Hate Crimes

[Ibrahim]

Mary Cutcher and her roommate did not see the incident. They heard screams that they thought sounded like they were coming from a "little boy". Neither of the two were little boys, and the neighbor's 911 call, in which the screams can be heard in the background, demonstrates that the screams didn't sound like they were coming from a little boy, but a grown man (which means they could have been coming from either Martin or Zimmerman). Cutcher coming out and being so certain they were coming from Martin, even going so far as to say they were coming from a "little boy" when they clearly were not, muddies her testimony, IMO, and suggests she saw the 5 year old picture of Martin being thrown around and tried to color her story. Listen to the neighbor's 911 call, those screams may have been either person, but they are certainly not the screams of a child.

You're focusing on the wrong detail. The key part of their statement being that whatever screaming there was ended immediately with a gunshot, and that following the shot they witnessed Zimmerman kneeling on top of the slain Martin.

As far as Zimmerman's condition, he reportedly had a broken nose and a cut on the back of his head. Maybe it would have been politically intelligent of him to not wipe his face and make sure he looked as beat up as possible for the cameras, but you don't have to look like the elephant man to have a broken nose and cut back there. That video is meaningless conjecture.

Video is not "conjecture." What I think you mean to say is that the lack of evident injury on the video, and my subsequent inference that his injuries were exaggerated or nonexistent, is conjecture. Eventual testimony my medical professionals will clarify this, unless there isn't any, which would also clarify the issue somewhat.

So far there is no hard evidence of these injuries at all.

The screams on that neighbor's 911 call before the shots seem to prove that something serious was going down, one way or the other.

Given that one person was killed, I would say we know something serious went down.

[Simple Minded]

Wake up and smell the political machinations.

It is never too late to organize a Beer Summitt.... they have always worked out well whenever they have been tried.

Hey Demon, what sort of alcoholic beverages do them Floridian people drink?

[Mr. Perfect]

So far there is no hard evidence of these injuries at all.

So far there is no evidence that there was racial profiling, or that Zimmerman initiated the fight. Yet that is what you believe. Wonder why that is.

Given that one person was killed, I would say we know something serious went down.

One of many gun deaths in the country. Wondering what is special about this one.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

No hard evidence of Zimmerman's injuries? What are you talking about? Why would the police, who wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, lie in their on-scene report? He is described by the officer as bleeding from his nose and back of his head, with his back covered with grass stains.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/27/polic ... -shooting/

http://www.scribd.com/doc/86948628/Tray ... ice-Report

[Ibrahim]

No hard evidence of Zimmerman's injuries? What are you talking about? Why would the police, who wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, lie in their on-scene report? He is described by the officer as bleeding from his nose and back of his head, with his back covered with grass stains.

That is not hard evidence, that is a witness report, albeit a very reliable form of witness report. I'm talking about sworn testimony from medical professionals, as I thought my post made clear.


The extent of the injuries is, of course, very relevant to the eventual claim of self-defense. We will eventually hear all about the severity of these injuries in detail, but at this time it appears that they were very mild.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

No hard evidence of Zimmerman's injuries? What are you talking about? Why would the police, who wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, lie in their on-scene report? He is described by the officer as bleeding from his nose and back of his head, with his back covered with grass stains.

That is not hard evidence, that is a witness report, albeit a very reliable form of witness report. I'm talking about sworn testimony from medical professionals, as I thought my post made clear.


The extent of the injuries is, of course, very relevant to the eventual claim of self-defense. We will eventually hear all about the severity of these injuries in detail, but at this time it appears that there were very mild.

Is there a magic point, when you are being beaten by an assailant, that it becomes OK to defend yourself? Is the person on bottom receiving the blows supposed to take the beating until he hears a few ribs crack before he acts? However mild the injuries - for all I know Zimmerman was blocking most of the shots - the bleeding at least supports the story that he was being beaten, and provides a non-racist, rational reason that they decided not to charge him then.

