The Trayvon Martin Case

[boutons_deux]

You've got major issues dude(or dudess, whatever the case may be).

boobie competing with TB for content-free posts. have at it, girlz

[leemajors]

In a nuts , yeah.

chicken .

[boobie4three]

chicken .

Maybe. Sue me.

[resistanze]

Maybe. Sue me.

got welsher.

[boobie4three]

got welsher.

Everyone crawling out from underneath their rocks to get their kicks in. Kick away. I can take it.

[leemajors]

Everyone crawling out from underneath their rocks to get their kicks in. Kick away. I can take it.

No, people just don't like welshers.

[clambake]

at least sew the sig to your skirt.

[boobie4three]

No, people just don't like welshers.

Seriously, who new Creepn would be an asshole and ask me to post a Nazi flag in my sig when I lost the bet?. A civilized person would maybe of asked me to post a cartoon of a Spurs player pissing on a Cavaliers player instead.

[Heath Ledger]

pfffftttt.... it's over dude is innocent of the charges the state brought against him period. they asked for justice and justice has been served.

[boutons_deux]

"justice has been served."

Like GZ, You Lie

lawyering and lying has been served, not justice.

[leemajors]

Seriously, who new Creepn would be an asshole and ask me to post a Nazi flag in my sig when I lost the bet?. A civilized person would maybe of asked me to post a cartoon of a Spurs player pissing on a Cavaliers player instead.

Maybe you should have specified what is allowed in the bet? A civilized person would sack up and honor the bet. Anyone familiar with this board would expect the worst when the bet was placed.

[boutons_deux]

Mark Twain once wrote, "The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible." That insightful comment would certainly apply to the recent George Zimmerman trial.

There are a number of television shows that have used the "ripped from today's headlines" concept, but if this trial's story points were to be adapted into a piece of fiction, it would cause certain problems in credibility in the writers' room. A discussion between a head writer and the episodic writer who had the idea for a show based on the Zimmerman case might play out something like this....

[SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE]

CUT TO:

INT. WRITERS' ROOM - DAY

HEAD WRITER: I looked over the script. The story is a little too nuts for me. I don't buy it.

WRITER: It's based on a real case. This is what went down back then.
The Head Writer looks over his notes.

HEAD WRITER: A man stalks a young kid. Is warned by a 911 operator not to follow the kid. He goes ahead and follows him anyway. The kid is on a cellphone and says to his friend that he's being followed by some stranger. The friend hears the kid say, "Get off, get off!" A struggle happens, and the kid is killed. And you write this like it's a self defense case??

WRITER: Exactly.

HEAD WRITER: But the man was pursuing the kid. How could it be a self defense case? You gotta create doubt. An audience watching this is not going to believe it. We're going to lose our viewers before the commercial break!

WRITER: Don't you see? The guy was struggling for his life. The kid pushed him to the ground. He had to pull out a gun and shoot the kid.

HEAD WRITER: But you have the guy attending Mixed Martial Arts classes. Three times a week he goes to his gym. Two hours a session. For an entire year. And the kid gets him on the ground just like that?

WRITER: Our guy was a bad student.

HEAD WRITER: Bad student? How bad can he be?

WRITER: They say he was not very athletic.

HEAD WRITER: Six hours a week of martial arts training for one year and he can't even push a kid away? And the kid weighs almost 50 pounds less than this guy? Impossible. You have to change that. No one will believe it.

WRITER: Okay, I'll cut that out of the script.

HEAD WRITER: And then in a flashback scene, you have the guy, working as a bouncer, getting fired for being too aggressive with the patrons.

WRITER: All right, I'll cut that out too.

HEAD WRITER: And on page 38, after the 911 operator tells the guy to stop following the kid, the guy says to the operator, " , he's running."

WRITER: Right.

HEAD WRITER: I don't understand. He's running? Running from what? He didn't do anything, so the only thing the kid would be running from would be the guy?

WRITER: Hmm. Maybe that's not clear.
The Head Writer thumbs forward a few pages.

