Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

[cF[Authentic]]

There is no equivalence here. None. No networks have been caught lying about their reports on this matter. Zimmerman's family has not secured the services of a well-connected spin meister. No one in the White House has suggested we take our time and see where the evidence takes us. No "reverand" has been given an hour long program on a "news" network to defend Zimmerman.

Zimmerman's injuries are subject to impirical proof. His doctor says he was hurt and has listed the injuries on medical reports the falsifying of which would certainly put his license at risk and is probably criminal. Not to mention the nurses and X-ray techs who would also have to be in on this "conspiracy." No, we should rely instead on 5MM's x-ray vision, "he doesn't look hurt to me."

We have seen MSNBC, NBC and various other members of the MSM engage in a deceptive, untruthful campaign designed to make Zimmerman looks as bad as possible, to curry favor with the WH and to help His Oneness' campaign. Nothing even remotely close to that has occurred or even been claimed on "the other side." Rather than generalities, perhaps you could provide some examples of what you're talking about. Otherwise, it's just blather.

The networks don't have to pick up on something to make it wrong. Yeah the coverage was way over the top, but that doesn't make your recent reactions any better. I was on the same side as you for a while, until you took it past "let's wait for the facts" and instead started this run of accusations of racial profiling. Just because the media isn't on your side doesn't make your accusations any less unnecessary.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

The networks don't have to pick up on something to make it wrong. Yeah the coverage was way over the top, but that doesn't make your recent reactions any better. I was on the same side as you for a while, until you took it past "let's wait for the facts" and instead started this run of accusations of racial profiling. Just because the media isn't on your side doesn't make your accusations any less unnecessary.

You sure you've been reading my posts? I have talked about racism not racial profiling. Frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "the networks don't have to pick something up to make it wrong." What does that even mean? The networks have been caught lying, deliberately, repeatedly. The "side" the network "news" reports is supposed to be on is the truth, not some manipulated, agenda driven, false narrative.

And even though it's flattering that you've decided to "take the other side" because of my posts, why don't you try analyzing what we know and make up your mind, without regard to me. Unless you've been asleep for the last several weeks, it's clear the White House, media, black racist narrative of what happened that night is dramatically at variance with what actually happened. And I assume that the reason why you haven't provided the examples that I asked for is that you can't.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Um... Congrats? I guess I assume people are adult enough to not just troll for specific results.

Since none of us know the full details of what went down, what is the point of getting all ****ed off? Martins people say no injuries on his hands. Zimmermans people say he had a broken nose and some other mostly minor injuries. Who do we believe at this point? Regardless if you believe stand your ground is a good law or not, at what point do you fight back to try and save your own life? Who would you rather decide your life is in danger... You in the heat of the moment or 12 people 2 years later when it goes to a jury?

The only source of the information about the alleged lack of injuries to Trayvon's hands (as though that proves he didn't attack Zimmerman) is from the undertaker. Was he even looking? The apparant source for the reports of Zimmerman's injuries comes from a doctor who would have people working in his office who would have seen the patient, too. Plus X-rays. You evidently think medical testimony from an undertaker and a docter are equivalent, I don't. You might have a slightly different perspective on Zimmerman's "mostly minor injuries" if it was your head being pounded on the pavement.

 

[cF[Authentic]]

You sure you've been reading my posts? I have talked about racism not racial profiling. Frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about when you say "the networks don't have to pick something up to make it wrong." What does that even mean? The networks have been caught lying, deliberately, repeatedly. The "side" the network "news" reports is supposed to be on is the truth, not some manipulated, agenda driven, false narrative.

And even though it's flattering that you've decided to "take the other side" because of my posts, why don't you try analyzing what we know and make up your mind, without regard to me. Unless you've been asleep for the last several weeks, it's clear the White House, media, black racist narrative of what happened that night is dramatically at variance with what actually happened. And I assume that the reason why you haven't provided the examples that I asked for is that you can't.

