|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 9:11 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| sirius black wrote: |
The facts may bear out to be different but the likely events seem to suggest that Zimmerman instigated the issue.
What I find interesting is that some people are clinging to the unlikely and giving it more credence or more of a possibility that logic and reason dictates.
Again, it may bear out that Zimmerman is innocent but the chain of events would have to be 'unlikely'. |
Really? The version of events supported by witnesses and evidence is the "unlikely" one?
Does it make any sense for someone to call for a police officer, then TRY to assault a minor carrying skittles and an iced tea? Does it make sense for that person (who you believe took the first swing) to not land a single significant blow and end up on his back being beaten by Martin and yelling for help?
Or maybe your definition of "instigated" is different from the legal one and you think that the act of following someone is equivalent to starting a fistfight.
Finally and most importantly, do you believe there is enough (or any) evidence that your "likely" events were actually the case and put Zimmerman at fault? You see, you have to actually -prove- that Zimmerman committed a crime, not simply that he shot Martin and that makes you feel icky. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
The facts may bear out to be different but the likely events seem to suggest that Zimmerman instigated the issue.
What I find interesting is that some people are clinging to the unlikely and giving it more credence or more of a possibility that logic and reason dictates.
Again, it may bear out that Zimmerman is innocent but the chain of events would have to be 'unlikely'. |
Really? The version of events supported by witnesses and evidence is the "unlikely" one?
Does it make any sense for someone to call for a police officer, then TRY to assault a minor carrying skittles and an iced tea? Does it make sense for that person (who you believe took the first swing) to not land a single significant blow and end up on his back being beaten by Martin and yelling for help?
Or maybe your definition of "instigated" is different from the legal one and you think that the act of following someone is equivalent to starting a fistfight.
Finally and most importantly, do you believe there is enough (or any) evidence that your "likely" events were actually the case and put Zimmerman at fault? You see, you have to actually -prove- that Zimmerman committed a crime, not simply that he shot Martin and that makes you feel icky. |
It's been proven that Zimmerman wasn't the one yelling for help.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/04/02/forensics-experts-zimmerman-was-not-screaming-for-help-in-911-call/
Also several witnesses have turned in accounts that do not support Zimmerman, including at least one witness who was coerced by the police.
http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-27/justice/justice_florida-teen-shooting-witnesses_1_police-department-gated-community-account/3?_s=PM:JUSTICE
"Another officer corrected a witness after she told him that she heard the teen cry for help.
The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help."
"Lee publically admitted that officers accepted Zimmerman's word at the scene that he had no police record.
Two days later during a meeting with Trayvon's father Tracy Martin, an officer told the father that Zimmerman's record was "squeaky clean."
Yet public records showed that Zimmerman was charged with battery against on officer and resisting arrest in 2005, a charge which was later expunged."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/neighborhood-watch-shooting-trayvon-martin-probe-reveals-questionable/story?id=15907136#.T4Jxl5kS3RE |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 11:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I just numbered your charges because I wanted to show how unacceptable these were.
1. Nothing has been proven in a court of law. Suppose it goes to court and suppose Zimmerman finds experts who say that it was his voice? It happens all the time in court. Each side produces their "expert" witness and the opposing side tries to shoot them down. So far all we have is OPINION.
And notice how the media continues to portray one side and ignore the other. For all we know Zimmerman may have offered expert witnesses who claim it was his voice. But that's ignored because it's not the story the media want to portray. They've been caught red-handed TWICE now trying to twist the facts.
2. Correcting is not the same as coercion. You are using a loaded term to sway emotions and it's not even what happened.
| Quote: |
| The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help." |
Once again correction is not the same as coercion. If you said "the sun was setting in the east" and a police officer said "Actually the sun always sets in the west." is that coercion? Stop accepting the sensationalized drivel of the newspaper and use some common sense.
3. Zimmerman told the police officer he didn't have a record BECAUSE IT WAS EXPUNGED. Do you even know what expunged means?
| Quote: |
What Is Expungement?
Expungement refers to the process of sealing arrest and conviction records. Virtually every state has enacted laws that allow people to expunge arrests and convictions from their records. Though the details can vary from one state to the next, most states' laws provide that once an arrest or conviction has been expunged, it need not be disclosed, including to potential employers or landlords. For example, assume that Joe was convicted of petty theft and later had the conviction expunged. This was Joe's only brush with the criminal justice system. If Joe applies for a job and the application asks, "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal offense?" Joe can honestly answer, "No." |
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/expungement-of-criminal-records-basics-32641.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Swampfox10mm wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
[q
Zimmerman was aggressive and abusive...from the tape.
