

Of course, we already knew there was a scuffle, and the prosecution has seen these photos and felt they could charge Zimmerman anyway, so there's not too much new here. But the picture does back up Zimmerman's story. Whether that's enough, we'll see.

 

But the way the law is written, and since the other guy is dead and there were no witnesses to the scuffle, I don't see a way a jury convicts this guy of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vapor (I think) was right about that security camera video - it wasn't sharp enough to pick up the cuts on Zimmerman's head that had been cleaned up by paramedics.

 

Of course, we already knew there was a scuffle, and the prosecution has seen these photos and felt they could charge Zimmerman anyway, so there's not too much new here. But the picture does back up Zimmerman's story. Whether that's enough, we'll see.

 

But the way the law is written, and since the other guy is dead and there were no witnesses to the scuffle, I don't see a way a jury convicts this guy of anything.

 

IMHO, a scuffle doesn't justify killing anybody.

 

On the other hand, nobody will ever really know what on that evening.

 

Zimmerman is no hero - not that many people believe he is.

 

On the other hand, Martin wasn't a saint.

 

Sad situation.

 

Nobody wins

 

Obama, Jackson, Sharpton - even my wife's Minister - should have kept their big mouths shut.

 

No heros. Lots of goats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vapor (I think) was right about that security camera video - it wasn't sharp enough to pick up the cuts on Zimmerman's head that had been cleaned up by paramedics.

 

Of course, we already knew there was a scuffle, and the prosecution has seen these photos and felt they could charge Zimmerman anyway, so there's not too much new here. But the picture does back up Zimmerman's story. Whether that's enough, we'll see.

 

But the way the law is written, and since the other guy is dead and there were no witnesses to the scuffle, I don't see a way a jury convicts this guy of anything.

 

I watched a lot of the bail hearing this morning and I feel the same way.

I'm wondering do you think the prosecution deliberately p over charged?

 

Neither the prosecution nor defense deny that there was was an altercation.

 

Also given the political implications are you surprised at the lenitent bail?

 

WSS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMHO, a scuffle doesn't justify killing anybody.

 

On the other hand, nobody will ever really know what on that evening.

 

Zimmerman is no hero - not that many people believe he is.

 

On the other hand, Martin wasn't a saint.

 

Sad situation.

 

Nobody wins

 

Obama, Jackson, Sharpton - even my wife's Minister - should have kept their big mouths shut.

 

No heros. Lots of goats.

 

John, what did Obama say that upset you so much? He said that if he had a kid that he'd look like Trayvon and that we should get to the bottom of what happened. What's so awful about that? What did that do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, what did Obama say that upset you so much? He said that if he had a kid that he'd look like Trayvon and that we should get to the bottom of what happened. What's so awful about that? What did that do?

 

Similar to what happened with that guy in Cambridge, the President of the United States made public comments about a local case that he knew virtually nothing about at the time.

 

This time, he took time out to rush to judgment on another case that local authorities had control and jurisdiction.

 

Then his Attorney General sticks his nose into this and comments about a possible Federal Probe.

 

What did this do????????????? It sent the likes of Jackson and Sharpton to FL and inflamed the NBP.

 

There is no question in my mind that Obama's comments were intended to create a wave of news that might just fan the flames of his reelection campaign.

 

When was the last time Obama made public comments about local law enforcement issues for a Honkey?

 

Do you believe somebody at his position and with his educational background should have got involved?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Similar to what happened with that guy in Cambridge, the President of the United States made public comments about a local case that he knew virtually nothing about at the time.

 

This time, he took time out to rush to judgment on another case that local authorities had control and jurisdiction.

 

Then his Attorney General sticks his nose into this and comments about a possible Federal Probe.

 

What did this do????????????? It sent the likes of Jackson and Sharpton to FL and inflamed the NBP.

 

There is no question in my mind that Obama's comments were intended to create a wave of news that might just fan the flames of his reelection campaign.

 

When was the last time Obama made public comments about local law enforcement issues for a Honkey?

 

Do you believe somebody at his position and with his educational background should have got involved?

 

Sure. He's the president. It was the most talked about news story in the country, and people were asking him about it at a news conference. He said little to nothing. I don't consider what he said "getting involved" or "fanning the flames." I suppose he could have said, "Let the process run its course," but I don't need him to do that.

