The Trayvon Martin Case

[Spurtacular]

:rollin

I want to laugh. A lot.

Because the prosecution produced a phony witness in a murder trial / witch hunt?

You are every bit the cuck.

[RandomGuy]

You never found it odd the star witness couldn't even read the letter her lawyers were forced to produce that "she" wrote?

Sorry, you have me confused with someone who cares about Trayvon Martin's girlfriend. Please stop that.

[Spurtacular]

Sorry, you have me confused with someone who cares about Trayvon Martin's girlfriend. Please stop that.

Nobody's confusing you with an alpha male who calls out shit for what it is.

[TSA]

Sorry, you have me confused with someone who cares about Trayvon Martin's girlfriend. Please stop that.

Trayvon Martin's "girlfriend" was a star witness of the prosecution. If you don't care if it was really her or not on the stand why the fuck are you in this thread?

[RandomGuy]

Nobody's confusing you with an alpha male who calls out shit for what it is.

Zimmerman was a hyped up cop wannabe. Trayvon was an innocent kid.

Seems that is what it is.

[RandomGuy]

Trayvon Martin's "girlfriend" was a star witness of the prosecution. If you don't care if it was really her or not on the stand why the fuck are you in this thread?


Ah, but what about this brilliant documentarian and investigator, Joel Gilbert? The Source of All Knowledge notes he got his start making four exhaustively fannish documentaries about Bob Dylan (reviewers: "unexceptional, sometimes amateurish," and viewers might be "hard-pressed to find a more irritatingly edited project"). After that, Gilbert plunged into rock conspiracy flicks with films titled Paul McCartney Really Is Dead: The Last Testament of George Harrison (2011) and Elvis Found Alive (2012). Gilbert retroactively labeled both "mockumentaries" after he released the film that made him a minor star among rightwingers, 2012's Dreams From My Real Father, in which Gilbert pushed the notion that Barack Obama was really the love child of commie pinko black revolutionary Frank Marshall Davis, who groomed Barry from an early age to lead the communist revolution in the USA. (The Daily Beast notes, "Gilbert accounted for the two men's lack of physical similarities by claiming Obama had plastic surgery to hide his link to Davis.")

Gosh, it's almost as if there's some kind of theme running through his movies, if only we could pick it out. We'll have to ask our genetically engineered body double.

https://www.wonkette.com/george-zimmerman-larry-klayman-sue-trayvon-martins-family

:rollin

To laugh at your Pizzagate follow up.

[ElNono]

:lol how do you continually fall for scam like this?

More ‘I wanna believe’ stuff I guess

[Spurtacular]

Zimmerman was a hyped up cop wannabe. Trayvon was an innocent kid.

Seems that is what it is.

Trayvon was thugging and he got popped.

[Spurtacular]

:lol how do you continually fall for scam like this?

More ‘I wanna believe’ stuff I guess

Trayvon wasn't going out with that dumn cow, dude. This has been known for some time.

[ElNono]

Let’s see where the lawsuit goes then.

[TSA]

Let’s see where the lawsuit goes then.

That’s the only reason I bumped it. The new findings are pretty compelling and thinking back on what a disaster the prosecution’s star witness was I’d like to make some sense of it. RG won’t answer so maybe you will. Did you find it odd the star witness couldn't even read the letter her lawyers were forced to produce that "she" wrote?

[TSA]

Zimmerman was a hyped up cop wannabe.true

Trayvon was an innocent kid.untrue

[Spurtacular]

Let’s see where the lawsuit goes then.

Lawsuits like this don't determine truth. They determine who gets what money.

[Spurtacular]

Did you find it odd the star witness couldn't even read the letter her lawyers were forced to produce that "she" wrote?

Easy enough for the sperm shielders to ignore.

[ElNono]

I didn’t find anything weird with the trial at the time, and witnesses were cleared by the presiding judge, so the answer would be no. But it’s been a while, I can’t say my recollection is that great (and I wasn’t emotionally invested in the case like some apparently are).

