On March 24 2012 07:00 Chessz wrote: I just think, listening to the 911 calls, Zimmerman is a paranoid mentally ill person or too caught up in his implicit bias about black youth (and likely makes racist conclusions). I think it's fucked up to somehow Trayvon as the aggressor no matter what altercation went down, seeing as Zimmerman left his car, engaged in active pursuit and aggravated the situation. Especially when the dispatcher advised him against that.* If any party was acting in self defense, it would be Trayvon. If Trayvon had a gun and shot Zimmerman, then yes Florida's self-defense law would be applicable here but I can't not imagine how this isn't murder of 2nd degree. Not to mention, Zimmerman's original story to the police was lie.
However, I think mostly what angers people is the lack of due process and general fuck up of the police. I think they were aware of the potential shitstorm of a story like this but it's a shame to hear of them coercing witnesses.
* ps. someone earlier pointed out the distinction between "we don't need you to do that" and a more direct command "don't do that," and how the wording makes a "big difference" or whatever. That's pretty much horse shit. The dispatcher phrased it that way to be more colloquial and less confrontational, and couldn't foresee the actions that were about to occur, and certainly didn't know Zimmerman was carrying a weapon (in that case, I think she would've been more direct, sensing the danger). It takes a particularly irrational person to disobey when somebody expresses volition like that. How many people do you know, upon hearing "we don't need you do to that" with such a tone, don't listen or respond?
To the racism thing, there isn't any evidence of that except for the disputed "coon" slur. It's important to note that he called the police and reported the guy as suspicious BEFORE he realized what the guys race was.
Why is it even disputed? Coon IS a racial slur, same as nigger. Except nigger is used much more often. He shouldn't have chased him down and then shot him for no reason. You can't claim self defense if you are the aggressor.
On March 24 2012 07:00 Chessz wrote: I just think, listening to the 911 calls, Zimmerman is a paranoid mentally ill person or too caught up in his implicit bias about black youth (and likely makes racist conclusions). I think it's fucked up to somehow Trayvon as the aggressor no matter what altercation went down, seeing as Zimmerman left his car, engaged in active pursuit and aggravated the situation. Especially when the dispatcher advised him against that.* If any party was acting in self defense, it would be Trayvon. If Trayvon had a gun and shot Zimmerman, then yes Florida's self-defense law would be applicable here but I can't not imagine how this isn't murder of 2nd degree. Not to mention, Zimmerman's original story to the police was lie.
However, I think mostly what angers people is the lack of due process and general fuck up of the police. I think they were aware of the potential shitstorm of a story like this but it's a shame to hear of them coercing witnesses.
* ps. someone earlier pointed out the distinction between "we don't need you to do that" and a more direct command "don't do that," and how the wording makes a "big difference" or whatever. That's pretty much horse shit. The dispatcher phrased it that way to be more colloquial and less confrontational, and couldn't foresee the actions that were about to occur, and certainly didn't know Zimmerman was carrying a weapon (in that case, I think she would've been more direct, sensing the danger). It takes a particularly irrational person to disobey when somebody expresses volition like that. How many people do you know, upon hearing "we don't need you do to that" with such a tone, don't listen or respond?
To the racism thing, there isn't any evidence of that except for the disputed "coon" slur. It's important to note that he called the police and reported the guy as suspicious BEFORE he realized what the guys race was.
Why is it even disputed? Coon IS a racial slur, same as nigger. Except nigger is used much more often. He shouldn't have chased him down and then shot him for no reason. You can't claim self defense if you are the aggressor.
Whoa, calm down. The disputed part is whether the word said was coon, not whether that word is racist. The rest of your post is worthless guessing - glad to know you know exactly what went down. Maybe you should call the police and let them know.
Good info, still pretty vague. They list Tray as 6' and 160lbs too. Which sounds closer to the truth than 6'3 140. Really wish they would have followed threw better. Taken pictures of Zimmermans injuries, as well as taking his clothes or whatever. I wonder how his interrogation went.
may i see where it says that they didnt take pictures or take his clothes?
