It appears the George Zimmerman will be headed to court to answer for the killing of Trayvon Martin. This is a good thing. It would appear that a charge of First Degree Murder is off the table, but based on what I've read about the case, I am not particularly bothered by this. I've seen no reason to believe that there was any premeditation on the part of Zimmerman and, while I believe that race has been a clear factor throughout this case, I do not believe that he pursued and shot Martin solely because he was Black. Obviously I don't know EVERYTHING about the case (as one frequent commenter will no doubt remind me) but based on what I DO know a lesser charger (Murder-2, for example?) would seem appropriate.
What was NOT appropriate, and what I am happy to see being resolved, was for Martin to continue to go uncharged, based on a self-defense claim that was never subjected to examination in trial or by a jury of his peers. And this is a claim that, even given Florida's "Stand Your Ground" / ("Kill-at-Will") statute is undermined by two facts which are not in dispute, even by Zimmerman himself:
1) Martin was unarmed.
2) Zimmerman left the safety of his car to PURSUE Martin, and did so against the advice of the Police on the 9-1-1 call.
Standing you're ground =/= pursuing someone, and pursuing someone certainly =/= an act of self defense. Ultimately this case may be decided on how the "Stand Your Ground" / (Kill-at-Will) law is interpreted by the Jugge, Lawyers and Jury.
If Zimmerman is found guilty, then it will serve a s precedent to others who would follow Zimmerman's example. It will come to resemble more "Stand you ground" and less "Kill-at-will." It doesn't address ALL the concerns in this ALEC / NRA conceived monstrosity of a legal technicality, but clarifying that HUNTING SOMEONE DOWN is, in fact, still against the law in this Country, and in the State of Florida, can only be a GOOD THING.
If he is found innocent?
Hoo-buy... Well, first of all, I hope that the inevitable and richly deserved and justified public outcry will remain non-violent and non-destructive. Considering what has been presented of this case by the media, to the public? I am too optimistic about this point. (Just being realistic here.) But once the populace realizes that the Liberals' long-held concerns about these kinds of laws are VALID? And that HUNTING SOMEONE DOWN is, in fact, actually LEGAL in some parts of the Country? I have to believe that the repeal, or at least a significant re-work, of the law will become a matter of complete inevitablilty.
I would say that is also a good thing, but I can find no comfort in the fact that a young man had to die to bring attention to a stupid law that makes a death like this one inevitable.
---------------------
And, for the record, I very much support the Second Amendment, and gun OWNERSHIP rights. This is no more about the Second Amendment that a citizen's boycott of Rush Limbaugh's corporate sponsors is about the First Amendment. This is NOT an issue of gun OWNERSHIP, it is an issue of gun USAGE. So while I despise guns on a personal level, I fully cherrish the fact that my choice of owning one remains my own to make, and thus I fully support the Rights of Americans (violent felons and the mentally ill excepted) to OWN guns. I do not however support ANYONE'S right to pursue and gun down an unarmed person with one.
Who IS this guy?!
Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017, and has returned for 2021! Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The 911 call is going to be a big problem for the defense, I think. The fact that he was told "we don't need you to do that" by the dispatcher and he said "OK" means that he can't say that he didn't pick up on that or didn't hear it. He heard the message and defied it.
ReplyDeleteAnother major issue is that it wasn't Zimmerman screaming for help, from what we know so far. Martin's screaming for help, and then is shot. I'm dying to hear the defense for that.
At the very best, Zimmerman wrongfully brought a gun into the situation, and then failed to keep control of that situation. He could have just pulled his gun and told Martin to stay where he was at a safe distance. Instead, he started or provoked a fight, and then used disproportionate force to protect himself (which brings us back to the cries for help, of course). It's also hard to cut Zimmerman a lot of slack when his recent behavior is taken into account, and that may be a factor if the prosecution claims it as "consciousness of guilt".
Hopefully Florida has learned their so-called "lesson" from Casey Anthony and will keep the charge lower than first degree. I honestly think that would have been Zimmerman's best shot at walking from this.
In any event, the important thing at the moment is that the system is being used, finally.
I think a 2nd degree murder charge is a fair charge for what happened and you outlined it fairly well. I did not like the 'trial by media' that was common place among everyone (here included). So, it's good they took their time to make sure that the right charge was brought. However, finding a jury that hasn't been tainted because of the 'trial by media' may be very difficult (good job American media complex! {sarcasm} ). If that produces an impossibility to produce a fair jury, what has been accomplished?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if the media never covered it, where would the pressure have come from to produce a trial? Once the State Attorney says there's no case, I don't know what other way this result could have come about.
Deletehttp://abcnews.go.com/US/trayvon-martin-investigator-wanted-charge-george-zimmerman-manslaughter/story?id=16011674#.T4adIft8ByX
If Casey Anthony can get a "Not Guilty", then Satan himself has a sporting chance. I'm not too concerned, especially since there's a much greater possibility of people being prejudiced against Martin than there was people prejudiced against a 2 year-old girl.
"On the other hand, if the media never covered it, where would the pressure have come from to produce a trial?"
DeleteThe LAW, What part of justice do you NOT understand?
"If Casey Anthony ... blah blah blah ... satan ... blah blah blah "
Can't you stay on-topic for ONE post?
Anthony is white. Zimmerman is latino. According to some liberals there's a difference in justice in America when you have a minority on trial as opposed to a white person. So, he'll be found guilty.
I really liked how you invoked satan into this. Maybe you want to use the Easter bunny too?
Brabantio has a point. This case moved forward based on public pressure. The "law," as you put it, was keen to let him off - DID let him off, without a trial, I might add - and it got to the point where the chief of police RESIGNED over his department's inability to build a case.
DeleteNow I was very careful to keep my opinions about the roll that race played here very narrowly defined. It was absolutely a factor, but at the same time can be too easily blown out of proportion. I don't believe that Zim was out "hunting black people." But if you think that if the shooter had been black and the victim white, that there would have been NO ARREST made, for WEEKS, and the media would have told the same tale?
Well, that's just foolish talk.
(Witness reports after hurricane Katrina as the same peridoicals described white people "scavenging" and black people "looting" - under pitcures that appeared almost indentical, no less!
No, race defintely plays a factor here, but its in a more subtle way that the media can properly cover, or would be willing to admit to.
Also, I think that Casey Anthony is a userful example of what migth happen here. In that case? Because I guarentee you that the evidence presetned to the jury was very differetn from what the media showed us. Did she look guilty? Well, yeah! Duh! But a murder conviction is tough if you can't establish TIME or CAUSE of death. You CAN still get a conviction, but it's a lot harder to connect the dots. And acting like a fruitcake, as she did, ISN'T a crime, nor is it useful evidence. She might be the worst mother in the world, but I can definitely see how a jury could find insufficient evidence, depending on what (and how it) was presented, and how specific teh judge's instructions were.
In this case? Zim migth get off. And that MIGHT happen becuase of the way these Kill-At-Will laws are written. He might actually be acquitted, regardless of what (I consdier to be) common sense tells us, because the letter of the law may actually be on his side. (The police certainly seemed to think so.)
If he IS acquitted, however, I DO believe that these laws will change. (You know... when, once agian, Liberals' fears are vindicated.)
(And come on, dude - is it REALLY necessary to start rigth in with the cheap shots and personal attacks? You're being a bit sensationalist here, no?)
"But if you think that if the shooter had been black and the victim white,"
DeleteThat's quite true, however, THIS case is about a Latino shooting a Black man. He ISN'T a white man and to infer that is to bring a different race condition into the case that is not present. So if you want to compare white on black violence to latino on black violence as equal then you are making a false comparison.
"(And come on, dude - is it REALLY necessary to start rigth in with the cheap shots and personal attacks?"
What "personal attacks" did I "start right in with"?!? I made a comment on YOUR post and Brabantio starts in making false comparisons.
http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/04/going-to-trial.html?showComment=1334194931358#c3620685687621478239
"You were defending Zim pretty fiercly in the previous post about this, and if race didn't play some factor in that, then what did?"
Where did I defend Zimmerman? If you actually read what I wrote, I was disgusted with your rush to judgement without the facts being present. Claiming his guilt early and often, invoking white on black racism. I complained about THAT, not that Zimmerman didn't do it. Do you have a post, that I didn't see, where I defended Zimmerman "fiercly"?
"I made a comment on YOUR post and Brabantio starts in making false comparisons."
DeleteTwo murder cases in Florida that get national coverage and become highly controversial can't be compared? How similar do things have to be before you allow anyone to mention them? If Martin's last name was "Anthony" would it be alright?
"Two murder cases in Florida that get national coverage and become highly controversial can't be compared?"
DeleteWell, while you're at it, why don't you compare apples to oranges ... after all, they both are round. Which one of the people involved in THIS case is white? If you're going to invoke white on black racial violence perhaps you should check to see if one of them IS white first. Because from the stories I've been reading Zimmerman is latino. Maybe you get special articles that no one else gets and that's where you get your information from?
It wasn't in reference to race, it was about tainted juries. That's what you were talking about in the post I responded to. The racial issue is just another reason not to be that concerned about it.
DeleteDid you notice the word "especially" in my post? Does it seem odd to you that anyone would make a central point about race and then make an additional point that's completely redundant?
Your post doesn't jibe with what I wrote in the slightest. Also, I never invoked "white on black" violence, if you'll notice.
"It wasn't in reference to race, it was about tainted juries."
DeleteWhich explains why you brought race into the discussion with this comment: "I'm not too concerned, especially since there's a much greater possibility of people being prejudiced against Martin than there was people prejudiced against a 2 year-old girl."? I'm guessing you meant "age" was the part that would cause a tainted jury? But, how would age be meant if you were talking about "prejudice"?
"I'm guessing you meant "age" was the part that would cause a tainted jury?"
DeleteMedia exposure, as you said in the post I responded to, would be the cause of the tainted jury:"However, finding a jury that hasn't been tainted because of the 'trial by media' may be very difficult (good job American media complex! {sarcasm} )."
This is a non-starter for you. I give you points for creativity, though.
"The LAW, What part of justice do you NOT understand?"
ReplyDeleteI don't see how the hostility is warranted here. The link demonstrates the problem with that. The law clearly wasn't going to get it done on its own, because the State Attorney nixed the charges. A month after the killing, the media picked up on it. In that month, what gears of justice do you imagine were turning?
"According to some liberals there's a difference in justice in America when you have a minority on trial as opposed to a white person. So, he'll be found guilty."
Maybe, but young women with children of indeterminate paternity aren't particularly sympathetic, either. Also, Martin was black, and there are many people who will have stronger opinions about him than they do about the light-skinned Zimmerman.
"I really liked how you invoked satan into this. Maybe you want to use the Easter bunny too?"
I don't think the Easter Bunny would have worked for the purposes of that innocuous hyperbole. Why are you so wound up over a perfectly civil response?
"The law clearly wasn't going to get it done on its own, because the State Attorney nixed the charges."
DeleteGood thing we have the liberal maniacs out there who kept it in the spotlight and tainted probably every eligible jurist in that county, state and/or nation. Quite similar to the Duke rape case ... the same maniacs kept that one in the news too ... for the same reasons, and also demanded their form of justice for those accused. What was the result of that one?
"Also, Martin was black, and there are many people who will have stronger opinions about him than they do about the light-skinned Zimmerman."
Why are you being so racist here? You're saying that blacks are more favored than Latinos?
"I don't think the Easter Bunny would have worked for the purposes of that innocuous hyperbole."
Neither does invoking a being you don't even believe in. So, I figured one mythical religious character is equal to another. Do you have a problem with me responding to your off-topic rants?
"Good thing we have the liberal maniacs out there who kept it in the spotlight and tainted probably every eligible jurist in that county, state and/or nation."
DeleteMathematically speaking, some chance of justice is better than none. If there's no arrest, then it's pretty hard to complain about the possibility of a biased jury. The blame doesn't belong on the media, anyway. The media's going to cover a story about injustice. If the State Attorney didn't want this situation, he should have done the right thing from the start.
"Quite similar to the Duke rape case ... the same maniacs kept that one in the news too ..."
This case isn't relying on "he said, she said".
"Why are you being so racist here? You're saying that blacks are more favored than Latinos?"
No, I'm saying the opposite. Why would it be racist to comment on other people's prejudices?
"Neither does invoking a being you don't even believe in. So, I figured one mythical religious character is equal to another. Do you have a problem with me responding to your off-topic rants?"
I say "God bless you" when people sneeze, too. It doesn't mean anything. I'm not sure what I've said that's qualified as a "rant" here, and I definitely don't know what you imagine is "off-topic".
" I definitely don't know what you imagine is "off-topic"."
DeleteCasey Anthony and racial prejudices:
"there's a much greater possibility of people being prejudiced against Martin than there was people prejudiced against a 2 year-old girl."
Yes, relevant to:"However, finding a jury that hasn't been tainted because of the 'trial by media' may be very difficult (good job American media complex! {sarcasm} ). If that produces an impossibility to produce a fair jury, what has been accomplished?". Everyone knew about the Casey Anthony case pre-trial as well. As for racial prejudices, the point would be that could be an influence in favor of the defense. Further, not all of the media has been particularly anti-Zimmerman, so the influence works both ways.
DeleteI'm saying they probably have a better shot of acquittal than Casey Anthony overall. That would be on-topic.
William, REALLY?
DeleteHe wasn't "invoking" Satan to make any deep spiritual or theological point here. It's an EXPRESSION, for Pete's sake!
as for...
"there's a much greater possibility of people being prejudiced against Martin than there was people prejudiced against a 2 year-old girl."
Do you seriously doubt this? You were defending Zim pretty fiercly in the previous post about this, and if race didn't play some factor in that, then what did? Do you just have an instictive reaction to take the opposite opinion of whatever ANY liberal says? What would you do is Liberals find themselves split on an issue? (Happens all the time, I might add.)
Brab's using a relevant example here, to make a point about this case, not to open a huge debate about Casey Anthony.
R-E-L-A-X.
William's been off the handle since he started a conversation about religion with me on the other thread. He's just not very happy right now.
DeleteBrabantio: "I definitely don't know what you imagine is "off-topic"."
DeleteWilliam: "Casey Anthony and racial prejudices:
"there's a much greater possibility of people being prejudiced against Martin than there was people prejudiced against a 2 year-old girl."
William, I would politely remind you that this is not YOUR blog. It's MINE. And as such, the only person who gets to define what the topic is? Is ME.