HEAD WRITER: Then somehow, out of the blue, the kid has the man on the ground, a struggle ensues, and the man pulls out a gun and shoots him in the heart?

WRITER: The guy had no choice. It's self-defense.

HEAD WRITER: I don't understand. The guy on the ground is yelling, "Help, help." And then the guy on the ground screams? And right after he screams he shoots the kid.

WRITER: Exactly.

HEAD WRITER: You ever see a scene in a movie where a person screams and then shoots someone? It's normally the other person who screams and then gets shot. This is just too illogical.

WRITER: Okay, I'll finesse that.

HEAD WRITER: Why doesn't the guy just shoot the kid in the arm? Or the leg? Or the stomach?

WRITER: It was a struggle.

HEAD WRITER: Yeah, but when I read the script it's not credible. It's more like a shoot to kill.

WRITER: No, it's a self-defense scene.

HEAD WRITER: I don't buy it. It's much easier just to shoot the kid in the arm or the leg. It would take more effort to raise the gun up. The guy aims for the heart. Therefore he knows he's going to kill him. It's too illogical. Change it.

WRITER: But this is what happened.

HEAD WRITER: It doesn't have the credibility to be a dramatic episode. Unless we want to chase the ghost of Paddy Chayefsky and get into absurdism. You know, like he did with Network. Unless you want to make a satire on how screwed up the legal system is, show me a script that makes sense.

So you can see the dilemma of trying to write a script based on this tragic event. The logic evades us. And the reality haunts us.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-...tent=BlogEntry

[TeyshaBlue]

boobie competing with TB for content-free posts. have at it, girlz

You think about me alot. Weird.

[TeyshaBlue]

booby4zero watches Fox

Fox of course is all for the more dead s, the better, esp when murdered by a fat gun fellator wanna-be macho (who is really, court testimony, a less, lying klutz).

lol thinkprogress

[TeyshaBlue]

Maybe you should have specified what is allowed in the bet? A civilized person would sack up and honor the bet. Anyone familiar with this board would expect the worst when the bet was placed.

+1

[AntiChrist]

Mark Twain once wrote, "The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible." That insightful comment would certainly apply to the recent George Zimmerman trial.

There are a number of television shows that have used the "ripped from today's headlines" concept, but if this trial's story points were to be adapted into a piece of fiction, it would cause certain problems in credibility in the writers' room. A discussion between a head writer and the episodic writer who had the idea for a show based on the Zimmerman case might play out something like this....

[SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE]

CUT TO:

INT. WRITERS' ROOM - DAY

HEAD WRITER: I looked over the script. The story is a little too nuts for me. I don't buy it.

WRITER: It's based on a real case. This is what went down back then.
The Head Writer looks over his notes.

HEAD WRITER: A man stalks a young kid. Is warned by a 911 operator not to follow the kid. He goes ahead and follows him anyway. The kid is on a cellphone and says to his friend that he's being followed by some stranger. The friend hears the kid say, "Get off, get off!" A struggle happens, and the kid is killed. And you write this like it's a self defense case??

WRITER: Exactly.

HEAD WRITER: But the man was pursuing the kid. How could it be a self defense case? You gotta create doubt. An audience watching this is not going to believe it. We're going to lose our viewers before the commercial break!

WRITER: Don't you see? The guy was struggling for his life. The kid pushed him to the ground. He had to pull out a gun and shoot the kid.

HEAD WRITER: But you have the guy attending Mixed Martial Arts classes. Three times a week he goes to his gym. Two hours a session. For an entire year. And the kid gets him on the ground just like that?

WRITER: Our guy was a bad student.

HEAD WRITER: Bad student? How bad can he be?

WRITER: They say he was not very athletic.

HEAD WRITER: Six hours a week of martial arts training for one year and he can't even push a kid away? And the kid weighs almost 50 pounds less than this guy? Impossible. You have to change that. No one will believe it.

WRITER: Okay, I'll cut that out of the script.

HEAD WRITER: And then in a flashback scene, you have the guy, working as a bouncer, getting fired for being too aggressive with the patrons.

WRITER: All right, I'll cut that out too.