I mean, I suppose he could have shot Martin for no reason, and then bloodied himself up as a cover story, but I suppose aliens could have shot Martin and made it look like Zimmerman did it to prevent the CIA from catching on. Or, it is possible that Zimmerman attacked Martin, but Martin got the better of him, and Zimmerman then shot him. But I don't know how you make that call. Also, maybe you can clarify, what does the law say about a situation like that? I mean, if I push you, or even punch you, and you start beating the crap out of me, and I'm afraid you might not stop so I shoot you, can I be charged with murder/manslaughter, or just assault for the initial punch, since, at the time, I feared for my life and was defending myself?

[Ibrahim]

No hard evidence of Zimmerman's injuries? What are you talking about? Why would the police, who wanted to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter, lie in their on-scene report? He is described by the officer as bleeding from his nose and back of his head, with his back covered with grass stains.

That is not hard evidence, that is a witness report, albeit a very reliable form of witness report. I'm talking about sworn testimony from medical professionals, as I thought my post made clear.


The extent of the injuries is, of course, very relevant to the eventual claim of self-defense. We will eventually hear all about the severity of these injuries in detail, but at this time it appears that there were very mild.

Is there a magic point, when you are being beaten by an assailant, that it becomes OK to defend yourself?

Yes, depending on the governing statute where the incident is taking place.

However mild the injuries - for all I know Zimmerman was blocking most of the shots

True. For all I know Zimmerman caught a stray elbow as he tackled Martin from behind, then bumped his head falling down.

- the bleeding at least supports the story that he was being beaten, and provides a non-racist, rational reason that they decided not to charge him then.

It turns out that they did arrest and charge him, the investigator in charge wanting to book him for manslaughter, but the state attorney waved it off, based on a CNN report as I described earlier. So good on local law enforcement for at least attempting to detain him. Other racial issues surrounding the local police stem from earlier incidents unrelated to this shooting.

Suggestions that Zimmerman was personally racially motivated also stems from past 9/11 calls, but to me it seems like he says "genuflecting coons" on the Feb 26th 9/11 call, and also stated that "'they' always get away." Seems to me like he was referring to young black men, but this is by necessity and assumption based on the hints available. I would also argue that this is part of his motivation for following and possibly accosting Martin, the need to correct this failure by the police to catch "them."

if I push you, or even punch you, and you start beating the crap out of me, and I'm afraid you might not stop so I shoot you, can I be charged with murder/manslaughter, or just assault for the initial punch, since, at the time, I feared for my life and was defending myself?

Here you zero in on the exactly legal question that the case revolves around. In Florida you are justified using deadly force in this scenario. Convicting Zimmerman is an uphill battle as a result.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

The testimony of the policeman on the scene that Zimmerman was grass-stained and bleeding from his nose and head, is as hard as any evidence in this case. You are the one putting up videos taken of Zimmerman, possibly hours later, as evidence that he wasn't hurt at all simply because there is no blood on his face. You mentioned in your earlier post that the lack of blood on Zimmerman shows why the lead investigator wanted to press manslaughter charges, but that's clearly not true since he was bleeding when they got on scene. It suggests that you had not even read the police report. And that begs the question of from which Al Sharpton blog you're getting all your information on this case.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

For all I know...

Finally! I've been waiting six pages for you to utter that phrase. Perhaps now some rational dialogue is possible.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

I saw a blogger today ask a good question: There are plenty of incidents, in a diverse country of 300,000,000 people, that are clearly examples of brutal and unacceptable racist violence, any one of which could be used by the opportunists in the race-victimization industry to further their narrative. So how come every time they decide to go all-in on a particular case, do they always seem to pick the wrong ones, like the Duke lacrosse case, the Jena Six, and Trayvon Martin?

[Ibrahim]

The testimony of the policeman on the scene that Zimmerman was grass-stained and bleeding from his nose and head, is as hard as any evidence in this case.

It is still eyewitness testimony, not the same as testimony from a medical professional (i.e. "expert witness"), possibly corroborated by xrays etc.