Obviously this is nothing more than an allegation at this time, that’s why I’m not sure what’s the eagerness to jump to conclusions, especially with a lawsuit ongoing...

[ElNono]

Lawsuits like this don't determine truth. They determine who gets what money.

You surely don’t determine truth either. At least lawsuits are 1000x more credible than your word

[Spurtacular]

You surely don’t determine truth either. At least lawsuits are 1000x more credible than your word

The truth has been out there for years. You didn't care about it, then; you won't care about it going forward. I know all about who's "credible".

[ElNono]

The truth has been out there for years. You didn't care about it, then; you won't care about it going forward. I know all about who's "credible".

More ‘I wanna believe’...

Look it’s not personal. At least on a trial you get both sides to present their evidence. That’s why it’s implicitly always better than ‘trust me, I know’. Yeah, I don’t trust word of mouth

[RandomGuy]

Let’s see where the lawsuit goes then.

It will go about as far as the rest of the looney tunes conspiracy theories that particular "lawyer" has attempted to schlock.

[RandomGuy]

Easy enough for the sperm shielders to ignore.

"pull it"

[TSA]

I didn’t find anything weird with the trial at the time, and witnesses were cleared by the presiding judge, so the answer would be no. But it’s been a while, I can’t say my recollection is that great (and I wasn’t emotionally invested in the case like some apparently are).

Obviously this is nothing more than an allegation at this time, that’s why I’m not sure what’s the eagerness to jump to conclusions, especially with a lawsuit ongoing...

I’ll refresh your memory with a quick summary of witness #8

“Read the letter you wrote that has been submitted as evidence.”

“I can’t read”

[ElNono]

I’ll refresh your memory with a quick summary of witness #8

“Read the letter you wrote that has been submitted as evidence.”

“I can’t read”

And the problem is?

[ElNono]

I mean, I’m not sure how uncommon it is for somebody to be able to write but not read, and I wouldn’t know the prevalence of that among uneducated people, but I know my own father in law is one of those people.

[MultiTroll]

Yeah, I don’t trust word of mouth
I heard there is a kick ass party featuring baked goods that pays homage to the strategies of the greatest coach ever.

[ElNono]

I heard there is a kick ass party featuring baked goods that pays homage to the strategies of the greatest coach ever.

Are you bringing the cinnamon rolls?

[Spurtacular]

More ‘I wanna believe’...

Look it’s not personal. At least on a trial you get both sides to present their evidence. That’s why it’s implicitly always better than ‘trust me, I know’. Yeah, I don’t trust word of mouth

I don't keep links on all this shit. And I won't go errand boy'ing it for you now. I found all about it at the time. If you don't know it's because you don't want to know. It's a slam dunk that this is not Trayvon's gf. This chick has more holes in her shit than swiss cheese. Honestly, it's why I stopped caring what you think; cos you're chumpette level in that regard.

[Spurtacular]

I mean, I’m not sure how uncommon it is for somebody to be able to write but not read, and I wouldn’t know the prevalence of that among uneducated people, but I know my own father in law is one of those people.

Give me a break; if you can't read your own shit, you didn't write it. There's no point in trying to convince a willful troglodyte such as you. Get your shit together. Come back to respectability.

[Winehole23]

Trayvon was thugging and he got popped.With Skittles and a coke. In his own neighborhood.

Bad mistake, that day.

Dispatcher told Zimmerman to wait for the cops and not to engage. Zimmerman fucked up.

[TSA]

With Skittles and a coke. In his own neighborhood.

Bad mistake, that day.

Dispatcher told Zimmerman to wait for the cops and not to engage. Zimmerman fucked up.

If we are just looking at dead or alive and walking free it looks like Trayvon fucked up a bit more.