. |
Did he actually ever speak to Martin BEFORE (in his version of events) Martin approached him and asked if he had a problem?
Maybe I've missed something because from what I've read he never actually confronted Martin until Martin confronted him in an aggressive manner (according to his claim). |
Aggressive?
Ok, now you have been caught. Please provide us with a link to the full youtubed conversation at any point and tell us exactly where this took place. |
Caught? Caught with what?
I realize you have some emotional attachment to this thread, but it doesn't help if you don't keep your wits about you.
"Fucking _______." "They always get away."
(From the tape...as I said initially.)
Whether it was goons or coons is not relevant to my point.
The phrase "fucking ______" is both aggressive and abusive verbal behavior.
Whatever word follows the f-word is so far as I know...undecided...so, at this point in time, at least not racist.
But if you feel you have "caught" me at something, pat yourself on the back and enjoy your moment of delusion.
Though we are all still patiently waiting for you to explain your post that says Zimmerman was not following Martin.
Or did you get "caught" there? 
Did you mean he didn't continue to follow Martin after being told he didn't need to do that?
Though, by the way...even that is not fact...he could very well have continued on his quest to apprehend the 'fucking _____ who always get away.' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2012 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
I just numbered your charges because I wanted to show how unacceptable these were.
1. Nothing has been proven in a court of law. Suppose it goes to court and suppose Zimmerman finds experts who say that it was his voice? It happens all the time in court. Each side produces their "expert" witness and the opposing side tries to shoot them down. So far all we have is OPINION.
2. Correcting is not the same as coercion. You are using a loaded term to sway emotions and it's not even what happened.
| Quote: |
| The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help." |
Once again correction is not the same as coercion. If you said "the sun was setting in the east" and a police officer said "Actually the sun always sets in the west." is that coercion? Stop accepting the sensationalized drivel of the newspaper and use some common sense.
3. Zimmerman told the police officer he didn't have a record BECAUSE IT WAS EXPUNGED. Do you even know what expunged means? Legally he was correct...unless there are other charges which were not expunged. |
Unacceptable? Are you my professor, or the moderator of this board?
Anyways, all the scientific and forensic evidence available makes it clear that it wasn't his voice screaming on the calls, but it was ok for Comm to state that it was Zimmerman screaming, but unacceptable for me to state otherwise? Speaking of what else can't be legally proven, I guess if that's the standard you want to use than all of your talk about what a thug Martin was can be ignored because his police record is, just like Zimmerman's squeaky clean and can not be used in court. Use some common sense and stop believing newspaper and internet drivel please, it's simply unacceptable.
Correction and coercion in this instance, because the police were in a position of power, would be pretty similar. Even if I had just said correction it would obviously be unacceptable behavior from a law officer.
The last part of the quote about the squeaky clean bit wasn't really any part of my point, it was just included when I copied the quote. Of course I know what expunged means, and it's not acceptable for you to condescend to me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
The facts may bear out to be different but the likely events seem to suggest that Zimmerman instigated the issue.
What I find interesting is that some people are clinging to the unlikely and giving it more credence or more of a possibility that logic and reason dictates.
Again, it may bear out that Zimmerman is innocent but the chain of events would have to be 'unlikely'. |
Really? The version of events supported by witnesses and evidence is the "unlikely" one?
Does it make any sense for someone to call for a police officer, then TRY to assault a minor carrying skittles and an iced tea? Does it make sense for that person (who you believe took the first swing) to not land a single significant blow and end up on his back being beaten by Martin and yelling for help?
Or maybe your definition of "instigated" is different from the legal one and you think that the act of following someone is equivalent to starting a fistfight.
Finally and most importantly, do you believe there is enough (or any) evidence that your "likely" events were actually the case and put Zimmerman at fault? You see, you have to actually -prove- that Zimmerman committed a crime, not simply that he shot Martin and that makes you feel icky. |
Zimmerman called 911 before speaking to Martin. He was advised it was best NOT to pursue Martin. He used abusive language in his discription (f*cking blah blah). Zimmerman followed him anyway.
Judging by the tone he used in the 911 call, its perfectly logical to assume that he questioned Martin in the same manner.
If Martin did not like the manner in how he was being questioned by someone he knew NOT to be a law enforcement officer and if Martin got in his face about it, and that's a big IF, Zimmerman messed with the wrong guy, bit off more than he could chew IF Martin got back in his face. Something that is reasonable from a lot of folks. I would not consider it uncommon for an average guy to get in a guys face for asking him what in an aggressive manner why he was in a place he had every legal right to be.
