The Zimmerman case?

when I saw this picture on the front page of a local newspapers' feuilleton:

I thought it was about a 20th century art auction.

So I think it's a pretty good piece of unintentional art, what do ou think?

why didnt the rapist angle come out in the trial, anyway?

Why? Because, in death, Trayvon Martin isn't entitled to anything, let alone the benefit of doubt.

That's what I find so repugnant about this crocodile tear-shedding cunt, juror B37.

She goes much further in her interview with Anderson Cooper than merely following the letter of the law and having reasonable doubts as to Zimmerman's criminal negligence. She echoes the defense attorney Mark O'Mara's distortions of empirical evidence by saying, "Trayvon Martin caused his own death."

We can't say that with any more certainty than we can say that Zimmerman should have been convicted.

So yeah, I look forward to the porno B37 makes with a fat, sweaty Zimmerman. It will be viagra for white supremacists and gun whackos. Everybody else will cut off their genitals.

Fucking fantastic jury...

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/jury-seated-in-george-zimmerman-murder-trial/-/1637132/20648712/-/mg3494/-/index.html

  Quote

The state wanted to strike B76 over her asking why Trayvon Martin was getting candy at night. Nelson ruled against the state's strikes.

"She also mentioned at the very end of Mr. O'Mara's questioning that innocent people go to prison, she was the one that stated that, not Mr. O'Mara," Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda said.

But O'Mara persuaded Nelson there was nothing wrong with that.

"This woman now has said sometimes we have to be careful because innocent people go to jail that is a concern we want a juror to have, so to use that as a basis for a strike is pre-textual," said O'Mara.

The state tried to backstrike E6 after the jury was selected, saying that she may know a potential witness. Nelson denied the state's third attempt to strike E6.

 

"Ya know, I just don't know why that Trayvon Martin fella...the neg...the colored boy...what in tarnation was he doing buying candy that late at night? That just don't make no sense. He done got himself killed for them skeetles."

lol @ "the neg"

it's like "the 'chre"

jesus

This has only a topical connection at best to the incident, i.e. paranoia in modern day America, but still, I felt compelled to listen to it as I have in the past. I know other songs are like this, and they have an oddly calming effect on me. I've ranted a few times since the night the sentence was announced but honestly the physical anger and stress I had has long sense passed. A sense of "Shikata_ga_nai" I suppose.

It's a good thing Farkus didn't have a gun, or A Christmas Story would have been a 45 minute movie.

flol

here are a few rhetorical questions for those who were slamming on me, calling me an idiot, or suggesting i was a tool of rush limbaugh earlier.

how many of you KNEW that zimmerman was a bad guy before most of the substantial facts about the actual event came out? how many of you KNEW that zim racially profiled trayvon, right from the first time you heard about the story (even before MSNBC did their 'accidental' 911 call edit)? before the 'enhanced' video of zimmerman at the police station came out, or even before ABC previously released the un-'enhanced' footage from the surveillance cameras there (i say 'enhanced' because i didn't know enhancing a video could recreate a video camera time-stamp that was strangely missing from the 'un-enhanced' footage, nor did i know you could enhance pixels that don't exist to actually see wounds that just 'werent there', as on CSI. i think ABC de-enhanced the first footage they released so you couldn't see the wounds, and in doing so cropped out the timestamp), how many of you knew that zimmerman shot trayvon for little to no reason? how many of you knew from early on, that zimmerman was just a racist 'white guy' who shot a kid because he was black, and with no provocation or anything?

those are rhetorical questions because i don't really care to see the BS answers. i already know, or have a pretty good idea, because there was already a wildfire going before the facts that zim had a broken nose and a cut up head came out. people were calling it a modern day lynching. and i would bet my left arm that you types who are now calling ME a 'fucking idiot' or just suggesting i am one, were among those, or that at least some of you were.

it was hilarious (and also disgusting and nightmarish) watching you types reconfigure your stories/change your tunes as the facts did come out though. like how zimmerman went from being 'white' to being 'white hispanic'. or how trayvon's OWN PARENT'S with their lawyer came out during the trial and said that not only do they believe the events had nothing to do with racial profiling, but even more amazingly that they NEVER SAID IT DID, even though they clearly did, and furthered the idea as much as they possibly could. it was precious how their saying it wasn't about race was right after the whole revelation of trayvon calling zim a cracker came out. also precious. and a possible final cherry on the cake (or will there be more?) is how now the parents' legal team has gone back to saying it WAS about race and that not focusing on that was the biggest mistake of the trial. some integrity! but the best thing is seeing how a big % of the population out there will just shamelessly 'adjust' their arguments to the facts as they come out, without admitting their previous stance may have been wrong. the racial profiling angle was THE impetus that drove this to be a nationwide story. you were there crying for blood right after the event, because of it. now you're here talking about the laws being the problem, because stand your ground doesn't give attackers a fair enough chance to kill someone and get away with it apparently.