It doesn't say it in that report. But I haven't seen any pictures of his injuries, and other people have posted that he left the station in his clothes. But I don't know if they put evidence up. Might have been treehugger I don't remember which post it was.
i have read every post in this thread and most of the articles quoted. i have seen people say that the cops didn't do anything, but never anything that shows what they actually did or did not do. its an open investigation, its not like the police release all of their evidence because the media is in a frenzy.
Lol I didn't say they would release all the evidence. And I didn't say the cops didn't do anything. What I said was is that I have read that he left the police station in the clothes he came in. Whether or not thats true I don't know. But not following through 100% with an investigation, is the almost the same as doing nothing. Entire cases sometimes rest on a single piece of hard evidence.
okay. the point im making is that you (figuratively, not you personally) cant say the cops didnt do a good job if you dont know what they did or didn't do.
we know some of what they didn't do, and it doesn't make sense that they did some of the things they did. like not letting witnesses fully give accounts. coercing other witnesses. "correcting" them if they mentioned they saw zimmerman attack martin. i mean there was a lot of pretty bad policework going on.
Nobody has ever claimed they saw Zimmerman attack Trayvon. Stop using outright lies to fuel your bandwagon.
A police officer told someone who thought the screaming was from Trayvon that it was actually Zimmerman who was screaming. A witness who saw the source of the screams identified Zimmerman as the one shouting for help, which matches Zimmerman's story that he was indeed shouting for help.
I don't see a problem with correcting someone who was mistaken.
I think those witnesses are really biased by the media. They talk about hearing a boy's scream and thus are associating it with Martin. This is like 3 weeks after the shooting. Martin is at least 6 feet tall and is 17 years old: he isn't going to scream or shout like a boy. There's no reason to expect him to have a higher pitched voice than Zimmerman.
Not even just a scream, she calls it a "child crying" and makes very sweeping conclusions about what went on while admitting she didn't see anything until after the shot and didn't even realize Zimmerman was the shooter.
She has no basis for concluding who was the source of the screams she heard but has obviously invented a fantasy in he head thanks to media exposure.
She's a terrible "witness" but is raking in tons of cash making media appearances and is getting a lot of attention because she is willing to distort the truth to support the anti-Zimmerman lynch mob.
By contrast the actual witness who saw the assault, known only as John, has not shown his face in the media at all, has made no paid appearances, and was interviewed by FOX one day after the shooting, before any media attention, when his memory was fresh and not perverted by media exposure.
User was temp banned for having over 100 posts in this thread alone, and for presenting witness testimony and media speculation as fact
Good info, still pretty vague. They list Tray as 6' and 160lbs too. Which sounds closer to the truth than 6'3 140. Really wish they would have followed threw better. Taken pictures of Zimmermans injuries, as well as taking his clothes or whatever. I wonder how his interrogation went.
may i see where it says that they didnt take pictures or take his clothes?
It doesn't say it in that report. But I haven't seen any pictures of his injuries, and other people have posted that he left the station in his clothes. But I don't know if they put evidence up. Might have been treehugger I don't remember which post it was.
i have read every post in this thread and most of the articles quoted. i have seen people say that the cops didn't do anything, but never anything that shows what they actually did or did not do. its an open investigation, its not like the police release all of their evidence because the media is in a frenzy.
Lol I didn't say they would release all the evidence. And I didn't say the cops didn't do anything. What I said was is that I have read that he left the police station in the clothes he came in. Whether or not thats true I don't know. But not following through 100% with an investigation, is the almost the same as doing nothing. Entire cases sometimes rest on a single piece of hard evidence.
okay. the point im making is that you (figuratively, not you personally) cant say the cops didnt do a good job if you dont know what they did or didn't do.
we know some of what they didn't do, and it doesn't make sense that they did some of the things they did. like not letting witnesses fully give accounts. coercing other witnesses. "correcting" them if they mentioned they saw zimmerman attack martin. i mean there was a lot of pretty bad policework going on.
i have heard the allegation that they made suggestions to witnesses. (not sure if that is coercion, but whatever.) i believe the witnesses themselves said that.
i have also heard the allegation that they gave the kid a drug test, but not zimmerman. not sure how people know that without the autopsy report, but whatever. maybe they had to disclose it to the parents.
what is it that they didnt do or did that made no sense? i am looking for actual specifics you can support, not conjecture.
