|
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP.
If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. |
On June 27 2013 22:30 xDaunt wrote:
"Creepy ass cracker" apparently isn't a racial term.
EDIT: Apparently it is not offensive either.
"Nigger" has historical implications and is a throwback to recent times of oppression (as early as the 1960's and realistically even after the civil rights movement)
"Cracker" is more a reactionary backlash to black oppression, an attempt to equalize the hate affecting blacks being perpetrated by the white hierarchy.
So one *feels* less hateful than the other due to historical context.
(Similar to how saying "kill all Nazis" doesn't sound horrible while saying "kill all the Jews" does--if world war 2 hadn't happened, they would both sound equally horrible, but historical context makes one worse than the other)
|
On June 27 2013 22:34 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 22:30 xDaunt wrote:
"Creepy ass cracker" apparently isn't a racial term. Well, i don't know about creepy ass cracker since over here we don't have "cracker" (or a german equivalent) as a slur, but i actually think in this case, it's not meant racial. Black people are not racists for calling their friends "nigger", which happens as far as i know. I would not read too much into it, especially not from a 17 year old boy who might not even know what racism really is. Offensive or not, i can't tell, since i don't really know what cracker means other than a salty cookie. Don't forget: yesterday she said while remembering the phonecall that he called him "nigger" as well. Of course, that doesn't get repeated now, but she still said it. edit: although i don't really know about that first hand, it's just compared to other slurs/cursewords over here and how they're used.
A 17 year old not knowing what racism is? 17 year olds can vote within a year. If they don't understand the concepts of racism, then we need to change that limit.
Black people may use the N word affectionately among each other, but trying to apply that same logic to white people is absurd. If a black man uses the word cracker, especially one you have never even met, you can be certain it is as a slur.
|
On June 27 2013 22:34 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 22:30 xDaunt wrote:
"Creepy ass cracker" apparently isn't a racial term. Well, i don't know about creepy ass cracker since over here we don't have "cracker" (or a german equivalent) as a slur, but i actually think in this case, it's not meant racial. Black people are not racists for calling their friends "nigger", which happens as far as i know. I would not read too much into it, especially not from a 17 year old boy who might not even know what racism really is. Offensive or not, i can't tell, since i don't really know what cracker means other than a salty cookie. Don't forget: yesterday she said while remembering the phonecall that he called him "nigger" as well. Of course, that doesn't get repeated now, but she still said it. edit: although i don't really know about that first hand, it's just compared to other slurs/cursewords over here and how they're used.
I'm definitely not uptight about the use of racial slurs when there's no malicious intent behind them, but it doesn't change the fact that they're still racial slurs.
|
On June 27 2013 22:39 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 22:34 m4inbrain wrote:On June 27 2013 22:30 xDaunt wrote:
"Creepy ass cracker" apparently isn't a racial term. Well, i don't know about creepy ass cracker since over here we don't have "cracker" (or a german equivalent) as a slur, but i actually think in this case, it's not meant racial. Black people are not racists for calling their friends "nigger", which happens as far as i know. I would not read too much into it, especially not from a 17 year old boy who might not even know what racism really is. Offensive or not, i can't tell, since i don't really know what cracker means other than a salty cookie. Don't forget: yesterday she said while remembering the phonecall that he called him "nigger" as well. Of course, that doesn't get repeated now, but she still said it. edit: although i don't really know about that first hand, it's just compared to other slurs/cursewords over here and how they're used. A 17 year old not knowing what racism is? 17 year olds can vote within a year. If they don't understand the concepts of racism, then we need to change that limit. Black people may use the N word affectionately among each other, but trying to apply that same logic to white people is absurd. If a black man uses the word cracker, especially one you have never even met, you can be certain it is as a slur.
Oh, and when he calls the white guy "nigger" (stop that n-word crap), what's then, colorblindness?
I'm definitely not uptight about the use of racial slurs when there's no malicious intent behind them, but it doesn't change the fact that they're still racial slurs.
You're right there, they are racial slurs. What i mean is that they don't need to have a racistic intent to be used, if that makes sense.
Didn't we just have this whole conversation regarding whether racial slurs were appropriate or not regardless of intent over Destiny's stream?
Not discussing if it's appropriate.
|
Didn't we just have this whole conversation regarding whether racial slurs were appropriate or not regardless of intent over Destiny's stream?
should have said 'whether they displayed racist mindset' or whatever. Obviously not appropriate regardless.
|
Wow, now that is a bullshit objection that was sustained if I ever saw one. What the Defense is doing is looping previous answers into his new questions so as to get a very clear record and lock the witness down. It's a very good and commonly used technique. On cross examination, the examiner is allowed to lead the witness around by the nose all he wants.
|
It is very clear that someone pulled this girl aside last night after trial and told her to behave herself. She has a very different attitude this morning.
|
On June 27 2013 22:49 xDaunt wrote:
It is very clear that someone pulled this girl aside last night after trial and told her to behave herself. She has a very different attitude this morning.