 

As for the Department of Justice looking into ia criminal matter, I don't know why that would be weird - that's what the DOJ does.

 

And to say that this "sent the likes of Jackson and Sharpton to FL and inflamed the NBP" is bizarre. No, it didn't. The fact that a unarmed black kid got shot, and the guy who shot him wasn't arrested did that.

 

And let's get a grip on the NBP. There are about 8 of them in Sanford, and they're not scary. You really don't have to worry about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose he could have said, "Let the process run its course," but I don't need him to do that.>>

 

That would have been the proper response - especially from the President and Law School Graduate.

 

Maybe the kid was a punk. Maybe not. Maybe Zimmerman dreamed about such a scenario. Maybe not.

 

I'm not worried about NBPs, nor do I worry about Jackson or Sharpton. They are comical figures, IMHO. However the media tends to give them credibility.

 

How about that guy in your backyard of Cambridge? Rushed to judgment on that too.

 

Any way, we can agree to disagree. Neither of us will lose sleep about this.

 

 

Hey, maybe Obama could have said something like these questions are inappropriate and I choose not to comment. How would that play in Roxbury?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No it was me not vapor. Because you were wrong though and I was right I'm sure you'd love to attribute it to your ally.

 

You're right. It was you. I wasn't sure it was Vapor, which is why I wrote (I think) but I could have gone back and checked and found out that it was you.

 

See? Wasn't that easy?

 

But you should also know that I'm not reluctant to credit you with being right about something simply because we've been disagreeing on something else. That's not hard for me to do at all. You, on the other hand, seem to have a really hard time being sensible while you're angry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suppose he could have said, "Let the process run its course," but I don't need him to do that.>>

 

That would have been the proper response - especially from the President and Law School Graduate.

 

Maybe the kid was a punk. Maybe not. Maybe Zimmerman dreamed about such a scenario. Maybe not.

 

I'm not worried about NBPs, nor do I worry about Jackson or Sharpton. They are comical figures, IMHO. However the media tends to give them credibility.

 

How about that guy in your backyard of Cambridge? Rushed to judgment on that too.

 

Any way, we can agree to disagree. Neither of us will lose sleep about this.

 

 

Hey, maybe Obama could have said something like these questions are inappropriate and I choose not to comment. How would that play in Roxbury?

 

So in one thread all blacks vote for Obama because he's black. In this thread Obama has to say "inflammatory" things about the Martin case in order to get backs to vote for him. Neither are true.

 

But I just disagree with you. These questions aren't inappropriate for the press to ask. When someone asks the president about the biggest story in the news, the one that's captivating America, I don't mind that he expresses some sympathy for the parents - hell, Zimmerman did that today, however calculated it was - and then says that we need to get to the bottom of what happened. I think the reaction to his comments - as if they were somehow beyond the pale - says far more about the president's critics than it does about him or what he said.

 

I'm just saying. I think you're overreacting to the content of his remarks, which were rather benign. And you're also vastly overstating the effect that they had on the case.

 

Also, if Zimmerman is cleared, and people are pissed, especially in the black community, I can almost guarantee you that Obama will say that he understands the frustration, but that we need to respect the jury's decision, and then appeal for calm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right. It was you. I wasn't sure it was Vapor, but I could have gone back and checked and found out that it was you.

 

See? Wasn't that easy?

 

Um...no. let's forget that you were ready to fry zimmerman over that tape, and that you patronizingly told me, that the video clearly showed there was nothing wrong with him at all, even after I was able to point out a dozen reasons you were wrong, and ask do you believe it was murder 1 now? Do you?

 

Now tell me I was right, bitch, and you're wrong. I want to hear you say you were wrong about the tape. Uh, ok?

 

How's that feel? That make for a good conversation for you? Or is it just me being an asshole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, here's what I wrote:

 

"This guy claims he was beaten so badly he feared for his life, and that's why he had to shot and kill a teen. The fact that this video gives no indication whatsoever that this occurred doesn't prove anything, but suggests quite a lot. It suggests that his injuries - if he even has any - might have been so insignificant that they can't be seen on a security camera video. It suggests that there may not be any truth to his story unless he can produce other evidence that he really was violently accosted.