The day Brabantio or I (or anyone else) come over to Autopsychic and ask you about Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson, Trayvon Martin or anything else you don't want filling up your blog? Fine. free to cry "off-topic" all you want. But considering how many threads you've managed to shoehorn Robert Byrd into, I hardly think your the best judge of this sort of thing anyway, even if it WERE your place to say.
If you disagree with Brabantio's point, let's hear it. Otherwise the only opinon here that matters regarding what's off-topic is MINE. (It says as much right at the top.) And besides: I harldy see where Brabation has really said anything all that contentious anyway. What exactly do you disagree with here?
"If you disagree with Brabantio's point, let's hear it. "
DeleteIf you want to make this a comparison to a white parent killing their white child, that's fine, you go ahead and do that. If you want to compare it to white on black crime, fine you go ahead and do that. If you want to compare apples to oranges, fine you go ahead and do that.
Like you say, this is your blog, not mine. You can make any kind of comparison you want. I just thought honesty and integrity were among the many things you told me liberals do. I guess not all the time?
Your concern was a tainted jury. I brought up another controversial case with a tainted jury. Why race makes that reference invalid is something you're not making clear.
DeleteHow much of the Casey Anthony case did you hear about before the verdict was announced? I don't remember hearing anything about it. But I'm just a dumb isolated conservative with no access to daily news. You probably followed the case from the initial incident, huh? Did you know who the murderer was in that one before everyone else? I'll bet you called those cops and filled them in.
DeleteSo, your concern over tained juries was exactly what you were talking about.
I knew about the case from the beginning, yes.
Delete"Did you know who the murderer was in that one before everyone else?"
Pretty much everyone knew Casey Anthony killed her child from the start. Do you really want to get into a conversation about this case? If you knew anything about it, you'd find the conclusion would be fairly inescapable.
"So, your concern over tained juries was exactly what you were talking about."
Yes, media exposure, as mentioned in your post. I'm glad we got that established.
"Do you really want to get into a conversation about this case?"
DeleteNo. I know nothing of the case. Other than what I've read since you took this article to that subject. Was it a case of latino on black crime? Was it a case of 'claimed self-defense'? Was it a case of 'stand your ground'? Did every major media outlet (TV+radio+newspaper) headline the story from the moment the death was discovered?
"Was it a case of latino on black crime? Was it a case of 'claimed self-defense'?"
DeleteNo, it was just a widely-discussed case, and the issue of a fair jury was a major concern. In that aspect it's very similar to your stated concern. It must just be a strange coincidence that I brought it up.
I'm reading an article that says she got off because a media outlet paid much money into her defense. Is that true? How would that effect the "tainted jury" aspect that you say was there?
Deletehttp://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2012/04/casey-anthony-jose-baez-says-abc-money-made-the-difference.html
I said the tainted jury was a concern. The whole point was that it doesn't necessarily mean a conviction will result, which is relevant to your "trial by media" comment regarding Zimmerman.
DeleteYou just made my point for me. Good job.
Perhaps you might want to try to actually answer the questions that were asked. Or, you can continue to make your own up and answer them for yourself.
DeleteI did answer your question. I didn't say the trial was affected by a tainted jury. Pointing out that she was acquitted despite that concern is the point I was originally making.
DeleteWhat part of this is unclear to you?
"What part of this is unclear to you?"
DeleteThese questions went unanswered or ignored:
http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/04/going-to-trial.html?showComment=1334362105866#c2255998297967670623
Your premise is false. I didn't say there actually was a tainted jury, so the verdict doesn't discredit anything I said.
DeleteDo you need to rephrase the question? Otherwise you're misrepresenting what I said, so can't really expect me to humor you there.
Wait, wasn't it you who used the Anthony case to say this: "It wasn't in reference to race, it was about tainted juries."? So, I'm pretty sure my "premise" is accurate. Now, do you want to answer those questions or not?
DeleteIt was about your concern regarding tainted juries. You do understand that at this point in time, the Zimmerman trial hasn't started. You're worried about the jury. Before the Casey Anthony trial, there was concern about the jury being tainted. Like for Zimmerman at this particular point in time.
DeleteThe verdict doesn't debunk my point. It supports it. If that doesn't answer your question, then either rephrase it or let it go.
Is it true she got off because a media outlet paid much money to the defense fund? That is a critical point to address if you're going to worry about and use tainted juries in your discussions of potential outcomes in this case.
DeleteIf she got off because of the influx of cash and it wasn't the tainted jury then you've gone a direction that isn't viable for your comparison of the two cases.
I really think you need to answer that one.
"That is a critical point to address if you're going to worry about and use tainted juries in your discussions of potential outcomes in this case."
DeleteYou are vastly confused. As stated, you're confusing the present with the past. Do you know for a fact that Zimmerman isn't going to get funding for his defense because of the publicity (And my citation of Martin's skin color is a factor there, if you think about it)? How do you know the situations will not be comparable in that way? It's not relevant anyway. At this point in time, before the trial, both situations carried the same concern, and that's what the comparison is about.
Secondly, I'm not the one worried about the tainted jury, remember? You were. I can quote your original post if you doubt it.
"If she got off because of the influx of cash and it wasn't the tainted jury then you've gone a direction that isn't viable for your comparison of the two cases."
The tainted jury was a concern because it was supposed to be prejudicial against her, not biased in her favor. How the hell could that possibly not be clear to you? That's why it's applicable to your stated fear that Zimmerman was going to get convicted because of "trial by media". Because Casey Anthony went through trial by media for two years herself.
See these posts above:"I said the tainted jury was a concern. The whole point was that it doesn't necessarily mean a conviction will result..." and "Pointing out that she was acquitted despite that concern is the point I was originally making." These are in no way consistent with saying that the jury was supposed to be favorable towards her. If you would read my posts instead of blindly repeating yourself, you'd realize how twisted around you had gotten yourself and saved yourself some embarrassment.
"Secondly, I'm not the one worried about the tainted jury, remember? You were. I can quote your original post if you doubt it."
DeleteRight, but YOU are the one using that as a comparison to another trial you think has equal concerns. Do you want me to quote your post if you doubt it? (wait I already have)
Because I don't remember any "pre-trial" publicity with the Anthony case even close to what this case has gotten. If you say they are equal, then you may want to either prove it or stop it. Because you just changed the parameter in which the two cases should be comparable. NOW you say only "pre-trial" publicity is the comparable aspect. Well, show that the Anthony case had as much pre-trial publicity or they are not comparable.
"Because Casey Anthony went through trial by media for two years herself."
As I said, I'm reading about that case, now. The wiki article about the case says this concerning pre-trial publicity: "Selection of the jury began on May 9, 2011, at the Pinellas County Criminal Justice Center in Clearwater, Florida, because the case had been so widely reported in the Orlando area.".
Umm, what part of Orlando would be considered equal or even comparable to nation-wide? Which means you probably lied about knowing of this case from the beginning, as you claimed. And if you do live in the Orlando area, then you are vastly confusing local publicity with national publicity. Showing, again, that the two cases are not comparable. In any way.
"If you would read my posts instead of blindly repeating yourself, you'd realize how twisted around you had gotten yourself and saved yourself some embarrassment."
I'm not the one being embarrassed by trying to compare apples to oranges.
The end result is that Zimmerman will get his day in court, but the "trial by media" will make selecting a jury very difficult. Tell you what, when the trial starts (late next year) and they choose a different venue (I'm sure it's illegal to use a different state) we'll see how far they have to move the trial to determine whether I was correct or not.
"Because I don't remember any "pre-trial" publicity with the Anthony case even close to what this case has gotten."
DeleteHow would one go about proving how much publicity a case received two or three years ago? And why is your personal experience supposed to be relevant at all? You never heard about the case, therefore it wasn't widely controversial. Ridiculous.
"Because you just changed the parameter in which the two cases should be comparable. NOW you say only "pre-trial" publicity is the comparable aspect."
I haven't changed a thing. The point was about your concern regarding Zimmerman. That is "pre-trial".
"Umm, what part of Orlando would be considered equal or even comparable to nation-wide?"
The article doesn't say it was only reported in the Orlando area, you notice. I didn't live anywhere near Orlando and I knew all about it, as did plenty of others. It was national news. The point the article was making is that it was virtually impossible to get people without prior knowledge of the case in Orlando, not that people didn't know about it anywhere else.
"Which means you probably lied about knowing of this case from the beginning, as you claimed."
And more insupportable, illogical claims of dishonesty. Yawn.
"And if you do live in the Orlando area, then you are vastly confusing local publicity with national publicity. Showing, again, that the two cases are not comparable. In any way."
Do you really think that the local publicity about this case isn't overwhelming? What would the difference be, anyway? A tainted jury is a tainted jury, whether the publicity is national or just local. You're not really thinking about the points you're attempting to make here.
"The end result is that Zimmerman will get his day in court, but the "trial by media" will make selecting a jury very difficult."
Yes, which is what was said about Casey Anthony. On national broadcasts. After two years of coverage. Do some research in order to avoid talking about things you have no clue about.
Did I misread your point about how the tainted jury was supposed to help Anthony? Because I didn't see you address that, strangely enough.
"How would one go about proving how much publicity a case received two or three years ago?"
DeleteI don't know. I am using the premise that if I heard of the case then it was brought prominantly by the national media. I keep up on most news that happens.
"And why is your personal experience supposed to be relevant at all?"
Well, I've heard of this case (that makes it relevant to me). Both cases are in Florida, so if the national media and related outlets had carried the Anthony case like it has this case then I would have heard about it.
Maybe you can go back to your Mediamatters system and check how much exposure it got there. Would that be an acceptable gauge to determine "how much publicity" the Anthony case got versus the Martin case?
"Would that be an acceptable gauge to determine "how much publicity" the Anthony case got versus the Martin case?"
DeleteI doubt it, since it didn't have any political ramifications. If you only follow politics, then maybe that would explain why you never heard of the case.
"If you only follow politics, then maybe that would explain why you never heard of the case."
DeleteYou really do have a problem with 'reading comprehension' don't you? Did you notice I said: "I keep up on most news that happens."? Umm, what part narrows it down to "only follow politics"?
I follow all types of news ... local, national and international, sports, humor and personal.
Let me clear something up. I have heard of the Anthony case. I just didn't hear anything leading up to any trial. I heard about the innocent verdict and the resulting outcry. But, if anything made it in our local reporting (San Francisco/Oakland area) for the pre-trial then it was so minor that it didn't make an impression on me.
Just for fun I typed in "casey anthony" in teh search section of Mediamatters and it came back with 23 results (4 with Casey Anthony in the title. None older than 2011).
DeleteWhen I typed in "trayvon martin" I got 2 pages of results (59 total) with 29 mentioning Trayvon Martin or Zimmerman in the title. And most the rest mentioning the "stand your ground" law or "race".
I didn't realize THIS case was a "political" story. Was Zimmerman or Martin a politician?
"I didn't realize THIS case was a "political" story. Was Zimmerman or Martin a politician?"
DeleteIs Sandra Fluke a politician? Elian Gonzalez? Terri Sciavo?
I hope that helps.
"Did you notice I said: "I keep up on most news that happens."? Umm, what part narrows it down to "only follow politics"?"
DeleteWhat part of "if" is unclear? You're the one that brought up MMfA, not me. That suggests more of a political arena than the broad scope of news you're talking about, so I'm not sure why you would bring it up if it wasn't comparable.
"What part of "if" is unclear?"
Delete" You're the one that brought up MMfA, not me."
Mediamatters isn't strictly political. You know that. It is news of all types that they think the right-wing media is getting wrong. This helps to show that the Anthony case was not a national story, but mainly a local one. You are making the comparison on the premise that the Anthony case was just as nationally prominant as the Martin case BEFORE TRIAL.
Score another one for the Autopsychic.
OK, so I've made my point and you could not sustain yours logically (or honestly). Let me know when you want to play again.
It's hard for even you to argue that it's not overwhelmingly political. Otherwise, what would be "conservative" about the nature of the misinformation or rhetoric?
Delete"This helps to show that the Anthony case was not a national story, but mainly a local one."
No, it doesn't. For someone who talks about "apples and oranges", you seem awfully attached to the idea that a story about a woman who doesn't call the police for a month after her daughter goes missing and a story about a law that the NRA and right-wing lobbyists have pushed for are supposed to get the same amount of coverage at MMfA.
And you have yet to explain how the jury wouldn't be tainted if the story ran rampant throughout Central Florida as opposed to nationally, anyway. You yourself said that they had to venture into another community for jurors. Obviously they were concerned about a tainted jury.
Just like you are right now with the Zimmerman case. The comparison stands.
"You yourself said that they had to venture into another community for jurors. Obviously they were concerned about a tainted jury."
Delete"Just like you are right now with the Zimmerman case. The comparison stands."
Yes, a LOCAL concern for Anthony. But my concern in this case is that the extensive national coverage of a case that may have national constitutional implications is NOT comparable to a local murder of a child that got moved to another county. My concern was (and still is) that the extensive coverage could cause a potential for no jury to be found. And your comparison with the Anthony case is wrong.
"you seem awfully attached to the idea that a story about a woman who doesn't call the police for a month after her daughter goes missing and a story about a law that the NRA and right-wing lobbyists have pushed for are supposed to get the same amount of coverage at MMfA."
I believe I've made myself absolutely clear on the Mediamatters aspect. If you wish to continue your mis-representative "style" of writing and say that, then you go right ahead and do that. I've come to expect nothing less from you.
"My concern was (and still is) that the extensive coverage could cause a potential for no jury to be found. And your comparison with the Anthony case is wrong."
DeleteYour ignorance of the national coverage of the Anthony case is not an argument. The pre-trial concern for the Anthony case is that they wouldn't be able to find an impartial jury. You can try to add all the irrelevant factors you want, but the basis for the comparison remains.
"If you wish to continue your mis-representative "style" of writing and say that, then you go right ahead and do that. I've come to expect nothing less from you."
A complete failure to address the point, with an untenable accusation of dishonesty thrown in. What else would I expect from you?
"The pre-trial concern for the Anthony case is that they wouldn't be able to find an impartial jury."
DeleteSure ... in A county. I'm talking statewide. Was the coverage so extensive they had a concern they wouldn't get a fair trial in ANY county if Florida? Well, this case has that extensive of coverage. You know it, I know it and everyone else knows it.
"Your ignorance of the national coverage of the Anthony case is not an argument."
Oh? Well, then how about you dazzle me with your brilliance and show evidence of some of that "national coverage" that tainted any potential jury in her county. I'll bet you that I can find 10 stories (on Martin) for every 1 story you find for Anthony. Pre-trial of course (your parameter).
"A complete failure to address the point, with an untenable accusation of dishonesty thrown in."