you let the media play you like a fiddle, which they know they can do, due to your decisions hinging only on emotions. but i'm the idiot. they could probably get you to hate any person picked out at random, with minimal reason or facts beyond a few edited audio clips or fuzzy still frames from a video (hell they didn't even need that, you already hated him). zims story has been probably as consistent as someone who has been grilled multiple times about such an event can be. your stories have changed, sometimes on a daily basis, and you have absolutely no shame in doing it.

FLAWLESS VICTORY.

lol, E does have some good points though.

I have a lot of questions that the media never explained to me, such as what's the point of being armed with a gun if you have to wait until somebody jumps you to employ the threatening nature of such a device? I Still do not understand why if the guy has a side-arm he wouldn't explain to this guy 'hey dude, i'm armed, what the fuck are you doing here' before he got into a position where any sort of physical beating would have taken place. Usually, if someone who is physically aggressive knows the person they were planning to attack was armed, they would probably retreat.   E does have some relevant points about the way the media played people 'like a fiddle' but even if you strip it all away, Zimmerman's action still defy any type of common sense.

My impression of him from the trial and his interviews? Honestly the dude seems like he has Aspergers or mild autism, his mannerisms are odd. He makes facial expressions like a confused introverted child. Something is 'off' about him. I have no idea if he is racist, or he racial profiling was the main factor that lead to Trayvon's death, but I have no idea how he could have made a 'mistake' so stupid unless maybe he is just on a different wavelength and doesn't employ common sense.

I agree with you John - from the facts the (quite circusy) media has agreed upon, I still think Zimmerman started it. I don't know or care about the character of either, much less either's parents, beyond that simple version of events - Z follows T, Z loses T, T returns and attacks Z, Z shoots T. If that turns out to not be true, I'll have to reevaluate. I think Z instigated it and in my world deserves a manslaughter charge.

  On 7/19/2013 at 9:47 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

I have a lot of questions that the media never explained to me, such as what's the point of being armed with a gun if you have to wait until somebody jumps you to employ the threatening nature of such a device? I Still do not understand why if the guy has a side-arm he wouldn't explain to this guy 'hey dude, i'm armed, what the fuck are you doing here' before he got into a position where any sort of physical beating would have taken place. Usually, if someone who is physically aggressive knows the person they were planning to attack was armed, they would probably retreat.   E does have some relevant points about the way the media played people 'like a fiddle' but even if you strip it all away, Zimmerman's action still defy any type of common sense.

 

Yeah, I agree that manslaughter seems most appropriate. A big problem here is that you have someone acting as an armed civilian police officer, without the same training or screening (not that that always makes for qualified police). He shouldn't have been following Martin and though I do think his life was in danger during the altercation, it was actually from losing possession of his handgun to Martin.

John: I read that Zimmerman was taking prescription benzodiazapines. Maybe he suffers from an anxiety disorder?

Found on a conservative forum

MisterE does indeed have some valid points but unfortunately he maintained the contrary position in the exact same regard as the people he's criticising. Whatever new information came to light, he would select the stuff that suited his position and ignore the rest.

Now, if his position had been completely neutral and sceptical --'we don't know'' 'innocent until proven guilty' etc--then that would be all well and good but MisterE was actively attacking Martin's character (e.g. 'he was homophobic') and so it's absolutely fucking rediculous for him to say tisk-tisk about people not being objective.

Yeah lol. I took the homophobia bit as a sort of example of how fear and speculation can lead to personalizing an issue, which leads to a blindness of facts that don't support your position. I don't know... Mr.E do you really feel that this incident was caused by Martin having a fear of homosexuals?

Anyways, this is to me a great example of the strangeness of our times. News agencies are desperate and scrambling to maintain attention, which means personalizing issues which caters to a public that seems to be interested in the news solely for information that can support the identity they have built for themselves in contrast to some opposite group.

