Register

Welcome to the Political Forum - Debate Politics Forum.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 22 of 22
  1. #21
    Forum Owner Heir to the Throne
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,179
    Quote Originally Posted by Locke9-05 View Post
    Real quickly, my sources actually were not "anonymous," my primary source was WFTV, the news station in Florida. That's a source and it's not an anonymous source. From the article, they said:

    That's not anonymous, regardless of whether the divulge who the individual was working for WFTV who was able to learn that piece of information, because the source of the information is still WFTV. An employee for WFTV working to find information for WFTV to publish/broadcast = WFTV. There were other news sources which also either took information from that article or found similar results themselves, CBS was actually one of those sources.
    Your source is an anonymous source. Your first post on this thread is from ABC and in it you write: "According to the video news report which accompanies that article, Trayvon Martin's autopsy results revealed that he had bruised and bloodied knuckles and hands, the skin was broken, etc." The source for this statement is an anonymous source. Thus in the context here, your source is an anonymous source.

    With regards to WFTV, it should be noted that the language of the article implies an anonymous source and I did not see any explicit statement to this effect: the autopsy report released to the public says....

    The wording should be noted from the WFTV article: "WFTV has learned that the medical examiner found two injuries on Martin’s body."

    Why not strike "WFTV has learned"? and simply say "the medical examiner found two injuries on Martin's body"? Anonymous source.

    Quote Originally Posted by Locke9-05 View Post
    I still don't believe there is enough actual sturdy evidence to conclude that he profiled Martin based on race. From the initial call to police dispatch, he never mentions Martin's race until asked to do so, he simply mentions that he is a "real suspicious looking guy" or something to that effect who "may be on drugs." Also, according to news sources, there was THC found in Martin's blood. That's not to even say he was under the influence at the time, it's really hard to tell when he last used marijuana, as THC stays in the blood stream for a while, based on my understanding of it. But if he was under the influence even partially at the time of the incident, it might at least lend credence to Zimmerman's comment about "he looks like he's on drugs or something."
    I think it's obvious that GZ racially profiled TM. Black guy walks into the neighborhood and GZ starts following him. Race is obviously one of the biggest factors by which people always judge one another, and the use of racial profiling is extremely common, if not in constant use by everyone at all times. I highly doubt TM was behaving in any way that indicated drug use. With regards to the THC in blood, THC can stay in the blood for days after smoking marijuana. GZ saw a black male wearing a hoodie, and in his neighborhood there had been several people matching that profile who had broken into homes, GZ racially profiled TM and started following him. Pretty simple, pretty obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Locke9-05 View Post
    As for the girlfriend's testimony, I think that's going to be easily discredited. We'll find out come the trial, but considering that she supposedly had important information regarding the case, her boyfriend (or friend at least) had been killed, etc., and she waited a very long time before she came forward and didn't even actually come forward until she had been talked to by Martin's father and was interviewed not by police or investigators, but by the Martin family attorney.
    The sword cuts both ways. She was dispassionate enough that she didn't even bother to get involved in the case until someone sought her testimony out. Had she been so biased and romantically involved with TM, she would have immediately gone to the press and not only told her story but she would have made it out to be far worse and told it with far more certainty than she has. Instead of heard "a little bit...get off, get off" it would have been "I definitely heard GZ yell I'm tired of you punks coming through here! and TZ saying don't touch me!"

    Quote Originally Posted by Locke9-05 View Post
    Again, I just don't know, I can't say for sure, I'm no longer defending Zimmerman as "probably innocent," I just think that there is enough of a timegap and missing information and evidence that there needs to be a fair trial. If that results in Zimmerman's innocence or conviction, then I believe justice will have been served.
    That GZ is a racist does not necessarily make him guilty. The question for the jury will be if he started this whole thing off by shoving TM, which is how I think he would have done it if he had done it.

    Here's more on GZ's racism by the way: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...kes/?mobile=nc

    This is from a full-grown man and there's no excuse for it. It's clear cut racist bullying.

    Anyway, that's just a sidebar. The real question is who pushed who first. I would be looking for more information from ballistics to try to discern what angle the shot was fired from.

    From a legal view, according to the Stand Your Ground Law, it might also be possible to say that if TM started beating on GZ that therefore GZ had legal cover to shoot him. From a moral view, this assumption could be questioned, and from the view of would this be legal in any other state besides Florida?


    WEB
    Last edited by W.E.B. Du Bois; 05-19-2012 at 09:30 PM.
    Read the Forum Rules

    "When I entered Republican politics during an earlier period of malaise, in the late seventies and early eighties, the movement got most of the big questions -- crime, inflation, the Cold War -- right. This time, the party is getting the big questions disastrously wrong."

    "In the aftershock of 2008, large numbers of Americans feel exploited and abused. Rather than workable solutions, my party is offering low taxes for the currently rich and high spending for the currently old, to be followed by who-knows-what and who-the-hell-cares. This isn't conservatism; it's a going-out-of-business sale for the baby-boom generation."


    - David Frum, former speech writer for George W. Bush

    "This is just ridiculous. I never thought as an economist I would have to spend so much time doing political analysis."

    - Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial

  2. #22
    Forum Owner Heir to the Throne
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,179
    I would say that after I listened to the testimony of the bully victim, I was struck at the end by how it fit in with a previous employer's description of Zimmerman. The bully victim says that when he talked to the bosses, he was extremely professional, so much so that the victim doubted himself. Then there is the other GZ who did non-stop harassment of this guy, and complained constantly about his bosses behind their backs.

    This sounds just like another of the descriptions of GZ by another one of his bosses:

    “Usually he was just a cool guy. He liked to drink and hang with the women like the rest of us,” he said. “But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When the dude snapped, he snapped.”

    The source said Zimmerman, who made between $50 and $100 a night, was let go in 2005.

    “He had a temper and he became a liability,” the man said. “One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted,” he said. “It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out.”


    Also another thing that sounded familiar from the witness is that the witness said that GZ fucked with him so much he actually had to do a "cost-benefit analysis" of kicking GZ's ass. Like TM, did GZ push TM so far with his following him and approaching him so rudely that TM just lost his cool and struck out at GZ? It could have happened that way too. Or it could have just been George the monster who showed up and pushed around the relatively lanky TM, got more than he bargained for when TM beat the shit out of him, and then GZ pulled out his gun and shot him.


    WEB

    http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...#ixzz1vM4tZjnR
    Read the Forum Rules

    "When I entered Republican politics during an earlier period of malaise, in the late seventies and early eighties, the movement got most of the big questions -- crime, inflation, the Cold War -- right. This time, the party is getting the big questions disastrously wrong."

    "In the aftershock of 2008, large numbers of Americans feel exploited and abused. Rather than workable solutions, my party is offering low taxes for the currently rich and high spending for the currently old, to be followed by who-knows-what and who-the-hell-cares. This isn't conservatism; it's a going-out-of-business sale for the baby-boom generation."


    - David Frum, former speech writer for George W. Bush

    "This is just ridiculous. I never thought as an economist I would have to spend so much time doing political analysis."

    - Diane Swonk, chief economist at Mesirow Financial

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Back to Top