I was absolutely accurate in what I said about you mis-representing how I used Mediamatters.
"I'm talking statewide. Was the coverage so extensive they had a concern they wouldn't get a fair trial in ANY county if Florida?"
DeleteAfter two years of coverage? I'm not sure how you wouldn't expect the entire state to know about it. If they can find twelve people who hadn't even heard about that story by word of mouth by that point, then they should be able to do the same for Zimmerman.
"Well, then how about you dazzle me with your brilliance and show evidence of some of that "national coverage" that tainted any potential jury in her county."
You already said you wouldn't know how to go about that. "Do your own research".
"I was absolutely accurate in what I said about you mis-representing how I used Mediamatters."
You:"Just for fun I typed in "casey anthony" in teh search section of Mediamatters and it came back with 23 results (4 with Casey Anthony in the title. None older than 2011).
When I typed in "trayvon martin" I got 2 pages of results (59 total) with 29 mentioning Trayvon Martin or Zimmerman in the title. And most the rest mentioning the "stand your ground" law or "race"." In the next post:"This helps to show that the Anthony case was not a national story, but mainly a local one."
Me:"For someone who talks about "apples and oranges", you seem awfully attached to the idea that a story about a woman who doesn't call the police for a month after her daughter goes missing and a story about a law that the NRA and right-wing lobbyists have pushed for are supposed to get the same amount of coverage at MMfA."
You pointed out the difference in the number of stories. You claimed that showed how it wasn't a national story. I pointed out that the two stories don't have the same political elements. How did I misrepresent you? You're not exactly willing to say, apparently.
You say the 2 cases are equals and can be compared. I compared them through one facet of news coverage and found a disparaging amuont of coverage of one case over the other. If they are now different (as you say) then you cannot compare them as equals.
DeleteExplain how one case is a political story while the other is not.
First off, you're not explaining how I misrepresented your point. You seem to be reinforcing my interpretation of it.
Delete"You say the 2 cases are equals and can be compared."
I don't think I used the word "equal". This is very black-and-white thinking going on here. I'm not trying to make the point that every minuscule aspect of both cases are identical or something, and they don't need to be. Every comparison has to have some differences, but the key is what the relevant factors are and how they match up. If you disagree with this, how and why?
"Explain how one case is a political story while the other is not."
You said yourself that the Martin case could have Constitutional implications. The Anthony case was shocking, and the psychology behind the story was fascinating, but there isn't much about any laws or interest groups that would inspire anyone to make it a political issue.
"I" said one could have constitutional implications. YOU did not. You claim they are equals, "very similar" are your exact words. HOW?
DeleteBefore you answer look up the word "similar". Then add the word "very".
""I" said one could have constitutional implications. YOU did not."
DeleteI don't think I suggested otherwise. You asked how one story was political and the other wasn't, right?
"You claim they are equals, "very similar" are your exact words. HOW?"
Context:"No, it was just a widely-discussed case, and the issue of a fair jury was a major concern. In that aspect it's very similar to your stated concern."
IN THAT ASPECT would answer your "HOW?" question, and doesn't suggest that it's "equal" in any other aspects.
The only problem is that the "pre-trial" of the Anthony case was not "widely-discussed" and the issue of a fair jury was not a "major concern". Changing venue is a common occurance, so simply stating they changed venue does not explain your suggestion that there was a "major concern" over a fair jury.
DeleteSo, again, HOW were they "very similar"?
"The only problem is that the "pre-trial" of the Anthony case was not "widely-discussed" and the issue of a fair jury was not a "major concern"."
DeleteThe only basis for this is your ignorance of the case. Since you like wiki links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Caylee_Anthony#Initial_coverage
I'm surprised you didn't read that during your earlier research.
Hmmm, Google News 'Trayvon Martin Case' and you get 27,000 results. Google News 'Casey Anthony case' and you get 800 results. Google News 'Caylee Anthony Case' and you get 250 results. I think that meets my 10:1 statement.
DeleteDo you have anything else you want to discuss?
Also using wiki, I found this to be quite interesting:
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Trayvon_Martin#Witness_accounts
I'm surprised you didn't read this during your denial of self-defense. Several eye-witness's have said a "scuffle" was occuring at the time.
I think we should let the law decide this matter, not bloggers. Because bloggers don't seem to have all the facts, just opinion.
What are the parameters for that search? Does the time difference factor into that at all?
DeleteAnd considering "equal" was never part of the argument, you're not countering anything. You wanted "widely-discussed" and "national". You got it.
Nothing else to discuss.
"I'm surprised you didn't read this during your denial of self-defense. Several eye-witness's have said a "scuffle" was occuring at the time."
DeleteI'm sure there was one. Did you forget already that Martin was screaming for help before he was shot? Self-defense isn't retroactive.
With a "scuffle" there could be "self-defense". How can you deny that?
Delete"What are the parameters for that search?"
I told you exactly what I typed in the search box. However, ALL of Trayvon's articles are 'pre-trial' and only some of the Anthony articles will be 'pre-trial'. Try it yourself and tell me what you get.
I guess we're done. I've supported my claim, you have not.
"With a "scuffle" there could be "self-defense". How can you deny that?"
DeleteBecause self-defense isn't retroactive, again. If Zimmerman's in a position where Martin has to be screaming for his own safety, then Zimmerman isn't in a spot where he has to kill him. If he previously felt like he was in danger, that situation must have changed. Even the most charitable take involves Zimmerman irresponsibly creating the situation, which could still easily fall under the manslaughter charge.
"I told you exactly what I typed in the search box. However, ALL of Trayvon's articles are 'pre-trial' and only some of the Anthony articles will be 'pre-trial'."
I'm still wondering if time is a factor. And again, since you introduced "equal" instead of me, I'm not responsible for your goalpost-shift. "National coverage" and "widely-discussed" was the basis for the comparison, and that standard was met.
"If Zimmerman's in a position where Martin has to be screaming for his own safety, then Zimmerman isn't in a spot where he has to kill him."
DeleteWhich could be the part where the 'stand your ground' law differs from 'self-defense. Do you have a copy of that law? Perhaps you should read it and give us a report on the differences between 'stand your ground' and 'self-defense'.
Stand Your Ground still requires a reasonable claim of being threatened. The wording isn't "hey, just say you feel threatened and you're free to go". This is why I said I'm not sure what the difference is supposed to be, because it's hard to claim you felt threatened while you have someone screaming to be saved from YOU. Why would anyone be trying to summon people to the scene if they had any intention of committing a violent act?
DeleteIt's also pretty shaky to say that SYG applies when you unnecessarily create a situation like this. Think about Martin's perspective. He had the legal right to be where he was, and he was being followed for no discernible reason. Couldn't he say he "felt threatened"? Essentially someone has to argue that the law intended people to be able to create situations where no matter who ended up dead, the survivor couldn't be charged with a crime. Would you want to advocate for that? I sure wouldn't. If you can find something that suggests that was the intent of the law, by all means let me know.
Anything's possible, of course, regarding how a judge or jury is going to act. As far as the actual law is concerned, though, I don't see how it's really supposed to help him. If you want to do your own research and argue otherwise, feel free.
"because it's hard to claim you felt threatened while you have someone screaming to be saved from YOU." AND "Why would anyone be trying to summon people to the scene if they had any intention of committing a violent act?"
DeleteLet me give you a scenario (not the way it happened); suppose someone wants to rob you and approaches you. The robber is 4' 5" tall and you are 6'4" tall and weigh 260 lbs. Suppose the robber thinks by sticking his hand in his pocket and pointing his finger at you like he has a gun then he will be able to convince you to give him your money. However, you defend yourself and grab him and start "scuffling". The robber screams for help because you are beating the crap out of him.
There's a possibility for the supposed robber to be calling out for help when the intended victim thinks he is defending himself. Obviously not the scenario of this case.
"It's also pretty shaky to say that SYG applies when you unnecessarily create a situation like this."
The guy was a 'neighborhood watch' volunteer. Doesn't your neighborhood have people who will look out for others? He sees a situation he thinks is out of the ordinary after having several break-ins in his neighborhood. Trayvon acted suspiciously (according to the 911 tape). So, Zimmerman didn't "unnecessarily create" the situation.
"Essentially someone has to argue that the law intended people to be able to create situations where no matter who ended up dead, the survivor couldn't be charged with a crime."
And that is the part that needs to be corrected. It would seem that in any situation either party could claim the law allowed them to do whatever they want and get away with it.
"As far as the actual law is concerned, though, I don't see how it's really supposed to help him. "
It would seem obvious that Zimmerman will try to claim a portion of my scenario that could give the impression that he feared for his own safety. Which is really all he needs to do. The prosecutors have a long road ahead of them and a tough one to make 2nd degree murder stick. With the law as it is, your concern over anyone being able to claim "stand your ground" protection, will be the obvious part that may cause the judge to throw the case out of court. I'm sure many people will try to pressure the judge into making another decision (as is happening already through the media and blogosphere), but the judge will (hopefully) make a decision based on law and not based on how those around him/her "feel" about the case. Maybe there will be a liberal judge chosen. They often follow their "feelings" and ignore law. But, from everything I've read and heard about the case, I don't think it will go to trial. And even if it does, with all the media coverage, you would be hard-pressed to find 24 people who haven't formed some kind of opinion on the case.
And, I'd like to add something. If or when the case is dismissed I will fully expect local and non-local people to seek Zimmerman out and lynch him. Unless he is allowed to join the witness protection program he will be killed by someone who didn't approve of the result of the case.
DeleteIMHO the end result of this will be 2 deaths. One caused by an illogically applied law and another caused by media exposure.
"There's a possibility for the supposed robber to be calling out for help when the intended victim thinks he is defending himself. Obviously not the scenario of this case."
DeleteDon't you think that screaming for help should tell a rational person that they're not intending harm, though? It may be possible, but it's still difficult to claim as reasonable.
"Trayvon acted suspiciously (according to the 911 tape). So, Zimmerman didn't "unnecessarily create" the situation."
And Zimmerman was told he was not needed to do anything beyond the original 911 call. "Not needed" would justify "unnecessarily". By neighborhood watch guidelines, he also wasn't supposed to be armed.
"It would seem that in any situation either party could claim the law allowed them to do whatever they want and get away with it."
I'm really not sure that's the intent of the law, but again, I wouldn't want to try to argue that it was in court. It might be their only choice, but it's not a strong argument.
"It would seem obvious that Zimmerman will try to claim a portion of my scenario that could give the impression that he feared for his own safety. Which is really all he needs to do."
He has to make a case that the fear was "reasonable". But he has to admit that he was told not to follow Martin (since he acknowledged it on the call) and that Martin was screaming for help. It doesn't seem to be that easy of a task to create the needed impression.
"But he has to admit that he was told not to follow Martin"
DeleteActually (factually), he was not told "not to follow" on the 911 tape.
"By neighborhood watch guidelines, he also wasn't supposed to be armed."
Do you have a copy of his neighborhood watch rules? Do you have factual proof he was not allowed to carry a weapon? Do you know he doesn't have a permit? Obviously, if he had no permit he would have gun charges brought against him. So, I think your assumptions are incorrect.
"It may be possible, but it's still difficult to claim as reasonable."
Ok, now you admit it is possible. That is all the judge needs to determine also.
Now, from what I've gathered through our extended conversation on this case is that you are one of those who would prefer we skip the trial part of this case and go straight to the punishment part. What punishment would you prefer Zimmerman face since you obviously have already concluded he is guilty of a crime?
I guess you will not be eligible to be a jurist, you have already formed your opinion on his guilt/innocence (ONLY due to the extensive media coverage). Thanks for helping prove my point of how difficult it will be for a fair trial to occur.
"Actually (factually), he was not told "not to follow" on the 911 tape."
DeleteI expected that response. I can't wait to see the defense argue that the guy on neighborhood watch doesn't understand the meaning of an authority saying "we don't need you to do that". If they really didn't care whether he took matters into his own hands, why would they say anything at all? Realistically, the wording is not ambiguous.
"Do you have a copy of his neighborhood watch rules?"
I didn't say there was a pamphlet or anything. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/os-trayvon-martin-neighborhood-watch-20120321,0,5554619.story?page=1
"Do you have factual proof he was not allowed to carry a weapon? Do you know he doesn't have a permit? Obviously, if he had no permit he would have gun charges brought against him. So, I think your assumptions are incorrect."
I didn't say anything about a permit. I mentioned neighborhood watch, not any form of government. How did you come up with that particular conflation?
"Ok, now you admit it is possible. That is all the judge needs to determine also."
I never said anything was impossible. Of course it's always possible for someone to think they're in danger. Establishing that fear as reasonable is a completely different matter.
"Now, from what I've gathered through our extended conversation on this case is that you are one of those who would prefer we skip the trial part of this case and go straight to the punishment part."
Oh, of course you think that:"In any event, the important thing at the moment is that the system is being used, finally." Those are clearly the words of someone who doesn't respect the system, right?
"I guess you will not be eligible to be a jurist, you have already formed your opinion on his guilt/innocence (ONLY due to the extensive media coverage). Thanks for helping prove my point of how difficult it will be for a fair trial to occur."
From all I've seen, he doesn't have a defense, no. I'm not sure what's supposed to be wrong with coming to that conclusion. I also never said they wouldn't have a hard time finding a jury. I just said that doesn't necessarily have a major bearing on the verdict.
"I can't wait to see the defense argue that the guy on neighborhood watch doesn't understand the meaning of an authority saying "we don't need you to do that". "
DeleteYou know (of course) that some 911 operators are not police, correct? Are the ones that work in that city police officers or not police officers? Because if they are not police officers they do not have the "authority" you are implying they have.
Zimmerman's role was to call the police if necessary. Why is someone helping neighborhood watch if they don't respect what they're told, whether it's from an actual officer, a representative, a liaison or whatever other definition the dispatcher might fall under? If anyone's supposed to conform to what a 911 operator says, you'd think it would be someone in Zimmerman's position. Wouldn't you?
Delete"Why is someone helping neighborhood watch if they don't respect what they're told, whether it's from an actual officer, a representative, a liaison or whatever other definition the dispatcher might fall under?"
DeleteWell, you said "authority". The person needs "authority" not just a job. An officer is authority, a "whatever" is not. And that person did not tell him not to do it, just that it wasn't needed. Big difference that will be exploited in the trial.
Why do you keep demanding that the guy is guilty of murder? You've made every excuse in the world to send him directly to jail without trial. Don't you believe in the American justice system? Why can't you let it work? Ahh, never mind. I understand why you seem to hate American Justice.
"Well, you said "authority". The person needs "authority" not just a job."