The sole reason I haven't provided the examples is that I'm posting on my phone and it's significantly more difficult to copy/paste from a variety of sources.

The initial sentence I wrote means that you're going too far on your accusations. I agree the MSM has an agenda (although admittedly I haven't paid much attention to their reports lately due to the initial reaction) but that doesn't mean the opposite agenda is instantly right. I don't pretend to compare you to any of the 24 hour news/opinion channels, but your strict pro-Zimmerman stance seems just as judgemental as their pro-Martin stance (or anti-Zimmerman if that's how you see it.)

I haven't "taken the other side" as you claim. You and 5MM are on completely opposite sides of the issue. To not agree with one of you doesn't automatically mean I agree with the other. There is a significant amount of in-between and I'm assuming that is where most people fall.

This wouldn't be the first time someone has lied publicly to help a certain cause so excuse me while I take both sides claims with a grain of salt. I have read up on the research done about both Martin and Zimmerman but history doesn't absolve people of the potential to commit crimes.

By no means do I expect anyone to change their views based on my beliefs, or lack thereof, on the case. Just that everyone settle down with the over the top rhetoric

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

The sole reason I haven't provided the examples is that I'm posting on my phone and it's significantly more difficult to copy/paste from a variety of sources.

The initial sentence I wrote means that you're going too far on your accusations. I agree the MSM has an agenda (although admittedly I haven't paid much attention to their reports lately due to the initial reaction) but that doesn't mean the opposite agenda is instantly right. I don't pretend to compare you to any of the 24 hour news/opinion channels, but your strict pro-Zimmerman stance seems just as judgemental as their pro-Martin stance (or anti-Zimmerman if that's how you see it.)

I haven't "taken the other side" as you claim. You and 5MM are on completely opposite sides of the issue. To not agree with one of you doesn't automatically mean I agree with the other. There is a significant amount of in-between and I'm assuming that is where most people fall.

This wouldn't be the first time someone has lied publicly to help a certain cause so excuse me while I take both sides claims with a grain of salt. I have read up on the research done about both Martin and Zimmerman but history doesn't absolve people of the potential to commit crimes.

By no means do I expect anyone to change their views based on my beliefs, or lack thereof, on the case. Just that everyone settle down with the over the top rhetoric

Fine. When your research finds something even remotely the same as a network fraudulently editing audio to reinforce the notion that Zimmerman's a racist, then broadcasting it several times, please let us all know, hear?

So I misunderstood you when you wrote "I was on the same side as you for a while." And then attributed your change of heart to my over the top rhetoric. Pardon me, I was relying on the plain meaning of what you wrote.

If by "in between" you're referring to legal matters, that's certainly true. It's possible Zimmerman is a racist who racially profiled a defenseless teenager and shot him because he was black. And we'll find out as much of the truth as our system can provide at trial. Alan Dershowitz calls Zimmerman's indictment "criminal" and "stupid."

By arguing as you have been, you're not taking "both sides with a grain of salt," you're continuing to support the racist gun toting profiler narrative, which has sprung some serious leaks. I am only "pro-Zimmerman" in the sense that I categorically reject this fiction about the incident that has been spread from the White House, through the networks and the reverands.

 

[duper]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

beatus interruptus.

Although I don't really understand what you're trying to say, I'm guessing that you think that I have an opinion about that incident.

 

[cF[Authentic]]

The only source of the information about the alleged lack of injuries to Trayvon's hands (as though that proves he didn't attack Zimmerman) is from the undertaker. Was he even looking? The apparant source for the reports of Zimmerman's injuries comes from a doctor who would have people working in his office who would have seen the patient, too. Plus X-rays. You evidently think medical testimony from an undertaker and a docter are equivalent, I don't. You might have a slightly different perspective on Zimmerman's "mostly minor injuries" if it was your head being pounded on the pavement.

Medically, a laceration can be anything from a paper cut to a legitimate stab wound however it is generally used to define minor cuts. The doctor spared little details when it came to the type of broken nose but lumped the lacerations in after black eyes and before a minor back injury.

