|
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. |
I can't see how any reasonable person would find her credible -- much less credible beyond a reasonable doubt. The only people that would accept her testimony at face value are those who have already made up their mind to convict Zimmerman. There are way too many problems and inconsistencies with her testimony.
|
On June 27 2013 23:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 23:26 Kaitlin wrote:On June 27 2013 23:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:16 dotHead wrote:On June 27 2013 23:15 Klipsys wrote:
cracker isn't a racist term because no one would ever get offended by being called a snack food And fag isn't offensive because it's a bundle of sticks. Sir Most american's use the phrase Gypped all the time when they feel cheated not realizing it's a racial slur against gypsies. They don't say it maliciously, nor was Trayvon using the term cracker maliciously. However, they're both "racist" terms, but cracker holds a lot less historical burden on it than either "nigger" or "faggot." Well, cracker is a term of disrespect / disdain for a white person. Yes... which is why I said 'they're both "racist" terms." The difference is historical context. Because whites were not a brutalized people in the US with a historical history of being oppressed specifically for being white, then being accused of having white skin does not have same type of negative connotation that accusing someone of having black skin has. It is more a backlash and an attempt to create an equalized state wherein blacks who feel oppressed attempt to balance the power dynamics by treating whites equally to how they perceived they are being treated. So while it is racist, it's also about as much a slur as saying "all Nazis are evil," which, even though its a racial slur, does not feel as hateful as saying all "Africans are evil" or "all Jews are evil." Historical context is the framework that reveals why some racist slurs are worse than others.
Whatever the historical context, I doubt Trayvon was aware of the origination of the term. I do believe, however, that it shows an attitude of contempt / disdain that Trayvon had for the white guy and it shades the likelihood that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman at the physical confrontation. Zimmerman was a 17 year old football player who would no doubt be able to outrun Zimmerman, if he so chose. He chose not to. Her testimony that he used that term to describe the man following him provides some insight, for me, into his mindset of how he regarded Zimmerman.
|
On June 27 2013 23:53 xDaunt wrote:
I can't see how any reasonable person would find her credible -- much less credible beyond a reasonable doubt. The only people that would accept her testimony at face value are those who have already made up their mind to convict Zimmerman. There are way too many problems and inconsistencies with her testimony.
There's not one guy here in this thread who i would call objective either way, so that's to be expected.
|
On June 27 2013 23:54 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 23:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:26 Kaitlin wrote:On June 27 2013 23:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:16 dotHead wrote:On June 27 2013 23:15 Klipsys wrote:
cracker isn't a racist term because no one would ever get offended by being called a snack food And fag isn't offensive because it's a bundle of sticks. Sir Most american's use the phrase Gypped all the time when they feel cheated not realizing it's a racial slur against gypsies. They don't say it maliciously, nor was Trayvon using the term cracker maliciously. However, they're both "racist" terms, but cracker holds a lot less historical burden on it than either "nigger" or "faggot." Well, cracker is a term of disrespect / disdain for a white person. Yes... which is why I said 'they're both "racist" terms." The difference is historical context. Because whites were not a brutalized people in the US with a historical history of being oppressed specifically for being white, then being accused of having white skin does not have same type of negative connotation that accusing someone of having black skin has. It is more a backlash and an attempt to create an equalized state wherein blacks who feel oppressed attempt to balance the power dynamics by treating whites equally to how they perceived they are being treated. So while it is racist, it's also about as much a slur as saying "all Nazis are evil," which, even though its a racial slur, does not feel as hateful as saying all "Africans are evil" or "all Jews are evil." Historical context is the framework that reveals why some racist slurs are worse than others. Whatever the historical context, I doubt Trayvon was aware of the origination of the term. I do believe, however, that it shows an attitude of contempt / disdain that Trayvon had for the white guy and it shades the likelihood that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman at the physical confrontation. Zimmerman was a 17 year old football player who would no doubt be able to outrun Zimmerman, if he so chose. He chose not to. Her testimony that he used that term to describe the man following him provides some insight, for me, into his mindset of how he regarded Zimmerman.
One doesn't need to know the origination of the term for one to use a term. Homophobes who call homosexuals faggots don't say that because they're describing people as sticks. They are simply brought up in a society who culturally associate's that word to mean A instead of B, carrying with it the historical baggage of its upbringing.