DeleteYou're being a little too stringent in your definitions:dictionary.reference.com:5. an accepted source of information, advice, etc. Note my phrase "if they don't respect what they're told, whether it's from an actual officer, a representative, a liaison or whatever other definition the dispatcher might fall under?" No matter how you cut it, someone in Zimmerman's spot is supposed to adhere to such instructions.
Think about it this way;when you're calling for help, any help, you're calling upon a higher level of expertise. If you don't do what they say and it blows up in your face, that's your fault, whether they have the power to directly punish you for it or not. This is true whether you're talking about a 911 dispatcher or technical support for your computer. And that's a problem for Zimmerman, because ignoring what he was told created a situation where an unarmed teenager ended up dead. That didn't have to happen, so that's Zimmerman's fault whether it's determined to be criminal in nature or not.
"And that person did not tell him not to do it, just that it wasn't needed. Big difference that will be exploited in the trial."
Again, what would be the point of saying anything at all if the dispatcher was ambivalent about it? Your distinction is a phony argument, and it's not likely to hold any sway.
"Why do you keep demanding that the guy is guilty of murder?"
Where have I determined judgement, as opposed to saying that at this point his defense has a lot of problems? Moreover, where am I "demanding" anything instead of simply pointing things out?
"You've made every excuse in the world to send him directly to jail without trial."
That's a lie. Not only did I make the quote to the contrary that you conveniently ignore, but I haven't said anything that even remotely suggests that a trial should be skipped.
By your logic, any argument that demonstrates the strength or weakness of someone's defense is calling for the legal process to be scrapped. That would include your own posts. If you can demonstrate how I've advocated for sending him directly to jail, let's see it. Otherwise, this is just more of your rabid prejudice and dishonesty at work.
"Think about it this way;when you're calling for help, any help, you're calling upon a higher level of expertise."
DeleteNo, in some cases it is just someone who relays a message. It could be no different than if you call and complain about a noise in your basement and you tell them you are going down to investigate and they say: "we don't need you to do that". It doesn't necessarily mean not to go. Besides, they did not say not to go, did they? So, how could he ignore something if he wasn't told not to do it. If they had said: "No, do not do that", then it would be different. But they did not say that, did they?
"That didn't have to happen, so that's Zimmerman's fault whether it's determined to be criminal in nature or not. "
Sure, he pulled the trigger. Fault is what all this is about. Is it criminal? Or is it not criminal. That is what the Judge or lawyers and jury will decide.
Do you think he is criminally responsible? What punishment do you think he deserves?
My opinion is that it doesn't matter because he won't be able to get a fair trial anyway. So, whatever decision is made will probably end up being a political one that will be designed to ease tensions of those who complain about an action they did not witness.
"By your logic, any argument that demonstrates the strength or weakness of someone's defense is calling for the legal process to be scrapped. That would include your own posts."
DeleteYou mean statements I've made like this one: " I'm surprised you didn't read this during your denial of self-defense. Several eye-witness's have said a "scuffle" was occuring at the time. I think we should let the law decide this matter, not bloggers. Because bloggers don't seem to have all the facts, just opinion. "
"Not only did I make the quote to the contrary that you conveniently ignore, but I haven't said anything that even remotely suggests that a trial should be skipped."
DeleteYou used the Casey Anthony case as a direct comparison to this case. And you said no trial was needed in that one because "pretty much everyone" already knew who the killer was. What was the result of that trial? What affect did the influx of cash from a media outlet have on the 'tainted jury' you claimed in that case?
So, your statements show that you decide guilt/innocence before facts are known. You are proclaiming that Zimmerman did everything against instructions not to do anything and a child ends up dead. You are virtually saying Zimmerman is a murderer before any trial occurs. Just like you did in the Casey Anthony case.
You said: "Pretty much everyone knew Casey Anthony killed her child from the start."
"It doesn't necessarily mean not to go. Besides, they did not say not to go, did they?"
DeleteYou're just repeating your argument without addressing mine. It's called "subtext". For the third time, if the dispatcher was ambivalent about him following Martin, why say anything at all? The underlying message is to not do it.
"Do you think he is criminally responsible? What punishment do you think he deserves?"
It seems like it. Punishment isn't up to me. I'm just giving an opinion on what we know about his defense so far.
"You mean statements I've made like this one:"
I know what you've posted. What you're missing is that if you can ignore what I write to come to a dishonest conclusion, then the same could be done to you. That's why YOUR logic can't be used. How'd that work out for you?
"And you said no trial was needed in that one because "pretty much everyone" already knew who the killer was."
Show me where I said "no trial was needed" or anything to that effect. You're not familiar with that case, so obviously you're ignorant of the overwhelming appearance of her guilt from the start of the coverage.
Again, if you can overlook my quote, then I could pretend you never made the quote you cited, either. "Why do you want to let him free without a trial? Why do you hate the American justice system???" That would be idiotic, but you couldn't very well whine about it.
I did provide the quote where you said she was guilty. And, you said it again, just now:
Delete"so obviously you're ignorant of the overwhelming appearance of her guilt from the start of the coverage."
Yet, she was found not guilty, correct? Was that from the "tainted jury" that you claimed or from the influx of cash from a media outlet that caused her not guilty verdict? I asked that earlier, yet you ignored that question. Help me out here, did you think she was guilty before the trial or after? Before evidence was brought or after?
"It's called "subtext". For the third time, if the dispatcher was ambivalent about him following Martin, why say anything at all? The underlying message is to not do it."
DeleteYeah, I'm sure a jury will totally understand "subtext". What is the difference between "DO NOT do that" and "we don't need you to do that"?
"I did provide the quote where you said she was guilty."
DeleteWhere did I say no trial was required? That's a pretty big piece of the puzzle you're missing there. Also, you do know that since I used the Casey Anthony case to demonstrate one point, that doesn't mean any other opinions about one case transfers over to the other. You can't logically draw that conclusion. I'm sure it won't stop you from your desperate attempts to do so, but I'm just letting you know.
"Yet, she was found not guilty, correct? Was that from the "tainted jury" that you claimed or from the influx of cash from a media outlet that caused her not guilty verdict? I asked that earlier, yet you ignored that question."
Did I, or did you fail to respond to this?: http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/04/going-to-trial.html?showComment=1334395149555#c8061208014297233087
"Help me out here, did you think she was guilty before the trial or after? Before evidence was brought or after?"
Well, a woman's daughter disappears and she lies to her parents about it for a MONTH, creates an imaginary babysitter to blame it on, borrowed a shovel the last day the girl was seen, and spent the weeks afterwards partying. What do you think?
"Yeah, I'm sure a jury will totally understand "subtext"."
What's your difficulty answering the question? What would the purpose be of saying anything at all, if the dispatcher didn't care what Zimmerman did?
"What is the difference between "DO NOT do that" and "we don't need you to do that"?"
Realistically, not much at all. Thanks for asking.
"Where did I say no trial was required?"
Delete"Subtext" ... Isn't that what you called it?
Man ... don't you hate it when the words you bring into a conversation are used against you?
"Well, a woman's daughter disappears and she lies to her parents about it for a MONTH, creates an imaginary babysitter to blame it on, borrowed a shovel the last day the girl was seen, and spent the weeks afterwards partying. What do you think?"
DeleteYou claimed to have followed the case from the beginning. Yet you failed to address the question about the cash influx from the media outlet. Why is that?
Do you want to address it now? Or wait until later? Go ahead and use the same link you just provided, and just look at the statement I made just above it.
"What would the purpose be of saying anything at all, if the dispatcher didn't care what Zimmerman did?"
DeleteAnd, that goes back to the concern over the "authority" that dispatcher has. Was he/she a policeman telling Zimmerman "not to" do anything or just someone 'advising' that he didn't "need" to do anything? That will probably be a major issue when the trial happens. But, you've already made your determination of guilt/innocence, so in your mind it doesn't matter ... huh? Which leads to my concern of the inability for him to get a jury that hasn't already made up their minds ... like you have.
""Subtext" ... Isn't that what you called it?"
DeleteIf only you knew what words meant. "Subtext" doesn't mean applying your prejudiced beliefs regardless of what's already been clearly stated. See my very first post on the thread and tell me how "subtext" trumps the references to the actions of the state of Florida and the charges. I know you can't. I think that's at least your third strike on this one. Time to me to call you out for lying, and for you to let it go.
"You claimed to have followed the case from the beginning. Yet you failed to address the question about the cash influx from the media outlet. Why is that?"
What are you talking about? I answered the question. You're talking about the "tainted jury" as if I said that's what got her acquitted, when it's clear from everything I've posted that's not true. If you want to talk about it, respond to what I said, otherwise I have to assume you're completely lost. Your entire second post here is a non sequitur anyway.
"And, that goes back to the concern over the "authority" that dispatcher has."
No, it doesn't. The words carry the same connotation regardless of who the dispatcher was. Zimmerman put the situation under his own responsibility by following Martin, regardless of who the dispatcher was. A reasonable person knows to follow such instructions, whether they think a cop is going to arrest them for defying them or not.
"That will probably be a major issue when the trial happens. But, you've already made your determination of guilt/innocence, so in your mind it doesn't matter ... huh?"
It matters, I just don't think it's going to be compelling. Any decent prosecutor should be able to point out the stupidity of the defense you're putting forward, and I expect they will.
"Which leads to my concern of the inability for him to get a jury that hasn't already made up their minds ... like you have."
You like to point fingers a lot, but you don't ever explain what's wrong with evaluating the facts as we currently know them. If you don't feel the need to defend Zimmerman, then you shouldn't have any issue with it.
"If only you knew what words meant."
DeleteSubtext:
1. The implicit meaning or theme of a literary text.
2. The underlying personality of a dramatic character as implied or indicated by a script or text and interpreted by an actor in performance.
Implicit:
1. Implied though not plainly expressed: "implicit criticism".
2. Essentially or very closely connected with; always to be found in: "the values implicit in the school ethos".
Should I use #1 or #2 for each?
"What are you talking about? I answered the question."
No, you didn't answer the question about the cash influx.
"You like to point fingers a lot, but you don't ever explain what's wrong with evaluating the facts as we currently know them."
What FACTS do you KNOW so far?
"Should I use #1 or #2 for each?"
DeleteHow about you explain how implication that you can't even substantiate is supposed to trump previously established acceptance of the legal process? Dance all you want, you can't get around that.
"No, you didn't answer the question about the cash influx."
You really have to answer my questions to you on the matter. If you don't make an effort to be understood, you're out of luck, and that's not my problem.
"What FACTS do you KNOW so far?"
What facts have we been discussing, which you have accepted for the purposes of the discussion? Are you going to play the "we never really know anything" card, or what? It's impossible to discuss any subject under that principle.
From all the sources regarding this case, Zimmerman looks like he has a rough road ahead of him. If you can explain what's wrong with saying that, please do so.
"Dance all you want, you can't get around that."
DeleteAmen to that, brother.
"No, you didn't answer the question about the cash influx."
And ... still no answer.
"What facts have we been discussing, which you have accepted for the purposes of the discussion?"
Trayvon Martin is dead. George Zimmerman shot him.
"And ... still no answer."
DeleteYou're right, you still haven't answered. You asked, I addressed it, you ignored my response. Too bad for you.
"Trayvon Martin is dead. George Zimmerman shot him."
And the 911 calls.
Can you explain what's wrong with talking about court cases, yes or no?
No, you didn't address my question about the cash influx. Would you do that now?
DeleteYes, and the 911 calls.
"Would you do that now?
DeleteNo, for previously stated reasons. And there's no way you can claim that's unreasonable. You're either going to have to respond to what I said, or forget it.
Would you do that now?
DeleteNo
I didn't think so.
"And there's no way you can claim that's unreasonable."
DeleteYou're right. There's no way I could claim you not answering a pertinent question to be unreasonable.
My questions to you involved its pertinence. You won't answer the questions, therefore I have to assume you know it's not pertinent. Someone acting in good faith should have no problem addressing that concern.
DeleteNice job cropping my quote again, making it look as if I didn't give you a reason. As if that's going to help me think you're acting honestly here.
That's ok, don't answer the question about the media outlet paying her defense fund hundreds of thousands of dollars while you proclaim a "tainted jury" got her off the murder charge. I've read enough about how you thought she was guilty before a trial and before any facts were known. I read the same thing from you about Zimmerman. You think he is guilty already and doesn't even need a trial. Thank you for bringing "subtext" into the conversation. It explains a lot about how you think and explains much of your "writing style". However, it just made you look like a fool for demanding Zimmerman be sent straight to jail without a trial while trying to argue against my stance that a jury will be very difficult to find. You couldn't defend your position without resorting to circular logic ... and lies. THAT seems to be your "style" and I respect your decision to use that method as much as you please. It doesn't seem like a very honest method, but if that's the method you choose ... so be it. I'll keep that in mind as I respond to any of your posts in the future.
DeleteYou are going to say: Prove I lied, aren't you? Well, in the link YOU provided as defense for NOT answering what effect the cash influx had on Anthony's trial, it is obvious you did NOT ask what is the pertinence of my question. You only talked about tainted juries and said nothing about the effect the cash paid by a media outlet would have on the trial. If you're not worried about how pertinent cash is to a defense in a case you claim had a tainted jury after proclaiming her guilt even before the trial began, the I would understand you not answering. But at least admit it. Don't lie and dodge your way around the question.
"That's ok, don't answer the question about the media outlet paying her defense fund hundreds of thousands of dollars while you proclaim a "tainted jury" got her off the murder charge."
DeleteI never said a tainted jury got her off the murder charge. This is exactly why I demanded you answer my questions, because your premise is not only baseless, it's completely contrary to everything I said beforehand. One the one hand you harp on how I said everyone knew she was guilty, and then on the other you claim that I'm saying that dynamic exonerated her. That's insane.
"I've read enough about how you thought she was guilty before a trial and before any facts were known."
I didn't see you explain how the circumstances I mentioned made her look anything less than guilty. Funny about that.
"I read the same thing from you about Zimmerman. You think he is guilty already and doesn't even need a trial. Thank you for bringing "subtext" into the conversation."
Really? Zimmerman's daughter went missing and he didn't report it for a month and all that? I did not know that. Seriously, I didn't even say Casey Anthony shouldn't get a trial. You can respect the system and note someone's obvious guilt at the same time. There's no argument to the contrary.
"However, it just made you look like a fool for demanding Zimmerman be sent straight to jail without a trial while trying to argue against my stance that a jury will be very difficult to find."