I'd like to believe youve actually read my posts you're quoting in which I ask 5MM, at what point would he fight back. The second I'm attacked, if I don't see a clear getaway, I fight back. And at that point I highly doubt many people would debate whether they could use stand your grand as it becomes a matter of self preservation once you're attacked.

 

[cF[Authentic]]

Fine. When your research finds something even remotely the same as a network fraudulently editing audio to reinforce the notion that Zimmerman's a racist, then broadcasting it several times, please let us all know, hear?

That's the point I was trying to make that you clearly didn't understand. Something doesn't need to be broadcasted nationwide for it to be wrong. Are the people who only made comments about Washington's Ward to their friends instead of posting it on twitter any less racist? No, it's just more public.

Your judgements, which are based on incomplete information aren't any better than the MSM's editing of tapes, etc. C.S.Lewis spoke (wrote) in Mere Christianity that the level of wrong isn't based on external consequences, but rather internal intentions (paraphrased.)

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Although I don't really understand what you're trying to say, I'm guessing that you think that I have an opinion about that incident.

The reason why Zimmerman wasn't hurt worse, apparantly, is that he shot and killed the kid. If he had not, there might have been a death all right, but Trayvon.

 

[cF[Authentic]]

Fine. When your research finds something even remotely the same as a network fraudulently editing audio to reinforce the notion that Zimmerman's a racist, then broadcasting it several times, please let us all know, hear?

So I misunderstood you when you wrote "I was on the same side as you for a while." And then attributed your change of heart to my over the top rhetoric. Pardon me, I was relying on the plain meaning of what you wrote.

If by "in between" you're referring to legal matters, that's certainly true. It's possible Zimmerman is a racist who racially profiled a defenseless teenager and shot him because he was black. And we'll find out as much of the truth as our system can provide at trial. Alan Dershowitz calls Zimmerman's indictment "criminal" and "stupid."

By arguing as you have been, you're not taking "both sides with a grain of salt," you're continuing to support the racist gun toting profiler narrative, which has sprung some serious leaks. I am only "pro-Zimmerman" in the sense that I categorically reject this fiction about the incident that has been spread from the White House, through the networks and the reverands.

I guess I'm attempting to take some moral higher ground as it pertains to the case. I agree that the portrait of Zimmerman painted by the MSM, and the techniques used to do so, are wrong. I also feel that those, similar to what I've gathered from your posts, who vehemently defend Zimmermans actions are also wrong AT THIS POINT. I make no attempt to compare the "wrongness" of the two as I feel that is immaterial.

And my stance has never been based on your position. Early on, we both felt it was way too early too pass judgement. While your significant disgust toward the coverage has increased the perceived anger you have about the case, mine has not. It's not to say I wasn't disgusted, I just haven't allowed it to move me so far to the other side.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

That's the point I was trying to make that you clearly didn't understand. Something doesn't need to be broadcasted nationwide for it to be wrong. Are the people who only made comments about Washington's Ward to their friends instead of posting it on twitter any less racist? No, it's just more public.

Your judgements, which are based on incomplete information aren't any better than the MSM's editing of tapes, etc. C.S.Lewis spoke (wrote) in Mere Christianity that the level of wrong isn't based on external consequences, but rather internal intentions (paraphrased.)

Jeebus, this false equivalence is giving me gas. I don't have "incomplete" information on the fraudulent editing of audio and its multiple rebroadcasts. NBC has "investigated it" admitted it and "the person responsible." This is a matter of public record. Apparantly your false equivalence myopia leads you to believe that a lie told on the NBC Nightly News and Today is the equivalent to a spurious USCHO.com post. Morally? Perhaps. But as a practical matter, when it comes to influencing public opinion, there's no comparison.

To claim my response to their admitted journalistic felonies is the same as those felonies is, addlepated. And a C.S. Lewis quote doesn't make it any less so. Who or what is "Washington's Ward," and what does it have to do with this matter?