In case you wanted the sources for those allegations again, here they are.
The list of possible police missteps uncovered by ABC News is long: The department allegedly ignored some witnesses while failing to follow up with others. One officer "corrected" the testimony of an eye witness who said she heard "the boy," Martin, crying out; the officer allegedly told the witness that it was Zimmerman who was screaming for help.
[Sanford police spokesman Sgt. David Morgenstern] dismissed lawyers’ criticism that a drug test was conducted on Trayvon’s body but not on Zimmerman, saying toxicology tests are routine for a medical examiner conducting an autopsy, but uncommon for detectives conducting a homicide investigation.
Good info, still pretty vague. They list Tray as 6' and 160lbs too. Which sounds closer to the truth than 6'3 140. Really wish they would have followed threw better. Taken pictures of Zimmermans injuries, as well as taking his clothes or whatever. I wonder how his interrogation went.
may i see where it says that they didnt take pictures or take his clothes?
It doesn't say it in that report. But I haven't seen any pictures of his injuries, and other people have posted that he left the station in his clothes. But I don't know if they put evidence up. Might have been treehugger I don't remember which post it was.
i have read every post in this thread and most of the articles quoted. i have seen people say that the cops didn't do anything, but never anything that shows what they actually did or did not do. its an open investigation, its not like the police release all of their evidence because the media is in a frenzy.
Lol I didn't say they would release all the evidence. And I didn't say the cops didn't do anything. What I said was is that I have read that he left the police station in the clothes he came in. Whether or not thats true I don't know. But not following through 100% with an investigation, is the almost the same as doing nothing. Entire cases sometimes rest on a single piece of hard evidence.
okay. the point im making is that you (figuratively, not you personally) cant say the cops didnt do a good job if you dont know what they did or didn't do.
we know some of what they didn't do, and it doesn't make sense that they did some of the things they did. like not letting witnesses fully give accounts. coercing other witnesses. "correcting" them if they mentioned they saw zimmerman attack martin. i mean there was a lot of pretty bad policework going on.
Nobody has ever claimed they saw Zimmerman attack Trayvon. Stop using outright lies to fuel your bandwagon.
A police officer told someone who thought the screaming was from Trayvon that it was actually Zimmerman who was screaming. A witness who saw the source of the screams identified Zimmerman as the one shouting for help, which matches Zimmerman's story that he was indeed shouting for help.
I don't see a problem with correcting someone who was mistaken.
The problem is that it is an investigation and people should not have their statements corrected, as the truth has not yet been ascertained. The more you correct witnesses on their testimony, the more likely that the reconstruction of events will be swayed one way, possibly in the wrong direction or in the right direction.
On March 24 2012 07:00 Chessz wrote: I just think, listening to the 911 calls, Zimmerman is a paranoid mentally ill person or too caught up in his implicit bias about black youth (and likely makes racist conclusions). I think it's fucked up to somehow Trayvon as the aggressor no matter what altercation went down, seeing as Zimmerman left his car, engaged in active pursuit and aggravated the situation. Especially when the dispatcher advised him against that.* If any party was acting in self defense, it would be Trayvon. If Trayvon had a gun and shot Zimmerman, then yes Florida's self-defense law would be applicable here but I can't not imagine how this isn't murder of 2nd degree. Not to mention, Zimmerman's original story to the police was lie.
However, I think mostly what angers people is the lack of due process and general fuck up of the police. I think they were aware of the potential shitstorm of a story like this but it's a shame to hear of them coercing witnesses.
* ps. someone earlier pointed out the distinction between "we don't need you to do that" and a more direct command "don't do that," and how the wording makes a "big difference" or whatever. That's pretty much horse shit. The dispatcher phrased it that way to be more colloquial and less confrontational, and couldn't foresee the actions that were about to occur, and certainly didn't know Zimmerman was carrying a weapon (in that case, I think she would've been more direct, sensing the danger). It takes a particularly irrational person to disobey when somebody expresses volition like that. How many people do you know, upon hearing "we don't need you do to that" with such a tone, don't listen or respond?