The FACT is Zimmerman went after him. A reasonably thinking person would assume to question him about why he was in his neighborhoo and what business he had there.
I'm no thug or bad ass but I would possibly tell a guy to get the f*ck outta my face and if he broke my personal space things could get physical.
Remove race from this. If it was a white kid dressed in a hoodie with the same exact set of circumstances I honestly believe very few people would be supporting Zimmerman or be clinging to any shred of hope and any implausible reasoning that he would be innocent.
The way this law was written Zimmerman could be found innocent but NOT by how the vast majority of people would view it. He'd be seen as guilty. Similar to OJ, who seemed guilty and believed to be guilty as hell but was found to be innocent legally.
I think more than a few people are taking out their distaste for the likes of Rev Al and Jesse Jackson (who both deserve a fair amount of anmity from my personal opinion), as well as the obvious racial bias in news reporting of white on black crimes that happens at times, by supporting Zimmerman.
I truly and honestly believe if one told this story to someone and left out race maybe 1 person in 100 would be supporting the idea that Zimmerman was innocent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 10:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
| Zimmerman called 911 before speaking to Martin. He was advised it was best NOT to pursue Martin. He used abusive language in his discription (f*cking blah blah). Zimmerman followed him anyway. |
No, Zimmerman lost Martin (that means he stopped following) and was confronted by Martin on his way back to his vehicle.
| sirius black wrote: |
| Remove race from this. If it was a white kid dressed in a hoodie with the same exact set of circumstances I honestly believe very few people would be supporting Zimmerman or be clinging to any shred of hope and any implausible reasoning that he would be innocent. |
Here's what matters to me (and the law): There is no reason not to believe that Martin initiated the physical attack (since physical evidence and witnesses indicate he was on top of Zimmerman at the time of the shooting and had received no fight injuries). If an aggressor has his victim pinned on the ground and continues to deal potentially long-term damage, the victim is justified in using lethal force. There is no evidence to support the idea that Zimmerman attacked first, even if you really feel like that's what happened. And there is definitely no evidence to prove that Zimmerman was the aggressor.
I think the difference in our views isn't about race, but in our interpretation of State law. As I understand it, if you can't prove that a crime was committed, then Zimmerman is in the clear. Since evidence and witnesses indicate that he probably didn't start the fight (or he'd have landed at least one blow) it's impossible to prove that Z is at fault. That may be a clinical way of looking at it, but it's true regardless of the races involved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steelrails
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| comm wrote: |
| sirius black wrote: |
| Zimmerman called 911 before speaking to Martin. He was advised it was best NOT to pursue Martin. He used abusive language in his discription (f*cking blah blah). Zimmerman followed him anyway. |
No, Zimmerman lost Martin (that means he stopped following) and was confronted by Martin on his way back to his vehicle.
| sirius black wrote: |
| Remove race from this. If it was a white kid dressed in a hoodie with the same exact set of circumstances I honestly believe very few people would be supporting Zimmerman or be clinging to any shred of hope and any implausible reasoning that he would be innocent. |
Here's what matters to me (and the law): There is no reason not to believe that Martin initiated the physical attack (since physical evidence and witnesses indicate he was on top of Zimmerman at the time of the shooting and had received no fight injuries). If an aggressor has his victim pinned on the ground and continues to deal potentially long-term damage, the victim is justified in using lethal force. There is no evidence to support the idea that Zimmerman attacked first, even if you really feel like that's what happened. And there is definitely no evidence to prove that Zimmerman was the aggressor.
I think the difference in our views isn't about race, but in our interpretation of State law. As I understand it, if you can't prove that a crime was committed, then Zimmerman is in the clear. Since evidence and witnesses indicate that he probably didn't start the fight (or he'd have landed at least one blow) it's impossible to prove that Z is at fault. That may be a clinical way of looking at it, but it's true regardless of the races involved. |
I could see Zimmerman grabbing the kids shoulder with a "Hey, I'm talking to you" and Martin whirling around and decking the guy in the face or blocking the kids path or just following him in an obviously suspicious manner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sirius black
Joined: 04 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is a witnesses or witnesses that said that Zimmerman lost Martin or are we taking Zimmerman's account of things?
You're saying Zimmerman tried to find Martin. Couldn't was going back to his car and Martin who knew Zimmerman was following him from the person he was talking to on his phone, stopped going home and went after Zimmerman and fought him?