HEAD WRITER: And on page 38, after the 911 operator tells the guy to stop following the kid, the guy says to the operator, " , he's running."

WRITER: Right.

HEAD WRITER: I don't understand. He's running? Running from what? He didn't do anything, so the only thing the kid would be running from would be the guy?

WRITER: Hmm. Maybe that's not clear.
The Head Writer thumbs forward a few pages.

HEAD WRITER: Then somehow, out of the blue, the kid has the man on the ground, a struggle ensues, and the man pulls out a gun and shoots him in the heart?

WRITER: The guy had no choice. It's self-defense.

HEAD WRITER: I don't understand. The guy on the ground is yelling, "Help, help." And then the guy on the ground screams? And right after he screams he shoots the kid.

WRITER: Exactly.

HEAD WRITER: You ever see a scene in a movie where a person screams and then shoots someone? It's normally the other person who screams and then gets shot. This is just too illogical.

WRITER: Okay, I'll finesse that.

HEAD WRITER: Why doesn't the guy just shoot the kid in the arm? Or the leg? Or the stomach?

WRITER: It was a struggle.

HEAD WRITER: Yeah, but when I read the script it's not credible. It's more like a shoot to kill.

WRITER: No, it's a self-defense scene.

HEAD WRITER: I don't buy it. It's much easier just to shoot the kid in the arm or the leg. It would take more effort to raise the gun up. The guy aims for the heart. Therefore he knows he's going to kill him. It's too illogical. Change it.

WRITER: But this is what happened.

HEAD WRITER: It doesn't have the credibility to be a dramatic episode. Unless we want to chase the ghost of Paddy Chayefsky and get into absurdism. You know, like he did with Network. Unless you want to make a satire on how screwed up the legal system is, show me a script that makes sense.

So you can see the dilemma of trying to write a script based on this tragic event. The logic evades us. And the reality haunts us.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-...tent=BlogEntry

I read this on HuffPo today. Upon second reading, it's even dumber.

[KingsFanWithoutName]

Mark Twain once wrote, "The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible." That insightful comment would certainly apply to the recent George Zimmerman trial.

There are a number of television shows that have used the "ripped from today's headlines" concept, but if this trial's story points were to be adapted into a piece of fiction, it would cause certain problems in credibility in the writers' room. A discussion between a head writer and the episodic writer who had the idea for a show based on the Zimmerman case might play out something like this....

[SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE]

CUT TO:

INT. WRITERS' ROOM - DAY

HEAD WRITER: I looked over the script. The story is a little too nuts for me. I don't buy it.

WRITER: It's based on a real case. This is what went down back then.
The Head Writer looks over his notes.

HEAD WRITER: A man stalks a young kid. Is warned by a 911 operator not to follow the kid. He goes ahead and follows him anyway. The kid is on a cellphone and says to his friend that he's being followed by some stranger. The friend hears the kid say, "Get off, get off!" A struggle happens, and the kid is killed. And you write this like it's a self defense case??

WRITER: Exactly.

HEAD WRITER: But the man was pursuing the kid. How could it be a self defense case? You gotta create doubt. An audience watching this is not going to believe it. We're going to lose our viewers before the commercial break!

WRITER: Don't you see? The guy was struggling for his life. The kid pushed him to the ground. He had to pull out a gun and shoot the kid.

HEAD WRITER: But you have the guy attending Mixed Martial Arts classes. Three times a week he goes to his gym. Two hours a session. For an entire year. And the kid gets him on the ground just like that?

WRITER: Our guy was a bad student.

HEAD WRITER: Bad student? How bad can he be?

WRITER: They say he was not very athletic.

HEAD WRITER: Six hours a week of martial arts training for one year and he can't even push a kid away? And the kid weighs almost 50 pounds less than this guy? Impossible. You have to change that. No one will believe it.

WRITER: Okay, I'll cut that out of the script.

HEAD WRITER: And then in a flashback scene, you have the guy, working as a bouncer, getting fired for being too aggressive with the patrons.

WRITER: All right, I'll cut that out too.

HEAD WRITER: And on page 38, after the 911 operator tells the guy to stop following the kid, the guy says to the operator, " , he's running."