To the racism thing, there isn't any evidence of that except for the disputed "coon" slur. It's important to note that he called the police and reported the guy as suspicious BEFORE he realized what the guys race was.
Why is it even disputed? Coon IS a racial slur, same as nigger. Except nigger is used much more often. He shouldn't have chased him down and then shot him for no reason. You can't claim self defense if you are the aggressor.
Whoa, calm down. The disputed part is whether the word said was coon, not whether that word is racist. The rest of your post is worthless guessing - glad to know you know exactly what went down. Maybe you should call the police and let them know.
I think the controversy is over whether it was editied in. People say it may have been, fucking phones, but the hard c sound is pretty clear to me. CNN's Audio Analysis
Good info, still pretty vague. They list Tray as 6' and 160lbs too. Which sounds closer to the truth than 6'3 140. Really wish they would have followed threw better. Taken pictures of Zimmermans injuries, as well as taking his clothes or whatever. I wonder how his interrogation went.
may i see where it says that they didnt take pictures or take his clothes?
It doesn't say it in that report. But I haven't seen any pictures of his injuries, and other people have posted that he left the station in his clothes. But I don't know if they put evidence up. Might have been treehugger I don't remember which post it was.
i have read every post in this thread and most of the articles quoted. i have seen people say that the cops didn't do anything, but never anything that shows what they actually did or did not do. its an open investigation, its not like the police release all of their evidence because the media is in a frenzy.
Lol I didn't say they would release all the evidence. And I didn't say the cops didn't do anything. What I said was is that I have read that he left the police station in the clothes he came in. Whether or not thats true I don't know. But not following through 100% with an investigation, is the almost the same as doing nothing. Entire cases sometimes rest on a single piece of hard evidence.
okay. the point im making is that you (figuratively, not you personally) cant say the cops didnt do a good job if you dont know what they did or didn't do.
we know some of what they didn't do, and it doesn't make sense that they did some of the things they did. like not letting witnesses fully give accounts. coercing other witnesses. "correcting" them if they mentioned they saw zimmerman attack martin. i mean there was a lot of pretty bad policework going on.
Nobody has ever claimed they saw Zimmerman attack Trayvon. Stop using outright lies to fuel your bandwagon.
A police officer told someone who thought the screaming was from Trayvon that it was actually Zimmerman who was screaming. A witness who saw the source of the screams identified Zimmerman as the one shouting for help, which matches Zimmerman's story that he was indeed shouting for help.
I don't see a problem with correcting someone who was mistaken.
The problem is that it is an investigation and people should not have their statements corrected, as the truth has not yet been ascertained. The more you correct witnesses on their testimony, the more likely that the reconstruction of events will be swayed one way, possibly in the wrong direction or in the right direction.
The woman has no basis for claiming she knows who was or was not shouting for help. All the evidence about who was shouting for help shows it was Zimmerman.
I don't see a problem with correcting her on aspects that she did not witness.
Just to reiterate, she did not witness who was screaming. The officer didn't correct her testimony, he corrected her when she started talking about other aspects of the case she was not a witness to.
Good info, still pretty vague. They list Tray as 6' and 160lbs too. Which sounds closer to the truth than 6'3 140. Really wish they would have followed threw better. Taken pictures of Zimmermans injuries, as well as taking his clothes or whatever. I wonder how his interrogation went.
may i see where it says that they didnt take pictures or take his clothes?
It doesn't say it in that report. But I haven't seen any pictures of his injuries, and other people have posted that he left the station in his clothes. But I don't know if they put evidence up. Might have been treehugger I don't remember which post it was.
i have read every post in this thread and most of the articles quoted. i have seen people say that the cops didn't do anything, but never anything that shows what they actually did or did not do. its an open investigation, its not like the police release all of their evidence because the media is in a frenzy.