Its possibly things happened that way. However, it sounds like a complete crock of sh*t. Sorry, it just doesn't sound likely or logical. My point is the views that the unlikeliest possibility is being viewed as the likely. It makes no complete sense and any reasonable person will say that and i woud imagine that law enforcement. Cops who have seen their fair share of crime would probably not believe it either because its so improbable.
If Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him and the reasons were he was stopped and harshly questioned by Zimmerman, then Zimmerman confronted the wrong guy and was a dumb ass for jumping to conclusions about the guy. And a bigger dumb ass for bothering someone who had every right to be there and used his gun to ward off a guy he wrongly stopped. They guy got pissed as MANY of you on this forum would. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
[
Unacceptable? Are you my professor, or the moderator of this board?
Anyways, all the scientific and forensic evidence available makes it clear that it wasn't his voice screaming on the calls, but it was ok for Comm to state that it was Zimmerman screaming, but unacceptable for me to state otherwise? Speaking of what else can't be legally proven, I guess if that's the standard you want to use than all of your talk about what a thug Martin was can be ignored because his police record is, just like Zimmerman's squeaky clean and can not be used in court. Use some common sense and stop believing newspaper and internet drivel please, it's simply unacceptable.
Correction and coercion in this instance, because the police were in a position of power, would be pretty similar. Even if I had just said correction it would obviously be unacceptable behavior from a law officer.
The last part of the quote about the squeaky clean bit wasn't really any part of my point, it was just included when I copied the quote. Of course I know what expunged means, and it's not acceptable for you to condescend to me. |
I thought "unacceptable" was a better term than "silly"
No the scientific and forensic evidence is based on opinion...it is most definitely not established fact. Stop trying to pretend otherwise we've all read the links and know this is not accurate. And if you want to make snarky retorts how about being original instead of copying mine? And where did I say my remarks about Trayvon being a thug should be used in court? You're really grasping at straws here.
Correction is unacceptable behavior from a police officer...since when?
If you knew what expunged mean then why bother quoting that part? It's rather irrelevant in that case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 3:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sirius black wrote: |
[
Zimmerman called 911 before speaking to Martin. He was advised it was best NOT to pursue Martin. He used abusive language in his discription (f*cking blah blah). Zimmerman followed him anyway.
Judging by the tone he used in the 911 call, its perfectly logical to assume that he questioned Martin in the same manner.
I truly and honestly believe if one told this story to someone and left out race maybe 1 person in 100 would be supporting the idea that Zimmerman was innocent. |
According to Zimmerman he couldn't find Martin...how could he question him if that was the case?
And I truly and honestly believe that maybe 1 in 100 would support Trayvon...who's right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
[
Unacceptable? Are you my professor, or the moderator of this board?
Anyways, all the scientific and forensic evidence available makes it clear that it wasn't his voice screaming on the calls, but it was ok for Comm to state that it was Zimmerman screaming, but unacceptable for me to state otherwise? Speaking of what else can't be legally proven, I guess if that's the standard you want to use than all of your talk about what a thug Martin was can be ignored because his police record is, just like Zimmerman's squeaky clean and can not be used in court. Use some common sense and stop believing newspaper and internet drivel please, it's simply unacceptable.
Correction and coercion in this instance, because the police were in a position of power, would be pretty similar. Even if I had just said correction it would obviously be unacceptable behavior from a law officer.
The last part of the quote about the squeaky clean bit wasn't really any part of my point, it was just included when I copied the quote. Of course I know what expunged means, and it's not acceptable for you to condescend to me. |
I thought "unacceptable" was a better term than "silly"
No the scientific and forensic evidence is based on opinion...it is most definitely not established fact. Stop trying to pretend otherwise we've all read the links and know this is not accurate. And if you want to make snarky retorts how about being original instead of copying mine? And where did I say my remarks about Trayvon being a thug should be used in court? You're really grasping at straws here.
Correction is unacceptable behavior from a police officer...since when?
If you knew what expunged mean then why bother quoting that part? It's rather irrelevant in that case. |
You seemed to be using a new standard, things that had already been accepted by law, so I was pointing out it was silly since most of your argument was based on things that haven't been proven by a court. There hasn't been a court case yet so it's silly to use that silly standard. The forensic evidence is not opinion, because if, as I know you love to do, you want to be technical about what the article said, only the second expert used the term opinion, where as the first one said it was a scientific home run. When it does come to court it will undoubtedly be used.
Since when has correction been unacceptable behavior? It's leading a witness. Here is what the supreme court says.