[Winehole23]

If we are just looking at dead or alive and walking free it looks like Trayvon fucked up a bit more.
I couldn't disagree more. Zimmerman didn't have to do what he did. Trayvon wasn't doing anything but being black in a nice neighborhood -- his family's neighborhood.

[Spurtacular]

With Skittles and a coke. In his own neighborhood.

Bad mistake, that day.

Dispatcher told Zimmerman to wait for the cops and not to engage. Zimmerman fucked up.

Who was beating up who?

[Winehole23]

Who was beating up who?Who engaged a rando person doing nothing wrong after the police dispatcher said not to fuck with him?

[Winehole23]

Zimmerman was not vested with police powers. He overreached.

[Spurtacular]

Who engaged a rando person doing nothing wrong after the police dispatcher said not to fuck with him?

Who was terrorizing who?

[Spurtacular]

Zimmerman was not vested with police powers. He overreached.

He has every right as a citizen to make an inquiry of a suspicious person.

[spurraider21]

He has every right as a citizen to make an inquiry of a suspicious person.
what right are you referring to?

[Spurtacular]

what right are you referring to?

What law are you contending that George broke by engaging in dialogue?

[spurraider21]

trayvon wasn't doing anything wrong when he was walking when he was

zimmerman wasn't "wrong" in calling the cops to report what he thought was suspicious. prejudiced and profiling? sure, but not wrong in a legality sense, and no harm from that act alone

zimmerman was then specifically told not to follow the kid or engage in any way. he was wrong in not following the instructions given by dispatch. that was the first "wrong"

facts after that are up in the air, as i recall there wasn't much evidence to conclusively show that zimmerman is the one who initiated the physical nature of their confrontation (hence, no conviction). we dont really know what the nature of their confrontation was.


my take on this when the trial was ongoing was basically that i think zimmerman was in the wrong but there wasn't going to be enough evidence for a conviction. i still feel that way.

[spurraider21]

What law are you contending that George broke by engaging in dialogue?
i didnt contend there was a law preventing him from doing that. that's different than having a "right" to do something

we also dont know that "engaging in dialogue" is the extent of what zimmerman did before their confrontation became physical.

[Spurtacular]

i didnt contend there was a law preventing him from doing that. that's different than having a "right" to do something

we also dont know that "engaging in dialogue" is the extent of what zimmerman did before their confrontation became physical.

So, George did not break the law by engaging in dialogue. :tu

[spurraider21]

So, George did not break the law by engaging in dialogue. :tu
nope. i never claimed he did :tu

if we conclusively knew that that's all he did, i'd feel a lot better about the situation

[Spurtacular]

trayvon wasn't doing anything wrong when he was walking when he was

How do you know that? Are you saying you know a hundred percent for sure that he wasn't casing the place?

[Spurtacular]

nope. i never claimed he did :tu

if we conclusively knew that that's all he did, i'd feel a lot better about the situation

Uh huh. So, who was beating up who?

[spurraider21]

How do you know that? Are you saying you know a hundred percent for sure that he wasn't casing the place?
yeah. he was visiting somebody who lived in that community. he went from their house to the 7-11 and was walking back to the house.

i could ask equally nonsensical questions like "do you know a hundred percent for sure that zimmerman wasn't actively plotting to murder the next person he saw before killing trayvon?"

its all about evidence, which can be direct/phyiscal or circumstantial

[Spurtacular]

yeah. he was visiting somebody who lived in that community. he went from their house to the 7-11 and was walking back to the house.

i could ask equally nonsensical questions like "do you know a hundred percent for sure that zimmerman wasn't actively plotting to murder the next person he saw before killing trayvon?"

its all about evidence, which can be direct/phyiscal or circumstantial

Oh, so you know hundred percent fore sure that he wasn't casing possible scores because he allegedly knew someone that lived in the same neighborhood. Who knew that that was a criminal deterrent to just have someone in your neighborhood know someone. Fuck ADT; just network, amirite?