Lol I didn't say they would release all the evidence. And I didn't say the cops didn't do anything. What I said was is that I have read that he left the police station in the clothes he came in. Whether or not thats true I don't know. But not following through 100% with an investigation, is the almost the same as doing nothing. Entire cases sometimes rest on a single piece of hard evidence.
okay. the point im making is that you (figuratively, not you personally) cant say the cops didnt do a good job if you dont know what they did or didn't do.
we know some of what they didn't do, and it doesn't make sense that they did some of the things they did. like not letting witnesses fully give accounts. coercing other witnesses. "correcting" them if they mentioned they saw zimmerman attack martin. i mean there was a lot of pretty bad policework going on.
Nobody has ever claimed they saw Zimmerman attack Trayvon. Stop using outright lies to fuel your bandwagon.
A police officer told someone who thought the screaming was from Trayvon that it was actually Zimmerman who was screaming. A witness who saw the source of the screams identified Zimmerman as the one shouting for help, which matches Zimmerman's story that he was indeed shouting for help.
I don't see a problem with correcting someone who was mistaken.
The problem is that it is an investigation and people should not have their statements corrected, as the truth has not yet been ascertained. The more you correct witnesses on their testimony, the more likely that the reconstruction of events will be swayed one way, possibly in the wrong direction or in the right direction.
The woman has no basis for claiming she knows who was or was not shouting for help. All the evidence about who was shouting for help shows it was Zimmerman.
I don't see a problem with correcting her on aspects that she did not witness.
Just to reiterate, she did not witness who was screaming. The officer didn't correct her testimony, he corrected her when she started talking about other aspects of the case she was not a witness to.
We don't know which witness was the one that was "corrected". Fail.
Good info, still pretty vague. They list Tray as 6' and 160lbs too. Which sounds closer to the truth than 6'3 140. Really wish they would have followed threw better. Taken pictures of Zimmermans injuries, as well as taking his clothes or whatever. I wonder how his interrogation went.
may i see where it says that they didnt take pictures or take his clothes?
It doesn't say it in that report. But I haven't seen any pictures of his injuries, and other people have posted that he left the station in his clothes. But I don't know if they put evidence up. Might have been treehugger I don't remember which post it was.
i have read every post in this thread and most of the articles quoted. i have seen people say that the cops didn't do anything, but never anything that shows what they actually did or did not do. its an open investigation, its not like the police release all of their evidence because the media is in a frenzy.
Lol I didn't say they would release all the evidence. And I didn't say the cops didn't do anything. What I said was is that I have read that he left the police station in the clothes he came in. Whether or not thats true I don't know. But not following through 100% with an investigation, is the almost the same as doing nothing. Entire cases sometimes rest on a single piece of hard evidence.
okay. the point im making is that you (figuratively, not you personally) cant say the cops didnt do a good job if you dont know what they did or didn't do.
we know some of what they didn't do, and it doesn't make sense that they did some of the things they did. like not letting witnesses fully give accounts. coercing other witnesses. "correcting" them if they mentioned they saw zimmerman attack martin. i mean there was a lot of pretty bad policework going on.
Nobody has ever claimed they saw Zimmerman attack Trayvon. Stop using outright lies to fuel your bandwagon.
A police officer told someone who thought the screaming was from Trayvon that it was actually Zimmerman who was screaming. A witness who saw the source of the screams identified Zimmerman as the one shouting for help, which matches Zimmerman's story that he was indeed shouting for help.
I don't see a problem with correcting someone who was mistaken.
I think those witnesses are really biased by the media. They talk about hearing a boy's scream and thus are associating it with Martin. This is like 3 weeks after the shooting. Martin is at least 6 feet tall and is 17 years old: he isn't going to scream or shout like a boy. There's no reason to expect him to have a higher pitched voice than Zimmerman.
Not even just a scream, she calls it a "child crying" and makes very sweeping conclusions about what went on while admitting she didn't see anything until after the shot and didn't even realize Zimmerman was the shooter.
She has no basis for concluding who was the source of the screams she heard but has obviously invented a fantasy in he head thanks to media exposure.
She's a terrible "witness" but is raking in tons of cash making media appearances and is getting a lot of attention because she is willing to distort the truth to support the anti-Zimmerman lynch mob.
By contrast the actual witness who saw the assault, known only as John, has not shown his face in the media at all, has made no paid appearances, and was interviewed by FOX one day after the shooting, before any media attention, when his memory was fresh and not perverted by media exposure.