 

[cF[Authentic]]

Jeebus, this false equivalence is giving me gas. I don't have "incomplete" information on the fraudulent editing of audio and its multiple rebroadcasts. NBC has "investigated it" admitted it and "the person responsible." This is a matter of public record. Apparantly your false equivalence myopia leads you to believe that a lie told on the NBC Nightly News and Today is the equivalent to a spurious USCHO.com post. Morally? Perhaps. But as a practical matter, when it comes to influencing public opinion, there's no comparison.

To claim my response to their admitted journalistic felonies is the same as those felonies is, addlepated. And a C.S. Lewis quote doesn't make it any less so. Who or what is "Washington's Ward," and what does it have to do with this matter?

I'm referencing Joel Ward, who was villanized by Boston fans for scoring the series clinching goal and for being black. I apologize for referencing a hockey player on this forum.

I get the feeling you're fine making any outrageous accusation, as long as it doesn't blow up to the same level as what NBC did. I refuse to believe that just because your judgements aren't as public, national or slanderous as NBC's that they are free from criticism.

It's not so much your response to their reporting, as much as its your response to the whole idea of Zimmerman is completely guilty. You seem very willing to claim he is innocent despite insufficient evidence at this point.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

I guess I'm attempting to take some moral higher ground as it pertains to the case. I agree that the portrait of Zimmerman painted by the MSM, and the techniques used to do so, are wrong. I also feel that those, similar to what I've gathered from your posts, who vehemently defend Zimmermans actions are also wrong AT THIS POINT. I make no attempt to compare the "wrongness" of the two as I feel that is immaterial.

And my stance has never been based on your position. Early on, we both felt it was way too early too pass judgement. While your significant disgust toward the coverage has increased the perceived anger you have about the case, mine has not. It's not to say I wasn't disgusted, I just haven't allowed it to move me so far to the other side.

You've given the excuse about why you can't provide examples. In the fullness of time I look forward to you doing so. This has been, paraphrasing Clarence Thomas: "the high tech lynching of a "white hispanic." You're willingness to treat obvious liars with the same benefit of the doubt applied to others reminds me of Tevye: "on the other hand, on the other hand, on the other hand." Notwithstanding your modest "morale high ground." Oh Christo, I'm "angry." Bollocks.

I don't defend Zimmerman's actions. Other than shooting that kid, I'm not sure what they were. I am defending his reputation. You'll notice I haven't posted much, if anything, about Trayvon's problems in school. They hardly justify the use of lethal force.

And please stop your analyzing of what "we" believe. You speak for yourself. And I'll speak for me, deal? My opinion is that if this thing goes to trial (it could be thrown out, since the charging document is so thin) we will have a better idea of what actually transpired. That's obvious. And was obvious from the beginning. And my focus on the efforts of the MSM and others to convict this guy in the press doesn't change that at all.

 

[cF[Authentic]]

You've given the excuse about why you can't provide examples. In the fullness of time I look forward to you doing so. This has been, paraphrasing Clarence Thomas: "the high tech lynching of a "white hispanic." You're willingness to treat obvious liars with the same deference applied to others reminds me of Tevye: "on the other hand, on the other hand, on the other hand." Notwithstanding your modest "morale high ground." Oh Christo, I'm "angry." Bollocks. Stop regurgitating your anti-conservative prejudices in the guise of "balance."

I don't defend Zimmerman's actions. Other than shooting that kid, I'm not sure what they were. I am defending his reputation. You'll notice I haven't posted much, if anything, about Trayvon's problems in school. They hardly justify the use of lethal force.

And please stop your analyzing of what "we" believe. You speak for yourself. And I'll speak for me, deal?

So in that last sentence when you tell me that I'll speak for myself, does that include when you call out my so-called anti conservative prejudices?

It's someone killing another human being, not politics. The law may be supported by conservatives and most of Martin's supporters are liberals but that doesn't mean everything has to be political. I'm extremely conservative but a potential self defense killing has nothing to do with political beliefs and everything to do with trying to stay alive.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

I'm referencing Joel Ward, who was villanized by Boston fans for scoring the series clinching goal and for being black. I apologize for referencing a hockey player on this forum.