WRITER: Right.

HEAD WRITER: I don't understand. He's running? Running from what? He didn't do anything, so the only thing the kid would be running from would be the guy?

WRITER: Hmm. Maybe that's not clear.
The Head Writer thumbs forward a few pages.

HEAD WRITER: Then somehow, out of the blue, the kid has the man on the ground, a struggle ensues, and the man pulls out a gun and shoots him in the heart?

WRITER: The guy had no choice. It's self-defense.

HEAD WRITER: I don't understand. The guy on the ground is yelling, "Help, help." And then the guy on the ground screams? And right after he screams he shoots the kid.

WRITER: Exactly.

HEAD WRITER: You ever see a scene in a movie where a person screams and then shoots someone? It's normally the other person who screams and then gets shot. This is just too illogical.

WRITER: Okay, I'll finesse that.

HEAD WRITER: Why doesn't the guy just shoot the kid in the arm? Or the leg? Or the stomach?

WRITER: It was a struggle.

HEAD WRITER: Yeah, but when I read the script it's not credible. It's more like a shoot to kill.

WRITER: No, it's a self-defense scene.

HEAD WRITER: I don't buy it. It's much easier just to shoot the kid in the arm or the leg. It would take more effort to raise the gun up. The guy aims for the heart. Therefore he knows he's going to kill him. It's too illogical. Change it.

WRITER: But this is what happened.

HEAD WRITER: It doesn't have the credibility to be a dramatic episode. Unless we want to chase the ghost of Paddy Chayefsky and get into absurdism. You know, like he did with Network. Unless you want to make a satire on how screwed up the legal system is, show me a script that makes sense.

So you can see the dilemma of trying to write a script based on this tragic event. The logic evades us. And the reality haunts us.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barry-...tent=BlogEntry

As long as Rachel Jeantel gets to play herself that movie would be a hit!

[boutons_deux]

As long as Rachel Jeantel gets to play herself that movie would be a hit!

bully racists LOVE trashing, ridiculing the innocent, unprivileged, foreigner Rachel Jeantel because she dared testify against racist murderer GZ.

[CosmicCowboy]

bully racists LOVE trashing, ridiculing the innocent, unprivileged, foreigner Rachel Jeantel because she dared testify against racist murderer GZ.

I laugh at her because she is a stupid, fat, ugly, ignorant and her story changes daily. NOW after the trial she is saying that she told Martin that the security guard (her new definition of cracker) could be a gay pedophile that wanted to Martin.

[KingsFanWithoutName]

bully racists LOVE trashing, ridiculing the innocent, unprivileged, foreigner Rachel Jeantel because she dared testify against racist murderer GZ.

You calling me racist? I dare you to find a single post of mine showing such. You on the other hand have no problem using the word and throw it around daily.

Rachel Jeantel, whether black/white/brown is hilarious. She's a real life marble mouthed Jabba the Hut who is dumb as rocks.

[KingsFanWithoutName]

I laugh at her because she is a stupid, fat, ugly, ignorant and her story changes daily. NOW after the trial she is saying that she told Martin that the security guard (her new definition of cracker) could be a gay pedophile that wanted to Martin.

Probably will hurt any civil suit against Zimmerman as that could make Trayvon look like he attacked due to phobia.

[Fabbs]

Probably will hurt any civil suit against Zimmerman as that could make Trayvon look like he attacked due to phobia.

Omara has already said as much as 'bring it on' if the Trayvons try a civil suit.
I didn't take the tone as false lawyer bravado. He meant it imo.

[DPG21920]

bully racists LOVE trashing, ridiculing the innocent, unprivileged, foreigner Rachel Jeantel because she dared testify against racist murderer GZ.

Then why was creepn incredibly annoyed by her?

[boutons_deux]

[boutons_deux]

yet another THOUGHT LEADER and Hero to Repugs, bubbas, gun fellators, tea baggers in full racist rant

Nugent’s new racist rant: ‘The blacks’ are to blame for their own oppression



http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/07/1...e+Raw+Story%29