User was temp banned for his factually-suspected posting and gross derailing of this thread.
Double Fail
By the way, does anyone know where the allegations of the racist remark being edited into the 911 call originated? I am having a hard time finding any source for it.
Why ban zaqwe? The post that got him the ban was fine, certainly no worse than average for the past 5 pages I've been posting here for. It's also well within the context of the discussion, not at all derailing the discussion.
Really bad ban from someone who I think has a different view on the discussion at hand.
On March 24 2012 07:37 cz wrote: Why ban zaqwe? The post that got him the ban was fine, certainly no worse than average for the past 5 pages I've been posting here for. It's also well within the context of the discussion, not at all derailing the discussion.
Really bad ban from someone who I think has a different view on the discussion at hand.
PM the mod, or post in the automated banlist thread. Basically its not a discussion for this thread.
On March 24 2012 07:37 cz wrote: Why ban zaqwe? The post that got him the ban was fine, certainly no worse than average for the past 5 pages I've been posting here for. It's also well within the context of the discussion, not at all derailing the discussion.
Really bad ban from someone who I think has a different view on the discussion at hand.
On March 24 2012 07:37 cz wrote: Why ban zaqwe? The post that got him the ban was fine, certainly no worse than average for the past 5 pages I've been posting here for. It's also well within the context of the discussion, not at all derailing the discussion.
Really bad ban from someone who I think has a different view on the discussion at hand.
but i think there is actually a website feedback thread for disputing bans. not really sure on that one though.
I think the thread you are thinking of is the "Why was my thread closed" topic. I dont think there is a thread for contesting bans, that is typically kept between the mods and the poster.
On topic - Did you manage to find the official autopsy report? I may have missed it and would like to read it if its out there.
On March 24 2012 07:37 cz wrote: Why ban zaqwe? The post that got him the ban was fine, certainly no worse than average for the past 5 pages I've been posting here for. It's also well within the context of the discussion, not at all derailing the discussion.
Really bad ban from someone who I think has a different view on the discussion at hand.
but i think there is actually a website feedback thread for disputing bans. not really sure on that one though.
I think the thread you are thinking of is the "Why was my thread closed" topic. I dont think there is a thread for contesting bans, that is typically kept between the mods and the poster.
On topic - Did you manage to find the official autopsy report? I may have missed it and would like to read it if its out there.
someone gave me a link to a guy who said he requested it and would post it when he receives it. but that has not been updated since. i havent been able to find the document itself.
On March 24 2012 07:00 Chessz wrote: I just think, listening to the 911 calls, Zimmerman is a paranoid mentally ill person or too caught up in his implicit bias about black youth (and likely makes racist conclusions). I think it's fucked up to somehow Trayvon as the aggressor no matter what altercation went down, seeing as Zimmerman left his car, engaged in active pursuit and aggravated the situation. Especially when the dispatcher advised him against that.* If any party was acting in self defense, it would be Trayvon. If Trayvon had a gun and shot Zimmerman, then yes Florida's self-defense law would be applicable here but I can't not imagine how this isn't murder of 2nd degree. Not to mention, Zimmerman's original story to the police was lie.
However, I think mostly what angers people is the lack of due process and general fuck up of the police. I think they were aware of the potential shitstorm of a story like this but it's a shame to hear of them coercing witnesses.
* ps. someone earlier pointed out the distinction between "we don't need you to do that" and a more direct command "don't do that," and how the wording makes a "big difference" or whatever. That's pretty much horse shit. The dispatcher phrased it that way to be more colloquial and less confrontational, and couldn't foresee the actions that were about to occur, and certainly didn't know Zimmerman was carrying a weapon (in that case, I think she would've been more direct, sensing the danger). It takes a particularly irrational person to disobey when somebody expresses volition like that. How many people do you know, upon hearing "we don't need you do to that" with such a tone, don't listen or respond?
To the racism thing, there isn't any evidence of that except for the disputed "coon" slur. It's important to note that he called the police and reported the guy as suspicious BEFORE he realized what the guys race was.