Hm.. There's still attitude. But if someone pulled her aside and "briefed" her again, aren't there rules in place to rule her out of the examination?
Edit: wow that smirk on the face of the prosecution, that actually bothered me badly :D
|
On June 27 2013 22:49 xDaunt wrote:
It is very clear that someone pulled this girl aside last night after trial and told her to behave herself. She has a very different attitude this morning.
yes sir
|
On June 27 2013 22:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 22:03 jeremycafe wrote:On June 27 2013 22:00 trips wrote:
Im not screaming for help if i have a gun on me.My concentration would be focused on pulling it out and shooting. and that's sort of what happened.
If i was travon and saw the gun i would have made the same screaming noise he did. IMO You are making the assumption that Zimmerman WANTED to shoot someone. You can't say how you would react in that situation not being in it. Fear causes people to act differently. The biggest thing you are assuming is that Zimmerman had easy access to the gun. You have no way of knowing if his arms were being pinned down or not. No evidence has been proven either way. You can assume it was either of them. Witness said bigger guy was on top--zman had 20lbs-30lbs over travyon. Witness said Travyon said "get off me" before cellphone cut out. Other witness said that the voice sounded young--Travyon was half a generation younger than Zman. The only reason to assume not to have the assumptions Trips has is to believe these testimonies are false. You'd also have to ignore that, There was no blood on the concrete (suggesting Zman wasn't actually being brutalized) Travyon's arms weren't splayed out (proving that Zman didn't actually search Trayvon for weapons) Left right movement from one witness combined with Trayvon's "get off me" from another witness So if you ignore the evidence presented, then you can say Trips is only making assumptions; otherwise, Trips is only following the evidence at hand.
Witness said bigger guy was on top--zman had 20lbs-30lbs over travyon.
The same person also claimed she only saw shadows and went back inside. She also claimed she didn't know who was bigger at the time. She also claimed based on images of Trayvon 11-13 years old is what was used to determine who was who she saw in SHADOWS.
Witness said Travyon said "get off me" before cellphone cut out.
The same witness told a different story the first month. As time goes on, the story changes to this. Last time I checked memory is more accurate closer to when it happens, not as months go on. She admitted to getting involved because of race. She has repeatedly told lies, so you can easily believe her testimony to be false.
Other witness said that the voice sounded young--Travyon was half a generation younger than Zman.
The voice argument needs to go away. A grown man can sound like a child without a problem. A younger man going through puberty can have a grown mans voice with no problem. No single witness can truely know who was screaming as they could not see for themselves. They have all made assumptions based on the news after the fact. When the father himself said it wasn't trayvon after hearing the voice twice, I would believe that before someone who doesnt know him.
The only reason to assume not to have the assumptions Trips has is to believe these testimonies are false.
The defense has shown with EVERY witness so far that they are filling in gaps of what happened. They did not see everything, but fill in the gap with what they think happened. You can't believe any of it at that point because you don't know what is real and what was made up in their head.
You'd also have to ignore that,
There was no blood on the concrete (suggesting Zman wasn't actually being brutalized)
How does this matter? It was raining, we saw the cuts on the back of his head. We know how much damage he took based on the cuts. It was not severe, but it shows he was taking a beating. I have seen MMA fighters come out losing with less damage.
Travyon's arms weren't splayed out (proving that Zman didn't actually search Trayvon for weapons)
Not sure of the importance on this as it was after the fact. Does show he as well is changing events.
Left right movement from one witness combined with Trayvon's "get off me" from another witness
Again, both came from witnesses who changed stories and altered events.
So if you ignore the evidence presented, then you can say Trips is only making assumptions; otherwise, Trips is only following the evidence at hand.
There has been NO evidence. Only false statements of people who didn't actually see what happened.
|
On June 27 2013 22:52 m4inbrain wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 22:49 xDaunt wrote:
It is very clear that someone pulled this girl aside last night after trial and told her to behave herself. She has a very different attitude this morning. Hm.. There's still attitude. But if someone pulled her aside and "briefed" her again, aren't there rules in place to rule her out of the examination? Edit: wow that smirk on the face of the prosecution, that actually bothered me badly :D
Yeah, I'm pretty sure that she was under court order not to talk with anyone. People violate court orders all of the time because they usually won't be caught. This is why courts go to such great lengths to secure the proceedings from contamination and keep them as clean as possible (such as not allowing an audience to hear side bars between judges and attorneys).
|
Sweet, she's still on the stand!