This is amazing. First off, I never said a jury wouldn't be hard to find. I said that doesn't mean he would be found guilty (like Casey Anthony wasn't, get it?). More importantly, you seem to be admitting that I accepted the system as it is when making that argument, but then I somehow changed my mind and "demanded" that Zimmerman be sent straight to jail without a trial. My point about the jury would be evidence that I don't want him sent to jail without a trial. You're actually making the argument that you have no basis for your assumption.
"Well, in the link YOU provided as defense for NOT answering what effect the cash influx had on Anthony's trial, it is obvious you did NOT ask what is the pertinence of my question. You only talked about tainted juries and said nothing about the effect the cash paid by a media outlet would have on the trial."
If the premise of your question is utterly flawed, then it can't possibly be pertinent. Do you really want to argue otherwise?
Do you really believe what you post? I'm not trying to be mean, I'm genuinely curious. Because it's so far removed from reality that I wonder if you don't need some sort of medication. Again, I'm being completely serious here, I find your lack of cohesive thought alarming.
"I didn't see you explain how the circumstances I mentioned made her look anything less than guilty. Funny about that."
DeleteHmm, I'll bet there isn't anyone on death-row who was convicted of "circumstantial" evidence. Yeah, it's perfectly acceptable to use "circumstantial" evidence to prove guilt or innocence ... in your world, anyway.
"If the premise of your question is utterly flawed, then it can't possibly be pertinent. Do you really want to argue otherwise?"
You claimed to have answered my question, but now say the question was flawed and can't possibly be pertinant. Do you think you could have stuck with one position on that?
"You claimed to have answered my question ... blah blah."
DeleteLet me rephrase that; You claimed to have answered that question. Show me where you answered the question about the influx of cash from a media outlet being what got her off that charge as opposed to the tainted jury you claim was present.
"Hmm, I'll bet there isn't anyone on death-row who was convicted of "circumstantial" evidence. Yeah, it's perfectly acceptable to use "circumstantial" evidence to prove guilt or innocence ... in your world, anyway."
DeleteOf course it's acceptable. It just depends on how much evidence there is.
"Show me where you answered the question about the influx of cash from a media outlet being what got her off that charge as opposed to the tainted jury you claim was present."
I answered you by pointing out that the premise of your question was flawed, several times. For instance:"I did answer your question. I didn't say the trial was affected by a tainted jury. Pointing out that she was acquitted despite that concern is the point I was originally making."
Anything else?
"Of course it's acceptable."
DeleteIt's acceptable to put people on death-row using "circumstantial" evidence? Great philosophy you believe in there. No wonder you think people are guilty before any evidence or trial. Hope you don't live in the county I live in.
No, I have nothing else to discuss with you on this thread when you hold that kind of attitude towards the American Justice System.
"It's acceptable to put people on death-row using "circumstantial" evidence?"
DeleteAbsolutely. You do know that fingerprints are circumstantial evidence, right? If someone is seen entering a house where a body is found the next morning, that's circumstantial evidence. Ballistics is circumstantial evidence.
Imagine a woman claims that her husband left her. Years later, a skeleton is accidentally discovered in her backyard, a bullet hole in its skull. DNA from the bones matches the husband's. Neighbors say that the woman thought he was cheating on her before he disappeared. The woman used to own a gun, but sold it and doesn't remember who to.
All of that is circumstantial evidence. You don't have a damn clue what you're talking about.
I guess all that circumstantial evidence you believe so dearly in wasn't enough to convict Anthony.
DeleteThat means you are wrong about the tainted jury comparison. Since it was all based on circumstantial evidence that wasn't good enough for a conviction. No tainted jury.
And, I am still right that it will be very difficult to get a jury seated that hasn't already formed an opinion on this case.
Maybe you can understand the "subtext" of all that. LOL
"I guess all that circumstantial evidence you believe so dearly in wasn't enough to convict Anthony."
DeleteWhich is still highly controversial, as you've surely read in all your research.
"Since it was all based on circumstantial evidence that wasn't good enough for a conviction. No tainted jury."
I never said there was a tainted jury. The concern for that case is the same as you have for Zimmerman. That was the comparison.
"And, I am still right that it will be very difficult to get a jury seated that hasn't already formed an opinion on this case."
I never said it wouldn't be difficult to get a jury.
Any other delusions you'd like to thump your chest over?
"Any other delusions you'd like to thump your chest over?"
DeleteJust one. Your style of writing: why do you lie so much?
"I never said there was a tainted jury."
Your earliest posts were making a claim of a tainted jury. Now you deny making that claim? You DO know people can go back and look at what your wrote, right?
For instance, you compared this case to the Anthony case based on prejudices. ("there's a much greater possibility of people being prejudiced against Martin than there was people prejudiced against a 2 year-old girl."). After I asked for a clarification as to why you bring an unrelated case into this discussion you clearly wrote you think there was a "tainted jury": ("It wasn't in reference to race, it was about tainted juries."). There was no tainted jury in the Anthony case. That case hinged almost entirely on the cash influx from a media outlet that allowed the defense to counter the scientific evidence brought by the prosecutors. An aspect of that case you conveniently ignored and refused to answer ... because it blew your entire "tainted jury" comparison out of the water.
Then you bring up "circumstantial evidence", and you fail to realize that "circumstantial evidence" is what got this case started to begin with. Trayvon Martin had all the "circumstantial evidence" working against him and that's what got him shot. That means you approve of that kind of profiling because it fits the description of "circumstantial evidence" as YOU so proudly defined. So when you whine about truths and facts, some day I hope you learn to use them. Instead of calling your stories "subtext".
So, we end up running full circle with you finally agreeing with what I said in my first post (the one you disagreed with using an unrelated case to claim tainted jury). When you lie as often as you do, you really lose all respect and honorability. How am I supposed to believe ANYTHING you write after experiencing all those lies? Right, I cannot. So any future conversations I have with you will be taken 'with a grain of salt' and I'll treat every post of yours as if you are continuing to lie as you have in this article.
Eddie, I hope this has helped your income a bit. When you want to make some more, just post another article like this.
"Your earliest posts were making a claim of a tainted jury. Now you deny making that claim? You DO know people can go back and look at what your wrote, right?"
DeleteThey did not claim a tainted jury. The comparison was regarding your concern about a tainted jury in this case, and comparable points in time (before the Casey Anthony trial and before the Zimmerman trial). I couldn't possibly have been referring to anything after jury selection, because there's nothing in the Zimmerman case to compare that to. I would invite anyone to go back and read my posts, so they can see how your insanely stubborn interpretation makes no sense.
"For instance, you compared this case to the Anthony case based on prejudices. ("there's a much greater possibility of people being prejudiced against Martin than there was people prejudiced against a 2 year-old girl.")"
Do you imagine I was actually claiming someone was prejudiced against a 2 year-old girl? That was simply a point about a countering bias to the "trial-by-jury".
"After I asked for a clarification as to why you bring an unrelated case into this discussion you clearly wrote you think there was a "tainted jury""
Again, it was about your concern. It doesn't make any sense to claim that I'm talking about the actual jury when there hasn't been a jury selected for Zimmerman yet.
"There was no tainted jury in the Anthony case."
Precisely. As I've said more than once, she was acquitted despite that concern, which is why it's relevant to you saying that Zimmerman would be convicted because of the media attention.
"An aspect of that case you conveniently ignored and refused to answer ... because it blew your entire "tainted jury" comparison out of the water."
I never ignored it, I demonstrated that your premise was false, just as I've done again in my points above.
"Then you bring up "circumstantial evidence", and you fail to realize that "circumstantial evidence" is what got this case started to begin with. Trayvon Martin had all the "circumstantial evidence" working against him and that's what got him shot."
Now that is interesting. What circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing would that be, exactly? Considering how widely accepted circumstantial evidence is, are you comparing that to Zimmerman following Martin simply because he was black?
"So, we end up running full circle with you finally agreeing with what I said in my first post (the one you disagreed with using an unrelated case to claim tainted jury)."
No, I haven't agreed with what you posted. You were concerned with the "impossibility" of finding a fair jury. The whole point of the comparison is that the Casey Anthony jury was not biased against her.
If anything I've posted was ever ambiguous (and considering the context I have no idea how a reasonable person could think so), it's been explained repeatedly and consistently.
"They did not claim a tainted jury."
Delete"They" didn't, but you did.
"Do you imagine I was actually claiming someone was prejudiced against a 2 year-old girl?"
And, that's why I asked for a clarification. That clarification was that you said there was a tainted jury.
"I never ignored it, I demonstrated that your premise was false,"
Yes, you ignored it. And, have NOT demonstrated anything related to my question about the influx of cash from the media outlet that proved to be the deciding factor in that case. Care to tackle that aspect now?
"What circumstantial evidence of wrongdoing would that be, exactly?"
Profiling. The part of my statement you left out. Good job.
"The whole point of the comparison is that the Casey Anthony jury was not biased against her."
No, that wasn't your point. You repeatedly alluded to her getting off because of the "tainted jury". Yet refused to address the concern over cash influx from a media outlet.
You might want to look up the meaning of the word "consistant" before you try to claim it.
""They" didn't, but you did."
DeleteI think it's pretty funny for you to talk about things I leave out of quotes when you post garbage like that. My posts did not claim a tainted jury.
"And, that's why I asked for a clarification. That clarification was that you said there was a tainted jury."
No, I said your concern was a tainted jury. Again, it would make no sense to compare two different stages of the trials. This is a point you have failed to address.
"Yes, you ignored it. And, have NOT demonstrated anything related to my question about the influx of cash from the media outlet that proved to be the deciding factor in that case. Care to tackle that aspect now?"
I did not ignore it, I pointed out your premise was flawed, and that hasn't changed.
"Profiling. The part of my statement you left out. Good job."
Profiling based on what?
"No, that wasn't your point. You repeatedly alluded to her getting off because of the "tainted jury"."
No, I did not. I talked about her getting off despite the concern of a tainted jury. See my first response to you. You yourself remarked on the "Satan" reference, but now you're trying to say my point was that the jury was biased in her favor?
Nothing you're saying makes any sense in the context of the conversation. Your mindless repetition doesn't change that one bit.
"Profiling based on what?"
DeleteRace. That's why I asked for that clarification. The clarification that you said was towards a tainted jury and not race as a direct comparison to this case (pre-trial was your insinuation). Context--remember the word YOU used.
You know, I don't remember reading about the Anthony case in the comics. Do you read the comics (in newspapers)? I've seen several references to this case in the comics, yet you say there is equal pre-trial exposure in the media. Sorry, you still cannot compare the two. And, you still cannot defend your statements that say they are equal (in relation to pre-trial exposure). Too bad for you.
Again, I ask, what effect did the influx of cash from a media outlet have on the outcome of the Anthony case? And, if you are now claiming that a tainted jury wasn't a concern in that case, why are the two cases similar enough to use as comparisons?
"Race. That's why I asked for that clarification."
DeleteNo, we're talking about your comment that Martin was a victim of "circumstantial evidence" collected by Zimmerman. Are you saying that the "evidence" was Martin's skin color, yes or no?
"And, you still cannot defend your statements that say they are equal (in relation to pre-trial exposure). Too bad for you."
I don't have to. I never said "equal". Would you like me to provide a quote from you about introducing words into conversations? You didn't seem to approve of it, yet you do it without any sense of shame whatsoever.
"And, if you are now claiming that a tainted jury wasn't a concern in that case, why are the two cases similar enough to use as comparisons?"
Because the concern of having a tainted jury is the same as the one you have for Zimmerman. It's not supposed to be tainted in her favor. I noticed that you failed to address the "Satan" point above. Could it be because it makes your arguments look completely idiotic?
" Are you saying that the "evidence" was Martin's skin color, yes or no?"
DeleteThat's a very good possibility. Which is what all the media was alluding to with their portrayal of the kid getting shot because he was wearing a "hoody". That's why I asked what comparison could you possibly be making with the Anthony case in relation to this one. You pointed out your concern was a "tainted jury". Now you're saying there was no tainted jury in her case, but there may be in this one?
"That's a very good possibility. Which is what all the media was alluding to with their portrayal of the kid getting shot because he was wearing a "hoody"."
DeleteYou're the one who said that was "circumstantial evidence", not the media. How would you think that skin color is "evidence", and how would that relate to my acceptance of circumstantial evidence as it's used in courtrooms all over the country?
"You pointed out your concern was a "tainted jury". Now you're saying there was no tainted jury in her case, but there may be in this one?"
Wasn't that your concern from the start, that Zimmerman would be convicted because of trial by media? It could happen, but I'm not as worried about it as you are.
"You're the one who said that was "circumstantial evidence", not the media."
DeleteNo, I didn't say that. Where did I say that?
" I noticed that you failed to address the "Satan" point above."
You want me to address that you believe in satan and God, but claim to be atheist? I really don't think this would be the proper article to discuss your religious views. Maybe you want to include the Easter bunny into that conversation too? Wait, Eddie already admonished me for that remark. :)
"No, I didn't say that. Where did I say that?"
DeleteHere:"Then you bring up "circumstantial evidence", and you fail to realize that "circumstantial evidence" is what got this case started to begin with. Trayvon Martin had all the "circumstantial evidence" working against him and that's what got him shot."
"You want me to address that you believe in satan and God, but claim to be atheist?"
No, I want you to address how "If Casey Anthony can get a "Not Guilty", then Satan himself has a sporting chance" is supposed to mean that a jury was biased in Anthony's favor.
That's a good one. You want me to explain how you brought "circumstantial evidence" into the conversation?
DeleteAnother good one is you want me to explain what you meant by your statement.
Classic, simply classic.
No, you referred to the "circumstantial evidence" that got Martin killed. I didn't say anything about who brought it into the conversation originally.
Delete"Another good one is you want me to explain what you meant by your statement."
I know what I meant by my statement. I want you to explain your interpretation of it. If you're capable, that is.
Are you saying that wearing a hoody and walking around suspiciously isn't "circumstantial evidence"? From your description of "circumstantial evidence" those would be exactly that. I think that points to the racial aspect that you said wasn't present because you said the only correlation between the two cases was the extensive pre-trial media exposure affecting the jury pool. Although you never did bring any evidence of extensive pre-trial exposure of the Anthony case. Other than to say that 'you' knew about it and how she was already guilty before the trial using more flismy "circumstantial evidence" than what I think is present in this case.
Delete"I know what I meant by my statement. I want you to explain your interpretation of it."
And, I didn't think it could get any more classic. You want ME to explain what YOU meant by YOUR statement? You're right, I don't think I'm capable of explaining what YOU meant by YOUR statement. I think that would be best left up to the person who made the statement ... YOU.