Why is it even disputed? Coon IS a racial slur, same as nigger. Except nigger is used much more often. He shouldn't have chased him down and then shot him for no reason. You can't claim self defense if you are the aggressor.
Whoa, calm down. The disputed part is whether the word said was coon, not whether that word is racist. The rest of your post is worthless guessing - glad to know you know exactly what went down. Maybe you should call the police and let them know.
I think the controversy is over whether it was editied in. People say it may have been, fucking phones, but the hard c sound is pretty clear to me. CNN's Audio Analysis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQdsJwpSUKw
If watch the video expecting to hear "punks" it really sounds like punks. Same for coons. Seriously if you heard "coons" first time watch again expecting to hear "f***ing punks"
On March 24 2012 07:37 cz wrote: Why ban zaqwe? The post that got him the ban was fine, certainly no worse than average for the past 5 pages I've been posting here for. It's also well within the context of the discussion, not at all derailing the discussion.
Really bad ban from someone who I think has a different view on the discussion at hand.
but i think there is actually a website feedback thread for disputing bans. not really sure on that one though.
I think the thread you are thinking of is the "Why was my thread closed" topic. I dont think there is a thread for contesting bans, that is typically kept between the mods and the poster.
On topic - Did you manage to find the official autopsy report? I may have missed it and would like to read it if its out there.
It's still not been posted online yet, though I don't know why.
On March 24 2012 07:00 Chessz wrote: I just think, listening to the 911 calls, Zimmerman is a paranoid mentally ill person or too caught up in his implicit bias about black youth (and likely makes racist conclusions). I think it's fucked up to somehow Trayvon as the aggressor no matter what altercation went down, seeing as Zimmerman left his car, engaged in active pursuit and aggravated the situation. Especially when the dispatcher advised him against that.* If any party was acting in self defense, it would be Trayvon. If Trayvon had a gun and shot Zimmerman, then yes Florida's self-defense law would be applicable here but I can't not imagine how this isn't murder of 2nd degree. Not to mention, Zimmerman's original story to the police was lie.
However, I think mostly what angers people is the lack of due process and general fuck up of the police. I think they were aware of the potential shitstorm of a story like this but it's a shame to hear of them coercing witnesses.
* ps. someone earlier pointed out the distinction between "we don't need you to do that" and a more direct command "don't do that," and how the wording makes a "big difference" or whatever. That's pretty much horse shit. The dispatcher phrased it that way to be more colloquial and less confrontational, and couldn't foresee the actions that were about to occur, and certainly didn't know Zimmerman was carrying a weapon (in that case, I think she would've been more direct, sensing the danger). It takes a particularly irrational person to disobey when somebody expresses volition like that. How many people do you know, upon hearing "we don't need you do to that" with such a tone, don't listen or respond?
To the racism thing, there isn't any evidence of that except for the disputed "coon" slur. It's important to note that he called the police and reported the guy as suspicious BEFORE he realized what the guys race was.
Why is it even disputed? Coon IS a racial slur, same as nigger. Except nigger is used much more often. He shouldn't have chased him down and then shot him for no reason. You can't claim self defense if you are the aggressor.
Whoa, calm down. The disputed part is whether the word said was coon, not whether that word is racist. The rest of your post is worthless guessing - glad to know you know exactly what went down. Maybe you should call the police and let them know.
I think the controversy is over whether it was editied in. People say it may have been, fucking phones, but the hard c sound is pretty clear to me. CNN's Audio Analysis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQdsJwpSUKw
If watch the video expecting to hear "punks" it really sounds like punks. Same for coons. Seriously if you heard "coons" first time watch again expecting to hear "f***ing punks"
I tried, but I only hear a hard C sound and not a P. It definately sounds nothing like "punks" to me no matter how many times I replay it.
On March 22 2012 09:10 erin[go]bragh wrote: I don't get it. He followed the kid, he admitted to it on a recorded phone call, he initiated the confrontation.
How could that possibly be protected under law? Its called "Stand Your Ground" not "Seek and Destroy."
Unclear that he initiated it. The only evidence for that is from the gf who appeared a week ago saying she was on the phone with him - the police obviously didn't have that info until then. Now I don't know what the legality is of arresting him.
EPT