 

Or let's put it this way: which side of this case do you think would show that video in a courtroom, his defense team, or the prosecution?

 

So let's hear from these medics on the scene who treated all of Zimmernan's injuries. Let's see the photos that the police surely would have taken at the station.

 

Where are these injuries?"

 

 

And I wrote this: "Unless Zimmerman or the police can produce pictures and testimony that he'd been cleaned up and that explains why you can't see any evidence on this tape, this is pretty devastating video, and the prosecution would surely have it at its disposal."

 

 

And I wrote this: "I will yield (somewhat) to your apparent knowledge of closed circuit video cameras. Your knowledge of the rules of evidence? Not so much.

 

This is the best evidence yet that Zimmerman's story may not be true. Now add it to the story about how the lead prosecutor didn't believe Zimmeran's story either. And then you get to see where this prosecution would go - that Zimmerman isn't telling the truth, and that there's no evidence of the confrontation he says occured.

 

Another clue you should think about: What is Zimmerman's story? That he was hit only once, "with a single punch", and the rest of it was him being bashed into the pavement. Why might they go with this story? Because they've got Trayvon's body. And if he were hitting him over and over again, Trayvon would have marks and bruises on his hands.

 

So show me the marks on your head, where it was repeatedly bashed into the pavement. Because we can't see them on the video."

 

 

So, clearly, that's me saying this video, while not dispositive, was a great piece of evidence if the defense could produce no other evidence that he had these injuries. It's hardly me saying that "zimmerman needs to fry."

 

As far as you knowing that security cameras aren't precise enough to pick up treated injuries like that, that's the kind of actual information we rarely get in this forum, and I'm glad you supplied it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you admit the video means nothing as you refused to say after I proved to you why that was indeed true? Is it so hard to say "I'm wrong, the video is not the damning evidence I thought it was? Maybe I'm not as smart as I think I am?"

 

No, no and no. You implied he should be convicted on that evidence. See how I'm able to put those words in your mouth and then keep doing it, like a douchebag, until you admit what I KNOW, you think, because I know you so well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, no. i said, and just re-posted, how I thought the video would be damning evidence if the defense could produce no other evidence of injuries. It was the earliest evidence we had - though not proof - that he wasn't substantially injured. in other words, that evidence did not prove his story; it suggested the opposite was true, and that he wasn't substantially harmed. Which is why I wrote, "let's hear from these medics on the scene who treated all of Zimmernan's injuries. Let's see the photos that the police surely would have taken at the station."

 

I know you think you've got me here, but you don't. Clearly, I'm saying it's evidence, but it's not dispositive, and only suggests what might have happened, and that we need more evidence.

 

However, you were certainly right that the video wasn't detailed or crisp enough to see the type of injuries that he apparently suffered.

 

But this is funny because the implication in all of this is that you are wrong in the other thread and you just don't like me pressing you to admit that you were wrong, so you're going to badger me in this one. Well, go ahead if that makes you feel better about being so drastically wrong in the other thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh...No, no no. you're the one that's wrong. About the video evidence and about presuming to know what I think. You don't know what anyone thinks but yourself. How you can claim that you do and think yourself right is about the most asinine thing I've ever heard a human being say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okey dokey.

Do you get my point now, or should I continue to hound you about exactly how wrong you were about this video evidence, until you're fucking sick of it and ready to punch me in the face? You couldn't though because you're just a little wannabe know it all punk ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>So in one thread all blacks vote for Obama because he's black. In this thread Obama has to say "inflammatory" things about the Martin case in order to get backs to vote for him. Neither are true.>>

 

I never said what you said I said.

 

This is what I said: "What did this do? It sent the likes of Jackson and Sharpton to FL and inflamed the NBP.

 

There is no question in my mind that Obama's comments were intended to create a wave of news that might just fan the flames of his reelection campaign>>.

 

It is clear that Obama's supporters come from the ranks of the progressives, liberals and - especially - women. Do you not believe that folks falling into these categories didn't jump right on the 'he was killed simply because he was black' bandwagon.

 

It is YOU, my friend, who - apparently - Blacks vote for Obama only because he is Black, or part thereof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>So in one thread all blacks vote for Obama because he's black. In this thread Obama has to say "inflammatory" things about the Martin case in order to get backs to vote for him. Neither are true.>>

 

I never said what you said I said.