Edit: Oh, now I feel bad for her  . Not saying what she did was ok, but she looks sincerely sad...
|
On June 27 2013 22:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 22:52 m4inbrain wrote:On June 27 2013 22:49 xDaunt wrote:
It is very clear that someone pulled this girl aside last night after trial and told her to behave herself. She has a very different attitude this morning. Hm.. There's still attitude. But if someone pulled her aside and "briefed" her again, aren't there rules in place to rule her out of the examination? Edit: wow that smirk on the face of the prosecution, that actually bothered me badly :D Yeah, I'm pretty sure that she was under court order not to talk with anyone. People violate court orders all of the time because they usually won't be caught. This is why courts go to such great lengths to secure the proceedings from contamination and keep them as clean as possible (such as not allowing an audience to hear side bars between judges and attorneys).
If court order means "the judge told her not to", then yes, i heard that yesterday at the end, she briefed her not to talk to anyone about this.
Hm, well. That sucks, they should keep her there then. -.-
|
On June 27 2013 22:54 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 22:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 22:03 jeremycafe wrote:On June 27 2013 22:00 trips wrote:
Im not screaming for help if i have a gun on me.My concentration would be focused on pulling it out and shooting. and that's sort of what happened.
If i was travon and saw the gun i would have made the same screaming noise he did. IMO You are making the assumption that Zimmerman WANTED to shoot someone. You can't say how you would react in that situation not being in it. Fear causes people to act differently. The biggest thing you are assuming is that Zimmerman had easy access to the gun. You have no way of knowing if his arms were being pinned down or not. No evidence has been proven either way. You can assume it was either of them. Witness said bigger guy was on top--zman had 20lbs-30lbs over travyon. Witness said Travyon said "get off me" before cellphone cut out. Other witness said that the voice sounded young--Travyon was half a generation younger than Zman. The only reason to assume not to have the assumptions Trips has is to believe these testimonies are false. You'd also have to ignore that, There was no blood on the concrete (suggesting Zman wasn't actually being brutalized) Travyon's arms weren't splayed out (proving that Zman didn't actually search Trayvon for weapons) Left right movement from one witness combined with Trayvon's "get off me" from another witness So if you ignore the evidence presented, then you can say Trips is only making assumptions; otherwise, Trips is only following the evidence at hand. Witness said bigger guy was on top--zman had 20lbs-30lbs over travyon. The same person also claimed she only saw shadows and went back inside. She also claimed she didn't know who was bigger at the time. She also claimed based on images of Trayvon 11-13 years old is what was used to determine who was who she saw in SHADOWS. Witness said Travyon said "get off me" before cellphone cut out. The same witness told a different story the first month. As time goes on, the story changes to this. Last time I checked memory is more accurate closer to when it happens, not as months go on. She admitted to getting involved because of race. She has repeatedly told lies, so you can easily believe her testimony to be false. Other witness said that the voice sounded young--Travyon was half a generation younger than Zman. The voice argument needs to go away. A grown man can sound like a child without a problem. A younger man going through puberty can have a grown mans voice with no problem. No single witness can truely know who was screaming as they could not see for themselves. They have all made assumptions based on the news after the fact. When the father himself said it wasn't trayvon after hearing the voice twice, I would believe that before someone who doesnt know him. The only reason to assume not to have the assumptions Trips has is to believe these testimonies are false. The defense has shown with EVERY witness so far that they are filling in gaps of what happened. They did not see everything, but fill in the gap with what they think happened. You can't believe any of it at that point because you don't know what is real and what was made up in their head. You'd also have to ignore that, There was no blood on the concrete (suggesting Zman wasn't actually being brutalized) How does this matter? It was raining, we saw the cuts on the back of his head. We know how much damage he took based on the cuts. It was not severe, but it shows he was taking a beating. I have seen MMA fighters come out losing with less damage. Travyon's arms weren't splayed out (proving that Zman didn't actually search Trayvon for weapons) Not sure of the importance on this as it was after the fact. Does show he as well is changing events. Left right movement from one witness combined with Trayvon's "get off me" from another witness Again, both came from witnesses who changed stories and altered events. So if you ignore the evidence presented, then you can say Trips is only making assumptions; otherwise, Trips is only following the evidence at hand. There has been NO evidence. Only false statements of people who didn't actually see what happened.
If showing some level of inconsistency means that the evidence presented is false, then Zimmerman showing inconsistency means that his testimony is false.
If Zimmerman's lies are okay within reason, then the witness' are okay with reason. You don't get to say the witness' inconsistency makes them invalid while also saying that Zimmerman's inconsistency can be ignored. Zimmerman couldn't even remember what happened a few seconds after performing the crime, can we really trust his recollections at all?
|
Does her saying that she changed her story to be nice, show she isn't a reliable witness. Since she has "cleaned up" her story.
|
Finished.