Ten years from now we will still have american movies of good guys killing Nazi's/Russians/Middle Easterners in droves because it will seem normal for white protagonists to shoot those people; people don't need to be reminded about the holocaust/cold war/terrorism for those cultural norms to be continued.
All Trayvon's use of the word shows is that he is like most other lower class african american teens who spend their life getting police called on them causing them to have great distrust in the way they're treated by society at large; and it turned out that Trayvon had right to worry since he was shot soon after running away from Martin.
|
On June 27 2013 23:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 23:33 Kaitlin wrote:
It's not a matter of best witness, but she's the "only" witness who can provide the evidence the prosecution is counting on. In fact, one might argue, the evidence is manufactured, such as "Get off, get off". Having said that, she may have done more harm than good by inserting the cracker / nigger stuff. I honestly believe her, but I feel that the culture difference between her and the Jury will bring out their racial biases too much for her testimony to help the state in the level they want it to 
I wouldn't call it a cultural difference. She is rude, hostile, disrespectful, little slow and been caught lying. No racial biases have to come out for her to rub the jurors the wrong way.
|
On June 28 2013 00:06 .Wilsh. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 23:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:33 Kaitlin wrote:
It's not a matter of best witness, but she's the "only" witness who can provide the evidence the prosecution is counting on. In fact, one might argue, the evidence is manufactured, such as "Get off, get off". Having said that, she may have done more harm than good by inserting the cracker / nigger stuff. I honestly believe her, but I feel that the culture difference between her and the Jury will bring out their racial biases too much for her testimony to help the state in the level they want it to I wouldn't call it a cultural difference. She is rude, hostile, disrespectful, little slow and been caught lying. No racial biases have to come out for her to rub the jurors the wrong way.
Yes, this is all true. However, and in fairness, the underlying racial biases cannot be ignored.
|
On June 28 2013 00:06 .Wilsh. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 23:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:33 Kaitlin wrote:
It's not a matter of best witness, but she's the "only" witness who can provide the evidence the prosecution is counting on. In fact, one might argue, the evidence is manufactured, such as "Get off, get off". Having said that, she may have done more harm than good by inserting the cracker / nigger stuff. I honestly believe her, but I feel that the culture difference between her and the Jury will bring out their racial biases too much for her testimony to help the state in the level they want it to I wouldn't call it a cultural difference. She is rude, hostile, disrespectful, little slow and been caught lying. No racial biases have to come out for her to rub the jurors the wrong way.
She's trying to speak and no one understands her, kept being asked to speak over and over again, she gets more and more infuriated. Probably feels oppressed, most likely is angry with herself for not having graduated yet. She's angry because she's surrounded by the people she's afraid of, that she's ashamed of being next to. It's to be expected.
|
On June 28 2013 00:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 23:54 Kaitlin wrote:On June 27 2013 23:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:26 Kaitlin wrote:On June 27 2013 23:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:16 dotHead wrote:On June 27 2013 23:15 Klipsys wrote:
cracker isn't a racist term because no one would ever get offended by being called a snack food And fag isn't offensive because it's a bundle of sticks. Sir Most american's use the phrase Gypped all the time when they feel cheated not realizing it's a racial slur against gypsies. They don't say it maliciously, nor was Trayvon using the term cracker maliciously. However, they're both "racist" terms, but cracker holds a lot less historical burden on it than either "nigger" or "faggot." Well, cracker is a term of disrespect / disdain for a white person. Yes... which is why I said 'they're both "racist" terms." The difference is historical context. Because whites were not a brutalized people in the US with a historical history of being oppressed specifically for being white, then being accused of having white skin does not have same type of negative connotation that accusing someone of having black skin has. It is more a backlash and an attempt to create an equalized state wherein blacks who feel oppressed attempt to balance the power dynamics by treating whites equally to how they perceived they are being treated. So while it is racist, it's also about as much a slur as saying "all Nazis are evil," which, even though its a racial slur, does not feel as hateful as saying all "Africans are evil" or "all Jews are evil." Historical context is the framework that reveals why some racist slurs are worse than others. Whatever the historical context, I doubt Trayvon was aware of the origination of the term. I do believe, however, that it shows an attitude of contempt / disdain that Trayvon had for the white guy and it shades the likelihood that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman at the physical confrontation. Zimmerman was a 17 year old football player who would no doubt be able to outrun Zimmerman, if he so chose. He chose not to. Her testimony that he used that term to describe the man following him provides some insight, for me, into his mindset of how he regarded Zimmerman. One doesn't need to know the origination of the term for one to use a term. Homophobes who call homosexuals faggots don't say that because they're describing people as sticks. They are simply brought up in a society who culturally associate's that word to mean A instead of B, carrying with it the historical baggage of its upbringing. Ten years from now we will still have american movies of good guys killing Nazi's/Russians/Middle Easterners in droves because it will seem normal for white protagonists to shoot those people; people don't need to be reminded about the holocaust/cold war/terrorism for those cultural norms to be continued. All Trayvon's use of the word shows meis that he is like most other lower class african american teens who spend their life getting police called on them causing them to have great distrust in the way they're treated by society at large; and it turned out that Trayvon had right to worry since he was shot soon after running away from Martin.