  On 7/19/2013 at 10:53 AM, LimpyLoo said:

MisterE does indeed have some valid points but unfortunately he maintained the contrary position in the exact same regard as the people he's criticising. Whatever new information came to light, he would select the stuff that suited his position and ignore the rest.

 

Now, if his position had been completely neutral and sceptical --'we don't know'' 'innocent until proven guilty' etc--then that would be all well and good but MisterE was actively attacking Martin's character (e.g. 'he was homophobic') and so it's absolutely fucking rediculous for him to say tisk-tisk about people not being objective.

right on

  On 7/19/2013 at 10:40 AM, roasty said:

Found on a conservative forum

Oh geez. White people killed a lot of white people too.

Also, lol at that Michael Harris signature, reminds me of:

  On 7/19/2013 at 9:47 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

I have a lot of questions that the media never explained to me, such as what's the point of being armed with a gun if you have to wait until somebody jumps you to employ the threatening nature of such a device? I Still do not understand why if the guy has a side-arm he wouldn't explain to this guy 'hey dude, i'm armed, what the fuck are you doing here' before he got into a position where any sort of physical beating would have taken place. Usually, if someone who is physically aggressive knows the person they were planning to attack was armed, they would probably retreat.   E does have some relevant points about the way the media played people 'like a fiddle' but even if you strip it all away, Zimmerman's action still defy any type of common sense.

My impression of him from the trial and his interviews? Honestly the dude seems like he has Aspergers or mild autism, his mannerisms are odd. He makes facial expressions like a confused introverted child. Something is 'off' about him. I have no idea if he is racist, or he racial profiling was the main factor that lead to Trayvon's death, but I have no idea how he could have made a 'mistake' so stupid unless maybe he is just on a different wavelength and doesn't employ common sense.

Good post, that's a lot of what I end up telling other people when discussing the case, the fault is in him being overzealous and irresponsible. Apologists have cited how much he's actually been "anything but" racist in the past, and you know, that might be true. The core of this incident comes down to one man who was a delusional, gun-toting vigilante in his head, and that encapsulates so much of the "values" that conservatives (that goes for Dems and the GOP) espouse in their rhetoric. This incident, more than any mass shooting, completely destroys the fallacy that 2nd Amendment Rights are an unshakable and guaranteed liberty. That's why they much rather needlessly discuss racism and "reverse racism," because it distracts from the issue that very few in political office want to even acknowledge.

But off my rant on guns, I think you're absolutely right. Even if you believe Zimmerman's account 100% nothing about that night's actions still clear him of any wrong-doing. I think there's such a lack of broad thinking that has absolutely crippled any discussion of this case and that was very evident in the courtroom. And there's so many major flaws with our values and concepts as a society that lead to Zimmerman feeling like he could do what he did that night. That's why I can't stop coming back to it and just go with the "it's just a sad situation" conclusion so many make (like juror B37). I live across the street from a city high high school with a diverse student population in what's a very quiet and even idyllic middle-class neighborhood. I regularly have kids walk behind my house in an alley to smoke pot. People often drive dangerously in the parking lot across from me. My first reaction has always been, only if I really needed to, to call the police. The idea of following one of the many people who walk around my neighborhood at night - transients, workers, teenage and young kids, etc - will never ever fucking cross my mind. To do that packing a handgun? That's fucking insane. But people have completely accepted that as perfectly normal in this case and that's just mind-blowing.

  On 7/18/2013 at 11:30 PM, Mirezzi said:

 

It's a good thing Farkus didn't have a gun, or A Christmas Story would have been a 45 minute movie.

this is incredibly depressing to think about

you could do this with a lot of things though, I mean there's a good chance after that one little fight Fresh Prince would of stayed in Philly (forever :/)

oh if we want to revisit the homophobia angle...

http://youtu.be/sMn1mCMtTc0

so legal precedent is that you can arm yourself, pursue a stranger, be directed by the police to break pursuit, continue pursuit, confront and kill stranger. and that's AOK

he has to bloody your nose first. Pretty decent tradeoff if you ask me.

  On 7/19/2013 at 5:19 PM, lumpenprol said:

he has to bloody your nose first. Pretty decent tradeoff if you ask me.

Yeah, and if he's 17 years + 20 days old, he's an absolute manchild, so don't even wait for him to take a swing at you. The sooner you put that thug down, the better.

If he's 5'11" and weighs a little over a buck-fifty, he's a fucking GARGANTUAN BLACK BEAST OF FEROCITY and you should not only shoot the fucker, but drive a stake through his heart just to be sure.