You are the one putting up videos taken of Zimmerman, possibly hours later, as evidence that he wasn't hurt at all simply because there is no blood on his face.

I am not saying that the video is conclusive evidence.

You mentioned in your earlier post that the lack of blood on Zimmerman shows why the lead investigator wanted to
press manslaughter charges,

I did not say that at all. I said that the lead investigator did not believe Zimmerman's account, the story I was referencing did not specify which details he did not believe.

You should quote me if you're going to make claims about what I said.

It suggests that you had not even read the police report.

Have you read the official police report?

And that begs the question of from which Al Sharpton blog you're getting all your information on this case.

I've been incredibly reasonable in my comments here, yet you feel the need to repeatedly insult me and accuse me of racism. Why is that?

[Ibrahim]

For all I know...

Finally! I've been waiting six pages for you to utter that phrase. Perhaps now some rational dialogue is possible.

It is extremely dishonest of you to claim that I have asserted absolute certainty about any of the details of this case. Again, what is the motivation for your false accusations?

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

For all I know...

Finally! I've been waiting six pages for you to utter that phrase. Perhaps now some rational dialogue is possible.

It is extremely dishonest of you to claim that I have asserted absolute certainty about any of the details of this case. Again, what is the motivation for your false accusations?

Mostly your unfoundeded, agenda-driven, destructive, race-baiting comments like:

You are not legally entitled to stalk and kill random citizens you don't like the look of.

[Mr. Perfect]

Suggestions that Zimmerman was personally racially motivated also stems from past 9/11 calls, but to me it seems like he says "genuflecting coons" on the Feb 26th 9/11 call, and also stated that "'they' always get away."

Other say he said goons and they means the criminals that had been in his neighborhood.

Seems to me like he was referring to young black men, but this is by necessity and assumption based on the hints available.

If you didn't always predictably come down on the one side when there was any question, you would lose some of your considerable... charm.

Here you zero in on the exactly legal question that the case revolves around. In Florida you are justified using deadly force in this scenario.

Citation needed.

[Mr. Perfect]

For all I know...

Finally! I've been waiting six pages for you to utter that phrase. Perhaps now some rational dialogue is possible.

It is extremely dishonest of you to claim that I have asserted absolute certainty about any of the details of this case. Again, what is the motivation for your false accusations?

Well just the main detail, where you stated unequivocally that this was a racially profiled murder.

[Mr. Perfect]

Right here is where you did it Ibs. Right here.

False. Zimmerman clearly created a dangerous situation by following somebody who had done nothing illegal, and moreover he provoked a violent altercation with an unarmed man, ending in murder.


False. Martin was racially profiled and stalked by a wannabe cop, accosted and possibly physically assaulted, instigating a fight which Zimmerman started to lose, so he murdered Martin.

[Ibrahim]

For all I know...

Finally! I've been waiting six pages for you to utter that phrase. Perhaps now some rational dialogue is possible.

It is extremely dishonest of you to claim that I have asserted absolute certainty about any of the details of this case. Again, what is the motivation for your false accusations?

Mostly your unfoundeded, agenda-driven, destructive, race-baiting comments like:

You are not legally entitled to stalk and kill random citizens you don't like the look of.

What, in your mind, is my agenda? What part of that comment involves "race-baiting?" It seems like that sentence is an accurate description of events since 1. we know Zimmerman killed Martin, 2. we are reasonably sure he was following Martin, and 3. it sounds like he calls him a "genuflecting coon" on the 9/11 tape. So yes, he stalked and killed somebody he didn't like the look of. Your major counterargument seems to be that maybe Martin beat him up a bit first, which doesn't alter anything about my quoted statement.

And be clear, I'm not offended by any of your false accusations against me. I couldn't care less. I just think it's.... interesting. But apparently I'm the one with an "agenda."

[Mr. Perfect]

I suppose Ibs it just doesn't strike you as... difficult, that a racist intent on murdering an innocent man man because of the color of his skin calls 9-11 to be recorded in the act? Nothing about that doesn't add up to you?