Bold inserted to make it more accurate, as that's not what it shows me. As to the last sentence, yes, he was shot soon after running away, but clearly that leaves a lot left out, such as how the fuck did Zimmerman catch up to him unless Trayvon didn't actually run only "away" from Zimmerman.
|
All these frustrated "yes sir"s make it so obvious she's holding back how she wants to act because she's been told to answer "yes sir" or "no sir" only. Blatant coaching, interference by the prosecution, and lying under oath that it didn't happen.
|
On June 28 2013 00:07 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 00:06 .Wilsh. wrote:On June 27 2013 23:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:33 Kaitlin wrote:
It's not a matter of best witness, but she's the "only" witness who can provide the evidence the prosecution is counting on. In fact, one might argue, the evidence is manufactured, such as "Get off, get off". Having said that, she may have done more harm than good by inserting the cracker / nigger stuff. I honestly believe her, but I feel that the culture difference between her and the Jury will bring out their racial biases too much for her testimony to help the state in the level they want it to I wouldn't call it a cultural difference. She is rude, hostile, disrespectful, little slow and been caught lying. No racial biases have to come out for her to rub the jurors the wrong way. Yes, this is all true. However, and in fairness, the underlying racial biases cannot be ignored.
Of course.
Man, I can't deal with the level of awkwardness she brings to the courtroom.
|
On June 28 2013 00:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 00:06 .Wilsh. wrote:On June 27 2013 23:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:33 Kaitlin wrote:
It's not a matter of best witness, but she's the "only" witness who can provide the evidence the prosecution is counting on. In fact, one might argue, the evidence is manufactured, such as "Get off, get off". Having said that, she may have done more harm than good by inserting the cracker / nigger stuff. I honestly believe her, but I feel that the culture difference between her and the Jury will bring out their racial biases too much for her testimony to help the state in the level they want it to I wouldn't call it a cultural difference. She is rude, hostile, disrespectful, little slow and been caught lying. No racial biases have to come out for her to rub the jurors the wrong way. She's trying to speak and no one understands her, kept being asked to speak over and over again, she gets more and more infuriated. Probably feels oppressed, most likely is angry with herself for not having graduated yet. She's angry because she's surrounded by the people she's afraid of, that she's ashamed of being next to. It's to be expected.
I can understand her feeling overwhelmed, embarrassed, intimidated etc. But she handles it in an odd way.
|
On June 28 2013 00:21 .Wilsh. wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 00:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 28 2013 00:06 .Wilsh. wrote:On June 27 2013 23:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:33 Kaitlin wrote:
It's not a matter of best witness, but she's the "only" witness who can provide the evidence the prosecution is counting on. In fact, one might argue, the evidence is manufactured, such as "Get off, get off". Having said that, she may have done more harm than good by inserting the cracker / nigger stuff. I honestly believe her, but I feel that the culture difference between her and the Jury will bring out their racial biases too much for her testimony to help the state in the level they want it to I wouldn't call it a cultural difference. She is rude, hostile, disrespectful, little slow and been caught lying. No racial biases have to come out for her to rub the jurors the wrong way. She's trying to speak and no one understands her, kept being asked to speak over and over again, she gets more and more infuriated. Probably feels oppressed, most likely is angry with herself for not having graduated yet. She's angry because she's surrounded by the people she's afraid of, that she's ashamed of being next to. It's to be expected. I can understand her feeling overwhelmed, embarrassed, intimidated etc. But she handles it in an odd way.