[spurraider21]

Oh, so you know hundred percent fore sure that he wasn't casing possible scores because he allegedly knew someone that lived in the same neighborhood. Who knew that that was a criminal deterrent to just have someone in your neighborhood know someone. Fuck ADT; just network, amirite?
asking if i know hundred percent for sure that something didnt happen is just a rephrasing of the fallacy of proving a negative. its a nonsensical way to have a discussion

are you a hundred percent sure that there ins't a flying spaghetti monster? are you a hundred percent sure that george zimmerman hadnt seen martin on a previous day, thought "fuck that kid" and then decided to wait until that day to murder him after planning for it? its an impossible standard for the purposes of a discussion

he didn't "allegedly" know somebody there. martin and his father lived 4 hours away. they were in that city because they were visiting his father's fiance, who lived in that community, which is where they were staying during the visit

i didnt say it was a criminal deterrent to have someone in your neighborhood know someone. but if you're looking at the likelihood of somebody plotting to commit a crime, its a pretty big factor or piece of evidence that he was there for a legitimate purpose. i mean if you are walking outside your house one day and somebody called the cops thinking you were casing the area, wouldn't it be pretty fucking significant that you live there? :lol... or should i go full derp and say "who knew that it was a criminal deterrent just to have somebody live in your neighborhood. Fuck ADT, amirite?"

[Spurtacular]

asking if i know hundred percent for sure that something didnt happen is just a rephrasing of the fallacy of proving a negative. its a nonsensical way to have a discussion

are you a hundred percent sure that there ins't a flying spaghetti monster? are you a hundred percent sure that george zimmerman hadnt seen martin on a previous day, thought "fuck that kid" and then decided to wait until that day to murder him after planning for it? its an impossible standard for the purposes of a discussion

he didn't "allegedly" know somebody there. martin and his father lived 4 hours away. they were in that city because they were visiting his father's fiance, who lived in that community, which is where they were staying during the visit

i didnt say it was a criminal deterrent to have someone in your neighborhood know someone. but if you're looking at the likelihood of somebody plotting to commit a crime, its a pretty big factor or piece of evidence that he was there for a legitimate purpose. i mean if you are walking outside your house one day and somebody called the cops thinking you were casing the area, wouldn't it be pretty fucking significant that you live there? :lol... or should i go full derp and say "who knew that it was a criminal deterrent just to have somebody live in your neighborhood. Fuck ADT, amirite?"

Okay, he had a reason to be there; it doesn't mean he wasn't acting suspiciously.

[spurraider21]

Okay, he had a reason to be there; it doesn't mean he wasn't acting suspiciously.
By walking?

[Chucho]

derp really arguing for the death of an innocent black kid?

The absolute worst thing he MIGHT have done was escalate the issue after being harassed by Zimmerman and/or during the actual physical altercation, iirc.

[SpursforSix]

I mean, I’m not sure how uncommon it is for somebody to be able to write but not read, and I wouldn’t know the prevalence of that among uneducated people, but I know my own father in law is one of those people.

I don't know that either. But I would expect that someone would at least be able to read what they wrote themselves.

[ElNono]

I don't keep links on all this shit. And I won't go errand boy'ing it for you now. I found all about it at the time. If you don't know it's because you don't want to know. It's a slam dunk that this is not Trayvon's gf. This chick has more holes in her shit than swiss cheese. Honestly, it's why I stopped caring what you think; cos you're chumpette level in that regard.

I don't have to do anything and neither do you, that's what discovery is for. If she isn't, then it'll come up at trial. If that changes anything about the Trayvon case, then we'll know too. Frankly, I wasn't very interested in the Trayvon case back then, not sure why it needs to interest me now, but for the sake of argument, there's just no point in jumping to conclusions.

[ElNono]

Give me a break; if you can't read your own shit, you didn't write it. There's no point in trying to convince a willful troglodyte such as you. Get your shit together. Come back to respectability.