I get the feeling you're fine making any outrageous accusation, as long as it doesn't blow up to the same level as what NBC did. I refuse to believe that just because your judgements aren't as public, national or slanderous as NBC's that they are free from criticism.

It's not so much your response to their reporting, as much as its your response to the whole idea of Zimmerman is completely guilty. You seem very willing to claim he is innocent despite insufficient evidence at this point.

Your sarcasm is under whelming. Who gives a sh*t about Joel Ward and whether over-served Bruins fans showed their racist a*s (it wouldn't be the first time)? I'll give 100 dollars to your favorite charity if you can provide us with an example where I said anything like Zimmerman's "completely or even (unmodified) innocent." In your world, standing up to the character assassination and lies told on George Zimmerman is "outrageous accusations(s)" And equivalent to claiming he's innocent.

You're posing. But I'm the poser of the year. So knock it off.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Oops. Maybe the undertaker who said there were no injuries to Trayvon's hands was "mistaken."

http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/autopsy-results-show-trayvon-martin-had-injuries-h/nN6gs/

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

The sole reason I haven't provided the examples is that I'm posting on my phone and it's significantly more difficult to copy/paste from a variety of sources.

By no means do I expect anyone to change their views based on my beliefs, or lack thereof, on the case. Just that everyone settle down with the over the top rhetoric

The point is that this is not really about this case. This is about the process.

With the general approach of stand your ground, it doesn't matter what happened at the site. By definition, Martin was perceived as a threat. Once that happened, his death was acceptable by law with no opportunity for justice. Stand your ground means that whoever can escalate an altercation to murder first, gets away with their life and is forgiven by law.

Here is another example in Arizona. The killer is known, was never tried and walks free today simply because of stand your ground:

About 7:30 p.m., a 22-year-old man and his girlfriend ordered food at the Taco Bell drive-thru and were told to pull up while their order was prepared.
At the same time, 29-year-old Daniel Adkins stepped around a corner into the path of the vehicle and angry words were exchanged between he and the driver.

They got into an altercation and Adkins was shot once by the driver. He died at the scene. The driver, a 22-year-old black male, called police.

At first, the couple claimed that Adkins had a metal pipe that he swung at them — but it turns out he was holding a dog leash with his yellow lab on the other end. The dog, Lady, stayed by Adkins’ side until the Humane Society came. Adkins lived with his mom and dad. He’s 29, but his family says he’s mentally disabled and has the mental capacity of a 12-year-old. He didn’t drive, and walked wherever he went. A metal pipe or bat was never located. An independent witness did say Adkins swung his fists in the driver’s direction.

“He swung his fist towards the driver window, and at some point the driver shot him,” says Phoenix Police Sgt. Tommy Thompson. Police did not arrest the suspect due to Stand Your Ground laws.

More:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/29/us/stand-your-ground/index.html

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

We have seen MSNBC, NBC and various other members of the MSM engage in a deceptive, untruthful campaign designed to make Zimmerman looks as bad as possible, to curry favor with the WH and to help His Oneness' campaign.

Holy reach Batman!

The liberal media is using this story to get Obama re-elected?

 

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

The point is that this is not really about this case. This is about the process.

With the general approach of stand your ground, it doesn't matter what happened at the site.

I don't disagree with the spirit of your point. Certainly, this law oversimplifies situations which are usually murky and should be sorted out by a court of law.

That said, it's still possible that Zimmerman was in fact acting in self-defense and would be not guilty of murder even in a state that doesn't have a stand your ground law. Each case/situation is different and just because the premise that the law is based upon is flawed doesn't mean that every act of self defense is nefarious.

 

[bronconick]

Re: Florida vs. Zimmerman - Q.E.D????????

Holy reach Batman!

The liberal media is using this story to get Obama re-elected?