Well, she wasn't brought up to act the same way upper middle class people were brought up to act. Cultural differences comes from both sides, their inability to understand her and her inability to understand them.
|
On June 28 2013 00:11 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 00:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:54 Kaitlin wrote:On June 27 2013 23:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:26 Kaitlin wrote:On June 27 2013 23:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:16 dotHead wrote:On June 27 2013 23:15 Klipsys wrote:
cracker isn't a racist term because no one would ever get offended by being called a snack food And fag isn't offensive because it's a bundle of sticks. Sir Most american's use the phrase Gypped all the time when they feel cheated not realizing it's a racial slur against gypsies. They don't say it maliciously, nor was Trayvon using the term cracker maliciously. However, they're both "racist" terms, but cracker holds a lot less historical burden on it than either "nigger" or "faggot." Well, cracker is a term of disrespect / disdain for a white person. Yes... which is why I said 'they're both "racist" terms." The difference is historical context. Because whites were not a brutalized people in the US with a historical history of being oppressed specifically for being white, then being accused of having white skin does not have same type of negative connotation that accusing someone of having black skin has. It is more a backlash and an attempt to create an equalized state wherein blacks who feel oppressed attempt to balance the power dynamics by treating whites equally to how they perceived they are being treated. So while it is racist, it's also about as much a slur as saying "all Nazis are evil," which, even though its a racial slur, does not feel as hateful as saying all "Africans are evil" or "all Jews are evil." Historical context is the framework that reveals why some racist slurs are worse than others. Whatever the historical context, I doubt Trayvon was aware of the origination of the term. I do believe, however, that it shows an attitude of contempt / disdain that Trayvon had for the white guy and it shades the likelihood that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman at the physical confrontation. Zimmerman was a 17 year old football player who would no doubt be able to outrun Zimmerman, if he so chose. He chose not to. Her testimony that he used that term to describe the man following him provides some insight, for me, into his mindset of how he regarded Zimmerman. One doesn't need to know the origination of the term for one to use a term. Homophobes who call homosexuals faggots don't say that because they're describing people as sticks. They are simply brought up in a society who culturally associate's that word to mean A instead of B, carrying with it the historical baggage of its upbringing. Ten years from now we will still have american movies of good guys killing Nazi's/Russians/Middle Easterners in droves because it will seem normal for white protagonists to shoot those people; people don't need to be reminded about the holocaust/cold war/terrorism for those cultural norms to be continued. All Trayvon's use of the word shows meis that he is like most other lower class african american teens who spend their life getting police called on them causing them to have great distrust in the way they're treated by society at large; and it turned out that Trayvon had right to worry since he was shot soon after running away from Martin. Bold inserted to make it more accurate, as that's not what it shows me. As to the last sentence, yes, he was shot soon after running away, but clearly that leaves a lot left out, such as how the fuck did Zimmerman catch up to him unless Trayvon didn't actually run only "away" from Zimmerman.
Two possible scenarios:
Trayvon hid, but was found
or
Zimmerman continued looking for Trayvon
There's a reason that they're closer to Tayvon's house than they are to Zimmerman's car even though they initially saw each other near Zimmerman's car.
|
Well, she wasn't brought up to act the same way upper middle class people were brought up to act. Cultural differences comes from both sides, their inability to understand her and her inability to understand them.
So you are saying it's her parents fault that she doesn't know how to act properly in a public courtroom, even though she has clearly been coached, or speak english?
|
she definitely didn't say 'i could her trayvon' rofl.. oh man.. anyone with ears can hear what she said.
|
On June 28 2013 00:33 crms wrote:
she definitely didn't say 'i could her trayvon' rofl.. oh man.. anyone with ears can hear what she said.
Which is exactly why the prosecution doesn't want it admitted as evidence.
|
On June 28 2013 00:33 crms wrote:
she definitely didn't say 'i could her trayvon' rofl.. oh man.. anyone with ears can hear what she said.