Hey, I'm not going to assert that's the case here, I have no evidence that's what's going on. We'll see what comes up at trial. Just merely pointing out that I've come across that, and yes, it's very weird, and I would say uncommon, but I'm not really sure about the prevalence of it.

[ElNono]

I don't know that either. But I would expect that someone would at least be able to read what they wrote themselves.

I don't disagree. See my previous post.

[RandomGuy]

I don't have to do anything and neither do you, that's what discovery is for. If she isn't, then it'll come up at trial. If that changes anything about the Trayvon case, then we'll know too. Frankly, I wasn't very interested in the Trayvon case back then, not sure why it needs to interest me now, but for the sake of argument, there's just no point in jumping to conclusions.

The Trayvon case is the newest shiny object in conspiracy-land. They will pretend to care about it for a while, realize it is dumb...and move on.

[Spurtacular]

derp really arguing for the death of an innocent black kid?

The absolute worst thing he MIGHT have done was escalate the issue after being harassed by Zimmerman and/or during the actual physical altercation, iirc.

Did you listen to the tape of Trayvon beating the living shit out of Zimmerman?

:lmao "innocent"

[Spurtacular]

I don't have to do anything and neither do you, that's what discovery is for. If she isn't, then it'll come up at trial. If that changes anything about the Trayvon case, then we'll know too. Frankly, I wasn't very interested in the Trayvon case back then, not sure why it needs to interest me now, but for the sake of argument, there's just no point in jumping to conclusions.

You always state that the legal process will bring out the truth. It's rather naive to think that way.

[boutons_deux]

Z was exonerated, the phone call was not central to the case

Fat white dickless white guy shoots unarmed black guy. Fuck yeah! AmeriKKKa

[Blake]

You always state that the legal process will bring out the truth. It's rather naive to think that way.

Derp thinks crazy alt right websites bring out the truth

[ElNono]

You always state that the legal process will bring out the truth. It's rather naive to think that way.

What's naive is to think you're some sort of enlightened person.

The legal process might not always bring out the truth, but it's not for lack of trying. It's an ordered process based on facts. That alone is 10000x better than any conspiracies, gut feelings or 'common sense'.

[Spurtacular]

What's naive is to think you're some sort of enlightened person.

The legal process might not always bring out the truth, but it's not for lack of trying. It's an ordered process based on facts. That alone is 10000x better than any conspiracies, gut feelings or 'common sense'.

Actually, it is often for lack of trying. Often times the truth is quite inconvenient. While the prosecution needed the witness for their case, the defense may have ultimately had their own reasons to allow that dumb cow to testify.

[ElNono]

Actually, it is often for lack of trying. Often times the truth is quite inconvenient. While the prosecution needed the witness for their case, the defense may have ultimately had their own reasons to allow that dumb cow to testify.

The bolded is nothing but more conspiracies. The truth is always inconvenient for the party that loses. That's always the case in adversarial processes.

Everybody can cross examine the other party's witness. Both sides get to pick the jurors. You have the ability to appeal multiple times. That's as fair as you're going to get in any system.

I will admit it's not a perfect system, and things like which lawyer you can afford, and how much money you have to see a case go all the way can make a big difference. And yes, that's shitty. That said, I can't possibly fathom how a justice system that could convict people based on innuendo or hearsay instead of fact can be just at all.

[pgardn]

What's naive is to think you're some sort of enlightened person.

The legal process might not always bring out the truth, but it's not for lack of trying. It's an ordered process based on facts. That alone is 10000x better than any conspiracies, gut feelings or 'common sense'.

The bolded is exactly what he is not.
Be careful or he might become attracted to you and put you on a Blake-Reck thread of passion.

[Spurtacular]

The bolded is nothing but more conspiracies.

It is what it is. Prosecution used a fake witness over no witness. Defense thought dip shit cow helped their cause. You're just supremely naive about how shit often goes. These people aren't saints.