"Are you saying that wearing a hoody and walking around suspiciously isn't "circumstantial evidence"? From your description of "circumstantial evidence" those would be exactly that."
DeleteOf course it isn't. You're talking about prejudice. There's nothing about my description that justifies your comments.
"I think that points to the racial aspect that you said wasn't present because you said the only correlation between the two cases was the extensive pre-trial media exposure affecting the jury pool."
So, there was a racial aspect to the Casey Anthony trial? Your comment makes no sense at all.
"Other than to say that 'you' knew about it and how she was already guilty before the trial using more flismy "circumstantial evidence" than what I think is present in this case."
If the evidence in the Anthony case was flimsy, it seems strange that you have no explanation for it.
"You want ME to explain what YOU meant by YOUR statement?"
No, that's the same thing you said last time. Your interpretation is what I'm asking about. Do I really have to break out your quote about how liberals don't have the balls to answer questions again?
"Of course it isn't. You're talking about prejudice."
DeleteYou mentioned prejudice in your first reply to me. That's why I asked for a clarification. Then you went on to say the comparison is the pre-trial tainted jury aspect. But, now you say there wasn't any pre-trial tainted jury aspect?
So, you say "a woman's daughter disappears and she lies to her parents about it for a MONTH, creates an imaginary babysitter to blame it on, borrowed a shovel the last day the girl was seen, and spent the weeks afterwards partying" are ALL circumstantial evidence, but wearing a hoodie and walking suspicially isn't? Lying, imagining, borrowing and partying ARE circumstantial evidence but clothing and behavior are NOT? You really make no sense at all. Isn't lying and imagining a behavior (you should certainly know about the lying part)? How is clothing worn different than "entering a house" or "fingerprints" left behind?
Yes, break out that quote so everyone can see you want me to interpret what you said for you. While you're at it, break out that quote when I ask you "what affect did the influx of cash from a media outlet have on the Anthony case?". Then tell me about those balls.
"You mentioned prejudice in your first reply to me. Then you went on to say the comparison is the pre-trial tainted jury aspect. But, now you say there wasn't any pre-trial tainted jury aspect?"
DeleteNo, I'm saying you're conflating bigotry with evidence. You're becoming increasingly random.
"Lying, imagining, borrowing and partying ARE circumstantial evidence but clothing and behavior are NOT?"
You do realize that evidence pertains to a crime, do you not? What crime would wearing a hoodie be evidence of?
"Yes, break out that quote so everyone can see you want me to interpret what you said for you. While you're at it, break out that quote when I ask you "what affect did the influx of cash from a media outlet have on the Anthony case?". Then tell me about those balls."
I'm asking for your interpretation. And the problem with you asking your idiotic question about the "influx" yet again is that my question is in regards to how yours is supposed to make any sense. I need you to answer, because otherwise I can't give what you say any credibility.
When you demonstrate how the premise of my question is flawed, you can make the comparison.
"And the problem with you asking your idiotic question about the "influx" yet again is that my question is in regards to how yours is supposed to make any sense. I need you to answer, because otherwise I can't give what you say any credibility."
DeleteYou made the claim that there was a tainted jury aspect to the Anthony case that equalled the Martin case. I told you I knew little about the Anthony case and did some research. I found out that the case was basically decided on the fact that a media outlet paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into the defense fund. That money was used to counter the scientific evidence brought by the prosecution. So I asked how that cash influx affected the outcome of the case after you said there was a tainted jury aspect that couldn't be ignored. So, after finding out that there was no tainted jury aspect you refuse to address my question about the cash influx. Thanks for showing you didn't (don't) know as much about that case as you claim you do. You continued to hang on to the idea that she got off because of a tainted jury. Then to top it off, you couldn't even show that there was extensive media coverage of that case ... pre-trial. Not even a little to show how your comparison of that case could apply to this case. You claimed to know so much about that case and you wouldn't even answer a simple question like that concerning how she got off the charges. No pre-trial tainted jury proof, nothing.
Now you say there isn't even a comparison with this case in relation to "circumstantial evidence" because you deny circumstantial evidence is applicable in this case but should have been the main decider in the Anthony case. I brought evidence of pre-trial tainting of jury possibilities in this case, brought viable "circumstantial evidence" and now you won't even accept those. You're fun to discuss with. You make claims without backing them up and then deny all the proof that shows you are wrong with your comparison. Then you want to change the subject to satan.
"You do realize that evidence pertains to a crime, do you not? What crime would wearing a hoodie be evidence of?"
I wasn't saying there was a crime. I was referring to the possible racial implications that you deny are present while comparing a case of white on white crime with latino on black crime. I asked for your clarification and you said there was no racial aspect to this crime just some kind of "prejudice" but not racial. Now, are you really saying there may be a racial aspect after you said it wasn't racial but it was 'tainted jury'? REALLY?!?
Why don't you just give it up if you can't even address what is asked of you. Hell, you've even resorted to demanding that I interpret statements you make. Why? Do you not know why you said it?
I don't need to demonstrate how your questions are flawed when you need ME to re-interpret what YOU say FOR you. You're a brilliant one.
"You made the claim that there was a tainted jury aspect to the Anthony case that equalled the Martin case."
DeleteNo, "equal" was your word. My claim was that a tainted jury was a concern in the Anthony case.
"You continued to hang on to the idea that she got off because of a tainted jury."
I never even suggested such a thing, and you have yet to produce one shred of evidence to support that contention.
"Not even a little to show how your comparison of that case could apply to this case."
I showed how there was national media attention. Your own research should have also shown you the amount of time that passed between the breaking of the story and the trial, which is a major factor there.
"You claimed to know so much about that case and you wouldn't even answer a simple question like that concerning how she got off the charges. No pre-trial tainted jury proof, nothing."
Isn't that shocking, considering how I didn't claim there was actually a tainted jury, much less that it was in her favor?
"Now you say there isn't even a comparison with this case in relation to "circumstantial evidence" because you deny circumstantial evidence is applicable in this case but should have been the main decider in the Anthony case."
I don't believe I said any of that, actually. You were talking about what got Martin killed, not what's going to come out at Zimmerman's trial.
"I brought evidence of pre-trial tainting of jury possibilities in this case, brought viable "circumstantial evidence" and now you won't even accept those."
Are those thoughts supposed to be connected? Is the "circumstantial evidence" of Martin's clothing supposed to be influencing the jury?
"Then you want to change the subject to satan."
"Satan" wasn't a "subject" to discuss. It was context that you refuse to address, because you know full well it makes your argument look insane.
"I wasn't saying there was a crime. I was referring to the possible racial implications that you deny are present while comparing a case of white on white crime with latino on black crime."
I never denied that possible racial implications are present. Your comment about the hoodie was regarding what got Martin killed, so it was evidence in Zimmerman's eyes. It's not evidence of anything by itself in court. If there's some Facebook post by Zimmerman saying he wants to shoot guys in hoodies, then THAT would be evidence.
"I asked for your clarification and you said there was no racial aspect to this crime just some kind of "prejudice" but not racial."
I never said that, either.
"Now, are you really saying there may be a racial aspect after you said it wasn't racial but it was 'tainted jury'? REALLY?!?"
I never said there wouldn't be a racial aspect. Your sentence makes no sense at all.
"Why don't you just give it up if you can't even address what is asked of you. Hell, you've even resorted to demanding that I interpret statements you make. Why? Do you not know why you said it?"
I know why I said it, I want to know why you think I said it. But, again, you are incapable.
"No, "equal" was your word. My claim was that a tainted jury was a concern in the Anthony case."
DeleteYOU called them "similar". Use that dictionary again, similar is almost the same as equal. If you're basing your entire argument over minor differences in the meanings of 'equal' and 'similar' then you've admitted that you are wrong and there is no viable comparison. Which is what I said at the beginning: apples to oranges. No similar comparison other than both are in Florida. Is THAT going to be the basis of your claim they are similar??
"I never even suggested such a thing, and you have yet to produce one shred of evidence to support that contention."
HERE: "It wasn't in reference to race, it was about tainted juries." After claiming satan had a sporting chance to get off because of prejudices present. That insinuates that you think she got off because of a tainted jury.
"I showed how there was national media attention."
All you brought was ONE wiki article. Do you know that wiki gets their information from individuals? You never brought ONE real article concerning that case pre-trial in order to support your use of it in your comparison. NOT ONE.
"Isn't that shocking, considering how I didn't claim there was actually a tainted jury, "
Yes you did. (See above answer) THAT'S why you used it in your comparison after I voiced my concern over the possible inability to get a jury seated and called your comparison unequal and like comparing apples to oranges.
"I don't believe I said any of that, actually. You were talking about what got Martin killed, not what's going to come out at Zimmerman's trial."
You said it. CONTEXT and I hardly think you are in ANY position to tell me what I was talking about, you can't even decipher what YOU are talking about. That's why you keep asking me to interpret what you've said.
"I never denied that possible racial implications are present."
Third time I use this statement in reference to what you DID say:
"It wasn't in reference to race, it was about tainted juries.". After I specifically asked if you were talking about racial prejudices while you compared the two cases and the ability to "get off" the charges.
"I never said that, either." Refer to the statement I just posted (4th time I've used that one) to show that you did in fact say there wasn't a racial aspect to be used in comparing the two cases after declaring your concern over prejudices in the trial.
"I know why I said it, I want to know why you think I said it."
WOW!!! Now you want me to tell you WHY you said what you said? You have gone over the deep end. Tell you what, you interpret what you say and you determine why you say what you say and I'll do the same for what I say. Is that a deal? I'm the "autopsychic" not wackopsychic. I cannot read your mind to interpret why you say wacko things. But there are professionals out there who can help you. You can probably get the government to pay for the visits for you.
Just in case you're too lazy to find it yourself, here is the link to that statement of yours that I keep using:
Deletehttp://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/04/going-to-trial.html?showComment=1334277805058#c8012111636144482896
"YOU called them "similar". Use that dictionary again, similar is almost the same as equal."
DeleteYou:"When YOU bring a word into the conversation, don't say I did that. That is dishonest."
"If you're basing your entire argument over minor differences in the meanings of 'equal' and 'similar' then you've admitted that you are wrong and there is no viable comparison."
Not at all. I said they were similar in that particular aspect. I've simply pointed out that you've been using "equal" to extrapolate the comparison to numerous other aspects.
"HERE: "It wasn't in reference to race, it was about tainted juries." After claiming satan had a sporting chance to get off because of prejudices present. That insinuates that you think she got off because of a tainted jury."
No, that is not what I said. I said IF she can get off, THEN Satan as a sporting chance. Not "because". Feel free to post what I wrote if you want to dispute that.
"All you brought was ONE wiki article. Do you know that wiki gets their information from individuals?"
Do you know that you used wiki on another thread here?
"THAT'S why you used it in your comparison after I voiced my concern over the possible inability to get a jury seated and called your comparison unequal and like comparing apples to oranges."
The possibility of a tainted jury was my point from the start. IF Anthony can get acquitted with the media attention she received, THEN Satan has a sporting chance. Meaning it's not a guaranteed conviction, as you seemed to think.
"CONTEXT and I hardly think you are in ANY position to tell me what I was talking about, you can't even decipher what YOU are talking about."
Again:"Then you bring up "circumstantial evidence", and you fail to realize that "circumstantial evidence" is what got this case started to begin with. Trayvon Martin had all the "circumstantial evidence" working against him and that's what got him shot." Those are your words. There's no context that transfers "that's what got him shot" to anyone else but you.
"After I specifically asked if you were talking about racial prejudices while you compared the two cases and the ability to "get off" the charges."
Because I wasn't comparing the cases based on race, obviously. There was no racial element to the Anthony case. I really have to be making a comparison to non-existent racial factors in the Anthony case to say that there might be a racial element in the Zimmerman case?
"Now you want me to tell you WHY you said what you said?"
I've already explained my meaning. You've partly explained your interpretation through your words above.
You misread my original reply to you, at best. Read it again.
http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/03/verdict-in-web-cam-case.html?showComment=1333574580082#c8354636469676450754
DeleteThere's the source for your "that is dishonest" quote. The first two paragraphs are priceless, considering your behavior here.
"Do you know that you used wiki on another thread here?"
DeleteNot to prove extensive pre-trial media coverage, equal to this case, that you claim.
"The possibility of a tainted jury was my point from the start. IF Anthony can get acquitted with the media attention she received, THEN Satan has a sporting chance."
However, you never brought any evidence of media attention.
"Not to prove extensive pre-trial media coverage, equal to this case, that you claim."
DeleteSo wiki doesn't get their information on links that you provide, somehow?
"However, you never brought any evidence of media attention."
Of course I did. You just dismissed it because it wasn't "equal". Remember, "that is dishonest".
Got anything else?
"So wiki doesn't get their information on links that you provide, somehow?"
DeleteAre you claiming ignorance of how wiki works, now?
"Got anything else?"
I don't need anything else. I've proven what I claimed from the start, while you have not. Saying and doing are 2 different things.
"Are you claiming ignorance of how wiki works, now?"
DeleteNo, I'm just wondering how you imagine wiki is trustworthy for you to use, but not for me.
Because I'm not using it to prove extensive media pre-trial coverage of a case you say is comparable to this case. You need to bring actual pre-trial coverage that the media had on that case. One link made after the case has been done and decided isn't proof of extensive pre-trial media coverage. You're more than welcome to use it as a bolster to your case, but, still, some actual media coverage would be welcome.
DeleteIf that's going to be your ONLY evidence ... well ... really? That's all you got?
I don't see the difference in what you're trying to prove. Either it's reliable or it isn't. Pick one.
DeleteAnd why is it you didn't really dispute this before, when you just pointed out that the Zimmerman case had more Google results? I suppose once your dishonest (your word) introduction of "equal" was made clear, then you couldn't rely on that argument any longer.
That's a shame.
It's reliable for what it is. If you want to read a story and learn about the case, go ahead and use it to read about the case. If you're trying to prove your claim that there was extensive pre-trial media exposure, then you need to bring some of that extensive pre-trial media exposure. I don't know how that can get any more simple.
DeleteEither there was extensive pre-trial media exposure or there wasn't.
All you have to do is bring some proof of that claim. Wanting me to accept a 'story' about the case isn't practical.
I still don't see the basis for the distinction. It's reliable for details of a case, but not for documentation of coverage? It's fine when you use it, but magically it's wrong for me. Amazing.
DeleteYou said yourself you don't know what proof would be out there. You want Youtube of all of it, or what? You're demanding evidence of something you can't even explain how to get, and of something which you didn't challenge before. You just said it wasn't equal, therefore my whole world was supposed to crash in on me or something. Now, you've changed your mind and decided you need archived broadcasts or some such.