 

This is what I said: "What did this do????????????? It sent the likes of Jackson and Sharpton to FL and inflamed the NBP.

 

There is no question in my mind that Obama's comments were intended to create a wave of news that might just fan the flames of his reelection campaign>>.

 

It is clear that Obama's supporters come from the ranks of the progressives, liberals and - especially - women. Do you not believe that folks falling into these categories didn't jump right on the 'he was killed simply because he was black' bandwagon.

 

It is YOU, my friend, who - apparently - Blacks vote for Obama only because he is Black, or part thereof.

 

Oh not at all heck is a mind reader. He'll put words in your mouth and then badger you to the death about them. That's how he thinks he 'wins' arguements. And anyway he's talking about me. I said black people voted for Obama because hes black and I still stand by that assertion. Trouble is, he's putting words in my mouth again. I never said "all" black people did. Just "black people" that could be two or two million.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, man. Internet chat room bluster isn't exactly intimidating. It just makes me laugh. So you might as well save it. Or at least save me the cartoons about how I take this too seriously right before you threaten to E-punch me somehow. I mean, seriously. Calm down.

 

And hey, I don't give a shit what you do. But whatever you choose to do won't make me "sick", because, unlike you, I know when I'm right and when I'm wrong. So I'm happy to admit that you know more about the accuracy of closed circuit cameras than I do, and I was happy to admit it at the time. That's why I said, "I'll defer to you on this" but disagreed with you that it would be a big piece of evidence if there was no evidence that trumped it. So, I'm fine with what I wrote. I even mentioned your posts to people i work with and told them that they might not want to get ahead of this because I'd heard from someone who knew that security cameras aren't all that good with detail.

 

So, the most I'm guilty of was placing more stock in the video evidence than I should have, and I'm happy to admit that. Because I'm not reacting to this like a roided-out teenager. I'm just someone who gets a little sick of all the bullshit that gets passed off as information in here. And you tried to pass of some level nine bullshit, and you got called on it. And then you couldn't admit you were wrong, and you still can't. So, what do you want me to do about it? If you think you can call me a "punk ass" and I'm going to roll over and think you're right, that's probably not going to happen.

 

So, take as long as you want. Really. And thanks for the insight on closed circuit video cameras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>So in one thread all blacks vote for Obama because he's black. In this thread Obama has to say "inflammatory" things about the Martin case in order to get backs to vote for him. Neither are true.>>

 

I never said what you said I said.

 

This is what I said: "What did this do????????????? It sent the likes of Jackson and Sharpton to FL and inflamed the NBP.

 

There is no question in my mind that Obama's comments were intended to create a wave of news that might just fan the flames of his reelection campaign>>.

 

It is clear that Obama's supporters come from the ranks of the progressives, liberals and - especially - women. Do you not believe that folks falling into these categories didn't jump right on the 'he was killed simply because he was black' bandwagon.

 

It is YOU, my friend, who - apparently - Blacks vote for Obama only because he is Black, or part thereof.

 

I know you didn't say that, John. I didn't mean to suggest that you did. I was just pointing out that there is zero room left in between those two positions, both of which I don't think are true, for what I believe is actually true.

 

I think Obama, as a politician, made those comments to acknowledge the questions people had about the case, and urge officials to get to the bottom of it. That's what lots of people wanted. I don't think this was some big incendiary speech that divided the nation somehow. I also don't think it was something his political team all got together on and crafted a message to be part of some sort of re-election strategy. The people who hate Obama will use just about anything he says to continue hating him, and I think that explains about 90% of the reaction to his comments about the Martin case.

 

If you wanted him to say nothing more than, "I don't have any comment" or "Let the process play out" then that's fine, but I expect a little more communication from the president than that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh not at all heck is a mind reader. He'll put words in your mouth and then badger you to the death about them. That's how he thinks he 'wins' arguements. And anyway he's talking about me. I said black people voted for Obama because hes black and I still stand by that assertion. Trouble is, he's putting words in my mouth again. I never said "all" black people did. Just "black people" that could be two or two million.