Does her saying that she changed her story to be nice, show she isn't a reliable witness. Since she has "cleaned up" her story.
Her clearly admitting that she lied under oath doesn't add to the reliability.
|
Christ it's hard to hear what she is saying.
|
Here's where her credibility evaporates. Failing to mention that Trayvon said "get off, get off" in her earliest statements is critical.
|
On June 27 2013 23:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 22:54 jeremycafe wrote:On June 27 2013 22:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 22:03 jeremycafe wrote:On June 27 2013 22:00 trips wrote:
Im not screaming for help if i have a gun on me.My concentration would be focused on pulling it out and shooting. and that's sort of what happened.
If i was travon and saw the gun i would have made the same screaming noise he did. IMO You are making the assumption that Zimmerman WANTED to shoot someone. You can't say how you would react in that situation not being in it. Fear causes people to act differently. The biggest thing you are assuming is that Zimmerman had easy access to the gun. You have no way of knowing if his arms were being pinned down or not. No evidence has been proven either way. You can assume it was either of them. Witness said bigger guy was on top--zman had 20lbs-30lbs over travyon. Witness said Travyon said "get off me" before cellphone cut out. Other witness said that the voice sounded young--Travyon was half a generation younger than Zman. The only reason to assume not to have the assumptions Trips has is to believe these testimonies are false. You'd also have to ignore that, There was no blood on the concrete (suggesting Zman wasn't actually being brutalized) Travyon's arms weren't splayed out (proving that Zman didn't actually search Trayvon for weapons) Left right movement from one witness combined with Trayvon's "get off me" from another witness So if you ignore the evidence presented, then you can say Trips is only making assumptions; otherwise, Trips is only following the evidence at hand. Witness said bigger guy was on top--zman had 20lbs-30lbs over travyon. The same person also claimed she only saw shadows and went back inside. She also claimed she didn't know who was bigger at the time. She also claimed based on images of Trayvon 11-13 years old is what was used to determine who was who she saw in SHADOWS. Witness said Travyon said "get off me" before cellphone cut out. The same witness told a different story the first month. As time goes on, the story changes to this. Last time I checked memory is more accurate closer to when it happens, not as months go on. She admitted to getting involved because of race. She has repeatedly told lies, so you can easily believe her testimony to be false. Other witness said that the voice sounded young--Travyon was half a generation younger than Zman. The voice argument needs to go away. A grown man can sound like a child without a problem. A younger man going through puberty can have a grown mans voice with no problem. No single witness can truely know who was screaming as they could not see for themselves. They have all made assumptions based on the news after the fact. When the father himself said it wasn't trayvon after hearing the voice twice, I would believe that before someone who doesnt know him. The only reason to assume not to have the assumptions Trips has is to believe these testimonies are false. The defense has shown with EVERY witness so far that they are filling in gaps of what happened. They did not see everything, but fill in the gap with what they think happened. You can't believe any of it at that point because you don't know what is real and what was made up in their head. You'd also have to ignore that, There was no blood on the concrete (suggesting Zman wasn't actually being brutalized) How does this matter? It was raining, we saw the cuts on the back of his head. We know how much damage he took based on the cuts. It was not severe, but it shows he was taking a beating. I have seen MMA fighters come out losing with less damage. Travyon's arms weren't splayed out (proving that Zman didn't actually search Trayvon for weapons) Not sure of the importance on this as it was after the fact. Does show he as well is changing events. Left right movement from one witness combined with Trayvon's "get off me" from another witness Again, both came from witnesses who changed stories and altered events. So if you ignore the evidence presented, then you can say Trips is only making assumptions; otherwise, Trips is only following the evidence at hand. There has been NO evidence. Only false statements of people who didn't actually see what happened. If showing some level of inconsistency means that the evidence presented is false, then Zimmerman showing inconsistency means that his testimony is false. If Zimmerman's lies are okay within reason, then the witness' are okay with reason. You don't get to say the witness' inconsistency makes them invalid while also saying that Zimmerman's inconsistency can be ignored. Zimmerman couldn't even remember what happened a few seconds after performing the crime, can we really trust his recollections at all?
Zimmerman has not taken the stand. No, it can't be ignored. But this isn't a guilty until proven innocent case. Unless they can know for sure the story they are telling is true, which they are filled with false statements, there is reasonable doubt they are telling the true story or actually know what happened. They have to prove intent to murder. Nothing has.
|
She was coached. It's obvious. The jury sees it just as we do. Then denied it under oath when specifically asked by West.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