Fortunately, in that sound byte, she pronounces "could" several times leading up to that, so if it gets admitted, the jury can use those previous instances for comparison. It sounds like she is consistently adding an extra syllable.
|
On June 28 2013 00:29 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 00:11 Kaitlin wrote:On June 28 2013 00:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:54 Kaitlin wrote:On June 27 2013 23:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:26 Kaitlin wrote:On June 27 2013 23:24 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 27 2013 23:16 dotHead wrote:On June 27 2013 23:15 Klipsys wrote:
cracker isn't a racist term because no one would ever get offended by being called a snack food And fag isn't offensive because it's a bundle of sticks. Sir Most american's use the phrase Gypped all the time when they feel cheated not realizing it's a racial slur against gypsies. They don't say it maliciously, nor was Trayvon using the term cracker maliciously. However, they're both "racist" terms, but cracker holds a lot less historical burden on it than either "nigger" or "faggot." Well, cracker is a term of disrespect / disdain for a white person. Yes... which is why I said 'they're both "racist" terms." The difference is historical context. Because whites were not a brutalized people in the US with a historical history of being oppressed specifically for being white, then being accused of having white skin does not have same type of negative connotation that accusing someone of having black skin has. It is more a backlash and an attempt to create an equalized state wherein blacks who feel oppressed attempt to balance the power dynamics by treating whites equally to how they perceived they are being treated. So while it is racist, it's also about as much a slur as saying "all Nazis are evil," which, even though its a racial slur, does not feel as hateful as saying all "Africans are evil" or "all Jews are evil." Historical context is the framework that reveals why some racist slurs are worse than others. Whatever the historical context, I doubt Trayvon was aware of the origination of the term. I do believe, however, that it shows an attitude of contempt / disdain that Trayvon had for the white guy and it shades the likelihood that Trayvon attacked Zimmerman at the physical confrontation. Zimmerman was a 17 year old football player who would no doubt be able to outrun Zimmerman, if he so chose. He chose not to. Her testimony that he used that term to describe the man following him provides some insight, for me, into his mindset of how he regarded Zimmerman. One doesn't need to know the origination of the term for one to use a term. Homophobes who call homosexuals faggots don't say that because they're describing people as sticks. They are simply brought up in a society who culturally associate's that word to mean A instead of B, carrying with it the historical baggage of its upbringing. Ten years from now we will still have american movies of good guys killing Nazi's/Russians/Middle Easterners in droves because it will seem normal for white protagonists to shoot those people; people don't need to be reminded about the holocaust/cold war/terrorism for those cultural norms to be continued. All Trayvon's use of the word shows meis that he is like most other lower class african american teens who spend their life getting police called on them causing them to have great distrust in the way they're treated by society at large; and it turned out that Trayvon had right to worry since he was shot soon after running away from Martin. Bold inserted to make it more accurate, as that's not what it shows me. As to the last sentence, yes, he was shot soon after running away, but clearly that leaves a lot left out, such as how the fuck did Zimmerman catch up to him unless Trayvon didn't actually run only "away" from Zimmerman. Two possible scenarios: Trayvon hid, but was found or Zimmerman continued looking for Trayvon There's a reason that they're closer to Tayvon's house than they are to Zimmerman's car even though they initially saw each other near Zimmerman's car.
Only two ? Really ? It's absolutely impossible that Trayvon approached Zimmerman ? Not even in the realm of possibility in your world, huh ? He's a teenage football player and he can't keep distance away from Zimmerman. That is just ridiculous to me.
edit: I mean, really, that recording of Zimmerman when he says "they always get away" does not exactly back up the line of thinking that Trayvon couldn't evade Zimmerman, when everybody else he called the cops on was able to.
|
|
|
On June 27 2013 23:16 dotHead wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 23:15 Klipsys wrote:
cracker isn't a racist term because no one would ever get offended by being called a snack food And fag isn't offensive because it's a bundle of sticks. Sir
Sure, but the culture of the word has a much longer and evil history. Same thing with the N word. There has never been a culture of hate behind the word "cracker" We haven't renamed the snack food because of it, we don't censor it on TV, people aren't fired for saying it, and it's never been considered hate speech. Has there ever been a white person who has been called cracker and actually cared? Fag and the N word are like so much more vile and destructive as words. Cracker is about as tame as idiot or moron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