 

 

Well, let's go to the tape. See, this is my problem with what you're doing. You type things that clearly mean one thing, and then pretend you never typed it. You make one case, and then when you get called on it you say you didn't make that case, but made another. You did it in the other thread, and now you're doing it here. And that I'm putting words in your mouth. Well, let's look at the words that came out of your mouth.

 

You never said all black people, huh? Just that "black people" did, and that could be two or two million? Hmm. I seem to remember you saying this:

 

"nearly every black person that voted DID vote for Obama, ONLY because hes black. I'm not being sarcastic, I really believe that is the truth."

 

And this: " I have my theory and you have yours. If mine assumes every black votes solely on the basis if race. Yours assumes they only vote solely on loyalty to a single party affiliation.

 

And this: "There's never been an election where black people had the option to vote for a realistic black president. Ever. To deny that they voted for someone they view as like and for them is ridiculous. Laughable. Put yourself in their shoes. Of course they did. Of course."

 

And this: "if you think the blacks didn't vote for barack Obama because he was black you're fucking stupid."

 

And this: "If you think any black people were going to miss a realistic chance to get one of thier own into the white house regardless of party affiliation, I assert you couldn't be more wrong."

 

 

Certainly sounds like you're saying "nearly every black person that voted DID vote for Obama, ONLY because hes black." In fact, it doesn't sound like you said that, you did say that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, let's go to the tape. See, this is my problem with what you're doing. You type things that clearly mean one thing, and then pretend you never typed it. You make one case, and then when you get called on it you say you didn't make that case, but made another. You did it in the other thread, and now you're doing it here. And that I'm putting words in your mouth. Well, let's look at the words that came out of your mouth.

 

You never said all black people, huh? Just that "black people" did, and that could be two or two million? Hmm. I seem to remember you saying this:

 

"nearly every black person that voted DID vote for Obama, ONLY because hes black. I'm not being sarcastic, I really believe that is the truth."

 

And this: " I have my theory and you have yours. If mine assumes every black votes solely on the basis if race. Yours assumes they only vote solely on loyalty to a single party affiliation.

 

And this: "There's never been an election where black people had the option to vote for a realistic black president. Ever. To deny that they voted for someone they view as like and for them is ridiculous. Laughable. Put yourself in their shoes. Of course they did. Of course."

 

And this: "if you think the blacks didn't vote for barack Obama because he was black you're fucking stupid."

 

And this: "If you think any black people were going to miss a realistic chance to get one of thier own into the white house regardless of party affiliation, I assert you couldn't be more wrong."

 

 

Certainly sounds like you're saying "nearly every black person that voted DID vote for Obama, ONLY because hes black." In fact, it doesn't sound like you said that, you did say that.

 

I said I said it, so it really doesn't matter. If you take those statements without the context of whatever bullshit you were spewing you're only getting one half of the story. You, for your part, denied any black people voted for him because hes black which is laughably ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is really getting boring, correcting your attempts at digs, your misinformation.

 

I didn't deny that Obama's race was a factor that improved black votes and black turnout. No one would. If you think I did, go back and paste where I deny that race played a role. You were making the case that it was the only factor for nearly every single black voter, which is ridiculous.

 

On the contrary, I stated in multiple posts that obviously Obama's race helped him with the black vote. My point was that saying that it's the only reason "almost every" black person votes for Obama is ridiculous and not supported by the evidence. And it's still ridiculous.

 

You know all of this stuff is being recorded, right? Like, here's me: "The evidence shows that blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, and that Obama's race helped add to those totals."

 

You throw a lot of punches and land almost none.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is really getting boring, correcting your attempts at digs, your misinformation.

 

I didn't deny that Obama's race was a factor that improved black votes and black turnout. No one would. If you think I did, go back and paste where I deny that race played a role. You were making the case that it was the only factor for nearly every single black voter, which is ridiculous.

 

On the contrary, I stated in multiple posts that obviously Obama's race helped him with the black vote. My point was that saying that it's the only reason "almost every" black person votes for Obama is ridiculous and not supported by the evidence. And it's still ridiculous.

 

You know all of this stuff is being recorded, right? Like, here's me: "The evidence shows that blacks vote overwhelmingly Democratic, and that Obama's race helped add to those totals."

 

You throw a lot of punches and land almost none.

 

Im just playing your game. If you don't like it stop playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...