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

I have an agenda as well. It should be clear. It is to counter the opportunists and race baiters who take every opportunity increase racial resentment, deepen racial division, and reinforcing racial suspicion, thereby maintaining their own relevance (or, in the case of the professionals, their own income). They do far more than the KKK ever could have to increase strife and ensure no progress is made toward a better union.

[Ibrahim]

I have an agenda as well. It should be clear. It is to counter the opportunists and race baiters who take every opportunity increase racial resentment, deepen racial division, and reinforcing racial suspicion, thereby maintaining their own relevance (or, in the case of the professionals, their own income). They do far more than the KKK ever could have to increase strife and ensure no progress is made toward a better union.

What does this have to do with my attempt to create a sequence of events based on the evidence available?

Furthermore, the only example of "reinforcing racial suspicion" in this case appears to have been performed by Zimmerman, who saw a young black male and assumed he was a criminal, followed him, and eventually shot him. And didn't you say something previously about the awful behavior of "black males" today? Refresh my memory. I just want to help you work towards a post-racial America.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

I have an agenda as well. It should be clear. It is to counter the opportunists and race baiters who take every opportunity increase racial resentment, deepen racial division, and reinforcing racial suspicion, thereby maintaining their own relevance (or, in the case of the professionals, their own income). They do far more than the KKK ever could have to increase strife and ensure no progress is made toward a better union.

What does this have to do with my attempt to create a sequence of events based on the evidence available?

Furthermore, the only example of "reinforcing racial suspicion" in this case appears to have been performed by Zimmerman, who saw a young black male and assumed he was a criminal, followed him, and eventually shot him. And didn't you say something previously about the awful behavior of "black males" today? Refresh my memory. I just want to help you work towards a post-racial America.

There had been a spate of recent robberies by young, black males in Zimmerman's neighborhood. But we have already established that basic pattern recognition is a thought crime, as well as a moral failure. And, yes, the awful behavior of a disproportionate number of black males in the country does much to fuel racial suspicion and undermine progress made by well-intentioned people. Any help you could provide on that front would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

[Juggernaut Nihilism]

I mean, you yourself admit that young black males rob, rape, beat, and kill far more than their share of innocent people. You simply think it's Mitt Romney's fault that they do so. And maybe it is. But your position still absolves the cop or neighborhood watchman who makes the rational decision to be more careful with a young black male in his neighborhood at night than with, say, a 14-year-old Chinese girl.

[Ibrahim]

I mean, you yourself admit that young black males rob, rape, beat, and kill far more than their share of innocent people.

Whoa, whoa. Sounds like you're "increas[ing] racial resentment, deepen[ing] racial division, and reinforcing racial suspicion," there.

But your position still absolves the cop or neighborhood watchman who makes the rational decision to be more careful with a young black male in his neighborhood at night than with, say, a 14-year-old Chinese girl.

Are you sure you're using the word "absolves" correctly here?


Anyway I've repeatedly identified the core issue of the Trayvon Martin case to be the shooting of an unarmed man by an armed man, and I've said so from the start. Race is a component, but not the main issue, of the case.

[Mr. Perfect]

What does this have to do with my attempt to create a sequence of events based on the evidence available?

Your inability to connect your conclusions with evidence?

Furthermore, the only example of "reinforcing racial suspicion" in this case appears to have been performed by Zimmerman, who saw a young black male and assumed he was a criminal, followed him, and eventually shot him.

He had a hoodie on, how did he know what color he was?

And didn't you say something previously about the awful behavior of "black males" today? Refresh my memory. I just want to help you work towards a post-racial America.

Yer doin' a great job!

[Yukon Cornelius]

It's pointless folks, the powers that be will be thoroughly vetting this -- the truth will come out as best it can.

The only problem will be something they talk about in Marketing Textbooks --- I forget what it's called. There is a documented phenomena where consumers will process an outrageous claim as such, but recall it later as fact.