And honestly, considering your absolutely abhorrent behavior here, I see no reason why I should have to jump through any more hoops for something that you're going to misrepresent, or find another absurd reason not to accept. Believe what you want, but I'm not the one with the credibility issue around here.
Really? That's the best excuse you can come up with? You've never heard of google? Do you think newspaper archives don't work for you but they do for everyone else? Good God, man. Quit whining that you can't bring ANY proof of a claim of fact that YOU made.
DeleteTell you what, should I find the proof that YOU say is fact FOR YOU?? But, I guess you wouldn't accept that proof would you? Because I have "credibility issues".
You accepted the proof before, you just thought it wasn't "equal". I'm going to say that if you really didn't think it proved that there was even national coverage, you shouldn't have done that. Because if you really felt that way, you made it look like you're desperately and dishonestly trying to save face here.
DeleteAnd that's too damn bad for you. This isn't going to change, so you know in advance.
"The case attracted a significant amount of national media attention, and was regularly the main topic of many TV talk shows, including those hosted by Greta Van Susteren, Nancy Grace, Geraldo Rivera, and others."
DeleteIs this the proof you have of extensive media coverage of the pre-trial? There's one line that says there was "a significant amount of national media attention". I'm sure you're able to bring even a little bit of it. How hard can that be?
Just to help you out, I googled the pre-trial coverage and found a couple articles. Do you want ME to post them so that I can prove YOUR statements of fact? Or, do you want to do your own work? I suspect I already know the answer to that one.
If you found some articles, then you don't need to show me. I followed the case from the start, I saw it covered often.
DeleteThere you see? How hard is it to look up the Orlando Sentinal?
DeleteNow, should I expect and demand that YOU prove any future FACTS that I claim to be present or will I have to prove them myself? Because if that's the standard you going to demand from now on at least let me know.
I don't know, how hard was that to find when you were doing all your research earlier?
Delete"Now, should I expect and demand that YOU prove any future FACTS that I claim to be present or will I have to prove them myself?"
I would guess that you already do, since I have to do research to find out what you THINK:
http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/04/going-to-trial.html?showComment=1334362250611#c977494468890156879
"I don't know, how hard was that to find when you were doing all your research earlier?"
DeleteWell, you'll notice I find a lot of stuff on the case at the Orlando Sentinal. I guess that paper is in our nation, so it would classify as "extensive national coverage". LOL
If the articles you found weren't regarding the amount of pre-trial coverage, I'm not sure why you thought it was fair to ask if I was supposed to prove your claims in the future.
DeleteI'm glad you find your own confusion funny.
My confusion, Brabantio, is why you are so proud of the fact you make claims of fact and then you can't prove what you say. Maybe that's just a liberal thing. Hopefully it isn't because you are very dishonest. Maybe you're just a 12 year old having fun on the computer, I don't know. But, being proud of not proving your own statements isn't really a good thing. You may think it is, but it isn't.
DeleteSo, for future reference, I'll treat all of your statements from here on out as fairy tales by an atheist. And you know what I mean by that. (nothing you say can be treated as honest or real). Good luck with that philosophy.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/comic-riffs/post/the-trayvon-martin-cartoons-candorville-creator-darrin-bell-reminds-readers-of-the-humanity-lost-in-the-news-narrative/2012/04/02/gIQAfcvtqS_blog.html
Deletehttp://reason.com/blog/2012/03/30/how-to-make-the-trayvon-martin-shooting
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-03-28/news/31251824_1_cartoon-yellow-journalism-media-coverage
http://www.cartoonistgroup.com/bysubject/subject.php?sid=9674
I'll bet you've got lots of pre-trial comics printed through the media about the Anthony case.
I did prove what I said. You accepted it already, you just tried to make me prove it was "equal". Your shifting gears later on does not change that. You, however, have failed to provide proof of claims of fact not very long ago (DNA evidence in 1920, remember?). Heal thyself, hypocrite.
DeleteYou've already made all the promises and threats you make here previous to this thread. I see no reason to give them any consideration.
"I'll bet you've got lots of pre-trial comics printed through the media about the Anthony case."
DeleteWilliam, your "equal" dishonesty was already shot down. How crazy do you have to be to try to make another argument based on it?
And your "similar" ideology never left the ground. You got none and you brought none. I, however, have plenty of proof of pre-trial media exposure for this trial that may taint a jury (and I used much of it as proof). You brought none for your comparison that I said was like comparing apples to oranges.
Delete"You, however, have failed to provide proof of claims of fact not very long ago (DNA evidence in 1920, remember?)."
No claim of facts.
Changing subjects again? Tired of hero-worshiping satan? You atheist sure a weird bunch.
"And your "similar" ideology never left the ground. You got none and you brought none."
DeleteAgain, you accepted it, you just wanted me to prove it was "equal". Just like putting up cartoons. Are those from political cartoonists, by any chance? Would a non-political case stand a chance of getting covered by political cartoonists?
"No claim of facts."
Really? You said that's how rights were established, as opposed to making people "feel sorry for" women and African-Americans. That's why you demanded DNA proof for homosexuals, because that's what was needed previously. You are a damn liar.
Pointing out your raging hypocrisy and dishonesty is not changing the subject when you make accusations against me. Deal with it.
"Are those from political cartoonists, by any chance?"
DeleteNo. Some are from nationaly syndicated comics. But, being the person you are, you didn't even look ... did you?
"You are a damn liar."
Yeah? Bring my statement where I said DNA proved women were women. Keep calling me a liar without proof. Just like your other claims of fact ... NO PROOF. You are the complete liberal -- "Deal with it"
"Some are from nationaly syndicated comics."
Delete"Nationally syndicated" is not contrary to "political". They are not mutually exclusive. And why would I bother to look when you're trying to prove an irrelevant point?
"Bring my statement where I said DNA proved women were women."
Are you sure you don't mean "women didn't choose to be women" or something of the sort? Or is this an attempt to change the question you were asked, yet again?
http://eddiecabot.blogspot.com/2012/03/verdict-in-web-cam-case.html?showComment=1333299979476#c5874156978762134660
You:"We once discriminated against women and blacks. But, scientific proof was brought that showed they could not choose who they are born as and to discriminate against them based on that issue would be wrong. Now, when you bring that scientific proof then you can claim civil rights. However, without scientific proof then you are saying that blacks achieved equality simply because everyone felt sorry for them. Is that really what you want to say about the civil rights movement??"
Me:"Is that right? What scientific proof was needed for that? Was there anyone in the world that believed that someone "chose" to be born a certain gender or race, until science set them straight?"
You:"Actually, yes. That's how we got civil rights for blacks and women. Are you a complete moron and don't pay ANY attention to what happens in the world? How in the hell do you think blacks and women were even allowed to get the civil rights they sought? Do you think the asked and suddenly they appeared? God you liberals are stupid if you believe that one."
Me:"So who was arguing that skin color or gender was a "choice", then?" and "Let me ask you this;exactly what scientific proof was used to grant women rights?"
You:(crickets)
"Bring my statement where I said DNA proved women were women."
DeleteI don't see DNA in there. Is there another quote you claim I said that in? Or are you going back to "context"? You know ... the word you refused to accept a little earlier.
Are you really going to claim you weren't asking for DNA proof of homosexuality throughout that thread?
DeleteIf you can explain what other evidence you might be talking about, especially considering your lecture about X and Y chromosomes, I'd love to hear it.
I didn't refuse to accept "context". You didn't explain how context helped you, all you did was use the word as if it was supposed to have a magical effect.
You claim I had a statement about DNA and women. Bring it. If you're going to change the subject after I wiped the floor with you in this article, at least bring the proof of what you claim. Oh, wait ... I just got done saying your MO is to claim facts but not prove them. Never mind, you atheists sure are a weird bunch.
DeleteIt's funny that you didn't answer the question. I'll take that to mean you won't deny your repeated mentions of DNA.
DeleteI don't think I used the word "statement", did I? I think it was "claims of fact". Let's see:"You, however, have failed to provide proof of claims of fact not very long ago (DNA evidence in 1920, remember?)."
Yes, there it is. "Statement" is a word you just introduced and attributed to me. "That is dishonest".
When did I make a "claim of fact" that DNA proved women to be women? If I remember correctly (since you failed to provide a link) I didn't say "DNA". Did I say DNA proved women to be women in 1920? Or is that something you brought into the discussion? Please provide a link to what you think I said. If I said it, I'll own up to it. If not, then I'm not the dishonest one.
DeleteAt least you aren't denying that I wiped the floor with you in this article. And, now that this one is done, you change the subject. How about you just continue the DNA discussion on the article where it was supposedly made? Instead of this one.
You atheists sure are a weird bunch.
"Did I say DNA proved women to be women in 1920?"
DeleteWhy do you keep using the "proved women to be women" phrase? And I hope you aren't questioning the year, since that was when women gained the right to vote.
You claimed that science came forward to prove that women didn't have the choice to be born the way they are. When I asked you what scientific proof, you ran away, for some reason. Unsurprisingly, I have another chance to use your words against you:"BTW, my assumptions about you are correct until you actually man-up and answer to any incorrect assumption."
Since you mentioned X and Y chromosomes when talking about how women become women, and since you refused to accept any scientific evidence except for DNA, and since you ran away instead of answering a simple question about the type of evidence that was used, and especially because you established the right for me to make assumptions until you correct them, then you can't complain about my assumption that you were talking about DNA. If you want to "man-up" and explain what evidence you meant, then do so. Otherwise, by your own words, you can't deny my assumption.
And even beyond your intellectually dishonest ploy, you still made the claim of fact that science came forward to prove to the public that women and African-Americans deserved rights. Did you back up that claim of fact when challenged on it? No, you most certainly did not.
"At least you aren't denying that I wiped the floor with you in this article."
I didn't know I was beholden to deny your self-reassuring delusions.
"And, now that this one is done, you change the subject."
It's not a change of subject. When you display hypocrisy, I'm entitled to point it out. I don't expect you to actually address the point, since you scurried away from my questions more than once already.
Is it true that DNA was isolated in 1869?
DeleteIs it true that DNA collects mutations over time which are then inherited? And, if that is true why hasn't there been any DNA proof of homosexuality?
How long have humans been determined by their DNA? Oooo, can I answer that one for you? Since the beginning of time.
Now, stop your whining and prove homosexuals are born that way ... since you don't want to continue your whines about the Anthony case extensive pre-trial media coverage.
"Is it true that DNA was isolated in 1869?"
Delete"Isolated" is not the relevant breakthrough, which I think you know.
"Is it true that DNA collects mutations over time which are then inherited? And, if that is true why hasn't there been any DNA proof of homosexuality?"
Why would that lead you to believe there would be proof at this point in time? You're not making it clear what the logical connection is supposed to be there.
"How long have humans been determined by their DNA?"
The Earth has always orbited the Sun, too, but we didn't always know that. What point did you think you were proving there?
"Now, stop your whining and prove homosexuals are born that way ..."
Aren't you the same person who's always chastising me for changing the subject? The point is that you aren't supporting your claims of fact, which makes you a flaming hypocrite.
"Why would that lead you to believe there would be proof at this point in time? You're not making it clear what the logical connection is supposed to be there."
DeleteStep 1: you say gays are born that way.
Step 2: that means you say gays have been around since the beginning of man.
Step 3: DNA proves what you are born as.
Step 4: Humans have been around for millions of years.
Step 5: Where's your DNA proof of gays?
Step 5a: Since you say animals are born gay, where's the DNA evidence of that? (they've been around longer than humans)
Are you able to follow that logic? Do you think scientists just aren't trying hard enough to find that gene? Is that why it hasn't been found?
"What point did you think you were proving there?"
That you haven't a clue to what you're talking about. And, I did a good job of that ... again.
You go right ahead and continue your rants about women, when THAT discussion is about gays. While THIS article is about Trayvon Martin. I won't answer any more of your whines on this article thread. You've clearly exposed yourself as someone who doesn't know what you are talking about.
"Do you think scientists just aren't trying hard enough to find that gene?"
DeleteWhat does "millions of years" have to do with anything there? Using that scale of time, it would be just as sensible to ask why there was no DNA evidence of homosexuality in 1850. Is your suggestion that scientists in ancient Egypt were working on unraveling the mysteries of DNA, or what?
"I won't answer any more of your whines on this article thread."
That's fine. It's been established that you're a hypocrite for not supporting your claims of fact, even though I do appreciate your attempts to change that here. As intellectually dishonest as your effort is, at least it's a step up from running off.
"It's been established that you're a hypocrite for not supporting your claims of fact"
DeletePot meet Kettle. Only I don't lie like you do.
Your theory that Anthony had extensive pre-trial media coverage is "scientists in ancient Egypt"? Hmmm, that one is quite 'out there', but being the atheist that you are, I can understand why you would believe that.
"Pot meet Kettle. Only I don't lie like you do."
DeleteOh, of course not. Never mind that you're admitting you didn't support your claim of fact when you said earlier that you didn't even make a claim of fact. But that wasn't a "lie". Nice work there.
"Your theory that Anthony had extensive pre-trial media coverage is "scientists in ancient Egypt"?"
I quoted your point about scientists and address your "millions of years" line, but you attribute my quote to a completely different topic? I have no idea how you could honestly make that mistake.
Too bad I didn't make that claim of fact. You made it, not me. As evidenced in the link you brought.
Delete" I have no idea how you could honestly make that mistake."
That goes to show how gullible (or stupid) you are, that was no mistake.
How is "We once discriminated against women and blacks. But, scientific proof was brought that showed they could not choose who they are born as and to discriminate against them based on that issue would be wrong" NOT a claim of fact, exactly? How is the only possible interpretation of that (as far as you are allowing) not something you are responsible for?
Delete"That goes to show how gullible (or stupid) you are, that was no mistake."
So it was a deliberate misrepresentation, which makes you a liar.
"So it was a deliberate misrepresentation, which makes you a liar."
DeleteNo, it shows you are incapable of understanding sarcasm in the English language. Maybe I should try Latin?
ANNUIT COEPTIS , Which is on EVERY US dollar bill. Enjoy holding those in your wallet.
"No, it shows you are incapable of understanding sarcasm in the English language. Maybe I should try Latin?"
DeleteSo you were being sarcastic when you fused together two completely separate concepts?
"ANNUIT COEPTIS , Which is on EVERY US dollar bill."
What on earth do you imagine you're talking about?
"What on earth do you imagine you're talking about?"