" The Court opined, however, that additionally , due process provides a check on the admission of eyewitness identification but only when the police arrange suggestive circumstances leading a witness to identify a particular person as the person who committed a crime.
The Court addressed a long line of cases dealing with suggestive and unreliable identifications and specifically held that when no improper law enforcement activity is involved, it is sufficient to test reliability of identification testimony through presence of counsel at post-indictment lineups, cross examination of witnesses, protective rules of evidence, jury instructions on the fallibility of eyewitness identification and the requirement that guilt be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court stated that its unwillingness to enlarge the domain of due process challenges on eyewitness identifications was in large part due to the fact that a jury, not a judge, would traditionally determine the reliability of evidence. The Court, therefore, decided that police misconduct would trigger pre-trial due process concerns."
http://www.lorilevinlaw.com/2/post/2012/1/united-states-supreme-court-recent-decision-on-eyewitness-identification.html
(2)The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help."
If you can't see how this is leading, and not appropriate police behavior, than you are just being silly.
I included it in part to demonstrate the mindset of the police. To demonstrate that they didn't really conduct a competent investigation, that they believed Zimmerman's account without verifying it. Also that Zimmerman had a violent past can be used in court if the defense opens the door by introducing character evidence. (I believe, I'm not a lawyer, but that's what a few minutes of google suggests.) Try not to say anything silly in response, it just makes you look silly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comm
Joined: 22 Jun 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 3:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steelrails wrote: |
| I could see Zimmerman grabbing the kids shoulder with a "Hey, I'm talking to you" and Martin whirling around and decking the guy in the face or blocking the kids path or just following him in an obviously suspicious manner. |
Those are certainly possibilities, but I think you'd still have to prove that something like that happened to indict Zimmerman (and then it would still be dicey as to whether a first strike by Martin would be justified).
| sirius black wrote: |
| If Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him and the reasons were he was stopped and harshly questioned by Zimmerman, then Zimmerman confronted the wrong guy and was a dumb ass for jumping to conclusions about the guy. And a bigger dumb ass for bothering someone who had every right to be there and used his gun to ward off a guy he wrongly stopped. They guy got pissed as MANY of you on this forum would. |
Even if this were the case, it's still unlikely that Zimmerman started the physical conflict after asking for a police officer to come to the scene. Even if your scenario is what happened; being asked questions that hurt his feelings doesn't justify Martin's attack and doesn't forfeit Zimmerman's right to use lethal force to defend against it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| [. Also that Zimmerman had a violent past can be used in court if the defense opens the door by introducing character evidence. (I believe, I'm not a lawyer, but that's what a few minutes of google suggests.) Try not to say anything silly in response, it just makes you look silly. |
I suggest taking your own advice (the words I bolded.)
Depending on the state and jurisdiction his expunged record may not even be allowed to be used in court...there may be no door regardless of introducing character evidence.
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"
As for the witness, your link is talking about eyewitness...this was not an eyewitness in this case. Nor was it "suggestive" the officer plainly stated it was Zimmerman.
And again we've had several blatant instances of media bias in this case...are we sure we are getting the whole story? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 09, 2012 5:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| [. Also that Zimmerman had a violent past can be used in court if the defense opens the door by introducing character evidence. (I believe, I'm not a lawyer, but that's what a few minutes of google suggests.) Try not to say anything silly in response, it just makes you look silly. |
I suggest taking your own advice (the words I bolded.)
Depending on the state and jurisdiction his expunged record may not even be allowed to be used in court...there may be no door regardless of introducing character evidence.
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"
As for the witness, your link is talking about eyewitness...this was not an eyewitness in this case. Nor was it "suggestive" the officer plainly stated it was Zimmerman.
And again we've had several blatant instances of media bias in this case...are we sure we are getting the whole story? |
Do you know the rules for the specific district that the case will be tried in? The officer stated it was Zimmerman, yet the witness said that they thought it was Martin. I never said it was suggestive, I said it was leading, and clearly a violation of due process, and it is even more egregious now that we have much more proof that the witness was was right, the forensic experts, and the officer was wrong.
We aren't getting the whole story. The media bias is regrettable, but it's not as pervasive as you seem to think. The reporter who edited the 911 tape has been fired, we've already been over why certain pics were used based on family choice and lack of available pics for Zimmerman, the original police report described Zimmerman as white so that covers the white angle, so what else is left?
There has been media bias, but as has been already demonstrated there has been police bias and misconduct. In the end this is probably the largest reason for our lack of true knowledge, and may be why many questions will be left unanswered no matter how this is eventually resolved. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