[ElNono]

The bolded is exactly what he is not.
Be careful or he might become attracted to you and put you on a Blake-Reck thread of passion.

Meh, I'm wrong all the time too, what's the big deal? I've been here long enough, and seen it all, tbh... I don't particularly care what other people do with their time.


It is what it is. Prosecution used a fake witness over no witness. Defense thought dip shit cow helped their cause. You're just supremely naive about how shit often goes. These people aren't saints.

This is the whole enlightened thing all over again. You already set your mind on what the outcome should be, anything else is a conspiracy of bad hombres, some sinister plot, everybody else is naive.

Has nothing to do with me, or anybody else being naive, not even about credibility. It's about supporting your contention with more than gut feelings. When I get a gut feeling about something, I might post about it (I did on the Texas cop case),
nothing wrong with that, but I'm also ready to admit it was wrong. And it's certainly no replacement whatsoever to the introduction of facts.

Let me remind you that the prosecution didn't win the criminal case. That the defense had every opportunity to out any fake witness, even challenge the inclusion of their testimony.

That trials are not walks in the park, they're contentious. That no lawyer on either side wants to lose a case. Heck, the Zimmerman lawyer ended up with a career on network TV.

Sure, there are bad lawyers, there are bad judges (and thus why we have juries), and for that reason you can appeal a number of times, and present your case again.

It's not a perfect system, but it's orders of magnitude better than "I don't like the way you look, you must be a crook" type of thing. We used to have that a lot in the past, and thanks to technology (forensics, etc), that has gone down a lot, which is a good thing.

[Spurtacular]

Meh, I'm wrong all the time too, what's the big deal? I've been here long enough, and seen it all, tbh... I don't particularly care what other people do with their time.

Yea, it's really enlightened to know that a girl on a second-grade reading level didn't write a sophisticated letter that she can't read.

[ElNono]

Yea, it's really enlightened to know that a girl on a second-grade reading level didn't write a sophisticated letter that she can't read.

That's fair. Let's pretend it's a BS witness: all it's telling me is that the defense lawyer sucked, and this is a slam dunk case... well, let's see what happens at the trial.

[Spurtacular]

That's fair. Let's pretend it's a BS witness: all it's telling me is that the defense lawyer sucked, and this is a slam dunk case... well, let's see what happens at the trial.

I watched the trial; I wasn't left with the impression at all that the defense lawyer was bad. He was quite good, imo. And he was smart enough to jump nutcase Zimmerman in the aftermath of the verdict.

[ElNono]

I watched the trial; I wasn't left with the impression at all that the defense lawyer was bad. He was quite good, imo. And he was smart enough to jump nutcase Zimmerman in the aftermath of the verdict.

So the quite good lawyer couldn't out this witness as BS? That's a point for the prosecution.

But, by trial I meant the one that's supposedly gonna be coming down the line based on this:

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-50671843

[Spurtacular]

So the quite good lawyer couldn't out this witness as BS? That's a point for the prosecution.

The details may have came out after the trial was in process. I don't recall.

But yes, it's genius. He can get a mistrial if he loses; and in the meantime he can use that fat cow's stupidity against the prosecution.

Again, it's naive to think trials are merely about "the truth".

[ElNono]

The details may have came out after the trial was in process. I don't recall.

But yes, it's genius. He can get a mistrial if he loses; and in the meantime he can use that fat cow's stupidity against the prosecution.

Again, it's naive to think trials are merely about "the truth".

How are they not? He was tried for murder and acquitted. If that's not the truth, what is it?

[Spurtacular]

How are they not? He was tried for murder and acquitted. If that's not the truth, what is it?

You're being blatantly overly simplistic.

[MultiTroll]

Legally what would the Zim need to prove to win this case?

[ElNono]

Legally what would the Zim need to prove to win this case?

I believe this is a civil claim, so the bar to clear is much lower than a criminal case.