DeleteAs much as you change the subject, are you now implying that I am not allowed to?
"Where did I defend Zimmerman? If you actually read what I wrote, I was disgusted with your rush to judgement without the facts being present."
ReplyDeleteOK, fair enough. i suppose I can cede the first point. But there's a problme with thesecond part: I never 'rush[ed] to judgement without the facts being present.' The police let him off on a self-defense claim, that - we all seem to be in agreement - will likely not stand up in court.
There were two FACTS - two UNDISPUTED facts - that suggest he should have at least been ARRESTED. Two facts which would seem to trump ANY claim of self-defense. (Unless you serious think the maxim of the best defense being a good offense, actually applies here!) If YOU actually read what I WROTE, I think you will find that we were BOTH wanting to see this man get his day in court - a circumstance that I was lamenting would apparently NOT HAPPEN if the local police had their say. Show me where I condemned him to death, or any such thing!
Methinks your knee-jerk reflex to disagree with any and all things that any and all liberals say clouds your judgement.
Oh, yeah... and "Good thing we have the liberal maniacs out there who kept it in the spotlight" indeed. Otherwise this doesn't go to trial. The police let him off, and shrugged their shoulders and said "Nothin' we can do!" And it's over.
It doesn't happen often, but sometimes the good guys actually win one.
"There were two FACTS - two UNDISPUTED facts"
DeleteYes, there are 2 facts that are KNOWN; Mr Martin is dead and Mr Zimmerman shot him. What other facts are you absolutely sure of? You seemed to list a couple more, in the previous article, but I fail to see how you know those were facts.
"Otherwise this doesn't go to trial. The police let him off, and shrugged their shoulders and said "Nothin' we can do!" And it's over."
That is highly doubtful. Your liberal fears of conservative over-lordness is misplaced and inaccurate. The "police" are NOT the ones who make that decision, they do what they are told in the procedure that is required of them.
"and it got to the point where the chief of police RESIGNED over his department's inability to build a case."
Hmm, and the "inability to build a case" comes from what? What do they NEED to build that case? Facts or liberal fantasies?
"The police let him off on a self-defense claim, that - we all seem to be in agreement - will likely not stand up in court."
Well, here is my first defense of Zimmerman: I do not agree with that. I was not there and do not know if he had to or did not have to defend himself. That seems to be one of the facts you seem to know that nobody else does.
"The day Brabantio or I (or anyone else) come over to Autopsychic and ask you about Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson, Trayvon Martin or anything else you don't want filling up your blog?"
I don't have a blog. But thanks for never going there to find out.
"Show me where I condemned him to death, or any such thing!"
Finally, I don't know why you keep saying that. I went back (again) and read what I wrote and I just don't see me quoting or otherwise saying you called for his "execution" or "death". Do you have that quote, I can't find it.
"I was not there and do not know if he had to or did not have to defend himself."
DeleteDo you believe Martin was screaming for help before he was shot? The 911 call is available for you to hear, and experts have concluded the voice is not Zimmerman's.
If you don't believe that, why not? And if you do, then how do you imagine Zimmerman might absolutely need to shoot Martin dead while Martin is screaming for help?
"Do you believe Martin was screaming for help before he was shot? The 911 call is available for you to hear, and experts have concluded the voice is not Zimmerman's."
DeleteWho's voice did they determine it to be? Did those experts say who's voice it was? I'm guessing you've heard the tape and your expert opinion is that the voice is Mr. Martin's. I'm glad you were a witness to the incident and can give the police all the eye-witness accounts of the incident that they need. Whew, this will be an open/shut case with your expert testimony.
There's no option other than Martin. Unless "Maybe you get special articles that no one else gets and that's where you get your information from?" Have you heard of a third person involved in the altercation?
ReplyDeleteYou don't claim to be on Zimmerman's side, but you're going to start making absurd defenses on his behalf? Such as the argument of "there were two people fighting, and the person screaming for help wasn't Zimmerman, but we don't know who was screaming for help"?
Let's agree that it was Martin, since that's the only option that makes sense. How do you imagine Zimmerman would need to kill him in self-defense while Martin is calling for help?
From what I've heard, they are still hoping there is a witness to the incident who will come forward. If there is a witness, then there goes your "only 2 people" theory.
DeleteAnd, if Mr. Martin was the only other person, why did the cops say it "wasn't Zimmerman" instead of it "was Martin"?
Because there's no audio of Martin to compare it with. It would be irresponsible for those people to proclaim it was his voice without a sample for analysis, but that doesn't mean we can't come to a reasonable conclusion on the matter.
DeleteThere is at least one witness, and there was nothing said about a third person. It wouldn't make much sense that a third person was calling for help, stopped when the gun went off, then just left without ever saying anything to anyone about it anyway.
Do you think it's acceptable to discuss legal cases as long as reasonable conclusions are made?
"It wouldn't make much sense that a third person was calling for help, stopped when the gun went off, then just left without ever saying anything to anyone about it anyway."
DeleteNo, it wouldn't make sense if someone saw another get ready to be shot to call for help then quiet down and leave after someone gets shot. If there is a person, then they should have confronted the person with the gun to make sure he was following the law.
You're right ... it would make no sense for a potential witness to leave the scene of a violent confrontation.
"Because there's no audio of Martin to compare it with."
Are you kidding me? His parents don't know what he sounded like? I fully understand the "reasonable conclusion" would be for it to be Martin. But, reasonable conclusions aren't always factual. Often, but not always. So, you continue to fly with assumptions. You have every right to do that.
"No, it wouldn't make sense if someone saw another get ready to be shot to call for help then quiet down and leave after someone gets shot. If there is a person, then they should have confronted the person with the gun to make sure he was following the law."
DeleteIs this scenario supposed be consistent with self-defense? I don't think you thought about that response at all. It doesn't explain why that person wouldn't go to the authorities at some point in time, anyway.
"Are you kidding me? His parents don't know what he sounded like?"
This is analysis, a little more involved than asking if the panicked screams sound like someone's son (great idea, by the way, very considerate of the parents' emotional state).
"I fully understand the "reasonable conclusion" would be for it to be Martin. But, reasonable conclusions aren't always factual. Often, but not always. So, you continue to fly with assumptions."
I never said they were always factual, so your argumentative behavior isn't warranted. If you agree it's a reasonable conclusion, then how would you possibly imagine it to be self-defense?
" It doesn't explain why that person wouldn't go to the authorities at some point in time, anyway."
DeleteNo, it doesn't explain that. Maybe you can tell me why that hasn't happened, since you are busy assuming so many facts.
"If you agree it's a reasonable conclusion, then how would you possibly imagine it to be self-defense?"
There are so many possibilities, that if you want to narrow all of them down to just your own opinion, you go right ahead and do that.
Have you actually read any of my posts?
"No, it doesn't explain that. Maybe you can tell me why that hasn't happened, since you are busy assuming so many facts."
DeleteThe most likely explanation is that Martin was the one screaming for help, which you yourself said was a reasonable conclusion.
"There are so many possibilities, that if you want to narrow all of them down to just your own opinion, you go right ahead and do that."
What is that supposed to mean, exactly? Can you think of a plausible explanation for how that would be consistent with self-defense, yes or no?
"Have you actually read any of my posts?"
What's your point?
"Can you think of a plausible explanation for how that would be consistent with self-defense, yes or no?"
DeleteYes.
"What's your point?"
Because you're commenting on what you think I've said and ignoring things I've actually said.
"Yes."
DeleteSuch as?
"Because you're commenting on what you think I've said and ignoring things I've actually said."
Again, such as?
Do your own research. I answered your 'yes/no' question. If you want commentary and opinion, just use your own version of what you think I've written somewhere.
DeleteIf you want to make the point that I'm misinterpreting you, it shouldn't be difficult for you to substantiate that. So I think it's safe to say you're just blowing smoke on that score and regarding your theory of self-defense.
Delete"So I think it's safe to say you're just blowing smoke on that score and regarding your theory of self-defense."
DeleteI don't have a theory of "self defense". I'm commenting on the unceasing media coverage. So there's one misrepresentation.
"If you agree it's a reasonable conclusion, then how would you possibly imagine it to be self-defense?"
I did not say it was "a reasonable conclusion". I said "Often, but not always" and I don't "imagine it to be self-defense". There's numbers 2+3. That's only from your last 4 posts. Do you really want me to do this? Sorry I don't have time for that. Like I said, do your own research.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete'm commenting on the unceasing media coverage. So there's one misrepresentation."
DeleteHow on earth would that possibly fit into this section of the conversation? The yes/no question you refer to had to do with your comment about self-defense.
"I did not say it was "a reasonable conclusion"."
Really?:"I fully understand the "reasonable conclusion" would be for it to be Martin." That's a reasonable conclusion, whether or not it's guaranteed to be true or not.
"I said "Often, but not always" and I don't "imagine it to be self-defense"."
I'm asking you could imagine self-defense as a possibility, since you disputed that it likely wouldn't stand up in court. What would that theory be, exactly, if it's reasonable to say that Martin was screaming for help?
This is YOU trying to refute my claim that you are mis-representing my comments:
Delete[ "I did not say it was "a reasonable conclusion"."
Really?:"I fully understand the "reasonable conclusion" would be for it to be Martin." That's a reasonable conclusion, whether or not it's guaranteed to be true or not. ]
This is what I ACTUALLY said: "I fully understand the "reasonable conclusion" would be for it to be Martin. But, reasonable conclusions aren't always factual. Often, but not always."
That's number 4. And that's just from your last 4 posts while discussing with me. Tell you what, when you stop discussing in a dis-honest way, I'll continue to correspond with you. If you continue to be dis-honest during our conversations, then I would have no other option than to ignore your posts (again).
Sorry, Eddie, that means you'll lose a lot of entries onto your blog. But don't blame me for wanting to stop after trying to have an honest conversation with someone who does not.
Let me get this straight. You have absolutely no basis on which to doubt that conclusion, but it's not "reasonable" because of the mere possibility that it isn't "factual"?
DeleteIf that's the case, then there's no such thing as a reasonable conclusion in this type of matter, because any such conclusion could always be ultimately false. If that's not how you're seeing it, please explain. If it is, then you can hardly blame anyone for not taking that idiotic reasoning to be your meaning.
" (great idea, by the way, very considerate of the parents' emotional state)."
DeleteI hear the police have went to the parents to confirm the voice on the tape. The parents have confirmed it was Trayvon.
Are you going to call the police inconsiderate of the parents emotional state for asking the parents for help? (like you did me?)
"Are you going to call the police inconsiderate of the parents emotional state for asking the parents for help?"
DeleteIt's not something I would advocate unless absolutely necessary. It's pretty disturbing. If they felt the need, then fair enough.
"It's not something I would advocate unless absolutely necessary."
DeleteGetting to the truth of the matter ... I reckon you wouldn't advocate that.
So does this mean that you accept that Martin was screaming for help? If so, how would you imagine a self-defense argument holding up in court?
DeleteI accept it was his voice on the 911 tape. I have no idea what he was "screaming" for. I have not listened to it.
DeleteI don't think 'self defense' is the main issue. I think the issue is Zimmerman's right to shoot him IF he thought he was in danger. That means different things in different venues. I live in California so I do not know Florida law. Also, being a mechanic kind of reduces my ability to interpret (absolutely) law.
My concern is STILL the ability to get a fair trial. What the issues (within that trial) are will come out DURING the trial, not while bloggers are discussing it a year before the trial begins.
"I don't think 'self defense' is the main issue. I think the issue is Zimmerman's right to shoot him IF he thought he was in danger."
DeleteI'm not sure what the difference is supposed to be there. I hope you'd agree that if he claims self-defense, the 911 tape is going to hurt his case.
I hope the moon is made of cheese. I like cheese.
Delete"I'm not sure what the difference is supposed to be there."
That doesn't surprise me.
"I don't think 'self defense' is the main issue. I think the issue is Zimmerman's right to shoot him IF he thought he was in danger."
DeleteLet me break down the lack of difference for you, then.
A:"Martin was screaming for help, so Zimmerman will have a hard time claiming self-defense."
B:"Martin was screaming for help, so Zimmerman will have a hard time claiming he thought he was in danger."
The distinction is subtle, if at all existent.
Let me break down the REAL difference. The "stand your ground" law, does not need "self defense" to be applied.
DeleteThe distinction is there. Which is why this case may have constitutional implications.
It's self-defense, just preemptive. I understand that difference, and that's what's wrong with the law. The context here is the argument that's going to be made in court, and I don't see how either claim is going to hold up given the 911 call.
DeleteYou should just pray the judge doesn't throw the case out before it even makes it to trial. That's what that law can do.
DeleteYou (and I) may not like the law, but it IS the law. You can work on changing it afterwards, but right now, it is the law.
I agree with Eddie that if Zimmerman goes free, there probably will be a major backlash against the law. That would be the silver lining, assuming everything about this case is as it appears to be so far.
DeleteMy opinion is: that is why they took so long to charge him. They needed to make as sure as possible that the law wouldn't over-ride any attempt to prosecute him. Of course you and Eddie think it is because of a lax police dept. I think they were getting their 'ducks in a row'. We'll see who is right when the judge makes his/her decision as to whether this case even goes to trial.
DeleteSo you better start praying to God or satan (your choice) that a trial even happens.
"that is why they took so long to charge him."
DeleteThe two most important factors as far as I see are;1)Zimmerman following Martin despite the dispatcher's instructions, and 2)the 911 call. Neither of those should have taken anywhere near a month to evaluate, and I don't know what else they need to show that Zimmerman was violating the spirit (and possibly the letter) of the law. It may be the case, but considering the State Attorney shot down the call for charges, I don't see what process would have been going on until the spotlight forced a change of course.
"So you better start praying to God or satan (your choice) that a trial even happens."
I'll pray to neither, thank you.
The voice on the tape will be evidence in court, and will be deemed to be Martin's if it doesn't match Zimmerman's. If the science has already concluded it's not Zimmerman's, I'm not aware of it.
ReplyDeleteYou seem, William, to have a very naive trust in people who wear uniforms and carry firearms. I've known a lot of police officers, and find them no more or less likely to be irresponsible and dishonest than ordinary civilians. The fact that this case is now going to trial is more than prima facie, it is conclusive evidence that the police didn't follow proper procedure, even if common sense didn't tell you that.
Yeah, the tape will be evidence. I was listening to a radio show and they were talking to a prosecuting attorney (not THE, just A) and she said they're still hoping someone will come forward who witnessed at least part of the altercation. That's why I questioned who's voice was heard/not heard. If Brabantio wants to fly with non-facts that is his right.
Delete